Loading...
2021-07-15 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, July 15, 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 Steven Yearsley ABSENT Commissioner Nathan Wheeler ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Adopted as Amended 1. Approve Minutes of the July 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting - Amended to correct date of Meeting Minutes to July 1, 2021 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for DaVinci Park Drive-Through (H-2021- 0037) by NeuDesign Architecture, Located at 4744 N. Park Crossing Ave. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Orchard Park Pad C Drive-Through (H- 2021-0039) by Mandi Brozo of CSHQA, Located at 1245 W. Chinden Blvd. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing for Heron Village Expansion (H-2021-0027) by Tamara Thompson of The Land Group, Inc., Located at 51, 125 and 185 E. Blue Heron Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 1.36 acres of land with a R-40 zoning district. B. Request: Rezone of 4.18 acres of land from C-G and R-8 to R-40. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of an existing 108-unit, 5-building multifamily complex to allow an additional 36 units in two new buildings. - Continued to September 16, 2021 5. Public Hearing for Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021- 0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. A. Request: Annexation of 17.5 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 61 building lots and 8 common lots. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility on the southern portion of the property. - Recommended Approval to City Council 6. Public Hearing for Brightstar Residential Care Facility (H-2021-0040) by Jeff Hatch of Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow a 5,800 square-foot senior residential care facility. - Approved 7. Public Hearing for WRRF Map Amendment (H-2021-0041) by City of Meridian, Located Approximately ¼ Mile South of W. Mcmillan Rd., Midway Between N. Black Cat Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Mixed-Use Non-Residential on 40.9 acres of land to Medium-Density Residential and 39.8 acres to Industrial, based on the results of the most recent Odor Study. - Recommended Approval to City Council  ADJOURNMENT - 8:17 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 15, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 15, 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 Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Maria Lorcher. Members Absent: Commissioner Nate Wheeler. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Laurelie McVey, Bill Parsons, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for July 15th, 2021. 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 any 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 and with that let's begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have Heron Village Expansion, H-2021-0027, that will be opened only for the sole purpose of continuing this item. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify on that particular application we will be not -- we will not be taking testimony this evening. So, could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Weatherly: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Weatherly: My apologies. Point of order. There is a correction to Item No. 1. Oh. Excuse me. I'm out of order. I will take a moment and let you do your job. My apologies. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 5 Page 2 of 43 Cassinelli: So moved. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the July 1, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for DaVinci Park Drive-Through (H-2021-0037) by NeuDesign Architecture, Located at 4744 N. Park Crossing Ave. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Orchard Park Pad C Drive- Through (H2021-0039) by Mandi Brozo of CSHQA, Located at 1245 W. Chinden Blvd. McCarvel: Next item is the Consent Agenda and the Consent Agenda we have three items and the first item we do have a typographical error and that would be the -- the approval of the minutes for the July 1 st meeting. Obviously, not the July 15th meeting, which is today, for Planning and Zoning. We also have Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for DaVinci Park Drive-Through, H-2021-0037, and Orchard Park Pad C, Drive- Through, H-2021-0039. So, can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as amended? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. The staff will report their findings on how the item -- 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 on only once during public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. If you are here in person, please, come forward. If you are on Zoom you will be unmuted. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 6 Page 3 of 43 Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously -- previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting, it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. 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 raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are only 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 will not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant is finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a final decision or recommendations to City Council as needed. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing for Heron Village Expansion (H-2021-0027) by Tamara Thompson of The Land Group, Inc., Located at 51, 125 and 185 E. Blue Heron Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 1.36 acres of land with a R-40 zoning district. B. Request: Rezone of 4.18 acres of land from C-G and R-8 to R-40. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of an existing 108-unit, 5-building multifamily complex to allow an additional 36 units in two new buildings. McCarvel: So, with that we would like to open the public hearing on H-2021-0027, Heron Village Expansion, and they are requesting a continuance to, I believe, September--what did we say? The 16th? Seal: Requesting for the 2nd, but I don't believe we will have a quorum. McCarvel: Yeah. We are probably not going to have that meeting. So, the 16th is the next available meeting. So, could I get a motion to continue -- do we -- do we have any staff comments or does the applicant have any comments on this one? Tiefenbach: I was talking to Bill. I'm sorry. Say that again. McCarvel: Do we have any staff comments on the continuance for H-2021-0027? Tiefenbach: No, ma'am. The 16th is fine. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 7 Page 4 of 43 McCarvel: Okay. All right. Can I get a motion to continue? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move to continue File No. H-2021-0027 Heron Village Expansion to the hearing date of September 16th, 2021. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2021-0027 to September 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021-0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. A. Request: Annexation of 17.5 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 61 building lots and 8 common lots. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility on the southern portion of the property. McCarvel: Next item is H-2021-0024, Wells Street Assisted Living and Andorra Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Planning Commission. Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner with the City of Meridian. This is a proposal for an annexation, a zoning to traditional neighborhood R, a preliminary -- a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit. The property is 17 and a half acres of land. It's zoned RUT in the county. It's located at the southwest corner of East Magic View Drive and South West -- South Wells Street. Here are the maps you can see. So, to the north East Magic View Road. That's an R-8 zoning, mostly assisted living to the north there. To the east, South Wells Street, that is zoned RUT and L-O. To the south is East Wells Circle and that is zoned L-O and there is currently office buildings there. To the west is zoned R-1 in the county and that is existing single family residential, which I will talk about shortly. A little bit about the history of this. There was a similar proposal that was approved for these properties in April of 2020. It was called Andorra Senior Living. This proposal included 76 single family residences in a three story apartment building with 88 dwelling units. Following the Council meeting and the approval, the property owners have a parcel to the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 $ Page 5 of 43 left, which was part of this. It was 972 East Wells Circle. They decided they weren't interested in selling the property, which, basically, made the -- what was approved to fall apart. So, what you are seeing now is a new redesigned development and also no longer contains that parcel that was with the original one. The summary of this request is its annexation and zoning of 17 -- 17 and a half acres of land with the TN-R zone district. It's a preliminary plat. That would be the north -- I will just call it half, even though it's not really half -- the northern portion, 61 building lots and eight common lots -- that's about 11 and a half acres. There is a conditional use to allow a 91 unit three story nursing and residential care building with a footprint of 30 -- 30,000 square foot. So, three stories -- and I will show you the graphics. There is also a proposal for an additional roughly 9,000 square foot commercial building, although the end user has not been identified. There were a few administrative requests. One of them was to allow 61 private lots to be served by a gated community, whereas only 50 are allowed, and as I will talk about -- 32 of the required parking spaces will be provided in bulb outs, which, again, I will show you. So, I'm going to sort of run through this proposal with the graphics and try to explain this to you. Again, the applicant proposes to develop the northern part of this site with 61 single family lots, a 91 unit three story assisted living memory care building, and possibly a 9,000 square foot office. Within the nursing and residential care facility the applicant proposes some -- a restaurant, spa, salon, multi -- multi-purpose movie theater, lounge, library, and other spaces to serve the residents of this facility. The portion of the property to propose for a single family detached, which is what you are seeing here. So, I have kind of an overview on the right there to show the whole site and, then, I zoomed into the -- on the left there so you can sort of see which part I'm talking about. The portion of this property proposed for the detached single family residences is directly adjacent to the established Snorting Bowl Subdivision. That's what the actual subdivision is called, although it's also referenced as Woodbridge, and that's to the west. That subdivision would be roughly over here. This adjacent subdivision is comprised of lots of approximately 5,500 to 6,500 square feet in area. There are 16 existing houses in this subdivision and these houses are approximately 42 to 45 feet in width. The applicant proposes 21 houses of approximately 32 feet in width and lots sizes of 4,000 square foot. With 61 houses on 11.7 acres, this is approximately five dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan recommends three to eight dwelling units per acre for this area. So, this is somewhat in the middle of what the density would be designated. At staff's recommendation, the applicant -- so, one of the things we wanted to make sure is that -- is what they are proposing is compatible with the existing single family residences to the west. Staff had a few recommendations to the applicant and the applicant made a few other things. So, one of our recommendations is that we -- we wanted them to stagger the houses so that the neighbors wouldn't be looking at this wall of houses and that's what you can see here. They are -- they are staggering in the setbacks between 27 feet and 12 feet. That's what you can see here. Again, to try to eliminate that wall. The other thing they are doing is that they are varying the height of these buildings. If you can see this graphic, the -- the lighter shade is the one stories. The darker shade is the two story. So, the larger houses are one story closer to the western residences. The smaller houses, for instance, this one that you see here, are all two stories. So, again, this was done both to provide visual relief and to help to reduce the -- the visual impacts. One of the things that -- that is new, that the Planning Commission has not seen, is the original version of this and the staff Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 191 Page 6 of 43 report that went out to the Planning Commission showed these houses having three foot setbacks from the property line. That's the requirement of the TN-R zoning district. For a few different reasons, including trying to be a little more compatible with the adjacent residences, the applicant has actually increased that. So, now they are proposing five foot side setbacks, which is -- would be ten foot wide between houses. If you measure the houses to the west, roughly -- they are around that same, between ten and 12 feet apart. So, this is trying to become more compatible with the existing single family residential. So, because -- because the increase in setbacks, the five foot setbacks for each house was not with the original staff report, staff is recommending an additional -- additional condition of approval and I will come back to this at the end and this condition of approval would be on the development agreement, requiring that the properties along the west, the ones adjacent to the subdivision, that they maintain a five foot side setback. Okay. So, here is the south half, which really isn't half. This includes 91 assisted living and memory care units with supporting retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses and a 30,000 square foot footprint. The proposed development -- what they are doing here does meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, which talks about mixed use neighborhood designation. But one -- one caution that staff would have is that the original version of this that came in when they -- when they did their notification and their neighborhood meeting was what you are being presented with tonight. Sixty-one residential units, assisted living and memory care on the bottom southwest corner -- southeast corner and office or a commercial building in the middle. Since that time the applicant contacted staff asking about whether or not the southwest part could contain a multi-family project instead. Staff told the applicant that that was not what this was noticed as. If they wanted to do multi-family, then, this would be required to do a new community meeting. They will have to re-notice this the -- the Planning Commission hearing would be rescheduled. Basically it was a whole new application. With that explanation the applicant said, never mind, we are --we have figured it out. We are going to move forward with this proposal as it is. That's okay, but the -- the one concern that staff does have is that TN-R is one of the few zone districts that actually allows multi-family by right. Meaning that it would not have to go through a conditional use if it was zoned to TN-R. To make sure that what is being presented here tonight is what would be approved if the Planning Commission were more inclined to do that, staff has recommended and is adding -- has added a recommendation that the development agreement would say that the only use allowed here in the southeast corner would be nursing and residential care. If they wanted to do anything else, then, they would have to amend the DA and go back through a public hearing. They are required to provide ten percent open space, which is about 1.1 acres of property. They have provided an exhibit here. They are providing 22.6 and they have this -- the exhibit that you are showing here is open space that meets what the dimensional requirements are per our code. So, again, they are meeting -- they are -- they are providing twice as much open space as they would be required. They are required to have one amenity with this development. They are proposing at least nine, depending on how you count it. There would be a central open space, a 4,300 square foot clubhouse, swimming pool, hot tub, pickleball court, horseshoe pit and a dog park, as well as numerous pathways across the development and what you can see through the middle as sort of this central green space corridor. Although not required, because this is nursing and memory care and they don't have to provide an amenity, they are. So, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 Flo] Page 7 of 43 the -- the nursing residential care facility shows a sizable open space, an internal courtyard, a few different ball courts, a picnic -- picnic gazebo and a community garden. There is an informal ten foot wide pathway stub that the west sub --west subdivision line. So, over here there is kind of an informal pathway that's there. Has not been developed. The Meridian Pathways Plan shows eventually that there would be a future multi-use pathway that would connect to this. The concept plan, as shown does actually show a direct connection. So, again, this is where that would be and they have provided basically a direct east-west connection to this. There is portions of this pathway that are close to ten feet wide here, but it narrows down to probably five or four feet here. Staff is recommending because this is eventually going to be a major pathway, that this has -- all of this would have to be built to a template of ten feet wide to be consistent with the pathway plan. Also, what's -- what's important to note is that the pathway plan actually chose the pathway running along Five Mile Creek, which is here. As I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, this piece of property here with the original proposal that came that was approved, this was part of that proposal. This no longer is part of this proposal, no longer under the applicant's control. So, we are not sure if and when this would develop. If it did develop and come into the city, then, we would recommend that the alignment of this pathway would be matching the plan, meaning coming down this pathway -- or, sorry, coming down the Five Mile Creek. However, in the interim the applicant is also providing this stub here and -- and if and when this was ever developed, then, this pathway would no longer provide the major pathway, it would be running along Five Mile Creek to be consistent with what the original configuration is. So, again, staff is also recommending that that segment be built to a ten foot wide template as well and in the -- in the interim it would just sort of loop around the commercial lot here. In addition to that, the conceptual development plan shows detached sidewalks and pathways providing designated pedestrian access between all the single family residences. The central amenity and the office building -- when we were going through the designs -- again, this is somewhat conceptual in nature and the more specified dimension things would happen at the time of the final plat when you see the -- the final plat and landscape plan. The plans indicate that some of the -- they are required to have an eight foot wide parkway along all of the streets in this development, including the internal streets. It may not, based on these plans and what we are seeing, it may not meet those. But, again, the applicant is aware of this and when -- if and when this goes to public hearing for a final plat we will be reviewing the landscape plans to make sure that all the minimum requirements and the minimum landscaping requirements are met. Access to this development is proposed from the adjacent local streets, which is East Magic View Drive, South Wells Street, and East Wells Circle. For internal connectivity the applicant is providing a gated community. And so this whole area here, all 61 lots, will be gated and they would consist of alleys and private streets. There was an existing unnamed ACHD right of way, which you can see down here, as Easy Gentry Circle. ACHD originally were -- were requiring them to build the whole thing out, including the cul-de-sac. The latest version of this that I just received from ACHD today is just because the applicant has limited control over this whole area, they are only requiring them at this point now to just stub it to the western property line. The -- the code states that a gated development shouldn't have more than 50 dwelling units. And if -- as I mentioned, the northern part has 61 dwelling units. This is because the homes are clustered around a central open Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 Fill Page 8 of 43 space. We have got additional corridors in here and many different pathways. Although it is feasible to restrict the number of gated lots to 50, the development is intended to be a walkable neighborhood with home clusters, like I said, and it even has MEWS, which is one of the intents of the private street section of the code. Because of this, because of the clustering, because of the amount of open space, because fire and PD did not express any issues with this, staff did not have any concerns with the extra 11 lots. This is something that the planning director approved through alternative compliance. So, if this were to go forward that would have already been approved by the planning director. It's important to note that there has been some changes to this concept plan since the staff report went out. The one thing you saw in the staff report was an older version. There has been a few versions that are in the case file. If you have been on the -- if you have been on the online case file recently there is many many different versions, but what has changed is that the original plan had a -- if you can see my pointer. The version of this -- of the plan that went out with the staff report, there was a house that was here, this road down here was an alley, and there was an additional private road here. A couple of different things happened. Staff noted that we had some issues with this long block -- this long block length. They are limited to the length of blocks and we thought there should be some sort of connection. So, the applicant has since provided this little park and this trail connection here. The house that was here has now been moved to the south of the clubhouse and swimming pool. The other issue was that the applicant says there was some problems with addressing off of the alley that was here. This alley has now been converted to a private street, so that addressing can happen and the street that was originally here is now gone away. So, there was -- so, they have lost one street and they have increased some of their green space here and they have provided a trail connection here. If the Planning Commission were inclined to recommend approval or approve the conditional use tonight, staff would recommend by reference that the most recent version concept plan, which would be July 13th, would be part of that, as you are seeing right now. The last thing I want to talk about is parking. So, single family residential -- single family residential portion of this development proposes 61 houses with three or more bedrooms and this requires per our code 244 parking spaces. That's four parking spaces per house, basically. Two of them would have to be covered and, then, two of them could be in the driveway. All of the number of -- the number of parking spaces that are being provided -- although the applicant has proposed that 32 of these be provided in bulb outs. So, you can see a bulb out here. You can see one here. There is a -- there is a few down here. There is some here. They have provided a parking plan showing that they have all these parking spaces and this is something, again, that -- that could be approved administratively through alternative compliance and the director did approve this alternative compliance. The reason why, again, is because of the number of open space, the clustered units, the amount of pathways, it was either support this or have them redesign and make the driveways longer and possibly lose some of the open space. So, the parking is there, it's just not -- some of it is across the street or directly adjacent to the houses and not directly on the houses. One thing I do want to mention, though, is the 244 parking spaces that I mentioned, they don't account for this clubhouse down here. They are required to provide, based on the commercial requirements, nine parking spaces. That's one of our conditions of approval. When we look at this plan we think it's feasible. The applicant can carve out an additional nine parking spaces. That is one of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F12 Page 9 of 43 the conditions of approval that has been included with the staff report. For a nursing and residential care facility, the parking requirement is a half a parking space per bed. This concept plan indicates 102 beds, requiring 51 parking spaces. They have shown 101 parking spaces and with the office building 18 would be required and they are showing 40 on this concept plan. I'm giving you just sort of a brief view of the single family residences. This is the assisted living. This came out later. A couple of weeks ago they provided the most recent elevations of the office per a request by staff. We -- just generalizing now, if and when this is approved, they will have to do a certificate of zoning compliance for anything that's commercial and they will have to go through design review. Looking at the assisted living, just -- just from guesstimating and eyeing, it's probably getting pretty close to meeting the requirements of the -- of the architectural standards manual, not so much probably with the ones on the left, I think this is just more conceptual than the ones at the top. However, either way, just so you know, at the time of CZC we will make sure that the -- both of these buildings meet the minimum standards that are required for design review and for the certificate of zoning compliance. At the time of the staff report going out staff received two letters of testimony. The concerns that we received were increase in traffic, the potential height of houses and narrowness of the side setbacks of the houses, adjacent to the Woodbridge or Snorting Bull Subdivision. Since staff noted that the plans have been updated, numerous times since the written testimony has come out, there has been a bit of discussion between staff and at least one of the adjacent neighbors about some of the questions and some of the concerns. I have not heard anything directly and have not seen any written testimony since the letters that we received since that time. So, I'm not sure if those concerns are outstanding or not, but I'm sure we are hear tonight. With that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use to allow the nursing and residential care facility and just to mention that a separate conditional use may be required for the additional commercial building based on what the end user finally has figured out to be. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the annexation and zoning to TN-R and plat for 61 lots, a 91 unit nursing and residential care and additional office building. In addition to the conditions in the staff report, staff recommends a condition to the development agreement that the side setbacks for all lots on the western perimeter adjacent to the subdivision be increased to five feet and staff recommends that the Planning Commission include with their motion the updated concept plan dated July 13th, 2021, in their motion, and at that I will stand for any questions or concerns. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Johnson: You should be able to control this now from there, Jamie. McCarvel: And, please, state your name and address for the record. Koenig: Oh, sorry. I have got the wrong one here. Okay. That's --that's not what I have. Jamie Koenig with Babcock Design Group. Address is 800 West Main. Downtown. Thank you, Alan, for doing such a fantastic job of running through everything and summarizing this. I -- actually, you covered practically everything I wanted to touch on, so I will try not to repeat anything that you have already covered. One of the main things Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F13 Page 10 of 43 1 would like to say -- as an architect occasionally you run across a developer that cares about the same thing that most of us care about, including myself, and -- McCarvel: Pull it right close. Yeah. Koenig: Sorry. Would like to do -- we would like to do things the right way. They have an interest in the same things that most of us have an interest in, such as open spaces, quality amenities, having a site plan that's well thought through. Elevated design for the architecture. Interesting materials and design. That kind of -- when you manage to successfully pull all of that off all at once it kind of falls into place and becomes a very nice experience for everybody and a sense of place, something that people that live there can be proud of. People that visit will be interested and people that pass by as well. That doesn't always -- that doesn't always happen. So, I think we are very lucky because of that. Brent, the developer, is -- is that type of person. He is very much in line with how we -- how we like to see things done. We feel that this project fits in with the neighborhood very well. The assisted living and memory care is very close to St. Luke's, as an example. The -- although the 55 plus is not restricted to 55 plus, it's actually targeted toward that age group by having landscaping that's cared for and the price point I think sort of lends that -- lends it to the age group. I think it would also be possible that someone with aging parents could live in the assisted living building, someone that would like to be close to them, could also buy a home, just north of there to be close to them. So, that would probably work out very nice also in some cases. Traffic is always an issue in this area. That area is kind of broken and I don't -- we don't have a solution for that, but I think that the use that we are proposing, out of everything that could be proposed, tends to contribute less traffic than a lot of other uses that could come along and so we -- we feel like that's a good fit also. To backup to the parking for the north residential area, we are required to have 244 and through the south revisions that Alan spoke about there, our changing the streets around, we were able to increase the bulb out areas and get 266 spaces, which is above the 244 required. And, again, we have -- we have tried to pay close attention to Woodbridge's concerns and modulate the setbacks and the heights of the buildings and, again, these buildings are -- are going to be very nice, high quality buildings. So, I think -- I think that that works out pretty well. We think that we have done a good job and try -- we have really tried to minimize that wall effect that some of the Woodbridge neighbors have expressed concern over. The previous plan that was approved, it made it all the way through City Council, was Andorra and that project was all single story, but they were townhomes and so that was a much longer building and so the spaces in between, again, were three and three setback side yards and so you ended up totaling that up to maybe 30 feet of open space and in this layout with the skinnier lots, the 40 wide lots, we actually ended up with 200 -- 200 feet of running distance. So, we think that that's a lot better. I think the design is quite a bit better than it was last time around. The office -- office parking. I don't know if anything was mentioned about that, but I believe Meridian requires two per thousand square feet and we are right at 4.5. So, we are overparked for that. I tend to get excited about the open space, which is a little bit strange. I, obviously, don't work outside and I'm glad for that, but the Five Mile Creek connection to the neighborhood I think that's actually beautiful. I think with some natural grasses and the landscaping that we have shown could be a very nice evening walk for Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F14 Page 11 of 43 many people and, then, as well as some of the connectivity that we have going north- south through the center of the space would really, you know, provide for an interesting experience and kind of reaches out into the community with the pathways. We think the ALMC is -- is also a very nice looking building. It will have very nice views in many directions and Alan's already mentioned all of the amenities that we are proposing on the courtyard spaces and I think overall for the entire site the combined density is 9.7 units per acre, which is less than it was last time when it was approved. It was about 10.1. So, that's really everything that I had planned on saying. So, do you have any questions? McCarvel: Yeah. I'm going to start off with one. Are you in agreement with everything, then, that was in the staff report? That's that -- all the staff recommendations, you are in agreement with all of it? Okay? Koenig: We have been in contact through -- McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Seal: Yeah. Just real quick. I was kind of looking for a map that was going to line up the houses on the west there with what's existing. Tiefenbach: I have that. There it is. I can't figure out how to do full screen on this thing. Sorry. I have been trying to make the browser go away and I'm not having any luck yet. Seal: Still not seeing it. Tiefenbach: Oh. Sorry. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Tiefenbach: Do you want me to leave that up, sir, or go back to the original plan? Seal: Oh, if you could leave it for a minute that's -- thank you. McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Kind of to tie into that, Alan, what -- the five foot side setbacks, is that kind of in line with -- with R-8 or R-15? Tiefenbach: R-8. Bill says R-8. I don't have that memorized off the top of my head. Sorry. Cassinelli: And is Woodbridge R-8 or R-4. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F151 Page 12 of 43 Tiefenbach: They are R-1. They are not in the city. But if you look at the distance between the houses when I scroll them off it's roughly the same distance between the houses. The houses in this development are narrower, but the distance between the structures -- the house are a little narrower, the lots are a little smaller, but the distance between the structures is comparable to the distance to the -- between the adjacent structures. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions -- sorry. Tiefenbach: I have -- do you want to show that? I think the applicant wants to -- see if I have -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Cassinelli: Quick question for -- Jamie, on those houses that are -- that will back up to Woodbridge there, what are some average square footages? Do you --do you have that? Koenig: I don't recall of the top of my head. McCarvel: Please, you --you have to say-- everything has to be said into that mic. Sorry. Koenig: I don't recall off the top of my head, but they are listed on the exhibit that we submitted. I believe the -- Tiefenbach: Are you saying the lot sizes of the development or the adjacent subdivision? Cassinelli: No. The -- in the development. The home --the average square foot--square footage of the -- of the houses there that back up to Woodbridge. Tiefenbach: Houses. Koenig: I believe including the garages around 1,800. 