Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2021-08-12
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Maria Lorcher Commissioner Nathan Wheeler Commissioner Steven Yearsley ABSENT Commissioner Bill Cassinelli ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the July 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Brightstar Residential Care Facility (H-2021- 0040) by Jeff Hatch of Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Cole Valley Christian School Portable Classrooms (H-2021-0043) by The Land Group, Located at 1108 N.E. 2 ½ St. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to install four (4) temporary portable classrooms for a time period of 4 years on the school site. - Approved 4. Public Hearing for Centerville Subdivision (H-2021-0046) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 4111 E. Amity Rd. (Including the Outparcel to the South) and 5200 S. Hillsdale Ave., at the Southeast Corner of S. Hillsdale and E. Amity Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.49 acres of land from RUT to the R-8 (13.35 acres) and R-15 (27.14) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 190 total lots (124 single-family residential lots, 35 townhome lots, 2 multi-family lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 clubhouse house, and 27 common lots) on 38.95 acres of land. - Continued to October 21, 2021 5. Public Hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision (H-2021-0036) by Gem State Planning, Located on the West Side of Meridian Road Between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road, Directly South of the Mid-Mile Point A. Request: Rezone a total of 40.99 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 residential building lots and 47 common lots on 38.86 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016- 007070), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of updating the development plan and to redevelop the subject property to incorporate the proposed preliminary plat. - Recommended Approval to City Council ADJOURNMENT - 10:28 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 12, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 12, 2021, was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Nate Wheeler. Members Absent: Commissioner Bill Cassinelli. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Ted Baird, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson, and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Okay. Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for August 12th, 2021. The Commissioners and staff who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. 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. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Grove: So moved. Lorcher: Second. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 Page 2 of 69 MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the July 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Brightstar Residential Care Facility (H-2021-0040) by Jeff Hatch of Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. McCarvel: Next item is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda this evening. We have approval of minutes for the July 15th, 2021, Planning and Zoning meeting and Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Brightstar Residential Care Facility, H-2021-0040. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Grove: So moved. Lorcher: Second. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept 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 adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to 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 for those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. After all of those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you speak on the topic -- if you wish to speak on the topic you may press raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are listening on the phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have any questions for you, your time is up and you will not be called on a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 Page 3 of 69 Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a final decision or recommendation to the City Council as needed. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Cole Valley Christian School Portable Classrooms (H-2021-0043) by The Land Group, Located at 1108 N.E. 21/2 St. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to install four(4)temporary portable classrooms for a time period of 4 years on the school site. McCarvel: So, at this time we will begin with item H-2021-0043, the Cole Valley Christian School Portable Classrooms and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. First item on the agenda this evening is the Cole Valley Christian School Portable Classrooms conditional use permit. The site consists of 6.96 acres, currently zoned R-15 and located at 1108 Northeast 2 1/2 Street. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is Old Town, as you can see in the attached map here and history on this subject property -- in 2013 this body did approve a conditional use to allow auxiliary ball fields and, therefore, the school -- basically expansion of the school site. A CUP is required to install four temporary portable classrooms on this site. A couple reasons for it. One is the school needs to expand. It's enrolled more students. And, two, when you acted on that approval of that conditional use in 2013 there was a condition of approval that requires any erection or construction of structures on this property to come back and amend that conditional use permit. That's why we are here before you this evening, because at the time that we were before you there was nothing envisioned for this site, except for ball fields -- essentially open space on the property. If you had a chance to look at the staff report you will note that staff did require some street improvements along 2 1/2 Street. That is also consistent with ACHD's conditions of approval in the staff report. Staff did receive an e- mail from the applicant about 4:30 this afternoon. They are in agreement with the conditions of approval, except for item 4-E. They would like the Commission to strike -- remove verbiage along 2 1/2 Street and Washington Street from that particular condition and staff is amenable to that recommended change as well. The other thing to note about the -- ACHD's conditions is they would like them to put in a pedestrian crossing near the Washington intersection here, so consistent with what you see on the site plan here. So, as the applicant moves forward through the process with us they will continue to work with ACHD and install those improvements as well, so we do get safe crossings for those students from the campus, which is on the west side of 2 1/2 Street to the east side of these portable classrooms on the -- on, again, the east side of 2 1/2 Street. Staff is also requiring a ten foot landscape buffer along the roadway as well. Here you can see in the plan that they are showing some -- some gravel and trees and we want a little more beautification on the site. I would also let the Commission know that the portable classrooms are intended to be on the site no more than four years maximum and that's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 6 Page 4 of 69 how it's been structured and conditioned in the conditional use permit. Looking at the public record there was public testimony submitted on behalf of this from Alan Scott and Margo Permut. Staff is recommending approval with conditions in the staff report and supportive of that modification by the applicant and with that I will stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? State your name and address for the record. Thomas: This one? Michael Thomas. Address 4013 Alma Lane, Nampa, Idaho. 83686. I'm here on behalf of the client to answer any questions that you may have. We are in agreement with the staff report. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant or staff? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Bill, this is probably best answered by you, possibly the applicant, but has the the MDC, have they been consulted on this, considering it is in their area and also the the new one that is in discussion? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yes, MDC is -- is aware of this application. We did receive a phone call from the administrator and she asked that we don't require the street improvements along 2 1/2 Street, because it is meant to be an interim use on the site. But, again, there is no guarantees as to when the school is going to vacate and I -- my understanding is they have purchased property and they will be leaving downtown at some point, but there aren't any definite plans at this point to do that. So, as both city staff and, of course, the Ada County Highway District were -- we wanted to make sure that we get some kind of safety improvements along that roadway for the kids crossing that street and if you have had a chance to look at some of the public testimony that was some of the concerns of residents is just kids going up and down the road going to school. So, we have to -- yeah. We agree this is -- enrollment's not going to be a forever situation, because ultimately we want 3rd Street to punch through downtown and provide that north-south connection between Fairview and Franklin, but at this point it's -- it's safety of the kids and so we feel some of these improvements are necessary at this time. McCarvel: Thank you. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, did we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. McCarvel: Okay. That being said, is there anyone in the room or on Zoom who would like to testify on this application? Sir, come forward. And, please, state your name and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 7 Page 5 of 69 address for the record when you get to the mic. Garza: Sure. Joseph Garza. I live at 272 East Washington Avenue, which will be in front of these portables, if you will. So, safety. We brought up a little bit about safety. We see this every day, the wife and 1. Kids almost getting hit. Very narrow streets. Been pleading with Ada County Highway District to, please, address this. Now we are going to add on and congest more here. It's really nice that they decided to go here on the west side of the property, if you will, or where the portals will be. I would like to, please, vision yourself and all the improvements that we have done at our home, which will be right in front of this -- your home to be there and to take a look at that. It's a very narrow street. It's a portable. The begin -- the beginning that I would like to make is -- with Ada County Highway District, I agree, four years is not temporary. It is not. We are talking about, yes, we are going to move -- we are going to go ahead and do this and that. That is a big gray area. I'm sure we all have kids here. We do, too. We are empty nesters now. Sometime we are going to get to it; right? Just like the four way stop that we should have put in. These are our concerns from our neighbors as well, but they, unfortunately, couldn't be here. I think that this is just wrong as far as -- in so many levels of safety. I just don't have enough time and -- but on top of this is -- speaking with our real estate professionals in town and also in Boise, which I know very well, quite a few of them, that is not an improvement to downtown. It's not an -- it just isn't. If it was more of a structure like it is on the other side of street, which was built I know a lot of years ago, maybe that would be something to take up and that would be understandable. Something portable like this, you know, I mean, really, once again I can't emphasize enough. Picture yourself in our home looking out to this. McCarvel: Thank you. Garza: You are welcome. McCarvel: Is there anyone else in the room that wishes to testify on this application? Okay. Thank you. Does the applicant have anything else to add? Where did he go? No? Okay. All right. With that could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H- 2021-0043? Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0043. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Comments? Thoughts? Who would like to go on this one? Seal: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 $ Page 6 of 69 McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I will just start out. I mean I'm glad they came back and they are amenable to the staff report. That was kind of a sticky wicket there. I mean they -- obviously they want to make this as temporary as possible, since they have bought -- you know, they have purchased new land and everything, but they have kind of got themselves in a little bit of a jam here where they need the additional capacity. So, hopefully, these won't be around very long. I mean you are probably looking at a couple years at least that they are going to be there, so having the information from ACHD as far as what needs to be done there to keep it up to code and follow all the rules is something that we are going to follow with, so, you know, I think it's something that's necessary to keep the school going. I kind of agree. I wouldn't like to look at trailers over there, but, hopefully, they can get this in -- you know, get their new school built and get moved over there and the trailers will be removed in short order. McCarvel: I -- I will jump in and I would be in favor of keeping all the road improvements, especially the pedestrian crossing and the sidewalk improvements there that's -- I think that's necessary. Just added safety. And as to the resident's comment, it was -- it's been a need for a while, so -- Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: So, 2 1/2 Street was always my secret special way of getting from Fairview to Franklin. Do -- do they have any -- what's the time frame to punch 3rd Street through? Has ACHD said anything or is that even on the radar? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it's really contingent upon what Commissioner Grove was saying, developing that new plan, working with MDC and having the school vacate and build their new campus in northwest Meridian and they can sell the property and, then, kind of go to work in making that happen and, then, possibly vacating 2 1/2 Street and punching through 3rd Street. So, it's really contingent on development and having a redevelopment plan for the property. Lorcher: I go to the post office every day for my business and when Cole Christian -- either in the morning -- actually, all day long that there is no place to park in -- in the post office parking lot, because it's full and there is quite a bit of congestion over there. I think these portables will probably add to that mix, but, then, the other side of it is that if you don't present the portables, then, you are maybe cramming 25 to 35 kids in a classroom and, then, they can't learn. So, what's the balance there, having temporary portables or a school situation in which, you know, they can't accommodate their students for proper learning. With the landscaping, because that's temporary, are you requiring them to plant trees as well? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that is correct. They -- the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission 191 Item 1. August 12,2021 Page 7 of 69 code requires you to do one tree every 35 linear feet and, then, ten feet of lawn and other vegetative ground cover. The other thing that I failed to mention, too, is since you brought up parking, was we are asking the applicant to work with ACHD and provide some additional parallel parking along 2 1/2 Street with those improvements, so that we -- we add a little more capacity in the area. Lorcher: I think I might have to find a new secret special way there. Orjust so -- because there is going to be a lot of kids going back and forth from that area. I don't know. I'm torn between what to do for the kids and the safety of the community and the families that live on Washington Street, but it is temporary and, hopefully, they would hold true to that. McCarvel: I mean the intent is absolutely to be temporary, but we all know -- I mean things can change, but the plan moving forward is to -- for it to be temporary, but I think even temporary to have that -- those improvements done there would kind of mark it as, yes, there is more going on here than just the secret special way of getting through, so -- Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I guess before I can say much, Bill, with -- if 4-E is stricken, what does that do in terms of-- like the parking that you mentioned and any other aspects? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we are not striking 4-E, we are just removing along 2 1/2 Street and Washington Street. ACHD already has specific language in their draft staff report that they have to do curb, gutter, sidewalk along 2 1/2 Street, so I think the applicant really wants to just marry our condition up with ACHD's conditions. Grove: Madam Chair, my-- my thoughts on it are -- are somewhat mixed. I see the value in being able to get more kids in there -- probably will hasten their ability to fund the project to move out and so there is that piece. Looking at the larger picture, though, with the -- the new urban renewal that the city and MDC have been talking about and that -- you know, the things that they have been discussing in terms of how that area redevelops, I don't want to do anything that would hinder the ability for that to move forward smoothly, so I have some trepidation about how that could potentially impact that redevelopment of the larger area. McCarvel: Any other thoughts? Yearsley: I have no comment. McCarvel: Okay. Motions? Wheeler: Okay. There we go. Madam Chair? Yes. I have a question -- is there anything Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 Flo] Page 8 of 69 that's requiring it -- where the portables are being placed were to go back to the way that it is now or improved from that? Do you know anything on that, staff? Because I'm assuming that it's going to be graded, it's going to be flattened out, there is not going to be grass underneath it and when the portables are removed is it going to be put back where there is going to be lawn there or where the ground is going to be removed so it doesn't look like it's just emptied? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there is nothing specifically to that effect. If that's something you want to add you certainly can. Again, it's my understanding that these will be removed at the end of four years and, then, the property will be sold or maybe actively being looked at being sold. So, I don't know what may be in store with the new owners and how quickly the school plans to vacate the downtown area. But, yes, the intent would be to remediate it back to that conditional use permit status of a ball field and lawn. Wheeler: Okay. But there is nothing in the -- in the application currently that says that they have to do that. Parsons: The only thing in the application is comply with your conditional use permit, which is -- again, shows it as ball field -- or vegetation. Wheeler: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I have one last question for Bill on this. Is this type of conditional use permit, at the end of four years, are they able to reapply for an additional four years and if that is the case are we able to condition that there would not be an opportunity to apply for another one? What are some of our stipulations around that? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly we are putting a time -- that's -- if you look at the requirements of the code, you have the ability to put time frames on a use on a property. That's in Chapter 5 of our ordinance. In this particular case we are putting a four year limitation on this. So, yes, they would have to come back before this body to extend that or removal is how the code reads. But, yeah, there is nothing in here that prohibits them from reapplying if in the four years they haven't moved or sold the property or done something differently. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all, staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file H-2021-0043 as presented in the staff report Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 Fill Page 9 of 69 for the hearing date of August 21 st, 2021, with the following condition: To strike condition 4.E. Grove: Question. Is this -- Yearsley: Actually, that's -- it's -- my apologies. This is a condition -- it is to approve, not to recommend approval. Parsons: Correct. Staff had put the wrong verb -- my -- my hearing outline is correct. Yours isn't, so I apologize. Yearsley: Sorry. So, basically, recommend to approve this conditional use permit with the following -- with those modifications. Parsons: Madam Chair, clarification. Are you wanting to strike the condition in its entirety or just the verbiage by the applicant? Yearsley: Yes. What -- what the applicant had requested. Parsons: Perfect. Thank you. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2021-0043 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Madam Clerk, would you like to do roll call? Roll call: Wheeler, nay; Grove, nay; Seal, yea; Lorcher, yea; Yearsley, yea; McCarvel, yea; Cassinelli, absent. McCarvel: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Centerville Subdivision (H-2021-0046) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 4111 E. Amity Rd. (Including the Outparcel to the South) and 5200 S. Hillsdale Ave., at the Southeast Corner of S. Hillsdale and E. Amity Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.49 acres of land from RUT to the R-8 (13.35 acres) and R-15 (27.14) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 190 total lots (124 single- family residential lots, 35 townhome lots, 2 multi-family lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 clubhouse house, and 27 common lots) on 38.95 acres of land. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F12 Page 10 of 69 McCarvel: Next item on our agenda is H-2021-0046, Centerville Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission and members of the public. Thanks for being here. Try to make this quick. I got a honeymoon to get to, so -- McCarvel: Couldn't get anybody to cover? Dodson: The boss man, you know. It's all good. As noted, this next item on the agenda is for Centerville Subdivision, H-2021 -- thankfully past 2020 -- 0046. It is for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. The site consists of 40.49 acres of land currently zoned RUT, spread across three parcels, located at 4111 East Amity and 5200 South Hillsdale and also the out parcel in the very southeast corner. As you can see -- it's probably best in this one. Generally at the southeast corner of Hillsdale Avenue and East Amity. There is no history of zoning or improvements or approvals with the City of Meridian. We have two Comprehensive Plan future land use designations on the site, medium density residential and mixed use neighborhood. As noted it is for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. It is a request for rezoning from RUT to the R-8 zoning district for about 13.3 acres and the R-15 zoning district, which is 27.14 acres and it includes a concept plan that shows 159 single family units and 168 multi-family units, with a preliminary plat consisting of 190 total lots, 124 single family lots, 35 townhome lots, two multi-family lots, a commercial lot, which is not commercial zoning, because it's for a daycare, which is allowed within the R-15 zoning district and, then, 27 common lots on 38.9 acres. Again, this is only for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat, no conditional use permit for the multi-family is a part of this -- this application set. That would be required to come at a later date. The project is proposed in four phases. Just go to that -- a majority of the detached single family is proposed in the first and second phases. The access to Hillsdale and Amity as seen here is proposed with phase one, as well as the large central open space. The existing stubs that are to be extended from the east and the south are proposed within phase two. The majority of the multi-family is proposed within phase three and the clubhouse, pool, remaining multi-family and the front loaded townhomes, which is the southwest corner of the site, is proposed in the final phase four. The project is proposed with 5.64 acres of qualifying open space, which is approximately 14 and a half percent. Future CUP for the multi-family would confirm the required minimum amount for multi-family, which would be determined by the number of units, which I will get into a little bit more detail later. The qualified open space consists of the required street buffers along Hillsdale and Amity, the large centralized open space and other small open space areas throughout the site and that those do include pedestrian connections throughout the site as well. To note, the proposed open space does exceed minimum code requirements as currently proposed with the assumption of 168 multi-family units. Access to this site is proposed via South Hillsdale and East Amity. The applicant is extending two local stub streets into the site as noted, one from the south and one from the east, which is actually a city of Boise subdivision. Sorry. There was a TIS required for this, because they proposed more than one hundred units, which is a traffic impact study. The traffic impact study estimated that the project would generate 2,600 additional vehicle Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F13 Page 11 of 69 trips per day and 266 additional trips per hour in the p.m. peak hour, which, again, would -- if it's over one hundred in the p.m. hour that would also trigger a traffic impact study. The TIS and ACHD did recommend the following improvement. For Hillsdale Avenue and the Amity Road intersection at the very northwest corner -- we will go to this one. I apologize. The corner here -- they are proposing and requiring an interim signal there to help with ingress and egress for this entire area. The reason why it's an interim signal is because it's actually slated to be proposed -- or constructed as a single lane roundabout in the future, which would be here. Sorry. Here. My understanding was that is not in the CIP currently, but it is proposed, which is why they are saying it's an interim signal at this time. Secondly, on Amity Road and the Amorita, which would be the entrance here, they are proposing the applicant construct an eastbound right turn lane, which would be going this direction. Right turn lane into the site and a westbound left turn lane to be constructed on Amity for access into the site. Safe access to Hillsdale Elementary School, which is to the southwest of the site, and directly across Hillsdale Avenue, is, obviously, very important. ACHD recommended and the applicant agreed to -- to install a rapid rectangular flashing beacon, an RFB beacon, at the Hillsdale and Hill Park Street intersection for an additional safe crossing for current and future residents. This is something that -- it was recommended and not required, but the applicant took it upon themselves to propose that and take care of that access, which we do appreciate. As noted, the project area does have two future land use designations on it. Mixed use -- or same designation as the subdivision to the south. Medium density residential allows density for -- gross density at three to eight dwelling units per acre and a mixed use neighborhood allows density at six to 12 units per acre. The project area that has a mixed use neighborhood is actually a part of a larger mixed use area, as seen in this picture on the left. That entire area encompasses approximately 70 acres and half of it is already approved for residential development with the Hill Century Farms North Subdivision. The remaining area is comprised of commercial zoning, as noted in the central picture, with mostly C-N and some C-G -- or some C-C. I apologize. It includes self storage and urgent care, medical and dental offices, assisted living facility and some vacant commercial lots. The applicant is proposing a mixed use residential project that is more in line with the medium density residential designation than the mixed use neighborhood. The applicant is including a lot along South Hillsdale Avenue, which would be this lot here, for a future daycare within the R-15 zoning district and that is consistent with the mixed use neighborhood designation. Staff is unaware of future uses in the undeveloped commercial lots along Amity that are part of the adjacent project, but those would also be incorporated and analyzed as part of the mixed use neighborhood designation. Staff does have concerns with the lack of neighborhood serving uses in this area. Staff believes that replacing two of the multi-family units directly south of the daycare -- should be these. Staff does believe that replacing those two units at the southeast corner there with a multi-tenant commercial building that may include additional commercial uses, like a restaurant, convenience store, or other retail, would be of benefit to the site and it would also help the project comply more with the Comprehensive Plan. As noted it does meet the Comprehensive Plan currently. That doesn't mean it can't be better. That is why staff did not make a specific recommendation to change that, but has noted carefully that the Commission and Council should take that into consideration. The applicant is proposing a gross density of 8.4 dwelling units that can be rounded down to eight units per acre per Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F14] Page 12 of 69 the Comprehensive Plan allowances, which makes that a proposal for the maximum allowed density in the medium density residential. But, again, they do have the mixed use neighborhood, which can allow up to 12, and they are not parcel specific, so it can be not -- I don't like the word floated, but densities are a little harder to calculate when you have more than one. However, this density does include the proposed 168 multi- family units that are not part of the current application and that would require a future CUP. They have proposed just transitional lot sizes and density within this project. Along the perimeter they have lot sizes that match the existing development to the east and the south. Specifically on the south side they are lot line to lot line. On the east it's not quite one to one. As you move more interior to the site, as you can see, the next ring are lots that are slightly smaller and are within the R-15 zoning district. It culminates in the multi- family lots on the west side of the development, with the majority of them being located in the northwest corner. Staff finds that the proposed project is compatible with surrounding development because of this transitional density proposed. Because of this transitional density staff is taking the overall gross density calculation within the mixed -- or sorry -- within the medium density residential and not the mixed use neighborhood. So, looking at it as a maximum of eight units to the acre, which is the more restrictive density range. As noted there is 8.4 as proposed, which staff finds is a little high. So, staff has recommended a reduction in the maximum number of multi-family units allowed with a future CUP, to bring the overall density below eight units per acre, without the need to round. Staff does recommend this for the following reasons. The low jobs-to-housing ratio in the vicinity as noted in the COMPASS report. The traffic level of service. Emergency service response times and school capacities. All things that are well known in this area of the city. Staff has recommended limiting the majority of the future multi- family structures to two stories, instead of three. Specifically all of the 12-plex units be limited to two stories, with the two larger being allowed to three stories, so that there is both a transitional height and density from the arterials to the interior of the site. This equals a reduction of 40 units and brings the overall gross density to 7.37, which is below the eight allowed. Should Commission or Council find that additional neighborhood serving commercial uses as previously discussed should be added, this would further reduce the units and further reduce the density and provide better transition from Hillsdale Avenue and, again, would help the project be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but I did not specifically recommend this. There were 88 pieces of testimony as of 2:30. I'm sure there are more now. The majority of them are in opposition of the project. There were a few that were in support. The issues that were presented were the project being too dense, the traffic concern, school overcrowding, and not matching the existing character of the neighborhood. There was also some notes about changing the plan according to what it was previously and I didn't quite understand that, only because this is RUT and as it's shown on the future land use map is not meant to be the same as those subdivisions to the south and the east. It's meant to have a little higher density because of its proximity to the commercial and the mixed use. Staff does recommend approval of the subject applications per the analysis in my staff report and with the DA provisions and conditions of approval noted as well. After that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F15] Page 13 of 69 McKay: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. I'm Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm representing the applicant Challenger Development on this particular project that's before you. So, as Joe indicated, the request before the Commission this evening is annexation and rezone of 40.49 acres. That includes public right of way. The actual size of the property is 38.95 acres. We are asking for a combination zoning of R-8 and R-15, 13.35 acres of R-8 and 27.14 acres of R-15. In this particular project we have a mixture of uses and one of the things that was the -- the driving force as far as the design on this -- we have worked on this for over a year. It hasn't been something that we have thrown together in a short period of time. It's kind of evolved as we had a couple of different neighborhood meetings and met with staff on multiple occasions and worked with the highway district and the school district. As you can see this particular parcel here is -- is an enclave. It's developed all the way around. To the -- to the east is Rockhampton Subdivision, which was developed in Ada county in Boise's area of city impact. The area of impact boundary is right here at our eastern boundary. To the south is what's called Howry Lane Subdivision No. 2. 1 believe they market it as Hillsdale Creek. And, then, the Century Hill Farms development, which consists of mixed use single family. They have got mixed use neighborhood development, office components, multi -- or I think they have mini storage components and, then, directly north across from us is Shelburne South, which is currently under construction. So -- so, this particular parcel when -- when looking at the development that's underway and that's taken place -- is -- definitely qualifies as in-fill development. In looking -- looking at the parcel, these -- these very rectangular parcels with the stub streets are always probably the most difficult for me from a land use perspective. I have been doing this 30 years and it's -- these are always the hardest ones to work with. You have existing stub streets. We have a stub street that goes to Rockhampton. We have a stub street that goes to Howry Lane. We have existing collector roadway Hillsdale Avenue that runs down our west boundary. We have the Shelburne South development, who -- their collector roadway is directly across from us on Amity Road. So, we are bounded by a minor arterial, which is Amity Road and, then, Hillsdale Avenue, which is a collector. We have the Hillsdale Elementary School just to the west of us. We have the YMCA South that is to the west of us and, then, we have neighborhood commercial zoning also to the west of us here. This kind of shows you -- we had to break the plat into kind of two pieces to kind of show you what -- what we looked at and -- and one of the things that I considered in this design was, obviously, transportation, providing two points of ingress and egress. We had to match this collector that goes -- this commercial collector that goes to the west. We had to, like I said, align with the collector going into Shelburne South and, then, I had to make these stub streets work without sending my traffic as cut through traffic into these adjoining developments. So, we -- we met with the neighbors. We had two neighborhood meetings. Our first neighborhood meeting that we had was in June of 2020. Initially we proposed 355 dwelling units, which had 125 single family, 26 townhomes, and 204 multi-family units, plus a daycare, and that overall density proposed with that draft was 9.11 dwelling units per acre. The primary concerns that we heard from the neighbors was the number of dwelling units, if we could reduce those. If we could redesign our interconnectivity with those adjacent stub streets to minimize any cut-through traffic. What we could do to, obviously, mitigate our traffic and improve the transportation impact of our development Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F16 Page 14 of 69 in this area -- and three was what could be done to make a safer route to schools and alleviate school capacity issues. So, we came back to them with a revised plan back in June of 2021 . So, we took -- we took a full year working on it, working with our traffic engineers, like I said, the city, the highway district, the school district. We wanted to make sure that all of the agencies were involved in this project, because it -- like I said, it's an in-fill and it -- that leads to complexity. So, what we did after that meeting -- that first neighborhood meeting is we reduced our single family dwellings from 125 to 124 lots. We reduced our multi-family units from 204 to 168. So, we basically removed 36 multi-family units and one of the comments that we received from the --the neighborhood to the south was we had -- we had two multi-family buildings here and they have a collector roadway called Rockhampton that comes in and comes into their site and they said, you know, we would like some type of a transition, you know, whether it be some townhomes or something, but we don't want multi-family. So, we eliminated the two buildings that we had and replaced these with pods of just three townhomes that would front load. One of the things that the staff asked us to do is they said, you know, the fact that you have two different designations on your property, the -- the mixed use neighborhood, the medium density residential, we want to see a diversity in this project. We know it's only 38.95 acres, but we would like you to do your best to provide some variety of housing and different styles and also providing transition from those existing residential lots. So, that -- that was the task that was set forth to us and -- and they said, you know, we -- we would like to have a higher density along the collector roadway, Hillsdale Avenue, along the arterial. Fire Department said we want a -- a separate access to Amity and, then, a collector roadway coming in and, then, interconnection to these two stub streets. So, one of the things that I did is -- we had a street that came straight down. We eliminated that. We went and did a full 90 degree turn and we did a pedestrian path and, then, we did a 90 degree turn here. One thing we wanted to make sure is that it was more convenient for our residents to come out to Hillsdale Avenue or to come out to Amity Road versus cutting through any of these neighborhoods. So, we made it very circuitous in its -- in its road alignment. One of the other things that -- that the staff encouraged us was, you know, we want detached sidewalks. We want it to feel soft when you come in. So, we have a 20 foot landscaping with detached walks on our entry collector and, then, that collector comes in and this is 1.93 acres, so this is our central open space and that's what you see when you come off of the collector roadway and, then, when you come in off of Amity Road we have a pocket park here, that .28 acres. We have a plaza here with public art and we have pathways that come through and so we wanted the curb appeal to be the best that it can be. Amity Road is designated as an entryway corridor. So, the landscape buffer required is 35 feet. We have provided 35 feet. One of the --the pathway coordinator said, you know, we don't show a multi-use pathway along Amity, but because of the YMCA, because of the Hillsdale Elementary, could you do a ten foot sidewalk along Amity? We said sure. Absolutely. So, we are proposing a detached ten foot land -- or a ten foot sidewalk all along that Amity corridor and, then, detached five foot sidewalk all along the Hillsdale Avenue. This is kind of a blow up of -- of the landscape plan. As you can see we have -- we have medians as you come into the development. Significant landscaping along -- along that Amity corridor. Like I said, we have the plaza with public art. Pathways. We want to make this a very walkable subdivision, since we have adjoining amenities. So, within our central open space here, as I indicated, which is 1 .93 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F17 Page 15 of 69 acres, we have playground, we have a plaza, we have picnic shelters, we got -- we have pathways, micro paths that lead and drop down into -- into the subdivision and the staff had a good -- good recommendation that --that we took to heart and they said, you know, we want you to integrate the multi-family with the townhomes and we said, well, you know, we didn't -- we didn't think about that, because we initially had these as front load. So, what we ended up doing is -- we have a 26 foot drive aisle that runs all along the back of the townhomes and we said, yeah, we will go ahead and we will rear load those townhomes. That allows us to, then, do detached sidewalks all along Odell Street and we have detached sidewalks all along the -- the east side of the street, which will have a softer look. The Cunningham lateral runs through the property right here. We do have approval from the New York Irrigation District. This is our primary irrigation source and our pressurized irrigation system will source from that. We have approval to pipe that facility right here and, then, connect to the existing pipe that runs across Hillsdale Avenue. Bureau of Reclamation has also approved that relocation. The only stipulation that they have is that we can either put gravel or grass or a combination of both. So, one of the things that -- that we talked to the staff about was we do alternative compliance and we have like a compacted pea gravel with grass for the kids, so that they could come over and, then, link up to the sidewalk here. Or people from the -- the Rockhampton -- or not Rockhampton. I'm sorry. Howry Lane Subdivision could also interact, because they have open space located there. So, as far as our amenities, obviously, the -- the code requires only ten percent. I have been -- I was on the committee for the open space update to your UDC, so I wanted to make sure that -- that this one had more than the minimum. So, we have 5.64 acres of qualified open space. So, we are roughly 14.48 percent and that's for the subdivision as a whole, not including the requirement for the multi-family open space. We have a 1.93 acre central common area, with playground, pathways, and a plaza area. We have micro paths. Template sidewalks. We have our pocket parks. Public art. Plazas at our Amity entrance. And within the multi-family area we have two tot lots, one to the north, one to the south. We did that because we have a collector that basically bisects the multi-family. We also have provided a picnic shelter and in the multi- family development there is a clubhouse, pool facility, and parking lot. This shows you the Centerville townhomes. These are the -- these are the rear load, so they load within the interior of the multi-family project. There will be two car garages with a 20-by-20 pad, so they will be able to park two in the garage, two in the driveway, as required by the UDC. This is what we call our farmhouse kind of elevation. It's kind of a new look that my client's working on and their -- and their architect. We have provided the front elevation, the rear and the sides. You can see that there is significant modulation in the roofline. Different patterns, architectural features that, obviously, provide articulation and interest. This is the three unit one. The one I just showed you as a four. So, I wanted to show you what the three units look like. As you can see it's -- it's very similar,just smaller. And, then, on the southeast -- or southwest corner next to the Howry Lane collector, we will have what we call front load townhomes. So, we have rear load and front load. This is -- these are the front load townhomes. They are more of a contemporary design. You can see the varying roof lines, varying materials, combinations. Wrap it up. Centerville. These are the sample elevations of the lots are 74, 80 and 90 foot lots. You can see the homes. Single story. Two story. A combination of both. Sixty-four foot wide lots and, then, we have some 36 foot wide lots to provide diversity within the project and these are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F18 Page 16 of 69 the elevations of those. As far as the apartment building, they are going to be a contemporary style. That's a 12 unit complex and that's a 24 unit complex. There is our clubhouse. And -- and I will use those in rebuttal. I will zip to that. Oops. Oh-oh. What happened to me? Yeah. I got excited. We think we have a really great project and -- and we would like the Commission to, obviously, look at the diversity and the -- and the rooftops that we need, obviously, to supply the mixed use community designation to the north where the Albertson center is going and the mixed use neighborhood. Until we get rooftops we don't get that commercial component. We included a daycare in here, because we think that will, obviously, be a benefit to not only us, but the neighborhood in general. Do you have any questions? Sorry, ma'am. McCarvel: Any questions for staff or the applicant? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Becky, do you have any thoughts on staff's recommendation for adding the commercial retail piece to the southwest -- I guess it was phase four portion of the multi- family area? McKay: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, yes, I do. If you look at the Century Hill Farms mixed use neighborhood -- if Joseph could go back to my PowerPoint. They have -- there is the St. Luke's facility. There is a veterinary clinic. There is a dentist. So, they are starting to get that -- that -- those essential neighborhood uses. One of the things that I didn't want to do was to compete with Brighton. Obviously I think Joe indicated in his staff report there is approximately 70 acres over there that is mixed use neighborhood that has been approved with that -- the intent that it have a retail component, a neighborhood commercial component. So, 1, obviously, can't compete with Brighton, nor do we want to, so the way we looked at it is we wanted to, obviously, come up with uses that would support their commercial and would complement it and the daycare we thought was a good use. You know, right now, if you put like some -- some offices here or something, you know, right now they--they call those like toadstool offices, because they are smaller. Trying to integrate those into the multi-family. One of the things that we look at is a self-sufficient multi-family and in my consulting with the multi-family experts they said, you know, 200 units with a clubhouse, a pool, playgrounds, open space, pathways, all of that is typically preferred. So, I had to convince them to let me go down to 168 and say, you know, this is why we are doing that, you know, because we need to integrate some more townhomes, we need to do some better transitioning, we need to add some more open space, but I just don't see that it's going to be really viable. You know, we have got the Y, we have got the elementary due west of us, and I don't want to compete with Brighton and -- and so, you know, we have to look at the big picture and what we can provide and bring to the -- to the community and the neighborhood here. McCarvel: Becky, how do you feel, then, about staff recommendation for two stories instead of three story? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F19 Page 17 of 69 McKay: I wanted to cry. No. I talked to Joe about that. Sent some a-mails back and forth and -- and -- and this -- you know, this -- from my planning perspective are my thoughts. You know, we -- we articulated these buildings -- we are on an arterial here. These buildings, as far as their separation from the edge of right of way here is 50 feet. So, I'm trying to figure out -- you know, we want to put the density next to the arterials, next to the collectors. That's always been one of the -- you know, the proverbial planning tactics and so I -- these being three story, I do not find that they are going to negatively impact anyone and they also generate less traffic -- McCarvel: Quiet, Please. McKay: Now, along the collector roadway I oriented the buildings so all you see is the end and these -- these buildings are 12 unit. So, you are seeing the end and I have -- I have traveled to other states and looked at similar projects and -- and if you -- you just see the end of a building you don't see the bulk and here we kind of modulated the buildings and -- and as far as --these are two story. I have talked to my clients, you know, I kind of said, you know, what -- what's your thoughts, you know, on these -- you know, could we make these two stories, so we have, you know, a transition, two story, two story and transition to three story. These are within the interior, the three story here. These are the larger buildings. And, you know, obviously, no developer wants to lose units, but I think, you know, I would like the Commission to -- to look at -- instead of just chopping off 40 units and say, you know, nothing can be over three stories, I -- I really think that that's not the correct way to go. The multi-family units only create 1/7th of the number of students -- and I got that directly from the school district-- .1 student per unit versus single family which is .7. The number of vehicle trips per day for each single family dwelling is 9.5 typically. For the multi-family it's I believe four -- let me look. Let me verify. Hold on. 5.4. So, you -- you have roughly about half the traffic generated. The other thing to keep in mind is we have to install a signal. So, you know, we have an intersection that needs a signal and meets the threshold now. We are willing to install that signal. We are willing to create safe route to schools. We are going to put in that flashing light here at Hill Park. We took to heart the messages that were given to us, but if I can't get enough units to, obviously, pay for the mitigation that creates a significant problem. So, I guess I would like the Commission to keep an open mind and -- and look at maybe some middle ground. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Bill, I thought when we --we approved Hillsdale Subdivision at that intersection that they came back and said we couldn't put a signal there because of the high power tension lines. How do we mitigate against that? And I thought we couldn't do a roundabout there because of the power pole that's right there. Do you remember that? I remember that was the reason why they did the signal then. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F20 Page 18 of 69 Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, I'm not recalling that recollection, but certainly Joe's looked at the staff report. It seems like it's all a go for them to do those improvements. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: Madam Chair, if I could answer Commissioner Yearsley's question. It's intended in the -- in the master street map that this be a single lane roundabout. Ada County Highway District indicated they have been unable to obtain right of way on the parcel to the west to get that other piece of the roundabout, so the interim signal is a viable option and they are calling it interim, because until such time as that other parcel were to develop, then, they would be able to obtain that right of way. They are requiring that my client dedicate right of way for our portion of the roundabout, which is the long term plan and in compliance with the master street map. But right now this particular intersection warrants either a signal or a roundabout and interim signal is our only option. Yearsley: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Staff -- I had a question regarding the school report that was in here and I didn't see the school report from Miranda for the like long term breakdown, but is there anything additional that you could add with the capacity within this general area and how this impacts that moving forward? Dodson: Commissioner Grove, great question. Yeah. Miranda did put it in here and her numbers do vary a little bit than what the West Ada School District has, because she looks at things a little more holistically I guess you could say. But the Hillsdale Elementary, as was known, did have a cap for a while. They changed the boundary of that area to accommodate more of this localized area. There is an anticipation, after speaking with West Ada, that these additional students that this project would be accommodated there for at least the elementary school age. In addition, what we don't look at in our data are the charter schools. We just -- I asked Miranda why do we not do that? Are we going to, et cetera. And it's just hard to track that kind of data, because they are not required to report it to us. Obviously, there is quite a bit here as compared to other states and how they function pretty well compared to other places I have been. There is Gem Prep South that I have noticed coming online probably in the next couple of years, if not the next year. There you go. Fall of next year. That's a K through 12 school, which will help tremendously in this area. I know I approved Compass Charter expansion and I believe they will be coming online for K through 12 this year and that's not in this area, but it is another charter school in the city. There -- there are avenues to help relieve some of these. Owyhee High School is also coming online. I don't know when. I'm not going to get into that TCO debate, but it's -- it's coming and that will help relieve some of the high school issues that we have had, because, obviously, the -- you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F21 Page 19 of 69 know, you have the most elementary schools and middle schools and, then, you have the least amount of high schools, because they are the largest. So, there is some relief on the horizon. I can't speak to any of the things that might require a bond and an education policy that I am frustrated with here in Idaho, but it's outside of our control. Hopefully some of those things occur and we get another high school down in the south Meridian area, but, again, that would be years down the line, but Miranda did supply her thing and assuming this gets approved with the submitted capacities, it does show each of the schools being over their current capacity with what is the approved plats, but that's pretty much every single development in the city at this point. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Wheeler: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: I have a question for the applicant here. I'm noticing that there is a St. Al -- was it a St. Luke's Medical Center that's just right there on the corner of Hillsdale and Amity Road and I know there has been talk about limiting some of the density. Would there -- has your developer thought about taking any of those multi-family units on that hard corner there of Hillsdale and Amity and turning those into some sort of light office or office use or something like that to complement what's across the street from Hillsdale? McKay: Madam Chair, Commissioner Wheeler, one of the things that -- that restricts this site is, obviously, there is no access. You know, in the old days when we could get say a right-in, right-out or get an access closer to the intersection, that made like a commercial or an office component more viable. As ACHD has -- has modified their policy manual, you know, they-- they have pushed all of our approaches back beyond that 660 foot mark and even further if a proposed roundabout is -- is proposed. So, if you get an office here they would have to, obviously, come down the collect -- you know, come down the Hillsdale Avenue collector, come in here and, then, come through a multi-family development to get to a corner parcel. So, convenient access is, obviously, critical to viability of office or retail and so, you know, that was -- that was one of the -- the things and -- and at the time when we pre-app'd with the staff, you know, the staff said, you know, we can see your struggle based on where your access -- your collector has to be located here and here and how to, you know, make this more mixed use. The daycare use -- I did one of these along the collector at Crossfield Subdivision off of Ustick Road. We had a variety of single family. We had a similar multi-family component and we had a daycare and it has been a very very nice viable development that is well balanced and I think that's one of the things that we have to look at with the pricing that we are seeing, what's viable with the costs escalating and -- and trying to make these -- these communities balance, so that, you know, what did I see, the price in Meridian jumped again, you know, what is it, 555,000 median price. So, you know, we are -- we are struggling to provide housing for different lifestyles, different incomes, and -- and we are -- we are doing our best to -- to balance our projects and I think we are doing a lot better job than just single product projects that are pricing so many people out of the market Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F22 Page 20 of 69 and right now those kind of toadstool offices that are, you know, 4,500, 5,500 square feet, there is a lot of vacant lots like that. My office is in Meridian. The lots around me off of Pine and Rosario have been vacant for years. You know, it's -- you know, right now office is not prime on the list. Residential is. A lot of people work from home. I think we are kind of seeing a little bit of a transition in -- in this marketplace as far as office is concerned. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just looking at the layout and everything here and kind of looking for that middle ground in here is -- and something that we have had go in and has kind of been a hit in some of the other areas has been kind of a business incubator where it has a residential piece to it, but it allows them to do business, you know. What did we call it? The mullet house or something like that where it was a, you know, business down below and, you know, residential up above. Is -- is that something you would entertain, you know, again, trying to find a middle ground. I'm kind of in agreement with you where three stories on some of this would -- I don't think would be harmful, but, at the same time I think the commercial element in some way, shape, or form needs to be present in here. I think a business incubator might be a way to do it, because there is just a lot of traffic that's going to go down there because of the YMCA, because of the school, you know, where it's not going to be something that's abandoned down there or something that's not going to get any -- any traffic coming by and just to have people even know that it's there. McKay: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, we -- when I did the Gramercy development just south of Overland Road we incorporated what we called a Brownstone, which was a live -- I think live-work. They were three story type units, exactly what you are talking about, where we had -- somebody could have an office on the first floor and, then, live on the second and third floor. They were alley load and we -- we designed that into the project. We had the architects design it and when it -- when it was bid out the price of those live-work units was so excessive that the developer abandoned it and here we were left with improvements in the ground as far as infrastructure and they never materialized to this day and I did Gramercy years and years ago. Now, if you were talking about say some type of an office building versus putting it here at the corner at the intersection where one has to, you know, wade their way through, you know, an office component say across from the daycare would make more sense. You know, this is -- we will have a landscaped median here. It will be right-in, right-out, but, then, this is a full access here, because we are restricted by the highway district, because this is a collector and Hillsdale is a collector, so my first approach is a right-in, right-out only. My second approach here is full access. So, you know, access is everything when you are talking some type of a commercial component. So, I would have to have something that, one, people could get to, see, but as far as this -- you know, this being a drive in or, you know, live-work -- I -- the live-work is just cost prohibitive right now. I mean you are -- when we got our prices in those units were I think 355 to 375 thousand per unit and that's when you could buy a single family dwelling significantly larger for 250,000. Now you are probably talking 550. So, you just can't compete in the marketplace with that live-work. It's just -- I just don't Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F23] Page 21 of 69 see it as viable. We have -- we have tried it and -- and have failed. McCarvel: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Follow up, sorry to drag us along. So, show me some middle ground. You are talking about it and we are not -- we are not getting there. I think there is a recurring theme here that we need to see a little bit of some kind of commercial element in here. So, what is that middle ground? You want three stories. We want commercial. Where can we meet in the middle? McKay: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, I guess, you know, if we are -- if we are -- if we want to try to find a compromise, we have the daycare here. If you wanted like an office building, you know, located here, that would make sense, across from -- from the daycare. As far as the -- the three stories, my -- my professional opinion is, you know, we are -- from the nearest home -- this is a collector. From the nearest rear lot line I am I believe 275 feet to this dwell -- this three story unit and I am 290 feet to this dwell -- this multi-family unit, but if you wanted to do say a two story transition, I would do them here and, then, I would do some type of an office component here and, then, maintaining the three story within the interior along the collector and along the arterial. I mean that -- that -- that's just good planning. You know, we -- we do need to provide diversity. It's more important now than I have ever seen it in the 30 years that I have been doing this. Variety is -- is the name of the game and our community is going to depend on it. I had a letter in my opposition packet from someone who lives within the three -- 500 feet, 300 feet, indicating I'm an employer in this area -- in -- in this Treasure Valley and I'm -- I am interviewing employees from out of area and I can't hire them, because they can't find any housing or affordable housing or transitional housing. So, I mean we have got to do what we can to, obviously, make our community balanced and I guess that's the message I would like to send. We are willing to work with the Commission. I'm not drawing a hard line here. I'm just -- I'm trying. Dodson: Madam Chair? Seal: Appreciate that. Thank you. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Joe. Dodson: Sorry. My voice echoes I guess. I don't know. I did -- I understand what Becky is saying. The applicant. And I'm not saying she's wrong. I think what she's proposing is a transition from the south to the north works. I think that's a fair compromise from a planning perspective. I am concerned about this office component and by that I mean Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F24 Page 22 of 69 because of the office across the street and that is what keeps coming up. Those are not limited to any specific use, but because of the St. Luke's -- because of those lot sizes they -- I have seen them just come up as offices, offices, offices, offices and mixed use neighborhood doesn't call just for offices and there is already vacant lots over there that I assume will likely become more offices and ancillary to the medical use. That's why I mentioned in my staff report some type of retail or food or something that these residents, both existing and future, can walk to to get a cup of coffee or something. I mean, yes, come from San Diego, granted, I'm not a communist like NextDoor keeps calling me, but I -- it just -- when I was in college there it was very nice to literally walk around the corner and be able to grab some food. You can't do that in a lot of places here in Meridian. So, being able to offer a commercial component that has that capacity I think would be a better benefit and a better fit than another office building. McKay: Okay. So, yeah, Madam -- Madam Chair, I mean, you know, a coffee shop, a sandwich shop -- I did take pictures of the commercial that's out there. We have dentists. We have the St. Luke's. We have a veterinary hospital. That St. Luke's. So, you know, like I said, I don't want to compete with -- with Brighton and Dave Turnbull. I don't want to rain on his parade. You know, maybe he's got a Starbucks going in. I'm not sure. McCarvel: We got some sort of little -- I mean local sandwich shop or something -- yeah, might be -- McKay: Okay. McCarvel: -- a better fit. Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Madam Chair. McCarvel: Do we have a list -- Weatherly: Yes, indeed, we do. McCarvel: -- of people to -- and before we get started, I know there is probably a lot of people who want to testify, so if we -- as we are going through this if you are hearing that your opinion has already been stated I think, you know, we have spent a lot of time here with the applicant in the staff report listening to the issues and I think we know that, of course, traffic and schools and that kind of thing is always top on people's mind and we do want to hear your opinions, but if you are hearing the same things over and over we can kind of get to a point where we can have a show of hands and if that's your concern we can glean from the show of hands that that's where we are at and so with that we will begin with number one on the list. Who do we have? Weatherly: Madam Chair, first on the list we have Alex Brown. McCarvel: Okay. Alex. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F25 Page 23 of 69 Brown: Name is Alex Brown. I live at 4060 East Amity Road, Meridian, Idaho. I'm right across the street from the intersection. I have 5.9 acres of ground. Just to the west of me is 40 acres that belongs to the school district, which she is saying that they are going to take my property and the school district property and put in lights and roundtables. I have talked with the school district, they do not want a road on the west -- or the east side of that property. Whenever they put in a school they want it closed off to a single exit in the front, so they do not have people driving past there to get to the subdivisions that they are building to the north of us. I have lived at this property for 50 years. I have no obstructions or directions of -- I don't oppose the people who are moving into these houses. I do oppose putting multi-family units in this area. They just built hundreds of multi-unit areas to the west of Meridian off of Franklin, off of Overland, off of Ustick. We do not need them out here. We have one at the corner of Lake Hazel and Maple Grove that is a disaster. It is a slum. It has been there a very short time. When you build multi- unit areas out in the country where they do not have access to utilities -- or stores and things that are close -- most of those people are put in there and they are given rent assistants, so they don't have cars to drive, they need to walk to where ever they go or get a bus. We don't have buses in this area. They keep talking that they are going to do buses and, then, they talk trains. Well, this part of the country has done away with trains and done away with buses years ago. It's not going to happen. They might get a bus in downtown Boise, but they are not going to have it out here in the country. We do not want multi-unit -- multi people in the area to construct -- to interfere with what is being built in the whole area around it. It is residential housing for single families and they say, well, we don't want to get into the stuff that's going on to the south. Well, there is not very much going in there. He is putting in a few little things like they are putting in just to the east of this proposed subdivision. The nearest thing that is going to be used by people who live in there will be the Albertsons. That is three-quarters of a mile away. When they get it built. They are still building roads over there. They haven't started on that. Albertsons is not the prime grocery store in this area. People are not happy with Albertsons. That's why whenever they ran out Smiths and when they ran out Buttery's, Winco and Fred Meyers and Ridley are still here, because people want something besides what Albertsons offered, which was mostly high prices and products that are not up to par. That's about all I have to say about this. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair -- McCarvel: All right. And in order to get through I would like to remind you that this is not a pep rally, this is a public hearing. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Dale Miracle, identifying as the Rockhampton -- Rockhampton One HOA president. McCarvel: Okay. Miracle: Yes. My name is Dale Miracle and I live at 12439 West Highlander Street in Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F26 Page 24 of 69 Boise and I'm currently the HOA president of Rockhampton One Subdivision. It's to the east of this development and we do have some concerns about that. Our HOA people did a canvassing of the area to see what concerns they had about this development that's coming in. Probably the top of the list was schools. Crowding. And I won't go into that much. The next was congestion of Amity and Cloverdale Roads and the last one was local congestion in our subdivision. As far as overcrowding, I will just touch on that. It is a big concern. We go -- we are in Boise -- the Boise side of things and our main grade schools are Amity and Lake Hazel and most of the grade schools are bused from there. As I understand it, the -- the Hillsdale school cannot accept anymore people at this time, but I haven't heard anything positive about that. Somebody else will talk about that in more detail. The next thing is congestion of Amity and Cloverdale Roads. I did talk to a senior transportation planner for Ada county about what they had planned for Amity and Cloverdale Roads. At present time they told me that there was a roundabout at Amity and Cloverdale planned for 2026 and that was about all that they had for that area. They do have an open discussion, they want input on what would be needed in that area and I had hoped some --that we collectively would put some of those projects earlier to combat what I think will be a lot of congestion on Amity and Cloverdale. The third thing is congestion in our subdivisions. I do appreciate the developer limiting cut-through traffic through our subdivision, but I think there will still be some cut through on Macumbo Street, because it goes straight through to Cloverdale through Rockhampton and I believe that with the congestion that I foresee happening on Amity there will be a lot of people that will try and cut through over to Cloverdale Road. At this time along our subdivision Rockhampton One there are no lights or--there is one walkway for pedestrians and that's about it. So, that it-- it's going to be a big concern. The other concern is we have another Lachlan Street, but it goes into -- it turns off and goes into another subdivision, but it can turn back and go back into Cloverdale. It's probably not as big a concern as our Macumbo Street being a straight through street, but it is a consideration for some of the multi-level three story apartments that might want to try and find shortcuts. The last thing is I believe traffic will be so busy along that area that it is going to cause a lot of congestion. Cloverdale is already a very busy street, a lot busier than it was, and without any sort of improvements I believe there is going to be quite a bit more congestion. Another concern is -- especially with apartment complexes, parking might be at a premium there around the apartments and as with other apartment complexes that I have seen around town here, they choose to park on the roads and where ever else they can for their second and third vehicle or trailers or RVs and I'm seeing this as a problem and it might come into our subdivision to be parking along our park that -- that is very conveniently placed there. Other than that I think some other people are going to talk on more of these items. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Miracle: Anyway, thank you very much. McCarvel: Thank you. Who do we have next, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Jerrod Galm. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F27 Page 25 of 69 McCarvel: Thank you. Galm: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Jarrod Galm and I live at 3868 East Woodville Drive in Meridian. I represent my family and other neighbors to oppose the proposed Centerville community. I'm going to speak to you how this project is going to affect area schools -- schools now and in the future. The West Ada School District is facing significant challenges as it grapples with the explosive population growth our area has experienced in the past several years. In these proceedings Engineering Solutions, representing Challenger Development, paints a romantic picture of how more schools are being planned to accommodate area students. Sadly those schools are planned, but there is no funding to pay for their construction without relying on ballot initiatives for levees. Home values have skyrocketed in recent months and as a result the property taxes have risen as well. While we would all like to say that we are going to do it for the children and be noble and vote to accept property tax increases to pay for new schools, reality is most residents probably won't. Hillsdale Elementary is across the street from the proposed development and last year it was beyond capacity to adequately serve students and had an enrollment cap in place. In February that cap was lifted due to redistricting, but the school is faced with overcrowding again with another cap imminent, forcing children who live within the walk zone to be bused to other area schools. This is not good for traffic, the environment, or the kids. It's important to know that Hillsdale Elementary, unlike other schools, does not have the physical space to add modular units or portable classrooms to accommodate more students. So, once it reaches its cap there is no room for growth. The district will have no choice but to bus kids elsewhere as they have done in the past. If you look at the school impact table, Lake Hazel Middle School and Mountain View High School are already over capacity for the upcoming school year and will be beyond their capacities for years to come. Using West Ada School District's formula to estimate the number of new students the district would have to accommodate this development would bring 123 new students, putting Hillsdale at 116 percent of capacity, Lake Hazel Middle at 108 percent of capacity, and Mountain View High at 121 percent. These numbers do not include the current construction occurring in Sky Mesa, Lavender Heights, The keep, East Ridge, Orchard Creek, Shelburne, Calistoga and Century Farm. Based on these developments and using West Ada's formula, another 200 or so students will be residing within the boundaries of Hillsdale and the other schools. As is evident, Hillsdale on its own will not be able to support these students. As area schools eclipse capacity the quality of education our kids receive will diminish. I want to finish by saying that I understand that the state drives education funding and that local leadership believes it's powerless to help. I'm here to tell you that's not true. It's incumbent on the local government to manage growth to relieve the pressure on our education system until the state can deliver educational resources to accommodate growth. The buck stops with you. I'm not against development or progress, but I am against the developer trying to alter a plan that was thoughtfully established by the city to manage growth. The Centerville Subdivision as presented doesn't fit with the existing south Meridian neighborhoods or the spirit of the city with its master plan. I implore you not to recommend the application to rezone as submitted and request that the developer revise the community design to fit within the city's existing plan. Do it for the children. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F28 Page 26 of 69 McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is James Phillips. Phillips: I will be representing Meridian Southern Rim Coalition, so we will be the ten minutes request. My name is James Phillips. I live at 4140 East Rockhampton Street, Meridian. I'm here representing Meridian Southern Rim Coalition and today we are calling on P&Z Commission to demonstrate good stewardship of public trust by recommending denial of Centerville Subdivision. Throughout my presentation I will be making references to the City of Meridian comp plan. Why? Because it is a source document that the general public, developers, city partners and decision makers reference and use to ensure Meridian is a premier place to live, work, and raise a family. The phrase being good stewards of public trust is used by the City of Meridian's comp plan and is based on fundamental values of which P&Z Commissioners and staff are entrusted to protect. A common theme today will be around P&Z, how P&Z can be good stewards of public trust by guiding strategic growth and ensuring sustainable neighborhoods. The current Centerville Subdivision breaks public trust in three fundamental ways. One, does not meet public expectations set by the future land use map. FLUM. Does not meet public expectations set by Meridian's comp plan. Exacerbates public concerns, seen as red flags as found in the agency comments. So, how do we, as a general public, set our expectations? It's the same way that agencies responsible for ensuring Meridian is a premier living place do that, that is by using the FLUM and comp plan. The red line outlines the area of Centerville Subdivision. The blue line outlines mixed use neighborhood, MUN, designated areas found in the proposed subdivision. The MUN designation measures approximately 8.69 acres. Using MUN designation densities we calculate the expected number of units to be between 48 and 108 units. On average 78 units. Of note a surprisingly large spread and one that provides developers with a lot of latitude when designing a preliminary plat. Again, this is what the general public and other coordinating agencies and partners do to determine possible area impact before land is developed. It is used to make real world decisions, like whether or not to buy a home adjacent to an undeveloped parcel of land or create five year plans based on projected FLUM density ranges or determine how best to adjust school boundaries to accommodate projected growth. It's important. However, the general public received the following. A quick back of the napkin calculation using the same MUN designated area specified by the FLUM immediately raises red flags. One hundred and thirty-eight -- 120 apartment units, 38 townhomes in an 8.69 acre area results in approximately 16 units per acre density. This density is higher than mixed use neighborhood densities, maxes at 12, mixed use community densities maxes out at 15. But, finally, falls in acceptance densities ranges within mixed use regional densities. As an aside, redoing the calculation using the P&Z staff report recommendation to two stories, instead of three, helps, but the density is still above the -- the mixed use MUN accepted max. It's not until you make apartment buildings one story that densities fall within acceptable ranges of MUN at 8.5 units per acre. Now, given that, density is calculated in gross of entire area being developed and developers can have P&Z consider -- floating adjacent dense -- designations into less dense designation areas, there -- thereby effectively averaging down dwelling densities. Why does this matter? Why does this matter? Here is my point. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F29 Page 27 of 69 Had the developer only purchased the parcel that sits in the MUN designated -- designated area and proposed the above mixed use plan, this is the analysis that P&Z staff would do and the answer to the question is this in line with the FLUM and comp plan would be a simple and clear no. Where would such a mixed use plan work? Becky did present some things that make -- that makes this plan a good plan, but where would it work? Per comp plan it would best be suited for areas like those circled in red and why? Because it matches dwelling densities. It's within walking distance to existing or planned public transportation routes less than half mile away. Near major centers of commercial hubs and places of employments where job housing ratios are expected to be high. Found off major key transportation corridors for which Hillsdale Avenue and Amity Road are not. In other words, the proposed mixed use plan fits best where it can interface with urban designated areas. It's development 101 on how to create a sustained neighborhood. Like I mentioned before, P&Z is allowed to float designations when calculating whether density is in compliance. This is a provision made in the comp plan. It states future land use designations are not parcel specific, meaning it's not expected the FLUM designation to align with parcels purchased by developers. Hence the need for flexibility. However, this flexibility comes with constraints. Designation may not apply to more than 50 percent of the land being developed. My question for P&Z and staff is how far is the MUN designation being floated in order to average down density to be below the 12 units per acre max? Is it in compliance with the comp plan or vice-versa? How far is the medium density residence -- MDR designation being floated in order to consider Centerville Subdivision density below max MDR acceptable density. Even if it's found to be technically compliant, are we approving of a practice that comes at the expense of promoting uncertainty and unpredictability? If we are to zoom out and include the additional Centerville Subdivision parcels by using the floating technique to calculate whether or not densities are within acceptable ranges, we are simply covering up the dwelling density problem by allowing a mixed use area with urban density and needs to interface with medium suburban density. It does not address the fundamental issue the proposed mixed use area has, namely, it does not interface with appropriate size urban amenities, infrastructures, and services. These urban services are needed to create sustainable neighborhood. It's like using a band-aid to stop arterial bleeding. It's not going to work and it doesn't bode well for the patient. City of Meridian strategic plan state's in growth goal two, preserve and protect land use and zoning plans to promote certainty and predictability for future development. Using floating and gross destination density calculations to conclude that a preliminary plat is generally consistent with the letter of the law is only the initial check. The P&Z should do -- that should do. Arguably even more important is the check that the preliminary plan is consistent with the spirit of the law as outlined in the comp plan. Not doing so breaks public trust. P&Z and staff have the opportunity to -- here to guide strategic growth and by recommending denial of Centerville's mixed use proposal, the Commission will demonstrate that they are good stewards of public trust and understand that it takes -- and understand -- show that they understand what it takes to create a sustainable -- sustainable neighborhood. And in the interest of time I will go ahead and cut this slide here. But, as you know, just pointing out again, that the mixed use neighborhood that's proposed is not in line in multiple ways with the comp plan. Changing gears, then, looking at the medium density residential, MDR component of Centerville Subdivision, there are a number of policies -- policy direction Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F30 Page 28 of 69 and comp plan guidance we want to point out that the public expects to be followed. Roadways -- roadways should be used to transition between residential densities and housing types, not back fences. The new development should foster walkable and bikeable community. The new development are to be compatible with surrounding uses through buffering. Most importantly, location and balance of land use and density should be sustainable. Land use decisions have a direct effect of sustainability of how roadways function. Density also affects public facility services like schools and parks. Highlighted with different colors, items in the line -- that are not in line with the previous Comp Plan. Density transition issues in red. Walking spaces, which tend to be called parket pocks -- pockets I believe -- are in green. Sustainable MDR density in orange. Missing buffering in yellow. It's kind of hard to see there. What does the following -- what does following these comp plan policy direction get our community? It provides school capacity breathing room. Much needed. Reduces traffic congestion. Reduces conflict over shared public facilities. Creates better quality of life. Lastly, Centerville Subdivision exacerbates public concerns as seen here as red flags. Per COMPASS a good job housing ratio is between one and 1.5. This is critical for supporting future high density urban housing. References rooftops being important. Centreville Subdivision's job housing ratio is .06. It's only going to exacerbate. Again, in the interest of time I will go ahead and kind of run through here a little bit. One thing to point out in the traffic impact study again, according to the study -- it was done in 2018-19 and they use a forecasting of two percent increase on Hillsdale Avenue. There has been more than two percent increase in occupied houses just from the neighborhood. How can this projection possibly be accurate? Again, the entranceway on the west ten percent of the distribution. When -- it was asked where the daycare is. That's where the apartment is. That's where they put the rear face townhomes. They are going to go through there. How can that only be ten percent, resulting in bad assumptions. McCarvel: Okay. Phillips: And just in closing, it's a matter of comp plan's policy direction to ensure that all planning, zoning and land use decision balances the interest of the community. We ask the P&Z Commission to demonstrate good stewardship of public trust by recommending denial of Centerville Subdivision. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Crystal Altieri. McCarvel: Thanks. Altieri: Good evening. My name is Crystal Altieri. I reside at 4044 East Tenant Drive, Meridian, in the Hillsdale Creek Subdivision. I would like to address today a fire safety concern. In Chapter 6 on page 81 of the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan it states: The Meridian Fire Department will continue to be an important asset in the development and land use decisions as they ensure there is adequate fire flow, access, and compliance with the fire code. On July 12th, 2021, Deputy Fire Chief of Prevention Joseph Bongiono sent a concerned citizen a letter about the Centerville Subdivision in which I will highlight a few of his key points. The Centerville Subdivision is closest to Fire Station No. 4. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F31 Page 29 of 69 current reliability for Fire Station No. 4 to the Centerville Subdivision is 78 percent and does not meet the target goal of 80 percent or greater. The Centerville Subdivision falls outside of the five minute area response time. Station 7, if approved and funded, will be able to help with the Centerville Subdivision, but, again, that has not even been built. Due to the three story apartments that are being planned, a ladder truck will be required for aerial attack. The minimum response time for a fire truck with a ladder for aerial prevention is 13 minutes, which falls outside of the ten minute time frame the City of Meridian Fire Department requires. Excuse me. On May 20th, 2021, there was a house fire in Century Farms at 3635 East Mardia Street. The alarm sounded at Station 4 at 4:21 p.m. The Fire Department did not -- I'm sorry -- arrive on scene until 4:29 p.m. Eight minutes. The response time expected by the Meridian Fire Department is a goal of five minutes. They missed that five minute goal by 60 percent. The house has now been declared 350,000 dollars in damages. In closing I would like to quote what Mayor Simison said in his 2021 State of the City address. We need to bring down our response times to meet our current goals and that means doing the right thing to deliver the services our current residents expect and demand. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Madam Clerk. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Dee Skinner. Skinner: Good evening. My name is Dee Skinner. I live at 12425 West Highlander Street, Boise, Idaho. 83709. My residence is in the subdivision of Rockhampton One, which is directly east of the proposed Centerville Subdivision. We have 226 houses in Rockhampton One in a space of about 67 acres or approximately 3.4 houses per acre. We are a mature subdivision, having been built in 2001. Most of our residents are adults who own their own home, enjoy taking their dog to the park and walk along the many pathways around the houses. We in Rockhampton One will be greatly affected with this Centerville Subdivision as it is proposed. The quality of life will be affected by extra traffic, overcrowded schools, packed roads, particularly Cloverdale, although that's not a direct connection. Other people can and will give more details on those topics. My concern and the concern of many Rockhampton residents is the overwhelming density of the proposed subdivision and the impact of quality of life on the new and current residents. Consider the impacts on the safety of children, fire and police protection, one exit to Amity, one exit to Hillsdale Avenue and two exits onto residential streets of Rockhampton One. Macumbo and Lachlan are direct paths to Cloverdale, which will have increased traffic in car numbers and car pollution. Remember that's residential streets. There are no pathways to enjoy walking around Centerville's neighborhood. The east and south border houses have nothing but street and sidewalk. I suppose it is left to the residents to provide landscaping. I hope the new residents enjoy the pavement jungle. Minimum space or open space is an embarrassment to that many housing units. I invite you and expect you to come and walk through the neighborhoods surrounding this acreage, lower the density and make this proposed subdivision compatible with Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. This subdivision proposal is about how many houses or units can be jammed into this acreage and the impact on busy roads and schools and public services. It should be about homes, homes that provide a quality of living where children play safely and go to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F32 Page 30 of 69 school, where fire and police services are available quickly, where there is quality of life for new residents and residents of surrounding communities. Finally, please, be in favor of reducing the density and stand for the quality of life that residents of Meridian deserve. McCarvel: Okay. Skinner: Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Clerk. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Melissa Phillips. M.Phillips: My name is Melissa Phillips and I'm at 4140 East Rockhampton Street in Meridian. I live in Hillsdale Creek and my home is on the first lot that backs up to the proposed Centerville Subdivision. We knew one day the property behind us would develop and would be mostly medium density residential with eight acres of mixed use neighborhood, as indicated on the future land use map. But when we viewed the original preliminary plat plan we saw many red flags. Since June of 2020 when the plan was first brought forth at the neighborhood meeting, I have spent hours researching in meetings with our newly established committee and I have spent a lot of time listening to Planning and Zoning and City Council meetings trying to understand what the vision of Meridian is. I have concluded that the proposed plan is largely not in line with Meridian's vision. On page 1-6 of the Comprehensive Plan it states: The plan establishes a future vision and course of action based on the values and feedback of the community. The overall My Meridian vision statement developed by the people of Meridian represents their voice about what they value in the community, an equally strong mandate for what they want of the future. The community has voiced what they want to see in their city and if Meridian staff continues to value the community's input, then, we ask that this developer be required to follow the Comprehensive Plan by promoting responsible land use by not maxing out dwelling densities. Our committee created a change.org petition to oppose the development as it was not in line with Meridian's vision. As of tonight there is over 1,600 signatures. This demonstrates to us how much of a surprise this is to the community and is not what we expected for this undeveloped land. The Comprehensive Plan also states on page 1-1: Thoughtful and deliberate planning is imperative to preserve and improve upon the current quality of life. I want this future neighborhood to be thoughtfully planned, so my family, friends, neighbors' quality of life isn't jeopardized and the future residents have a quality of life that they are proud of, too. I'm not opposed to high density or apartments. They have a purpose. This is just not the place to pack in 168 apartment units, 35 townhomes, and 124 single family dwellings. When I drive past three story apartments in Meridian they are along major transportation roads and in safe -- keywords safe walking distance to stores and public transportation. We ask the developer to do what is right for our community. Centerville can be changed to better create a neighborhood that is in line with Meridian's vision and serve our community better. I asked that the Commission recommend denial of the Centerville preliminary plat as presented and I just wanted to make one more bullet point comment from Becky's original presentation, that ACHD had said okay to those lights on Hillsdale Avenue, but Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F33 Page 31 of 69 when we called ACHD there was no typography taken of that street and while a walking light would be great to get to the YMCA, there is no safe access for children to go down to the school, so -- so, it is a hill and you can't see at the bottom of the hill that there is a walking light there, so -- anyway, thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Eric Schuermann. McCarvel: Thank you. Is Eric online or in the room? Okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Amy Johnson. Johnson: My name is Amy Johnson and I reside at 4069 East Tenant Drive in Meridian. It's the Hillsdale Creek Subdivision as well. I'm actually very opposed to this development as currently written and I concur with most of the public concerns about school overcrowding, traffic safety, and that this proposal is just not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods. But in addition to the sentiments, I would like to mostly focus on parking and traffic impacts. I sat on the traffic commission for the city of Beaverton, Oregon, for eight years. For reference Beaverton is a suburban city in very similar size to Meridian and borders Portland, Oregon. It, too, experienced rapid growth during the past 20 years and I feel like Meridian can learn from the mistakes it made to keep our city within the My Meridian vision plans. The majority of the complaints from the residents in Beaverton stemmed from parking and traffic. We played whack a mole with the parking restrictions around many neighborhoods that all began with multi-unit apartments and townhome communities, which often dedicated only one parking space per dwelling, when there was generally a need for three or more cars per dwelling. Three to four business -- or excuse me. Three to four visitor parking spaces were there for the whole complex. The building developments were all made within the city's minimum standards, but as we all know reality often differs from design. However, Beaverton was different from Meridian in the sense it has a robust public transportation system obviating the need for as many vehicles and parking spaces. When residents of one community ran out of parking spaces they parked in surrounding neighborhoods. They made the adjacent streets crowded and unsafe for motorists, pedestrians, residents of neighboring communities. Those affected neighborhood residents would, then, come to the traffic commission requesting parking restrictions as a means of preventing the problem, therefore, kicking the can down to the next neighborhood. With Centerville the obvious places for overflow -- overflow parking are going to be the YMCA, which will conflict with their patrons use of the lot, and Rockhampton Lane, which is in the Hillsdale Creek Subdivision. Rockhampton Lane has a very steep elevation climb with a blind corner. Parking along this road is extremely dangerous and we see that when Hillsdale Elementary hosts events. The Centerville plan before us does not provide enough buffer zones between the neighborhoods and spaces between lots to allow for adequate street parking and when both sides of the roads are used for parking, whether it's allowed or not, it will not be safe. In addition, the staff report from the Meridian Fire Department dated 7/12 of 2021 found in the agency comments on page one, states that the north Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F34 Page 32 of 69 apartment complex is underparked and does not have visitor parking areas. This proves the point that this development does not provide enough parking for its own residents and overflow will seep out of the development. I suggest that the Planning and Zoning committee do away with the multi-family dwellings altogether and have Centerville mimic surrounding neighborhoods, such as Hillsdale Creek, Shelburne, Century Farm, Rockhampton, et cetera. Keep the zoning to R-8, medium density only. It would mostly eliminate those parking issues that would be created with these multi-family proposed dwellings and it would keep -- be in keeping with Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. I just have a little bit more. Can I finish? Cramming in these multi-family dwellings is not responsible. On page 2-2 of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan you do outline that neighborhood should also enhance and retain livability and value through innovatively designed amenities, pathways, public spaces, gathering spaces and elements that prevent social interaction and provide the city with a sustainable tax base. High density housing must be strategically located to public transportation, community services and employment areas. This is not a strategic location for high density housing. There are very few amenities, community services, and pathways designed. It's not located near public transportation as mentioned above or employment areas. There are multiple fundamental elements to this proposal that endorsed -- or are in direct opposition to Meridian's vision. Parking is only one of them, but from my experience with working with the traffic commission parking is a huge issue to consider when high -- high density developments are proposed. Please deny this proposal. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Alan Harris. Harris: Hi. My name is Alan Harris. I live at 4066 East Tenant Drive. I came up to talk about recreation area. I don't think there is enough in the space, so I will breeze through that real quick. We have a problem even up with the Centerville Subdivision itself. The area that we have is Discovery Park -- is the largest park up there for -- to play in and whatnot. That's going to be taken care of with all the housing that's going up there. That -- that won't even exist for this area down here. I just like to talk with -- or address the gentleman that spoke first. I spoke with the -- or saw -- read something from a woman saying that the apartments will be a suitable and access expensive wise for people. It will cover expenses and help veterans, seniors, and those that have a need, because it will be less pricey. I am a veteran. I am a senior. And I have also lived in those type of projects -- those apartments when I was growing up for many years. This is not the area for it. It just is not the right area for it. I moved here with expectations. Surround me with single family homes. Fine. But to put an apartment complex -- I believe it says two plots, 168 units. It's already been said -- I don't need to reiterate the parking and stuff. That's what -- but just -- it is not affordable. People cannot get bused into town. The veterans -- it's not for veterans. It's not for seniors. They are not going to be able to get around. That's just crazy. It's not going to happen. We don't have the transportation here. Again, it was already addressed with the Fire Department. There is a sign up for the fire department that is going to go in. When? Again, let's keep this to the density that's already in the city records. I would appreciate that and really address that issue. I am Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F35] Page 33 of 69 not in favor of this. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Matthew Thiel. McCarvel: I think while we are getting that presentation loaded, the Commissioners have requested a three minute break. (Recess: 8:07 p.m. to 8:12 p.m.) McCarvel: If everybody could take their seats again. We are ready to resume. Okay. Thiel: Hello, Madam Chair. My name is Matthew Thiel. My address is 3515 East Woodville Drive. I was asked to speak on behalf of a committee of Century Farm Subdivision residents. The subdivision is still under the -- the HOA still under the declarant control, so I was hoping that I would have more than three minutes -- McCarvel: Okay. Thiel: -- with your permission. McCarvel: How many more ten minute people do we think we have in here? I mean it seems like we have had a lot of those tonight. And who all are -- then that -- that's usually under the guise that, then, other people won't speak. So, who else do we have left in the room that would like to speak tonight? Okay. Yeah. We are used to it. It happens. Go ahead. Thiel: Thank you. So, Century Farm Subdivision, Brighton Development, there is 685 lots over to -- about 205 acres. There is two -- that does not include two future phases, including also a Cadence, which I'm not clear as part of that subdivision. There is a mixture of Brighton homes and other builders. Like I said, the HOA still under the declarant control. It's a pretty diverse community. Two pools. Great amenities. Quality development and a good community with a lot of good neighbors and it's a great place to live. This is just kind of an overview of what -- where it's located in proximity to the proposed Centerville Subdivision. I wanted to talk a little bit about the policy directions, again, with the Comprehensive Plan. There is a couple, you know, highlighted phrases and points to be made. My -- you heard more about the -- the -- the data -- the density dwellings. I'm more about a -- kind of a more subjective approach to this, more of an appearance. How does this affect livability? Economics. How does it affect the transition between the neighborhoods. What other -- kind of other problems that may not be mentioned tonight? Again, I wanted to point out this and as I'm sitting here thinking about this -- all the perfect storm of problems, whether it's schools or the roads -- I'm thinking personally that maybe the Comprehensive Plan that we are sticking to does need to be revised. Maybe the high density is not the best thing, given the challenges and how -- maybe how difficult that would be to build a new school or to construct new roads. But Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F36 Page 34 of 69 the question I -- we are asking is is this an appropriate use; right? Is this the best thing that we can do for the community; right? Is there -- is there a solid buffer a transition -- not just for the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods, but what about the single family homes on the border there in yellow, where is their transition? I started to put together a map of local --where --where are people going to work and I saw a COMPASS piece that said there is 670 jobs within a mile of the proposed subdivision. I'm trying to think of where -- where are these -- where are these jobs and I could only come to the conclusion that the bulk of them were the schools that are -- that are there. You see the -- the pink -- the pink area is the current subdivision that's being proposed. I tried to outline areas that -- where there might be some jobs and commercial space, but the bulk of it is several miles away from that main corridor in Overland and on the freeway and up north, Franklin and those areas, where you do find apartment complexes and multi-use, where you do find high -- higher density dwellings and there is not a lot of walkable space or public transportation south of 1-84, especially in this area. This is just -- this is already pointed out by the Planning and Zoning employee, that there is a limited use of what makes up mixed use areas and I will say that as I'm sitting here listening to your comments about toadstool offices, I'm thinking my wife is looking for an office, how great would it have been. She works from home. She would probably have -- want to go walk to -- take the kids to school and, then, go right to the office, but she's already found office space and she was texting me as I'm sitting here saying, you know, we need -- we need restaurants, we need, you know, salons and spas, we need groceries and other retail areas. Even things like the clubhouse that's there, it's really -- my guess is it's limited to the residents in that neighborhood, not to the public, and the daycare is somewhat limited in size for the area. So, talking about livability, high quality of life; right? Protecting the identity of existing residential neighborhoods, which I think is one of the -- and I have to -- I do have to appreciate Becky, though, because she did -- you know, for those neighborhood meetings she was very calm and collected and they were -- it was like feeding to the wolves. There is a lot of angry people about this and she remained -- remained professional the whole time and I think that's something to point out and be appreciative for and so the things about the existing neighborhoods; right? We don't really have alleyways. There is no apartments around in this area. As far as Century Farm Subdivision is concerned you can't park on the streets in the CC&Rs and I realize that you guys aren't in charge of CC&Rs, but it's something to point out, because it is part of the identity of the neighborhood; right? Right? Something as simple as rentals. You are not allowed to rent your house out. I say townhomes -- it's really those -- on the southwest corner of the whole block there are some smaller lot, higher density dwellings within Century Farm Subdivision, so they are there; right? There is a diverse design of dwellings throughout the entire subdivision and there is definitely flowing open spaces and I will show you some pictures in a bit and also the -- the Verges and I think that's really what -- it's that -- it's that grassy area between the -- the sidewalk and the houses that exists that I think really gives it a more open, higher end feel for the neighborhood. I actually started out on one Saturday wanting to go drive around. My hypothesis was that the -- most apartment complexes result in people parking on the streets and I did drive around to several places, some of which were actually -- did just that and, really, in -- in a bad fashion. Others were actually well contained. But I heard that the Planning and Zoning Commission changed the rules for how many units are attributable to apartments, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F37 Page 35 of 69 so I left those slides off of this. But this gives you kind of a visual of what -- what you are driving through and I'm not sure how many people drive through this area and how familiar you are with it, but here is just kind of a picture of right up front of Hillsdale Elementary; right? And you can talk -- this is one that's over in Hillsdale Subdivision. Open. Why -- and you see that it's clean. Here is where you are leaving Hillsdale for Rockhampton. It's a little bit more older neighborhood, but it's still nice and it's not -- people aren't parking all over the streets and people aren't -- you know, it doesn't feel crowded and bunched up, because, really, what this concern is is that we are packing people in like sardines in this area. Yes, in the name of -- of affordable housing, but are we really doing the right decision by doing that? Is this the right move to make. Right? And these are more pictures of Rockhampton. This is one from Century Farm. This is another from Century Farm as well. You can see the open space right here looking down the road and it's -- it's clean. Now you start getting into higher density area within Century Farm. You will notice that people -- I don't know about you, but they don't park in their garage. Their garage is too tiny in these lots for two cars. So, they are going to be parking out in the driveways and, then, houses with more than two vehicles they are going to end up parking on the street. You can see how things kind of change. Century Farm and higher density area and I went to one of the existing subdivisions and this is what we are trying -- this is a CBH one that's off of Black Cat Road between Chinden and McMillan and you can start seeing how the same thing happened. We are trying to avoid this look right here. This look and feel where they are just all lined up down the road, people are parking in their driveway, some of them are sticking out on the street; right? This is not -- this is not Century Farm. This is not Hillsdale. This is not Rockhampton. Okay. Pools. I want to talk about preserving -- so, the YMCA they built multi-million dollar pools and you can't even -- you have to book a reservation to use those, because of the fire code there is too many people in the area; right? Even the Century Farms Subdivision, the residents want a third pool. They have been participating -- they have been petitioning Brighton for that. These are some kind of planning and zoning things that I came up with. There is 200 feet of sidewalk missing right here. You can see where the development is. There is also -- and it's -- it's a curve -- it curves downhill and around the corner. You also need to make sure we are connecting the existing sidewalk to the proposed subdivision, but this is a safety concern right here. Right? This is a tree. It's kind of petty to put it in here, but I think a lot of people -- if you cut that big oak tree down you are going to have a lot of angry people and I think that oak tree sits on the actual lot lines or parcel lines. I'm not positive. Depending on what you look at. I was looking at some of the stormwater runoff. It's all done underground. There is some geo tests that says this is great. I just want to make sure that -- that you guys are scrutinizing that, making sure that we have the right and sufficient qualities, because once you bury it underground it's going to be difficult to -- to amend it if it's not designed properly. Then traffic. And this is an interesting -- I don't want to talk too much about traffic, but I think the whole point that I'm trying to make is that -- is that are we exacerbating future problems and Ryan -- this is from an article that KTVB wrote and here you have -- Ryan has a --you can't build your way out of congestion. At some point you have to manage it and are we managing correctly by continuing to pack more people into these lots and do these parcels, without consideration for all the other development that's going on and you guys -- in closing you have quite a bit of local concerns and things you guys need to consider and I did put affordable living in here, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F38 Page 36 of 69 because I don't think people are necessarily opposed to it, I think they just want it to be managed correctly and to be balanced and within reason and common sense and with regard for the surrounding communities and amenities and right now I don't think as this plat is proposed that it does -- it does very little of that and I think there is a lot of grave concerns and I don't think people want to be -- we told you so. We don't want that to happen. Once it's built you can't go back and undo it. McCarvel: Thank you. Thiel: Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Jon Naseath. Naseath: Madam Chairman and -- thank you for the time. By way of introduction, my name is Jon Naseath. I'm a property developer. I develop multi-family properties in Utah and have a few underway right now. So, I understand the context, I understand the strategy. I'm also a CFO and financial advisor of companies. Also want to introduce -- I grew up in -- in San Diego and when I grew up there it was a wonderful community to grow up in and there is reasons why I haven't lived there for a long time and moved away and moved here and I -- I moved into -- sorry. I live at 5275 Hillsdale and it's a wonderful place to live and I bought the house because of the community and because it's a forever home where I saw my kids could run around and be safe and what -- as we walked away from the last team community meeting that they had there, I listened to all the facts, but at the end of the day I just felt like what was my forever home is now -- this whole community is going to be turned into a beginner home setup and it's not a place where it will retain where I can keep on time for a long time, so that I could be being pushed out for various reasons. I wanted to point out a few of those. 5275 South Acheron is my home. Sorry. I'm a little bit nervous on that. And it's a great home. So, the comment was made earlier that -- that Joe wasn't sure -- by the way, good luck on the honeymoon. Hope you will get it in here soon. Wasn't sure what the changes to the zoning was meant by-- I think it's all the things that were described today. It really is this expectation of what --what are we buying into, what is the investment that we made as homeowners for where we want to raise our families compared to the investment that this developer is making and what they want to make as profit and, then, move on. We invested in this property, in this community, and this is where we want to stay. Also just -- I will skip that one. This is our -- my point is this is our home. This isn't just a site where we live or where we built. These -- these are our homes. Three main points I wanted to make. There is a food desert where we live. A lot of bigger multi-family things -- let's talk about where you can't get food in the area. This is literally a food desert. My kids -- it's not safe to walk to anywhere currently to get food. I can ride my bike, but those are dangerous streets and there is also going to be from a water desert. People who have wells in our neighborhood, there is problems there, and as we are seeing what is not -- right now a nice path to walk down, to walk to the YMCA, is going to be gone and they are going to move the stuff underground. The concern is is there going to be enough water for our communities as you add more people taking it, which even just as the property has been built out my shower pressure has gotten a lot less powerful than it was as it's been built. So, from an Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F39 Page 37 of 69 investment perspective I think itjust boils down to -- I'm a CFO, CPA. I think it boils down to -- there is a strategy to pack as many units into this property as possible and -- and I understand that. I thought it was interesting when the question was asked what do they think about having three units -- three level stories. I think it would be absolutely wrong to have three levels in the unit. I think as you enter our street and into the broader community there that is the face of the community seeing these big big things and people who don't know the area will think that's what's all is in there. I thought the interesting answer was that -- I think her name is Becky -- said she would cry when she -- what was her response and she said it would make her want to cry. I think that her developer has made plenty of profit in the last number of years by these property values going up and he is going to make crazy profit as it is, even without the multi-family. So, let him take some of that profit, pay her a little bit more, so she doesn't have to cry. And, then, let's move on. Thank you very much. Johnson: Madam Chair, next is Russell Anderson. Anderson: Russell Anderson. I live at 4414 South Seabiscuit Avenue, which is right on the corner of Amity and Cloverdale. Give you a little background. I have been in Idaho for 60 years. Moved here to Boise from Mountain Home. I was on the City Council for eight years. Fifteen years on the volunteer fire department. Thirty-one years highway district. They have pretty much covered everything, I can tell you that. Response time on the Fire Department, that does affect everyone living in Meridian. That will affect your insurance, your businesses and that. If that goes up your insurance rates are going to go up. As far as water, going to be a concern. If irrigation districts run out of water, what are the subdivisions going to do to irrigate all their greenscape, which you want. They are going to use city water. And I know from a town that used wells for all their irrigation primarily, that's a challenge, because if one or two go down and you have trouble. So, I just think I hear proposed, proposed, proposed. This plat is not ready to move forward. think it needs to go back to the city staff, you need to rehash, bring it back and look at it again. This is not ready. There is so many lots out there right now that have not come online that are approved and they are done. They just got to build. It's slow a little bit right now because of material, labor, all that. I think we are in for the slowdown. I think this high density is not for this area and everybody else has done a great job and I thank them and that's all I have say. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is George Hoxsey. Hoxsey: Do you have the slides -- oh, thank you. George Hoxsey. I live at 4184 East Rockhampton Street. That's in the Hillsdale neighborhood immediately south of the proposed development. Some of my comments here have already been addressed. I will do my best to skip over those in the interest of everybody's time, but I do want to maybe add some additional color or flavor on a few of them. Fundamentally, I do not believe that multi-family fits in this location. I think that point has been made very well, that we are not near major roadways, we are not near public transportation. There are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F40 Page 38 of 69 no major retail centers and as was pointed out in the COMPASS report, we are very short on jobs in the area. I do want to talk a little bit about Hillsdale Avenue specifically. I was unable -- and I haven't found anybody else that is able to find any traffic study or any traffic counts that have ever been done on that road. So, I'm very curious how a decision was made in terms of no left-hand turn lane needed into this development. You know, there is no dedicated turn lane, yet there was never a study done, because I cannot find traffic counts for Hillsdale Avenue, nor for Howry Lane back, you know, before it was developed and so I think that's an oversight certainly and I think it should be looked at. Also just to touch on public transportation. I think right now the nearest bus stop is about two and a half miles away. The nearest planned bus stop is still over a half a mile away and you would have to walk down Amity and up Eagle to get there and looking at the staff report I noticed that they made a comment that they don't consider Amity to be walkable. So, you know, we really shouldn't look at the Albertsons as a -- as a walkable shopping center for this development and I would definitely agree with that. I would -- I would not walk on Amity. I would not ride a bike on Amity. You know, very unsafe. The shopping center -- just a bit to touch on that. It was approved in 2017. It hasn't broken ground. The last delay I believe they asked for was last year. The reason stated was a lack of labor. I do not think we are in a better labor situation today than we were a year ago. think we are in a worse labor situation today and so I would have serious concern about, you know, when is that shopping center really going to happen; right? I will talk a little bit about parking concerns and safe route to school. Again, some of this has been touched on, but I will move quickly. I want to focus on the southwest corner again here, which is the entrance -- the main entrance to Hillsdale. So, this is the zoom in here of the southwest corner. Rockhampton Street is the main entrance -- the only entrance in and out of Hillsdale Creek that goes to a collector. The other ways to get out of -- in and out of Hillsdale Creek would lead us through either Century Farm or the Rockhampton development. So, this is really the prime way for us to get in and out. It is also very close to -- you will notice Hillsdale Elementary is right over here; right? And so my concern is about overflow parking and what that does from a safe route to school perspective. I believe this is the nearest public street that allows parking and so it will be the first one that will be filled up with cars as they overflow from the multi-family development. There is a pathway that has been put in here from the Centerville Subdivision that will lead right to the Cunningham Lateral. We cannot close this off. So, this is open fencing. There is nothing here preventing students from walking this direction and coming across an uncontrolled crossing -- there is no crosswalk there. There is no crossing guard in order to get to school. So, while I believe the proposed crosswalk at Hill Park will help the northern half of the subdivision, the southern half of this subdivision will be -- you know, this is the -- the fast way to school and it will be very dangerous. So, in conclusion, quickly, I oppose the development as proposed. I am not opposed to development. I would like to see a plan that is more in line with the FLUM where there is nine acres of MUN, I would love to see some residential restaurants, you know, local grocer, things like that would be fantastic. That's what's needed in the area. Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Elizabeth McDowell. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F41 Page 39 of 69 McDowell: Hello. I'm Elizabeth McDowell and I live at 3839 East Fratello Street in the Shelburne Subdivision. I'm here to speak in opposition to the planned Centerville Subdivision. I'm a 19 year resident of the Treasure Valley, so I have seen the explosive growth that's taken place in our area in that time and there is no doubt that affordable housing is needed. The demand for rental properties is huge and we do need more multi- family dwellings. However, south Meridian is not the appropriate location. The issue I'm most concerned with is that there are hundreds of homes in south Ada county solely relying on well water for their households and these are not necessarily large farms, they are often homes on quarter acre lots built before city water lines were run to the area. Many of them have recently been affected by the incredible surge of new development causing their wells to suddenly run dry. In May of this year Channel 2 News reported on one local resident who was without any water to his home for months. Drilling companies had wait lists that were months long and the cost to the homeowner to drill the well deeper would be 30,000 dollars. He would have no running water to his home during this wait time. A neighbor even ran a garden hose to the property, so this resident would have some water while he worked to resolve this problem and he is not the only one. Channel 2 reported that this resident received over 600 phone calls from other area residents who were being affected similarly or were concerned that they could be next, because their homes were also on well water. Our community is in a crisis for groundwater. I was fascinated to recently learn that our groundwater is an aquifer, which is replenished by natural precipitation and farm irrigation. My rudimentary understanding is that when all of our land is no longer used for agricultural purposes and gets paved over with parking lots and roads, our water table drops, our wells run dry and, then, must be drilled deeper. This irresponsible overdevelopment cannot be allowed to continue. It is required by Idaho law that this Commission ensure necessary resources will be available to all residents before any development is approved. When my husband and I purchased our home in Meridian last year we had no idea how truly inadequate these resources were. We, along with many neighbors I have spoken to, naively assumed that responsible development was taking place. It is now clear to me that this is not the case. In south Meridian our schools are overcapacity. Our roads are dangerously inadequate. We lack close by emergency services and many homes are losing access to their household water. This is unacceptable and against the law. In my opinion our city needs to institute a moratorium on building, as some other local area municipalities have done, until our infrastructure can catch up and responsible growth can take place. Developers need to be required by law to fund necessary infrastructure before development is permitted. We are all here because we care about our community. We don't need high density residences with parking lots and concrete, we need houses with yards, schools with fields, parks, walking paths and nature. Bottom line this plan is simply not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and will serve to severely negatively impact the ability of current residents to enjoy our neighborhoods. I would ask that this Commission deny this proposal. I would also like to add dog groomers to the list of businesses that would be great in that little area. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next on the list is Paul Prestwich. Prestwich: Hello. I would like to talk a little bit about the TIS report and the data -- the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F42 Page 40 of 69 numbers that have been provided to the staff. McCarvel: Would you give your name and address for the record. Prestwich: Paul Prestwich. 5249 South Bleachfield. McCarvel: Thank you. Prestwich: Got you. And I would like to talk about the numbers there. As -- as was said earlier, the number of trips, according to the proposed development, is going to be 2,599 approximately. And I'm going to use 2,600 as my number that are going to be occurring each and every day as a result of this proposed development. Now, of that the distribution that the TIS indicates is that 70 percent are supposed to go out onto Amity Road. That's 1,819 trips turning onto that two lane road with maybe a little turn lane that they can get into. The other 30 percent, surprisingly enough, were equally distributed between the other areas. Hillsdale Boulevard, the collector road, is supposed to take ten percent of the traffic. But Rockhampton is also supposed to take ten percent of the traffic, as is Hillsdale Creek. So, 260 trips per day they schedule to go through the surrounding neighborhoods. Now, according to the staff report that the staff had earlier, they said the traffic -- the site traffic is not expected to travel south and to reach Amity Road or Cloverdale, since direct access is available through Amarita. It's not practical for the traffic and the site to go to the south or the north. But, yet, the plan specifically says that's what's going to happen, 260 trips into those residential neighborhoods at least. Now, would also like to talk about one of the other things that was brought up earlier, which is the baseline. They said the TIS -- no new traffic counts were collected. Old counts from 2018 and '19 were used. A lot of development occurred in this area between 2018 and 2020. A lot of build outs occurred, a lot more traffic, but, yet, they didn't use those counts. Why is this important? It's important because it establishes for the developer a lower baseline by which to extrapolate future numbers from, meaning our traffic counts are probably way low in this TIS, because they are not using current data and numbers. When you look at the TIS virtually every option that they propose here -- here is one that says the segment between Amity and Eagle and Cloverdale, they are expected to exceed ACHD level of service planning thresholds with the existing lane configuration for the peak hours. It's going to fail. What's the remedy? Well, build a five lane road. That's not in anybody's plan. Put in a three lane road. Yeah, that's coming 15 to 20 years. Put in a little stub median -- well, remember, coming off of Amity into this development 1 ,800 cars are supposed to be turning into there every day. So, that's going to create a lot of traffic nightmare. If you look at the TIS virtually every single option they have here says it's going to fail by 2025. Now, I would hope that each and every one of us here -- each of you in the planning area would plan to succeed, not plan to fail. Deny this development, because it's got some bad numbers to it. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Rebecca Prestwich. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F43 Page 41 of 69 R.Prestwich: Madam Chair and Members of the Commission, can you hear me? All right. Madam Chair and members of the committee, I'm Rebecca Prestwich, and I live at 5249 South Bleachfield Road in the Hill -- or street or avenue. I don't know what it's called -- in the Hillsdale Creek Subdivision. That particular street starts at Rockhampton at the -- and it goes and it just weaves around and it actually has four different names as you go down the same street into the community. It's a small community in that street. Families play in the street. Children are out riding their bicycles. People are sitting in their front lawns visiting with one another and it's a really pleasant community to live in and I think that that embodies the vision that Meridian has as a premier community and a place to live and work. I'm not going to repeat all the things that have been said tonight, because I think they have been eloquently spoken, but I do want to speak about some of the definitions and some of the codes and the Idaho statutes. So, that will be what I address. The city's AOCI is negotiated with Ada county pursuant to the Local Land Use Planning Act. Within that there are unincorporated -- unincorporated areas of Ada county have the day-to-day administration of the city, as you will know. Now, the county uses the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan, which has been spoken about many times. This Comprehensive Plan counts the area of this development as rural transition. The -- it's rural urban -- excuse me -- transition zoning. Now, the definition of rural transitioning zoning was a surprise to me. The zone allows five acre lots, single family residential development, as well as agricultural-related uses and a range of some conditional uses. Now, that doesn't describe anything about that community to me that's being proposed. The subject property currently contains two future land use designations, as you have heard, 9.8 -- and I got these numbers from the county assessor. I have put this into the file, so you can refer back to it if you want to. The mixed use neighborhood designation is 9.97 acres. The medium density residential consisting of 28.9 acres. Idaho Code 67- 6511 requires the zoning district shall be in accordance with the adopted plan. Shall. I looked up what the meaning in the plan -- what shall meant and it says meant to be. It will happen. That's in accordance with the plan. The Comprehensive Plan. As I was listening at the beginning of this meeting and I was listening to the members of the committee, it seemed to me the questions that were being asked to the developer, the committee had already made a decision that they were going to approve this development. That seemed surprising to me and I don't know if that's really your intention, but it seemed to me that that's exactly what you were doing and you have to ask yourself with so many people attending this meeting and so many objections and questions that have been raised, is this really the appropriate development for the parcel in question? I want to also say -- McCarvel: Ma'am, if you could wrap up your thoughts. Your time -- R.Prestwich- I'm sorry, I thought I had ten minutes. I'm representing the Hillsdale Creek HOA and I apologize for not saying that. McCarvel: Okay. And who -- who here are you -- who is really speaking on behalf of? R.Prestwich: The Hillsdale Creek Homeowners Association. I apologize for not saying that. As -- in the staff analysis it was stated the applicant has not proposed to incorporate Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F44 Page 42 of 69 additional neighborhood servicing uses and meet all the Comprehensive Plan policies for this designation. So, he hasn't -- it hasn't done that. It's not complying with all of the promises -- the designations and it's not complying with the requirement. The applicant is proposing a mixed use neighborhood. That's different -- I mean mixed use residential. That's different than the mixed use neighborhood. The mixed use residential in the city plan is intended for city centers, where there is more need for high density housing for people to get to work quickly and you have heard that people can't get to work, you have heard that that's -- there is no transportation. The roads that they would have to travel on and walk on are extremely dangerous and imagine if someone were to get hurt or an accident were to occur or even a life was lost how this would be affected in the neighborhood and how people would feel. As stated in the analysis notes of the staff, the overall gross density proposed lies near the absolute maximum allowed. It can be rounded down for future land purposes, but for this simple fact staff recommends a reduction in the maximum number of units throughout the site. Why is it that developers are allowed to go to the maximum and, then, they get to round down and manipulate their numbers to fit into a plan. That doesn't set well with most of the community members. The Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho, COMPASS, provided data regarding -- regarding this project. COMPASS' recommendation says Amity Road is not recognized in community motions plan 2042.0 as one of the key -- and it is one of the key unfunded -- unfunded corridors. The Valley Connect, the 2.0, has -- has identified future transit service, but no anticipation of completed route. Nearest bus stop is 2.6 miles. Now imagine if you're a mom and you have got a child with a burning fever and you need to get to your doctor and you have to walk 2.6 miles and, heaven forbid, it would be in the snow, how would you feel about -- excuse me -- your child. The nearest grocery store is 2.4 miles -- and everyone talks about Albertsons, but the fact is that if you are in an economic position to -- to live in a community that would help support your rent, you can't afford to shop at Albertsons. It's one of the most expensive grocery stores there is. And that is a disservice to the members of that community to put them in a place where they can't get the groceries they can afford and there are plenty of other grocery stores in town where you can. Fire protection needs to be spoken to. Fire protection, according to Title 8 of the ordinance code of the -- what is it -- ACHD -- fire protection shall be provided to all areas within the planned community with a response time of five minutes. You have heard that that is a failed test. The Fire Department cannot meet that time and I have their letter and it's in your file motion and, Item E, the Fire Department cannot meet the response time of five minutes and it cannot meet the response time goal of 12 minutes for the ladder truck. So, that means that if a fire were to occur in that community those residents would be facing imminent danger. I'm certain that you don't want to put anybody in that position. I don't want anyone to be in that position. I think it's really sad that we put in developments before we have the infrastructure. I know that our statutes require that all of the infrastructure be in place before we -- we approve these developments and, please, take that into consideration when you are making this plan. I just want to add to what's been said about the schools and I know you are probably tired of it, but this was from the West Ada School District and I quote: To meet the need for additional school -- school capacity West Ada will gladly accept the donation of land appropriation for a school site. Passage of a bond will be required prior to the commencement of new school construction. So, schools are not going to be -- meet their needs in a very near future. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F45] Page 43 of 69 The last bond was voted down. People don't understand how the government here -- the new people coming in don't understand the procedures of government and who funds what and who does what and that is creating a lot of unrest and dissatisfaction in the community. Engineering Solutions said in their report: The intersection at -- where we are talking about the -- the -- isn't it Hillsdale and Amity -- that it is anticipated to exceed maximum operational thresholds and trigger mitigation by 2023 with additional background traffic increase of approximately 380 vehicles during the peak hour and -- and beyond 2020 existing traffic volumes will grow. That's all I want to say. There is just too much happening in our community. Growth is happening too fast. It's time for us to take a pause and the members of the community would respectfully request that you consider pausing and sending this proposal back to the development and -- and keeping it in -- within the FLUM and we thank you very much. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Michael Bauer. Seal: Madam Chair? Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just in the interest of time, if anybody else is going to speak on someone else's behalf, can we see who they are speaking on behalf of -- McCarvel: Yeah. Seal: -- because more than half of our speakers so far have been speaking for a larger group, although I'm unaware of anybody that they have spoken for. McCarvel: Yeah. If-- If we can keep it to comments that are new issues that we haven't already heard. Madam Clerk, who do we have next. Weatherly: Madam Chair, that's Michael Bauer. McCarvel: Michael Bauer. Okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Lorelie Sturkey. Madam Chair, that's the last I have on the list. McCarvel: Is there anyone else in the room that has something new to add? Okay. In the front here. Snow: My name is Brian Snow. 4206 East Rockhampton. My property's adjacent to the proposed development. I purchased the home in 2019 while I was stationed overseas in Bagram Air Force Base. It was a tumultuous time with a lot of bad memories that I will summarize in saying it was bad. The thing that I enjoy about this community is it's peaceful and quiet and my backyard I see the sunset every night and I really don't want to see a three story apartment building. So, I would like to say thank you for the proposed Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F46 Page 44 of 69 change going from three stories down to two. We don't need vertical growth. We need to see the sunset. Thank you. McCarvel: There in the back. Schuermann: Hi. My name is Eric Schuermann. I live at 12871 West Auckland Street, which is inside the Hillsdale Creek Subdivision. I just wanted to talk about one specific issue. I kind of got here late, so I'm not sure if I saw anybody talk about this. I didn't see it while I was here, so I'm going to talk about it. But Hillsdale -- where Hillsdale comes into Rockhampton, right there kind of like in front of the school, we have a lot of cars that pile there when Hillsdale Elementary has an event. So, the reason why I want to talk about this is because they actually back up all the way on both sides of the street. There are no parking restrictions on that street and so they kind of curl around that street. I don't know if there is like a map somewhere I -- sorry, I didn't come prepared. But it curls around and, then, kind of-- kind of comes into Hillsdale's -- like an amenities area and so there is cars that are all backed up throughout there whenever they have an event. So, we can't even get in our homes then. The cars are on both sides of the street. You cannot put two cars in the street at the same time. So, I'm surprised that there hasn't been anything that's already occurred there with a -- like somebody just opening a door, as simple as that, and somebody getting taken out already. So, how -- my question is how does anyone propose that having a subdivision with thousands of people in it -- that that street would be clear at any point, let alone when Hillsdale Elementary has an event. What would happen if Hillsdale Elementary would already have an event that would crash the streets and, then, you are talking about adding thousands of more people in a subdivision next door. So, thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Sir. Jackson: My name is Troy Jackson, president of the board of directors for Hillsdale Creek. Just a quick addition to what I'm also hearing tonight in regards to the -- the traffic and the school. We -- my wife and I and my three children moved two blocks closer to Hillsdale Creek, so that our daughter could continue going to school there and now we have got the next two coming up through the ranks this year, it will be two of our children. We can't go there. There is three houses between my house and that school and my children cannot go to that school. So, I hear talk about -- you know, we talked to the school district and there is room and we can ship and bus and all this stuff -- we changed our lives around and moved into a house that, of course, costs more than double what we were living in to get our kids into a school that we were already going to that they gave us special permission. They can't go there. So, when I hear this I want to laugh and, then, I want to be upset. The reality of it is is that I don't care who is talking to who that school is full and the YMCA is full, too. So -- so, good for that, you know, because our kids can go and enjoy that and now as you just heard my neighbor before me -- we are talking about adding hundreds of people to something that we cannot imagine and I don't care -- 1, obviously, like anyone that's living where I live and where some of these folks live, we don't want to see a bunch of apartments there, but most of them -- it comes from a good place. I mean it just doesn't make sense. It really doesn't. And I'm just asking Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F47 Page 45 of 69 that, you know, these constituents can be heard tonight when it comes to this development. That's not going to work and we got to do something to do the stop gap on this -- and my daughter here almost got killed by a car right on that street, it's so dangerous right there. I mean there is five people in this room that stood there and watched, we were just trying to cross. My neighbors are trying to go through people's backyards to safely dodge. It's like a war zone and it shouldn't be like that and it is and I'm telling you no matter who is -- who is talking to who as to who, that's a reality that we got going on in our little subdivision right next door to what's going on -- or proposed to be going on there. And thank you. Appreciate it. McCarvel: Sir. Foreman: Hi. I'm Benjamin Foreman. I live on 12319 West Billabong Street in Rockhampton neighborhood. So, I thought it was interesting that we heard at the beginning that these 12-plex apartments won't affect anyone and that was spoken by somebody that doesn't live in the area and so I think these people's voices have been heard quite clearly. It's going to affect fire, school, water, traffic congestion, parking, character of the neighborhood and everybody has tons of facts and figures they can throw out and like this gentleman just said, I -- I live within walking distance to Hillsdale Elementary School. I can't send my kids there either. I had to temporarily -- temporarily move out of the neighborhood and came back because of school -- COVID and school situations. We wanted to put our kids in Hillsdale Elementary School. My wife called the school and they said we can't even talk to you. The conversation was literally 30 seconds and they said you are going to have to bus your kids somewhere else. So, does it seem fair to open up a whole new section with 138 different units for, you know, that many more kids where the people that live there they already can't send their children to the schools that are in their neighborhoods. One other -- one other comment is usually the counter response to the traffic, you know, congestion that's going to be made is they say, well, there is 9.5 trips per single family home, but there is 5.4 trips per multi-use homes. Well, that sounds good. It sounds like, oh, now we are actually reducing the congestion. But the point is, no, with multi-family units we are adding 5.4 trips to the roads in addition to what's already there. So, let's not get confused by the math. It's not that, oh, by building multi-plexes now we have less traffic, we have more, it's just perhaps that there is a little bit less as compared to single family units. What we want as a community is we don't want any tall buildings; right? I like the idea of reducing it down to two levels. I would love to have, you know, single family units. I don't know if that's going to happen, but I think the common theme that we are all saying here is 12 12-plex apartment buildings doesn't fit the area. There is none of those anywhere else in -- you know, within several miles of the area. Let's do away with this plan. Let's start back at the drawing board and not just get carried away with, you know, building, building, building and building something that doesn't fit the area. Thanks. McCarvel: Anybody else? Wiley: My name is Jim Wiley. I live at 12553 Dalrymple Court in Rockhampton One in Boise and I hadn't originally expected to speak, but there were a couple things -- and I -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F48 Page 46 of 69 maybe you guys really have -- there is only three items that I wanted to discuss. First of all, nobody has really brought this up yet, but I want to thank the developer and the architects for coming up with a beautiful plan. I love it. I think it looks beautiful. I think it's great. I can't wait until they break ground and I hope they tell me where the new location is going to be when they break ground, because I want to be there to see it. It should not be here. The three things that I come on -- one thing that she had mentioned was -- you have these beautiful townhomes with two car garages and, then, two cars can park in the driveway. I don't know anybody that parks four cars in a house. Just down the street on the corner of Amity and Eagle is a beautiful new storage facility going in, because people have too much stuff. You are not going to park two cars in the garage and two cars in the driveway, they are going to be parked on the street. Another one is they talked about concerns about plans for traffic changes. I keep hearing the word proposed and proposed always scares me half to death, because proposed is that fairytale land out there and you guys talked earlier about the conditional use permit for Cole school for four units to go -- temporary buildings to go down there and, then, you even -- one of the commissioners even brought up the idea, you know, what do we do four years from now when -- can they extend this? Can they extend it and extended and extend it? So, anytime you talk about something being proposed, whether it's street improvements -- they talk about a temporary light. They talk about all these different things that they want to propose. I don't think any of them should be considered until they are in writing and they have been approved and we know that they are going to happen, because proposals get changed all the time. We have seen it with this and, then, the last one that she had mentioned was the impact of the three story apartments on the homes that were -- she says the nearest home is 500 feet away. She's wrong and don't listen to her when she says that, because she is wrong, because there are townhomes going right across the street from those and there are new homes that are going to be built closer than 500 feet and we have to think about the impact of what these new residents are going to have and you can say, well, they -- if they don't like looking at the apartments they shouldn't live there. Well, that's not the proper way to be thinking and I don't think that's the way any of us want to address that problem. There are going to be people that are going to be closer than 500 feet or whatever the number that she gave. They are not going to like it and they are going to have problems with it later on. Let's address the problem now and let's get it taken care of and I thank you for taking the time to listen to all of us and I hope your honeymoon gets reinstated very quickly. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Is that everybody? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back. You have ten minutes, Becky. McKay: I know. And I got a lot. It's going to be tough, but I will be quick. I will try to -- Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, try to address some of the -- some of the questions, some of the concerns. One of the things was brought up about was the apartments at Lake Hazel and Maple Grove. That is not even similar to what we are proposing. Those were done in the county. The county ordinance only required like 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit or less and that has been a disaster. Concerning the Albertsons, I was told that Albertsons could not go vertical until Eagle Road was upgraded and the dual lane roundabout was installed and so that's one of the things that has delayed the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F49 Page 47 of 69 Albertsons going vertical there at the northwest corner of Eagle and Amity. School overcrowding. Congestion. I have been working with the school district -- Marcy Horner. Marcy indicated that they have 700 capacity at Hillsdale Elementary. Enroll -- current enrollment she said is in the upper six hundreds. She said the district has reduced the boundary and typically the elementaries -- I have done probably five or six elementaries within projects that I have done, they are supposed to serve that particular section. The boundaries of Hillsdale went beyond that section and they are slowly shrinking them. What she said is going to alleviate some of the problem is the Gem Prep Charter School. It will serve the same area as Hillsdale Elementary. It has a fall 2022 opening. She said the first year they will have 312 student capacity and, then, they will expand to 500 after that. Blue Valley Elementary. It's already planned, designed, ready to go at South Ridge Subdivision. That is their priority school to take some of the heat off of south Meridian. It will require a bond. She said that the school board has not decided when they are going to run that bond due to COVID. So, they have no time table. As far as Lake Hazel Middle School, it has a thousand student capacity. It is slightly over capacity. The school district owns property just on the north side of Amity across from the Centerville development. Mountain View High School. That high school I did in my project called Millennium years ago. We brought the sewer across the interstate to serve that high school. It is -- has 2,175 student capacity. Its enrollment is 2,428. Owyhee High School will open this fall. According to the school district, hell or high water, it will be opening. They are having some glitches on getting materials to wrap up some of the things, but it will open. She said that will alleviate the overcrowding at Mountain View High School and -- and help with the -- the students. I'm trying. Hold on. Go back to my list. As far as the existing comp plan, this is a priority area. The Mayor, the Council, has said that southeast Meridian is a priority growth area. You have your new regional park. You have this YMCA South. They just put in a new pool facility. If you look at your Comprehensive Plan and it states in there under the definition of mixed use neighborhood it talks about it being near parks, being near schools, being located at an arterial, on a collector. This property checks all the boxes as far as that mixed use neighborhood and -- and fitting in with the overall plan. Your comprehensive land use map is a guiding document. It is not set in stone. It is -- it is something that -- it grows, it changes, and you guys look at it, your staff looks at it. Your staff recommended approval of this particular project. This project fits within the confines of the definition of mixed use neighborhood. It said it should be primarily residential and diverse residential. Townhomes. Apartments. Single family. With commercial component. Something that serves the particular neighborhood. As far as a walkable neighborhood, we have pathways throughout this whole project. We have a 14 and a half percent open space with ten foot wide pathways, five foot wide pathways, interconnecting micro paths. We have three playgrounds. We have a clubhouse. A pool facility. We have public art. Gazebos. We are trying to make this a community that people can be proud to live in, not just another subdivision plopped down in the middle of the City of Meridian. I have been doing work in Meridian for 28 years. Used to be a sign at the Planning Department: Population City of Meridian 9,400 people. And now look at -- look at what has happened. This particular project -- there is central water in Amity. Twelve inch water main. There is a 12 inch water main in Hillsdale Avenue. There is a sewer main. Sewer and water are available. I'm not putting down a well. The article that one woman indicated, those people's wells are 50 to 75 feet deep. That worked out great Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F50 Page 48 of 69 when we had -- were covered by farmland and we got a lot of recharge into the shallow aquifer. But as the farmland does develop that shallow aquifer changes and so 50 to 75 foot deep well just -- they are drying up and that's -- it's happening all over the Treasure Valley. It's not indicative of -- of south Meridian, that's south Boise. As far as the fire station. Your Fire Station No. 7 is going to open in the spring of 2023. It will be coming online. The Mayor said in his State of the Union address the fire station in our priority growth area in southeast Meridian and northwest Meridian -- I want to build two fire stations. The fire station will be 2023. We won't even have hardly any houses going out of the ground by spring of 2023. It takes that long to design these subdivisions. Everyone thinks that instantly you have all of these homes online. This is a four phase project. It takes four years to build this particular project out. As far as reasonable development, 70 percent of the trips are going to go northbound. People are saying, oh, this is just out in the -- like it's out in the -- in the far burbs. No, this is a priority area. We are less -- we are less than two and a half miles from the Eagle interchange. The number one employer for the state of Idaho is St. Luke's. Where is St. Luke's? Due north. You have Scentsy. You have Silverstone. You have El Dorado. You have a bunch of major employers. A lot of new medical facilities going up. A lot of offices going up. This is -- this has -- there is a park and ride on the south side of Overland. I see them park there and get in the van. So, as far as trying to create -- take some of those vehicle trips off the roadways with ride sharing and -- and mass transit -- mass transit is slow in Meridian. I mean Boise has it, but it's always been a struggle and mass transit will not go out to areas if you have three and a half dwelling units per acre. They won't. It's not cost effective and it's been said multiple times. The target is eight dwelling units per acre to make it cost effective to take community buses out into an area and create a public transportation network. This particular project -- there has been a lot of thought, a lot of effort, a lot of work. I can't make everybody happy and I can't create a project that's not going to generate trips. It's going to generate trips. But what I can do is I can mitigate for my impact. We don't go in, who is going to put the signal in at Hillsdale Avenue? They talk about, oh, people are going to park on Rockhampton, people are going to park on Hillsdale Avenue. No, those are collectors. There is no parking on collector roadways. Ada County Highway District policy manual states that. There will be no parking on our collector entrance roadway. The parking that we show within our multi-family area exceeds the minimum parking as stated in the UDC. It also has to come back as a conditional use permit. What I'm asking you is to look at the big picture and look at balancing Meridian. We can't just develop at three and a half dwelling units per acre. We have got to have some diversity and I ask the Commission to consider the facts and not just emotions, because this is a priority area and if this isn't appropriate in a priority area I don't know where it is appropriate. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Sorry. It was questions from the Commission. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. If there is no more questions for staff or the applicant, could I get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2021-0046. Seal: So moved. Lorcher: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F51 Page 49 of 69 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close public hearing for H-2021-0046. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Who would like to kick off the -- Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I will go first here. So, yeah, I mean as I -- it's interesting, because we kind of go through all --every single time we have a multi-family that goes in somewhere. Everybody thinks they are needed, but they just don't want them next to them. So, find that disappointing that we can all share in it. I mean I live in an area where they are doing some development that I don't particularly care for. That said I understand the development's needed and it's part of what's going to support our infrastructure long term, not just as long as I live in my house. So, there is -- there is just some things that are very disappointing to me. So, as far as what West Ada has in their report, that is their form letter. We get basically the same exact information from them every time. Not that we don't look at it, not that we are not discouraged by it, not that we don't want our children to succeed and we want them to have lower student class ratios or student-to-teacher ratios, it's simply that that's -- the funding has to come from the heads that are in that school district. So, there has to be too many heads and, then, they build. That's the way that it works. As far as the fire stations, same thing, same form letter. I have all of -- every single application that has come through -- I don't know that the fire station has ever met that 80 percent. In fact, we have called them in on it and had long discussions about it, because it's been very difficult to swallow that they are putting into a report that they are not meeting their goals. Their goals don't necessarily mean that they aren't going to be able to be there to save lives, it simply means that they are going for a goal that is somewhat unattainable in the current growth pattern that we have. Not that they are going to abandon it, it simply means it's incredibly difficult to hit and with the explosive growth -- growth like we have it's difficult for them to -- to attain that. Yeah. I mean -- and, you know, I mean there is some people that brought that up living in the Hillsdale Subdivision that it -- they couldn't meet that. I'm rest assured that when your subdivision went in they submitted the same report with the same data. So, you know, I guess as a person living in Meridian occasionally I'm willing to look at myself as the problem. So, I kind of wish more people would help to do that. So, it's a problem that we have. We need more diversified housing that comes in there. So, I would like very much for my children to be able to live here. They can't afford it, so -- and they are responsible homeowners and they would love to live in a multi-family and they would park in the garage. So, outside of that I think that the subdivision itself as its presented I think it's very thoughtful. I think that they tried to diversify as much as they could with the amount of land that they had. I do think that -- I don't know that the multi-family concept piece of it necessarily fits, but I do think that a higher density in there is relevant, simply because of where it is in location to the YMCA, to the park, to Eagle Road, to everything that's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F52 Page 50 of 69 going on in there. I think that the density itself -- I agree with lowering it to keeping the multi-family to two story. I do think that there needs to be an element in there that would eliminate even a little bit more of that, bring things to the front as far as being able to run some kind of business operation out of there. Not necessarily offices or something, but something like people said, a coffee house or things like that. I know that the developer is kind of at the mercy of, you know, who would be able to come in there with something like that. They can't guarantee that that's what would go in there, even if they try and plan it. I, myself, I'm a -- you know, obviously, a fan of the -- of the small businesses that can go in there. The business incubator type stuff. So, it sounds like that that's not something that's going to be approached here, but I would like to see more stuff like that happen, especially on a frontage road like that that is going to get a lot of traffic, people coming down through the YMCA, you know, and other things that are going to be in that area. So, overall I think it's a decent plan. I just don't know that it's ready to move forward at this point. I think there is more that could be done in order to help transition the -- the multi-family a little bit better to bring in a little bit more of a business emphasis to it and that's kind of where I'm at. I just don't think it's quite ready. McCarvel: Okay. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I wanted to let everybody know that I hear what you are saying and it sounds -- it sounds like the community is not opposed to growth or housing, but just the multi- dimensional -- or multi-family and it also sounds like you would like a little bit more commercial as well. There is parts of the plan that seemed to work and some of it that needs to be possibly reconsidered. I would support a continuance to go -- have the developer go back and possibly redesign a balanced multi-family housing plan to fit in the neighborhood and to offer some more commercial. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, living in south Meridian I am like every one of you, I have contributed to the growth of south Meridian. I have contributed to the traffic and the overcrowding of the schools. I have been in Tuscany for the last 16 years and I contributed to the overcrowding of Lake Hazel Elementary School. I'm sure Rockhampton contributed to the overcrowding of Lake Hazel Elementary School, the same way as Hillsdale has contributed to the overcrowding of the Hillsdale Elementary School. We have all contributed. We all contribute to the traffic congestion. Why does this subdivision all of a sudden break that threshold that we can't handle anymore? Growth is always a hard pill to swallow. When do you stop growth? Do you stop it now? Should you have stopped it before Hillsdale? Should we have stopped before Rockhampton? Our goal I guess is to manage that growth and how do we -- we best make it fit. Basically the --the objection Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F53 Page 51 of 69 that I heard today is we don't like the multi-family, which I totally understand. I understand that there is a place for multi-family. I understand that there is better places for multi- family. That being said, I think that this -- this plan is a little dense. I -- I do agree that the -- I think that the town -- the part multi-family housing should be limited to two story for all of the complexes. I would prefer to see the multi-family go away and deal more with townhomes. I think that would be a better fit for the area. But, you know, again, I still also believe in property rights as well. So, that being said, that's -- that's my -- my opinion. I also like the idea of some additional potential retail as well. I agree there is a -- there is no place to eat out where we live, so -- in fact, I am really excited for Albertsons to come just for that reason, so -- so that's my opinion. McCarvel: I will jump on your bandwagon. I'm part of the problem in south Meridian. Built in Sportsmans Point when that was coming up and my son was the first freshman class at Mountain View and they opened their doors I think 400 kids over capacity. So, it's -- it's been an issue forever and it just is when you are growing like we are. I -- and as I read through the staff report in preparation for this meeting I as well thought this is a lot of transition and a lot of variety in a short area. I think it could be spread out to where the density of phase one and maybe some townhomes was the highest end of the density there and some more commercial to support the uses that are needed there. I just -- I think trying to fit all of those levels of density in that area is pushing it. So, that's where I'm at as well. Wheeler: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: I live close to Commissioner Yearsley out there at southeast Meridian and, then, I grew up in southwest Boise, two miles away from my childhood home and so that whole area I have been able to see grow, whether I like it or not, and, then, been a lot of fun over there. I, too, am looking for Albertson's, because, then, I can take a quick little bike ride, get over there, get some groceries and get back before I know I was gone and can get dinner on the table pretty fast. I also know that -- that to meet the density of this is a little bit too much for what's needed and I think that the mixed use neighborhood has more of a blended aspect that it should be with retail and commercial and housing and things of that nature and I also on the retail side I think one thing is you said is to get a retailer to come to a mid block location -- in other words, not on a hard corner is just difficult, because it's just traffic counts that drive their profits and what they want to see. So, that -- that will -- that will be a little bit of a stretch to try to do that, but it would still be, you know, to me it's -- it's -- it's a little bit not as diverse as what I would like to see with the -- with the kinds of uses that are for the mixed use neighborhood. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: First off, Joe, apologize to Miranda for me, because I did see where her report Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F54 Page 52 of 69 was, I just looked over that one. I know that was like four hours ago. But one of the things that I think I will start off with is just looking at the -- the designation on -- on the future land use map and having sat through the entire strategic plan thing that was, I don't know, 18 months or something -- two years. I don't know. It's been a long time. A lot of meetings. Making sure that when we have these go forward that we do get some of that diversity of housing types and housing opportunities, so that as the city grows and ages that we don't have all of the exact same thing for the next generation who comes in behind us and being able to think beyond where we are right now. One of the things that came up with -- I don't know, one of the first ten people that talked tonight, was that you were afraid that we had already made up our mind and that you were not being heard. We wouldn't be sitting here for, I don't know, three plus hours on this if we weren't listening to what you are saying. So, we are hearing what you are saying and we are taking to heart the feelings that you have shared with us tonight. Similar to what Commissioner Seal mentioned initially here was a sentiment that we -- we hear a lot and that is I really like this, just not in my backyard, and this is not unique to you and the development that we are talking about right now, it happens in every corner of our city when we get these developments, especially when multi-family comes in, people are very in favor of it as long as it's nowhere near them and that is something that we have to balance out when we are listening to this, because that is a need within our city now and as we grow we have to have some balance to what had traditionally been built in Meridian and being, you know, just single family homes. It's something that we have to make sure that we keep in balance as we grow and don't rely on it solely being in one locale. You don't want to have just a section of your city 50 years from now that is only multi-family, because you didn't put -- nobody wanted it next to their house when it was being built. So, something to keep in mind as we talk about this. I, too, have some major concerns about the schools and the roads that are out there. Unfortunately, there is limited pieces of that that we can control. We can make suggestions. We can, you know, condition developments as they go in, but we have to rely on our community partners to -- to help with -- with those pieces and properly prioritize those needs. One of the people talked about the --the step up and -- or transition from larger lots to smaller lots. This is something that we see in most developments that are going in next to developments that are already built out and this is, essentially, what we are looking for is those bigger lots going into smaller lots. So, with that I would like to say that it looks mostly normal to me. I agree that we could really use some of that retail aspect out there. I think there is a missed opportunity if the retail component is not addressed, especially in regards to the other businesses that are out there or going to be out there. I think that having some of that community retail restaurant space next to the YMCA, next to parks, next to lots of homes, next to medical facilities -- it makes sense and would definitely be a good fit in that area. A couple other things. Sorry. I know it's long, but we are already here this long, so go a little bit longer. One of the -- the biggest problems for me is something that you said, Becky, that this is just not another subdivision plopped down in Meridian. I would respectfully somewhat disagree. It looks very similar to a lot of the other things. I don't see anything that is remarkably unique about the layout or the product. I -- I like various components of this and I could get behind it, but I would like to see this project continued and come back with a lot of the community's input taken into consideration. I think that the multi-family being that two story -- rethinking how some of that is configured and -- and -- and worked in. I think Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F55] Page 53 of 69 there are opportunities to enhance the overall buy in of the community to make it feel as if this entire -- let's take a square mile and say that it's kind of being tied together. This project doesn't have to do this by itself, but it does need to work to find a way to not have these new neighbors that are going to be coming in from all of the people that are here, so that they can come in and be welcomed as new members of the community and not despised for something that they had nothing to do with and I hope that when you do have these new neighbors that you take that into consideration, that they were not part of any of these conversations and you are welcoming them -- them to our community when they do move on. McCarvel: I'm going to ask a question based on what I have heard from everybody. Are we really at a point of continuing? Do we think that the -- that that's going to do anything or move it forward with recommendations or move it forward with a flat out recommending denial? Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: If we deny, does the applicant have an opportunity -- do they have to start all over? McCarvel: No. They go to Council with our recommendation and, then, it's up to Council. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: I believe. Yeah. Commissioner Grove. Grove: I would say continuance for the simple fact that one of the -- the sticking points on some of this is Fire Station 7 -- like this development has time before it has to be in ground versus some of the other developments that we see. So, I would be okay with saying continuance and see if we can get some of these components worked in. I'm seeing a nod from the applicant that they would be in favor of -- of doing that. McCarvel: Okay. So, then, question for -- I will keep it to staff, so we don't have to open the public hearing. What recommendation based on workload and reasonability do we have to get something reworked? What date are you looking at? Dodson: Madam Chair, I'm assuming a month would be sufficient to kind of work through some of this, because we don't have a quorum on the 2nd -- for the first hearing I should say in September, so it would be the second hearing in September. I already have two CUPs for that night, so it doesn't bother me. Weatherly: Madam Chair, there are currently -- so, your next meeting would be -- McCarvel: The 16th. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F56 Page 54 of 69 Weatherly: -- the 16th of September and there are currently five hearing scheduled for that evening. McCarvel: October 7th it is. Weatherly: And, Madam Chair, just for the record, there are two hearings already scheduled for October 7th. McCarvel: Okay. Dodson: Would a further delay be acceptable? The second hearing in October? McCarvel: Okay. 21 st? Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion? Wheeler: I would like to make a motion then. McCarvel: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: Nick -- or excuse me. Commissioner Grover, were you going to make a motion? Okay. All right. All right. I move the continuance of file number H-2021-0046 to the hearing date of October 21 st, 2021, for the following reasons: To work with the input from the public testimony in matters of density and mixed use. Yearsley: I will second that. Parsons: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Parsons: Before -- before we second anything, just want to make it really clear for everyone that's testifying tonight that we really want to just focus on the items you want to discuss at that next hearing, meaning a revised concept with more commercial and less density I think is what you are getting at. So, if we can just keep the public comments to those couple items at the next hearing that would be appreciated. We don't want to open up everything else again. So, whatever you have in your motion just make it clear. We are only discussing specific items. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm hoping that everyone has realized that we do listen and we -- we do have some common sense and -- or we have heard it and -- so, it has -- do we need more on your -- on the motion, then, Bill, or -- Wheeler: You are correct, it is in the area of mixed use components and density is what I had. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F57 Page 55 of 69 Wheeler: I think that's what it was stated. Is that what we had down? McCarvel: Yeah. Lorcher: And adding more commercial. McCarvel: More commercial. Yeah. More commercial. Less density. Yeah. Okay. Dodson: I would say we are good then. McCarvel: All right. It has been moved and seconded to continue Item No. H-2021-0046 to the hearing date of October 21 st. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: We will see you all on the 21 st. Okay. And we do have another application tonight if you are wanting to stay, otherwise, if you would, please, quickly exit, so we can get on with our next application. Okay. Does anybody need a quick minute to stretch? Okay. Three minutes we will be back. (Recess: 9:42 p.m. to 9:48 p.m.) 5. Public Hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision (H-2021-0036) by Gem State Planning, Located on the West Side of Meridian Road Between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road, Directly South of the Mid-Mile Point A. Request: Rezone a total of 40.99 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 residential building lots and 47 common lots on 38.86 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-007070), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of updating the development plan and to redevelop the subject property to incorporate the proposed preliminary plat. McCarvel: All right. We would like to resume the meeting. For the record we will now open H-2021-0036, Briar Ridge Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess informally do you want me to go through this or do you want to just ask questions. We can -- we can handle it however you would like. I presume you all have reviewed the majority of the staff report and done everything you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F58 Page 56 of 69 need to do, but I can definitely go through the main points -- McCarvel: Go through it. Dodson: Okay. It consists of 40.99 acres of land, currently zoned R-4, located on the west side of Meridian Road, between Lake Hazel and Amity. It is directly south of the mid mile point. Medium density residential and medium high density residential on the future land use map. The applications before us tonight are for the -- a rezone from R-4 to the TN-R zoning district, which is the traditional neighborhood residential district, which we do not have much of in the city at all. It consists of a preliminary plat consisting of 227 single family residential building lots, 123 detached and 104 townhome lots, all for sale single family. Forty-seven common lots on 38.8 acres of land. There is also a modification to the existing development agreement because, again, it was annexed in 2015 and the first modification is basically required if there is new development, as is written in the existing development agreement for the purpose of updating the development plan to redevelop the property consistent, whatever that future development would be. Again, this property was annexed in 2015 under the south Meridian annexation where the lots down here were annexed in to help re-establish some of our city boundaries from being taken over. In that development agreement and with these -- this annexation, there is all of the southern Meridian annexation, made some commitments to provide services and development in this area. With that being said, I -- I mentioned in my staff report about the urban services and I was probably a little too harsh considering some of the commitments that we have made by annexing already and zoning and having a development agreement and everything out here already. So, the project is proposed in three phases. This is a revised phasing plan. It shows a majority of the east third of the site in phase one. A portion of the collector street along the north boundary and an emergency access to Meridian Road also in phase one. So, this was received after Jane and I and the applicant met following the publication of my staff report to kind of talk about some of the conditions and the phasing. Seen here phase two is shown with the large central open space lot. Fifty-eight more lots and most of them detached. The remaining length of the collector street, which is a West Quartz Creek Street and, again, it's a collector street. Three includes 112 lots. So, literally half of the development is not -- density wise is not occurring until phase three. A majority of that is the townhome units in the southwest corner of the site and staff does support the revised phasing plan. The project contains two future land use designations as noted, medium high and medium density residential. There is mixed use regional directly to the south with the existing C- G, R-15 and R-8 zoning, as well as the opposite corner. The applicant is proposing an overall gross density of 5.84 acres -- or dwelling units per -- well, that doesn't make any sense. 5.8 dwelling units per acre, which falls within the density range of the medium density residential. Again, because there are two, just like the last project, and that we have now, the calculations when you have more than one become rather flexible. Yeah, theoretically the applicant could have proposed a project with twice the density proposed currently and still be compliant with the comp plan in terms of density. They lost one, because it -- to me it showed by reviewing this that they were not just trying to cram as many lots in. They had a very thoughtful site design. By proposing a project density consistent with the medium density residential and not the medium high, the applicant is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F59 Page 57 of 69 aware of the existing commercial zoning to the south and its future land use designation of mixed use regional. This should likely incorporate higher intensity development of both commercial and residential. The applicant proposed a higher density product, which is the units in the southeast quadrant of the site by placing the alley loaded townhomes here. Staff does find that the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Again, they are requesting the TN-R zoning district as noted. It requires a six dwelling unit per acre net density, which following publication of the staff report I have been -- I received that it is at least 11 dwelling units per acre net density, so we are perfectly fine there. It requires at least two housing types, which are shown here at least. Street oriented design, which is more focused on the pedestrian than the car. The overall site design proposed by the applicant is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the future land use designation, and this requested zoning, because of the transitional density proposed, because of the multiple housing types, and because of the inclusion of parkways throughout the entire development, as well as the extension of a collector street along the north boundary for future connectivity. The project is proposed with three housing types to meet the requirement of multiple housing types. Detached single family, alley loaded detached single family, and alley loaded townhomes. Some of these alleys here, here, and here are detached, rather than attached. This area. So, a third housing type. Staff does support the proposed housing types and the overall site design that incorporates parkways throughout the whole site, which, again, is a foot parkways, street trees, and five foot detached sidewalks, which really help activate street and keep pedestrians safer. The project is proposed with at least four and a half acres of qualifying open space, which is approximately 11.6 percent. It consists of the required buffer to Meridian Road. The large centralized open space a lot. The MEWs between the townhome units. I didn't include this in my list, but the buffer to the collector street along the north boundary and the -- and other small areas of open space throughout the site. The project has parkways as noted and would qualify as qualified open space. It takes a little bit of a calculation, because you have to subtract all the driveways, et cetera. The applicant did not need to incorporate this area to meet the minimum open space requirements, so they did not include it. So, their four and a half acres of qualified open space is probably a lot closer to their proposed total of seven. So, again, they don't need that in the calculation and I will explain that further. Staff is not concerned that this is not in the calculation, because they requested zoning of TN-R also requires parkways. So, no matter what the city is going to get the parkways, because of the requested zoning, whether it qualifies as open space per their calculations is kind of null. It is a great addition to the community nonetheless. The proposed amenities also exceed code requirements. Per the plat size two are required. They have proposed a multi-use pathway along Meridian as required by the master pathways plan. A children's play structure, picnic shelters, and open space in excess of COVID has noted, that the central open space lot is vastly larger than what would be required, a two acre area. Keeping fencing. Meet the code requirements, except for those specifically noted in the staff report. There is just a few of those items. I don't want to get into the weeds on that. The applicant has agreed to those required modifications. There is a required noise abatement wall along Meridian Road, because it's a state highway. Their proposal for that also meets code requirements. With the proposal for multiple blocks of alley loaded homes and 33 foot wide street sections there is ample on-street parking, because there will not be as many Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F60 Page 58 of 69 driveways as standard front loaded detached development. Off street parking shall also be maintained on each building lot. So, the applicant will talk a little bit more about the parking as well. Access is proposed via construction of a new collector street as noted, which runs along the entire north boundary. There will not be any direct lot access to Meridian Road. A secondary emergency access proposed to Meridian Road in the very southeast corner of the property. Again, this is only an emergency access and not a second access for residents. Just an emergency access at this time. The preliminary plat also shows two stub street connections to the west boundary for future connectivity. Meridian Road, Highway 69, is being studied by the Idaho Transportation Department for overall corridor improvements all the way south to -- or what is it -- Orchard Avenue in Kuna. This is a mid mile collector and this intersection at the northeast corner of the subject site is part of this study and is proposed to have what they call a reduced conflict U-turn crossing, RCUT, which eliminates left hand turn lanes from the collector road and left-hand -- and through traffic from those lesser classified streets. There is a couple of these in Boise, though I have not driven on them. There are a couple others. If you go -- in my staff report I did include links to their corridor. It showed some really cool things about how it works and the safety improvements and everything. So, I implore you to look at that. This is an example of what it would look like. Where I put the red box is where Briar Ridge would be proposed on this exhibit and how residents would exit out of here and they would not be able to turn left to head north, they would have to turn right and do a -- that will be a signalized U-turn on these types of things and, then, they will be able to head north through the intersection. The applicant is required to participate in a cost share agreement for the future intersection and road improvements to the state highway in lieu of constructing any improvement at this time, other than the collector street, which is under ACHD control -- or jurisdiction I should say -- and they will be required to construct that per the phasing plan. They are not required to do any improvements at this time, because the corridor is part of a future project and the proposed traffic generation does not exceed more than ten percent of its overall traffic counts at any of the intersections that is both -- this new one, the one at Amity and the one at Lake Hazel. ACHD did provide a staff report after this city staff report was published. They agreed with the ITD conditions and because they have no jurisdiction over the state highway. They did require some revisions to the internal street sections to ensure compliance with district policies. It's just some minor adjustments to road widths, things like that, that will not have any -- any real effect on the site or site design. There were three pieces of public testimony. One of them I did not quite understand being a hundred percent relative to this, but I think it had to do with overall just development and water usage. On the other two it had to deal with traffic concerns on the highway -- on State Highway 69 and concerns with density overall, with one of them noting their desire to keep it R-4 in proposed density with that, which would not meet the Comprehensive Plan designation on the site. Staff has recommended approval of the project with some conditions. I will state that I did not include it, Jane, but one of the things that was discussed was --and I have agreed to the applicant's requested revisions to my requested revision, that instead of removing all the lots on the west boundary of the open space, removing Lots 12 and 13 here and, then, making up those two lots by adding two townhomes here and getting rid of this extra parking and, then, also taking this extra parking here and adding another area of green space. Each of these are about 5,100 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F61 Page 59 of 69 square feet, so it would add another 5,000 square feet of green space and they have agreed to add a --- some kind of children's play structure. I recommended climbing rocks, because they already have a children's tot lot in the north -- as another amenity, so to speak, in the south half. So, the applicant has agreed to that. It will open up this central open space to allow safer viewing of it from both the residents and from police. So, that was the main point of that and they will maintain all the other open space as proposed. Other than that I believe we are in agreement with the staff report and I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. We are going to move on and have the applicant come up. Suggs: Good evening, Commissioners, staff. I was going to say guests, but -- I'm Jane Suggs with Gem State Planning and I'm representing -- oh. 9839 West Cablecar Street in Boise, representing the Briar Ridge Subdivision and I think Joe did a really good overview. I have all of this stuff planned, because Joe had really kind of -- in his staff report had talked a lot about why this maybe should not be the place to develop and so some of you may remember this 2015, 2016 --what I call the mass annexation, but it was a negotiated annexation. So, I'm just going to very quickly -- I'm not going to read this whole thing, but I'm going to just very quickly go through and show you those are the properties that were annexed at one time through development agreements with those owners and so if-- you already know about this, so I hate to repeat myself, but -- and this is the Comprehensive Plan. These are the plans that were shown to each of the property owners, too, and was part of the presentation to the City Council on the annexation. So, you see the BR right here -- this. Okay. I know it is, so I'm not even going to touch it. It is super sensitive. I have tried this before. So -- so, there is the BR. There you go. And you can see where it's medium density on the top and medium high on the bottom and, then, here was their zoning and you can see that we were off four. So, one of the things I thought was interesting was the development agreement allowed the annexation of the properties with R-4. It allowed the property to continue in their current use. It even included in the development agreement that you could continue to raise livestock and you can discharge firearms, even though you can't do that typically in the city limits, and in exchange for these agreements to annex, the owners or developers would need to develop according to the comp plan, just as Joe said, and it turns out in the development agreement also the DA modification, the development agreement modification, would be at no cost. The first one. And the rezone -- this is the first rezone of the property -- is also free. Thank you very much. No fees for that. So, that I thought was pretty interesting. So, that's just an expectation that we would be coming in with some other development according to your Comprehensive Plan. And, again, Joe already mentioned that there was an agreement to, quote, provide for the advancement of sewer and water infrastructure for the benefit of the subject property. That is in the DA for this property and they have done that. Sewer has been extended down Meridian Road in the past -- I guess that was in the first couple of years after the annexation. And I'm going to skip through this. So, that's kind of a long history about the parcel and how it got to where it is today and if there was a question about whether or not development should happen, there is -- you know these other subdivisions -- there is Prevail Subdivision, which is kind of just kind of catty-corner to the northeast. Across the street recently approved Shafer Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F62 Page 60 of 69 View Terrace. And, then, down on Amity Road -- I mean Lake Hazel Road you will see the Apex project. So, you are familiar with all of these projects. You might not be familiar with Lynrock. That's just west of us. That's in Kuna. So, it kind of carved out that way and that was part of this annexation issue was -- let's see where the -- where the city limits are going to meet. So, here we are with our Briar Ridge Subdivision. Again, Joe did a really good job of kind of outlining what TN-R is. Traditional neighborhood residential. You will see sort of a semi-gridded pattern, but there are lots of things that the TN-R asks for. It does ask for different types of housing, so, of course, we have attached and detached single family residential houses. We have the townhomes, which are alley loaded and it promotes -- the TN-R also promotes open space and pedestrian activation and we have all of those things. You will see with the tree there we have the planting strips, which are -- basically allow for kind of tree shaded sidewalks when you walk around. Of course, the large park that actually got even a little larger because we are taking those two lots out, so you can kind of see through the park, but we didn't want to lose those lots -- and I -- Joe and I had this conversation. These are very desirable lots to be back up to a park, so we were happy to lose a couple of them and as long as we can bring them back down into these parking areas and so as Joe mentioned -- I'm going to try this, Joe. This little -- this little parking area -- actually, because we have a lot of alley loads, that means all the frontage of the homes is available for street parking. So, sometimes when you get into these situations you don't have a lot of room for parking if you have got front loads -- smaller lots on front loads. So -- so, we put in these extra little alley access parking areas. We are keeping this one. We are going to put two lots here, so this four will turn into a six. It will just mirror this. We are keeping these two kind of alley accessed parking areas and, then, we will also turn this one, as he said, into a -- like a green space. So, that seemed like a good compromise, because I have really never been in Meridian where you said you didn't need that parking. So, I was happy to see that. I mean we can reduce some of that pavement. Again, over 11 percent qualified open spaces and, then, that regional pathway and we take that regional pathway that runs along Meridian Road and we actually -- because there is the McBurney Lateral, which we are doing hopefully, if we get through the approval process, we will get started on that winter work this year. This is why I was asking as if I could get heard tonight, because we do have winter work and we don't get started on those construction -- construction drawings necessarily until we know that we have a project. So, we are kind of moving that and the McBurney runs to the property, but we are going to be piping it and, then, right across here -- oops. Can't do it. There is a pathway that takes you into the park and it's one of the regional -- kind of a regional pathway. Just wanted to repeat these updates. Our construction phasing will begin up in the northeast quarter--quadrant and run along the east boundary, so we can put in the secondary access. We are agreeing to move the two buildings on next -- on the west side of the park and, let's see, a few more things. And you might notice that some of these are like the last project. We have front loaded detached single family homes, so some of these are two bedroom -- I mean two car garage, some are three and, then, some are the narrower homes. We have few of those, too. And, then, here are pictures of the alley loaded product. I think the little -- little cottage thing looks so cute to me. Single level. And, then, there is a picture of the townhomes. That's not the best picture in the world. We are doing more of those now, so I will get some better pictures next time. So, those are our housing types. And, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F63 Page 61 of 69 then, again, just think that we have put together a really attractive project. I think at one point -- there have been -- there was another planner working on this about three years ago I think. Bob Taunton. And, then, we came in about a year ago and we were looking at apartments down where we have the townhomes and we worked with the staff and they said that might be a little much. So, we came with the townhomes and we think this is the type of quality and the type of product you would like to see. It's still some density there because of the townhomes, they are attached, but they are very popular and with the alley load they just make a really nice streetscape. It's -- I think this is a very attractive project and I'm pretty excited about the mix of housing there and the location and I do request your recommendation of approval on our preliminary plat and our development agreement modification and I will answer questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant or staff? Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: Did you say that the water that's going to be all piped or just portion of it and, then, where the greenspace it's going to be open? Suggs: It will be all piped. Lorcher: All piped. Suggs: All piped. Actually -- Lorcher: It will be underground? Suggs: -- the -- it will go from -- as it crosses this little park area here -- I mean this little open space here with the path it actually goes north up here and, then, runs along to the west. So, you will see that extra large little green area next to the street. That's because that's an easement for the McBurney lateral all piped. So, there will be no open areas on this -- no open water on the property. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, staff had mentioned commercial to the north -- or south. Suggs: South. Yearsley: I haven't been here since I wasn't sure what -- what's -- what's planned south of there, do we know? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F64 Page 62 of 69 Dodson: Commissioner Yearsley, nothing at this time. Yearsley: Oh. Okay. Dodson: But it is -- it was one of -- I think the only property zoned C-G with that big annexation, so that is very much anticipated to be commercial and I have an inkling that Commission and Council will not want to change that. Yearsley: Well, I think that's a good location for it. I thought there was something already planned, so I was just curious. Suggs: Can I add to that? I did have a neighborhood meeting and the only person that showed up was the real estate agent who was representing that property, the Bridge Family Trust, and he just wanted to know what we were going to do, so -- yeah. That has changed hands recently, but I think they might still be working out some sewer availability and, of course, we will try to do what we can, but I don't know that it's in the same sewer shed, so -- but you will see something one of these days, because -- because it's -- it's Meridian. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Hold on a minute, Commissioner Seal. Dodson: The commercial portion, it is -- the Apex that Jane mentioned, they have a commercial component to it. It's about a mile and a half away'ish. As they get more homes, more rooftops over there, that commercial will be planned and in that concept plan, which I believe you guys saw at the end of last year, that did have some -- some nice commercial component with plazas and things like that that people will be able to easily access from here, at least by car nonetheless, but a lot closer than what is currently in the periphery. McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I just -- the townhomes, are they a rental product or are those for purchase -- something that can be purchased? Suggs: They will be individually for sale to -- for sale to individuals. I do think there is another product that I worked on that had townhomes and occasionally people would buy -- like if there were four or six, they would buy them, but they are all -- they will have a firewall between each one of them, so they are individual for sale on their own lot. Seal: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions? Commissioner Wheeler? Wheeler: Thank you, Madam Chair. On that slide you -- you mentioned that there was Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F65] Page 63 of 69 a -- was a pedestrian walkway or a gateway or something like this. What did you what -- did you say? Suggs: We are putting in a regional pathway as required along Meridian Road as a ten foot pathway, but we are leaving -- and there is a wall. We are required to put a wall that's at least ten feet -- the top of the wall at least ten feet above the centerline of Meridian Road. That isn't your standard for how we treat highways. But we are putting a little break in that wall, so that people can exit from that walkway and walk across into our development into the pack -- into the park. Wheeler: Very good. Suggs: And that's just a little break in the wall so you -- Wheeler: Okay. And that wall goes all the way down that frontage? Suggs: Yes. Wheeler: And is that the only place where there is a break in there? That one? Okay. Suggs: That would be only place there is a break. That's supposed to be continuous -- well, for the streets. But, yeah, that's the only place that you would be able to get through. And typically on most of the properties you will not see that, unless they have something like we have, and I believe it's got a rhino wall. We have a detail of it in our staff report and it's on the landscape plan. Wheeler: Very good. And the only other thing that I would say -- and this is just input. would have fun and get creative with some of those pathways and have fun with it, like maybe permanent hopscotch little thing or some little -- you know, stuff like that just for people to do just to make it kind of fun and homey, but that would just be some thoughts on that. Suggs: Thank you for that input. I appreciate it. McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Joe, with the green space going in on the southeast parking lot down there, is there any sightline potential problems for that bulb out? Dodson: I'm not following it. Grove: I mean it -- can the -- I know sightlines with the green space can be a problem. Is that potentially a problem -- Dodson: For CEPTD -- right. Okay. Now I'm following you. There shouldn't be any real fencing issue if-- because you have the green space on the right and, then, you have the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F66] Page 64 of 69 alley on the left there, because it is this one that would turn into green space, there shouldn't be any issues. If there is fencing proposal adjacent it would have to be open vision, because there is not two streets next to it. So, there shouldn't be any line of sight issues there, no. Suggs: Chairman, I have one thing to add that might add something to that. If you look in those linear green spaces you will see a little tan block. That's a shade structure, so that's just a gathering space that's sort of in line and we have sidewalks that run east- west all through there, too. So, that would add an opportunity for people to hang out there, have some eyeballs on those -- you know, where they might put climbing rock. We think that that kind of activates that little space, too, in a nice way for the townhouse. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Do you want to sit down while we take public testimony? Suggs: No, but I do want to say this. Thank you so much for staying here tonight. I know this is late and that was a lot. McCarvel: I wish we could put -- we should have put you on the other side of that. Grove: Madam Chair? Suggs: I know Becky. She's good. McCarvel: Yeah. Suggs: I like to watch her. McCarvel: Yeah. Grove: I do have one final question. McCarvel: Oh. Grove: Sorry. McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Just looking at the school pieces, is that -- is this really in Meridian High School's zone? I mean that's -- I was looking at that, that's -- is that seven miles? Dodson: Commissioner Grove, when I looked at that, too, I was asking myself the same question and, then, that's what we get from the school district. I don't understand that quite honestly, but, yeah, I live very close to Meridian High School and I would -- like it's seven miles from here, that's kind of a lot. Any of this that's I guess west of Eagle at this point it's kind of -- that's a far drive for high school students. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F67 Page 65 of 69 Lorcher: Commissioner Grove, I was on that boundary committee where we actually included Meridian Road to Meridian High School, mostly because it wasn't density at that point in time, but because of the overcrowding of Mountain View and we are going to see what happens with Owyhee, you probably will see within the next 18 to 24 months that will be probably reevaluated. But right now it's a straight shot to Meridian High School and it was -- and we put it there specifically because of the low density at the time and it hasn't changed. Dodson: Understood. McCarvel: All right. We will go through the motions. Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do have one person signed in to testify and that's Cody Black. Cody, you should have the ability to unmute yourself. Black: Hello. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Black: Hi. Okay. My name is Cody Black and my business address is 16155 Northside Desert in Nampa. I'm just calling on behalf of the -- so, I represent the southern property, that commercial corner. So, we are just -- we are property neighbors and I'm mostly just calling -- I was just curious looking at the map, I was curious about the road that will be just north of my property and, then, also I'm curious about the -- the -- the lots as well. I just don't see any sort of landscape barrier in between their property and ours and I also -- I was curious about the road and just if that's being designed to be half on our property and half on theirs and, if so, if it's going to be built like half plus 12, according to ACHD standards and I just -- yeah, I was just kind of curious a little bit about that. Other than that I really have no issues with the development. I think it looks nice. McCarvel: Thank you. Black: Thank you. McCarvel: Would the applicant like to come back and address that. Suggs: Thank you. Again Jane Suggs representing Briar Ridge. Thanks, Cody. I didn't know you were my neighbor at this point. Yes, that is a road that will be half plus 12. It does provide that emergency access as a driveway from -- to the east. We think that that's a really good opportunity to not only provide a little bit of a buffer between what might happen on your property and those townhomes, but a good connectivity as well and if I'm right, Cody, about a little triangle of that property right near that road actually is on the north side of the canal, so I'm thinking that we might see some expansion of some commercial, maybe some multi-family there, too, as well, just because of that and I'm sure -- we haven't talked about that. The rest of the properties that just back up, there is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F68 Page 66 of 69 just a fence line there, so all of the surrounding area will be -- have a fence. So, just like the ones on the west. There is no landscaping there that those houses will back up. You will see that in all your subdivisions, where there will be a fence along the back property boundaries. Those particular homes there are front loaded, so the driveways are and the garages are on the front and so the back -- the backs of those lots will be a fence. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Joe. Dodson: You know, to further on that for the -- the road on the south that -- because it's a local street as that section, other than the driveway access to Meridian Road, but it's just local street, so there is no requirement for a street buffer for that, because it's proposed on the boundary. We do that relatively commonly. Whatever came to the south would have to include any kind of buffer if it -- because it is C-G there is a minimum land use buffer there, but I -- per Jane's comment there is a little triangle piece that kind of aligns with that that would likely -- to the topography and that might even be the sewer shed line, because of topography that I would be surprised if that little corner piece does go as commercial, but it's very small compared to the rest of the area and that would provide a -- like -- like Jane said, an adequate transition, another connection point for residences if that were a multi-family, a little segment there. But staff is not concerned with the -- the lack of landscaping on the south side at this point. Future development would be required to provide that. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I also believe that -- that a future extension of that -- rest of that roadway wouldn't be required until that property redeveloped or if it were to be developed. So, I think that's also so he wouldn't have to be required to build that at any time. McCarvel: Okay. If there is no other public testimony and no other -- I guess that was the only one we had; right? Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H- 2021-0036. Seal: So moved. Lorcher: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close public hearing on H-2021-0036. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Anybody want to jump off? I will go. Yeah. I think it's a lovely little addition Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F69 Page 67 of 69 out there and kind of sets the standard for what's to come around it. Be curious to see what they do with that turn around on the highway, but that's not the concern for this I guess. Yeah. I think that's a nice blend and mix, something we would have liked to have seen on the other one tonight, so -- Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: When I first looked at it I had some concerns with like open space, but having looked at it a few more times and whatnot and seeing how the changes tonight were presented, I like the redistribution of some of that green space to the southern properties a little bit more. Interesting project. I like it. The only thing that I don't like about it and it's out of control of this is just the distance to the schools that are assigned to it, but there is nothing that we can do about that. McCarvel: Yeah. Any other comments, motions? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: For me I personally don't like it. I don't know. I -- you know, to me out in the middle of nowhere that it doesn't feel like it fits. Maybe in five to ten years as it grows around it may fit better, but it meets the future land use designation and -- and at this point I don't object. Grove: Madam Chair, I just want to say one thing. I don't disagree with you on out in the middle of nowhere aspect and I would probably have a bigger problem if it wasn't on the state highway. So, if it was just kind of out in the middle of nowhere doing it I would have a bigger problem. If you drive out in Nampa and you see what they are doing and it's kind of out in the middle of nowhere and all of a sudden you see like 700 homes and, then, nothing and no way to get to them, like that's a poor design, but being on a state highway I don't have that concern. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: If nobody objects, I will shoot a motion here. McCarvel: Okay. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0036 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 12th, 2021, with no modifications. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 12,2021 F70 Page 68 of 69 Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval in H-2021-0036, Briar Ridge Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move we adjourn. Parsons: Madam Chair, before we -- McCarvel: Oh, no. Parsons: Yeah. It's me. I'm sorry. I wanted to ask the Commission if they were in favor of maybe doing a special meeting next week to approve the findings for the Cole Valley portable classroom CUP. If we don't get those findings approved and we don't have a hearing for a month we won't conclude that business for a month for them and they really need to get under construction and get those schools placed on that property. So, I just wanted to see if there is a way we could get together in a quorum next week on the 19th just call in -- do a quick Zoom meeting, approve those findings, and do the quick five minute business and allow them to move forward with this through the city's process. McCarvel: I think we kind of chatted we can even do that during business hours if we could do that like at noon and just call in. Yeah. Seal: I can fit -- yeah. Yearsley: We need one person here don't we? Seal: Yeah, I -- McCarvel: Commissioner Seal is volunteering to -- Seal: I will do that. McCarvel: You are going to be around anyway? Yes, Commissioner Grove is across the street. Okay. Yeah. We got. If -- yeah. If we can just do it like at noon on Thursday. Okay. Lorcher: Yeah. I can be here, too. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 12,2021 Page 69 of 69 McCarvel: Okay. Seal: So, it sounds like lunch will be provided then. McCarvel: I don't know what your complaint -- we will just start without you. We don't need you and the Clerk here just to do a Zoom meeting. I apologize to the Clerk and to Dean for starting without you. Okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair, I just want to confirm for the record, we are going to do a special meeting next week August 19th at noon. We will have a quorum. Several of you in-house. Okay. And the 6:00 p.m. meeting will be canceled for that evening. McCarvel: Yes. Weatherly: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Now, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move we adjourn. Grove: Second. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10.28 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 8 I19 12021 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 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 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Brightstar Residential Care Facility (H- 2021-0040) by Jeff Hatch of Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. 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 Brightstar Care Meridian,Located at 3336 and 3340 N.Meridian Rd in the L-O Zoning District,by Hatch Design Architecture. Case No(s).H-2021-0040 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: July 15,2021 (Findings on August 5, 2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 15,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 15,2021,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 15,2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 15,2021,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-7 84 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). H-2021-0040 Page 1 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of July 15,2021,incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § I I- 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 15,2021,attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-513-617.2. 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 15,2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2021-0040 Page 2 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of August,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 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: 8-12-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2021-0040 Page 3 EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 7/15/2021 Legend DATE: Prate---_zm- :: cm TO: Planning&Zoning Commission r FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner W 208-884-5533 f Bruce Freckleton,Development — Services Manager 208-887-2211 —W-UST1C RD 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 Description 1 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 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map ffLegertd I ffeegend �I N yeo#Laoaion W I Pra�eo' Lxa=on k Ytif U STl.'1{ RD E-U ET U 1GAedium Dertsity Resid rttial A, Zoning Map Planned Development Map k 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_LJ [1 CF(RD E:U RD *RUT — s R` k` R1 A G GE SC:r e-1 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Jeff Hatch,Hatch Design Architecture -200 W. 36th St.,Boise,ID, 83714 Page 3 a F-1 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 a F-1 • 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 a F-1 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 ■ 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. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on July 15,2021. 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: Jeff Hatch b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Jeff Hatch d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Owner of adjacent daycare expressed support for the proposal. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Commission voiced support for DA modification to allow buffer reduction. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 7 Page 8 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 5/28/202 1) SUN DAMLS S"M-,�Slk 47.? "-W-33-E M1.49 7Oh NG.R 8 toi.47 EO.W wai PROPOSED M RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILM 5,807 SF ;3 PC*Cn AU. pAkm A EXISTING D.1i A= EXISTING NLOFT( '1 A-- PARKING � , < MAO' u ------§ ZCMVAM ,per Page 9 a F-I 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 • ,-Ma.is Page 10 C. Fencing Plan(date: June 10,2021) SUh-ANCE SUMIUMOM P. ++•Y•i. Frru.. ....YY WN'O433g i-EJAS ZOWMG.R- LLJ I t' — PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL CARE FAGILI r Y r, 5,807 SF KWH AR=f k PARSa l4 EXISTVIG 0.21 AEPM PAWUNG LOT mod; M N8fi°og�o-w lY2�4- Page 11 ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- ............................................. ----- --------------------------------- -------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ................................................................. .. :-- -- - —-—-—--- - - ................................................................... 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, € ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...... :::::::::... ................................................... .......................... ......................................................................................... a F-I HATCH DESIOr ARCHITECTURE Page 13 a F-1 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. The Commission finds 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 14 a F-I 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 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. The Commission 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, the Commission 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, the Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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, the Commission 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) The Commission 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 15 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #3: Cole Valley Christian School Portable Classrooms (H-2021-0043) Application(s): Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 6.96-acres of land, zoned R-15, located at 1108 N.E. 2 ½ St. History: In 2013, a CUP was approved for an auxiliary filed on this site. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Old Town Summary of Request: A CUP is requested to install four (4) temporary portable classrooms for a maximum time period of 4-years on the Cole Valley Christian School site. Because the portable classrooms don’t comply with all of the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 14F.4, a CUP is required per UDC 11-4-3-14F.1b. Additionally, a modification to the existing CUP (CUP-13-013) for the auxiliary field is required to allow the proposed temporary portable classrooms to be erected on the site. The Applicant’s narrative states that temporary classroom space is needed while they pursue and construct their new campus. The portable classrooms will be removed upon its completion and relocation of the school to its new campus. The proposed classrooms will accommodate 216 students. ACHD is requiring street improvements consistent with their policies and standards consisting of constructing N.E. 2 ½ St. as half of a 36-foot wide commercial street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk abutting the site; reconstruction of the existing pedestrian crossing on N.E. 2 ½ St. south of Washington Ave. to meet current ADA standards; installation of a RRFP with intersection lighting on N.E. 2 ½ St.; dedication of additional right-of-way to total 25-feet from the centerline of Washington Ave. abutting the entire parcel owned by CVCS; and installation of “No Parking” signs along Washington Ave. One (1) ADA parking space is proposed to be provided adjacent to the northern portable structure as depicted on the site plan with access taken from E. Washington Ave. All other parking is provided in existing parking lots on the school campus. Staff recommends parallel parking is constructed along N.E. 2 ½ St. with the improvements required by ACHD. A parking plan was submitted that demonstrates compliance with the minimum parking standards for education institutions, which requires one space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area. Based on a gross floor area of 78,127 square feet, which includes the proposed portables, a total of 195 spaces are required; a total of 218 spaces are provided exceeding UDC standards. Based on 218 vehicle spaces provided, a minimum of 9 bicycle parking spaces are required to be provided; the parking plan depicts a total of 16 spaces exceeding the minimum standard. A minimum 10-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to local public streets (i.e. N.E. 2 ½ St. and E. Washington Ave.), landscaped per the UDC standards. Mulch is required to be used in all required planting areas – ¾-inch road mix is not allowed. Conceptual building elevations for the portable classroom structures were submitted as shown that depict vertical wood siding with an asphalt shingle roof. Written Testimony: Alan Scott & Margo Permut Staff Recommendation: Approval Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0043, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 12, 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- 0043, as presented during the hearing on August 12, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0043 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Centerville Subdivision (H-2021-0046) Application(s): Annexation and Zoning; Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 40.49 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at 4111 E. Amity Road (including the outparcel to the south) and 5200 S. Hillsdale Avenue, at the southeast corner of S. Hillsdale and E. Amity. History: No history with City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (approx. 8 acres); Medium Density Residential (approx. 31 acres) Summary of Request: Annexation & Zoning of 40.49 acres of land (3 existing parcels) from RUT to the R-8 (13.35 acres) and R-15 (27.14) zoning districts with a concept plan showing 159 single-family units and 168 multi-family units and a preliminary plat consisting of 190 total lots (124 single-family residential lots, 35 townhome lots, 2 multi-family lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 clubhouse house, and 27 common lots) on 38.95 acres of land. No CUP for the multi-family was submitted with this application—one will be required in the future to construct multi- family dwellings. stnd Proposed in 4 phases – majority of the detached single-family in the 1 and 2 phases; accesses to Hillsdale and Amity and stnd large central open space is proposed in the 1 phase. Existing stubs proposed to be extended in 2 phase. Majority of MF proposed in phase 3; clubhouse, pool, remaining MF, and front-loaded townhomes (SWC of project) proposed in phase 4. Project is proposed with 5.64 acres of qualifying open space (approx. 14.5%). Future CUP would confirm the required minimum amount for MF. The qualified open space consists of the required street buffers, the large centralized open space lot, and other smaller open space areas throughout the site that include additional pedestrian connectivity through the site. Correct number of amenities are proposed – future CUP will confirm required minimum number of amenities for MF portion. Access - S. Hillsdale Avenue (collector street) and E. Amity Road (arterial street). Applicant is extending two local stub streets into the site – one from the east (W. Macumbo Street) and one from the south (S. Bleachfield Avenue). TIS required due to proposal of more than 100 units – TIS estimates project will generate 2,599 additional vehicle trips per day and 266 additional trips per hour in the PM peak hour. TIS & ACHD recommend/require the following improvements: Safe access to Hillsdale Elementary – ACHD recommends and Applicant has agreed to install a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) crossing at the Hillsdale/Hill Park intersection for an additional safe crossing for current and future residents. Project area has different future land use designations than the existing Meridian development to the south and southwest. Majority of site contains the MDR designation (3-8 du/ac). Relatively small area of MU-N (6-12 du/ac) on this site is part of a larger mixed-use area further to the west that encompasses approximately 70 acres. Approximately half of this mixed-use area is approved for residential development (Hills Century Farms North) with the remaining area being comprised of commercial zoning that includes self-storage, an urgent care, medical/dental offices, assisted living facility and some vacant commercial lots. Applicant is proposing a mixed-use residential project more in line with the MDR designation. Applicant is including a lot along S. Hillsdale Ave. within the requested R-15 zoning district to be a future daycare facility that is consistent with neighborhood serving uses envisioned by the comprehensive plan for this area. Staff is unaware of future uses in the undeveloped commercial lots along Amity that are part of the adjacent project. Staff does have concerns with the lack of neighborhood serving uses in this area. Staff believes replacing two of the multi- family buildings at the southeast corner of Hillsdale and Hill Park with a multi-tenant commercial building may include neighborhood commercial users like a restaurant, salon, convenience store, or other retail businesses. Therefore, Commission and Council should determine if more commercial is desired for the development. Applicant is proposing an overall gross density of 8.4 du/ac which can be rounded down per the comprehensive plan allowances and is at the maximum allowed density of the MDR designation (3-8 du/ac). It should be noted that this density calculation includes 168 multi-family units that are not a part of the current application requests and will require future Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval. The Applicant has proposed transitional lot sizes and density within this project along the perimeter to match the lot sizes of existing development to the east and south. Smaller lot sizes are proposed towards the interior of the project culminating in the multi-family lots (highest density) along the west boundary and at the very northwest corner of the development. Staff finds the proposed project is compatible with surrounding residential development because of the transitional densities proposed. Because of the transitional density proposed in the project, Staff is taking the overall gross density calculation and analyzing it against the MDR density range (3-8 du/ac), the more restrictive density range of the two applicable future land use designations. However, Staff recommends a reduction in the maximum number of multi-family units allowed with a future CUP to bring the overall density below the 8 du/ac without a need round down. Staff recommends this for the following reasons: low jobs/housing ratio in the vicinity, traffic level of service, emergency services, and school capacities. Staff has recommended limiting the majority of the future multi-family structures to two-stories instead of three (128 total units). This equals a reduction of 40 multi-family units and brings the overall gross density down to 7.37 du/ac. Should Commission/Council find that additional neighborhood serving commercial uses should be added and a further reduction in residential units is warranted, it would provide better transition from Hillsdale Avenue and help the project be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff did not specifically recommend this. Written Testimony: 88+ entries mostly in opposition of project – discuss project being too dense, traffic concerns, school overcrowding, not matching existing character of neighborhood, and opposition to changing the existing plan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of subject applications per analysis in the staff report with recommended revisions and DA provisions. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0046, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 12, 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-2021-0046, as presented during the hearing on August 12, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0046 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: Briar Ridge Subdivision (H-2021-0036) Application(s): Rezone, DA Modification, & Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 40.99 acres of land, zoned R-4, located on the west side of Meridian Road between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road, directly south of the mid-mile point. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR – 3-8 du/ac) & Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR – 8-12 du/ac) Summary of Request: Rezone a total of 40.99 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential); Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 single-family residential building lots (123 detached & 104 townhomes) and 47 common lots on 38.86 acres of land; and Modification to the existing development agreement (Inst. #2016-007070), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of updating the development plan to redevelop the subject property consistent with the proposed preliminary plat. Property was annexed into the City as part of a larger annexation initiated by the City in 2015 (H-2015-0019). City made commitments to provide services to and for these parcels on the “periphery.” Proposed with 3 phases (amended following publication of the staff report) – Revised phasing plan shows a majority of the east 1/3 of the site in phase 1, a portion of the collector street along north boundary (W. Quartz Creek St.), and the emergency access to Meridian Rd. Phase 2 is shown with large central open space, 58 more lots (mostly detached), and the remaining length of the collector street. Phase 3 includes 112 lots, majority of the townhome units and the remaining detached lots. Staff supports revised phasing plan. Project are contains two future land use designations – MHDR & MDR (Mixed-Use Regional abuts property to the south). Designations call for a mix of housing types and different densities between the two. Designations are not parcel specific so either one or both designations can be utilized. Applicant is proposing an overall gross density of 5.84 du/ac which falls within the density range of the MDR designation (3-8 du/ac). Theoretically, the Applicant could have proposed a project with twice the density and still been compliant with the Comp Plan in terms of density. Despite proposing a project density consistent with MDR, the Applicant is aware of the existing commercial zoning to the south (also part of the South Meridian Annexation) and its future land use designation of Mixed-Use Regional which would likely incorporate higher intensity development, both commercial and residential. Thus, the Applicant proposed its higher density product in the southeast quadrant of the site by placing the alley-loaded townhomes in this area. Staff finds proposed project to be consistent with the Comp Plan. Applicant is requesting the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) – requires 6 du/ac net, at least two housing types, and street oriented design more focused on the pedestrian than the car. Overall site design proposed by the Applicant is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the future land use designations, and the requested zoning because of the transitional density proposed, the multiple housing types proposed, the inclusion of parkways throughout the entire development, and the extension of a collector street along the north boundary for future connectivity. Project is proposed with 3 housing types – detached single-family residential, alley-loaded detached single-family, and alley- loaded townhomes. Staff supports the proposed housing types and the overall site design of 5-foot detached sidewalks and 8- foot parkways throughout entire project. Project is proposed with at least 4.52 acres of qualifying open space (approx. 11.6%) consisting of the required buffer to Meridian Rd/SH 69, the large centralized open space lot, mews between the townhome units, and other smaller open space areas throughout the. The proposed parkways also count as qualified open space but the Applicant has not included this area in the calculation because it is not needed to meet the minimum amount. Staff is not concerned this is not in the calculation because the requested TN-R zoning requires parkways; so, the City has multiple avenues of ensuring they are constructed per the submitted plans. Amenities exceed code requirements (2 req. per plat size) – Multi-use pathway; children’s play structure; picnic shelters; open space in excess of code requirements (large central open space lot). Landscaping and fencing meet code requirements except for those specifically noted in staff report. Applicant has agreed to required modifications. Noise abatement wall along highway meets code. With proposal for multiple blocks of alley-loaded homes and 33-foot wide local streets, ample on-street parking would be available. Required off-street parking shall be maintained on each building lot. Access – Proposed via construction of a new collector street (W. Quartz Creek Street) along the entire north property boundary. Secondary emergency access proposed to Meridian Rd./SH 69 in SEC of property. Preliminary Plat also shows two stubs to the western boundary for future connectivity. Meridian Road/SH 69 is currently being studied by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) for corridor improvements from Overland Road south to Orchard Avenue in Kuna. The mid-mile intersection at the northeast corner of the subject project is part of this study and is proposed to be designed with a reduced conflict U-turn (RCUT) intersection that eliminates left turns and thru-traffic from lower-volume roads. Applicant is required to participate in a cost share agreement for the future intersection/road improvements to SH 69 in lieu of constructing any improvements at this time. This is due to the corridor being part of a future project and the proposed traffic generation not exceeding more than 10% at any one intersection. ACHD provided staff report after City staff report publication – agrees with ITD conditions (no jurisdiction of SH 69); required some revisions to the street sections to ensure compliance with district policy but will have small effects on plat. Written Testimony: 3 pieces (1 did not appear to be specifically relevant to Briar Ridge) – Traffic concerns and concerns with density – desire to keep property as R-4. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0036, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 12, 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-2021-0036, as presented during the hearing on August 12, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0036 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 12, 2021 Item #3: Cole Valley Christian School Portable Classrooms AERIALFLUMZoning Site PlanLandscape Plan Proposed Portable Parking Exhibit Item #4: Centerville Sub. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Maps– LandscapePlan Item #5: ZONINGFLUM Maps–Briar Ridge Sub. PreliminaryPlat Proposed parcel40 acre –Subdivision Briar Ridge WE IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Cole Valley Christian School Portable Classrooms (H-2021- 0043) by The Land Group, Located at 1108 N.E. 2 % St. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to install four (4) temporary portable classrooms for a time period of 4 years on the school site. F67 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: August 5, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Cole Valley Christian School Portable Classrooms (H-2021-0043) by The Land Group, Located at 1108 N.E. 2 1/2 St. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to install four (4) temporary portable classrooms for a time period of 4 years on the school site. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 3. ■ C�, EI IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT .►a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 8/12/2021 We gen d L.P DATE: ff TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 70 FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0043 Cole Valley Christian School Portable � E Classrooms—CUPS ® ®� LOCATION: 1108 N.E. 2 %2 Street,in the NW 1/4 of ® EE 9M® ' Section 7,Township 3N.,Range 1 E. RE®®® HEM do, WE I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit(CUP)to install four(4)temporary portable classrooms on the Cole Valley Christian School(CVCS) site for a maximum time period of 4-years; and modification to the existing CUP (CUP-13-013),which prohibits new structures from being erected on the site,to allow the proposed structures to be erected on the site. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 6.96-acres Future Land Use Designation Old Town Existing Land Use Sports field Proposed Land Use(s) (4)temporary portable classrooms Current Zoning R-15 Medium High-Density Residential Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 6/17/21;2 attendees other than the Applicant attendees: History(previous approvals) CUP-13-013 Page 1 1 1 1 FI iL a. � 6AIRVI CHEoil FS FAIR�I IN,' , I■- la■ -■ - �� FUME-■ •+f1■1 1■ I SS ■IIIII■I I•-:- ���+11� IIII 11=: "N 1■1■1■1■1■■■■._ _-_1111 All Will limmill NINE II■ .. 11111 1 - 51111111 11 �1■■ 11! ■111 IIYI: -■1� -liiliu 1 ■ lilli!I--u1�a1.1 .1111 + N 'milli inu �-■ill 1/111111 11 ••- 1511 bri 11111 4*,•, NI!111■IIIIII� .'�'°- ,:Illllla.luw I:.li-I:. hl., 1 u ■ :Iwi iuu Iralllfllll 'I = ... 11 III. =II___•w o 1: 1: uu i ■ + - y. -- .lliuu■: III .1.._=iw`na -1rr Moll ffedl n 1`III III.-J•����'vi i�.�� � � 1ff ■ 1■■ HII■■ ■ - !'. IES�=FYI - 111 11 1�11 _■' y -.1R of ■^� ■� !�� L571 �.. u� !�� 1171 �� uuw I vxnuuuu U i 2 . . S .IL■r S :. 1�11�11■■ ; — = all :. �� 1�11■11■■ :1: IIII 1= �N� IIII .- ■IIIII■■..�i = � � IIII 11 '�+ ■II■II■■..�i �+11� � IIII II=. r*+ uuuuu■••.� ■w a 111 -uu uuuuw...� _ uu :�N11I ■11 ■1■ ■11■ ■■ III11-�-__ ■;::.2-- ■- • li uw ■u -- .::::.2:�■- : „uur■ 11 1 Is um ■u uu ■ * 1. uvr. '1 i „ 1 ■ u uu! ■Im uvr. '1■■ -■li „1 =liilniiil lili_, m1: imu Inu =liilniii7�■liili-F""-1a11��-r1��{{ - +un m1: imu inu __ 1 1■ - _ F Y • .f� 1111 11 ••_■ III: INI!111■II11• 1-I1+� 1.1.II 11 •• �■_film.'7. 1 �■ 'III: INI!111■IIIIIIII ,:I uu 1..li• :Iwl Imu Iralllfll 1,7111111a.1uw 1..n"e._.. _i��, ■ awl uw■allllllll II ull ■ II II__ •� 1 1111 qll!III, i u11 II:�+III1 II_ •III•�_ �1: 1: 711 1111 qll HIII Ml M Mn_=uu`n • ulhl 6Y1 1,1 u�■_�1111 a.._=iw`n- arr ■� uIM11 rNn a 11 KII II• "•_ KII II'I�111111•_ `I� 11■. - t 1■■ 11■I - I Item 3. 70 B. Owner: Stephen Evans, Cole Community—8775 W.Ustick Rd., Boise,ID 83704 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Notice Dates Newspaper Notification 7/16/2021 Radius notification mailed to 7/13/2021 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 7/30/2021 Next Door posting 7/13/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Old Town on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the(Comprehensive Plan). This designation includes the historic downtown and the true community center. The boundary of the Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat boundaries. In several areas,both sides of a street were incorporated into the boundary to encourage similar uses and complimentary design of the facing houses and buildings. Sample uses include offices,retail and lodging,theatres,restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors. A variety of residential uses are also envisioned and could include reuse of existing buildings,new construction of multi-family residential over ground floor retail or office uses(see pg. 3-11 for more information). The proposed use of the property for(4)portable classrooms is a temporary and not a permanent use; the school is planning to relocate and the portable structures are planned to be removed after a maximum period of 4 years. Transportation: The Master Street Map(MSM) depicts a residential collector street north/south through this property. Per condition of approval of the approved conditional use permit for this site (CUP-13-013),upon redevelopment or a change in use of this site,right-of-way will be required to be dedicated to ACHD through this site for the future extension of E. 3rd Street in accord with the East 3rd Street Alignment Study Report, dated May 2009.Note: While the proposed temporary portable classrooms constitute "development", Staff does not consider it redevelopment or a change in use which would require dedication of right-of-way at this time. There are no roadways,bridges or intersections in the general vicinity that are in ACHD's Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP)or the District's Capital Improvement Plan(CIP). 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): Page 3 Item 3. ■ • "Ensure development provides safe routes and access to schools,parks, and other community gathering places."(2.02.01G) For safety, ACHD is requiring the existing crosswalk across N.E. 2 %St. to be reconstructed to meet current ADA standards and a rapid rectangular flashing beacon (RRFB) be installed since more students will be crossing the street in this location to access the portable classrooms. • "Ensure the location and design of schools are compatible with existing and planned neighborhoods and land uses."(2.03.01D) The location of the proposed classroom structures should be compatible with existing residences across Washington Ave. to the north; and the existing school campus/property to the west, south and east of the proposed structures. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)to install four(4)temporary portable classrooms for a maximum time period of 4-years on the Cole Valley Christian School site. Because the portable classrooms don't comply with all of the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14F.4,a CUP is required per UDC 11-4-3-14F.lb. Additionally, a modification to the existing CUP (CUP-13-013)for the auxiliary field is required to allow the proposed temporary portable classrooms to be erected on the site.An existing condition of approval states, "No structure shall be erected on the site without modification to the subject CUP." The Applicant's narrative states that temporary classroom space is needed while they pursue and construct their new campus. The portable classrooms will be removed upon its completion and relocation of the school to its new campus. The proposed classrooms will accommodate 216 students. Dimensional Standards: The proposed structures are required to comply with the setbacks noted in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. Specific Use Standards: The proposed portable classrooms are required to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14F, Education Institution, as follows: Staff's analysis is in italics. Portable classrooms (temporary and permanent). The site plan for all education institutions shall include the location of any future portable classrooms(temporary and/or permanent). See site plan in Section VIII.A. Staff's analysis of the standards listed below is in italics. 1. Temporary portables. A temporary portable classroom shall be an accessory use valid for a maximum period of four(4)years from the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The temporary portables are proposed for a maximum period of 4 years. a. Temporary portable classrooms that meet the standards as set forth in subsection(F)(4)of this section shall require a certificate of zoning compliance approval but shall not be subject to design review. The proposed classrooms do not meet all of the standards listed below. b. Temporary portable classrooms that do not meet the standards as set forth in subsection (17)(4)of this section shall require a conditional use permit but shall not be subject to design review. The proposed classrooms do not meet all of the standards listed below; therefore, a CUP is required as proposed. 2. Permanent portables. Prior to the termination of the four-year permit,the applicant may request to convert a temporary portable classroom to a permanent portable classroom. Page 4 Item 3. 72 a. Permanent portable classrooms that meet the standards as set forth in subsection(F)(4)of this section shall require a certificate of zoning compliance and design review approval. b. Permanent portable classrooms that do not meet the standards as set forth in subsection (F)(4)of this section shall require a conditional use permit and design review approval. 3. Permit termination. Upon termination of the four-year permit,the temporary portable classroom approval shall be null and void and the applicant shall remove the structure immediately.If the user(i.e. CVCS) vacates the site prior to 4 year period,Staff recommends the portables be removed at that time. 4. Standards. a. The portable classroom shall not be located in the front yard of the principal school structure.Although the principal school structure is located on a separate parcel on the west side of 2 % Street and the proposed structures are not located in the front yard of that structure, they are located directly adjacent to two public streets and not behind the primary structure which is the intent of this standard. b. The portable classroom shall not be located in any required yard. The proposed structures are located approximately 30'from the property line along NE 2 Y2 St. outside of the required street setback/yard; and approximately 10'from the property line along E. Washington Ave. outside of the required street setback/yard. c. The placement of the portable classroom shall not reduce the number of required off street parking spaces. There are no improved parking spaces that exist on the site where the portable classrooms are proposed;parking was not required on this site with CUP- 13-013. d. The portable structures shall comply with the building code in accord with title 10 of this Code. e. Exterior colors of the portable classrooms shall be compatible with the color of the primary school building. The color of the proposed portable structure shown in Section HIT.C is compatible with the primary school building as required. f. The roofing material on the portable classrooms shall be of a finish that emits a minimal amount of glare. The proposed shingles are of a finish that do not emit glare. g. Where the portable classroom is located within two hundred(200) feet of a street and is visible from such a street,the portable classroom shall be screened from view of the street with a minimum of one(1) evergreen tree per fifteen(15)feet of linear structure. The tree shall be a minimum of six(6) feet in height.Evergreen trees are proposed between the street and the proposed structures at a minimum density of one per 15 linear feet as required. ACHD Required Improvements: ACHD is requiring street improvements consistent with their policies and standards consisting of constructing N.E. 2 '/2 St. as half of a 36-foot wide commercial street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk abutting the site; reconstruction of the existing pedestrian crossing on N.E. 2 '/2 St. south of Washington Ave.to meet current ADA standards; installation of a RRFP with intersection lighting on N.E. 2 '/2 St.; dedication of additional right-of-way to total 25-feet from the centerline of Washington Ave. abutting the entire parcel owned by CVCS; and installation of"No Parking"signs along Washington Ave. Pedestrian Walkways/Sidewalks: There are no sidewalks on this site adjacent to existing public streets and none are proposed with this application. Page 5 Item 3. 73 Sidewalks are required to be installed with development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and per ACHD requirements. Therefore, Staff recommends a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk is constructed along N.E.2 V2 St. as a condition of approval of the CUP as required by ACHD. Continuous internal pedestrian walkways that are a minimum of 5-feet in width are required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrances of the portable structures in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4a. Parking: One(1)ADA parking space is proposed to be provided adjacent to the northern portable structure as depicted on the site plan in Section VIII.A with access taken from E. Washington Ave. All other parking is provided in existing parking lots on the school campus. Staff recommends parallel parking is constructed along N.E.2 %St.with the improvements required by ACHD. A parking plan was submitted that demonstrates compliance with the minimum parking standards for education institutions required by UDC 11-4-3-14I,which requires one space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area. Based on a gross floor area of 78,127 square feet,which includes the proposed portables, a total of 195 spaces are required; a total of 218 spaces are provided exceeding UDC standards(see exhibit in Section VIII.D). Based on 218 vehicle spaces provided, a minimum of nine(9)bicycle parking spaces are required to be provided;the parking plan depicts a total of 16 spaces exceeding the minimum standard. Asphalt paving is proposed for the driveway via Washington Ave. and the ADA parking space. The parking and loading areas should provide proper drainage of surface water to prevent the drainage of such water onto adjacent properties or walkways per UDC 11-3C-5B.2. Pedestrian Walkway: A striped crosswalk exists across NE 2 1/2 St.that provides a pedestrian walkway from the main campus to the proposed portable classrooms. ACHD is requiring this crossing to be reconstructed to meet current ADA standards. Landscaping: A landscape plan was submitted as shown in Section VIII.B. As noted above,trees are proposed between the portable structures and N.E. 2 1/2 St. and E. Washington Ave. in accord with the specific use standards for education institutions listed in UDC 11-4-3-14F.4g. A minimum 10-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to local public streets(i.e.N.E.2 1/2 St. and E.Washington Ave.)per UDC Table 11-2A-7,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Mulch is required to be used in all required planting areas-3/4-inch road mix is not allowed. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations for the portable classroom structures were submitted as shown in Section VIII.0 that depict vertical wood siding with an asphalt shingle roof. Certificate of Zoning Compliance/Design Review:A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application has been submitted for the proposed use but cannot be processed until the subject CUP is approved. The application materials should be updated as necessary to comply with all conditions of approval contained in Section IX.Design review is not required per UDC 11-4-3-14F.2b. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section IX per the Findings in Section X. Page 6 Item 3. F74 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 6/28/2021) LAND ROUP y _• .J.I�If sTsJ - Mateml L...d: zis F 1. _ h li Q V! +If S F oce LeW.* a II _ °' -------------- - ___ Lu O I aCL I __ 1� rt _ I' I rt• I s== 3� - I . I ! � �� i C .. •plalpulR i+ Siie Malerials and Layout Plan G2.00 Page 7 Item 3. F 75 B. Proposed Landscape Plan(dated: 6/28/2021) 9 HkST M%.%DMN AVEM Lands-pe Note. THE LAND -----—---- ------ - - WGROUP ------------------ -- --- - ------------- -X ------------ --— ----------- - --- --------------- ------------------ -- - ------------------- M.WMLeUeW: ...... El ---------------- ---------- 31.dmd.: ----------------- - Lu -F Lu CL ---------- 711�i 71 -- ---------------- 7 T if T Landscape Plan LI.00 Page 8 .a . 'ham Item 3. F77 D. Parking Exhibit ®•• ®• °v LAND w GRWP Ems, - a ® ++II ft—ll Slte Pa,kl.g Calculalions y h y R rp ' o LU C' S J 14 G �J W Q J E 46 : a w lil TDrnralll Parking Exhibit �. =u Ex-PARK Page 10 Item 3. ■ IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. The future use of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval(CUP-13- 013) as applicable and the conditions contained herein. 2. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14F— Education Institution, Portable Classrooms, is required. 