1 believe. Cassinelli: Obviously, you have got some -- you have got some two stories and some one story in there, so it's going to be some smaller and some larger. Okay. Madam Chair, I had another question. McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: And I just -- either to -- Jamie, to you or to Alan. So, there is no multi-family into that -- you went through a lot in the -- in the presentation there and I just -- because Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F16 Page 13 of 43 we talked on that, but I want to make sure that that is not in this application. Is that correct? Tiefenbach: Agree that there was a lot. Staff does have a -- Cassinelli: You did a great job. Tiefenbach: I do agree there was a lot. My wife calls me too much information Alan. Too much information in there. To the southeast, the -- the assisted living memory care, right now as that use is being proposed, under TN-R the zone district that is being proposed to, multi-family would be allowed by right, meaning you would not have to come in front of the Planning Commission, but staff is recommending a condition on the development agreement that says that the only use that can occur there is this -- is a nursing home and assisted living. So, if they wanted to do any kind of multi-family at all, they would have to amend the development agreement and would have to come back, do a public hearing. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Grove. Grove: Madam Chair. Jamie, just a question with what Alan had mentioned with the clubhouse and the nine additional parking spots. Is that reflected in the concept plan that we saw tonight or is that something that still needs to be added in? Koenig: That's something that's in -- that's something that's in there tonight. It's reflected in the 266 number. McCarvel: Okay. Any other question? Cassinelli: Why not? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Jamie -- if we can put -- put that last -- the -- the plat map up there. Tiefenbach: The one with the lot lines? Cassinelli: Yeah. Well, not the -- Tiefenbach: The section one or the one with the property lines? Cassinelli: The one of the 61 homes. The home -- plat of the 61 homes. Tiefenbach: Is that the proper one? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F17 Page 14 of 43 Cassinelli: That will work. Tiefenbach: Okay. Cassinelli: The -- the bump outs there for parking on the west side, I'm just wondering, because I was going to bring this up in -- in our comments, but since we are still in open session I can ask Jamie here. There is really no additional park -- that puts all the parking on the -- all the -- I would assume visitor parking and whatnot on the west side. There is not a -- there is really nothing up in that northeast corner. Could we shift that island of homes that's -- I guess it's on the south side of Gentle -- Gentle something lane -- to where the parking is on the east side. Do you see what I'm trying to envision there? Because there is no -- there is no -- there is -- there is no additional parking on that side. So, anybody that did have to go to the other side of that, just a -- it's a random thought. I have those. Just like Alan has too much information. Koenig: We certainly could make that change. Cassinelli: Okay. McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up for public testimony on this application? Johnson: Madam Chair, we have several people signed in, only one indicating a wish to testify. That would be John Overton, indicating he is the representative for the Woodbridge HOA. McCarvel: Okay. Overton: Good evening, P&Z Commission and city staff. Thank you. My name is John Overton. 1922 East Bowstring in Woodbridge Subdivision in Meridian, Idaho. We have stood before you many times, but before I start I need to make two quick corrections. There were two little snafus that were just said, one by city staff and I don't think he meant to. Woodbridge is very much in the city. It's not an R-1 county. Woodbridge is R-4. Desert -- Locust View Heights to the south of us is the one that's R-1 in the county. I know the question was what was Woodbridge. We are an R-4 subdivision. Okay? Second thing was city staff made a comment that said, I believe twice, that there were 244 parking spots, but when Jamie just spoke he said 266. That needs to be clarified as well. We got multiple numbers. This is the problem we are having. This is the big problem we are having with this project is we keep hearing information that is changing. It's been so dynamic it's been hard for us. We didn't mark we were opposed. We didn't mark we were in favor. There is things we like about this project, but there has just been too many changes and there is even another big change as we get through this that has not been mentioned once tonight really. That was a major part of why we as a subdivision approved the previous project. But we need to go back. We have had three projects in this area east of Woodbridge. The thing to remember here is no matter what gets built there, every single vehicle has two options. They can go out to the east or they go to the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F18 Page 15 of 43 west. There is no way they can drive south. There is no way they can drive north. When they go west one of their two options is they are driving -- all of those vehicles are driving through our residential subdivision on our residential streets. So, we have been very involved in all of the different applications over the years on safety, traffic safety, ACHD traffic studies, which I understand was not requested in this plan and I'm -- I'm at a loss for why this time there was no traffic study requested, when in previous applications there were. So, I'm a little lost on why we have no traffic study. We live in a subdivision with 269 homes and not a single crosswalk within our subdivision to get children and families across the street from the south side to the north side where our pool and park is or from the phase two on the east side to our west side to get to Fuller Park. We don't have a singe crosswalk and we have a tremendous amount of traffic coming through Woodbridge. So, I'm a little bit at a loss why ACHD isn't playing a larger role in determining what the impact is going to be on our subdivision. We have sat on committees -- I sat on committees with Mayor de Weerd specifically geared toward developments are going to affect our subdivision. For years she said this was going to be part of the medical corridor and we fought two multi-family developments successfully all the way through City Council voted down, because they just didn't fit with what this area was designed for. Now, we supported strongly the last development -- the first Andorra one. We have not just supported this one, because it's significantly different. The major effect -- or the major difference on this one is we got into the development agreement with the developers coming in agreement in the meeting at City Council last time that the individual houses would be in the development agreement as 55 and over. We needed assurances for our residents that we are not going to have all these houses turn into young families -- and maybe we are dealing with three or four cars or more per house really negatively impacting the amount of traffic already coming through Woodbridge. We totally support the idea of assisted living memory care or the independent living 55 and over plan. We were supporting it, we were behind it, everything was great. We are sad that that project failed, but this is not the same project. We now sit at a position where Magic View Drive -- and you don't really see it, but it's there, you come out on Magic View Drive, you turn left, boom, you are in Woodbridge. We have another development that's approved. It's on the north side of Magic View. They have a lot of parking and yet every day ten to 15 cars are parked on Magic View Drive on both sides, restricting our ability to get through, and now I see a development that we still don't know what the exact number is of internal parking spaces, but you get a large event, a party or a group, we are going to have cars parked up and down that Magic View Drive and if you get to our subdivision we have a beautiful island and restricted area. It's going to be an absolute bottleneck. It's not going to be safe and it's going to be a blind exit for us coming out of our subdivision. So, I really would like to see the applicant and the city discuss or commit to the over 55, the 55 and older, the independent living, what really fits with the other part of their project. The same way the initial one did. I understand and there was an initial letter we put on the file that profits were part of the issue and we get that, but we, as residents of Woodbridge, never put profits in front of safety of the residents of our subdivision. We need this to be a well thought out and safe project for everybody. Now, with that said, the applicant's done a lot. He has. He has made a lot of changes. He has made a lot of changes to the depth and the size and the height and the fact that they are not three foot side setbacks or five foot. Our understanding was Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F19 Page 16 of 43 they were five foot, because they couldn't put windows on the sides of those houses at the three foot setback. They had to go to a five foot setback with ten feet between the homes before they could actually put glass on the side. I could be corrected if I'm wrong, but that information came out of Planning. So, the second problem we have -- and there was an article online today talking about it being 55 and over is the original plan was all one story, because that's what 55 and over is. When you start building two story houses with some of the master bedrooms being upstairs, there is no way people of Woodbridge are going to buy for one minute that you intend to build it as 55 over. Not a chance. That doesn't make sense. I have never seen that anywhere. The whole reason the first project did as well as it did and had the one story townhouses is because that makes sense. That's what other 55 and older communities did. You just don't normally ever see two story homes, especially not bedrooms in the second story. Although I don't have to park in there, we are really concerned that those bump outs are ever going to hold what number crunchers tell me are going to be in there, because they are not marked parking spots. I think you are still going to be short parking. We are still going to have parking out on the main roads outside of the gated community, which is going to cause issues for everybody else. The amenities. Besides hoping to see the applicant step up and say we will commit to 55 and over, we mean it, we want to be a good neighbor, we want to do what was done the first time where we stood up and we said, hey, this is great. The amenities listed fit with a 55 and over. Love to see the amenities, if it's possible, I don't know. Ted can tell us. Whether the amenities themselves can be required and listed in a development agreement, along with them agreeing to 55 and over and they may refuse and if the -- if the applicant refuses the 55 and over and listing out what the amenities are, at least they have told Woodbridge and all the residents what their true intention is. They have kind of told us their true intention simply by the fact that they tried to change to multi- family, because that's what we have been afraid of all along. It doesn't fit with the vision for this area. It doesn't fit with the traffic problems we have got. You can go out there to St. Luke's Lane every day and waiting in those long lines -- it's a nightmare. It's one of the reasons everybody uses our subdivision as a cut through. It's the reason that when a project like this comes to Council we get 150 people filling this place because they are so passionate about all these cars coming through our subdivision at all times of the day. What does that mean? McCarvel: That's your ten minutes. Overton: Is that my ten? McCarvel: Yeah. Overton: Okay. McCarvel: So, if you want to wrap up your thoughts. Overton: I will wrap. I used this term in front of the HOA board last night -- or Tuesday night. We are cautiously optimistic. We are not here to say deny. We are not here to definitely say approve. We are cautiously optimistic that the developer will stand up and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F20 Page 17 of 43 do the right thing, which the previous developer did, to get Woodbridge's buy in and approval. McCarvel: Okay. Overton: So, I stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions? Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: John? Over here. Overton: Oh. Sorry. Cassinelli: Do you have any traffic counts through -- through Woodbridge? Overton: Working with ACHD they have not done a traffic count since COVID started, because that threw everything off. The kids weren't going to school, they weren't driving, there is a history--ACHD has our traffic counts and how they were increasing for the past almost ten years. We have continued to request them and had John Lawson from ACHD come in and run those counts. There was a request to have another traffic count done -- I think it was this spring and I never saw it happen and I don't know whether they are just busy or backlogged, but we need another one, because now we are seeing the world kind of come back to life and the traffic is really picking up and that's before this has been done. I hope that answers your question. Cassinelli: I was -- well, I was hoping you had one maybe even from '19 or -- but you don't have -- you don't know the -- Overton: No. They are obtainable. I -- actually, we have made requests before from ACHD for all of them, so we can show the historical pattern of what we have seen, because we have actually looked at those in the meetings with ACHD and Meridian city staff. Cassinelli: Okay. Overton: So, it can absolutely be obtained. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. And I understand Mr. Overton spoke for the subdivision, so if there is anybody else that has anything additional to add or -- I'm assuming you were all Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F21 Page 18 of 43 in agreement of his presentation. Okay. So, that being said, is there anybody else that wanted to testify? Okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have no one else signed up. McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else in the room have something urgent? Okay. Alan. Tiefenbach: I just would like to add a couple of staff's comments on some of the things that Mr. Overton discussed, if that's okay. McCarvel: Yes. Tiefenbach: First of all, my apologies, that was a snafu about the --about your subdivision not being in the city. My bad. About the 55 plus, the one thing I want to comment about that is that's certainly something that the applicant can do, but it's important to mention -- because we have talked about these before, these sorts of things have come in front of you and I have said the same thing from bad experiences in other municipalities. Not this one. It's very difficult for staff to enforce 55 plus. The only way that staff -- if I'm reviewing the project, the only way that you will convince me to review the project, under the assumption that it will be 55 plus, is a deed restriction. That's really the only way that it can be enforced. Otherwise, it could be something that the applicant could offer, whether it's the covenants or something like that, unless there is a deed restriction and believe it's illegal, there is really not much we can enforce with it being 50, because it's targeted towards 55 plus. In regard to the amenities, that's something very easily -- generally our development agreements say that the concept plan would generally conform with -- that the -- what's being approved should generally conform with -- with what's being presented. You could certainly add the amenities as they are being required into the development agreement. So, if Mr. Overton thought that that would help calm the -- the concerns of the adjacent neighbors, certainly you can say that the amenities as listed in the Planning Commission hearing would be part of the development agreement. The last thing I -- in regard to the parking, he's absolutely right, it's been a very dynamic thing. At the time that the staff report went out the concept plan that we had had 244 parking spaces. They were missing parking spaces for the clubhouse. I have -- there is a recent version of the concept plan, which you are now seeing here. I have not counted those parking spaces, because I got this today. I would leave that to the applicant to mention whether that new number of 266 1 think he said is correct. You could certainly add that to the development agreement. And last, just as an FYI, this is actually slightly less than number of units than the one with the multi-family. When ACHD commented they -- what they said is that because we reviewed it with the previous one and we did not require a traffic study, the way they put this is as a courtesy to the neighborhood you may consider doing a traffic study, but a traffic study is not required. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back. Koenig: Just to clarify, the 266 number is correct in the north residential portion. The offices have 45 stalls and the assisted living to the south has 110 stalls and ACHD took Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F22 Page 19 of 43 a look at the layout of this scheme and the average daily trips did not rise to the level to warrant the traffic impact study, so we didn't have one done. McCarvel: Okay. Koenig: And, then, I believe Brent may want to say a few words, too. Thompson: Hello. My name is -- I really have to bend over. Sorry. This is Brent Thompson is my name. I live 2476 East Lacrosse Circle in St. George, Utah, but former resident of Meridian city. Used to live in the Saguaro Canyon neighborhood when it was first developed years ago. So, I am -- somewhat have some roots here and my in-laws live here as well. But we are really excited about this project. I have got a couple of comments just -- I hate the word rebuttal, by the way. It sounds a little aggressive. But I do have a couple comments based on some of the previous commentary. But we are super excited about this project. Many-- many of you probably don't know that we actually -- we are under contract for this project right before it was approved at City Council, so we have been involved in the original project. Due to COVID and so forth and circumstances, the previous developer chose to sell. That's when we got involved and did not own any of the parcels at that time. Since, then, we closed on all of these parcels. We own them. We have invested a great deal of money in trying to get the design, in our opinion, to a better design. Some of the challenges that we had -- and I just wanted to kind of-- it was thrown out there that we are making decisions for profits. We are making decisions based on marketability and -- and the livability of the community. Agreed that the 55 and older was a great concept. The challenge was is that they had for sale fee simple product, so when we had --the original design only had one car garages and really small units. About a thousand square feet. For us we felt that just wasn't sufficient for most people that are looking to live in the area. I consider myself one of the prospects to live in this community. I'm 51 years old almost and I have parents that are aging that I would love to have them in this building and I view people such as myself to live in that -- that area. I recall the City Council, in approving the project last year, one of the Council Members commented about -- similar to Alan had commented about the challenges of restricting 55 and older. We are targeting 55 and older, so to speak, or my generation and older, simply so that we can be able to take care of our parents and people that may be housed in a building such as this. The building's a phenomenal building designed by Babcock Design. Jamie has done a phenomenal job with it and his team. We also have a great team with Van Elgin and Keith. Back here with JUB Engineering. We have integrated both the engineering firm and the architectural firm at the very start of this project, simply so that we can have the project well designed and be able to maximize its potential. Excuse me. Sorry. I always get a little nervous when I have to do this and we have so many commissioners. But I just wanted to -- to just make a couple of comments. I value very much the process that we have here in this great country of ours and for the opportunity to speak up and for citizens to be able to share their thoughts and so forth. The Woodbridge community is a very beautiful community. I respect that very much. And they are -- they are very interested in what's happening in here, obviously, and it sounds like it's been going on for years. We have really put forth the effort and the expense to make this the best project that we possibly can and to make it economically pencil and to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F23 Page 20 of 43 be able to provide a building such as this. You can imagine this three story assisted living memory care building, it's significant in cost. Close to around 20 million dollars or more. When we first got some of our bids back, because we have already gone down the road of designing this architecturally, some of the bids, just because of the cost and everything else that changes, we had a little bit of sticker shock. So, we did go back to Alan and said, hey, was there a potential -- I just want to make sure that it's known that when it said multi-family, we are simply going back to the old apartment design, which is really a 55 and older apartment complex. We weren't coming in with a traditional apartment building. We feel that we can make this -- this building work and make this project work and be a great success, although it is more expensive than it was, we are building it with steel and putting a significant amount of investment in it. Many of you may or may not know much about opportunity zones, but this is actually an opportunity zone area and this is an exciting -- I don't know how many projects have been done in opportunity zones for that purpose, but there is no intent to flip or sell. This project is simply going to be an asset that's going to be held for at least ten years or beyond and we are super excited about it. We think the architecture is exciting. The product that we have here is really modeled similar to other projects here in Meridian city already, which are similar to Brighton's Cadence product. They have two story product there, as well as single family. The other product they have is Pine 43. Also similar product. I don't -- I get a little uncomfortable when there is any kind of -- somewhat discrimination against young families that may move in. That's not our target. But at the same time we can't prohibit if somebody does have children that wants to move there or if somebody that's been divorced and has a young family and I don't think we can do that in any community, whether it be Meridian city, St. George, or anywhere we may live. We are targeting 55 and older, but at the same time we are definitely going to have people that are maybe 51 like myself that would like to live here as well. It's a gated community. I have a very similar community in St. George, Utah, called Bella Vista. It's also a gated community. We have 101 homes approved there. We have got right now 76 residents, most of which are from 50 to 75 years old. It's not age restricted, but just by nature it draws that client and so I think it's a lot cleaner and that's really our intent. We are not going to try to do every home a two story home. People may want to have the single level, but we want to have the flexibility to do so. My last example. My mother-in-law just moved from Eagle last year and moved into a Cadence -- Brighton home by Cadence there off of Chinden. She has a two story product. We just stayed there three weeks ago as a family in the upper floor. They have a main floor master and it's a beautiful product and very much in demand and I believe those setbacks are even smaller than what -- what are proposed here as a five foot setback, which I think is -- most of Meridian city is five foot setback, I believe. So, we think it's a very exciting product. We are putting in the money and the investment to make it right. We don't have any bank financing or anything on the project. We have come in and put forth our very best efforts on this project and we have a lot to gain to be able to make it best for the community and if you have any questions I'm happy to answer any if you had any. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay? Yearsley: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F24 Page 21 of 43 McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, just so I can clarify for the record that you are not planning to do any deed restrictions on these homes? Thompson: No. Just simply because, again, we believe there is market individuals like myself that-- and the other thing --just let me clarify that. Especially with so many people that have moved from out of state, we see this as an opportunity for people to -- if they have a loved one that needs to be in the memory care or the assisted living building, somebody may want to have a second home within this community where, you know, the yards are maintained and have great amenities when they come and visit. You know, we just don't know exactly who that buyer is. By limiting it to 55 and older it just creates challenges -- title challenges. Yearsley: Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just a quick question on the memory care unit and everything. That's -- I mean is that going to go in -- at what stage is that going to go in compared to the single family? Thompson: We are actually going to go immediately, assuming if we can get through Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as City Council, we have actually gone through the expense -- and it's our risk and we do this on most of our projects -- certainly if you are in Treasure Valley. Developed three successful projects already. We have got seven that we are developing right now. This being one of them. We already have the -- the civil engineering drawings almost done for the entire site, knowing that there may be a few changes here and there upon approval. We also have the three story building is -- Jamie, can you just give me a number how much percentage done? Okay. So, we hope you had that -- McCarvel: Can you give the number in the microphone for the -- Thompson: He said about 25 percent done. As far as the -- and that's construction drawings. So, when I say at great expense, these aren't just conceptuals that Jamie did in his office. The little office building that is down below, but that's kind of a simple 9,000 square foot building. The three story buildings are already in process in design. So, we hope to start immediately after approval, if we are so lucky to have so -- do so. We will actually be submitting construction drawings soon after. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. If there is no more questions, could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0024. Seal: So moved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F25] Page 22 of 43 Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0024. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: I think we clarified in earlier discussions that I think everything that Alan went through is in the staff report as -- all the considerations, all the additional things that he wanted added, including the restriction of this being a memory care unit and not a multi- family, unless they come back with a different application. Tiefenbach: Yes, except there would be an additional restriction regarding the five foot setbacks that just happened and the concept plan that you saw tonight is about one day old and so you would be also approving the concept plan dated July 13th with additional parking and the -- the trail connection put into the east. The southern most alley turning into a road and, then, what was the road south of the pool disappearing and becoming green space. McCarvel: Okay. Baird: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Baird: If I could inquire -- okay. If I could inquire of Alan. There was an expressed desire to perhaps link the specifically listed amenities as part of the DA. Would that require an additional part of the motion to do that? Tiefenbach: Bill's nodding his head, so if they wanted to -- if you wanted to reference the amenities as listed in the staff report, you certainly could do that. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. We will open for discussion. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: All in all I think it's a -- I think it's a really nice product. A lot of it fits in there. Having sat through several projects that have affected Woodbridge directly, I do have concerns and I don't know if it would be in our purview to -- to condition for maybe some traffic calming measures if they have absolutely no -- not even a crosswalk in there and I think that the pool is right -- is -- is really right there on the -- on what is the collector on Woodbridge Avenue. I'm looking at -- and quite frankly -- and I have expressed disappointment in ACHD more than one time up here. I pulled up a traffic study on Woodbridge and it was from 2017 and there was a 24 hour account of -- of over 2,000 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F26] Page 23 of 43 vehicles and that's acceptable on a collector, but not on local streets and everything winds up feeding those local streets to the backside of Woodbridge and I don't live in Woodbridge, but I have used it as a cut through more than -- more than once in the past. When you look at -- at a traffic, eastbound, westbound, a.m. peak, the numbers look like, just from what I'm seeing here is, is -- is actually people going in and out of Woodbridge or going through Woodbridge into that area. So, this is going to increase the traffic and, unfortunately, there is no -- there is no other way out, other than whatever the -- up at the light there across from St. Luke's. So, people are going to naturally go through Woodbridge and, again, so I come back to that. I don't know if there is any way that we can condition for -- again, if it's in our preview or not or just recommend maybe City Council condition for some traffic calming measures if we can through Woodbridge to -- to -- to help that. But other than that I -- I think it's going to -- you know, I tend to agree with the applicant, I think it's going to attract more of a -- an older, empty nest type of situation, but I think it's -- all in all I think it's a neat project for the area. Those are my thoughts. McCarvel: I guess I would comment on that. I'm certainly not in the planning profession or legal, but I will -- I would imagine that it is not in our purview to condition this applicant to do something in another subdivision. I would encourage the people of Woodbridge to keep working with ACHD, because that is the controlling entity of that. And I will stand from correction by legal or staff if that was -- Tiefenbach: That was exactly what I was going to tell you. Unless they offered and ACHD was amenable, we can't make them do off-site improvements. We can only make them do --ACHD can make you pay into a pot of money for road improvements to widen a road or something like that, but we can't make them do traffic calming for Woodbridge, but, you know, they could offer and work with ACHD, but we can't require it. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I have to admit I'm a little torn. I did listen to the residents for the HOA of Woodbridge and, you know, they are -- they are really close I think. I understand the -- the desire not to make this deed restricted. You know, my biggest concern ultimately is you are seeing a new trend of huge developer -- or huge companies coming in and just buying the entire subdivision and, then, renting everything and so -- and at that point you don't know what you will ever get with rentals, so -- and I don't know how to fix that either. So, I mean it's -- it's not something that's -- that I expect to be fixed. I would like to see, you know, this -- the site plan has changed significantly since the initial submittal. I wouldn't mind seeing the applicant reaching out to Woodbridge one more time and at least presenting what they have, showing the parking, so they can be more comfortable with that and -- and at least try to reach out to them and help to try to figure out a solution Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F27 Page 24 of 43 before City Council. Overall I think it's a fairly good layout. Still think it's a little dense, but -- yeah. That's where I'm at. McCarvel: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I don't have an issue with the density. The layout is sufficient for me. I guess I have a couple of questions for staff, just in regards to the roads, Magic View and Wells. Are those streets -- are you allowed to park on those streets? And if -- and is that something that we can have any say over or is that out of our purview? Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach. Yes, I believe you can park on those. We could suggest ACHD work with the applicant, but they are right of ways, not private roads. So, we can't tell ACHD what to do with the roads. We could say pretty please. The applicant is required to do some road improvements, sidewalks, and some widening, but it comes back down to ACHD is in charge of the roads. Grove: And, then, a second question -- and I think this was one of the first projects that I heard when I came onto the commission a year ago. Same question I guess is what is the possibility of having another connection east-west with future development? I know it had come up quite a bit during the Comprehensive Plan review a few years ago, but just knowing if there was any movement on -- on that front. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think that -- that's what Alan alluded to in his presentation to you this evening. You know, that was -- from my perspective when this project was back in front of you a year ago, we were getting that street stub through that county subdivision with the R-1 lots and the vision -- the plan does contemplate a connection out to Locust Grove to -- to provide to Woodbridge, but, again, as you -- as this body realizes, that -- that comes with development and redevelopment of other properties and so, you know, when we analyze this project before we even brought it to you, that's something that we discussed with staff is we were concerned that now that we are taking out this five acre piece that was originally part of it and now it isn't, we have created another roadblock for having that road get extended like we want and provide some of that relief to Woodbridge. So, certainly that's something within your purview tonight. Obviously, you can't make them extend the road, but that's certainly something you should take into consideration as you deliberate on the application tonight. Grove: Thank you. All said, I -- I like the changes that we have seen tonight and I'm on board with moving this project forward. McCarvel: I will jump in. I -- it is different than what we saw originally and I think what we saw a year ago we were all clapping for, but I think this is somewhat the same impact and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F28 Page 25 of 43 does fit in the opportunity zone with the nursing care, but I would be in strong support that this is tied to the DA that it would be a nursing care. That they would have to come back to do anything else with it -- any other high density option. Yearsley: So, Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Is it already in the staff report that they have to -- that in the DA that it is to be an assisted living unit? Okay. McCarvel: I believe it is stated correctly. Tiefenbach: Yeah. There is a direct reference that says that's the only thing that can happen. McCarvel: All right. I'm just -- I guess I'm just making an over point of it, because it normally is allowed in the TN -- the zone we are bringing in here. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: So -- Tiefenbach: Which is why there is a direct note in the DA -- McCarvel: Yes. Tiefenbach: -- for that reason. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. Just looking at it, I mean at first when I was reading through this and just some of the public comment and the history of it and things like that, I was -- especially some of the wording with the memory care unit in there, it was kind of lining up in my mind like a little bit of a bait and switch, where we will put the community in there and, then, eh, we will kind of change that out later if it doesn't work out. But where I think we are writing it in -- or staff has had the forethought to write in the fact that that has to be a medical facility and, then, the feedback from the applicant on the fact that they want to start this right away, the planning is already there, the architecting is already coming into place, I feel less like that at this point in time. So, I feel that the applicant's -- although not communicating it very well, seems like this kind of came in at the last minute -- they have done everything that they have really been asked by the neighbors as far as improving the setbacks, varying the -- you know, the house scape I guess you would call it, going through there and just to provide a little bit better breakup of the -- of the lots. Fairly good Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F29 Page 26 of 43 alignment of the lots. I think that could be a little better. You know, if they dropped a -- dropped a unit or two in there and really worked on lining those things up, I think that that transition would be a little -- a little bit better for the neighbors, a little bit easier to swallow. So, I mean I kind of go back to one of our former commissioners, Ryan, where I also looked at this and where it's at -- I mean this thing is right off of Eagle Road. If this were in Ten Mile and somebody came in with single family over multi-family, we would probably be saying no way. This is where multi-family needs to go. So, the fact that it is single family and the density isn't that high and everybody can swallow that, then, but I'm okay with it, too. So, I'm definitely not somebody that likes to push multi-family and large developments. That said, land is disappearing fast in Meridian. So, there is only so many places you can put that, especially with this kind of access to the freeway. So, I think all of this is going to line up. There are other options that will become viable in the future for cut through -- or not cut through -- to avoid the cut through coming through Woodbridge. So, I think that the -- in all I think I'm on board with pushing it forward. McCarvel: Any other comments or motions? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0024 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of July 15, 2021, with the following modifications: To add the amenities stated in the -- in the app -- the deal -- meeting today and to the design -- or development agreement. To add the five foot setbacks on the homes on the west side of the property and I would like to see the applicant to at least reach out to the Woodbridge Homeowners Association to discuss further actions for the -- before City Council. Grove: And also the concept as shown tonight. Yearsley: Yes. The five foot. McCarvel: And the concept plan dated July 13th -- Yearsley- Oh. Yes. And add the concept plan dated today. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, one other item that was discussed, the additional parking that Commissioner Cassinelli wanted added in the northeast corner to just kind of disperse some parking. The applicant agreed to adding some more into the development. I wasn't sure if any of the other Commissioners wanted that as well. Cassinelli: If I could jump in, just clarify that, it was -- it was more just shifting it to the east. It wasn't what I had mentioned, but if the motion wants to add more parking, but my -- my thought on that was just to shift some of that from the west to the east. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F30 Page 27 of 43 Yearsley: I think for my motion my -- my thought was is they could try to adjust that as best as they see fit, not require. McCarvel: Okay. Grove: Second. McCarvel: Okay. Are we clear on the motion, staff? Okay. It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H-2021-0024, Wells Street Assisted Living and Andorra Subdivision with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for Brightstar Residential Care Facility (H-2021-0040) by Jeff Hatch of Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow a 5,800 square-foot senior residential care facility. McCarvel: Next on the agenda is H-2021-0040, Brightstar Residential Care Facility, and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach Sorry, I'm getting caught up with myself. Okay. This is a conditional use permit to allow a 5,800 square foot nursing and residential care facility in the L-O zoning district. This includes a request for a DA modification to reduce a 20 foot wide required landscape buffer and I will go through that shortly. The site consists of two lots totaling just a little less than half an acre, zoned L-O, located at 30 -- 333 -- well, basically, on Meridian Road across the street from Settlers Park northeast corner of North Meridian and Ustick. Adjacent properties. R-8 is to the north. Single family residential. East and south is L-O -- Yearsley: Before you go, can you put that up on the screen? Tiefenbach: Oh, I'm sorry. My -- my apologies I thought we were there. Did it not come up? All right. I thought I had shared it. My bad. Yearsley: Thank you. Tiefenbach: Thank you for telling me. Okay. Adjacent land use. To the north R-8. Single family residential. East and south is L-O, office and commercial. To the west is Settlers Park. This property is part of the Settlers Business Park. About half of this development has built out. There is these two lots and I believe three more commercial lots left. The future land use map recommends this property for office uses. However, this proposal includes a nursing and residential care facility. It's important to note, though, that this is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F31 Page 28 of 43 zoned L-O and this nursing and residential care facility is a use allowed in that zone district by conditional use, which is why we are in front of you this evening. Here is a picture of the site plan. What's being proposed is at the top quadrant, I guess, at the left. That's what you see in gray. This is part of-- this is a zoom in, so this is part of what's built there now, not all of it. But, again, this is for a 5,800 square foot nursing and residential care facility. It's for 12 residents -- 12 bedrooms, 12 residents, up to two staff. It's surrounded by existing commercial. Most of it's built out. Again, three more lots left. All of the parking and the driveways are already there. Under our code you have to provide .5 space for every bed. This would be required to provide six parking spaces, not including the office for staff, which, again, would be a few extra parking for two. The parking regulation -- the parking -- it doesn't mention the parking requirements for the two staff. However, at the time of the CZC, the applicant will need to give us how big that office is. However, to mention this, the six existing buildings -- so, there is six buildings there now and I added up the square footages of all those buildings, just to guesstimate. All of the parking is shared amongst the whole business center. So, we wanted to make sure there was adequate parking there. I calculated -- guesstimate of about 2,300 square foot total gross area. That's based on the assessor's website. They give you what the square footages are. Based on that there would be 46 parking spaces required. Within this center, I counted at least 160 and 14 of these parking spaces are on the subject's property. We are talking about the parking spaces down here. Three of the lots are still vacant and as I mentioned in the staff report, although it's unknown what is going to develop on those last three lots, if and when those lots develop, they will have to go through a certificate of zoning compliance, but given the amount of developable land there and the 160 parking spaces, staff is reasonably confident that an addition -- that the additional 108 parking spaces that are there would accommodate to the other three commercial buildings. This is a landscape plan and to the north I want you to -- we are going to talk about this. To the north is a landscape buffer that you see here. The landscape buffer shown here is ten feet. The development agreement for this, when this was annexed, requires a 20 foot wide buffer to the north. Usually a reduction in landscape buffer can be done through alternative compliance administratively. However, in this case it's required by the development agreement. So, it's actually something that the City Council will have to approve. The applicant has noted that the Settlers Business Park has responded -- so, the owner of this whole business park. They responded that the original intent of that requirement was to mitigate impacts of commercial type uses to the adjacent residences to the north. The applicant and the business parks position is this is kind of a residential use, because it's an assisted living memory care. In addition to that, there is a fence that's along the northern boundary and even though they are not providing the 20 foot buffer, they are providing almost three times as many trees and, again, a fence, so -- so they believe that the -- the buffer as shown is sufficient. Staff does not have concerns with the reduction in the buffer. I haven't received any -- any other concerns from the neighbors. So, if the Planning Commission were okay with this, it could just literally be something where the Planning Commission would tell the Council they support the Council making a DA amendment just for this particular site to reduce that buffer. Here is a picture of the elevations. Very similar looking residential structures. So, the issues here are three things. A landscape buffer, easement, east-west pedestrian access and lot merger. So, I already talked about the landscape buffer going from 20 feet to ten feet. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F32 Page 29 of 43 The easement -- you couldn't see it here, but I can show you -- there is -- this is a water easement, ten foot, by the city and it just clips this building just a teeny tiny little bit. We have already talked to Public Works. There is no water line there now. Public Works is okay with them vacating and rededicating this easement. It would have to go through City Council. So, that's one of the conditions of approval. Another issue is about east- west pedestrian access and maybe the applicant can describe this a little better, but we are concerned about there is -- there is -- in order to do this memory care, one of the requirements that they have for memory care is you have to have fencing. It's not super clear to staff and it wasn't super clear to staff in the development review meeting, whether there is sufficient unimpeded accent -- accent -- access from the west lot to the east. We wanted to make sure. So, we are just having a condition of approval that at the time of the CZC the applicant will demonstrate that there is sufficient unimpeded access along sidewalks or walkways from the northwest to the southeast. Last issue is a lot merger, which is not much of an issue, but there is two lots. This building straddles those lots. This is something that could be done administratively. So, the applicant would have to merge lots as a condition of approval. With that we recommend approval of this conditional use to allow the nursing and residential care. We recommend that you discuss whether you support the DA mod to allow a reduction to the landscape buffer and if it goes to the Council and the Council does not approve this DA mod, then, the applicant would have to revise the drawings, obviously, to meet that 20 foot buffer. With that that completes my presentation. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Hatch: Good evening. Jeff Hatch with Hatch Design Architecture. Address is 200 West 36th Street, Boise, Idaho. 83714. Good evening, Chair McCarvel and Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of our conditional use permit application this evening. I do have a presentation I'm working on. While Alan is getting that up, I will -- I will just kind of elaborate a little bit. Brightstar Care is a residential business that's here in -- their -- their corporate office for the -- for the people operating this and the other agencies -- we have several different locations around the Treasure Valley. They are all operated out of Boise locally. So, these are local business owners operating a local residential care business here in the valley. So, as Alan had mentioned, this location is in a business park that's adjacent to a neighborhood and we typically like to either place these in kind of in-fill lots in neighborhood communities or in a transition area between a commercial business park and neighborhood. We found that this strategy of having neighbors on -- on one side that are residential and commercial on the southern side, creates a transition between those and a nice buffer between the more commercial use, the more residential use, and that transitional use of the residential care that we are really wanting to achieve. A couple things that make it a little unique, because we really try to design these homes to be just that, dwellings. They have a residential feel, they have a residential look, and the people that live there enjoy that, you know, it's like living in house, because that's the intent and it's a very different model that you see elsewhere and that was presented previously. This is about being able to live and feel comfortable in a space that feels like a home. That's -- that's kind of the -- the key to Brightstar. So, as mentioned by staff, to the east and the south and the west we have part of that business park. The interesting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F33 Page 30 of 43 thing is -- is -- as Alan said, there is a fair amount of parking from our neighborhood meeting there is not enough parking. In many cases in business parks that is a concern we found. The good news is -- and especially in this case, our proposed use is very complementary to that concern, mainly because none of the 12 people that live there drive. So, the only people that are going to be occupying parking spaces on a consistent basis are the two staff members that are there at all times. You will on occasion have an additional couple of nurses and people that come to help on occasion, which really comes to maybe a maximum of four and on occasion on weekends you will have visitation. That visitation has to be staggered due to the age and nature of the occupants. We can't have a half dozen people run around these dwellings. One, it doesn't maintain that residential feel and kind of community that Brightstar wants, but also they can't manage that. So, they have to regulate the amount of vegetation that they have. So, in talking with the neighbors there was some concerns, because directly east of us is a daycare. The daycare has an influx of a fairly extensive amount of parking needs, especially early in the morning and in the afternoon. After hearing our parking dialogue, they seemed very excited that that wasn't going to be an issue. The other consideration is this particular proposed project takes up two lots of this business park. So, not only are we only taking up two parking spaces consistently, it could be two totally different businesses taking up way more parking. So, we feel that the -- the nature of this being kind of nestled up to the neighborhood, but also meeting the needs of the commercial business park is important. Looking at the concept site's plan, we have a range of porches and deck space. Many of these individuals are in walkers or wheelchairs and are mobility impaired and so having that ability to be able to go out onto a porch, go out onto a deck and experience being outside, we also have interior spaces, we have what's called the rocker alley where you can rock and look outside as well -- are important and so part of the -- the joy and excitement we have about this particular location is being next to a daycare, because, especially, you know, a lot of these elderly individuals don't necessarily see their family every day, but being able to hear little kids having a good time and laughing and playing helps them have a more positive experience and more positive outlook on life and on -- on a day-to-day basis and so you feel that being next to that -- that daycare facility, one, will help the individuals living at this community, but also lends itself nicely as a complementary business to that daycare facility. As staff had mentioned, a couple conditions of approval. We are in agreement with everything staff had mentioned. As far as the access path, as not currently shown, that can be easily proposed and adjusted and that's something that we can do through our CZC. We feel very competent in design review. Again, you can see here and the site plan -- there we go. You can see this is where that designated properly-- line is between the two. That's okay. Kind of a blending of the residential style to the north and the -- and the commercial business park. We are keeping it the same language that we have and most of the branding of this community. It's one story, low profile, very residential in nature with the porches. We did go to a stucco, because the business park is predominantly stucco and part of the -- you know, the architectural language of that business park is to do something that -- that ties in. So, we did want to make sure that we were complimentary to that. As far as an example of what these residents look like, this is one that was recently finished. So, we wanted to show you that as kind of a comparison. It is very residential in nature and in some cases, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F34 Page 31 of 43 such as this location, we actually use the word resimercial, because it really is that transition between the two. With that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant or staff? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You show a garage door. Can you show me on your plan where that's supposed to be located and how we are going to access that? Hatch: So -- good question. The garage door is not a garage. The garage door is for servicing and delivery. So, it's predominantly used for storage. It's not -- it's not even deep enough to store a car. Yearsley: Okay. Hatch: So, again, the intent with that is to make it feel like a residential dwelling and look like a residential dwelling and function as a residential care facility. Yearsley: Would you show me on your plan where that's -- Hatch: It would be on the far western side. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have two questions. Number one, without the reduction in that 20 foot landscape buffer down to ten foot will this not work? Hatch: Commissioner Cassinelli, the state has certain requirements on square footages that we have for bedrooms, spaces and also commercial space, dining room areas, and so for the proposed 12 beds, this functions very well. It is a very -- you know, a fairly compact site and land is limited in the City of Meridian and so we talked with, you know, the --the commercial association and they said, well, it's not really intended for residential uses, it's intended for commercial uses, because we don't want to have, you know, commercial businesses within that buffer for the residents. What we found in the past is we typically in-fill these in residential neighborhoods. So, not only are we actively having projects that are in residential neighborhoods, in many cases we do the same thing where they are nestled up next to residences and we feel that working with staff and requesting that the City Council -- that it would be appropriate to reduce this, because we are not Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F35 Page 32 of 43 intending to have any kind of commercial operation. We have people using this as a residential dwelling just --just as the houses to the north. Cassinelli: I guess the square footage that's required -- if you don't have that -- if you don't reduce that down to ten feet, this building will accommodate 12 beds, is that -- Hatch: Yeah. It would reduce it by approximately six or seven beds. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, if I may, another question, Madam Chair. All the buildings there -- I live fairly close, so I'm familiar with this. Park here. They are all kind of a tan or brown color in there. You are showing blue and I know-- I mean the design is -- is a staff issue. But are you going to -- is your intent -- and is there an agreement through -- with the other business there to kind of go in with color schemes or are you looking to be blue and standout in there? Hatch: The current proposed color is blue. I think we are open to suggestions. We wanted to make sure that we had complimentary materials and there are other commercial businesses in that business park that they all kind of tend to be brown, but there are other pad sites in there that may change colors. There is no real color restrictions on that, but if-- if the Commission would like us to go into the browns, I think the owners would be fine making that more complimentary to the area. Cassinelli: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: Out of all the half acre places that you could put your facility, why did you choose this one when it's clearly all commercial? I realize that there was an adjacent subdivision, but what -- what drew you to this particular space? Hatch: Yeah. I think when they were looking at it they got excited about the daycare. They got excited that it was right up to the -- to the residents, so we are kind of tucked in next to them. And it has fairly easy access on -- onto Meridian, just for -- for ease of use of the employee staff. So, I think, you know, looking at, you know, the -- the ability to have an adjacent complimentary neighbor that's going to complement not only the people that live here, but also help assist in the parking needs or the parking demand on that business was beneficial and, then, being able to be that transition between the -- the commercial to the south and the residential to the north, that resimercial concept, was the other thing that we were looking for. We have another conditional use that goes in about three weeks that is almost the verbatim in Boise. You know, north is the residents. South is the commercial. We are kind of tucked up right next to it and a nice little landscape buffered area. This is -- is where we find kind of a nice blending and a very complimentary transition. So, yeah, this would be kind of an ideal location in our mind. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F36 Page 33 of 43 McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Thank you. Baird: Sorry to interject and this is something I probably should have caught before the meeting and talked to Alan, but I do have a question for Alan, if I can ask him about the easement. McCarvel: Go ahead. Baird: Your site specific condition number five about vacating and rededicating the easement that's shown here on the site plan, is the intent just to get rid of the offending portion that invades the building footprint? Tiefenbach: Yes. I mean it's encroaching onto the easement, so he would just have to work with Public Works to erase and rededicate. Baird: Okay. A suggestion -- you don't need to change the condition, but routinely we will see that the engineer will just do a legal description of the part that needs to come out and we have a form for a partial vacation of an easement. That will satisfy the condition. I just wanted to -- Tiefenbach: Would that need to go to Council? Baird: No. It's submitted through the Accella portal. Tiefenbach: As much as it pains me to not have to take this to Council and write a staff report, somehow I think I will manage. Baird: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. McCarvel: That being said, is there anybody in the room or on Zoom who wishes to testify on this application? Come forward. Sullivan: Good evening. I'm Chris Sullivan. My address is 3429 South Osterly Place in Eagle, but I am the owner of the daycare right next door. First of all, I was very much opposed to a big facility. I feel that that's a big facility for that spot. But the proposal came through and they had a meeting of all of the people in there and I was pleasantly surprised, once I got to talk to them, about how willing they were to work with us. Right now currently we have about 200 kids in and out of our building during a week. So, I am concerned about the parking. We have a lot of people in and out and we do preschool classes, so they are not all there at the same time. So, once I spoke to them about that, you now, the fact that that could be two different businesses generating a lot more traffic Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F37 Page 34 of 43 than what they are going to generate, made it a little bit easier for me to swallow and go, gosh, this might be a really good relationship. We walk our kids quite often -- I don't know how many of you are familiar with that area, but kitty corner from us is another nursing home on the other side of Ustick and Meridian and we walk our kids over there to visit and to sing Christmas songs and take Valentines and so the idea of having a care facility right there really does appeal to us as much as it feels to them. It always makes me laugh when they say, oh, it will be great to hear the kids laughing and talking and I said so what about when they are not laughing and talking, how is that going to work, because there is a lot of that in childcare and I was reassured that that is exactly what their staff is there for, you know, when things are -- if they are out on the patio and they start hearing a child crying or throwing a fit outside, then, they know to intervene and direct them back into the building and kind of, you know, figure that one out. So, I'm encouraged with this. I just wanted to speak up, because I kept hearing the preschool and the daycare and the only reason I came is I wanted to make sure that what we had been told a month or so ago is really what was being proposed, because I do think it would be a fairly good relationship and the parking in that facility is crazy. It just is. Since I think the original plan there, Dave Evans has already started, there is a lot directly across from the preschool and I went out there, being the nosy neighbor that I am, and said so what's planned for here and they are like, oh, it's going to be another office building. Do you know who that's going to be? No. We are just going to build it and, hopefully, they will come. The other one is that there is physical therapists that built down by the dentist. So, we are all kind of, you know, low office buildings, but I -- I think that their proposal would go well in there. So, that's just what I wanted to add. Do you guys have any questions for me? Cassinelli: Do you care about the color? Sullivan: I wanted blue when I started and I was told I couldn't, but, no, I don't -- I don't think it really matters. McCarvel: Okay. Does the applicant have any other comments? Hatch: Yeah. I would -- I would just add -- and, Chris, thanks for coming. In the neighborhood meeting, the -- the owner actually -- actually got on to answer those questions about the operation. They wanted to personally be able to say, you know, this is how we would handle those situations and this is why we are excited about being at this location and so, you know, you can build residential in a lot of different ways, but the intent of Brightstar is to make sure that this is part of the community and that every one of these has a residential feel. McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F38 Page 35 of 43 Cassinelli: I know there was no -- there weren't any comments or anything from the neighbors directly to the north. Did you have a neighborhood meeting with them at all and did you get any comments from -- how many homes? It looks like -- are there two lots or three lots there on the north side? Hatch: There is approximately three lots, which you can see on the site plan, that would have dwellings adjacent to us. They were noticed for our neighborhood meeting. We had a -- the gentleman directly south to us come on and we did have a couple neighbors just kind of hop on briefly, but no real comments. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. With that being said, can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0040. Lorcher: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0040. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: Madam Chair, I will start. McCarvel: Great. Thanks, Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: When I first was looking at the map I was very confused of why someone would want to build a residential area among the asphalt of office buildings and, you know, looked at the proposal before we came tonight, but I went on the internet a little bit as presentations were being made to see how that facility looks and works and considering there is an assisted living facility literally less than a half a mile away across the street, it seems that these types of facilities are kind of popping up where you can put them and this community type of living seems to be in favor, especially with older adults. My -- my own mother is in a community, but it's a high rise type community and I think if you can sell it and they will come, then, more power to you. The daycare -- the adjacency of the other businesses don't really concern me. I would -- maybe your residents --they wouldn't come there if they didn't like it, so -- and with only 12 it's a pretty limited space to offer residency, but if your back decking and your community and it was something that would be a benefit to these seniors and it can work. I'm in favor for it. McCarvel: Thank you. Commissioner Grove. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F39 Page 36 of 43 Grove: Madam Chair. I would just like to say having the two facilities close to each other, something that I -- I really like young children in daycare and having them be able to go to one of these facilities that's close to their care facility is a big benefit to the children being able to go, you know, do the Christmas carols and things like that, but having the -- watching the faces of people living in one of those places just light up when those kids are around is -- is something that, you know, I'm happy to go with the kids and -- and see every year. So, I think this -- this fits and I don't see any issues with the application. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I like the blue. Cassinelli: It's not that I don't like the bluish -- Yearsley: I have to admit I'm grateful that you came out to show your support for this project, because it -- you know, one of the things that for me that I look at is, you know, for projects like this is their -- you know -- you know, what effect is it to the surrounding community and to have you come up and say that I really appreciate you stopping by for that and I think it's a good project. I think it's a good fit. I think it will help with the usage, especially with the parking. I have to admit I'm not too concerned about losing the ten feet on the buffer. So, I would be in support of this project. McCarvel: Any other comments or motions? I guess I would -- I'm in agreement with what's recently been said here by Commissioner Grove and Commissioner Yearsley and Commissioner Lorcher. I think it's a good fit for all the above reasons, so -- Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: First I would like to thank the applicant for covering parking enough that Commissioner Cassinelli just didn't have it in on it. Cassinelli: I got nothing on that. Seal: After that -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0040 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 15th, 2021, with no modifications. Grove: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F40 Page 37 of 43 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file H-2021-0040. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing for WRRF Map Amendment (H-2021-0041) by City of Meridian, Located Approximately '/4 Mile South of W. McMillan Rd., Midway Between N. Black Cat Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Mixed-Use Non-Residential on 40.9 acres of land to Medium-Density Residential and 39.8 acres to Industrial, based on the results of the most recent Odor Study. McCarvel: Next we have H-2021-0041, the WRRF Map Amendment and we will -- boy, do we have staff here tonight. Boy. We will start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. It has been a while, so it's my pleasure to be back before you presenting on WRRF, our Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility out near Ten Mile and Ustick, as you can see on the first slide. Before I get into the presentation too much I do want to thank Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, who is out right now, but they helped draft the staff report and work with us, but I have been working with Public Works over the past couple of months on this application, but they have done a lot of the heavy lifting to get the items you see in your packet. So, thank you to staff for that help. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this is near our wastewater treatment plant is yet another way -- it's -- it has several names that we refer to it as, but it's where our wastewater is treated out near, again, the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Ustick. This -- earlier this year the city did purchase an additional 40 acres, just north and I don't know if you can see my cursor or not -- just north of the existing facility and that prompted Public Works to, again, start talking with Planning staff about a change to the future land use map. What you see on the top of this exhibit is the current designation on our Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The designation of that 40 acres and several of the properties, actually, around the wastewater treatment plant is designated mixed use nonresidential. So, as you would anticipate in the name, it doesn't allow anyone to live in those areas and I will let Laurelei McVey, who is in Public Works, speak to you a little bit about this more. She has a couple slide presentation. But they recently completed an odor study and based on that study Planning staff is recommending some changes to our future land use map that would allow some of that area to be opened up to residential uses in the future, again, because the odor, the nuisance, essentially, isn't there or it's there very very minimally throughout the year and, again, I will let her get into some of those statistics. In the application what Public Works applied for -- and it is partially my fault I feel. I think, eventually, a lot of what the city owns will be zoned industrial, their application was actually to change it from mixed use nonresidential to industrial. After we talked about it a little bit more internally what staff recommends you approve this evening -- or recommend to Council approval is actually a civic designation. That matches and it is truly the intent of our Public Works Department is to keep this civic Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F41 Page 38 of 43 in city hands for what is green, at least the lower two-thirds of the 40 acres that Public Works owns. We have collaborated with Brighton, who is working on a project called Quartet just to the west and they wanted to come alongside or we asked them if they were interested in coming alongside this application to also help us protect some of that area that they currently own and, then, open up some of what they could develop further with residential kind of shown in the yellow. So, medium density residential for the northern roughly a third of the -- of the properties and, then, civic on the southern part. There is another request to this application. I think I'm going to pause, though, before get into some of the administrative or cleanup things that we were asking you to recommend approval to the City Council of tonight and let Laurelei do her presentation on the odor study and maybe answer any other questions you have regarding this part before I jump into that. McVey: So, good evening, Madam Chair and Members of the Commission. My name is Laurelei McVey and I'm the deputy director for the City of Meridian Public Works Department. Our address is 3401 North Ten Mile Road. I wanted to give you a brief update on the city's recent odor study and answer any questions that you might have about that and the proposed land use designations. So, as Caleb mentioned, we are looking to change a portion of the proposed area from mixed use nonresident residential to civic and a portion to medium density residential. As Caleb mentioned, we have also been working with Brighton and they are in support of this for the non-city-owned parcels that are impacted by this. So, the proposed land changes will allow the city to continue to have adequate nonresidential buffer zone around the wastewater facility, but it doesn't over restrict future land use where it's not warranted based on the study -- the odor study results. We did hold a neighborhood meeting on July 30 and 13 attendees attended that, as well as one property owner contacted me by phone. Most property owners were okay with the changes. A couple of the things they wanted to ensure, though, was whatever future development occurred at the WRRF that their properties were buffered from any of our activities and, then, the other concern that they shared was ensuring that high density housing or apartments were not considered for the residential areas, due to access and traffic through the surrounding neighborhoods. We made sure to let them know that this change was only the future land use designation and that any development, annexation, or rezoning of these parcels would be noticed and their participation would be solicited in that. So, as far as our odor study, so what an odor study is -- it is a scientifically based study that uses several variables, including odor sampling at the facility and, then, it also looks at local wind and temperature data. So, when those are combined in an EPA approved model, they predict worst case odor conditions. It's important to remember that this predicts total odor, not just good or bad odor and as you can imagine odor is very subjective, but what this study will do is will show you where the highest total odor is, where that odor is expected to go and how frequently that odor is expected to go there. So, a couple of things are important to note. The last odor study was completed in 2004, but what's also important is that that odor study didn't set the land use designations around the WRRF. Those were set in 2002 prior to that study. A couple of other additional important things is the original 2004 odor study only used best known industry values. For this odor study, we took 43 actual samples in the field and at the wastewater plant to give us the best data possible and, then, since 2004 the city has also installed significant Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F42 Page 39 of 43 odor control upgrades at the facility, which has greatly reduced odors and one of the really cool things for us was at the neighborhood meeting, the neighbors echoed that odors have significantly reduced over the years and how rarely they actually see odors anymore. So, that was exciting for us to see that our odor control investments have made an impact and are doing what we expect them to do. So, when looking at an odor study values are shown as the number of hours in a year that an odor could be detected above background conditions. So, we converted those into percentages, because it's a little bit easier to visualize and as we look at this it's important to note that this is total odor, not bad odor, and it's worst case conditions, but two percent is equivalent to about eight days per year that an odor could potentially be detected. So, today we generally allow residential development in the two to three percent zone with very little complaints. As evidence, the wastewater plant has only received four potential odor complaints in the last five years in total. So, the city is also -- sorry. The city is also currently installing several more odor control upgrades in the next few years, which will pull our odor profile in by another 67 percent. So, this is what our odor map will look like once those upgrades are complete. One thing we also did, though, is we wanted to model full -- conditions at full plant build out, so that we didn't make decisions today that could potentially have negative long term impacts. So, at full facility build out, which is estimated to occur in 2074, and with additional planned odor controls at the facility, we can pull those odor rings in even further and have really little impact on any of the surrounding areas outside of the wastewater plant property, which is really what our ultimate goal is. So, in summary, based on the findings from our recent odor study, we feel the proposed land changes will still retain enough future buffer space for the wastewater plant, but not over restrict additional development in the area in the future. So, with that, I appreciate your consideration and stand for any questions. McCarvel: Have any questions for staff or staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: What are potential plans for this civic? Is that going to be park space or -- I guess to the north of the -- of the treatment plant. McVey: Great question. So, we don't currently have any plans, but what we intend is that that area would be used for either future wastewater process equipment. So, two things kind of change why we need to expand the wastewater plant. Growth. So, the volume of wastewater received -- we receive and, then, also regulations. So, if EPA or DEQ came with future regulations that required more equipment, we would potentially use that land for future plant equipment, but primarily our goal right now is just to retain that open buffer space, knowing that we don't want anything too close to our facility. Cassinelli: Another question if I may on the odor. You said it was subjective that odor is bad. Can you find me somebody that thinks that wastewater would be a good odor? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F43 Page 40 of 43 McVey: That's another good question. I do have a -- kind of a good example for that. So, in our wastewater process at the very beginning of our plant it's a very raw sulfur type odor and most people tend to find that the most offensive. One of the things we did is we covered our headworks building, which is where all of that very raw wastewater comes in and that has been the most significant reduction. As you go further into the process other people have described it as earthy smell, which is generally less offensive. So, you know, kind of interesting for sure when you talk about perception, but, generally, the worst of our odors is in the very beginning, which is now all covered. Cassinelli: That's all under cover? McVey: Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Seal: I was just -- Madam Chair, I was just going to add that I live directly southwest of this and -- and have been there for about a decade and I can tell you that it -- we rarely, if ever, get any smell in that area. Obviously, it's one of the areas that was low in those rings, but we tend to smell the sugar beet factory at least once a month, so -- so far so good. McCarvel: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Not really a question, but just wanted to congratulate you on the work you have done out there. I was lucky enough to get a tour with Leadership Meridian earlier this year and that--that first step, like --you are like, oh, okay, that's a little rough. But outside of that, like, I don't know, 50 foot radius, it's really not that bad anywhere, like further into the site and they have done an amazing job at really reducing some of those odors and -- and making some major advances in how they have done things and it's -- if you haven't been out there it's rather impressive. They have like a hundred structures out there and so it's quite intense in what they do and how they do it. So, appreciate the work that you have done. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I have got -- there is storage units just to the -- I guess to the east here and I have a storage area in there and I have never -- I have never smelled it. Not the earthy smell or the sulfur. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, I'm guessing we don't have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, that's correct. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F44 Page 41 of 43 McCarvel: And just on the outside chance is there anyone in the room who would like to testify on this application? Great. Hood: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Okay. Oh. Caleb. Hood: I don't know if Mr. Wardle wants to -- wants to testify. You do have a letter from Brighton in the packet as we both alluded to in our presentation supporting the sub -- subject application. I did just have -- like I said, it's kind of a two part application. That's the big one that we just went through. There are a couple of administrative changes that I just wanted to call their attention -- McCarvel: Oh. Sorry. Hood: -- real quick before you move any further. And, again, these are pretty much administrative changes. There are seven or eight of them. For example, is Keith Bird Legacy Park today still has a halo around that park. That park exists. So, it's not a future park, it's an existing park. We have a couple of those. Discovery Park exists. So, some clean-ups like that where schools have come online in the past couple of years and we just want it to be accurate on our future land use map that those aren't planned, that they actually are on the ground. So, again, pretty -- you know, very administrative or clean-up in nature. No substantive changes there. But there are a handful of those changes to the map itself, too, that we saw the opportunity to piggyback on what Public Works was doing and make some additional changes and, then, the one other on the face of the future land use map, that note that is slightly tweaked with the addition of that one line in green that you see in the middle of the screen here. That just basically says that those -- you know, the halos are general locations and they may need to be changed periodically. So, we thought that might help clarify for the public. So, with that I would stand for any questions you have on either of the administrative changes or, again, back to the Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility map amendment. McCarvel: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0041? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0041. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F45 Page 42 of 43 McCarvel: I'm not seeing any real issues with this and it's great that -- yeah, cleaning up some of the land use options that are available now that maybe weren't even ten years ago. Lorcher: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Go ahead. McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I think the only strange thing that was going to happen -- and it may not happen in our lifetime -- but, you know, as the community needs to grow, especially with Brighton -- I think has plans from Ustick to McMillan all the way up and down Black Cat, the community is going to wonder why did we put a wastewater treatment in the middle of subdivisions. You know what I mean? I mean it's -- it's going to be in the middle of town. Whereas when they started it was in the middle of nowhere. So, that's just an observation. McCarvel: It's there and we can't move it. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I'm going to make a motion if -- McCarvel: Absolutely. Cassinelli: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file H-2021-0041 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 15th, 2021. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to --are we recommending or-- sorry. Move approval of WRRF Map Amendment, H-2021-0041. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move we adjourn. Yearsley: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F46 Page 43 of 43 McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:17 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 8 112 2021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 3 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the July 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 1,2021 F44 Page 41 of 41 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:03 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 7 1 15 12021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 2. 45 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for DaVinci Park Drive-Through (H-2021- 0037) by NeuDesign Architecture, Located at 4744 N. Park Crossing Ave. Item 2. F46 CITY OF MERIDIAN w IDIAN;_-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Establishment for a Coffee Kiosk within Three-Hundred Feet(300')of an Existing Residence and Residential Zoning District on 1.19-Acres of Land in the C-N Zoning District,Located at 4744 N.Park Crossing Ave., by NeuDesign Architecture. Case No(s).H-2021-0037 For the Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. July 1,2021 (Findings on July 15,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 1, 2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 1, 2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 1, 2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 1,2021,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. It-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). DAVINCI PARK DRIVE-THROUGH CUP H-2021-0037 Page 1 Item 2. 47 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 July 1,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of July 1,2021, 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 July 1,2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). DAVINCI PARK DRIVE-THROUGH CUP H-2021-0037 Page 2 Item 2. 48 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 15th day of July ,2021. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER NATE WHEELER VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman 7-15-2021 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 7-15-2021 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: 7-15-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). DAVINCI PARK DRIVE-THROUGH CUP H-2021-0037 Page 3 Item 2. ■ EXHIBIT A C� E IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT f D A H 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 7/1/2021 Legend DATE: 0 ��Pr�+ct Lflcfl�ian TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ------ -- FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner W 208-884-5533 E�1G4C1G11LL:11N° -- SUBJECT: H-2021-0037 DaVinci Park Drive-Through—CUP U LOCATION: 4744 N. Park Crossing Ave. (Lot 11, Block 3,Da Vinci Park Subdivision), in the NE '/4 of Section 31,Township 4N., Range 1E. -- -- - LA I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit(CUP) for a drive-through establishment for a coffee kiosk within 300-feet of an existing residence and residential district on 1.19-acres of land in the C-N zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.19-acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Neighborhood(MU-N) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant(coffee shop)with a drive-through Current Zoning Neighborhood Business District(C-N) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards, flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 5/4/21;no attendees other than the Applicant attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-06-041 (DA#107005526,Harpe Sub.);PP-06-042 (Harpe Sub.—expired);RZ-13-016;PP-13-036(DaVinci Park);MDA-14-002(DA#114034781);FP-14-013 Page 1 1 1 1 ■ IIr � +r: _ HIM _ 1111111111■J ti �N1�i11iI1M�l � II i! ■1■Ii� 1 111 11 NII� N■ ■11 dNINON M 111111 C # 5 11 11 IIIlfiiiii NO I>•s MIs F.sa■ �s I>•s �s ss ��I111M '.ss■ ���II11If��� '.=-a "!�� �INIIII �I �I '`l��11 IINIIII �I NI C � Item 2. F5_1 EXHIBIT A C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 6/11/2021 Radius notification mailed to 6/8/2021 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 6/9/2021 Next Door posting 6/8/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed drive-through is for a 620 square foot coffee shop (classified as a restaurant)within 300-feet of an existing residence and residential district,which requires Conditional Use Permit approval(CUP)per UDC Table 11-2B-2 and 11-4-3-1 IA.1. The proposed development plan is in substantial conformance with the provisions in the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #114034781) and with the approved conceptual development plan included in the agreement. 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; The width of the area proposed for the one-way drive aisle for access to the northern row of parking and stacking lane for the drive-through is too narrow to accommodate both travel lanes—vehicles in the stacking lane will encroach into the drive aisle. Staff recommends the northern row ofparking is removed and a planter island is added to guide traffic to avoid conflicts. 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 designated employee parking. The stacking lane and escape lane should be clearly delineated. The northern row ofparking adjacent to the stacking lane should be removed. 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. Page 3 Item 2. F52] EXHIBIT A 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is proposed that should be signed accordingly. 5)The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is visible from E. McMillan Rd. and N. Park Crossing Ln.,public streets along the north and west boundaries of the site,for surveillance purposes. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through in compliance with the specific use standards as required if the recommended revisions to the site plan are made. The proposed restaurant is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 Restaurant, which requires at a minimum, one (1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space, a detailed parking plan is required to be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with UDC standards. Hours of Operation: The hours of operation are restricted to 6:00 am to 10:00 pm in the C-N zoning district per UDC 11-2B-3B. The proposed hours of operation are 6:00 to 10:00 pm in accord with this standard. Dimensional Standards: Future development should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Access: A full-access driveway exists to this site from the west via N. Park Crossing Ln. and a right- out only driveway exists to N. Locust Grove Rd. on the east side of the lot. Direct access via E. McMillan Rd. is prohibited. Parking: A minimum of one(1)parking space is required to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area for restaurant uses. The restaurant space is proposed to consist of 620 square feet; therefore, a minimum of two(2) spaces are required for the restaurant(i.e. coffee shop). A total of 42 spaces exist and/or are proposed between the proposed use and the existing 9,500 square foot retail building on the east side of the site. The minimum number of parking spaces required for the retail use is 19 based on one space per 500 s.f. of gross floor area. The proposed number of spaces exceeds UDC standards by 21 spaces. However,with removal of the northern row of parking adjacent to the vehicle stacking lane for the drive-through,there will be 5 fewer spaces. Staff believes the remaining number of spaces is still sufficient to serve the use(s). A minimum one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A bicycle rack exists on the eastern portion of the site by the retail building. A bicycle rack should also be provided with the proposed use,capable of holding a minimum of one bicycle. Pedestrian Walkways: A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of 5-feet in width is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance per UDC 11-3A-19B.4.The pathway should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete, or bricks.The walkway should have weather protection within 20' of all customer entrances. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping is required within all planter islands within the parking area as Page 4 Item 2. F53 EXHIBIT A required. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard. There is an existing street buffer and sidewalk along E. McMillan Rd. and N. Locust Grove Rd.that was installed with the subdivision improvements. 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 I1-3A-12. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VII.0 that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of hardiplank cement lap siding, accoya wood siding and glazing. Per the Development Agreement,some of the same design elements are required to be incorporated in the commercial portion of the development as in the residential portion. The proposed elevations are not approved with this application; final design shall be consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure consistency with the conditions in Section VH,UDC standards and design standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on July 1,2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Marla Carson,NeuDesign Architecture b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: Marla Carson,NeuDesign Architecture e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. The Applicant requests approval to retain the(5)northern parking spaces for employee asking. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The Commission was not in favor of the Applicant's request to retain the(51 northern parking spaces—parallel parkin for or employee use may be considered if meeting UDC standards. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Modification to condition#2f to allow parallel parking to be provided for employ_ ee parking if meeting UDC standards. Page 5 Item 2. F54] EXHIBIT A Page 6 Item 2. F5-51EXHIBIT A VII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 11/20/2021) -d - neu'design E.MCMILLIAN P.D- --- ------ \•``fl'e m j d Y x LL z -� > a Aa m C LL �S (7 o o o y' a i o 0 -- N1E PL4N-NEW l -- WE PLAN Page 7 Item 2. F56] EXHIBIT A B. Proposed Landscape Plan(dated: 4/14/2021) :` uw...•, ne design .r E.MC I'd ILLIAN RD. z f \ - B m i Y _ _ Y f a z z ° a Z3 ad > � * m �a SCOPE OF WORK C7 3 V V m m 0 ..�.d..�.�..�...,, % .J suuoscwveauu-uew T SITE ' - LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 8 Item 2. F57 EXHIBIT A C. Conceptual Building Elevations(dated: 4/14/21) /'� ......�. cat esian F77y-..-.. EASE E[EYAP�N NORSH ELEVAPON Y � NY fl&❑� W Lg n � 0 nS Q 5 fl O �§ ----------- - SOURI REVAPDN W6'REVAPOf3 EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-211 Page 9 Item 2. EXHIBIT A 58 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of the existing Development Agreement [Inst. #107005526(AZ-06-041 Harpe Sub.), amended as Inst. #114034781 (MDA-13-021,MDA-14-002 DaVinci Park); PP-13-036 (DaVinci Park); FP-14-013] and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. The stacking lane, menu and speaker location(s),and window location shall be depicted in accord with UDC 11-4-3-IIB. b. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. c. A bicycle rack shall be provided on the site capable of holding a minimum of one bicycle;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. d. Depict a continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of 5-feet in width from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance per UDC 11-3A-19B.4. The pathway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,or bricks and shall have weather protection within 20' of all customer entrances. e. Depict landscaping within all planter islands within the parking area in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. The planting area shall not be less than 5-feet in any dimension,measured inside curbs as set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C.2a. £ Remove the northern row of parking adjacent to the stacking lane and install signage for the escape lane. Depict a planter island along the northern side of the remaining row of parking to guide traffic, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-8C.Parallel parking may be considered in this area as an alternative. g. Clearly delineate the vehicle stacking lane for the drive-through and the escape lane. 3. Direct access via E.McMillan Rd. is prohibited. 4. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 — Drive-Through Establishment is required. 5. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49—Restaurant is required. 6. Parking for the overall site shall be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-49 for restaurants. 7. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19; the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement requires some of the same design elements to be incorporated in the commercial portion of the development as in the residential portion. Page 10 Item 2. EXHIBIT A 59 8. 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) Staff Report: https:llweblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=230160&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)is not required for this project. C. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orkIWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=230615&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-513-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: I. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-Nzoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed restaurant(coffee shop)with a drive-through will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Page I I Item 2. ElEXHIBIT A 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 12 Item 3. 61 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Orchard Park Pad C Drive-Through (H-2021-0039) by Mandi Brozo of CSHQA, Located at 1245 W. Chinden Blvd. Item 3. F62 CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN .,.. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW �` AND IDAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a dual drive-through for a multi-tenant establishment within 300-feet of an existing drive-through on 1.47 acres of land in the C-C zoning district for Orchard Park Pad C Drive-Through,by Mandie Brozo,CSHQA. Case No(s).H-2021-0039 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: July 1,2021 (Findings on July 15,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 1, 2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 1,2021,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 1,2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 1,2021, 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).Orchard Park Pad C Drive-through(H-2021-0039) Page 1 Item 3. F 3 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of July 1, 2021,incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of July 1,2021,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 11-513-617.1. 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 11-513-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521,any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of July 1, 2021. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).Orchard Park Pad C Drive-through(H-2021-0039) Page 2 Item 3. 64 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 15th day of July ,2021. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER NATE WHEELER VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman 7-15-2021 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: 7-15-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).Orchard Park Pad C Drive-through(H-2021-0039) Page 3 Item 3. EXHIBIT A E STAFF REPORT REPORT a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 7/1/2021 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0039 EB a Orchard Park Pad C Drive-Through— ® 5��' LIJ � CUP LOCATION: The site is located at 1245 W. Chinden Boulevard, approximately '/4 mile east of Linder Road(Lot 8,Block 1,Linder ��� Village Subdivision),in the NW '/4 of the ® NW '/4 of Section 25, Township 4N., Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit for a dual drive-through for a multi-tenant establishment within 300-feet of an existing drive-through on 1.47 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.47 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Community Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-tenant building with two crossing drive- throughs Current Zoning Community Business District(C-C) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards, flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;# May 3, 2021;2 attendees of attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2017-0088 (AZ, CPAM,PP,VAR); FP-2020-0004; and H-2021-0034(MDA, currently in process) Page 1 ■ AMA ' CHI • EN —�� CHI N nuns IY nun �i 1 1� _ q■o■ '��`"` irr'• 0RZ, in Ilr 1■�l�1 H��i■■■■■1■q■n■n■p■■■■■� ■ A `,� J 111, tA� r: a oil p-IIIIIInI■n 1 %` ■■111■■Ild — . ♦ - " nnwnn d I o �♦�♦ ♦♦� � /g11111■II 11111111..y ■ loon q V ♦i O ♦� �i ■ loin■■-m ♦ ` ,�. fir■ �� ■I�1■ �r�N�!I11�1'� ® Homo r�� � � Y rlum■ ��,�1L --�i�' __- nun ♦/i Il! 1 _ �rnr � nun �►i 1� I� �� -q■■ --: � IIr 1■ i:�����:■■■■■1■■■■■'■■inn■■■■■ ■- 1� IIr Ili n�'Ja�=■■■■■■■ou■nuu■■■1: ■in 1 i *� ■ IIIIn�J�'�■11111■1■■ ■■■■■ - • M ■111■11111■p ���ulnnnn■■1■■■■■ ■ ■ ,nn1 - -■nnmm� inn • : 1 •nnml -■nnnnm in n n 1�� r: a n�� IIIIIu■I■n 1 � r� Ium nla� � p-IIIIIu■a■i■ 111 11 rr ♦♦ gxxnln- I O - �� lii d♦ /N gnnnll Im �� ♦ ♦ ♦�" �� qmn na� 11111111:�-� �i�y �+� /qmn m� i■ 11111111:�-� �i♦�♦��� ■inn n . ,■■m nSEINEson ■ loll■■r -- V �♦♦♦♦i�i� � ■ loll■■��i • V �♦i♦♦♦G♦♦i • • C • • • 11 C •.• C• 1 C • item s. EXHIBIT A 67 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 6/11/2021 Radius notification mailed to 6/8/2021 properties within 500 feet Site Posting Date 6/18/2021 Next Door posting 6/8/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed drive-through is for dual drive-throughs serving a multi-tenant building(three tenants) that is proposed as approximately 5,600 square feet. The submitted site plan shows both the northern most and the southernmost tenants as those utilizing a drive-through with the central tenant being a standard commercial tenant. These drive-throughs are within 300-feet of a separate multi-tenant building and drive-through to the west of this site and across the adjacent drive aisle. In addition, a nearly identical building as the one proposed in this application has already been approved at the administrative level via Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review(DES) and is located to the east of this site. These buildings and drive-throughs are also within 300 feet of one another and share a portion of its parking facilities between the two buildings. Therefore, Conditional Use Permit approval(CUP)per UDC Table 11-2B-2 is required due to its proximity to the other drive-throughs. Furthermore,this use is also subject to specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-11,which are further analyzed below. The submitted site plan shows a rectangular building situated to the west portion of the buildable site area and is proposed with 36 new parking spaces—the shared parking area between the two multi- tenant buildings will have at least 74 parking spaces; code requires a minimum of 44 spaces. The site plan shows two two-way drive aisles to the east of the building with parking adjacent to both drive aisles. These drive aisles connect to the east-west drive aisle closest to Chinden Boulevard that is the entrance to the proposed drive-throughs.Because the drive-throughs serve two separate tenants,the traffic patterns for each cross over one another midway through the site along the west side of the building. The Applicant provided a circulation plan that shows the intended traffic patterns and Staff agrees with the proposal but with some minor recommended revisions. The submitted plan shows Tenant "A,"the north tenant, as utilizing the yellow path which includes the southern drive-through at the north side of the building. Once a customer orders along the north side of the building they continue to the west side of the building and pick-up their order. They then stop at the determined drive- through crossing and go from being the inside lane to the outside lane to exit the drive-through at the south end of the site.After this crossing point,the yellow lane(the outside lane)becomes the escape lane which is required for the length of the drive-through lanes. Tenant`B"utilizes the blue path according to the submitted site/circulation plan and essentially follows the opposite path of Tenant A. For Tenant B,the entrance along the north side of the building is the stacking lane and order position. Once customers for this tenant order and then stack at the determined crossing point,they would cross Page 3 item s. EXHIBIT A 68 from the outside lane to the inside lane to pick-up their order. After pick-up, customers would continue south to turn east around the south side of the building and exit the drive-through. The proposed drive-through design is uncommon and complex with the added crossing point. Staff finds that with adequate signage and striping the proposed drive-through can work. Therefore, Staff is recommending not only striping on the pavement but also signage at the entrances and along the drive-through lanes to ensure customers know which business they are in line for. The proposed signage and striping should be submitted with the future CZC and DES applications for the building should it receive CUP approval for the drive-throughs. In addition,the north half of the proposed drive-throughs show a curbing of some kind that separates the two lanes. Staff understands the purpose of this but finds that a portion of it should be removed to allow for customers to use the outside lane as an escape lane earlier in the drive-through. See area noted below in red: ..... ...... ............. ............. .......... ............ G PAD C 250 -� 5,600 S_F_ ! O 8 PARKING 39 STALLS �m z ' O - C I11INII IIIIIIII I11VIIIII4 5 ---- -- ---- 21 T>:. => D S 5 The subject site is located within the Mixed-use Community(MU-C)future land use which contemplates a multitude of uses—residential, commercial, and otherwise. Due to the size of the site, this singular site cannot be expected to contain three distinct uses as discussed within the mixed-use sections of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Instead,those uses within the nearby radius should also be contemplated for compliance with this future land use. Staff finds the proposed use and the surrounding uses within the Orchard Park Development,both existing and planned, comply with the MU-C future land use designation. 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: In general,Staff supports the proposed site design;Staff s analysis of the specific use standards and any recommendations are in italics. Page 4 item s. EXHIBIT A El 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles and the public right-of-way by patrons; Per the submitted site plan, no public right-of-way has direct access to the site so there is no possibility for stacking to impede public ROW. The stacking lanes for each drive-through vary in length but both entrances are at the north end of the site and begin at the west end of the northernmost east-west drive aisle. Based on an exhibit(Exhibit VII.Q provided by the Applicant, the two ordering locations appear to be approximately 65 feet into the drive-through lanes. This should allow for 3-4 cars stacking prior to getting to the menu boards; if more cars stack in either lane, they will impede the east-west drive aisle along the north boundary of the site. Staff does not foresee the proposed businesses requiring extended stacking lanes like that of a Dutch Bros. or other solitary coffee shop. However, Staff recommends moving the menu boards further into the drive-through lanes to help alleviate the potential of this conflict. The north drive- through can move the menu board and order speaker at least 10 feet to the west with no foreseeable issues. The internal drive-through lane does not have as much room but should be able to move them at least 5 feet further west; any additional distance is a benefit. Furthermore, there are multiple drive aisles that run north-south within the site and patrons would have multiple avenues of ingress and egress for the site especially when taking into account the only avenues to exit the site are to the south so there should not be much desire or need for patrons to exit the site by going north. Again, Staff does not foresee stacking for the proposed businesses being an existential crisis but understands the concern and has thus made minor recommendations to help with the potential problem.At a minimum, Staff is recommending the distance from the start of the drive-through to the order speakers shall be no less than 65 feet to ensure at least this distance is maintained. 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 lanes for each drive-through are separate from the circulation lanes for at least 65 feet from the menu boards to the adjacent drive aisle. Staff finds this shows compliance with this requirement. 3)The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100)feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane for at least one of the proposed drive-through lanes appears to be greater than 100 feet in length. As noted, Staff is unaware of where the ordering location is on the submitted site plan but it appears to be along the north end of the site for both lanes. With this assumption, the stacking lane for the overall drive-through is long enough to require an escape lane.As discussed previously, the outside lane is the escape lane following the crossing point of the two drive-throughs. Stafffinds the proposed escape lane layout complies with this requirement. To ensure that the outside lane can be better utilized as an escape lane earlier in the drive-through process, Staff is recommending a section of curbing shown on the site plan at the north half of the site is removed(see exhibit above in previous section). 5)The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The proposed drive-throughs are located along the north, west, and south sides of the proposed Page 5 item s. EXHIBIT A El building. With Chinden Boulevard and a multi-use pathway abutting the site along the north boundary, Staff finds the location of the drive-throughs are in appropriate locations for surveillance. In addition, the drive aisle abutting the drive-through to the west is intended to be one of the main commercial entrances to the overall Orchard Park Development which should offer additional surveillance opportunities. Meridian Police have also reviewed the site plan for compliance with this standard and have not brought any concerns to Staff. Staffs specific recommendations can be found in Section VIII.A2 &A3. The proposed use of a Restaurant is subject to an additional specific use standard listed in UDC 11-4- 3-49 and notes that the minimum amount of parking shall be one(1) space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area.Based on the proposed building size of 5,600 square feet noted on the submitted site plan, a minimum of 22 parking spaces are required. The proposed site plan shows 36 parking spaces, exceeding UDC minimums. In addition, this building shares a larger parking area with an identical building to the east with an overall parking count of 74 spaces between the two sites, exceeding the minimum amount required by code by 30 spaces.At the time of the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application, the data table on the site plan should be corrected to reflect the correct minimum standards of a restaurant use instead of the general commercial ratio. Access: Access to the site is shown via multiple parking drive aisles along the south boundary of the site;these connect to a drive aisle that circumnavigates through the entire Orchard Park Development. Abutting the site to the west but with no direct lot access is a restricted entrance from Chinden Boulevard. In short,there are multiple access points to the subject site from Chinden,Linder, and other nearby public roads to the south and east. Staff does not find any issues with the proposed and existing access points in relation to the subject application. Parking: A minimum of one(1)parking space is required to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area for the proposed restaurant use. The proposed building is shown as 5,600 square feet requiring a minimum of 22 parking spaces; the submitted site plan shows 36 proposed parking spaces in addition to other shared parking spaces to the east, exceeding UDC minimums.All proposed drive aisles and parking spaces also meet the required dimensional standards. The existing Development Agreement requires cross-access through all of the commercial parcels within the Orchard Park Development. Due to all of the shared drive aisles and parking areas, Staff does not have concerns with the Applicant complying with the existing requirement. 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 (noted as callout number 14 on the site plan). Pedestrian Walkways: A pedestrian walkway is depicted on the site plan from the proposed building entrance sidewalk to the multi-use pathway along W. Chinden Blvd. as required by UDC 11-3A- 19B.4a. This walkway is depicted to traverse both entrances of the drive-through lanes which introduces a known conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. Therefore, Staff is recommending this walkway be distinguished from the driving surface by being constructed with pavers, brick, or scored/colored concrete,per subsection B of this code section. The proposed site plan appears to show a different material than the drive surface but its material is not called out. The Applicant should confirm compliance with this code section with a future CZC submittal and note the proposed material for this walkway. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8C. Landscaping is depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.B. The required landscape buffer adjacent to Chinden is already constructed or under construction with the subdivision approvals and is not part of this application. Page 6 Item 3. EXHIBIT A 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 proposed parking drive aisles and drive-through around the perimeter of the subject site are proposed with landscaping at least 10 feet wide and vegetated with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other vegetative ground coverage. Staff finds these areas and proposed sidewalks meet and exceed the minimum landscape requirements. Furthermore, the submitted landscape plan shows all adjacent parking spaces with the required planter beds and landscaping. Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment adjacent to 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 and should not be visible from the nearest right-of-way. Building Elevations: The Applicant did not apply for Design Review concurrently with this CUP application but has prematurely submitted for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review for the proposed building. These administrative applications will not be reviewed until after the CUP has been heard. Therefore,proposed building elevations have been provided to Staff but Staff has not done a detailed review of the elevations at this time. In general,the elevations show dark brick and white stucco with reveals as field materials; architectural metal siding and aluminum framed storefront windows on the north, east, and south elevations for accent materials; and a concrete banding along the base of the building to tie it to the ground elevation. Detailed review will occur with the Design Review application but Staff finds the proposed elevations to be substantially compliant with the Architectural Standards Manual. 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 with conditions. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on July 1,2021.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject Conditional Use Permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Mandie Brozo,Applicant Representative b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Mandie Brozo d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Complexity of proposed drive-through and whether it is known if it has been utilized somewhere else: b. Are there any spaces for deliveries in the back of the building like normal multi-tenant buildings: C. Clarify the intended uses and the proposed drive-through construction, specifically in relation to the escape lane: 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 7 Item 3. EXHIBIT A VII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 4/09/2021) • DMG REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC ------ ------ --------- ------ -- ------ - - ........................ .. ..... ..... . - - --------- --------- ------ -- G) PI.. 21 FL U� 210 ISO- do's PAD C 0 5,600 S.F. 13.5 PARKING 39 STALLS IJ 20 4-4 => ----- ---- -- --- --- ---------- --- ---- . .... ... . . .. ............. /1�FM I LJ 7FU7 mmmmmll� Page 8 item s. EXHIBIT A 73 B. Proposed Landscape Plan(dated: 4/08/2021) APPROXIMATE LOCATION- OFVDITCH-SEECIVILy ` PLANS FOR INFORMATION. ——————— APPROXIMATELOCATION OF MONUMENT \m 1 SIGN.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR I ` EXACTLOCATION SHIFT LANDSOAPEAS -REFER TO PHASE I ROADWAYS \ I I NECESSARY TO FIT FINAL SIGN LOCATION. LANDSCAPE PLAN-FIELD FIT LANDSCAPE AROUND SIGNAGE II I ——— �- l- ' mil -{:; �' :• �, _�—�'_ "��— TRASH ENCLOSURE-\ Z ,r SEE CIVIL PLANS OP \ ' oTs do PAD C I o L J I 5,600 S.F. ® III I PARKING L7 39 STALLS ® I— PROJECTLIMIT UA �' 11X3 I PROJECT LIMIT$— Q — o => m I o ao. ao oio — ' 5rAT,nA mom® _ I ROOT BP.RRIERIFOR y` J ROOTER$ IERIFO' - - -- I � LEI - I I I Page 9 item s. EXHIBIT A 74 C. Proposed Menu Board and Order Speaker Locations FU menu board Fii2 order speaker _ _ . . . . . . . . . r r . . . . . . . . +w+�+�+++Y+Y+w+ + + ++l+V+'++ # +W R+'+x+x+* +xrtwaw . • +ax+*++ #* +�+W+W. i+ ♦N i.W.W.+.W+W + # . +++•+ W+W+W ++ #. rt # ♦ rt • +W.+.W r+ ♦ ' + * .W.W+W r W+ #r # + rt ♦ r++r+r+r+r+r r LU s # ' E w + 1..1..E + f Kneaders order speake Kneaders menu board f Page 10 Item 3. EXHIBIT A D. Proposed Building Elevations(not a part of approvals) ORCHARD PARK IS ID: 11— � _�o rem'�' l Sic NAGE c I EAST ILI 7 el ELEVATION T I_--l—S T2ti 2 NORTH ELEVATION 3SOUTH ELEVATION D d" 4WEST ELEVATION Page 11 item 3. EXHIBIT A 76 SIG SIGNAGE NAGE SIGNAGE =F7 I=Perspective •;� oil L Side Perspective Rea Perspective VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the existing Development Agreement(DA Inst. #2019-028376), and associated conditions of approval: H-2017-0088 (AZ, CPAM,PP, VAR);FP-2020-0004; Comply with amended DA approved with H-2021-0034 (MDA, DA is not yet recorded). 2. The Conditional Use Permit for the proposed Drive-Through Establishment is hereby approved with the following conditions of approval: a. The proposed menu boards/order speakers shall be located no less than 65 feet from the near edge of curb at the drive-through entrances. Compliance shall be depicted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance site plan. b. The Applicant/Owner shall include both pavement striping and signage throughout the site and within the drive-throughs to ensure traffic circulation pattern is clear to patrons; proposed signage AND striping locations shall be submitted and depicted on the site plan at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and include both directional and tenant signage to direct patrons to desired tenant drive- through. c. Per UDC 11-3A-1913.4b,depict all pedestrian walkways traversing driving surfaces to be constructed with bricks,pavers, and/or colored or scored concrete to clearly delineate the driving surface from the pedestrian walkway. Page 12 item s. EXHIBIT A El 3. The site plan submitted with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Per the exhibit within Section V above,remove a segment of curbing within the north half of the separated drive-throughs. b. Provide exhibits of and depict on the plans the striping and directional and tenant signage 4. The submitted landscape plan is approved as submitted. Applicant shall maintain the required 35-foot landscape buffer to Chinden Boulevard per City standards outlined in UDC 11-3B-7. 5. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 —Drive-Through Establishment is required in perpetuity. 6. Comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49—Restaurant. 7. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. Future Commercial building shall comply with the standards outlined in the Architectural Standards Manual. 8. 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.meridianci(y.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=230267&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. Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-C zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Commission finds the proposed multi-tenant building and dual drive-throughs 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. With the conditions of approval in Section VIII and the approved and existing uses in near proximity to the subject site, Commission finds the design, construction, operation and Page 13 item s. EXHIBIT A Es maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, be compatible 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. Page 14 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 15, 2021 Item #5: Wells Street Assisted AERIALFLUMZoning Living/Andorra Subdivision Summary of Requests requests. outs. The Planning Director approves alternative compliance -street bulb-within onintended to serve, to allow 32 of the required parking spaces to be accommodated family detached dwellings to be located on the same lot as the use that they are -4A, which requires parking spaces for all single-3C-Alternative Compliance to UDC 11more than fifty (50) dwelling units, to allow 61 dwelling units. 4B which limits a gated development to no -4-3F-Alternative Compliance to UDC 11two (2) gates;Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 61 residential units with Administrative Requests:building with use to be determined at a later date (southern half);building with a footprint of 30,000 sq. ft and an 8,960 sq. foot commercial unit, three story nursing and residential care -Conditional use to allow a 91acres;Preliminary plat for 61 building lots and 8 common lots (northern half) on 11.79 R zoning district;-Annexation and zoning of 17.50 acres of land with the TN Site/Landscape Plans Changes to Agenda: None Item #4: Orchard Park Pad C Drive-Through (H-2021-0039) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.47 acres of land, zoned C-C, located at 1245 W. Chinden – approximately ¼ mile east of Linder Road (Lot 8, Block 1, Linder Village Subdivision). Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:  North – Chinden Blvd, Hwy. 20/26  East – C-C zoning and identical multi-tenant building  South – C-C zoning and developing commercial properties  West – C-C zoning and developing commercial properties History: H-2017-0088 (AZ, CPAM, PP, VAR); FP-2020-0004; and H-2021-0034 (MDA) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Community Summary of Request: The proposed CUP is for dual drive-throughs serving a multi-tenant building (three tenants) that is proposed as approximately 5,600 square feet. The subject drive-throughs are within 300 feet of two existing/approved drive-throughs to west and to the east. The building to the east has received administrative level approvals and is a nearly identical building and identical drive- through design. The submitted site plan shows a rectangular building with both the northern most and the southernmost tenants as those utilizing a drive-through. The site plan shows 36 new parking spaces—the shared parking area between the two multi-tenant buildings will have at least 74 parking spaces; code requires a minimum of 44 spaces between the two buildings. The site plan shows two two-way drive aisles to the east of the building with parking adjacent to both drive aisles. These drive aisles connect to the east-west drive aisle closest to Chinden Boulevard that is the entrance to the proposed drive-throughs. Because the drive-throughs serve two separate tenants, the traffic patterns for each cross over one another midway through the site along the west side of the building. The Applicant provided a circulation plan that shows the intended traffic patterns which Staff agrees with but has recommended some minor revisions that the Applicant agreed to. The submitted plan shows Tenant “A,” the north tenant, as utilizing the yellow path which includes the southern drive-through at the north side of the building. Once a customer orders along the north side of the building they continue to the west side of the building and pick-up their order. They then stop at the determined drive-through crossing and go from being the inside lane to the outside lane to exit the drive-through at the south end of the site. After this crossing point, the yellow lane (the outside lane) becomes the escape lane which is required for the length of the drive-through lanes. Tenant “B” utilizes the blue path according to the submitted plan and essentially follows the opposite path of Tenant A. For Tenant B, the entrance along the north side of the building is the stacking lane and order position. Once customers for this tenant order and then stack at the determined crossing point, they would cross from the outside lane to the inside lane to pick-up their order. After pick-up, customers would continue south to turn east around the south side of the building and exit the drive-through. The proposed drive-through design is uncommon and complex with the added crossing point. Staff finds that with adequate signage and striping the proposed drive-through can work. Therefore, Staff is recommending not only striping on the pavement but also signage at the entrances and along the drive-through lanes to ensure customers know which business they are in line for. Drive-through Establishments must also adhere to the specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-11. Staff has analyzed the submitted plans for compliance and finds the proposed site plan to comply with the specific use standards. Specifically, there is extremely little possibility for stacking to impede public ROW because there is no direct lot access to public ROW. Additionally, based on an exhibit provided by the Applicant, the two ordering locations appear to be approximately 65 feet into the drive-through lanes. This should allow for 3-4 cars stacking prior to getting to the menu boards; if more cars stack in either lane, they will impede the east-west drive aisle along the north boundary of the site—staff finds there are multiple drive aisles that run north-south within the site and patrons would have multiple avenues of ingress and egress for the site especially when taking into account the only avenues to exit the site are to the south so there should not be much desire or need for patrons to exit the site by going north. Staff does not foresee the proposed businesses requiring extended stacking lanes like that of a Dutch Bros. or other solitary coffee shop. However, Staff recommends moving the menu boards further into the drive-through lanes to help alleviate the potential of this conflict. The north drive- through can move the menu board and order speaker at least 10 feet to the west with no foreseeable issues. The internal drive-through lane does not have as much room but should be able to move them at least 5 feet further west; any additional distance is a benefit. All landscaping, dimensional standards, etc. will be further analyzed with the CZC and Design Review applications. However, initial reviews of the site plan show compliance with all code requirements. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of subject CUP application. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0039, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 1, 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-2021-0039, as presented during the hearing on July 1, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0039 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: DaVinci Park Drive-Through (H-2021-0037) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.19 acres of land, zoned C-N, located at 4744 N. Park Crossing Ave. at the SWC of N. Locust Grove Rd. & E. McMillan Rd. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-N Summary of Request: CUP for a drive-through establishment for a 620 s.f. coffee kiosk within 300-feet of an existing residence & residential district on 1.19-acres of land in the C-N zoning district. The proposed development plan is in substantial conformance with the provisions in the existing DA. A full-access driveway exists to this site from the west via N. Park Crossing Ln. & a right-out only driveway exists to N. Locust Grove Rd. on the east side of the lot. Direct access via E. McMillan Rd. is prohibited. Because the width of the area proposed for the one-way drive aisle for access to the northern row of parking & stacking lane for the drive-through is too narrow to accommodate both travel lanes (vehicles in the stacking lane will encroach into the drive-aisle), Staff recommends the northern row of parking is removed & a planter island is added to guide traffic to avoid conflicts. A minimum of (2) parking spaces are required per UDC standards; a total of 42 spaces exist and/or are proposed between the proposed use & the existing 9,500 s.f. retail building on the east side of this site. Even with removal of the row of parking previously mentioned, there are still twice as many parking spaces as required. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of hardiplank cement lap siding, accoya wood siding and glazing. Per the DA, some of the same design elements are required to be incorporated in the commercial portion of the development as in the residential portion. Final design is required to be consistent with the provisions in the DA and with the design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: Marla Carson (Applicant’s Representative) – Requests they be able to retain the (5) northern parking spaces as employee parking. Staff doesn’t support this request as there isn’t enough room spatially for the one-way drive aisle to access the parking/escape lane & the stacking lane for the drive-through – parallel parking may be an option in this area for employees. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0037, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 1, 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-2021-0037, as presented during the hearing on July 1, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0037 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Item #6: TM Creek Apartments Phase 3 (H-2021-0035) Application(s):  Rezone  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site is currently zoned TN-C & C-G and is located south of W. Franklin Rd. & east of S. Ten Mile Rd. History: Development of this property is governed by the TM Crossing DA. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Commercial & HDR Summary of Request: The Applicant has applied for a rezone of 5.58-acres of land from the TN-C to the C-G zoning district. Most of the area proposed to be rezoned is designated MU-COM with a narrow sliver along the east boundary designated as HDR. The proposed C-G zoning & MFR residential and live/work (i.e. vertically integrated) uses are consistent with the FLUM designations for this property. Because the area proposed to be rezoned is governed by the TM Crossing DA, a new DA or amendment to the existing DA isn’t recommended. A CUP is requested for a MFR development consisting of 238 apartment units on 7.83-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. A variety of studio (42), 1-bedroom (120), 2-bedroom (74) and live/work (2) units are proposed. The gross density is 30.4 units/acre. A total of 1,815 s.f. of non-residential uses are proposed in the vertically integrated residential structure which is a principally permitted use in the C-G district and will allow a variety of commercial uses. The vertically integrated residential use is proposed at the corner where the private street intersects Wayfinder – 2 live/work units are proposed – the remainder of the building to the south is proposed to be entirely MFR. The Applicant has requested alternative compliance to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 to provide a lesser amount of private open space for each unit as noted in the staff report; and to UDC Table 11-3C-6, which doesn’t include a requirement for parking for studio units, to allow the vertically integrated standard to apply. The Director has approved these requests. Access is proposed via a private street from Wayfinder Ave., a collector street, along the west boundary of the site. With approval of ALT, a minimum of 372 parking spaces are required; a total of 379 spaces are proposed. Based on the size of the living area in the proposed units (all between 500 & 1,200 s.f.), a minimum of 1.37-acres of common open space is required to be provided within the development; a total of 2.51-acres is proposed. Although some of this area doesn’t qualify (i.e. private open space) & is not really usable (i.e. parking lot planters), the internal common open space & area along the Ten Mile Creek is 2.2-acres which exceeds UDC standards. Based on 238 units, a minimum of 5 amenities are required but the decision-making body is authorized to consider additional amenities if they believe the proposed amenities aren’t adequate for the size of the development. The applicant proposes a clubhouse with a fitness center, bike repair room and pet grooming station; swimming pool; open grassy areas at least 50’ x 100’ in size; fireside seating; grilling area; and sports courts (snookball & ping pong). The Ten Mile Creek multi-use pathway also lies adjacent to the site for residents to use. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed 4-story structures as shown. Building materials consist of stucco & bricks in neutral colors. Final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing Design Guidelines. Written Testimony: Mike Wardle (Applicant’s Representative) – Requests condition #4h, which requires the sidewalk along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek to be widened to 10’ to qualify as a multi-use pathway as recommended by the Park’s Dept. as a condition of approval of the Alternative Compliance request to the private open space standards in UDC 11-4- 3-27B.3 to be changed to require an 8’ wide pathway as proposed; & deletion of condition #8, which requires a public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway to be deleted since an easement isn’t required for non-public pathways. A revision is also requested to condition #9 to remove the language pertaining to compliance with the design guidelines in the TMISAP & the design standards in the ASM to reflect compliance with the TM Crossing Design Guidelines as required by the DA. “An application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be submitted for the proposed project and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. Compliance with the Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines design guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual as applicable is required. See the Application of the Design Elements matrix on pg. 3-49 of the TMISAP for design elements applicable to the proposed development.” Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0035, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 1, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021- 0035, as presented during the hearing on July 1, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0035 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #7: Woodcrest Townhomes (H-2021-0015) Application(s):  Comprehensive Plan FLUM Amendment  Rezone Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.97-acres of land, zoned L-O, located at 1789 N. Hickory Way, north of E. Fairview Ave. on the southwest side of Hickory Way. History: This property was annexed with L-O zoning in 1992 and later re-subdivided as a lot in Mallane Commercial Complex in 2001. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM to change the land use designation on 2.10-acres of land from Commercial to MHDR; and Rezone of 2.10-acres of land from the L-O (Limited Office) to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zoning district. Approval of the map amendment will allow the Applicant to develop (19) SFR attached & townhome dwellings at a gross density of 10.8 units/acre on this infill property, which will contribute to the range of residential land use designations & diversity in housing types & densities in this area & provide a transition in land uses from MDR to commercial/office uses. A conceptual site plan & building elevations were submitted showing how the property is planned to develop with (19) single-family attached & townhouse dwelling units consisting of (1) single-family attached structure, (3) 3-unit townhouses, (2) 4-unit townhouses and a 2,500 square foot office building. The property is planned to be subdivided through a future application. Because this is an infill property and has an irregular configuration, development of this site is difficult. The parking proposed for the office building at the SEC of the site encroaches within the required land use buffer & does not comply with UDC standards. The Comprehensive Plan states development in MHDR designated areas should incorporate high quality architectural and site design to ensure quality of place and incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and pathways and include attractive landscaping and a project identity. To achieve this goal and alleviate some of the spacial constrictions on the site, Staff recommended the concept plan be revised to remove the office building from the plan and instead include open space with quality landscaping and some parking pathway connections to the open space and the provision of a gazebo with a seating area as an amenity which can be shared between the residential and commercial development. The Applicant revised the concept plan accordingly & Staff is in support of the proposed changes. Access to the site is proposed via a cross-access easement from an existing driveway from N. Hickory Way, a collector street; no stub streets exist to this property. A private street is planned to provide access to the proposed development and for addressing purposes. An attached sidewalk is proposed along one side of the private street for pedestrian access. Off-street parking is proposed in accord with UDC standards; (4) extra spaces are proposed for guest parking in the common area near the entry & (5) spaces are proposed in the common area at the SEC of the site. On-street parking is not allowed due to the width of the private street. Because the site is below 5-acres in size, qualified open space & site amenities are not required. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed residential structures as shown with a mix of materials consisting horizontal wood siding, vertical board and batten siding, wood shake siding and cement plaster with stone veneer accents and architectural asphalt roofing. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval with the requirement of a DA with the provisions noted in the staff report. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0015, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 1, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021- 0015, as presented during the hearing on July 1, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0015 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Circulation Plan Item 4. 79 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Heron Village Expansion (H-2021-0027) by Tamara Thompson of The Land Group, Inc., Located at 51, 125 and 185 E. Blue Heron Ln. Applicant is Requesting Continuance A. Request: Annexation of 1.36 acres of land with a R-40 zoning district. B. Request: Rezone of 4.18 acres of land from C-G and R-8 to R-40. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of an existing 108-unit, 5-building multifamily complex to allow an additional 36 units in two new buildings. Item 4. F80 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: July 15, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Heron Village Expansion (H-2021-0027) by Tamara Thompson of The Land Group, Inc., Located at 51, 125 and 185 E. Blue Heron Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 1.36 acres of land with a R-40 zoning district. B. Request: Rezone of 4.18 acres of land from C-G and R-8 to R-40. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of an existing 108-unit, 5-building multifamily complex to allow an additional 36 units in two new buildings. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 5. 81 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021- 0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. A. Request: Annexation of 17.5 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 61 building lots and 8 common lots. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility on the southern portion of the property. Item 5. F82 (:�N-VE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: July 15, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021- 0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S.Wells St. A. Request: Annexation of 17.5 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 61 building lots and 8 common lots. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility on the southern portion of the property. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 5. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING July 15,2021 Legend Lei DATE: ff I0Projec3 Lacafian TO: Planning&Zoning Commission -- ------ i FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner .� 208-884-5533 - ---- SUBJECT: H-2021-0024 Wells Assisted Living and Andorra Subdivision LOCATION: Southwest corner of E. Magic View Dr. and S. Wells St. at 675, 715 & and 955 a S. Wells St. in the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 3N., Range 1 E. i 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted the following applications: • Annexation and zoning of 17.50 acres of land with the TN-R zoning district; • Preliminary plat for 61 building lots and 8 common lots(northern half)on 11.79 acres; • Conditional use to allow a 91-unit,three story nursing and residential care building with a footprint of 30,000 sq. ft and an 8,960 sq. foot commercial building with use to be determined at a later date(southern half); • Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 61 residential units with two(2) gates; • Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4-4B which limits a gated development to no more than fifty(50)dwelling units,to allow 61 dwelling units. • Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3C-4A,which requires parking spaces for all single-family detached dwellings to be located on the same lot as the use that they are intended to serve,to allow 32 of the required parking spaces to be accommodated within on-street bulb-outs. The Planning Director approves alternative compliance requests. A similar proposal was approved for the subject properties in April of 2020(Andorra Senior Living H-2019-0127). This proposal included 76 single family residences and a 3-story apartment building with 88 dwelling units.Following the Council meeting,the property owners of the parcel to the west(972 E.Wells Cir) decided they were not interested in selling the property to the applicant and the annexation and development agreement was never completed. The present development was redesigned and no longer contains the additional parcel. Page 1 Item 5. F84] II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 17.50 Future Land Use Desi nation(s) MDR(north)and MU-N(south) Existing Land Use Single-family residential/vacant land Proposed Land Use(s) Assisted living/memory care,office and single family residential Current Zoning RUT and RI in Ada County Proposed Zoning TN-R Phasing plan(#of phases) 2 phases. 61 units of residential and nursing and residential care facility will be constructed as two separate projects at the same time,office would be built at a later phase. Number of Residential Units(type 61 single family units and 91 units in 3-story building of units) Density Gross density is 8.7 dwelling units to the acre Open Space(acres,total [%]/ Open space is required for the single-family development per buffer/qualified) the standards in UDC 11-3G.Based on an area of 11.79 acres, 1.2 acres of qualified open space(10%)is required,whereas 2.38 acres(21.5%)is proposed,double the UDC requirements. Amenities Central pathway along Five Mile Creek,green space corridor north-south through the residential development,clubhouse with fitness center and pool,outdoor open spaces with water features,pickle ball,horseshoe pits gazebos and dog park. Physical Features(waterways, Five Mile Creek bisects the property and is contained within a hazards,flood plain,hillside) 100-foot easement Neighborhood meeting date;#of Two neighborhood meetings were held in February and attendees: March of 2021 —(Approximately 45 attendees among the two meetings) History(previous approvals) AZ,PP H-2019-0127(Approved but never completed) Public Testimony As of June 30,2021,two letters have been received. One letter was received from the Woodbridge HOA President (Snorting Bull Subdivision)and Bette Monteith.Issues expressed include,traffic,density,height of houses,and the distance of the proposed homes from the existing homes. Page 2 Item 5. F85 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page ACHD • Staff report An updated staff report was completed with this proposal. (yes/no) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action(yes/no) • Improvements Applicant will be required to improve Magic View Drive and Wells St as 36' wide local commercial street.Wells circle is required to be constructed as a 33-foot-wide local street.Applicant will be required to construct Gentry Circle as a 33-foot street section,including cul-de-sac. Fire Service • Distance to Fire This fire station is approximately 1.9 miles from the project.If approved, Station the Fire Department can meet the response time goals. • Fire Response This development falls within the 5-minute response time(under ideal Time conditions) from the nearest fire station—Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 5. • Resource This development is closest to Fire Station#1. Current reliability is 70% Reliability from this station and does not meet the targeted goal of 80%or greater. • Risk This proposed commercial development has a risk factor of 2,in which Identification current resources would be adequate to supply service to this proposed project.Risk factors include firefighting in multi-story buildings and a large gathering of people in a single location. This entails a greater risk for the occupants as well as first responders. • Accessibility The project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds.All private roadways and the ends of the roadways shall be signed"No parking fire lane." • Special/resource This proposed project will not require an aerial device. The closest truck needs company is 5 minutes travel time(under ideal conditions)to the proposed development,and therefore the Fire Department can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required.This fire station is approximately 1.7 miles from the project. In the event of a hazmat event,there will need to be mutual aid required for the development. In the event of a structure fire an additional truck company will be required.This will require additional time delays as a second truck company is not available in the city. _ • Water Supply Water supply for this proposed development requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour. The commercial area(the office building and the assisted living/memory care)will require 1,500 gallons a minute for 2 hours. (Approximate—see appendix B of the 2015 International Fire Code)The fire flow requirements may be less if the buildings are fully sprinklered. Page 3 Item 5. ■ Police Service • No comments Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.11 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with W W Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Pipe going into/out of manhole must have a min angle of 90 degrees. • Ensure that infiltration trenches are located so that sewer services do no pass through them. • Ensure that no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement. • Flow is committed Water • Distance to Water 0 feet Services _ • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None Concerns • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns The applicant will be required to connect the northwest water main to the existing water stub off of E Magic View Dr Page 4 Item 5. F87] C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend sift' Legend Pfc*ct Lflcafiar Itlal � Pjec}Laca3on } ws' , IU EB Sid dial CO LRJ-N _ i 1 _ Industrial mu-aG w� _ iLr Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend L� Legend ® ---*k -- -- F(3-F:ajeot Lc+cairr}n I JI F'ajec*Lma Ion - — Pafined Pares I Rc -+r -- �IJ7Y � tla R - - V2 C-G Rl I� C-C. L-O � -R-9 R-4 C Page 5 Item 5. 88 III.APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Jamie Koenig,Babcock Design—800 W. Main St,Boise,ID, 83702 B. Owner(s): Iterra Homes,LLC—316 E. 1400 St, St. George,UT, 84790 Bambara Opportunity Development—520 E. Taberncle St, St. George,UT, 84770 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 6/25/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties 6/22/2021 within 300 feet Public hearing notice sign posted on site 6/29/2021 Nextdoor posting 6/22/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Annexation&Zoning The Applicant requests annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres of land with TN-R zoning district consistent with the MU-N(Mixed Use—Neighborhood)and MDR(Medium-density Residential) Future Land Use Map(FLUM) designations in the Comprehensive Plan. A conceptual site plan and building elevations were submitted for the development showing how the property is planned to develop, included in Section V. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with 61 single family building lots, a 91-unit,three story assisted living/memory care building with a footprint of 30,000 sq. ft. and possibly a 9,000 sq. ft. office building. Within the nursing and residential care(assisted living/memory care) facility the applicant proposes a restaurant, spa, salon,multipurpose/movie theater, lounge, library, crafts, and other spaces to serve the residences of the facility. There will be studio, one and two- bedroom units. The Allowed Uses table in UDC Table 11-2D-2 for the TN-R zoning district lists single family detached as a principally permitted use,and professional services(office) and a nursing or residential care facility by conditional use, subject to specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the TN-R district is required, including but not limited to the maximum building height of 40 feet. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation approval. Page 6 Item 5. 89 B. Future Land Use Map Designation The Future Land Use Map designates 13 acres of this property to the north as MDR, and approximately 4.5 acres of this property at the south is designated as MU-N(Mixed Use— Neighborhood). The MDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including single family residential, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from three to eight dwelling units per acre. With the area proposed for single-family residential area to the north being approximately 13 acres in size, 61 dwelling units amounts to 4.7 du/acre. The portion of the property proposed for detached single family residences is directly adjacent to the established Snorting Bull Subdivision(also called Woodbridge)to the west. This adjacent subdivision is comprised of lots of approximately 5,500—6,500 sq. ft. in area. There are 16 existing houses along the adjacent boundary line of this subdivision and the houses are approximately 42' to 45' in width. The applicant proposes 21 houses of approximately 32' in width and lot sizes of 4,000 sq. ft. along the same abutting property line. At staff s recommendation,the applicant is "staggering"the rear setbacks of these houses from 12' to 27' to reduce a"wall effect"on the adjacent subdivision. The applicant also proposes to vary the height of the larger houses by keeping the western half of the houses adjacent to the existing residences to one story. Although the proposed lot sizes are smaller than what are in the adjacent subdivision and the houses narrower,the density as proposed is on the lower end of what could be allowed by the FLUM and impacts of height have been reduced. As the rows of houses at the east and west perimeters of this development have shallower side setbacks,this has allowed an increase of quality useable open space oriented at the center to 21.3%,whereas 10%is required. Because the portion of the property to the south is designated for MU-N, and there is existing office and commercial properties south of that and adjacent to I-84, a slightly higher transition in density from the neighboring properties is appropriate. The purpose of the MU-N designation is to assign areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single-use developments by incorporating a variety of uses. Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential with supporting non-residential services.Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be smaller scale and provide goods or services that people typically do not travel far for (approximately one mile)and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged. The proposal in this area includes 91 assisted and memory care units with supporting retail,restaurant and entertainment uses in an 30,000 sq. ft. footprint along with a 9,000 sq. ft. office building. The proposed development meets many of the goals of Mixed-use Neighborhood designation. The proposed 9,000 sq. ft. office building located toward the eastern-middle portion of the site (north of Five-Mile Creek)is within an area recommended for MDR,not MU-N. However,the Comprehensive Plan notes that future land use designations are not parcel specific.An adjacent abutting designation,when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application,may be used. It is staff s opinion that this is appropriate as the office development is part of a larger development and is suitably integrated. C. Comprehensive Plan(https:llwww.meridiancity.orklcompplan): 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): Page 7 Item 5. ■ 2.01.01M-"Support active-adult or independent senior living development." The proposed development will provide housing options for seniors in close proximity to office, medical and commercial uses developed in the area. 3.02.00—"Maintain, improve, and expand the City's infrastructure to meet existing and growing demands in a timely, orderly, and logical manner." The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to this development. The applicant will be responsible for the extension of the services to serve the proposed development. 6.01.01H-"Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system." Pedestrian internal walkways are proposed throughout the development.A segment of the City's multi-use pathway is also proposed to be extended with the development. 4.05.02C—"Encourage the incorporation of creek corridors as amenities in development design." The submitted concept plan incorporates the Five Mile Creek corridor into the design of the project. 2.02.01 —"Plan for safe,attractive and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices." The concept plan and open space exhibit as designed depicts 21.5%common open space. Open space is linked throughout the development with inter-connected walking paths for residents of the community to enjoy. 3.02.01G—"Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,police,transportation, schools, fire and parks." The applicant is proposing to develop the site with single family detached, assisted living and memory care and an office building. Public Works has allocated resources to serve the development. Both Police and Fire have not expressed concerns with the proposed development. With the development of the site, a pathway segment will be extended to enhance the City pathway. Staff finds that the proposed development should have a minimal impact on the current LOS for public facilities. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-N areas,per the Comprehensive Plan: ➢ "All developments should have a mix land uses." The proposed development contains a mix of uses as required(i.e. assisted living and memory care, single family residential and office). ➢ "Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 40%of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 12 units/acre." This development proposes 91 assisted living and memory care residential units in a three story 30,000 sf ft footprint, 61 single family units, and a 9,000 sq.ft. office building. This is more than 40%of the development being residential, with a gross density of approximately 8.7 du/acre. ➢ "Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings." The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of all buildings. The single-family residences on the northern portion of the site are bungalow and craftsman style homes with pitched roofs, dormers, lap siding and rock to tie into the existing residential to the west. The assisted living and memory care and office building are at the southern portion of the site and will likely be developed as a separate project under a different owner. The architecture Page 8 Item 5. ■ proposed for these buildings is much more contemporary—flat-roofed buildings with a combination of panel, stucco, metal, exposed timber frame and overhanging balconies. This is a style that is not characteristic of the residential uses to the north. However, this is a separate project, is separated from the residential component by 5-mile creek, and there is variety of commercial architecture in and around the general vicinity. The architecture of the two proposed commercial buildings is mostly consistent with each other. Although the elevations of the assisted living and memory care building contains numerous architectural features, modulation and variation infield materials and accents, the elevation provided for the office building is simpler and might not comply with the standards of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). Final design will be determined at the time of CZC and design review. "Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office,or residential and commercial land uses, a maximum building size should be limited to a 20,000 square-foot building footprint." The largest building proposed on the site is the 3-story assisted living/memory care building which has a buildingfootprint of 30,000 square feet. In addition to 91 residential units, the building is indicated to contain a restaurant, spa, salon, movie theater and lounge, which meets the above recommendation for a mix of uses to allow larger footprints. ➢ "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas,outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries,and schools that comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement." The proposed development has multiple gathering spaces that comply with this requirement. ➢ Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development above the minimum 5%,the developer may be eligible for additional residential densities and/or an increase to the maximum building footprint." The applicant is extending a portion of the pathway through the development for public benefit and providing open space in excess of UDC standards. Therefore, staff supports the increase in the building footprint as proposed by the applicant. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are several existing structures on this site that are required to be removed prior to development of each subsequent phase. E. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes to rezone to Traditional Neighborhood Residential District(TN-R)to allow single family detached, office and nursing or residential care facility. Single family detached is a principally permitted uses;the office and nursing or residential care requires a conditional use permit,which is discussed below. The end-user of the office building is unknown at this time and will be evaluated when an end-user is identified. Allowed uses are those identified in UDC Table 11-2D-2. Since the initial submittal of the formal application,the applicant has later mentioned they were considering the possibility of multifamily rather than the assisted living/memory care facility. Staff mentioned this was a different use,would require a new application,new public noticing and would likely result in a delayed hearing date. Staff also had concerns with potential traffic impacts, Page 9 Item 5. 92 especially for cars that would use E. Magic View Dr as a"cut through"street to the west. The applicant subsequently expressed their desire to retain the present hearing date and to move forward with the application as was initially submitted. It is important to note the traditional neighborhood districts are the only zone districts in which multifamily is allowed by-right without a conditional use permit. Staff recommends a restriction that limits the three-story building at the south to nursing and residential care. E. Specific Use Standards UDC 11-4-3-29 lists the specific use standards for nursing or residential care facilities. Standards include requirements for occupancy, and requirements for fencing of outdoor areas accessible to patients who are memory-compromised. The concept site plan does reflect several outdoor areas associated with the nursing or residential care facility,but no specificity regarding which areas will be accessible for memory care patients. The outdoor areas should be identified and contain proper fencing at time of CZC submittal. F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the TN-R district. This includes setbacks continent upon whether the property is street accessed or alley accessed, a maximum building height of 40' (30' to eaves providing roof access), and landscape buffers of 5' along alleys and 8' along local streets. Street layout is primarily to be based on a grid,with block faces limited to no longer than 500' without intersecting street or alley. At least two different housing types are required, such as single-family dwellings with attached garages and alley-loaded single-family dwellings. It is anticipated that c street only access properties at the perimeter of a TN-R development. All dwelling units are required to have a minimum of 2 lights at the front of the unit. It does appear the concept plan as submitted meets most TN-R requirements, including street accessed along the perimeter. Two housing types of street accessed and alley-loaded homes are proposed, as well as assisted living and memory care. The 3-story nursing or residential care facility appears to be within the 40' height limit, although the height is not dimensioned on the conceptual elevations. A lighting plan will be required at time of CZC and design review. The block lengths along S. Shadowbrook Ln(west) and S. Andorra Ln(east)exceed 500'. Staff understands that without a complete redesign it is not feasible to meet the block length requirements at the west due to the existing residences, and putting a mid-block park in this area would probably not be well-received by the neighbors. Staff and the applicant have discussed the block length along S. Andorra Ln(east)and the applicant has agreed to provide a mid-block park and pathway connection from S.Andorra Ln to the S. Wells St pathway. Staff recommends the Council approve a waiver from 11-2D-3-A-C-1 to allow the block length as proposed at the western property boundary(S. Shadowbrook Ln). G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access to this development is proposed from the adjacent local streets(E. Magic View Dr, S.Wells St. and E. Wells Circle)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. For internal connectivity,the applicant is proposing gated private streets,alleys and drive aisles at the portion of the property desired for single family residential. UDC 11-3F-1 allows the Director to approve private streets when certain findings are satisfied. These are discussed in Section VII. ACHD responded in a staff report dated June 29,2021 that the applicant will be required to improve Magic View Dr and S. Wells St. as 36' wide local commercial streets. There is a bridge Page 10 Item 5. F93 scheduled to be constructed across Five Mile Creek in a future integrated five-year work plan project;the applicant will not be required to improve S. Wells St. along this section. There is existing un-named ACHD right-of-way(ROW)created with Instrument#812200 shown as E. Gentry Circle toward the middle of the property, in the location of the office building. ACHD is requiring the applicant to construct this road as well as the cul-de-sac turnaround with a minimum 50-foot radius to include curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. At present,the concept plan only shows this road being constructed to a western stub at the property line. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE UDC 11-317-4 (Private Street Requirements) states a gated development shall have no more than 50 dwelling units. 11-3C-4 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements)requires parking spaces for all single-family detached,townhouse, secondary, and duplex dwellings to be located on the same lot as the use that they are intended to serve. The single family detached portion of this development proposes 61 gated lots served by private streets and alleys. The 61 units are required to provide 244 parking spaces(4 per unit, at least 2 in an enclosed garage for homes with greater than 3 bedrooms). The applicant proposes 32 of these parking spaces to be in"bulb-outs"in 6 locations along the private streets. This is because some of the houses are either lacking in size of garages or the size of driveways,which results in not all homes providing four parking spaces,although all homes provide at least two. 11-3F-4 allows the Director to approve, or recommend approval of alternative design or construction standards when the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed overall design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards of this article and shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Requests for alternative compliance are allowed only when one(1)or more of the following conditions exist: a. Topography, soil,vegetation, or other site conditions are such that full compliance is impossible or impractical; b. The site involves space limitations or an unusually shaped lot; c. Safety considerations make alternative compliance desirable; d. Other regulatory agencies or departments having jurisdiction are requiring design standards that conflict with the requirements of this article; e. The proposed design includes innovative design features based on"new urbanism", "neotraditional design", or other architectural and/or site designs that promote walkable and mixed-use neighborhoods; f. Additional environmental quality improvements would result from the alternative compliance. In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall make three findings. These are discussed in Section IX below. G. Parking(UDC 11-3Q: As mentioned in the alternative compliance section above,the single-family residential portion of this development proposes 61 houses with 3 or more bedrooms,requiring at least 244 parking Page 11 Item 5. ■ spaces.All of these parking spaces are provided,although 32 of them would be provided in"bulb- outs"along the private streets(as mentioned in the Alternative Compliance section above). The 244 parking spaces do not account for the 4,320 sq. ft. clubhouse. Parking for residential clubhouses is calculated based on nonresidential standards,which is one space for every five hundred square feet of gross floor area.Based on this ratio, 9 additional parking spaces are required,whereas they have not been provided. It does appear there is additional area in and around the bulb-outs near the clubhouse to provide these spaces. Staff is recommending 9 additional spaces as a condition of approval. For a nursing and residential care facility,the parking requirement is 0.5 parking space per bed. The concept site plan indicates 102 beds,which requires 51 parking spaces. 101 parking spaces have been provided. Staff believes there would be some number of staff and an office,which has been unaccounted for. Based on a requirement for office uses(commercial)of 1 parking space per 500 sq. ft.,the additional 51 parking spaces would accommodate 25,500 sq. ft. of office space,nearly an entire floor of the 3-story building. Staff believes adequate parking has been provided for this building,but at the time of certificate of zoning compliance will request an accounting of the number of beds, as well as the square footage of the staff office. The site plan reflects an 8,960 sq. ft.,two story office building. 18 parking spaces would be required and 40 spaces are shown on the conceptual plan. H. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There is an informal 10-foot wide pathway stubbed at the west boundary of the adjacent Snorting Bull Subdivision. The Meridian Pathways Plan shows a future multi-use pathway connecting to this stub. The concept plan as submitted does include a connection to this stub via a direct east—west connection from the existing western pathway stub to the detached sidewalk along S. Wells St. However,there are portions of this pathway shown to narrow to 5' in width. To be consistent with the Pathways Plan, staff recommends the entire length of pathway from the existing western stub at the adjacent subdivision to S. Wells Street be built to a finished template at 10' in width'. With the final plat submittal,the applicant should submit and obtain approval of a pedestrian pathway easement from City Council. Further,the applicant should coordinate with the applicable irrigation district and conform to any requirements of the district. The Meridian Pathways Plan shows the preferred future alignment for the multi-use pathway is along Five-Mile Creek whereas the applicant is providing the connection approximately 200 feet to the north. This is because Five-Mile Creek bisects a property to the west that is neither part of Snorting Bull Subdivision nor the subject property.As the present applicant cannot control if and when this western property develops,the connection 200 feet to the north is the alternate alignment. The applicant is also providing a second pathway connection along Five-Mile Creek(south perimeter of the office parking lot). This connection should be developed to a 10' template to the western property line to facilitate completion of the preferred creekway alignment if the western property annexes and develops. The conceptual development plan shows detached sidewalks and pathways providing designated pedestrian access between all single-family residences,the central amenity,the office building and the assisted living/memory care facility. I. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The applicant is providing 5' detached sidewalks along all the local roads which border this property(E. Magic View Dr., S. Wells St. and E.Wells Cir) although the TN-R dimensional Page 12 Item 5. 95 standards only require 5' wide detached sidewalks along collector roads. 4' wide detached sidewalks are provided along all the internal private roads. J. Parkways(UDC 11-2 11-3A-17): UDC 11-2D-6 requires parkways of a minimum width of 8' and landscaped with Class II trees along all local streets. The conceptual landscape plan does indicate at least 8' of landscaping adjacent to most of the detached sidewalks running along E. Magic View Dr. S.Wells St. and Wells Cir. in most areas.At the time of final plat the landscape plan should indicate all requirements of UDC 11-2D-6 and 11-3A-17 are satisfied. L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B and UDC 11-2D-6): Because the site is more than 5 acres in size,the applicant is subject to the landscape requirements. This includes landscape strips and parkways along all local streets(in the TN-R zone district), a minimum of 10%qualified open space and minimum landscape requirements for all common open spaces and pathways. For commercial uses(including the assisted living and memory care),there are requirements for perimeter and internal landscaping within commercial parking lots,parking islands at intervals of no less than 12 parking space intervals, and tree mitigation requirements for qualifying trees. The conceptual landscape plan does indicate landscape requirements are met, although there are a few locations where it appears the minimum 8' wide parkway strip is not met along the local streets.At the time of final plat,the applicant will need to submit a landscape plan with landscape type and quantity indicated that meets the requirements of UDC 11-2D-6 and UDC 11-3B. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G) All residential developments over 5 acres in area are required to provide at least 10% of qualified open space. The applicant has submitted an open space exhibit.Based on an acreage of 11.79 acres, 1.18 acres of open space is required,whereas 21.5%is provided. All qualified open space meets the minimum dimensional requirements and appears to be landscaped as required per UDC 11-3G-3-E. N. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-3-C) One amenity is required with this development. The applicant proposes a central open space which includes a 4,320 sq. ft. clubhouse, swimming pool,hot tub,pickleball court,horseshoe pit and dog park. In several other areas of the residential development,there are large open spaces which contain picnic gazebos and an open space corridor with internal pathways running the length of the residential area north to south. Although not required,the nursing/residential care facility includes sizeable open space, an internal courtyard,bocce ball court,picnic gazebo, and community garden. The Five-Mile Creek is being preserved within a 100' wide easement. The development as proposed greatly exceeds the minimum requirements. O. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-69 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and the specific use standards for nursing and residential care per 11-4-3-29. With submittal of the final plat landscape plan and the CZCs for the commercial portions,the applicant should provide details of the fencing proposed for the development to ensure it complies with UDC standards. P. Existing Easements: There are existing 10-foot wide public,utility, drainage and irrigation easements that run along the interior and exterior boundary of the three platted lots created with the Magic View Amended Plat. Prior to the final plat or the issuance of a CZC application,the applicant will be required to vacate the 10-foot wide easements along internal lines and rededicate if necessary. Page 13 Item 5. 96 Q. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Five Mile Creek crosses the southwest corner of this site and is proposed to remain open as an amenity for the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6. R. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VI below for Public Works comments/conditions. S. Pressurized Irrigation System(UDC 11-3A-I5): An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for each lot within the development as set forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. T. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC I I-3A-18. U. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Section, conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structures on the site as shown in Section V. Single family residents incorporate residential characteristics consistent with the adjacent residences,and the commercial building have a more contemporary appearance.All structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Submittal and approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications are required prior to submittal of building permit application(s). In order to be respectful to the existing residences and because of the visibility of the project,as a condition of approval staff is recommending the rear or side of structures facing the existing residences at Snorting Bull Subdivision or facing E. Magic View Dr. or S. Wells St shall incorporate articulation through changes in materials,color,modulation,and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical)to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines in accord with UDC 11- 3A-19 and the Meridian Design Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions and comments included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. The Planning Director has approved alternative compliance in accord with UDC 11-5B-5 to allow 61 gated lots, 32 of the required residential parking spaces to be provided in bulb-outs, and private streets per UDC 11-3F-5. Page 14 Item 5. F 7 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map(date: 4/21/2021) WELLS STREET PROPERTY CITY OF MERUNAN ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCR I PT10N Lots 7,21,22 and a portion of Lot 6 of Amended Magic View Subdivision filed in Book 52 of Plats at Pages 4445 through 44-46,Ada County Records and tfiat portion of the I ands of Ada County Highway District as described in that Warranty Deed recorded under Instrument No.8235392,Aida County Records,Ior:ated in the East Half of Section 17,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Base Meridian,CO of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,described asfollows: i3fGINNING at the center-quarter Earner of Section 17,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian, from which the north-qu arter corner of said Section 17 bears North 00°23'48" East,2,657.09 feet;Theme North 0D°23'48"East,926.76 feet along the wesi lire of the East Half of said Section 17, Thence S 80°09'03"E,413.1-6 feet to the most northerly angle point in the north line of said Lot 7; Thence along the northerly line of said Lot 7,S 80°09'03"E, 312.15 feet to the northeast corner thereof; Thence 31C°49'09"W,802.30 feet along the easterly lines of said Lots 7 and 22, Then ce309°36'26" E, 35.49 feet aiong the easterly line of said Lot 22 to the nortbeast corner-of said Lot 21; Then ce309°36'26" E, 789.42 feet along the east line of said Lot 21 to thesouth east corner thereof; Thence N 89°15'33"W,373.45 feet along the south lute of said Lct 21 to the southwest corner thereof; Thence N 00°01'21"W,723.67 feet along the west line of said Lot 21 to the southerly line of said lands of Ada County Highway District; Thence N 00°01'21"W,50.00 f eet to th e north line of said lands of Ada County Highway district; Thence(N 89°57'50"W,252.88 feet along said narth line and the south iifle of said Lot 22 tathe POINT OF BEGI PIN ING,contaittirg 17.50 acres,more or less_ END DESCRIPTION J-U-13 ENGINEERS,Inc. This description was prepared by m e or under my supervision_ If any , portion of this description is modified or removed without the written consent of Robert L Kazarinoff,PLS,ali professional liability associated with this domment is hereby declared null and void_ 4 OF p ` Robert L.Kaaarinoff,PLS 16CA2 z' KA%6 Date 21 ARR 2021 Page 15 Gm& m 473. •bo . J J, 4 s � z1, OF l � \ §� § ¥ � , , _ 102 1f202] Page 16 Item 5. 99 1 B. Conceptual Site Plan(date: 06/26/2021) i J i w I•, II i , } ����t •_ �� i1R9F 1 � i � yk i ■a -k Item 5. 1 00 C. Preliminary Plat(date: 10/21/2021) � r1*ooac nncaTrd, � r, LCT Ar 47 FF ,5' �• +O, X 5 I' I1 AN L.THu sr ' t[ i40 R 7 +Ju,s r~ Iia��� •• '22 � Ali ��=-fit ���-:-27_ ., �- ��_ F I IaV I ■ r} F ti - 41L. 14 F OIvol I rJ■I +.r-g ii - 1 11 d •�h SF - kp Ill, r IGh• .116t• 4'F T THY I I __- -- k •} 'r81 e* 7Q BI I ,ro YF dmw r - . �p8 Sr• I � 1 '1r i l.f+ r J* :i1� I 7- r ■Yr JJI+ rrr if I _ Ne W. rtb S• I Jr S31 7F Gl■R RWO LhiE IF d. ff 1; F - 17, EIx4 11H s '� r F f' + FU+ ti'AW IIIE ew Q ---.---+LLr '--- - - r .:1 ek44;++} y.a .yr ..{ F v , . _ W]1! �In n!F WI IF L T F + rnY C SJ1 OUR ---�--�+�7'� a41 h i9•i6' ----y- r +.■ram SE Frlrl� Page 18 Item 5. 1 o1 D. Proposed Landscape Plan(date: 10/21/2021) SITE AMENITIES 1 CENTRALMEADOW - ---- _ - 2 PRIVACY FENCES 7 WALKING TRAIL PICNIC GAZEBO - 5_ �.�,� 5 LAWN AREA ! 1. N11 .- •. 1. 4 - ! Al_LEYA mom A PLAN ENLARGEMENT o z�s so O EjT".r _ L_j T _ SITE AMENITIES 1 CENTRAL MEADOW . • ALL�yA ' ,�. 2 PRIVACY FENCES ram WALKING TRAIL _ - • a PICNIC GAZEBO h , I 5 OFF-LEASH DOG RUN r i ! 5 PICKLE BALL COURT 7 LAWN GAMES y�J� g CLUBHOUSE, SWIGPOOL AND HOTTER r ' r LANE(PRlVR EJ I _ .�'Fa ems_. f• /f a UPLAND STEPPE • I • PLANTING � f o Y •• 0 - i fkj 4 q �•_ E POOLS IDE LANE(PRIVATE) �? Page 19 Items. t• ��- '� 4• Ir..-_ -•� z _ , 102 � � --�- ,PV• �� y $- 4'r= y /1 , SITEAMENITIES E F'O0L51[]E LANE(VRIVATE� CENTRAL MEADOW a 2 PRIVACY FENCES 3 WALKING TRAIL I 4 PICNIC GAZEBO AND LAWN AREA 5 VEHICULAR GATE � E 100 YEAR FLOO©PLAIN AND - - -- ADDITIONAL 10'WIDE • -156E€Y B- - ---�-- � BUFFER I �' NMI I E.GENTRY CIRCLE IjT PLAN ENLARGEMENT o, 25 50' O 1 - w � i'•• � 5 - DT r= 4. _ r•a ^ � � K i 9 1 y 1 4 L 6 It PLAN ENLARGEMENT Page 20 Item 5. ■ D. Open Space Exhibit(date: 5/7/2021) d _ a� a I I 6 — J4„ r rT _I y I ,F If 4' -DDRRk 1 OPEN SPACE + 675&715 OPEN SPACE= 103,9075.F. 675&715 TOTAL LOT AREA= 482,209 S.F.(11.07 ACRES) OPEN SPACE PROVIDED= 21.5% >i0%REQUIRED 675,715&855 AMENITIESREQUIRED 4 AMENITIES PROVIDED 9 1.CLUBHOUSE 2.OPEN GRASSY AREAS AT LEAST 50'x100' 3.COMMUNITY GARDENS 4. POND,WATER FEATURES 5.WALKING TRAILS 6.SPORTS COURTS P.E.PICKLE SALL AND BOCCE BALL 7. PICNIC AREAS 8, DOG PARK 9.SALON Page 21 Item 5. 104 E. Bulb Out Exhibit(date: 5/7/2021 3 LWdM 4FMAPQUTPmI3h¢ # # LCChlI#8 OF LIXf14 LEFLU94-f Ii PAH Ii FJQ IF i f I I IM[FB { S t�+M the Page 22 F. Conceptual Elevations d, 5/7/2021 '�1� � Dili.. -., j� ��■ i Ti mw WELLS STREET =AGES ELEVAnON01 WELLS STREET COTI]AGES1 1 !1r li WELLS STREET FT[AGES ELEVATION 03 WELLS STREET C07AGES1 1 ------------- Page 23 Item 5. Fl 06 4 GONGEF wi 1 OFFICE WEST ELEVATION CONCEPT OFFICE SCsIiK ELEVATION L4•17 4 GONLEI'I of F ICE EAST ELt VAT ION CCW-EPT OF FICE NORTH ELE VAT ION Page 24 Item 5. F107 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan,conceptual site plan, and conceptual building elevations in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The three-story building shown at the south portion of the site may only be used for nursing and residential care. c. Any office building may only operate with the uses as specified in Table 11-2D-2. d. Applicant shall construct a segment of the City's 10-foot multi-use pathway through the development as proposed. Prior to signature on a final plat,the applicant shall obtain City Council's approval of a public pedestrian easement and record said document. e. The rear or side of structures facing the existing residences at Snorting Bull Subdivision or facing E. Magic View Dr. or S.Wells St shall incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color,modulation, and architectural elements(horizontal and vertical)to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the Meridian Design Manual. 2. The applicant shall provide a mid-block pathway connection from S. Andorra Ln to the S. Wells St pathway which complies with the minimum requirements of UDC 11-3A-8 and 1I- 3B-12. 3. Parking for the clubhouse will be provided at one(1) space for every five hundred(500) square feet of gross floor area in accord with 11-3C-6-B. 4. All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design standards listed in UDC I I-3A-19. An application for Design Review shall be submitted concurrently with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for nursing and residential care facility or the office building. 5. Applicant shall comply with the TN-R dimensional standards set forth in UDC Table I I-2D- 6. 6. Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 7. Applicant shall comply with all specific use standards for a nursing and residential care facility in accord with 11-4-3-29. 8. Comply with all bulk,use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. Page 25 Item 5. Flo] 9. The applicant shall design and construct the multi-use pathways consistent with the location and specifications set forth in Chapter 3 of the Meridian Pathways Master Plan unless otherwise approved by the Parks Department. 10. Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 5I, 11-313-8C, and Chapter 3 Article C. 11 Preserve any existing trees on the subject property that are four-inch caliper or greater; or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-313-1OC. 12. Private streets shall be designed and constructed in accord with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3F-4. With the submittal of a final plat application,the applicant or owner shall provide documentation of a binding contract that establishes the party or parties responsible for the repair and maintenance of the private street, including regulations for the funding thereof. 11-317-3. 13. All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3F1. 14. The Director(at the applicant's request)approved alternative compliance in accord with UDC 11-5B-5 to allow the following: a. 61 gated lots whereas UDC 11-3F-4 limits developments to 50 lots; b. Allow 32 required parking spaces to be provided in bulb-outs whereas UDC 11-3C-4 requires parking spaces for all single-family detached dwellings to be located on the same lot as the use that they are intended to serve. Additional parking is required for the clubhouse. 15. 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. 16. The(preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years [add date]; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. Page 26 Item 5. 1 o9 B. PUBLIC WORKS A. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. A streetlight plan must be included with the final plat application and/or building permit application and must comply with section 6 of the City's Design Standard. 2. A portion of this project lies within the Meridian Floodplain and Floodway Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring in the Overlay District a floodplain permit application, including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is required to be completed and submitted to the City and approved by the Floodplain Administrator per MCC 10-6. Development in the floodway must meet either no-rise conditions or go through the CLOMR/LOMR process with FEMA to modify the maps. 3. Sewer mains through a manhole must have a minimum angle of 90 degrees. 4. Sewer service lines should not be located through infiltration trenches. 5. All water and sewer mains,water meters,and fire lines to the jurisdictional valve must be placed within public right of way or a City utility easement of 20 foot wide per utility and be free from all encroachments including but not limited to buildings, carports, streetlights, infiltration trenches,trees, fences, etc. 6. The water main in the northwest portion of the development must be connected to the existing water stub off E Magic View Dr. 7. A geotechnical must be included with the final plat application and/or building permit application. B. General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this Page 27 Item 5. 1 10 document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. Page 28 Item 5. F-1111 17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above. 18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=229654&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=229625&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiV E. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=229849&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=230177&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCityy G. NMID https://weblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=230614&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiV Page 29 Item 5. ■ H. COMPASS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=230801&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX I. WEST ADA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=232144&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiV IX. FINDINGS I. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: l. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the Applicant's request to annex and develop the subject 17.5-acre property with TN-R zoning is consistent with the associated MU-N and MDR FLUM designations for this property. (See section V above for more information) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff ,finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statements of the traditional neighborhood districts in that it will provide for a range of housing needs for the community consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential and commercial uses should be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential and commercial uses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 30 Item 5. ■ B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005,eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and As mentioned in the analysis section above, with the proposed and recommended mitigation measures Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30- 2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. C. Conditional Use Permit(Nursing and Residential Care Facility) 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 use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations of the TN-R district. The concept plan and landscape plan show all parking, setback, and landscaping requirements are met, and additional useable open space and amenities are provided whereas they are not required. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord Page 31 Item 5. ■ with the requirements of this title. Staff finds the proposed nursing and residential care facility and potentially the commercial building will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide alternative housing options that are close to existing commercial and retail services for older residents and needed commercial uses in a mixed-use area. 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, and operation of the nursing and residential care facility and the office should be compatible with the adjacent and future commercial uses and the future commercial uses nearby and will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The end-user of the office building is unknown at this time and will be evaluated when an end- user is identified.Allowed uses are those identified in UDC Table 11-2D-2. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If the proposed project complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII as required, Staff finds the proposed nursing and residential care facility and the potential commercial building should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Police and Fire have responded they can serve the facility and did not express concerns. Public Works has not expressed concerns other than the conditions of approval listed in Section VIII above. The nursing and residential care facility is not intended to generate any demand for school services. The commercial building will be reviewed when an end user is identified. The applicant will be required to comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 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 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. Although traffic may increase very slightly in this area due to the proposed use, Staff finds the proposed nursing and residential care and potentially an office building should not be detrimental to the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Page 32 Item 5. ■ Five-Mile Creek, north of the facility, is intended to be preserved as a natural amenity. Staff is unaware of any other natural, scenic or historic features in this area. D. Private Streets(UDC 11-3F-5): In order to approve the application,the Director shall find the following: A. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The private streets meet the design requirements of not connecting to an arterial street, allowing sufficient maneuvering for emergency vehicles, and meeting the minimum width of 27 feet. In addition, the design does incorporate central houses oriented on a common mew through the site design as listed in the intent of this section. The proposal exceeds the limitation of no more than 50 units being served by a gated development. The Director has approved Alternative Compliance to allow 61 lots. B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity. The fire district and police have not expressed concerns in regard to the private streets and gated lots. The Director has determined granting approval of the private streets would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity. C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. Proposing private streets with an integrated pathway system, clustering of houses around common mews, and a central greenspace corridor complies with Comprehensive Plan policies such as requiring new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets, developing a connected, comfortable, and comprehensive network of multi purpose pathways, ensuring safe routes and access, encouraging safe,physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists, and fostering a walkable and bikeable community and providing necessary infrastructure. D. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. The proposed development is a gated development that is centered around common mews. It exceeds the provisions of UDC 11-3F-4.b which limits gated developments to no more than 50 dwelling units, but the Director has approved Alternative Compliance to allow 61 lots due to its clustering, significant open space and amenities, and integrated pathway system. E. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE As required by UDC 11-3F-4,the Planning Director has granted alternative compliance from the private street requirements of UDC 11-3F-4 and parking requirements of 11-3C-4 with the following findings: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or Although it is feasible to restrict the number ofgated lots to 50 and provide all required parking for each single-family residence on site, the development is intended to be a walkable neighborhood with homes clustered around an abundance of central open space and amenities. Because the houses are clustered around greenspace and pathway connections (making the project more walkable), staff is supportive of the additional 11 gated lots. Staff also supports the "bulb-out"parking alternative, as requiring longer driveways (or garages) would result in loss of at least some of the central open space or amenities (or a complete re-design). Page 33 Item 5. ■ 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and In addition to the main central amenity (the clubhouse), the homes in this development are oriented around an approximately 75' wide green space corridor that bisects the property north-south, and a 6'pathway providing pedestrian access from E. Magic View Dr. to the 5 Mile Creekpathway to the south as well as multiple connections to S. Wells St at the east. Per the common open space and site amenity requirements of UDC 11-3G, at 11.79 acres, this development is only required to provide I amenity and 1.18 acres of qualified open space. The open space exhibit provided reflects 21.5% qualified open space (2.4 acres), with amenities including a central open space with a clubhouse, pool,fitness center, pickleball court and picnic structure, and dog park. There are also numerous pathways throughout the development, and at least 3 other 50'x 100'grassy areas (with gazebos). 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. As the fire department and police department have not expressed issues with the number of gated lots, and the required number of parking is provided near the single-family residences in bulb-outs along the private roads, the Director finds this alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. Page 34 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Conditional Use Hearing July 15, 202107-CUPFY2021Brightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.eArchitecturHatch Design Hatch Design 07-CUPFY2021July 15, 2021Ahead Preschool & Childcare)Property to the East (A Step (Veterinary Hospital)Property to the South (Residential)Property to the North(Settlers Park)Property to the WestBrightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.Vicinity Map eArchitectur Site Plan 07-CUPFY2021Brightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.eArchitecturHatch Design July 15, 2021 Concept Elevations 07-CUPFY2021Brightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.eHatch Design July 15, 2021 Similar Facility 07-CUPFY2021Brightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.eArchitecturHatch Design July 15, 2021 Thank you for your time.07-CUPFY2021 Conditional Use Hearing Brightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.eArchitecturHatch Design July 15, 2021 Questions? Item 6. Ll 17 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Brightstar Residential Care Facility (H-2021-0040) by Jeff Hatch of Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow a 5,800 square-foot senior residential care facility. Item 6. 118 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: July 15, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Brightstar Residential Care Facility (H-2021-0040) by Jeff Hatch of Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow a 5,800 square-foot senior residential care facility. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 6. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 7/15/2021 Legend DATE: Pao"ev-!oca=on TO: Planning&Zoning Commission r FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner W 208-884-5533 f Bruce Freckleton,Development — Services Manager 208-887-2211 mc RQ E_USTI�{'R SUBJECT: H-2021-0040 Brightstar Care Meridian CUP r. LOCATION: The site is located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd,near the northeast corner of ��-FF-F N. Meridian Rd. and E.Ustick Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a proposal for a conditional use permit to allow a 5,800 sq. ft. nursing and residential care facility in the L-O zoning district. There will be 12 bedrooms (one occupant per bedroom) and a small office for 2 staff. The development is proposed on two lots totaling approximately 0.43 acres. lI. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.43 acres(two lots) Future Land Use Designation Office Existing Land Use(s) Vacant lots in an existing office complex Proposed Land Use(s) Nursing and Residential Care Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 2 Phasing Plan(#of phases) One phase Number of Residential Units(type 12 bedrooms,one occupant per bedroom of units) Density(gross&net) N/A Open Space(acres,total N/A [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities N/A Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of May 4,2021 —5 attendees attendees: Page 1 Item 6. F120] Description Details Page History(previous approvals) DA Inst# 106133465, RZ-06-001,PP 06-014;CUP-06- 0011 and FP-06-0042 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State There is one access from N.Meridian Rd. (Arterial),one Hwy/Loca1)(Existing and Proposed) point of access from E.Ustick Rd. (Arterial)and another eastern point of access from E. Santiago Ct(Local) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Site takes access across properties to the south,east and Access west.Cross access easements have been submitted. Existing Road Network N. Meridian Rd,E.Ustick Rd.,E. Santiago Ct. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Property is internal to the development. There are existing Buffers buffers and sidewalks along N.Meridian Rd,E.and Ustick Rd. There is sidewalk along E. Santiago Ct. Proposed Road Improvements None Distance to nearest City Park(+ Settlers Park is directly across N.Meridian Rd(to the west size) of the property) Fire Service • No Fire Comments Police Service • No comments Wastewater • Distance to Sewer NA Services • Sewer Shed White Drain Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.16 • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Comments • Additional 366 GPD of flow and 9 GPF of infiltration committed to model. • No sewer main is shown on the submittal.Any changes to public work infrastructure must be reviewed and approved by Public Works. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Comments • No water main is shown on the submittal.Any changes to public infrastructure must be reviewed and approved by Public Works. Page 2 Item 6. 121 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend I (fLegend �I N yeo#Laoaion W I Pra�eo' Lxa=on k Ytif U STl.'1{ RD E-U RD— kw ETU :RD 1GAedium Density Resident' Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend I � Legend ICI caf ti f �F'o-a`- Luca-o �" ', I�Frnyeo#Lacflion City Ljnvk R. — Panned Par-wR4 _ I LLJ —� LI 57T- 1C-RD - -_.E'-U I f [-RD =7_W_U [1 CI{RD E:U RD *RU T — s R` k` R1 A G GE SC:r IR e-.l III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Jeff Hatch,Hatch Design Architecture -200 W. 36th St.,Boise,ID, 83714 Page 3 Item 6. F122] B. Owner: Settler's Crossing LOC—7761 W. Riverside Dr, Ste 100,Boise, ID, 83714 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 6/10/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 6/22/2021 Nextdoor posting 6/22/2021 Sign Posting 6/25/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) The Future Land Use Map recommends this property for office uses. This designation is intended to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. These uses would include professional offices,technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses may be considered (particularly within research and development centers or technological parks). This proposal is for a nursing and residential care facility for up to 12 bedrooms and one staff office for two staff. This use is not included in the Comprehensive Plan description for office uses. However,the property is already zoned L-O, and a nursing and residential care facility is a permitted use by conditional use permit.. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /g compplan): • Encourage development of universally accessible home designs within new developments and home retrofits, allowing residents to age in place and creating full accessibility for all residents of varying levels of physical ability. (2.01.01E) This project is to allow a nursing and residential care facility for senior and memory care. The facility must meet all accessibility and ADA requirements, and will allow residents to age in place in their community. • Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. (2.01.02D) A nursing and residential care facility is a specific housing option to meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities for Meridian's elderly residents. • Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. (2.02.02C) This project is an infill project. It is proposed on two vacant lots in an existing office development with existing single family residential to the north and east. The building is designed to be one story and 18'in height to be respectful of existing development. The architecture is designed to complement the residential directly adjacent to the north and consists of stucco exterior materials, multiple pitched roofs, with numerous exposed timber frame accents. Page 4 Item 6. F123] • Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services. The subject lots are within an already-developed commercial complex(Settlers Business Park)which is already served by public facilities and services. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject property is presently two vacant lots. Parking and infrastructure has already been constructed as part of the Settlers Business Park(Sundance Subdivision No. 5)commercial development. As this building will be straddling two lots, as a condition of approval staff will recommend a property boundary adjustment to merge the lots. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The property is already zoned L-O. A nursing and residential care facility is allowed by conditional use permit in this zoning district. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): The Specific Use Standards for a nursing or residential care facility per UDC 11-4-3-29 require a change in occupancy for any dwelling of more than 10 people and a license from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. For facilities providing care to patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease,dementia or other similar, a barrier with a minimum height of six(6)feet, along the perimeter of any portion of the site that is accessible to these patients shall be provided. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the building code in accord with title 10 of this Code. The applicant has provided a fencing site plan reflecting the area to be enclosed. At the time of CZC,the applicant shall provide details of the fencing that meets the requirements of 11-4-3-29. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): Dimensional standards in the L-O zoning district include 10' interior side setbacks and a building height of 35. There are no required front or rear setbacks. There is a requirement for a 20' landscape buffer adjacent to residential uses which is currently installed with the subdivision improvements. The plans indicate the side setback to the north is met and the height is well below the 35' maximum. The southern side setback is presently deficient(to the interior lot line),but the applicant also owns the property to the south and a property boundary adjustment is required as a condition of approval. The applicant requests a 10' wide residential landscape buffer rather than the 20'. This is discussed in the landscaping section below. Per city code,this requires the action of the City Council. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): All points of access are existing. There is one access from N. Meridian Rd., one point of access from E. Ustick Rd. and another eastern point of access from E. Santiago Ct. through the Sundance Subdivision No. 4. The subject lots are interior to the development. The Sundance Subdivision No 5 has a plat note which grants access to the subject lots, and the applicant submitted a copy of the recorded cross access easement to staff.ACHD has not expressed any concerns with this development. Page 5 Item 6. F124] H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): UDC 11-3C-6 requires 0.5 spaces per bed for a nursing and residential care facility. With the facility being 12 bedrooms and one resident to a room, 6 parking spaces are required. The parking regulation do not mention the parking requirements for the 2 staff that are anticipated, although at the time of the CZC staff will require the applicant provide the square footages of the office to apply the commercial ratio. The subject properties are within a larger commercial complex of mostly office uses with parking shared between 6 existing buildings. There is a shared parking agreement included in the CC&Rs as well as noted on the plat. The 6 existing buildings comprise approximately 23,000 sq. ft.total gross floor area. Based on the requirement of 1 parking space per 500 sq. ft.,46 parking spaces would be required. The parking lot as constructed for the entire complex contains at least 160 parking spaces, and 14 of these parking spaces are on the subject property. It appears the parking spaces meet the minimum dimensions of 9'x19'. The parking as provided greatly exceeds what is required by UDC 11-3C. There is one bicycle parking space provided at the west side of the building,near a main entrance. It should be noted there are still three lots that are vacant and could be built out in this business park.Although it is unknown what types of buildings or square footages would be constructed on these last three remaining lots,given the small amount of developable land, staff believes that the remaining 108 parking spaces would be sufficient.At time of CZC for any development on these remaining lots,staff will review parking requirements. 1. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Parking,drives aisles and sidewalks have already been installed in the commercial complex. The subject property will add an additional sidewalk along the south side of the building that connects to the sidewalk that stubs to the east, and will include a patio and walkway along the west(front) of the building that terminates at the western parking lot. Staff does have a concern regarding whether there are any impediments to pedestrian circulation from the northwest to the southwest corner of the site.At time of CZC the applicant will need to demonstrate sufficient pedestrian circulation is maintained. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-213-3 and the development agreement require a 20' wide landscape buffer adjacent to the existing residentially zoned lots to the north which is presently constructed. The landscape plan reflects a 10' wide buffer adjacent to the residential properties to the north. The applicant has noted the Settlers Business Park Property Owners Association has responded that the original intent of this requirement was to mitigate the impact of commercial properties on the adjacent residential. According to the applicant,as this development is a residential type use, this requirement was not meant to apply in this situation. The applicant adds that fencing is provided between the subject property and the properties to the north,and trees are provided in the proposed buffer at approximately 12.5' spacing,which is almost three times the density required by 11-3B-9 (requiring 35' spacing). Although UDC 11-513-5 does allow the Planning Director to allow some deviations from the landscape requirements through alternative compliance,in this case,this requirement is part of a development agreement, such reduction can only be allowed by the City Council.As a condition of approval, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a development agreement modification application prior to submitting the certificate of zoning compliance to allow the 10-foot reduction to the buffer.NOTE: If the Council doesn't support the request to reduce the buffer the building will need to be redesigned so it does not encroach within the 20- Page 6 Item 6. 125 foot landscape buffer. In addition,the landscape plan indicates trees qualifying for mitigation are being removed. The applicant should coordinate with the City Arborist for their review and comment prior to submission of the CZC. All required parking lot landscaping has already been approved/installed with the development of the Settlers Business Park. The landscape plan reflects landscaping of at least 6' in width along the foundation of the entire building. K. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): No waterways cross this property. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The applicant has submitted a fencing plan. Fencing is proposed to surround the north, east and half of the south side of the property. This fencing is being installed to protect the safety of memory-compromised residents. All fencing as shown meets the requirements of UDC 11-3A-7 and the specific use standards of 11-4-3-29. M. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities are existing and accessible for this property. The building layout as proposed slightly encroaches onto a 10' City of Meridian Water Easement at the south,although there is not presently a water line in this location. As a condition of approval,the applicant will be required to request the City Council vacate this easement and must dedicate a new water easement in a slightly reconfigured location. N. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Building elevations indicate a one-story building(18' in height+/-)with exterior materials comprised of stucco, stone wainscoting, exposed timber frame accents and multiple roof pitches. At time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review(DE)the architecture will be reviewed against the requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). 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 7 Item 6. F126] VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 5/28/2021) SUN DANCt S"M-,1SIJ4 47.3 "�i"TE M1.46 7OhING.R 9 'S+ R LU 3.4$ 50.W r I II � wai PROPOSED M RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILM u 5,807 SF T/ J'�� CGr�EC t=7 RCACn ARE. PAkm A EXISTING 0.11 A= PARKING LOFT 1 N — --—— — AtAg' Jo ss 7 xas�oglo'w 112.