3. The proposed portable structures shall comply with the setbacks noted in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 4. The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict minimum 5-foot wide internal pedestrian walkways from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrances of the structures in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4a. b. Depict a minimum 10-foot wide street buffer adjacent to local public streets (i.e.N.E. 2 1/2 St. and E. Washington Ave.) abutting the portion of the site where the portables are proposed per UDC Table 11-2A-7, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. c. Depict mulch in all required landscape areas in accord with UDC 11-313-5H. Road base gravel and similar products shall not be uses as mulch. d. Depict bicycle racks on the school site capable of holding a minimum of 16 bicycles as depicted on the parking plan in Section VIII.D. e. Depict curb,gutter and sidewalk and street sections along N.E. 2 1/2 St. and E.Washington Ave. in accord with Ada County Highway District's requirements. f. Depict parallel parking along N.E. 2 %2 St. 5. The parking and loading areas shall provide proper drainage of surface water to prevent the drainage of such water onto adjacent properties or walkways per UDC 11-3C-5B.2. 6. Construct street improvements consistent with Ada County Highway District's policies and standards. 7. Upon termination of the four-year permit(calculated from the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy), the temporary portable classroom approval shall be null and void and the applicant shall remove the structures immediately in accord with UDC 11-4-3-14F.3. 8. If the user (i.e. Cole Valley Christian School) vacates the site prior to the 4-year period, the portables shall be removed at that time. 9. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application is required to be submitted for the proposed use.A Design Review application is not required per UDC 11-4-3-14F.Ib. 10. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. Page 11 Item 3. ■ B. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)is not required for this project. hgps://weblink.meridianciN.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=232128&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lu Draft Report: hgps://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=234937&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C ky X. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the R-I5 zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff ,finds the proposed portable classrooms will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Page 12 Item 3. ■ Staff ,finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff ,finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 13 Item 4. 81 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Centerville Subdivision (H-2021-0046) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 4111 E. Amity Rd. (Including the Outparcel to the South) and 5200 S. Hillsdale Ave., at the Southeast Corner of S. Hillsdale and E. Amity Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.49 acres of land from RUT to the R-8 (13.35 acres) and R-15 (27.14) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 190 total lots (124 single-family residential lots, 35 townhome lots, 2 multi-family lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 clubhouse house, and 27 common lots) on 38.95 acres of land. Item 4. F82 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: August 5, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Centerville Subdivision (H-2021-0046) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 4111 E.Amity Rd. (Including the Outparcel to the South) and 5200 S. Hillsdale Ave., at the Southeast Corner of S. Hillsdale and E.Amity Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.49 acres of land from RUT to the R-8 (13.35 acres) and R-15 (27.14) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 190 total lots (124 single-family residential lots, 35 townhome lots, 2 multi-family lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 clubhouse house, and 27 common lots) on 38.95 acres of land. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 4. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 8/12/2021 Legend DATE: ' nEJ El Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission - - FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0046 Centerville Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located at 4111 E.Amity Road _ (including the outparcel to the south)andi 5200 S. Hillsdale Avenue, at the - southeast corner of S. Hillsdale and E. �` CH Amity, in the NW '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 33, Township 3N.,Range IE. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation&Zoning of 40.49 acres of land from RUT to the R-8 (13.35 acres) and R-15 (27.14) zoning districts with a concept plan showing 159 single-family units and 168 multi-family units and a preliminary plat consisting of 190 total lots (124 single-family residential lots, 35 townhome lots,2 multi-family lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 clubhouse house, and 27 common lots) on 38.95 acres of land. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 40.49 acres(R-8—13.35 acres;R-15—27.14 acres) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential&Mixed Use Neighborhood Existing Land Use(s) County residential and vacant land Proposed Land Use(s) Detached single-family residential;townhome residential; future multi-family residential;and a Daycare. Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 190 total lots—124 single-family residential lots,35 townhome lots,2 multi-family lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 clubhouse house,and 27 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as four(4)phases Number of Residential Units(type 327 total units—159 single family; 168 apartment units of units) (not technically a part of this application;future CUP application is needed) Density(gross&net) Gross(overall)—8.39 du/ac.(327 units/38.95 acre plat); Net—12.54 du/ac.(per submitted plans,excludes: ROW,shared drives,daycare lot,and common area) Pagel Item 4. F84 Description Details Page Open Space(acres,total 5.64 acres of qualified open space OVERALL [%]/buffer/qualified) (approximately 14.48%).Further analysis below in Section V.J. Amenities At least four(4)qualifying amenities(does not include future multi-family amenities)—Open space in excess of the requirements,picnic area with benches and shade structure,children's play structure,and public art. Physical Features(waterways, Cunningham Lateral bisects the southwest corner of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) property—no floodplain on property. Neighborhood meeting date;#of June 3,2020;June 16,2021 —23 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) No application history with City of Meridian B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • Traffic Impact Study Yes(review ACHD Staff Report for specifics; Staff analysis is below in es/no Section V.C) Access Two new accesses are proposed via new local street connections—One to E. (Arterial/Collectors/State Amity along the north boundary and one to S.Hillsdale along the west Hwy/Local)(Existing and boundary. Other access is proposed via two stub street extensions. Proposed) Stub Applicant is proposing to extend two stub street connections—W.Macumbo St. Street/Interconnectivity/Cross from the east(Rockhampton Subdivision of Boise)and,S.Bleachfield Ave. Access from the south boundary(Howry Lane Subdivision). Traffic Level of Service Amity Road(between site and Eagle)—Better than"E"(1.474/1,540 VPH) Amity Road(between site and Cloverdale)—Better than"E"(182/425 VPH) - Both segments of road are shown as level"F"when proposed project is added into existing traffic counts. Existing Road Network Amity Road and S.Hillsdale are existing.All internal roads proposed would be new development. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks or buffers along Amity Road frontage nor Hillsdale Avenue Buffers frontage(collector street) Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)l Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Improvements • Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Amity Road to Victory Road in 2021-2022. • Cloverdale Road is schedule in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Amity Road to Victory Road in 2025. • The intersection of Eagle Road and Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 4-lanes on the north leg,4-lanes on the south, 4-lanes east,and 4-lanes on the west leg and is currently under construction. • The intersection of Cloverdale Road and Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 4-lanes on the north leg,4-lanes on the south leg,4-lanes on the north leg,2-laneson the east leg and 2-laneson the west leg in 2025. • Amity Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road between 2036 and 2040. Page 2 Item 4. F 5 Description Details Page Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station Approx.2.9 mile from Fire Station#4(Boise Station 14 is 2.7 miles away) • Fire Response Time This project does not fall within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes.If Station 7 is approved,response times will improve. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#4 reliability is 78%(below goal of 80%). • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—residential with hazards(multi-family and waterway) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds. Proposed phasing plan shall be adhered to;any changes in the phasing shall be approved by the Fire Department. Applicant shall have strict adherence to proposed phasing plan. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 5.6 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 4.5-minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 7/1/2019-6/30/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 900 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 71. See attached documents for details. Between 7/1/2019-6/30/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 25 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Additional Concerns None West Ada School District Estimated Additional School 123 estimated children at full build out(.7 per SF dwelling, .1 per MF dwelling) Aged Children • Distance(elem,ms,hs) 0.2 miles to Hillsdale Elementary 1.7 miles to Lake Hazel Middle School 5.miles to Mountain View High School • Capacity of Schools Hillsdale Elementary—700 students Lake Hazel Middle School—1,000 students Mountain View High School—2,175 students • #of Students Enrolled Hillsdale Elementary—626 students Lake Hazel Middle School—1,029 students Mountain View High School—2,457 students School of Choice Options • Christine Donnell Elementary(Arts)—2.8 miles away(505 enrolled w/capacity of 500) • Spalding Elementary(STEM)—4.3 miles away(677 enrolled w/capacity of 750 Wastewater • Distance to Sewer NA Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.17 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Additional 15,709 gpd committed to model. •Ensure no permanent structures(including but not limited to trees,bushes, buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences,infiltration trenches,light oles,eta are built within the utility easements. Page 3 Item 4. 86 Description Details Page Water • Distance to Services 0' • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Ensure no permanent structures(including but not limited to trees,bushes, buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement. COMPASS—Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 Review Housing w/in 1 mile 3,190 Jobs w/in 1 mile 670 • Ratio 0.2—Indicates an employment need(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered healthy ratio) Farmland Consumed? Yes Nearest Bus Stop 2.6 miles Nearest Public School 0.1 miles Nearest Public Park 0.1 miles Nearest Grocery Store 2.4 miles(an Albertson's grocery store is under construction within 0.75 miles) Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full file. Distance to nearest City Park '/a mile to Hillsdale Park and YMCA(9.54 acres in size)directly west of the (+size) project. Page 4 Item 4. ■ C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend Project Location Project Location M_ ediumr� 1)n 1 Residential ® MU-C m [� a MU-N Civic __ LOW Densily `tlJ_t7� .. �,aeWylpfvv �EWx fr fi. r NVMxjI• •xE �' �fRI[I[R ATITAI9AAk#a +�h._ Zoning Map Planned Development Map t uiflu �uuo Legend R'4 RUT R8 0 Legend Project Location RSW U Project Location L&I _y x �r ® �8 _y ! City Limits 8 7 Ell R- R 2 R 4 RSW Planned Parcels TIPC-C ROUT RUT R-8 N8 ® fl x RUTS R-8 RSW LiR-8 CTfV -- R-8—RUT R-15 Cr-N a C-KIA AR 2 eR=8 i ® 044f ® 6 R4 o0 d A � III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Shari Stiles,Engineering Solutions— 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite 100,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Corey Barton, Endurance Holdings,LLC— 1977 E. Overland Road,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Becky McKay,Engineering Solutions— 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite 100,Meridian, ID 83642 Page 5 Item 4. 88 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 7/23/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 7/20/2021 Site Posting 8/1/2021 Nextdoor posting 7/20/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /e compplan) The subject project area contains two future land use designations,Mixed-use Neighborhood (MU-N) and Medium Density Residential(MDR),with the MDR designation taking up a larger area of the project, approximately 80%of the project area. Mixed-Use Neighborhood(MU-N)—The purpose of this 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. Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is particularly critical in MU-N areas. Tree- lined,narrow streets are encouraged. Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject property has two future land use designations on the property, as noted directly above. The majority of the site is designated Medium Density Residential(approximately 31 acres to 8 acres ofMU-N) which calls for a different type of lot size and density than the Howry Lane Subdivision directly to the south which is designated as low density residential(LDR). The subject project is comprised of three county parcels located at the southeast corner of E. Amity and S. Hillsdale, directly east of Hillsdale Elementary and the South Meridian YMCA. The relatively small area ofMU-N on this site is part of a larger mixed-use area further to the west that encompasses approximately 70 acres. Approximately half of this mixed-use area is approved for residential development(Hills Century Farms North) with the remaining area being comprised of commercial zoning that includes self-storage, an urgent care, medical/dental offices, assisted living facility and some vacant commercial lots. Therefore, the applicant has not proposed to incorporate additional neighborhood serving uses and meet all of the comprehensive plan policies for this designation. Instead, the Applicant is proposing a mixed-use residential project more in line with the MDR designation. However, the proposed and approved commercial uses in this mixed-use area to the west have not been neighborhood serving uses and instead more community serving uses have been constructed; uses intended to be utilized by the nearby neighborhoods AND areas further away. The Applicant is including a lot along S. Hillsdale Ave. within the requested R-1 S zoning district Page 6 Item 4. ■ to be a future daycare facility that is consistent with neighborhood serving uses envisioned by the comprehensive plan for this area. Staff is unaware of future uses in the undeveloped commercial lots along Amity that are part of the adjacent project however, additional neighborhood and community serving uses may develop in the area. In addition, Staff does not find it feasible to anticipate future residents of this development to walk to the new Albertson's grocery store being constructed at the northwest corner of the Eagle/Amity intersection which is approximately% of a mile to the west because it will require three arterial street crossings with the new roundabout design. However, a grocery store within a mile of the proposed development is still a benefit to this development and this area of the community. Additional school capacity is anticipated by the school district who owns the 40 acres directly northwest of the proposed development. Staff does have concerns with the lack of neighborhood serving uses in this area. Staff believes replacing two of the multi family buildings at the southeast corner of Hillsdale and Hill Park with a multi-tenant commercial building may include neighborhood commercial users like a restaurant,salon, convenience store, or other retail businesses. Therefore, Commission and Council should determine if more commercial is desired for the development. In addition to the preferred uses and some site design elements of the project, the future land use designations also determine the allowed gross density. The existence of two designations within the project determine how the calculation of density can occur for this project. Overall, the Applicant is proposing an overall gross density of 8.4 du/ac which, when rounded down per the comprehensive plan allowances, is at the maximum allowed density of the MDR designation (3-8 du/ac).In addition, it should be noted that this density includes 168 multi family units that are not apart of the current application requests and will require future Conditional Use Permit(CUP) approval from the City. Staff has analyzed the density of this project with the inclusion of the multi family units as that is the intended use and intensity of the site. The MU-N designation allows residential uses at a gross density range of 6-12 du/ac and each designation's "boundary"can be used throughout the project because future land use designations are not parcel specific. The Applicant has proposed transitional lot sizes and density within this project along the perimeter to match the lot sizes of existing development to the east and south. Smaller lot sizes are proposed towards the interior of the project culminating in the multi family lots (highest density) along the west boundary and at the very northwest corner of the development. On the submitted preliminary plat, the Applicant has provided three (3)gross density calculations for the project based on overall area and the two requested zoning designations and their areas, the R-8&R-1 S zoning districts—all three calculations fall within the allowable ranges for the MDR and the MU-N designation. If you were to take only the multi family area, the gross density is approximately 20 units to the acre. Because of the transitional density proposed in the project, Staff is taking the overall gross density calculation and analyzing it against the MDR density range (3-8 du/ac), the more restrictive density range of the two applicable future land use designations. As noted above, the overall gross density proposed lies near the absolute maximum allowed(8.4 du/ac can be rounded down to 8 du/ac per the comprehensive plan)for the future land use designation of MDR. For this simple fact, Staff recommends a reduction in the maximum number of multi family units allowed with a future CUP to bring the overall density below the 8 du/ac without needing to utilize the allowable rounding. Staff has calculated that this would require a loss of 16 multi family units throughout the site. However, in addition to the general density discussion for the proposed development, Staff finds it pertinent to discuss the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) data provided to the City for this development. In that document COMPASS has noted an approximate job to housing ratio within Page 7 Item 4. ■ one (1) mile of the project site of 0.2 which indicates a need for more employment in this area (a healthy ratio, according to COMPASS, is in the 1.0—1.5 ratio). Two factors play heavily into this calculation—the number of housing units and the amount and type of commercial uses in the area. Staff has already discussed concern with the amount of neighborhood serving commercial in the immediate area of the project site but neighborhood character, traffic, and overall density also play roles in the amount and design of the future multi family component of this project. Mixed-use designations call for multi family residential to be nearby commercial development and arterial streets but with the proposed gross density, existing character of the surrounding areas, and E.Amity operating at a LOS E(worsening with the proposed development with no plan to expand until 2036),Staff finds that limiting a majority of the multi family units to two- story structures instead of three-stories is prudent planning and would bring the overall density of the project down to a level that is more serviceable by existing transportation facilities, emergency services, and schools. Please see comments from applicable agencies and departments in regards to these points. Staff has included a DA provision in Section VIII.A1 to limit the heights of all of the apartment units to two-stories except for the two 24 plex buildings in the second row of the multi family area,per these discussion points.If Commission and Council determine additional neighborhood serving uses should be incorporated into this development, this will also impact the number of multi family units that can be constructed on the site.At a minimum, this would be a reduction of 40 multi family units bringing the overall gross density of the Centerville Subdivision to 7.37 du/ac.It will reduce the number of cars on the road, the number of children in our overcrowded schools, and more appropriately match the heights of homes proposed in this development, detached or otherwise.If it is found by Commission and Council that additional neighborhood serving uses should be added and a further reduction in residential units is warranted, it would provide better transition from Hillsdale Avenue and help the project be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owners)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https:llwww.meridianci(y.or /g compplan): As discussed above,the proposed project includes an area that is designated as Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Because this project has a relatively small area of this larger mixed-use area Staff does not find it necessary to discuss the project in accord with each mixed-use policy. However, some policies are still applicable and have been included below. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics: "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01G). Centerville Subdivision proposes different housing types and lot sizes within the project to include single-family detached, alley-loaded townhomes,front-loaded townhomes, and multi family units (future Conditional Use Permit submittal). The Applicant is proposing the detached single-family with varying lot sizes that get smaller towards the interior of the site. Staff finds the proposed housing diversity would offer new housing types in the immediate area as a majority of the area is comprised of standard detached single-family lots. "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices" (3.07.01A). The Page 8 Item 4. F-91 proposed site design incorporates transitional densities and lot sizes from the existing residential development to the south and east(Rockhampton Subdivision of Boise). The Applicant has matched the property lines of the properties directly abutting the east and south boundaries to ensure compatible lot and home sizes to those existing homes. The lot sizes decrease and the density increases towards the interior of the site culminating in an area of multi family residential along S. Hillsdale Avenue and a commercial lot for a future daycare facility. Staff finds the proposed project is compatible with surrounding residential development because of the transitional densities proposed. S. Hillsdale Avenue, a collector street, abuts the site along the west boundary with E.Amity Road, an arterial street, abutting the northern boundary. The Applicant's choice to place the highest density residential and the commercial lot along these corridors is a best design practice. Furthermore, as discussed above, other commercial uses are constructed or planned on the west side of Hillsdale in addition to a community park, a YMCA, and the Hillsdale Elementary School. Staff finds the inclusion of multi family residential nearest to the commercial uses but separated by the required landscape buffer and a collector street creates a compatible project with all surrounding uses. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing network abutting the site to the east and north,per Public Works comments. Subsequently, all public utilities will be extended at the Applicant's expense in order to connect to the existing services within the right-of-way. Currently, this project is not within the Fire Department's response time goal of five (5) minutes. Per Meridian Fire comments, construction of Station 7 next to Discovery Park would help in response times for this area. Currently, a majority of the residential development to the south and southwest are also outside of the response time goal. West Ada School District has offered comments on this project and estimates 123 additional school aged children from this development. Hillsdale Elementary abuts the subject site directly to the west. In addition, there are schools of choice in this area and are noted in the community metrics section in Section II above. The Applicant has discussed with ACHD and the school district to incorporate a new dedicated crossing at E.Hill Park Street and S.Hillsdale to help elementary aged children and parents walk to the school and the YMCA. The adjacent roadways will be impacted by this development, as discussed above and in the Access section in this report. Therefore, Staff has recommended lesser density and more commercial to improve the walkability of this area of the City. See Section VII.Ffor access and transportation analysis, including Traffic Impact Study summary and analysis. "Preserve,protect, and provide open space for recreation, conservation, and aesthetics" (4.05.01F). The proposed project offers open space that exceeds the minimum requirements in the unified development code(UDC) and includes a large centralized open space area that is slightly under 2 acres in size and is easily accessible via pedestrian connections from anywhere in the project. In addition, the entire development will share the open space and amenities which add to the walkability and usability of the open space within this development. The proposed centralized open space and pedestrian connectivity to it is an example of what the comprehensive plan and our development code currently aims to deliver to Meridian residents. "Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together and to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system."(6.01.01H). The Applicant is proposing to extend the two streets stubbed to this property which includes extending Page 9 Item 4. 92 the attached sidewalks into this development. Around the perimeter and throughout this development,pedestrian facilities are proposed that would be needed additions to the sidewalk network in this area of development for both Meridian and Boise. In addition, the Applicant is proposing to work with ACHD to construct a dedicated crossing at Hill Park Street and Hillsdale so there is an additional safe route to Hillsdale Elementary on the west side of the adjacent collector street. "Support the inclusion of small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments as part of the development plan,where appropriate."(3.06.02A). With the inclusion of the Mixed-Use Neighborhood future land use designation on this property, the Applicant has decided to propose one commercial lot with this project; the subject lot is shown as a future daycare facility. No other commercial uses are proposed for the development. Further analysis is above in the previous section including a recommendation that the development lose units and include more neighborhood serving uses. Mixed Use Policies: "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics,churches, schools,parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed use developments." The Applicant is proposing one commercial building lot that is to be reserved for a future daycare facility. Staff appreciates its inclusion into the project. "Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 40%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 12 units/acre." The MU-N designation on this site is part of a larger mixed use area further the west and includes approximately 70 acres overall. Based on rough calculations and including the proposed future multi family component of this project, this MU-N area will be comprised of approximately 58%residential development, exceeding the minimum amount of 40%noted in this policy. "Three specific design elements should be incorporated into a mixed use development: a) street connectivity,b)open space, and c)pathways."Although no multi-use pathways are required with this development due to one already in existence on the west side of S. Hillsdale Avenue and none being shown on the Master Pathways Plan adjacent to the development area, the Applicant is proposing to construct a multi-use pathway segment along the Amity frontage. Furthermore, the subject development is proposed with sidewalks and micro pathways throughout the project that connect open space, amenities, the commercial lot, and the perimeter pedestrian facilities.All of these facts make the open space and pedestrian connectivity component of the project compliant with this policy. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Main access to the project is proposed via two new local street connections—one to S. Hillsdale Avenue(collector street) and one to E. Amity Road(arterial street). In addition,the Applicant is extending two local stub streets into the site—one from the east(W. Macumbo Street)and one from the south(S. Bleachfield Avenue). The two local street connections are both located near the southeast corner of the project but do not directly connect. Originally,they did connect more directly but at the first neighborhood meeting concerns were raised about cut-through traffic. So,the Applicant revised the road layout to replace that street connection with a pedestrian connection. The Access from Amity Road aligns with an approved access to the Shelbourne South Subdivision located on the north side of Amity and has been approved by ACHD(further analysis is below in the Traffic Impact Study section). The Hillsdale Avenue access aligns with E. Hill Park Street on the west side of the Page 10 Item 4. 93 collector street and is proposed to provide the main accesses to the future multi-family residential and the daycare facility. Upon review by ACHD,the successive driveways proposed on the Hill Park Street extension did not meet district offset policies for full accesses. So,the Applicant added a 10-foot wide landscaped median 75 feet into the site to restrict the first two driveways to right-in/right-out only accesses. ACHD approved this revision, as seen on the revised preliminary plat. Staff supports this change in the traffic patterns to help assist with ingress and egress for the multi-family area of the site. This does not affect the overall traffic patterns for the site. Per the submitted plat and concept plan, the multi family area of the site is separated by one of the main entrances to the site, E. Hill Park Street. This segregation of areas includes the Clubhouse and Pool being on the opposite side of Hill Park Street from the highest number of multi family units. Although the Applicant is showing striping across this public road to help delineate the pedestrian walkway, Staff does not find this offers enough traffic calming for this anticipated high-trafficked pedestrian crossing. Therefore, Staff is recommending a condition of approval to add an approved traffic calming measure at the pedestrian crossing shown on the east side of the clubhouse lot traversing E. Hill Park Street. Traffic Impact Study Analysis: The proposed project proposes more than 100 units and therefore requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). The Applicant's traffic impact study has been analyzed by ACHD and specific conditions of approval are outlined in their staff report(see exhibit VIII.I). Despite ACHD analyzing and discussing the TIS in their own report, Staff finds it necessary to highlight the main points of discussion and road improvement requirements, specifically those related to the main access points for the project. According to the TIS, the proposed development is estimated to generate 2,599 additional vehicle trips per day and 266 additional trips per hour in the PMpeak hour. Both the TIS and ACHD recommend multiple improvements to the adjacent public roadways with the first phase of development for Centerville Subdivision due to the level of service on Amity Road reaching level "F"once 60 additional PMpeak hour vehicle trips are generated, which equates to the first phase of development. Below are the required improvements that Staff is also including as DA provisions: Summary of Improvements Re ulred by ACHD Intersection Improvement Threshold Hillsdale Avenu&Amity Road Interim Signal 60 PI VI peak hour trlps Amity Road/Amorita Avenue Dedicated eastbound right-turn With first phase of lane and westbound left-turn development lane Amity Road is scheduled to be widened to a 3-lane arterial between 2036 and 2040 and the TIS recommends placing this corridor as a high priority corridor to move the road widening project up in the ACHD CIP. In the interim, the turn lane improvements will be required with the first phase of development to help mitigate traffic concerns and provide safer traffic movement at the Amity Road project entrance. The Hillsdale Avenue/Amity Road intersection is shown on the Master Street Map to be reconstructed with a single-lane roundabout in the future but there is currently not enough right- of-way to require its construction at this time. Instead, the TIS and ACHD require an interim signal be installed at this intersection. Staff anticipates the improvements required by ACHD should help traffic flow and provide safer access to and from the proposed development. Page 11 Item 4. ■ In addition to vehicular improvements to the adjacent public roadways, safe pedestrian access to Hillsdale Elementary to the west is discussed within the TIS and was of great concern by adjacent residents. In response,ACHD recommends installing a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) crossing at either the Rockhampton/Hillsdale intersection south of this project or at the Hill Park/Hillsdale intersection. The Applicant and West Ada staff have discussed this and the Applicant has proposed to construct this dedicated crossing at the Hill Park/Hillsdale intersection because there is an existing crossing just south of the Rockhampton/Hillsdale intersection. This would offer an additional safe crossing for current and future residents to access the public facilities on the west side of S. Hillsdale Avenue. As additional residential density is added to this area, the mitigation methods utilized by the Applicant becomes increasingly important. In addition, expected road improvements and right- of-way requirements are important analysis factors in determining if a project should be annexed and approved for development. Therefore,Staff does have concern over the estimated increase of traffic from this development to this area with Amity Road in its current two-lane configuration. However, the required mitigation improvements may help disperse the added traffic from this development, according to the TIS and ACHD.As noted above, this factors into staffs recommendation to limit the future multi family residential to 128 units(a loss of 40 units) and reduce the overall density by one(1) unitper acre to 7.34 du/acre. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject development consists of 3 parcels and originally contained two homes with associated accessory buildings. The home located along Amity Road is still on the property and the property is currently being used for agricultural production—it will be removed prior to development of the property. The manufactured home in the southwest corner of the site was removed in 2021.No other site improvements are currently known. E. Proposed Use Analysis: The Applicant is proposing multiple uses and different types of residential uses within this development—daycare facility, detached single-family, front-loaded townhomes, alley-loaded townhomes, and multi-family residential. In addition, a clubhouse with a pool is shown on the preliminary plat and is intended to be used by entire development,not just the future multi- family. Multi-family residential is a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2 and is not a part of the application requests at this time—the Applicant will be required to submit a future CUP application if the Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests are approved and conceptually include the multi-family residential use as proposed. All other proposed residential uses are principally permitted uses in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Townhome single-family residential requires Design Review so Staff will analyze the proposed elevations in more detail with that future application. The Applicant has provided a phasing plan notating the project is to be constructed in four(4) phases and shows a majority of the single-family portion of the site to be developed in the first two phases and includes the accesses to Amity and Hillsdale Ave. and the large central open space in the first phase of development. The phasing plan shows the extension of the existing stub streets into the site and the remaining detached single-family occurring with the second phase of development. A majority of the multi-family is proposed with phase 3 and would also include the daycare facility. Lastly,the proposed clubhouse and pool,the remaining multi-family, and the only front-loaded townhomes(at the very southwest corner of the site)is proposed with the fourth and final phase of development and is located in the southwest quadrant of the project. As discussed in the comprehensive plan analysis sections above, Staff finds the proposed uses and the proposed transitional densities/lot sizes offer appropriate and adequate transition from the Page 12 Item 4. ■ existing neighborhoods. With Staffs recommended revisions to the multi family building heights, Staff finds the proposed development would not only be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods but also enhance the existing character of this area. Specifically, all of the detached single-family lots proposed along the south and east boundaries are nearly identical in size and almost align with the existing lot lines of the adjacent residential developments. The Applicant has proposed these homes and those directly across the new local street to be within the R-8 zoning district which matches the zoning to the south (Boise zoning is different than Meridian's but the R-8 zoning is comparable to that zoning of the Boise subdivision to the east). The remaining area of the site is proposed with the R-15 zoning district and the next band of building lots proposed are smaller in lot size as they move closer to the centralized open space and are still detached single-family building lots. West of the centralized open space and acting as a transitional housing type between the detached component of the project and the multi family component is a block of alley-loaded townhomes that are multiple three Alex buildings. These homes have their front doors facing to the east towards a new local street and utilize the easternmost drive aisle of the multi family development for vehicular access to a tuck under garage. This allows a parkway with street trees to be incorporated into the streetscape of this street(shown as S. Stockport Way) and offers both a more attractive streetscape and a different housing type for this development. In addition, Staff finds it is a practical and appropriate transitional housing type between traditional detached single-family and the proposed multi family along Hillsdale Ave. The Applicant is also reserving a building lot for a future daycare facility at the northeast corner of the Hill Park Street and Hillsdale Avenue intersection. This use is permitted by right in the requested R-15 zoning district so there is no need to propose any commercial zoning to include this use. To help ensure this use is constructed, Staff is including a DA provision that Lot 30, Block 1,per the submitted pre plat, is reserved for a future daycare facility only. Staff notes that the inclusion of this commercial use is precisely what this area calls for and needs as more residential homes are constructed and because it is located so close to an elementary school. Because of these facts, Staff is recommending that this lot be platted with Phase I development instead of with Phase 3 as currently shown on the proposed phasing plan. Staff understands the daycare use is currently in high demand throughout the City so including its platting with Phase I is logical. This does not require that it is constructed with Phase 1 but it gives the Applicant more opportunity to construct it earlier in the process than with Phase 3 (likely years after Phase 1) as currently proposed. With Staffs recommended revisions noted throughout the staff report, Stafffinds the proposed uses within this development match and enhance the existing neighborhood and commercial character of the immediate area. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed building lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards for the requested R-8 and R-15 zoning districts in lot size, lot frontage, and proposed uses. All subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The Applicant has proposed two common driveways as part of the detached single-family portion of the site(Lot 28, Block 3 &Lot H, Block 5). Code has recently been revised to limit the number of units taking access from a common drive to four(4) total units, with no more than three (3) being allowed on one side of the drive. The submitted preliminary plat shows three (3) units taking access from each common drive. Staff finds the proposed project complies with the subdivision design and improvement standards. Page 13 Item 4. ■ G. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table I I- 3C-6 for single-family and multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The single-family portion of the site(townhomes and detached) must comply with these standards and will be confirmed at the time of building permit submittal. Note: all local streets are proposed as 33 foot wide street sections which allow for on-street parking where no driveways or mailboxes exist. On-street parking cannot count for the number of off-street parking spaces required for detached single-family residential. The Applicant has provided data regarding the future multi family portion of the site on the submitted preliminary plat and shows 28 parking spaces in excess of code requirements based on the original request of 168 units (358 total spaces proposed; 330 minimum required). It is not clear if this parking includes the spaces required for the clubhouse which has been required to include parking at the standard nonresidential ratio of one space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. The Applicant is showing dedicated parking for the daycare facility but the size of the building is not yet known so Staff will ensure adequate parking is included for that use with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. A future CUP application will verify the minimum number of parking spaces required for the multi family development based on the number of bedrooms per unit and the required guest parking(I space for every 10 units) that should be in effect at the time of CUP submittal. Furthermore, with Staff's recommended reduction in multi family units,parking should not be an issue for the multi family area. The Applicant did not submit a separate parking plan for review. H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along all of the proposed local streets serving the detached single-family homes. 5-foot wide detached sidewalks with parkways are proposed adjacent to S. Stockport Way(the dividing street between the detached and townhome products), along E.Hill Park Street(the entrance to the site from Hillsdale Ave.),throughout the future multi-family development, and along both Hillsdale Ave. and Amity Road. The proposed sidewalks meet the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. The sidewalks in this development create connections throughout the project including to and from the multi-use pathway segment along Amity Road to the large open space area in the center of the development.All open space areas also appear to be directly adjacent to sidewalks and include micro paths which add to the pedestrian accessibility of the development and surrounding neighborhoods. Specifically, this development would add additional and safe routes to Hillsdale Elementary by extending existing pedestrian facilities from the adjacent subdivisions. In addition, the Applicant has worked with ACHD and West Ada School District to include construction of a dedicated Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) crossing from this development to the west. This crossing is proposed at the intersection of E. Hill Park and S.Hillsdale and would provide an additional safe crossing for children from all areas east of Hillsdale Ave./Stockenham Way to get to and from school, the YMCA, and the public park safely. Therefore,Staff supports the sidewalk and overall pedestrian facilities for this development. I. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E. Amity Road, an arterial street and entryway corridor, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. At least a 35-foot wide common Page 14 Item 4. 97 lot is depicted along Amity Road on the revised preliminary plat and the submitted landscape plans appear to show landscaping in excess of code requirements. A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to S. Hillsdale Avenue, a collector street— the revised plat and landscape plans also show compliance with this requirement. The submitted landscape plans appear to show the correct amount of landscaping per the UDC standards for the landscape buffers. Landscaping is required along all pathways(including micro-pathways) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of all pathways with the required and proposed number of trees are not included in the Landscape Calculations table on the submitted landscape plans. This should be corrected prior to Final Plat submittal. However,the correct number of trees appear to be shown on the submitted plans. The Applicant has proposed a micro- path in the southeast corner of the site to connect two blocks and the correct number of trees is shown on the landscape plans but there are no trees shown adjacent to the pathway to offer any shade. The pathway segment is slight over 100'which requires only one tree adjacent so the Applicant should move one tree from a portion of this common lot and place it next to the pathway to comply with UDC 11-3B-12C. The Cunningham Lateral currently bisects the very southwest corner of the project site so the Applicant is proposing to pipe and reroute this lateral placing it along the southern and eastern property boundaries in this area of the site. To help this area be more than simply a wide swath of grass, the Applicant is proposing a gravel path over the lateral that circumvents the front- loaded townhomes and connects from S. Hillsdale to one of the internal streets. Because of the irrigation easement associated with the lateral, no trees are allowed within its easement which presents an issue since the Applicant's open space exhibit shows this area as qualifying open space.In order to qualify as open space, the Applicant is required to landscape this area per code. With the encumbrance of the irrigation easement, the Applicant should submit for Alternative Compliance with the first Final Plat application to propose how the existing landscape plan meets or exceeds code requirements or propose an alternative that meets these standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space and the required number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards is included in the Landscape Calculations table and meets UDC requirements. J. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G): Despite multi-family residential being the focus of a future CUP application the open space exhibit submitted by the Applicant is intending to show compliance with the standards for both the standard 11-3G-3 and the multi-family specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-27. A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-313 is required for the overall development, including the multi-family portion of the project. Based on the proposed plat of 38.95 acres, a minimum of 3.9 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy the requirements of 11-3G-3. In addition,because there is a multi-family development within a residential zoning district,the common open space standards listed within the specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27, also apply. Based on the requested number of multi-family units of 168,the minimum amount of open space required to satisfy the specific use standards is 0.96 acres of common open space. However,with Staff s recommended cap of 128 multi-family units, the minimum amount required would be 32,000 square feet, or approximately 0.74 acres. Combined,the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 4.86 acres,without Staffs revisions in place. This is reduced to 4.64 acres if Staffs Page 15 Item 4. 98 recommendations are approved.The Applicant's open space exhibit shows a total of 5.64 acres(approximately 14.5%)of qualifying open space but it is unclear exactly how much of this area is for each code section.Regardless,the total amount exceeds the minimum required and it is clear per the open space exhibit and the landscape plans that the minimum 10% open space is met with this preliminary plat(see Exhibit VII.C). The future CUP application for the multi-family development will be required to show that the open space requirements in the specific use standards are met.The qualified open space consists of the required street buffers,the large centralized open space lot, and other smaller open space areas throughout the site that include additional pedestrian connectivity through the site. These areas exceed the minimum UDC requirements. K. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(38.95 acres), a minimum of two (2)qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. The future CUP application and Commission meeting will determine the number of amenities required per UDC 11-4-3-27 for the multi-family portion of the site because it is proposed with over 100 units. The applicant proposes at least four(4)qualifying amenities to satisfy 11-3G-3 requirements; open space in excess of the requirements,picnic area with benches and shade structure, children's play structure, and public art. The Applicant is showing a clubhouse with a pool and tot-lot in the southwest area of the site and another tot-lot area in the northwest area of the site. These are located within the multi-family area of the development but all open space and amenities would be shared by everyone in the development. With the future CUP application,the Applicant will be required to show the amenities proposed throughout the entire site are enough to satisfy the specific use standards for multi-family development; additional amenities above what are being shown on the concept plan may be required. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the submitted landscape plans and appears to meet UDC requirements. M. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted conceptual renderings of the housing types proposed with this project. Attached single-family homes(townhomes)and multi-family structures require Administrative Design Review(DES)approval prior to building permit submittal and will be handled with those future application submittals. The conceptual renderings submitted for all building types show multiple finish materials, roof profiles, home sizes, and color concepts. Based on the submitted renderings, Staff does not anticipate major issues or changes with future design review applications. Staff will ensure compliance with the ASMfor both the townhome and multi family residential when those applications are submitted. N. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): A segment of the Cunningham Lateral crosses the southwest corner of the subject project site. The Applicant is proposing to pipe and reroute this relatively small segment of the lateral and place it along the south and west boundaries of the site to provide more usable area for the development. Fencing and landscaping have been analyzed in other sections of the report that include analysis on the open space proposed over the new lateral easement area. Page 16 Item 4. 99 1 The Applicant's proposal has been analyzed against UDC 11-3A-6 and Staff finds the proposal to pipe this segment of the Cunningham Lateral compliant with code. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat application per the conditions of approval in Section VIII and the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 17 Item 4. Fool VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps Legal Description Centerville Subdivision —Annexation A parcel being the NW%<of the NE%of Section 33,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said NW'%of the NE%, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northwest corner of the of said Section 33 bears N 89'15'18"W a distance of 2660.59 feet; Thence along the northerly boundary of said NW'%of the NE'/<S 89014'44"E a distance of 1330.22 feet to a point marking the northeast corner of said NW'%of the NE%; Thence along the easterly boundary of said NW'%of the NE'%S 0*22'10"W a distance of 1324.15 feet to a point marking the southeast corner of said NW'%of the NE%; Thence along the southerly boundary of said NW'%of the NE%N 89027'31"W a distance of 1329.05 feet to a point marking the southwest corner of said NW'%of the NE%; Thence along the westerly boundary of said NW'%of the NE%N 0°19'12"E a distance of 1329.10 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 40.49 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W.Hansen,PLS o\NL LANo Land June 24,12021s PC s �<1 TER l�i�,97F of TON Land ibl utions Centerville Subdivision Job 1 -16 of 1 Survrying anE Consulting Pageage 1 of 1 Page 18 Item 4. 1 01 1 CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION - ANNEXATION EXHIBIT THE NW'/4 OF THE NE'/4 OF SECTION 33,T3N, R1 E, BM,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO BASIS OF BEARING POINT OF E. AMITY ROAD W E 1 1s 29 28 N89-1518' 28 BEGINNING _ S89°14'44"E 1330.22' / 1330.22' 28 27 32 0 33 2660.59' 133 1/4 58914'44"E 33 34 Ld o vi a� N o0 z� 2 U O i) o N CF M N TOTAL ANNEXATION AREA = 40.49 ACRES E. HILL PARK ST. u N O �o O N z S Z O 1n �o zo �z Sd� Qo >S �o �m CN 1/16 -- N8927'31'W 1329.05' NE 1/16 N HOXRY LANE SUBDINSION N0.1 —1 LANE SUBDII SIGN 40.2 J�Qs N o - N i ol� C 1/4 0� S T 0 Q' F 11118 utions- o6fElki ��_ �(�qN �F �pQ �<v Land Surveying and Consulting 0' 150' 300' 600' ti 231 E.STH ST.,STE.A r0/y W.NP MERIDIAN,ID 83642 (208)288-2040 (208)288-2557(ax WWW.a(Id5.Wfl-biz JOB N0.20-16 Page 19 Item 4. ■ Legal Description Centerville Subdivision — R15 and R8 Rezone Parcels being portions of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 of Garoutte Acres Subdivision as shown in Book 60 of Plats on Pages 5900 through 5901, records of Ada County, Idaho,and the NW%of the NE%of Section 33,Township 3 North,Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and more particularly described as follows:. R15 REZONE BEGINNING at a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said NW'%of the NE %, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northwest corner of the of said Section 33 bears N 89'15'18"W a distance of 2660.59 feet; Thence along the northerly boundary of said NW%.of the NE'%S 89°14'44"E a distance of 870.32 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly boundary S 0°47'14"W a distance of 174.00 feet to a point; Thence S 6°25'57"E a distance of 47.37 feet to a point; Thence S 0°45'16"W a distance of 95.00 feet to a point; Thence S 89°14'44"E a distance of 179.00 feet to a point; Thence S 0°45'16"W a distance of 731.29 feet to a point; Thence N 89°14'44"W a distance of 459.40 feet to a point; Thence S 81°43'35"W a distance of 16.72 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 7.71 feet along the arc of a 347.00 foot radius non-tangent curve right, said curve having a central angle of 1°16'25"and a long chord bearing S 7°38'12"E a distance of 7.71 feet to a point; Thence S W08'44"W a distance of 79.75 feet to a point; Thence N 89°14'44"W a distance of 47.00 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 33.05 feet along the arc of a 67.00 foot radius non-tangent curve left, said curve having a central angle of 28°16'00"and a long chord bearing S 13°22'44"E a distance of 32.72 feet to a point; Thence N 89°14'44"W a distance of 88.12 feet to a point; Thence S 0'45'16"W a distance of 158.39 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of said NW'%of the NE%; Thence along said southerly boundary N 89°27'31" W a distance of 444.00 feet to a point marking the southwest corner of said NW'%of the NE%; Thence along the westerly boundary of said NW'%of the NE'%N 0°19'12"E a distance of 1329.10 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 27.14 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Zn�blut aons Centerville Subdivision "gym S,w ymg z,d cot,ewtmg Job No.2 Page 1 of of 2 2 Page 20 Item 4. 103 R8 REZONE Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said NW'%of the NE%, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northwest corner of the of said Section 33 bears N 89'15'18"W a distance of 2660.59 feet; Thence along the northerly boundary of said NW'%of the NE'%S 89°14'44"E a distance of 870.32 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said northerly boundary S 89°14'44"E a distance of 459.90 feet to a point marking the northeast corner of said NW%of the NE%; Thence along the easterly boundary of said NW'%of the NE'%S 0°22'10"W a distance of 1324.15 feet to a point marking the southeast corner of said NW%of the NE%; Thence along the southerly boundary of said NW'%of the NE'%N 89d27'31"W a distance of 885.05 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly boundary N 0'45'16"E a distance of 158.39 feet to a point; Thence S 89°14'44"E a distance of 88.12 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 33.05 feet along the arc of a 67.00 foot radius non-tangent curve right, said curve having a central angle of 28°16'00"and a long chord bearing N 13o22'44"W a distance of 32.72 feet to a point; Thence S 89°14'44"E a distance of 47.00 feet to a point; Thence N 0°08'44"E a distance of 79.75 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 7.71 feet along the arc of a 347.00 foot radius curve left,said curve having a central angle of 1°16'25"and a long chord bearing N 7d38'12"W a distance of 7.71 feet to a point; Thence N 81 d43'35"E a distance of 16.72 feet to a point; Thence S 89°14'44"E a distance of 459.40 feet to a point; Thence N 0'45'16"E a distance of 731.29 feet to a point; Thence N 89°14'44"W a distance of 179.00 feet to a point; Thence N 0°45'16"E a distance of 95.00 feet to a point; Thence N 6°25'57"W a distance of 47.37 feet to a point; Thence N 0°47'14"E a distance of 174.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. LA This parcel contains 13.35 acres and is subject to any easements NPL r No SG existing or in use. �e*G E p` 11118 Clinton W. Hansen,PLS Land Solutions,PC 0(0-Z4 ZI _ June 24,2021 �� TF OF TON W. NP Land billution Centerville Subdivision V'land Surveying and Consulting Job No.20-16 Page 2 of 2 Page 21 Item 4. 104 CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION - REZONE EXHIBIT THE NW'/4 OF THE NE OF SECTION 33,T3N, R1 E, BM,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO BASIS OF BEARING E. AMITY ROAD 29 28 N89'15'18'W 28 1/4 S89'14'44"E 1330.22' E 1/16 1330.22' 28 27 I III, 32 33 2660.59' 33 870.32' 459.90' S89'14'44"E o POINT OF _ 33 34 BEGINNING POINT OF J a R15 ZONE BEGINNING c R8 ZONE a W s Q M Ck: CA s v�i J L4 o �y U N CDLO to s o n � R-15 ZONE M2 AREA=27.14 ACRES a, E. HILL PARK ST. _ ^ LO _ o O cN t s� Z O 1n_ r� �o �,L5 459.40' I L7 N89'14'44"W R-8 ZONE _ L8 F 'J AREA=13.35 ACRES a o� r S <_N 444.00' 885.05' O N CN 1/16 HONRY-- E N89'27'31"W 1329.05' NE 1/16 LAN SUBDIHSION N0.1 IVISI0N N0.2 m� N i ol�2 LINE TABLE CURVE TABLE LINE # LENGTH DIRECTION CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD L1 174.00' SO'47'14"W C1 7.71' 347.00' 1'16'25" S7'38'12"E 7.71' C 1/4 L2 47.37' S6'25'57"E C2 33.05' 67.00' 28'16'00" S13'22'44"E 32,72' \ONp,L LA JVD L3 95.00' SO'45'16"W 5 1 S TfR L4 179.00' S8914'44"E O L5 16.72' S81-43'35"W a1"�1 1 8 0 L6 79.75' SO'08'44"W N�v�l2L(�2( �O= L7 47.00' N8914'44"W 9 P `� lF OF L8 88.12' N8914'44"W TON W.NP� L9 158.39' SO'45'16"W o Ions i�4 0' 150' 300' 600' Land Surveying and Consulting 231 E.5TH ST.,STE.A MERIDIAN,ID 83642 (208)288-2040 (208)288-2557 fax www.lantlsoluwns.biz JOB NO.20-16 Page 22 B. Revised Preliminary Plat(da1cd: 7/30/2O2D C� swun Lu CHOMU 10 LEINMO H�,107�C IOVINOO a -JINNY]d 3 k FR- Rol- M, :,�'A-g,j, N 4 ?is OA O;M. �hll—A Zg 1 1 E Hr pq 1 'p 6�,Mi.*9sp g R 0111=11"I'M i 10,21ma Rim -g 9 175 Pin A �11�t�� j A 4�a t 7", �4 F T� A ff —PC,-) -�4 ff Page 24 Item 4. Fl 07 'aSNUI MOM is d wvNu„naafi„x CHODA 10 d3NMo dadO7e c iOVINOO SNI833MM7 NOISFAIQSRs -d3NNVld aZZrAx.7.Ln1�3 � = 0 l a� F O 8 x 8 Ir R ; V If q 11 � � ---------------- r z - - IF ' �- 7 w } j 3 Page 25 Item 4. Fl 08 C. Open Space Exhibit N. IT- . i E. AMITY ROAD __ E. AMITY ROAD w a I N J i D I II I a ICI I — ie r �LI I -- -- E. HILL PARK ST ti ®I d Ilt= �I I 0 J J 4 I ® - SITE AREA = 38.95 ACRES TOTAL QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE = 5.64f ACRES (14.48%) PRELIMINARY QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION 1" = 200' LOCATED IN THE NE d OF SECTION 33, T.3N., R.1E., B.M. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO Page 26 Item 4. F-log] D. Landscape Plans(date: 6/07/2021) t VINYL _ F rz 51iiIN[ Ys� - IrPLAY $ �J12LlL' {J % t _ L N o MAIN � It: EKIS INT J 'TRE 5 Qfi H M 10 ' VINTL i£1KE -- s LANDSCAPE GALGULA7I0N5 DE\/ELOPMENT DATA LOGArION BUFFER MIM LPNbTH RBzlfz O I'ROVInBO ... ....................... -.4s.Acres co—AueA _- —A—) E_AMITY Ra. 62' 1210'/35'= m SR££5 36 TREE'✓ RESI TIAL XY5 ................... 124 EXI5—zoNINS ...............,.....Id IT 5,HILL50P15 AVE_ 21' 1245'/35'_ �6 TREES 40 TREES MULTI-FANCY LOTS................... 2 OAYGAi�LOT I GOFAtON Ai�4 152,?b0/HF O= .21 TREES 150 TREES GLVEH7,15E LOT.................... FOTAL N1Irv2ER OF T3E£5i 921RE£5 »a TRE£i TOFAL LOTS ......... IMO C E N T E R V I L L E SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 27 Item 4. Fl—lo I IMFM H Ul 'r�N� 74" �M N, tu It < 777 . LA z < J-1 Y lu N-1 lu 41 1 LU _j uj U10 LU E Page 28 Item 4. Fl 1-1 1 �aN2r� Y�I II Afl- Up I _d S Idl15aLFA'hTVF �/ IJ� i h - Llll I III I rYr' 4t. CIA m r'�e��c �,v,, MA aidK � e _ I T I � �t OF OF � I I w I1 15Ir TH ,4T k 3s 4IL �I Yry \ - - z ? CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN,ID m PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 29 Item 4. 112 Isl�lF" c s _ — —67- - — — l 1r ICI q �� .I F 4� �_' Ilia — I� b G xi rl r � o zz i = -m1m vl� �I it 1 - e tS aT I 1 'r i a K. CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION IF MERIDIAN.ID egg $ s a JillPo y a m y PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 30 Item 4. Fl 13 W N- on ON / & 1y% mU ggg WR rn rn F� 70 a D z A ti fl9it 5 rn s n F g Ill ° qj rn Fly U, N�� ¶° e ar Z CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION e d9 W m zn N MERIDIAN,ID qe� �_' ;707•',CC: m ° PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN �7F Page 31 Item 4. ■ E. Proposed Phasing Plan +� F-7. - --axavH ice. L-L I Li 0.0 m --'� cr�rtMn1Y�,:no-- 13�o S89'1444"E Eo 1130� �EP —�____ EI/16F- � �97iw4 _ � 589'14'44"E 1 SO'L912-W_ 7.00�-� 6n�nr,eaao--- —�-�_- -7 i i w _ = $ I E WJ05MHRRP Si h 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7 13 74 t5 1 ILW1LL(1D 1 17 40 39 38 3T 36 35 34 33 32 11 i 31 16 6 pp BLOCK II — 19 17 N 9 - � E CALRYMPIE 3C ire: - I ® 27 - � _ m 22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 26 'a 18 10 23 12 Y 25 BLOCK 4 1} 23 20 13 27 i$ 14 L HI gREFI N S1Rff7'.N Qj E HIL PNIX SIHEEF � O 15 - -- - g _ 2 4 - 010 y t4 36 y 9 29 27 26 25 24.23 22 19 5 ' o C:_ 20 I ` 411 Lit? s 3s 1s IC E.HWSpIC P 11 8 34 � 16 lii �i t9 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 H 15 14 I� w cu-W s! `+11D I is Ir,HacuMeo sr: --- E HILIS%1R'1[ICJI 2a � r 331 119 ,a j {1 m 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2a 29 �I a I BLOCK fi B 33 31 35 35 37 w __ e W.Rx'K✓"-. --5'. .` IAIfPs1 E4SE, w r a \ \ I`I89'23'31'2Sq" \ x15�CHNNIN � , �g h ec:xnnawroa sr __________________________ CENTERVILLE PROPOSED PHASE ----- 3 Page 32 Item 4. Fl 15 F. Common Drive Exhibits 10 12 13 14 BLOCK 3 N. 15'REAR 15'REAR 15'REAR r---------� I r--------- FENCE (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN) n�IIIL� I 16 Jl I I I I I I 32 11 31 30 29 I I I I I a of o HOME COMMON �� HOME i�Ni HOME ORIENTATION iN"I HOME 12 ORIENTATION h�i ORIENTATION ORIENTATION I I i I I I I I 20'(GARAGE)FROM i 20'(GARAGE)FRO4 1 20'(GARAGE)FRONT! I- -- r- - i I--- - 7 L10'(LMNG)FRONTS 110'(WING)FRONT, L 10'(WING)FRONT] n Y r 17 0 O Q m O FENCE (WILL NOT EXTENDPAST 26 FENCE SEE FRONT PLANE OF DWELLING), (TYPJ —EPu v—r—ev LANDSCAPE E. DALRYMPLE ST. PLAN) � I ¢wll 11 >m 27 O 1 1 - 9 < z i i ---z ACCESS NOTE ---i- s ' J , ------------• LOT 27: ACCESS FROM > PENNVILLE AVE. z �£� • PER CITY OF MERIDIAN 10 wa 26 UDC 111-6C-3D.5 N 9. CENTERVILLE PRELIMINARY PLAT (COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT) 1" = 30' EXHHiIT-A >w z w 6 a¢ v; 35 5'SIDE N . I I o I FENCE (WILL NOT EXTEND PAST FRONT PLANE OF DWELLING), (TYP.) i i n 7 E. HILLSONG ST. i --- ° ------- - I J�5'SIDE . •. 5'SIDE l0 14 I Ip Ic iN ilk � s s r--------'i io o�, i� 34 � z 5'SIDE } Si) 20' MIN. -,--------5_SIDE......... HOME lo I� r ORIENTATION i DRNE AY 1 f? 9 13 12 I� ` -'-`------ -- ------------ i i 5'SIDE 5'SIDE I 1 33 I I II i I m x Icy �--------J 10 I� Iv iA to I z Iz I� I FENCE (SEE 5'SIDE ACCESS NOTE LANDSCAPE • LOT 7: ACCESS FROM 25 26 PLAN) 27 PENNVILLE AVENUE. • LOT 12: ACCESS FROM _F BLOCK 5 HILLSONG STREET. • PER CITY OF MERIDIAN UDC 11-6C-3D.5 CENTERVILLE PRELIMINARY PLAT (COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT) 1" = 30' EXHIBIT-B Page 33 III�III �I�rh.-.. `11�►, ��Ilf►.I��� lum -�n■111�■■I�011�� i�■��1�■nu��il ii�ii�nn�jl o N IIII I��iaiiui _ ������������������������� �iiiiuiiuiii�■ �� ■I�iiiiiiii � �p�������������,,, M■1 IIII IIII ® I__...�_ 4 �� !❑■ © ❑ ■❑1 _..., . �,. 'i min•! (IIII I ...�- ^ -,...� 1■ III III ■1 �..� �...� :=1 IIII IIII II�I� _ II II■ = ��■-® 111-■01 ■IIIII_ IIIIIII� Fo EMINEFF7711. ■■■ I Di■�� IIIIIIIIIII IIIIII IIIII I IIIII IIIIII I-�IIIIIIIIIII(IIII _._-JAI lllllllllll lllllllllll llllllllllll i■■■■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII`-. Fo MUNNEFF711 ■ a n I Milk. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,_.. A I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII��-_ All-11111- -101.7-1 a�l � "l� �,E-rm-=. Item 4. Fl 17 CBH XOME'S CENTERVILLE SINGLE FAMILY ON 50'WIDE LOTS ri FCBHJ HOMES CENTERVILLE SINGLE FAMILY ON 36'WIDE LOTS IBM ®® [�E-El[L PEI[�El I L LLL13©®_ Page 35 CBH 3-UNIT TOWNHOME TYPE 1 CENTERVILLE 0� ■_ 1111E �CENTERVILLE 3-UNIT TOWNHOME TYPE 2 11� 1■ oTo 1�11 CENTERVILLE 3-UNIT TOWNHOME TYPE 3 I rl 0 Page 36 r� Item 4. 119 1 CBF1 HOMES CENTERVILLE FRONT LOAD TOWNHOME 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 substantially consistent with the approved plat,phasing plan, concept plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Future development shall be generally consistent with the proposed phasing plan, specifically that no more than 30 homes shall be constructed prior to both the Hillsdale Avenue and the Amity Road accesses are constructed. c. With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall construct a dedicated westbound and eastbound turn lane on E. Amity Road at the S. Amorita Avenue entrance(as labeled on the preliminary plat)and construct an interim signal at the E. Amity Road and S. Hillsdale Avenue intersection,per the ACHD staff report and the Traffic Impact Study. d. With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall construct a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon(RRFB) crossing at the S. Hillsdale Avenue and E. Hill Park Street intersection. Page 37 Item 4. F120] e. Per the submitted and revised preliminary plat,Lot 30,Block 1 shall be reserved for a future daycare facility. f. All future pedestrian crossings within the future multi-family residential area of the site shall be constructed with brick,pavers, stamped concrete, or colored concrete to clearly delineate the driving surface from the pedestrian facilities, per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. g. No building permits shall be submitted until the final plat for the associated phase is recorded. h. The required landscape street buffers and detached pedestrian facilities shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development along E. Amity Road and S.Hillsdale Avenue. i. The Applicant shall pipe and reroute the Cunningham Lateral segment present on this property and comply with the standards in UDC 11-3A-6,per the submitted preliminary plat and concept plan. j. The future multi-family development shall be constructed with no more than 128 units with all 12-plex buildings being no more than two-stories in height. k. Multi-family residential is not approved with these applications and a future Conditional Use Permit is required per the use table in UDC 11-2A-2 for the R- 15 zoning district. 1. All open space and amenities throughout the development shall be shared by the single-family and multi-family portions of the development;the future Conditional Use Permit application shall show compliance with all open space and amenity requirements for the development as a whole. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated July 30, 2021, shall be revised as follows with the first Final Plat submittal: a. Provide traffic calming on E. Hill Park Street where a pedestrian crossing is shown between the south and north multi-family building lots(Lot 13,Block 1 &Lot 18, Block 6). Coordinate with Meridian Fire and ACHD as applicable. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VILD, dated June 7,2021, shall be revised as follows at least ten(10) days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise the landscape plans to match the revised preliminary plat; b. Per UDC 11-3B-12C,place at least one tree along the micro-path located on Lot 30, Block 5, as labeled on the revised preliminary plat. 4. The Applicant shall apply for Alternative Compliance with the first Final Plat submittal to propose an adequate alternative for the required pathway landscape requirements for the proposed gravel path over the Cunningham Lateral in the southwest corner of the site, in accord with UDC 11-5B-5. 5. An exhibit shall be submitted with the applicable final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common driveways(shown as Lot 28, Block 3 &Lot 11,Block 5); if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. Page 38 Item 4. 121 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6,UDC Table 11-2A-7, and those listed in the specific use standards for the future multi-family development,UDC 11-4-3-27. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review approval for the townhomes with submittal of the first final plat phase which contains this use. 10. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along Fivemile Creek to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14' in width(10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side). 11. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 12. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-313-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 13. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 14. 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 of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 15. Prior to building permit submittal for any structure in each phase,the Applicant shall record the associated final plat for that phase. 16. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the applicant shall submit public access easements for any multi-use pathway proposed with the development to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 All water and sewer mains, fire hydrants,and water meters must either be located in public right of way or be covered by a minimum 20-foot-wide utility easement, or 30-foot-wide minimum combined water and sewer easement. Easements shall be centered on the main, with a minimum of 10 foot on each side of the main. Easements shall have no encroachments of permanent structures including but not limited to buildings, carports,trash enclosures, trees, shrubs, fences, etc. 1.2 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A future installation agreement is required for the streetlights on Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road. Contact the Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator for additional information. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three Page 39 Item 4. F122] feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a Page 40 Item 4. F123] performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees,as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. These standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT(MFD) Page 41 Item 4. F124] https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orkIWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=234511&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https://weblink.meridiancity.or lWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=232 736&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty- E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orkIWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=234049&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty- F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=233030&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=233224&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.otylWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=234295&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=234509&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https:llweblink.meridianci(y.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=234532&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty- IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment and request for different types of residential dwelling types will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City Page 42 Item 4. 125 and within this area. Staff finds the proposed development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts included as part of the application. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to,school districts; and Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Because of the proposed addition of differing dwelling types, a neighborhood serving commercial use, and the general site design, Stafffinds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VHfor more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has approved the proposed internal road layout and has required road improvements adjacent to the site. So, Page 43 Item 4. F126] Stafffinds, if all recommended conditions of approval are met, the proposed development meets this finding. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic, or historic features on the subject sites and therefore finds the development meets this finding. Page 44 C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) Multi Jobs/Housing Ratio is 0.2 with a target of 1 to 1.5•recent delayciting labor shortage as reason for most –Approved in 2017 and not broken ground •Small shopping center planned at Eagle & Amity delayed•nearest planned stop is 0.7 miles away–No public transportation in the area •Hillsdale Ave. not studied for traffic impact•Amity Rd. not planned for widening until 2036 at earliest and is not funded•Proposed Centerville Sub scores 0 for 4•major retail centers, & jobsFamily belongs near major roadways, public transportation, -Multi•Family not a fit for this location- Parking Concerns/Safe Route to School Parking Concerns/Safe Route to School Conclusion 31 acres of Medium Density Residential (not 13 acres as proposed)•neighborhood service commercial/retail tenants15 as proposed) including more -N (not 27 acres of R-9 acres of MU•I support development of this land that is aligned with the FLUM•I oppose the Centerville Subdivision as proposed• C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) MERIDIAN of Centerville Subdivision.by recommending denial trustpublic good stewardship of A call for P&Z to demonstrate COALITIONSOUTHERN RIM -Promote the Comprehensive Plan as the primary guide for growth and development of the community•Comp Plan 3.04.01A . “public truststewards of the sustainable neighborhoods, and being good creation and sound economics, service provision, values of guided and strategic growth, jobs “\[#MyMeridian\] vision reinforces the core City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan pg. iii CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT folder.Exasperating public concerns seen as red flags found in Agency Comment •Not meeting public expectations set by Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan•Not meeting public expectations set by the FLUM•BREAKS PUBLIC TRUST BY •N DENSITIES)-FLUM (PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS FOR MU accordinglyunits and they plan anywhere from 48 to 108 Compass, etc. expect public, ACHD, WASD, Per the FLUM, general •108.625Maximum : 8.69 * 12.5 = •47.795Minimum : 8.69 * 5.5 = •Calculated units •numberRounded to nearest whole •N 6 to 12 units/acre-MU •CENTERVILLE’S PLAN (PUBLIC NOT EXPECTING)Why does this matter?•acreN densities 8.5 units / -expected MU1 and 2 stories finally falls within •C Designation)-units / acre (MU2 and 3 stories still too high at 13.12 •15.88 units / acre•R Designation-Density in line with MU•38 town homes•120 apt. units•138 units in 8.69 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (HIGHER MIXED USE DENSITIES)innovative or alternative modes of transportation.ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops and/or other -and-future parkA mixed use project should serve as a public transit location for •Comprehensive Plan 3.132.01.01H Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned •Policy Direction(12 or greater units / acre )Commercial (C) + High Density Residential (HDR)(8 to 12 units / acre)Medium High Density Residential (MHDR)(6 to 15 units / acre) C)-Mixed Use Commercial (MU(6 to 40 units / acre)R)-Mixed Use Residential (MU Meridian Comprehensive Plan pg. 3Execution)–(pg. 9 “A plan poorly implemented is like having no plan at all” -Strategic Growth Goal 1.C)-development” (pg. 12 for future predictabilityand certainty“Preserve and protect land use and zoning plans to promote -City of Meridian Strategic Plan IS IT IN COMPLIANCE?HOW FAR ARE DESIGNATION BEING FLOATED? •FLOATING (CREATING UNCERTAINTY AND UNPREDICTABILITY)”being developeddesignation may not apply to more than 50% of the land application, may be used... A when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development . An adjacent, abutting designation, Future Land Use designations are not parcel specific“-11- MU space, librariesand places such as parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open spaces quasipublicSupportive and proportional public and/or •Public spaces •daycareprofessional offices, gift shops, neighborhoodscalesalons/spas, cream shops, dry cleaner/laundromat, -coffee/sandwich/ice•employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood•and need regularlyprovide goods or services that people typically do not travel far •-•Commercial (secondary)•, apartments and single family residentialplexs-Multi•6 to 12 units/acre•Residential (primary)•use developments-Avoid predominantly single•N plan depicted-Designed according to the conceptual MU•16-Comp Plan 3 N (PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS PER CUTSHEET)- Comp Plan 3police, transportation, schools, fire, and parks.public facilities and services, including water, sewer, 3.02.01G Establish and maintain levels of service for •public transportation service are able to functioneffectiveness and sustainability of how roadways or land use decisions have a direct effect on the •with existing and planned infrastructurebetween incompatible uses; and integrate development should be efficient and sustainable… minimize conflicts The location and balance of land uses and densities •7-Comp Plan 3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PUBLIC EXPECTATION)densities, and other best site design practices. , screening, transitional bufferingthrough design compatible with surrounding uses Require all new development to create a site •Comp Plan 3.07.01A through good site and street designFoster a walkable and bikeable community •Comp Plan 5.01.01Atypes.between residential densities and housing transition from dissimilar land uses, and Alleys and roadways should be used to •13- MDR (INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN)Needs Buffering8-Proposed Zone Rlife-of-Creates better quality•Medical/Dental•YMCA•Parks•Schools•Reduces conflict for public facilities•Reduces traffic impact•Increases school capacity by 25 students•Total (36 less SF units)--------------------------------------------------------------Sustainable MDR density (20 less SF units)+Walking spaces (4 less SF units)+Transitional issues (12 less SF units) COMPASS (RED FLAGS)lowering density will also reduce congestion by taking cars off the road•This limits transportation choices to Centerville Subdivision residence•Future bus stop at S. Eagle Rd and E Taconic Drive is still more than a ½ mile away•N designation is vital-lowering density and adding more commercial to the MU•Centerville’s Jobs/Housing Ratio is 20 / 327 or 0.06 •coordinate planning policies regionally.Participate in planning efforts with COMPASS and affiliated local governments and agencies to better •Comp Plan 3.04.01G TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (RED FLAGS)?!?! “A plan poorly implemented is like having no plan at all” based on old data and questionable assumptions? How can we align future needed infrastructure with land use plans when the Traffic Impact Study is •implement through the development review processesCoordinate with transportation agencies to align future needed infrastructure with land use plans and •Comp Plan 3.07.02F corridors, etc.)?there’s no urban interface (low jobs/housing ratio, no public transportation, not adjacent to key How can Centerville’s more urban components be considered inline with comprehensive plan when •Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments•Comp Plan 3.03.03G services at the time of final approvalPermit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban •Comp Plan 3.03.03F City of Meridian Strategic Plan– Comp Plan 3.05.00 by recommending denial of Centerville Subdivision.trustpublic We ask that P&Z demonstrate good stewardship of Ensure that all planning, zoning and land use decisions balance the interests of the community• C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Century Farm Subdivision Resident of Presentation by Matthew Thiel August 12, 20210046-2021-Centerville Subdivision Project No. HMeeting •Great community•Quality development•Open spaces and open feel•“Farm House” for gatherings•ground areasTwo pools and play•younger familiesDiverse age group but favors •Declarant)control of the Brighton (The HOA still under management and •other buildersMixture of Brighton homes and •small 2 Future phases •685 Lots over about 205 Acres•Brighton Development•Eagle and Amity IMPORTANT POLICY DIRECTIONS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DISCUSSION Table.developmentsnewwithinfriendlypedestrianandlandscapingattractiveRequireG02.01.5.neighborhoodsresidentialexistingofidentitytheprotectandSupportE02.01.5.activitiesofrangediverseaforamenitiesrecrea tionoutdoorandprivateandpublicpreserveandC01.01.5communitytheofbeing-wellandhealth,safety,theEncourage01.01.5.residentsallforlifeofqualityhighaandlivabilitytocontributethatprotectand00.01.5ItemsActio nandObjectivesGoals,IdentityandCharacter,1.5Table.practicessitebestotheranddensities,transitionalscreening,buffering,throughusessurroundingwithcompatiblesiteacreatetodevelopmentnewallRequireA01.07.3. sustainabilityandlivabilityoverallenhancingandtrips,vehiclethereby,proximitycloseinworkandplay,dine,shop,live,toablebeingoftheprovidethatareasuse-mixedsupportandEncourageB02.06.3appropriatewhereplan, developmenttheofpartasdevelopmentsresidentialplannedwithinareascommercialneighborhoodscale-smallofinclusiontheSupportA02.06.3vitalityeconomicandlivability,connectivityensuresthatuseslandofmixappropri ateanforPlan02.06.3ItemsActionandObjectivesGoals,UseLandFuture2.3 The proposal appears to maximize density, increasing the number of dwellings, and pulls across the solid buffer/transition? zoning into 50% of the development. This is not in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Is this really a Is maximizing higher density going to contribute to Very limited commercial space within walking distance and little to no public transportationof the community?being -safety, health, and wellEncourage the livability and economic vitality, , connectivity 3completely change the identity of a development. church, The existing adjacent commercial is small medical offices. Grocery, restaurant, salon/spa, ExamplesResidentialMixed.sustainabilitylivabili tyoverallenhancingtrips,vehiclereducingthereby,proximitycloseinworkandplay,dine,shop,live,toablebeingofbenefitsprovidethatareasusemixedsupportEncourageB02.06. ExamplesYesNoNotes Alley Loaded Single Family HomesX TownhousesX Multi-family DevelopmentsX Neighborhood Grocery StoresX Drug StoresX Coffee/sandwich/ice cream shopsX Vertically Integrated BuildingsX Live-Work spacesX Dry cleaner/Laundry MatX Salons/SpasX DaycaresXlimited in size Neighborhood Scale Professional officesX Gift shopsX SchoolsX ParksXLikely for local residents ChurchesX ClubhousesXPrivate? To Local residents only? Public UsesX Looking at the identity of adjacent neighborhoods.developmentsnewwithindesignfriendlypedestrianandlandscapingattractiveRequireG02.01.5.neighborhoodsresidentialexistingofidentitytheprotectandSupportE0 2.01.5.residentsMeridianallforlifeofqualityhighaandlivabilitytocontributethatelementsprotectandpromote,enhance,Sustain,00.01.5developmentminor in scope but a major impact to the openness of a –Century Farm Subdivision –Verges •Flowing open spaces•Diverse design of dwellings•entire block (box) Eagle, Lake Hazel, Cloverdale, AmityMinimum located at the southwest corner of Lake Hazel and Eagle. This is for the –Town homes •Not in Century Farm Subdivision–Rentals allowed •Not allowed in Century Farm Subdivision –On street parking •No–Apartments •No–Alleyways • Century Farm By Hillsdale Elementary Hillsdale Subdivision Leaving Hillsdale for Rock Hampton Rock Hampton Century Farm Century Farm Century Farm Century Farm high density area Century Farm high density area Barayaand McMillanChindenBlack Cat Road between Subdivision 5.01.01C Provide, partner, and range of physical activities.amenities for a diverse indoor and outdoor recreation public and private preserve 5.developmentsnewwithindesignfriendlypedestrianlandscapingattractiveRequireG02.01. Table 4.2. Stewardship Goals, Objectives and Action Items, and wisely use natural resources.enhance, protect, Preserve4.05.00 4.05.02F Promote the increase of Let’s make sure and triple check the capacity of these, in case it is difficult to increase, once built. •Is percolation testing required? The project narrative calls for “underground retention facilities within the common areas” for storm drainage. •stormwater runofflimit through sound site design and use of materials that permeable areas https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/growing,” Ryan Head ACHD Planning and Programs Supervisor canYou can't build your way out of congestion and at some point, we just have to manage it whatever means we "daho is the only state in the nation that does not fund public transportation”“Iinvolves several conflicting viewpoints.”involving multiple agencies. There's plenty of cooperation, but addressing congestion in the Treasure Valley also Managing the valley's roadways while meeting the growing number of drivers requires a coordinated approach “KTVB Article, “What could ease the Treasure Valley’s traffic congestion?“ by David Rameyad55c183a169-8e36-4132-3063-8d636da7-congestion/277-traffic-valleys-treasure-the-ease-could-idaho/what- General local concernsand respectfully request that is its rejected by Planning and Zoning These all have to be balanced. We have strong concerns about the proposed development Affordable living•preventing eye sores, parking problems, etc. –•Environmental•Water•Fire, health, and safety •Jobs•Local government•pool rd Century Farm residents are already petitioning Brighton for a 3–Amenities •Post COVID? Construction–Traffic •drawings-Capacity? Busing? Multiple boundary re–Schools •how to mitigate impacts–Rapid growth • C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) i i Application: Centerville Subdivision AZ,PP H-2021-0046 Applicant: Engineering Solutions,LLP Project Location: 4111 E. Amity Rd. including the outparcel to the South and 5200 S. Hillsdale Avenue, at the SE corner of S.Hillsdale Ave, and E.Amity Rd. Dear Planning and Zoning Committee and City Council, I i j I am a resident that will be negatively impacted by the proposed Centerville Subdivision. By signing this letter, I am letting you know that I oppose Engineering Solutions,LLP proposal to rezone the Centerville subdivision because it is in conflict with the City of Meridian's Master Development Plan. I oppose the developer's proposal for the following reasons: 1. It is in conflict with the City's vision depicted on its Future Land Use Map. 2. It is in conflict with the mission of the Planning Division to advance the quality lifestyle and economy envisioned in the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan 3. It will significantly overburden the existing and proposed infrastructure, such as roads, schools and fire departments. Please support me and those who worked so hard on the City's master plan by rejecting their proposal. #MyMeridianVision Gt<jr�C a� I i I i Application: Centerville Subdivision AZ,PP H-2021-0046 Applicant: Engineering Solutions,LLP Project Location: 4111 E.Amity Rd. including the outparcel to the South and 5200 S. Hillsdale Avenue, at the SE corner of S. Hillsdale Ave, and E.Amity Rd. i Dear Planning and Zoning Committee and City Council, I am a resident that will be negatively impacted by the proposed Centerville Subdivision. By signing this letter, I am letting you know that I oppose Engineering Solutions,LLP proposal to rezone the Centerville subdivision because it is in conflict with the City of Meridian's Master Development Plan. I oppose the developer's proposal for the following reasons: 1. It is in conflict with the City's vision depicted on its Future Land Use Map. 2. It is in conflict with the mission of the Planning Division to advance the quality lifestyle and economy envisioned in the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan 3. It will significantly overburden the existing and proposed infrastructure, such as roads, schools and fire departments. Please support me and those who worked so hard on the City's master plan by rejecting the'r proposal. #MyMeridianVision NIC NAK411 VcNkA-rASOO M/-)N/AP — MIX' 0,�(agjA au,� m 1 i i Application: Centerville Subdivision AZ,PP H-2021-0046 Applicant: Engineering Solutions,LLP Project Location: 4111 E.Amity Rd. including the outparcel to the South and 5200 S. Hillsdale Avenue, at the SE corner of S.Hillsdale Ave, and E.Amity Rd. i Dear Planning and Zoning Committee and City Council, I am a resident that will be negatively impacted b the proposed Centerville g Y p Y p p Subdivision. By signing this letter, I am letting you know that I oppose Engineering Solutions,LLP proposal to rezone the Centerville subdivision because it is in conflict with the City of Meridian's Master Development Plan. I oppose the developer's proposal for the following reasons: 1. It is in conflict with the City's vision depicted on its Future Land Use Map. 2. It is in conflict with the mission of the Planning Division to advance the quality lifestyle and economy envisioned in the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan 3. It will significantly overburden the existing and proposed infrastructure, such as roads, schools and fire departments. Please support me and those who worked so hard on the City's master plan by rejecting their proposal. #MyMeridianVision V S�UJ2-. q r► i Application: Centerville Subdivision AZ,PP H-2021-0046 Applicant: Engineering Solutions,LLP Project Location: 4111 E.Amity Rd. including the outparcel to the South and 5200 S. Hillsdale Avenue, at the SE corner of S.Hillsdale Ave, and E.Amity Rd. i Dear Planning and Zoning Committee and City Council, I am a resident that will be negatively impacted by the proposed Centerville Subdivision. By signing this letter, I am letting you know that I oppose Engineering Solutions,LLP proposal to rezone the Centerville subdivision because it is in conflict with the City of Meridian's Master Development Plan. I oppose the developer's proposal for the following reasons: 1. It is in conflict with the City's vision depicted on its Future Land Use Map. 2. It is in conflict with the mission of the Planning Division to advance the quality lifestyle and economy envisioned in the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan 3. It will significantly overburden the existing and proposed infi•astructure, such as roads, schools and fire departments. Please support me and those who worked so hard on the City's master plan by rejecting their proposal. #MyMeridianVision i /h.G Application: Centerville Subdivision AZ,PP H-2021-0046 Applicant: Engineering Solutions,LLP Project Location: 4111 E. Amity Rd. including the outparcel to the South and 5200 S. Hillsdale Avenue, at the SE corner of S.Hillsdale Ave, and E.Amity Rd. Dear Planning and Zoning Committee and City Council, I am a resident that will be negatively impacted by the proposed Centerville Subdivision. By signing this letter, I am letting you know that I oppose Engineering Solutions,LLP proposal to rezone the Centerville subdivision because it is in conflict with the City of Meridian's Master Development Plan. I oppose the developer's proposal for the following reasons: 1. It is in conflict with the City's vision depicted on its Future Land Use Map. 2. It is in conflict with the mission of the Planning Division to advance the quality lifestyle and economy envisioned in the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan 3. It will significantly overburden the existing and proposed infrastructure, such as roads, schools and fire departments. Please support me and those who worked so hard on the City's master plan by rej ting their proposal. #MyMeridianVision i i Application: Centerville Subdivision AZ,PP H-2021-0046 Applicant: Engineering Solutions,LLP Project Location: 4111 E.Amity Rd. including the outparcel to the South and 5200 S. Hillsdale Avenue, at the SE corner of S.Hillsdale Ave, and E.Amity Rd. a i Dear Planning and Zoning Committee and City Council, I am a resident that will be negatively impacted by the proposed Centerville Subdivision. By signing this letter, I am letting you know that I oppose Engineering Solutions,LLP proposal to rezone the Centerville subdivision because it is in conflict with the City of Meridian's Master Development Plan. I oppose the developer's proposal for the following reasons: 1. It is in conflict with the City's vision depicted on its Future Land Use Map. 2. It is in conflict with the mission of the Planning Division to advance the quality lifestyle and economy envisioned in the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan 3. It will significantly overburden the existing and proposed infrastructure, such as roads, schools and fire departments. Please support me and those who worked so hard on the City's master plan by rejecting their proposal. #MyMeridianVision � �f COIM +4 I L.I,,SI��L.E c-2 a Application: Centerville Subdivision AZ,PP H-2021-0046 Applicant: Engineering Solutions,LLP Project Location: 4111 E. Amity Rd. including the outparcel to the South and 5200 S. Hillsdale Avenue, at the SE corner of S.Hillsdale Ave, and E.Amity Rd. Dear Planning and Zoning Committee and City Council, I am a resident that will be negatively impacted by the proposed Centerville Subdivision. By signing this letter, I am letting you know that I oppose Engineering Solutions,LLP proposal to rezone the Centerville subdivision because it is in conflict with the City of Meridian's Master Development Plan. I oppose the developer's proposal for the following reasons: 1. It is in conflict with the City's vision depicted on its Future Land Use Map. 2. It is in conflict with the mission of the Planning Division to advance the quality lifestyle and economy envisioned in the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan 3. It will significantly overburden the existing and proposed infrastructure, such as roads, schools and fire departments. Please support me and those who worked so hard on the City's master plan by rejecting their proposal. #MyMeridianVision l� �� 6 G ►ova L c�bn Community Rebuttal to Proposed Centerville Subdivision Material Facts Section 67-6508 of Idaho Code (the Local Land Use Planning Act) requires Comprehensive Plans to consider, at a minimum: previous and existing conditions, trends, desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future situations for 17 planning components. These components include: property rights; school facilities and transportation; land use; public services, facilities, and utilities;transportation; recreation; housing; community design and implementation. The City of Meridian Future Land Use Map (FLUM) portrays locations for the various land use types. The FLUM's primary purpose is to define and map future land uses so that development occurs in the direction and manner most desired by Meridian's stakeholders. The FLUM works in conjunction with the text of the Comprehensive Plan, city code, and the various policies of the City. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to create an effective vision and source document that the general public, developers and decision makers can use to ensure Meridian is a premier place to live, work and raise a family. However, the FLUM is not a zoning map and differs in that it describes the character and type of the use that is desired in the future. The FLUM reflects the efforts of our community. The City of Meridian invests thousands, upon thousands of dollars engaged in research, feasibility studies and engineering toward the Comprehensive Plan development. Citizens invest hours of their time participating in the planning and development process, giving public input toward the creation of the comprehensive plan. The ultimate result is the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) that is embraced by both the city and the citizens of Meridian. The community expects the City of Meridian to uphold the Comprehensive Plan and not freely allow the whim of a developer to manipulate outdated data in an effort to rezone a plat of land to their desired liking. In accord with section 67-6526 of Idaho Code, an Area of City Impact (AOCI) has been established for Meridian. The proposed Centerville Subdivision falls within the AOCI. The City's AOCI is the future planning area for the City, where annexation and development in Meridian is anticipated. Although all these properties are not yet incorporated, planning responsibilities for these lands rest with the City of Meridian. The City's AOCI is negotiated with Ada County, pursuant to the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). Within the City's AOCI, unincorporated properties are governed by Ada County for day-to-day administration of zoning matters. However, the County uses the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the negotiated agreement in the administration of those duties. Ada County has applied a Rural Urban Transition (RUT) zoning district to most of the properties within the City's AOCI. The RUT zone allows five-acre-lots, single-family residential development, as well as agricultural-related uses and a range of conditional uses. To request something other than the RUT zoning, the developer must request urban services from the City of Meridian. Such services include sanitary sewer, water, fire, police, parks,transportation, and libraries.. All County development applications within the AOCI are reviewed by the City of Meridian for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City policies. The importance of cooperating with Ada County is imperative to successful, long-term land use, transportation, and utility planning (such as water and sewer). There are very significant financial implications for not doing so. This Comprehensive Plan is the guide to the future of the City of Meridian. It builds on Meridian's history and community wishes, integrates previous and upcoming plan projects, and recognizes the contributions of our leaders and community members that have made Meridian one of the most desirable places to live. Thoughtful and deliberate planning is imperative to preserve and improve upon the current quality of life. ,(Future Land Use Map Designation (https:/Jwww.meridianciy.or com r�Ian _J) Idaho Code § 67-6508 (Local Land Use Planning Act) provides for a planning process as follows: "Prepare, implement, and review and update a comprehensive plan, hereafter referred to as the plan. The plan shall include all land within the jurisdiction of the governing. The plan shall consider previous and existing conditions, trends, desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future situations for each planning component." Material Fact 1. The subject project area presently contains two future land use designations: Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N) consisting of 9.97Acres, according to County Accessor parcel S1133120701/ 25% of FLUM City of Meridian Comprehensive approved land use. Medium Density Residential R-8, consisting of two parcels totaling 28.98 Acres according to County Accessor parcel R3035680300 12 Acres and parcel R3035680112 16.98 Acres. 