�4- �� M1t ' ------§ _ I MWAM sulwlr� ,per Page 8 Item 6. 127 B. Landscape Plan(date: 5/25/2021) aE U& — E ra[a r •,•.. k ti I 1 M I n S .J4 �7DYFG - ��' �,rye •ir ., � � �� � _ � 5 FAQ LoT I �• i .I� f•. F. - -1 - J r L-�r• �. % •ti_ 3 � f ti _ - _L4U Low ijE"Fo �,za, L Page 9 Item 6. r128] C. Fencing Plan(date: June 10,2021) SUh-ANCE SUMIUMOM?I ++•Y•i•iJ lrru�•P,d.......��YY11•i� YY�i °4433g i-EJAS ZOW NG.R- C+— LLJ I t' — PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILFTY r, 5,807 SF KWH AR=f k PARSa l4 EXISTVIG 0.21 AEPM PAWUNG LOT mod; M N8fi°og Lo-w 2Y2.a4- Page 10 ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- ............................................. ----- --------------------------------- -------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ................................................................. .. :-- -- - —-—-—--- - - ................................................................... iiiiooii iiy �1 �■■■ ■■■■ ■■�■ l■■■ - 1. . 11 �■■■ ■■■■I� ■■r■ loll o■�■ ■■.■_ ■■.■ ____________________________ -_______-__ -__-_—_---___--_ _ �,. ___ ______________ __________ ___ _______________ ______________ ______________; ........................................... ...,.........................--- _=___- _-__- _ _:_ ___ _:____ 9 ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------- loll loin mono loll 1111■ ■■■■ loin ■■■■ ■■■■ loll l■■■ on on ll ll ill■ ll l■ ■m on ll ll - - ----------------------------------- -- --------- -------------- - ------------------------ . -- - .. ..._......... -......................... _eij nn nn nn nn �I�dIIIIIIIIIIIrll, € ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...... :::::::::... ................................................... .......................... ......................................................................................... Item 6. Fl 30 HATCH DESIOr ARCHITECTURE Page 12 Item 6. 131 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and administrative design review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. The applicant will either meet all architectural requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)or apply for a design exception as part of the CZC submittal. 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 11-513-6F. 3. The applicant shall either meet the 20' residential landscape buffer requirement, or request a development agreement modification through the City Council prior to submitting a certificate of zoning compliance application. 4. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review submittal,the applicant shall demonstrate the pedestrian connectivity standards of UDC 11-3A-19-B-4 and UDC 11-3A-17 are satisfied. 5. Prior to building permit submittal,the applicant shall vacate the 10' City of Meridian water easement at the south of the proposed building and rededicate a new easement. 6. The site plan prepared by Hatch Design Architecture,dated May 28,2021, is approved as submitted,with the revisions as described in conditions 3&4 above. 7. The landscape plan prepared by Rodney Evans+Partners,dated May 28,2021, is approved as submitted,with the revisions as described in conditions 3&4 above. 8 Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-29 for a nursing or residential care facility. 9. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review submittal,the Applicant shall substantially comply with the submitted site-plan, landscape plan, and elevations of this application. 10. Prior to building permit submittal,the applicant shall complete a property boundary adjustment to merge both lots. 11. The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site(DA Inst# 106133465, RZ-06-001,PP 06-014; CUP-06-011 and FP-06-042). 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. Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the L-O zoning district. Page 13 Item 6. F132] 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 nursing and residential care facility will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide alternative housing options that are close to existing commercial and retail services for older residents. 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, and operation of the nursing and residential care facility should be compatible with the adjacent existing residential uses and the future commercial uses nearby and will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If the proposed project complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII as required, Staff finds the proposed nursing and residential care facility should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Because the site is already annexed into the City and these services are already being provided to the existing Settlers Business Park, Stafffinds 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 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. Although traffic may increase very slightly in this area due to the proposed use, Staff finds the proposed nursing and residential care should not be detrimental to the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features in this area; however,finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 14 Item 7. L133 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for WRRF Map Amendment (H-2021-0041) by City of Meridian, Located Approximately% Mile South of W. Mcmillan Rd., Midway Between N. Black Cat Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Mixed-Use Non-Residential on 40.9 acres of land to Medium-Density Residential and 39.8 acres to Industrial, based on the results of the most recent Odor Study. Item 7. 134 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: July 15, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for WRRF Map Amendment (H-2021-0041) by City of Meridian, Located Approximately 1/4 Mile South of W. Mcmillan Rd., Midway Between N. Black Cat Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Mixed-Use Non-Residential on 40.9 acres of land to Medium-Density Residential and 39.8 acres to Industrial, based on the results of the most recent Odor Study. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 7. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING July 15,2021 Legend DATE: Iff Project Lcofl3tor / TO: Planning&Zoning Commission I i FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0041 Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility ---- (WRRF)—Comprehensive Plan Map -- ` Amendment(CPAM) LOCATION: The site is located approximately'/4 mile 4 south of W. McMillan Rd.,midway between N. Black Cat Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd.,in the north'/2 of Section 34, Township 4N.,Range 1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the designation on a total of 80.7- acres of land from Mixed Use Non-Residential on 40.9-acres of land to Medium Density Residential and 39.8-acres to Industrial,based on the results of the most recent Odor Study conducted by the City of Meridian. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 80.7-acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Non-Residential Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) No land uses/development are/is proposed with this application Current Zoning R-8,C-G and RUT Neighborhood meeting date;#of 16/30/21; 13 attendees attendees: Page 1 1 1IOUEll- dMIRMi L�3ulw7w7wlll VJCK milli IN i,lu lli''F�_��• a''n R___.j 2 ��'irt � L��.��vi —_ f T,- `'�I Kyle'.ni• -• j��~ .... ___�_' 'F. _ ;'fit: 2 :2:: I � � 'i.:' ,' {�..--:r_, ;•. .,, ., I. "III •niiiii iii Imill 1 4 2__ NMIIIII -.� _ ��t�ililyll INIIIII M zN IIIIINI ' + STL- Item 7. F137] B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Representative: Laurelei McVey—WRRF, City of Meridian—3401 N. Ten Mile Rd.,Meridian, ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 6/25/2021 Public Service Announcement 6/22/2021 Nextdoor posting 6/22/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION: The subject property is currently designated as Mixed Use—Non-Residential (MU-NR) on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these areas. For example,MU-NR areas are used near the City's WRRF and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be buffered from residential. Developments are encouraged to be designed similar to the conceptual MU-NR plan depicted in Figure 3E in the Comprhensive Plan. See exhibit map in Section VII.A. PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS:An amendment to the FLUM is proposed to change the designation from MU-NR on 40.9-acres of land to Medium Density Residential(MDR)and 39.8-acres to Industrial(IND),based on the results of the most recent odor study for the WRRF(April 2021). The proposed IND area borders the existing wastewater facility;the proposed MDR areas are to the north and west of the proposed IND areas,which will be compatible with existing adjacent MDR designated areas. The previous odor assessment conducted in 2004 identified an area around the wastewater facility that was not appropriate for residential uses. Thus,this area was designated on the FLUM as MU-NR for the development of commercial/industrial uses. Staff is supportive of the requested change for several reasons. With recent and planned upgrades at the WRRF,the areas previously required to be preserved for non- residential developments may now also be appropriate for residential uses. Offsite odor impacts have been reduced, should be further improved in the future, and the change should not create a nuisance for City operations or residents. Further,the areas of MU-NR proposed for MDR are behind existing and entitled residential uses.Allowing non-residential uses behind residential neighborhoods without appropriate access could otherwise lead to additional nuisances and private property impacts. The least of these may otherwise be commercial traffic driving through residential neighborhoods. Additional residential in the proposed MDR areas would be more seamless and present fewer conflicts. Since the proposed IND areas are owned by the City and reserved for City operations, and the City is working to proactively mitigate for offsite impacts,the proposed FLUM seems appropriate. Other areas of MU-NR remaining around the WRRF are existing or retain opportunities to access from Utick or Ten Mile, and without taking access from residential neighborhoods. The MU-NR designated areas may still provide Page 3 Item 7. 138 services and jobs that are beneficial for the City, and staff does not anticpate further reduction in the MU-NR area through subsequent comprehensive plan map amendments to allow more residential near the WRRF. The proposed MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The proposed IND designation allows a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, flex,and incidential retail and office uses. In some cases uses may include processing,manufacturing,warehouses, storage units, and industrial support activities. STAFF RECOMMENDED FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS: To coincide with the existing designation of the WRRF,which is Civic, Staff recommends the area proposed as Industrial be changed to Civic as shown on the proposed land use map in Section VII.A.This area borders the existing wastewater facility. The purpose of the Civic designation is to preserve and protect existing and planned municipal, state and federal lands for area residents and visitors. This category includes public lands, law enforcement facilities, post offices, fire stations, cemeteries,public utility sites,public parks,public schools, and other government owned sites within the Area of City Impact. Because this is the City's wastewater facility,this designation seems more appropriate than Industrial. See exhibit map in Section VII.A. Additionally, Staff recommends certain changes to the symbols on the FLUM pertaining to Park, Emergency Services and School designations as shown on the FLUM in Section VII.B; the symbols and land use designations with a pink border indicate proposed revisions to the FLUM.None of these changes have any bearing or impact on other land use designation decisions or property rights. All recommended revisions are to reflect current decisions and actions relating to the construction of new facilities,previous acquisition of land,or other previous but related decisions by City Council. These changes will allow the FLUM to be as accurate as possible and reduce the need for Staff to maintain additional datasets with the actual location of facilities. The designations for four(4)park sites are proposed to change from"future"to"existing"; the designations for two (2)fire stations and two(2)police substations are now location specific as opposed to general locations as property has been acquired by the City; and a new school designation was added to reflect a school that is opening this Fall. Finally, Staff proposes a text change to the notes section of the FLUM as shown in Section VII.B; the proposed additions are underlined.This revision will allow Staff to keep the map symbols up to date when activities such as construction or land acquisitions by the City or partner agencies are made. This is similar to the way parcels,roads,and other map features on the FLUM are automatically updated as changes occur. Underlying FLUM designation changes,if appropriate,would still require City Council approval as proposed. 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): • "Maintain and update the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of this Comprehensive Plan."(3.04.01B) The proposed amendment to the FL UM will implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. • "Require all development to be consistent with Future Land Use Map designations for the property." (3.03.03D). Future development should be consistent with the FLUM designations proposed for the subject property. • "Maintain the Future Land Use Map to reflect existing facilities."(3.06.01A) Page 4 Item 7. F139] The additional changes to the FLUMproposed by Staff will reflect existingfacilities. • "Keep the Future Land Use Map current by defining appropriate locations for industrial,commercial, and office businesses."(2.08.03A) Although the proposed changes are not for industrial, commercial or office uses, the changes will assist in keeping the FL UM current by identifying appropriate locations for MDR and Civic uses. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map as recommended by Staff in accord with the Findings in Section VIII. Page 5 Item 7. F140] VII. EXHIBITS A. Future Land Use Map—Adopted&Proposed Land Uses Dike.715I2021 Adopted Land Uses —MtJ-G 1,000 mmmmc= Feet a LowDensily a Ftea'ia6nil6 d E nuv Bugle Office-, DOC l`At�' Ilro Wadiurn IF } a Dens iFy Resicleniial x xx t ' xx ienurr F— x : + , } Legend * „ 7# no r19 Civic t^ g� �TMISAP Sou ndary x Law Density Residential 61edium density Residential x 61ad-High Density Residential x xx Hip DensAy Residental x x - Commercial Industrial civic Proposed Land Uses F—] Old Town CMixed Use Nsighborho-ad amFrt iol 2. Mixed Use 0orrimunity a- Law derFi r - Re sid aaiilia I IAaed Use Regional G andfta - Mixed J50 N on-Residential Ik A4lgl0 Mixed Use-Interchange ! I-- Do€ tr Font - Law density Employment _ _ High Density Employment ° Mixed Employment _ x � ]anr�ta 1,7kjta IAU-Res _ r _ IAU-CQm ,• ' ' PU IC A SZ vjF} Lilesty le Center r tedium + xx dansily I xIAM1U-NR x y xx V R@sid,e Nil x x x r c or v II- tll ern{ln Fl Par :f stone Page 6 Item 7. 141 B. Staff Recommended Changes to FLUM _%IE_IIURA- DL7I Con rn+muN=Da-m-op--N,=DEPARTMENT July 6,2021 TO: Sonya Allen_Associate City Planner CC: Caleb Hood_Plante Division Manager Bill Parsons,Current Planning Supenisor FROM: Brian McClure-Comprehensive Associate Planner RE: H-2021-0041-Additional Recommended Revisions Updating the adopted Future Land Use Map(FLW requires City Catmcil action and public noticing-C om hens ve Planning staff are proposing several simple revisions along with the application for the Public Works Department-Wastek�uter Resource Recovery Facility(RTRRF) amendment-These other requested changes are not affected by the V`R.RF land use change.but AU are similarly facility planning-The additional recommended changes relate exclusively to the map symbols-None of these staff recoinmended symbol recisions havcL any beadug or impact on other land use designation decisions ar property-rights. The proposed symbol revisions are either Park Emergency Services,or School related-All reconinumd revisions are to reflect current decisions and actions relating to the construction of new facilities,pre,.icus acquisition of laud:or other previous but related decisions by City Council-These changes would allow the FLUM to be as accurate as possible, and reduce the need for staff to maintain additional datasers with the actual locations of facilities.Plante staff have received multiple requests to update these symbols from other Department staff,but the time and expense ofprocessing a public hearing application and the requirement for Council approval were limiting- Additionally,Planning staff are proposing a text change to the notes section of the FLUNI. See "FLUM-Note Revisioa� section below-with additions in underline.This revision would allow Meridian staff to keep the map symbols up to date when activities such as construction or land acquisitions by the City or partner agencies are made-This is similar to the%�ay that parcels- roads,and other map features on the FLUNI are automatically updated as changes occur- UnderhW fume land use designation changes,if appropriate, would still require City Council approval as proposed. -None of these suggested revisions are essential but would help to ensure the map is more accurate and relevant to City staff,and improve transparency for the public viewing the Wrap. What other see on the FLUM is what we're actually planning for. Community Developme nt.33 E.Broadway AMenut,M-al"'an,I D 8!PS42 Phone i08-884-555D .Fax 2o9-888-66f,y.www.meridiancb-ora Page 7 Item 7. ■ Description of Recommended Re-.isions i-eta bnl ranges: { Change HHuskey Park Changed existing symbol from future to existing Discovery Park i Changed existingsymbol from future to existing Hillsdale Park Changed existing symbol from future to existing Keith Bird Legacy Park Changed existing symbol from future to existing Fire Station#7 Emergency Relocated existing symbol to purchased propertyadjacerrtto Discovery Park Fire Station N Emergency Relocated existing symbol to identified property north of t]ywhee H.S. Police Substation 91 Emergency Relocated existing symbol to purchased propertyadjacerrtto Discovery Park Police Substation #2 Emergency Relocated existing symbol to identified property north of Oywhee H.S. Idaho Fine Arts Academy School Added new symbol to location on Central Drive (opens in Fal12021) FE 4fNoteRevision: Symbols with halos indicate genera]future facility locations.These symbols are not parcel specific and may float to nearby areas. The final location and status(halo)of synibvls may be revised periodically to reflect existing faghly locations. Page 8 Item 7. F143] s bwtlx�fv Hrv4rM pury,.a ml�otl .,'latlri.p"•pa��w.lm.ua e.FwK m. tlrir Ml:-sR S.rM1om an aw lrW rtap. 'r - 4" titi -tr gg' r r City of Nkr9dian I r - Futwe Land Use-Map s r Legend r • 1c 51atrn 1 ! # Park: ......... r rsr +... TYansrl5mtnr: i ••• fr.rk�w - FWve Fatlitts x. i-_I Ta7 Me YrleLlanpe BpetlM1c ANOP FM tir�'lsluy pd I� �. i # — N' Adupbtl Yaldh Oay,Taar � ;""rr• f IIr emu. --���•���` Cdu�l.Rtl i�i I Ritua Land uses i Qt%WL a Im mue Speafic i------------------'----: O YYYo�..,IY�YY O.�tl ti., IrA�.�!r,rporrr�r Page 9 Item 7. F144] VIII. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Upon recommendation from the Commission,the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Stafffinds the recommended map amendment to MDR and Civic is consistent with the existing Civic designation for the wastewater facility and the MDR designation will be compatible with abutting MDR designated property. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. Stafffinds that the proposal to change the FLUM designation from MU-NR to MDR and Civic will provide an improved guide to future growth and development of the City by allowing more residential uses in this area and allow for the expansion of the wastewater facility in the future. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals,Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Stafffinds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section V. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. Stafffinds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Stafffinds the proposed amendment will be compatible with abutting existing residential uses and the existing wastewater facility. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Stafffinds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Stafffinds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section V and the subject findings above, Stafffinds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City. Page 10 Item 7. ■ MEMORANDUM E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O July 6, 2021 TO: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner CC: Caleb Hood, Planning Division Manager Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor FROM: Brian McClure, Comprehensive Associate Planner RE: H-2021-0041, Additional Recommended Revisions Updating the adopted Future Land Use Map (FLUM) requires City Council action and public noticing. Comprehensive Planning staff are proposing several simple revisions along with the application for the Public Works Department, Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility(WRRF) amendment. These other requested changes are not affected by the WRRF land use change,but all are similarly facility planning. The additional recommended changes relate exclusively to the map symbols. None of these staff recommended symbol revisions have any bearing or impact on other land use designation decisions or property rights. The proposed symbol revisions are either Park, Emergency Services, or School related. All recommend revisions are to reflect current decisions and actions relating to the construction of new facilities,previous acquisition of land, or other previous but related decisions by City Council. These changes would allow the FLUM to be as accurate as possible, and reduce the need for staff to maintain additional datasets with the actual locations of facilities. Planning staff have received multiple requests to update these symbols from other Department staff, but the time and expense of processing a public hearing application and the requirement for Council approval were limiting. Additionally, Planning staff are proposing a text change to the notes section of the FLUM. See "FLUM Note Revision" section below, with additions in underline. This revision would allow Meridian staff to keep the map symbols up to date when activities such as construction or land acquisitions by the City or partner agencies are made. This is similar to the way that parcels, roads, and other map features on the FLUM are automatically updated as changes occur. Underlying future land use designation changes, if appropriate, would still require City Council approval as proposed. None of these suggested revisions are essential, but would help to ensure the map is more accurate and relevant to City staff, and improve transparency for the public viewing the map. What other see on the FLUM, is what we're actually planning for. Community Development. 33 E.Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 ■ Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org Item 7. F146] Description of Recommended Revisions Symbol Changes: 'Facirity Type Change D- Reta Huskey Park Changed existing symbol from future to existing Discovery Park Changed existing symbol from future to existing Hillsdale Park Changed existing symbol from future to existing Keith Bird Legacy Park Changed existing symbol from future to existing Fire Station #7 Emergency Relocated existing symbol to purchased property adjacent to Discovery Park Fire Station #8 Emergency Relocated existing symbol to identified property north of Oywhee H.S. Police Substation #1 Emergency Relocated existing symbol to purchased property adjacent to Discovery Park Police Substation #2 Emergency Relocated existing symbol to identified property north of Oywhee H.S. Idaho Fine Arts Academy School Added new symbol to location on Central Drive (opens in Fall 2021) FLUM Note Revision: Symbols with halos indicate general future facility locations. These symbols are not parcel specific and may float to nearby areas. The final location and status (halo) of symbols maybe revised periodically to reflect existingf acility locations. Page 2 r � •� _ t ■ 1 I � - nn 1 ■ 111 ', I •111 III Min MEN ME • � ' • ■ 11 INN= I I I - 1 �9ii li, ■ I • • - ■ S IN ■ ■ �� , ■ / - NII - I '4 _III II • • _ Mow L 1 IIIIII ■ 11- - - - - - - - - - - _ ��`�• I , �I - _ • IIIII - - �- - - • -� - - - - - - - - - 0 - - • 11 / � IIIII 1111111 N NN I 1 IIIII ■ _ ■ • IIN Illxl - NNNIII 1 �/ I� IIII NIII �1'NII � N1111 1 1 xl I■1 -- ■ N NOON 1 11 = INI IIN I■1 ■.■ / / ■■ ■■■ I N IE11111 11� - - _�-�11 I 1 - •_ ■�.' I IN'�� ■■ ■ == 1 IIII 11 1 � ■.I■I■■I --■ ■ g 11 - I '� /[ ■ 11 NNN x1 �11 =__-_ „�'N uu■ ' NINI AL ■■I _ - ■ ■ - m �1 ■■NOON _ =1 ■. I ■■INn 11 F -.■� nEmN n ■ ■, ,,,, ■■ _ NOON■■ ■It■■■■■■N ■ 11 111 1 ■ ■ ■ N ■:,v 11 1 i 11lN I , �■ ■ INII - ■■ ,■ NOON ■ I 11 111 . . -�- ' I „ ■ N,nH,NI I x x 1 --■ „ ■ „�■ ■ IINI ■ ■N ■ - �_> - � 1 I EMI 11 11 1 ■- � ■■ ■■ �'■■-- ' _ I III _ � '�■■ I _ ■ I NN IIIII ■ ■■ i ■ ■- ■■ �N, ■■- ,J -N- 1 1 �� ■u- I,I � II INI 1 11 " ■ 11 � Illm ,NN, ,,,,■I■,,, Ni ■ ■ '� ■ I III n x- I. 1 ■_ ■■ „ IIIII N ■ - ,� ■!■ ■ � NI , „ _ 11 , _- N ■x ■■■ 111 mE IIIII ■:: EmEE 1 ,,, ■ � NNII x ®IIIIII ■■■ ■ ■ IIIII „ ■ ■■■�N■■■■ � ' ,Nlill Ii ;;111 III„ IIII11111111 � m _ _� III I I ■ ■ N _-- - NIN 1 „ ' „ „ �1 111 IIIIII - ■IIIIII,.■;■ N;;; ■ III 1111111 . ■■■ o N■N ■ N ■ ■ ■■■ ■NI ■ 11 ■ „ ■I■ 111: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■1■ ■■N■ I �� m� ■ „ , Nm ■ -- - 1 p ■ son -- ■ i, on IIII ■ 1 N■■ - n � _■ 11 ■■ 11 ■ ' ,N�' - ,,,, ■x �- - III IIIII IIII . N■■ ME 2 ■ , - - „N �i - 1 -- ■ ■ N ■ ■y ■ x I - - . ■ III _ .NOON■= ■ .■ . - �r _ ■ -- III --- ■ ■ // ■Ti ■ 11 - � NOON■ ■ ■■■■ -■■ 'in =■ ■ N ,�� ■- =111 ',N�'�N ■ N,�'■ _= III � -� ■■■ " I 1 I ■■--■ � - ■ ■■■ = ■ ■u ■■ N■ ■ 1 1 1 111 - 1 NI 1 11 ■, ,■,■■ 1 I E ■ III N, , N - 11 IIN 11 ■_ „--■ III 1 III I ■ =MEMO EII Illinois N N m ■ - -- i ■ N■ m m - inI r I ■■a■■■N ■I ■� 11 �x= n - '' IIII �- 1 II I - , =-- 11 ' ■ �II NN� ■ � -N■ ■■ ■■ ■ � ■ Iil' NIII 1 11 III ■ ■ T■u =_ ■ ■ 11 1 1 NII 1 „ IIN NNNI INI IIII IIII - ■ - ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . NI 11 1� IIIInI N I N ■_ �m'fi-■ ■■ ■ ■ :.- ■ N- ■ ■NI IIINI =- III _ IIIII 1 1 - ■ -- ■N ■■ - ■I • 111 NNII 1 -_ IIN 11 I 1 III 1 ■ , ■ noon xx IIN NI " -�___ - ■ N IIINN 1 IIN NIII 11 - - p I ■ ■■ ■� �■��i ■ � �I 111 NNII N IIII 1 I - , ■ � - N ■ ■ I■ NN■ ■ � ■ II ■ 1 II - ■■ ■■ I■ ■I■I■I■■■ n III I ill nii • 1 111 NN I�IIII■1 IIIII 1 N NN 11 _ �.� ■ ■■■ ■ nmm� N � I NIN I MIN llx, ■■IIIII I _ IIIIII _ _. - I■■ NOON ■■ ■N■ ■ ■■N ■ .--_ .- NI _ - N 1 1� ' _- II ,IIN I xlll:-_=x x■ x � � ■ ■I ■ ■ m NNII 111' �N= p=� x _ ■■n 1 ■ NN N No ■I - ■11 NN 111 NI � -■ - NI = - �, __ LpI�LL ._-_-x _ x-- � s__' I ■■■ - ■■Ii,xYi 1 ■ NII 1 11 1 N■■ N■ '■"'�_' ■� ■ ■ ""■ - 11 11 IIII IIN -�_-_ � -_ �_= x m Im - m nn . ,,, - �:'■. • IN IIII 11 �11111 =- ' � INI _ . ■ II=-_- n1I 1 - . _ m n ■ - 1�I ■■ ■ 11 - ,I, ■,■ -�i -.ee � � I' ■■■ . m11 ■.'•1■N,1: ■■■ NOON■■ ■ - ■■N �C IIIIxIN F _ _ Illlx 1 11 11 , N, •- Ilm - - N■■ IIN 1■11■1 1 11111111 ■ IIINIIII E1 ■ I ■N■ ■ ■N■ I " j=1 1 1 1 1 �'■�' III I■■N■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ NI ■ . �_ ■ I - ' ■■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ „I I IIII IIIII = = 1 111 11 � ,■ n■_■ ��� N II II■II■IN 1 I ■. n. . ■ ■■ ■■ ■ Nx■■■ ■■ - I NN� N � � � =u II ■ 1 ._■u ' N■ INI ■■ . IIIIIIIII 11 -m. - � - ■ - � I ■ N � N ■p■INN �N _ N N�IIIII - I 1 � �_ ---■ ■nn 11- 11 . � ■ N 111 ■ � ■■ _ \ _ .n .. ■■■ ■S 11 11, ? - III■ NNI f I I I N ■■■N■■N■■ �L■N■ II ■ ■ - _ N - �■ ■■� ■ N ' ■ N■■ EEC-_�nn = 11 NN ■■ N IIIN ■� ■■ x - ■ ■ II 11 IIIx „ ■■■�■ N■ ■■ I ■■ ■ ■ I I III 1 N■■- ■ NI �I 1 IN■N� � ■ ■ 11 111 ■ - ■ ■ II I, ■ 1 IIII - NI ■ . ■ ... I I =■ I ■■■I ~I ■ ■ -_ ■ ■ ■ I IIIIII V �N N 1 1 I- - II,i N ■ I MIN 1, r IN - r ■ - ININI --_ IIIII - , I 'f' • E' 1 1 EI IIII 11 I,III,IN,11 NI` INN ■� �■. � : M 1 . IIII" . N =.• = _ - . - n 1 -. , ■1111111 ■EN ■ IIIII ■■ Isom - ■ mE - ■NI m■■■lion ■ - - ■■ ■ N N■■■N■ 111 �Ii ■i■ - I I ■ _'�j1■ x_ 11 ■= III�111 i_ ' N■■ ■ " ■ ■■�■�� ■' ■ ■_-- - ■ _ I ■- ■N N _ ■■■ An • J 1 ,J 5 - - II� . 1111 x I IIII ,� ■ ■■_ ■ I■■■■■ x NNN■■ 11 '- ■ ■ - ■■nl= ■ ■ m nm1 _ ' = . ■ E N;N■ J ■ ■ . nnm ■ . •nN nxm e i�lim --M i xx N - ��i ■ 1 1 ■■■ ■ NN ■ 11 - _ 'fi■ 11111111 I 11 ■ ' I■II -Illllxll xNm _ ■■ N I-- - ■ ■■ ■a ■N■ ■■ ■■ = E ,1 I 1 IIII I NOON ■ , IIII IIIIII 1111111111101-1NO I Ilxlll IIII 111� - _ x-_--x IIIII IIINIII II ■ ■ , '■�� �■�■� ■■" ■ x e-- � _ NOON ■. 'f■ u� � II - x=__ -IIIIII � ■__ IIINII I I ■ IIi// ■ ■ ■ = ux N■ N■■■ I I ills ■N■■ r I N■ ■■ ■■- u■: ■ ■ - IIII = IIIN- n I■■ I ■ ■ n 'fi ■ n ■■ ■■N ■-�:- n , 'f■- n ■ - ■ - ■■ nn = LII ' N ry__ _ , i■i 11 ■■■ N■N i 1111111 111111111 I ■■N■ 4MN x ■■■ �' ■■■■ ■■- ■ - - ■ N N■N■ ■N■ ■■■ ■ ■ 1 ' ■ ■ ■■ : nn■a 11-I,x��■1=� ■. II ■ ■ - nnN ■N - - � m - -N .■ : ■_ IW ■ ■� ■ I ■ ■ m NOON -T II . nnn n II - 1� -■1�1 NOON ■ ■■■ NOON■ ■ --_ = I 1 NI i �n NN a::■N= III ' ■ ■■■ - I N INI N I ■' _ � ■N N nN ■ ■ ■ ■■ II INI N ■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ x NOON 1 11 ■■ ■N■ 11 1 , , ■ , 'i� NIIII■u�I- " 1 1 111 N - mmNIEE E ■■I ,,,,,, m 111 . ■� 1 ■ ■■ N- ■ �I ■ ■: ■■ --_ N _ 111 _ ■ - E 11, - I -- ■ - 1-- -_ N N ■■ mE 1 1111111 IIN IIII INI 1■� ' ' IIIII 1 N 11 _ - -EN NOON ■■ '� ■ I -. ■. ■ I■ .. I ■ II , _ . 11 ■ ■ �' -- -- IIIIIN1111 -= = iii 'fi-■ NNN - ':NN ®� I■■ , ■■ ■ I■ 1I 11 ' : ' I II IIIII ■ :■ 1 NII 1111111 = ,i� - ■■ ■■■ o u-■■ ■■ ■1 ■■■ ■ N N,,,,, ,N„ I , IIN■■ E - ■ ilii■'ii NOON 11 _ _ ■ = NIIII NII N■I - ■ ■ ■ 6NONNI N ■ ■' iii �--� 6 ■ III ■■■ - ■_� N Ni■ 111 ■ � i --' Ili, m III „I - ■■ N■N■ ■-■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■� ■ ,,,,, ,N ,,, ,,,,, ■IIII ■ III ■ mE IIII IIII II ■ I i ■ ■min N■■I � N ■N■■ ■NOON ■` � ' ' ' ■ - ■■ i ■■■N■ - NOON■■ 1 fl mmm =,■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■■■ _ ■■ ■ I I i II _ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ S IIIII _ �III I I� � i ■ i ■ ■N ■■- - ■■N■■ N■ - ■ ■_ m ■■ � NNN■ NOON■■ - ■ ■ �■ N �_ ■N� - IIII ■:- ■■ I, IIII IIINI ■- ■ NOON N I ■ ■ �� 'N I _ ■ NOON■ ■ I mmE _d■ ■■q 1 ■�1 ■■ ■N 1 NIIII ■ . N N ; NN ■■■ _ - N■■ I I■NN 1 , ■ ■■■ 1 ■■ ■■ I ■ mN ■■ I � S■1'� I - NIII � - _ , , , N■■ ■� = ■ ■ N.■ ■NOON■ 2�■ ■■ ■■i � ■■ ■ ■ :�I � 1 ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■N ■N ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■N■ ■■N■■■■■■■■mI nxnn nnm ■�NEN ■ ■ N 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ -= ■■1 ■■■ ■ IIIII■1■II ■ ■■ ■ ■ "' ■■ NOON ■ 1 - • - • 11 — ■_NOON i- N■ - �■� ■N_- ■, 111 _1■ _ ■■ ■- ■ 'fi -IIII 11 C �■■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ J ■■ ■N +Zi■-x I NOON■ I- " N-' ■- - ' �■ ■■-N� ■-�■ IIIIIII F ■ m INIII �-■ ■ ail son N'■ MEN ' ■ ■ �i' - ■■■ 'f■■■ . _ ' x I, ■ ■' _ o N _ ■■ IIII■■ m ■ nx N . ■� I � ni ■ • ' 'NNIIIIIIII_ ■ EII � 'x � �/ " 'p p ■ � ■� N■■■ ' ■ iii ��II ■N �I�IEI = N .-T'. ■=1- __ 1 1 1:.I 1 N■■I♦�1■nl� ■■i ■■E� ■ ■ ■ ■■ NOON ■■ EN ■■ N■ ■■ IINI ■ � - N i = ■ ■■N■ ■■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■ I■ ■■ 111 111 ■■■III ■■ � 111 N NN_I_ 1/111on ■ m ■ ■N■ ■ ■�N � N NI ■■ - ■ ' mN ■ ■ ■■N m u■ 'NOON ■■ ■ ■ 1 '■ - 1 I "I iii NOON IINNIII ,NIIN NN m a_ N � ""' - ■E■ ��=I 1 N ■ ■ 1 III uN N, n. ■� ■ ■N■ 7 ■ N - 11 1 ■x 1� ■ ,,,, MINTjr ■ '■ 1 , � ■ N ': a■ ' � 11 ■ - "' =- N N■ ■ ■ ■N ■■ ■ Nh IIII -■1 I� N 1W 11 11 1 - - ■■ - III' 1■ 11 1 ■�■� III 1■■ T x• N IN ■ -- ELLij � �TT■r -r- \ III ■ II I I■INI ■■ ■ 1 11� ■■� IN � ■■■ .-- � .■ ■ - o ■Nnlin ; -� ' � — �4 ■IIII . . . . IIIN - � - _ _ _ _ ,;; \ \ 1, ■ IINI -1� J 11 1 NIII u NONE - ■ F ■■NNN ! III ■ ■ I � ■■ III ■ II ■ T 'lin ■ ' - - - - - - - .■ III ===111 ■■ IIII■ • � ■ NOON �-■-- - - - - NOON■ -- NOON - -- NOON I�I II II11�� _ II 1 N Nil N � ' F n ,■N I E I 1 1 I mono . N 1 nm 1 ■ I ■ _ ��n max:■:i ■ Ii 11..- ..� _ 11 � . IIN ■ ■■ ■ - ■ ■■N'� NOON N - _ _.1■x■■ ii ISM NON NOON ■■ I -- _ IIII 1 ■ml■ ��� I ■ :' ��� : noon = -■■s x MIN— I , ■ ■ II _ IIIIII �■ N,IEEm�I ■ = IIII■I - III I,,, ■ 11 - ��I I milli min IIII � 11 1 II III ■IIII -■■ - 111 11 - IIIII „ _ '�=111�1 111 IIII IIII NIIIIII � _111110 1111111, IIII 11 OEM� IIINI 11 '-I. ���� ■■■ ■ � N■ ■■N■ ■■■ II■ I � NI i I■11�'� ■■■■■�■■-■■■ �_N NOON nm . IIIII ■ ■ ,■, ■■ 1 ■ ■■ r , IN �l in .� ■ ■ ' III = NI N N = _�■ ' in NOW Ii' " ■ = 1 NII NII= ■ ■ n , 1 m m ■ ■N 11 11 N ■■ 1 "- I:I I � ' ■ I III ' ■N NNII " IIII IIIII ■ I I ■ 1 __ ._�� . x ' ■ N I ' - ■■ 11 ■ ■ ■=o N III,I IIIII =x- ■■ - ■N r _ I(IIIIII IIIImm , IVI 11 III II - IIIN 11111111 11 I II"' ■■ _ N■■ � � „ — 11 61I+''I liii _= Ixlll NI'lll -x 1 !1�- 11 '■x ■N i • • !I s■! IIIII 1 nll�■ -1 , � 11 IIIIII IN ■ I NN I NN 1 111— - N 1 NI■_ =I Ixm I m NIIIN -- , Im■ II ...■._ ■x N OMEN _ m'j ■ 1 ■.. � � � - ■ N■ I 1 . I NI 1 ■ ■ ■�1 IIIII• III ■I■II■I �■ -■ I ■ „ N 'IIINI 1' 1 III ___• ■ 11 ■ F — ■' � ■■ ■■■ " IIII �' ■ - "_ - „i � . • ,�N■ N' iimiii -='N„Ii,�■ NN I 1 11 ■- ;� 11 ON..ME Is ■■ ■IIII �.:. i ■in . = ■ - I=II nnn �� ■ - -I NII III I � I - 'r. ■1■1■: Ni 1 1 11 -INI ' ■■■ : - II ■.. NINO 11so Millpp • ■�■ � IIIIII N '�111111 IIIIII , I,NI111 =- mNm N = NIII IIINIx III NN -- ME I t1 in m E mEE •� IIII IIIN 1,111111 IIII„1,1 1 N , N ■INI 1 ii 11ii Is ■ ■N N■ = IIII 11 = N _ �- � ■ - 1 NIII �`NW —' _ ■ NI 11 111 ■ - Mum MEMNON OR N �11111 ■- 1 Ix�■ N "' 'nii � N�N�■ � NN�'■ _ � � N_�NI■ N N:�I I � N■N■� �■ �! 1 11 . ■ I- IIII " 'I�11■-11 ■ v 1 N NI ' 0 ■ IN■ I L � _ El : II ■ IS ■■I■ I N■ ■I ■ N■ N monomosso p ■ 111 ' ■ I iV�l,l ' f I I I I I � ■ ■ 2-_ Nu m uT■ �1 I ■ N - 1411'"I" N � I - III' I 11 1 ■ 1 Ni N� 111 II I II IIi ((IIIIII VI,N ■ ■- � 1 III _-- --N � - ■ I' �' i „ II -- III _--__ �■■_ _�_-� 1 II u ■ EEE= IIII III - ■ NOON ■■ �� N N I ■ -— " - - I ■� ■N ■N\\ ,■ - 1■ in II IIIII I I'11I' ■ 1 . mono ■ ■ ■■■n ■N■ - IIINI � 1 111 IIIII � _ NII NN ■ I' ' - IIIII = n■■= 11 1 �' -N- -■=N ■- 11 -_�� 11 111 � NOON■ � - ■■ NI = � ■I EN - 1 EE E 11 11 IN 1 NI N ■ ■ : 1 IN m111111 111 ■ ■ - -i■■NNN ��,��I �_��N �� ■' - � n ' - ■ -■■ I NNNN � III = N ■ �IIpI�j� �4 '■ N 1 IEIIEIE : II NpI I III 11■ N 1■■ I I _- 'jI1I -_ x NI I'� III N- I IIIIII " ____ . ME of■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■ IIIIII III ■ m _N = IN■■■■■ -_ . �■ Iliii m m■■m -=■ I,IINI,,, IINI ■N■■ - -7 ■■ ■■ — ■ I■ - ■ - II ■'-fi- �-I:i III ■ N� __ ■ ■■■ m■ - • m —_� �mm ■_- ■■m ■ - n n•,i■■n■- NOON■ ■N■ 1 ■■!NIII■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ 1 _� II■■ 1, ■ Nl .._ ��,_ in ■ ' - Meridian July 15, 2021Planning & Zoning Commission FLUM Amendment RequestWastewater Resource Recovery What is an odor study?How frequently •Where odor is expected to go•The highest odor value•Predicts:•theoretical odor dispersion patternsUtilizes local meteorological data for •samplingOr use industry standard odor values in lieu of •samplingCan includes odor and hydrogen sulfide •Odor Intensity• 0.6%67%Odor Reduction of Clarifiers& Primary Centrifuge Exhaust Installed on Odor Control 2025-2022 1%2%3%7% 2%Control InstalledWith Full Odor (~2074)Buildout 1%3% Questions? Current Zoning McDermott 8 6%3%11%(Hours/Year > 20 DT)Frequency ContoursExisting Conditions (2020)Meridian WRRF 0.6%1%2%Black CatCherryUstickMcMillianChindenLinder10 Mile