75% of FLUM City of Meridian Comprehensive approved land use. Idaho Code § 67-6511 requires: "The zoning districts shall be in accordance with the adopted plans." The Existing Conditions Report addendum to the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan 2017 Designated County Accessor Parcel S1133120701- 9.97 Acres to Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) and only the 9.97 Acres Definition of Mixed Use Neighborhoods (MU-N) The purpose of this 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. Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places such as parks, plazas, outdoor gatherings areas, open space, libraries, and schools should comprise a minimum of 10% of development area. Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential with supporting non-residential services. Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with residential buildings. 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. Figure 3B. Mixed Use Neighborhood Concept Diagram Single family (I; \ Residential Apartments, j0 or Duplexes r. Plaza Area Service Use(rvice s ` O 41'to 4_O O Gl 0 0 0 Gi O' CollectorRoad Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is particularly critical in MU-N areas. Tree-lined, narrow streets are encouraged. Developments are also encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-N plan depicted. Material Fact Current FLUM (depicted in tan) designates County Accessor Parcel S1133120701 9.97 Acres of land to Mixed Use Neighborhoods (MUN) The purpose of this designation is to assign areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The proposed Centerville Subdivision consists of three parcels located at the southeast corner of E. Amity and S. Hillsdale. The surrounding developments consist of LOW DENSITY Single Family Residents with Rock Hampton Subdivision to the east, Hillsdale Creek Subdivision to the south abutting directly to the proposed development and Shelburne to the north and Century Farms to the south. To the west, directly across the street from the proposed development approximately 70 acres Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) is currently being developed. Approximately half is approved for residential development with the remaining area being comprised of commercial zoning that is comprised of a Self-Storage Unit on the corner of S Eagle Rd. and Amity Rd.. The remaining area is comprised of an Urgent Care Facility, Assisted Living Facility, St Lukes pediatric doctor(s) office, separate children's dental office, separate adult dental office, separate orthodontic office and currently a few remaining vacant lots yet to be developed. The community utilizes the services of the above businesses and enjoys the convenience and the location of these businesses. Therefore,the community looks for additional neighborhood serving uses to be developed on County Accessor Parcel S1133120701, 9.97 Acres of land as Mixed Use Neighborhoods (MUN). The community endorses the Staff analysis for the provision of additional public amenities such as a library, daycare, preschool, or additional elementary school facilities to be located on the 9.97 Acres. Material Fact As stated in the Staff Analysis Notes, "The applicant has not proposed to incorporate additional neighborhood serving uses and meet all of the comprehensive plan policies for this designation." As stated in Idaho Code § 67-6511 requires: "The zoning districts shall be in accordance with the adopted plans." The community respectfully requests the City Council follow the Comprehensive Plan and maintain the current Mixed Use Neighborhoods (MUN) designation for County Accessor Parcel 51133120701, 9.97 Acres of land. Definition of Medium Density Residential R-8 This Density allows for dwellings units at gross densities of three to eight dwellings units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as park, school., or land dedicated for public use. Sample Policy Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, traditional densities, and other best site design practices. Promote area beautification and community identity through context sensitive building and site design principles, appropriate signage and attractive landscaping. Support and protect the identity of existing residential neighborhoods. Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together and to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of the community pathway system. Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties. Medium Density Residential Site Pattern 3 Zvi ti of MI' 4 e cc a I q P G" �r f a� Material Facts Current FLUM (depicted in pale yellow) designates Mixed Use Residential R-8, consisting of two parcels totaling 28.98 Acres according to County Accessor parcel R3035680300 12 Acres and parcel R3035680112 16.98 Acres. 75% of FLUM City of Meridian Comprehensive approved land use. Idaho Code § 67-6S11 requires: "The zoning districts shall be in accordance with the adopted plans." The Existing Conditions Report addendum to the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan 2017 Designated County Accessor parcel R3035680300 12 Acres and parcel R3035680112 16.98 Acres Medium Density Residential R-8. As stated in the Staff Analysis Notes, "The overall gross density proposed lies near the absolute maximum allowed(8.4 du/ac can be rounded down to 9 du/ac per the comprehensive plan)for future land use. For this simple fact, Staff recommends a reduction in the maximum number of multi family units throughout the site." Staff Analyses Notes Cont. "The Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) data provided to the City for this development. In that document COMPASS has noted an approximate job to housing ratio within one (1)mile of the project site of.2 which indicates a need for more employment in this area. A healthy ration according to COMPASS, is in the 1.0-1.5 ratio" Staff notes : COMPASS Recommendations Amity Road is recognized in the Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 plan as one of the key unfunded corridors. ValleyConnect 2.0 has identified future transit service from south Meridian to downtown Star with 30 minute Frequencies in the peak hours. The route would originate near the intersection of S Eagle and E Taconic Drive 0.7 miles away from this location when operational. No mention of anticipated completion of route. Nearest bus stop: 2.6 miles Nearest grocery store: 2.4 miles No mention of anticipated completion of route. Meridian City Code 3.02.01G " Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer, police, transportation, schools, fire, and parks." Title Ada County Zoning 8-8-4: URBAN PUBLIC SERVICE LEVEL STANDARDS: The planned community implementation plan shall describe how urban public services and additional public services at the service levels identified below will be provided in the planned community. Provided, however, in areas of city impact an urban public service level standard specifically provided in the appropriate area of city impact agreement in title 9 of this code, if any, shall supersede the specific urban public service level standard provided in this section. A. Minimum Urban Public Service Level Standards: Each planned community shall provide all of the following categories of urban public services in accordance with the stated minimum standard for each: Minimum Service Level Electricity Electricity service to every buildable property. Telephone Telephone service to every buildable property. Water 1. Drinking water service shall be provided to every buildable property within the planned community by a municipality, a private water company regulated by the Idaho public utilities commission, or a water district established pursuant to Idaho Code section 42-3201 et seq. 2. Drinking water service shall maintain compliance with all applicable federal, state and local rules and laws. 3. All residential lots shall have an automated irrigation sprinkler system to minimize water usage and waste. 4. All nonresidential lots shall have pressurized irrigation systems, using reclaimed water when available and permissible under all applicable federal, state, and local rules and laws. 5. All irrigation systems and water uses shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local rules and laws. Wastewater 1. A centralized wastewater treatment and reuse service, or connection to an treatment existing system shall be provided to every property within the planned community by a municipality, a private sewer company, or a sewer district established pursuant to Idaho Code section 42-3201 et seq. 2. Wastewater treatment and reuse service shall maintain compliance with all applicable federal, state and local rules and laws. 3. If treated wastewater will be used for irrigation then the irrigated area and the amount of treated wastewater used for irrigation shall be identified in the planned community implementation plan, and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local rules and laws. 4. For specific lots,the board may waive or alter the centralized wastewater treatment requirement on a case by case basis where topography or other considerations make centralized service infeasible. Law enforcement 1 law enforcement officer per 1,200 residents. Fire protection 1. Location within a fire district. 2. Fire protection shall be provided to all areas within the planned community with a response time of 5 minutes or less for the arrival of the first arriving engine company at a fire suppression incident, as measured from the time the unit acknowledges notification of the emergency. (National Fire Protection Association 1710 section 4.1.2.1 - 2004 edition.) 3. If a new fire station is required for the planned community to meet the response time then location of the new fire station should comply with the master siting plan of the fire district. Paramedic 1. 5 minutes or less for the arrival of a unit with first responder or higher level services (EMS) capability at an emergency medical incident, as measured from the time the unit acknowledges notification of the emergency for 90 percent of the anticipated population of the planned community. (National Fire Protection Association 1710 section 4.1.2.1 - 2004 edition.) 2. 9 minutes or less for the arrival of an advanced life support (ALS) unit at an emergency medical incident, as measured from the time the unit acknowledges notification of the emergency for 90 percent of the anticipated population of the planned community. (National Fire Protection Association 1710 section 4.1.2.1 - 2004 edition.) 3. If a new emergency services station is required for the planned community to meet the applicable response time then location of the new emergency services station should comply with the master siting plan of the district. Schools 1. Sufficient land shall be incorporated into the land use plan for elementary educational facilities to serve the planned community according to the applicable school district standard. 2. Sufficient land shall be incorporated into the land use plan for middle school and high school educational facilities to serve the planned community according to the applicable school district standards. 3. Elementary school sites shall be within 11/2 miles of 50 percent of the elementary age residents of the planned community. Transportation 1. Planned communities shall be designed to have an internal trip capture of at least 15 percent, as calculated using the methodology for estimating trip generation at multiuse sites in the latest edition of the ITE "Trip Generation Handbook" and/or any other methodology approved by ACHD, provided, however, that the appropriate standard established by the applicable area of city impact in title 9 of this code may be used as an alternative. 2. The planned community shall have a comprehensive transportation demand management program for the planned community that will reduce weekday peak period single occupant vehicle trips compared to the forecasted trip generation for the project without transportation demand management strategies. At a minimum, the transportation demand management program shall include: street widths to accommodate transit service; internal street connectivity consistent with ACHD's transportation land use integration plan; land for bus shelters (minimum of a 5 foot x 8 foot pad, as appropriate); Americans with disabilities act compliant sidewalks or pathways that are connected to the curb at bus stop locations as determined at the discretion of VRT; carpool and vanpool parking designations at commercial centers; park and ride facilities; lighting; and bicycle facilities. Trip reduction rate generated due to a transportation demand management program shall not be used in the traffic impact study analysis submitted to ACHD and ITD. 3. Level of service on all public roadways shall be determined by the jurisdiction (ACHD or ITD) having authority over the roadways. Natural and 1. A minimum of 10 acres per 1,000 population of developed open space based on developed open 2.5 persons per dwelling unit. space 2. A minimum of 15 percent of the total gross area of the planned community shall be dedicated to natural open space. 3. A minimum of 30 percent of the total gross area of the planned community shall be dedicated to natural open space if the planned community is in the foothills. 4. All natural open space and developed open space shall be accessible to the public and shall be created and evidenced by recorded easements and plat notes, or other recorded instruments. Library Sufficient space shall be incorporated into the land use plan for library services to serve the planned community. Item 5. L127 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision (H-2021-0036) by Gem State Planning, Located on the West Side of Meridian Road Between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road, Directly South of the Mid-Mile Point A. Request: Rezone a total of 40.99 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 residential building lots and 47 common lots on 38.86 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-007070), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of updating the development plan and to redevelop the subject property to incorporate the proposed preliminary plat. Item 5. 128 (:�N-VE IDIAN:--- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: August 5, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision (H-2021-0036) by Gem State Planning, Located on the West Side of Meridian Road Between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road, Directly South of the Mid-Mile Point A. Request: Rezone a total of 40.99 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 residential building lots and 47 common lots on 38.86 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-007070), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of updating the development plan and to redevelop the subject property to incorporate the proposed preliminary plat. 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 REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 8/12/2021 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner i----- 1 - ----- ---- 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0036 - Briar Ridge Subdivision ' LOCATION: The site is located on the west side of Meridian Road between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road,directly south of the mid-mile point, in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 36,Township 3N., - ----T Range 1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Rezone a total of 40.99 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential); • Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 single-family residential building lots and 47 common lots on 38.86 acres of land; and • Modification to the existing development agreement(Inst. #2016-007070), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of updating the development plan to redevelop the subject property consistent with the proposed preliminary plat. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage RZ—40.99;Plat—38.86 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(3-8 du/ac)and Medium-High Density Residential 8-12 du/ac Existing Land Uses Vacant land Proposed Land Uses Detached and Attached Single-family Residential Lots #and e;bldg./common) 227 single-family residential building lots;47 common lots Phasing Plan #ofphases) Proposed as three 3phases Number of Residential Units 227 single-family units(123 detached; 104 attached townhomes Density Gross—5.84 du/ac over entire project area. Open Space(acres,total 7.7 acres total;4.52 acres of qualified open space Pagel Item 5. F130] Description Details Page /buffer/ ualified (approximately 11.8% per submitted open s ace exhibit. Amenity At least four(4)qualifying site amenities—Children's play structure,picnic shelters throughout,multi-use pathway along Meridian Road(SH 69),and open space in excess of code requirements(large central pocket park). Physical Features(waterways, Mcbirney Lateral crosses the north half of the property. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Applicant is proposing to pipe and reroute this lateral to be included in open space and incorporate a connection to the multi-use pathway along SH 69. Neighborhood meeting date;#of December 8,2020—One(1)attendee;April 21,2021 —No attendees: attendees History(previous approvals) H-2015-0019 South Meridian Annexation B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Not at this time • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • Traffic Impact Study Yes—Both ITD and ACHD have reviewed the TIS. es/no Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Buffers Proposed Road Improvements Fire Service • Distance to Fire 3.6 miles from Fire Station#6(Approximately 2 miles from proposed fire Station station#7 on Lake Hazel;response time would then fall within the 5- minute response time area. • Fire Response Time Project currently does not reside within the Meridian Fire 5-minute response time goal area. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#6 reliability is 87%(above the goal of 80%) • Risk Identification Risk Factor 1—Residential • Accessibility • Proposed project meets all required road widths,and turnaround dimensions. • Submitted phasing plan shall be strictly adhered to with regards to the timing of the secondary access to Meridian Road. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 4.5 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 3.5-minute response time to an emergency(Priority 3 call) • Call Data Between 6/1/2019-5/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 188 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.The crime Page 2 Item 5. 131 Description Details Page count on the calls for service was 4. See attached documents for details. Between 6/1/2019-5/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 7 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. West Ada School District Estimated Additional School 159 estimated children at full build out(.7 per SF dwelling, .1 per MF Aged Children dwelling) • Distance(elem,ms,hs) 1.6 miles to Mary McPherson Elementary 3.8 miles to Victory Middle School 7.2 miles to Meridian View High School • Capacity of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary—675 students Victory Middle School— 1,000 students Meridian High School—2,075 students • #of Students Enrolled Mary McPherson Elementary—461 students Victory Middle School—976 students Meridian High School— 1,865 students School of Choice Options Christine Donnell Elementary(Arts)—6.8 miles away(505 enrolled w/capacity of 500) Spalding Elementary(STEM)—8.9 miles away(677 enrolled w/capacity of 750) Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.16 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • In greenfield projects sewer services should not pass through infiltration trenches,as currently designed there are multiple areas where this occurs. • Current plans show 8" sewer line going to-and-through to the west parcel.If to-and-through is desired,then line must be upsized to match Master Plan as this would be the main line feeding the surrounding sewer shed.If sewer does not go to-and-through,then an 8"line is acceptable. Water • Distance to Services 900' • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None Concerns • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Do not install water line down Meridian Rd. from Amity Rd.Instead Page 3 Item 5. F132] Description Details Page extend 12"line along E.Quartz Rd from the Prevail Subdivision. • Applicant to donate well lot • A 12"main is required in W Quartz Creek St down to the subdivisions southeast corner;this will require upsizing several sections of main through the subdivision. COMPASS—Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 Review Housing w/in 1 mile 230 Jobs w/in 1 mile 120 • Ratio 0.5—Indicates an employment need(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered a healthy job/housing ratio) Farmland Consumed? Yes(936 acres of farmland w/in 1 mile of project) Nearest Bus Stop 3.3 miles Nearest Public School 1.2 miles Nearest Public Park 1.7 miles Nearest Grocery Store 3.7 miles(an Albertson's grocery store is under construction within 3 miles) Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full document. Distance to nearest City Park 1.7 miles to Discovery Park(76.88 acres in size but only phase 1 is (+size) constructed)to the southeast of the project. Page 4 Item 5. 133 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map 1 Legend Legend MU-C � Project Location aProject Location Medium Density - Residential - Med- Iv Den Low ensity Resid Residential 4 MU RG Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend RUT i-L 0 Legend Project Location RUT Project Location t� ' L ' CQ y! City Limits Planned Parcels R-8� R-8 R-4 RUT R-2 RUT RUT R-4 R-8 R- R=G 15 C-G RUT R=15 ' '- R-4 ' RUT ' RR iR14- 111. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jane Suggs, Gem State Planning—9840 W. Overland Road, Suite 120,Boise,ID 83709 B. Owner: Endurance Holdings,LLC— 1977 E. Overland Road,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 5 Item 5. F134] IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 7/23/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 7/20/2021 Site Posting 7/30/2021 Nextdoor posting 7/20/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /e compplan) Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR)—This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The subject site is approximately 40 acres and was annexed into the City in 2015 with many other parcels in this area of the City under the "South Meridian Annexation."It is located on the south side of the mid-mile mark on the west side of Meridian Road between Lake Hazel and Amity Roads; it is directly west of Shafer View Drive and the recently approved Shafer View Terrace annexation and preliminary plat(H-2020-0117) located on the east side of Meridian Road. With two future land use designations bisecting the subject site, the Applicant may choose to use one or both designations. How each designation is utilized is largely up to the Applicant when more than one exists within a project site; this includes the proposed project density. Briar Ridge is proposed with 227 building lots on 38.86 acres at a gross density of 5.84 du/acre which falls in the middle of the allowable density in the MDR designation on the property. However, the requested TN-R zoning district requires a minimum net density of 6 du/acre. Staff has more analysis and recommendations below on this subject. The proposed development meets the required density allowed on the property for the more restrictive designation which shows Staff that the Applicant is not merely trying to develop the highest number of units possible. Theoretically, the Applicant could have proposed a project with twice the density and still been compliant with the allowable density due to the inclusion of the MHDR designation on the site. Despite proposing a project density consistent with MDR, the Applicant is aware of the existing commercial zoning to the south (also part of the South Meridian Annexation) and its future land use designation of Mixed-Use Regional which would likely incorporate higher intensity development, both commercial and residential. Thus, the Applicant proposed its higher density product in the southeast quadrant of the site by placing the alley-loaded townhoues in this area. In addition, to further assist with the future transition to the south and along Meridian Road, the Applicant is proposing a local street directly on the shared Page 6 Item 5. ■ property boundary between the alley loaded homes and the existing C-G property—Staff believes this site design offers flexibility and buffering from the proposed residential and future development to the south while transitioning to more traditional detached single-family as the project moves north. Rezone: When the subject property was annexed into the City of Meridian in 2015 it was zoned R-4 to help delineate that this property would be developed as residential. The Development Agreement that was created as part of this original annexation dictated that the City would have services available as soon as possible and the first Rezone application would be free of charge. This stipulation regarding a Rezone application was made because the annexation was City initiated and the property had no concept plan or specific development planned at the time of annexation; the City understood future development may not match the existing zoning and gave future applicants the opportunity to propose a different zoning with a new development plan. The Applicant's request to rezone to the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN--R)zoning district is, in itself, consistent with the future land use designations because it is a residential district. More importantly, the overall site design proposed by the Applicant is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use designations because of the transitional density proposed, the multiple housing types proposed, the inclusion of parkways throughout the entire development, and the extension of a collector street along the north boundary for future connectivity. Staff believes the request for a traditional neighborhood zoning district in this area of the City may lay the groundwork for future development to its south to also include traditional neighborhood design and make future developments more pedestrian focused and walkable. Development Agreement Modification: The same stipulation regarding the Rezone application applies to the first Development Agreement Modification (MDA)for this property. In fact, the existing DA requires that with any future redevelopment an MDA is required to be submitted. Therefore, the Applicant has submitted an MDA to satisfy this requirement and update the development plan, in order to develop the proposed subdivision. The DA will be tied to the submitted preliminary plat and be required to develop the property per the submitted plans and proposed housing types. Staff finds the proposed project and the requested applications to be generally consistent with the future land use designations within this project site. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed in the next section. Page 7 Item 5. F136] B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City" (2.01.01G). The subject project is proposed with a site design that closely resembles traditional neighborhood design with short block lengths, street trees,pedestrian facilities throughout, and three housing types within this one project. Thus, the Applicant is requesting a rezone from the R-4 district to the TN-R zoning district to have zoning that fits the proposed housing types of detached single-family, alley loaded single-family, and attached single-family townhomes with parkways throughout the project. In addition, the proposed housing types will vary greatly from the Shafer View Estates'larger lots to the east and thus offering more housing diversity in this area of the city. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing stubs abutting the site to the south within the right-of-way of the local street, S. Keyport Avenue. This project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal. However, the singular public road access is through the Prevail Subdivision to the south, currently under development. Fire code only allows 30 homes off of one access and with the two projects combined, there will be 135 homes off of this access. This is why, as seen on the plat and in previous approvals, an emergency-only access is required to Meridian Road and is located adjacent to the southern boundary of this plat. Despite meeting Fire Code, Meridian Fire has concerns over the approved access points and recommends requiring stub streets to both the north and east of this plat for future connectivity. West Ada School District has not made comments on this application but an additional 18 homes are expected to generate approximately 14 school age children which can be easily absorbed into the school system, according to the ratio of 0.8 kids per household. Staff finds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project that meet code requirements. "Preserve,protect, and provide open space for recreation, conservation, and aesthetics" (4.05.01F). The Applicant is proposing open space in excess of code requirements with a large open space lot in the north half of the site and two relatively smaller linear open space areas in the south half of the project. In addition, the project is proposed with parkways and street trees throughout the entire site offering more open space that would be used for recreation and aesthetics. Further analysis on the proposed open space is below in Section V.L. "Promote area beautification and community identity through context sensitive building and site design principles, appropriate signage, and attractive landscaping."(5.01.02C). The requested TN-R zoning district requires more than one housing type and streets that include parkways and street trees. With parkways, sidewalks are further removed from the public street making for safer pedestrian facilities and encouraging more pedestrian activity. Because of the desired project aesthetic by the Applicant and the requirements of the traditional neighborhood zoning district the proposed project is creating its own identity through site design and thoughtful landscaping and pedestrian elements. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Proposed project is not directly adjacent to any other development at this time. However, the Applicant is proposing parkways with detached sidewalks throughout the entire site and constructing a multi-use pathway segment along the entire Meridian Road frontage; both of these design elements would offer ample pedestrian connectivity within the site and to future development, specifically to the adjacent property to the south that is Page 8 Item 5. F137] designated as Mixed-Use Regional on the future land use map. "Require proposed development within areas further away from urban services, existing utilities or requiring significant City utility upgrades,to demonstrate fiscal benefits, strategic fit with the Comprehensive Plan,contiguity with existing development, and appropriate mitigation for any impacts to existing City service users." (3.03.02F).Because the extension of utility services will be fully financed by the Applicant, the specific concern of the City expending funds for utilities is minimal. However, there is evidence that developing this parcel does not constitute orderly development because of the longer extension of services needed to serve the project. Beyond utilities, urban services also include adjacent transportation facilities, employment opportunities, and commercial services like grocery stores, gas stations, and even general retail, office, and restaurant uses. Staff does not find that the Applicant has fully demonstrated this project has a strategic fit with the Comprehensive Plan. "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F).All of the essential urban services are relatively far removed from the project site despite other residential development being approved across Meridian Road to the east. For example, the closest gas station is more than 1.5 miles to the north with the next closest being nearly 3 miles away; the closest grocery store is almost 4 miles away. There is no existing commercial within 1.5 miles of this development which automatically requires that future residents would have to utilize their car to get to essential services.Approximately one mile to the east, at the intersection of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove, commercial zoning is approved but any actual construction timeline is unknown as this area has only been platted and no administrative applications have been submitted. In addition, C-G zoning is existing directly to the south of this project site which does allow for future commercial to nearby these proposed residences. Despite this development meeting a majority of the comprehensive plan policies and being proposed with an insightful and carefully considered site design,Staff does have concern on the timing of development for this project. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed throughout the above sections and comprehensive plan policies. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on site beyond the existing Mcbirney Lateral that traverses the north third of the site. The historical use for the subject site is agricultural in nature. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed uses within this project are all residential—detached single-family residential, alley-loaded detached single-family, and alley-loaded townhomes.All residential uses proposed are permitted uses within the requested TN-R zoning district per UDC Table 11-2D-2. The TN-R zoning district requires a minimum of two (2)housing types—the proposed housing types offer three(3) distinct housing types and complies with this zoning requirement. The project is proposed to be constructed in three(3)phases according to the submitted phasing plan(Section VILE). Phase 1 is shown to include the new collector street along the north boundary that connects to Meridian Road and is the main access to the development;two local streets are proposed from this new collector street into the site. Phase 1 therefore includes development along the north boundary and also along the east boundary adjacent to Meridian Road; it also includes a number of all three proposed residential housing types but only 30 total homes can be constructed prior to a secondary access being constructed. Per the phasing plan reviewed by Meridian Fire,phase 1 also includes a temporary secondary access to Meridian Road Page 9 Item 5. ■ that runs along the east boundary and will eventually be a new local street for phase 2 development,the southeast quadrant of the site. Phase 2 shows almost all of the remaining townhomes and the new local street along the south boundary that would act as a buffer to the south property. Phase 3 is shown with the remaining homes (a majority being detached single- family)and the large open space lot in the north half of the site. Staff supports the proposed phasing plan except for the proposal of the large open space lot being constructed with phase 3. Because the property is relatively removed from other development and open space, Staff finds this large open space lot(Lot 1, Block 3 on the submitted plat)should be part ofphase 1 development when the first 70 homes are proposed to be constructed. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The requested zoning district of TN-R does not have a minimum lot size requirement but does require a minimum net density of six(6)du/acre. The submitted preliminary plat shows a minimum lot size proposed of 2,082 square feet and an overall average lot size of 3,834 square feet. Because home placement on the building lot is not yet known at the time of preliminary plat submittal, setbacks cannot generally be reviewed at this time. However,per the submitted plat, the residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards for the TN-R zoning district; this includes compliance with the net density requirement. The Applicant did not provide a net density on the submitted plat but Staff can deduce that the net density is above 6 du/acre because the gross density is so close to that number. Once open space and right-of-way are removed,the net density will easily exceed the minimum requirement of the TN-R zoning district. The Applicant should include the net density calculation on the plat prior to the City Council meeting to show compliance. In addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans appear to meet all UDC requirements. Note: The alleys shown on the plat for the attached units in the southeast quadrant of the project do not meet ACHD policies for an alley because the units front on green space instead of a public road. Therefore, this alley must instead be constructed as a "minor urban local street"which is a minimum of 24 feet wide with curb and gutter and no parking is allowed on either side. Staff is recommending a condition of approval in line with ACHD's condition to ensure this street segment is revised and has coordinated with ACHD to not require sidewalks on these internal "alleys"because the project is proposed with detached sidewalk and parkways throughout the entire development. The Applicant should revise the width of these roads to meet ACHD policy— this may lead to a reduction in green space between these units. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed residential dwellings. Note that detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval therefore Staff does not review these for compliance with any standards. However,townhomes(an attached housing product)do require administrative design review(DES)approval prior to building permit submittal. With that future application submittal Staff will analyze the elevations for the attached townhomes against the Architectural Standards Manual;the DES application should be submitted with the first final plat application. The submitted elevations depict single and two-story homes with two-car garages and varying home styles. The elevations depict differing field materials and designs utilizing lap siding with stone accents and varying roof profiles offering an overall array of potential homes. Page 10 Item 5. ■ G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access to Briar Ridge is proposed via construction of a new collector street(W. Quartz Creek Street)along the entire north property boundary that connects from the west boundary of the site to Meridian Road/SH 69 at the mid-mile point consistent with the construction of E. Quartz Creek Street on the east side of Meridian Road. The submitted preliminary plat shows W. Quartz Creek to be constructed with 30 feet of pavement within 55 feet of right-of-way and with 5-foot detached sidewalk along the southern edge for the length of this street segment. The remaining roads proposed within this development are local streets that are at least 33 feet wide with 5-foot detached sidewalk and 8-foot parkways creating a beautiful streetscape and identity for the entire project. The exception to this is S. Celestine Avenue in the southeast quadrant of the site that parallels Meridian Road and is proposed as a 28-foot wide street section because no homes take direct access to it and there are no building lots on its east side at all. Page 11 Item 5. ■ The Applicant is proposing to construct a secondary access to Meridian Road at the very southeast corner of the site as an emergency access for the Fire Department and potential future connectivity to Meridian Road should ITD determine that future development will allow a restricted access at this location. This access is part of a proposed local street that runs along approximately 2/3 of the southern boundary to act as both a buffer to future development to the south and a stub street to the southern property. In addition to the stub street along the south boundary,the submitted preliminary plat also shows two stubs to the western boundary for future connectivity. ACHD has approved the proposed stub street locations and road network except for the proposed alleys between the townhome units that run north-south (facing east-west). Because these units front on green space instead of a public street,ACHD policy requires these alleys to be constructed as a"minor urban local street"which is a minimum of 24 feet wide with curb A and gutter and no parking is allowed on either side, as noted above in Section V.G. NOTE: Meridian Road/SH 69 is currently being studied Q by the Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) for corridor improvements from Overland Road south to Orchard Avenue in Kuna under the Idaho 69 Corridor (Story Map—Idaho Highway 69 Corridor Plan). The mid-mile intersection at the northeast corner of the subject project is part of this study and is proposed to be designed with a reduced conflict U-turn (RCUT)intersection that eliminates left turns and thru-traffic from lower-volume roads. See exhibit to the right for an example of what the Quartz LOCAL NUM Creek/SH 69 intersection could look like. Proposed Briar Despite proposing to construct a collector street that Ridge connects to SH 69,ITD does not find this as direct Subdivisio access because no buildable lot is proposed with direct n—40 acre lot access to the state highway. This, coupled with this parcel corridor being part of a future project,requires the Applicant to enter into a cost share agreement for the road and intersection improvements in lieu of C c constructing any road improvements with this , development at this time,per the ITD conditions report # ; and their technical report(Section VIII.K). The subject project is proposed with over 100 units so a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was required. Due to the ' property requiring access to Meridian Road/SH 69,the ; Applicant was required to submit the TIS to both ACHD and ITD. Staff s summary of this report and analysis is below. Traffic Impact Study Analysis: Reduced Conflict -Turn Crfm.s ng The Applicant's traffic impact study has been analyzed by ACHD and ITD and specific conditions of approval are outlined in their staff reports(see exhibits in Section VIII). Despite Page 12 Item 5. 141 ACHD analyzing and discussing the TIS in their own report, Staff finds it necessary to highlight the main points of discussion and road improvement requirements, specifically those related to the main access points for the project. Staff has not received the ACHD staff report. Following this report,Staff will include their analysis into this report. Staff is not concerned with the omission of this information because ITD has reviewed the TIS due to the project location adjacent to SH 69. So,Staff has provided information and analysis based on the ITD reports, as noted above. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table I I- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. However, all of the local streets are proposed as at least 33-foot wide street sections which accommodates on-street parking where no driveways exist. Furthermore,because of the proposed alley-loaded homes and inclusion of parkways,the entire length of streets adjacent to the alley- loaded products can be utilized for on-street parking. The proposed site design within the traditional neighborhood districts allows for on-street parking in numbers not generally seen in common single-family developments. Staff appreciates this design for the area of the site that has the most density. The townhomes in this project are proposed with two car garages and include the required parking pad. To further help with parking concerns common to single-family development the Applicant has proposed four(4) small parking lots in the center of the townhome products to offer additional off-street parking. However, because of the possibility of ample on-street parking in addition to the required off- street parking, the Applicant is not required to provide these other off-street parking areas. Each parking area is at least 5,100 square feet which could provide for more usable open space and inclusion of an additional child focused amenity in this area of the site. Removing these parking areas would have no effect on the number of required off-street parking spaces which must be constructed on each building lot to satisfy code. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17)&Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks and 8-foot parkway are proposed along all internal streets consistent with the requirements for the requested TN-R zoning district. The Applicant is also proposing detached sidewalk on the south side of the new collector street along the north boundary as required by code for sidewalks adjacent to collector streets. The proposed sidewalks and parkways meet UDC 11-3A-17 standards and ACHD standards. In addition to the internal sidewalks,the Applicant is required to construct a segment of 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the Meridian Road frontage,per the Master Pathways Plan. The Applicant is showing this required pathway segment within a landscaped common lot,per code requirements. The Applicant is also proposing to continue the multi-use pathway into the site over top of the Mcbirney Lateral being piped and rerouted with this development. This extension of the multi-use pathway splits a group of alley-loaded detached homes, crosses two streets, and connects to the large open space lot in the center of the north half of the project. To help with pedestrian safety,the Applicant should provide striping or other traffic calming(i.e. bulb-outs)at the crossing points of this pathway. J. Development Along State Highways(UDC 11-3H): The full east boundary of the proposed project has frontage along Meridian Road/SH 69 which requires noise abatement per UDC 11-3H-4. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 4-foot Page 13 Item 5. F142] berm with a 6-foot Rhino Rock wall on top of it to total at least 10 feet above SH 69 centerline height, as required by code. This wall,berm, landscaping, and required multi-use pathway is located within the required 35-foot wide common lot along the entire frontage and outside of the ITD right-of-way. The required wall should modulate along the highway frontage;the submitted landscape plans show compliance with this requirement. UDC 11-3H-4B.3 also requires construction of a"street, generally paralleling the state highway, to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway..."The Applicant has shown compliance with this requirement by proposing to construct a portion of the mid-mile collector along the north boundary, a series of local streets connecting north-south through the site, and proposing to construct a portion of a local street along the southern boundary that acts as future access and a buffer between this project and future development to the south. Other analysis regarding other access standards of this code section are analyzed above in Section F. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The required landscaping regulated by code within the proposed development are the following areas: that area within the proposed parkways(UDC 11-3A-17 and UDC 11-3B); the common open space lots, and;the required landscape buffer to Meridian Road. The submitted landscape plans show landscaping in these areas as proposed. 8-foot wide parkways are proposed throughout the site to comply with the zoning requirements of the TN-R zoning district. Parkways are required to be vegetated with an average of 1 tree per every 35 linear feet to be compliant. The submitted landscape plan appears to show compliance with this requirement but the calculations table does not note the linear feet ofparkway and the required number of trees; the Applicant should correct this with the Final Plat submittals to ensure compliance with this requirement. In addition, common open space is required to be landscaped with one(1) tree for every 8,000 square feet of open space. The submitted landscape plans show trees and vegetation that vastly exceeds the minimum UDC requirements for these areas. The landscape buffer along Meridian Road is required to be 35'wide and contain the required multi-use pathway within it. The submitted landscape plans show compliance with these UDC requirements for the buffer width, number of trees, tree spacing/grouping, and additional vegetative ground cover; the submitted plat is consistent with the landscape plan and also shows at least a 35 foot wide common lot along Meridian Road. The Applicant is also proposing a number of micro pathways within common area with a majority of them proposed between groups of the attached townhome product in the southeast quadrant of the site. UDC 11-3B-12 requires that trees be placed on both sides of these pathways and the submitted landscape plan shows compliance. Although there is no code requirement for this change, Staff also recommends removing the shrub bed located in the center of the large open space lot. By removing this planter bed and the shrubs there would be an un obstructed area in the center of the open space lot that is at least 9,000 square feet in size; it is rare for a subdivision to provide an area this large for children to play in without obstruction. If the Applicant desires to still include the same number of shrubs as currently shown, they could disperse them to the planter beds shown further to the west and east on the landscape plan. L. Qualified Open Space and Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Briar Ridge is proposed with a preliminary plat area of 38.86 acres requiring at least two(2) Page 14 Item 5. F143] amenities and a minimum of 10%qualified open space(or 3.89 acres),per UDC 11-3G-3. The Applicant is continuing a segment of multi-use pathway along the Meridian Road frontage which qualifies as a required amenity. In addition to the pathway,the Applicant is proposing multiple shade structures and a playground in the development, exceeding the minimum number of amenities required. With Staff s recommended changes to the parking areas between the townhome units, an additional child focused amenity should be added to one of those areas to create closer access for any children in this part of the development. Staff does not recommend using a playground but instead utilize a different type of child amenity to offer an additional option for the entire development(i.e. climbing boulders or other playground climbing structures). The Applicant's open space exhibit(Section VII.D) shows 7.7 acres of open space with 4.52 acres of qualified open space, exceeding the minimum required amount of 3.89 acres. However, the Applicant's qualified open space calculation does not include any of the parkways within the development which is qualifying open space. The Applicant does not need to use this area as qualified open space to meet the minimum 10%amount and parkways are required as part of the site design for the requested TN-R zoning district. So, Staff is not concerned the open space exhibit does not show this area. Therefore,the actual proposed qualified open space vastly exceeds the minimum amount required by code. Overall, Staff supports the proposed open space but does have recommended revisions for the large open space lot(Lot 1, Block 3) in the north half of the development to make it more open and eliminate potential crime issues. First,Staff recommends shifting the block of homes on the south end of this open space lot(Lots 18-25,Block 3)to the east to have more room on the west end of this block. Secondly,Staff recommends moving at least two lots from the west boundary of this open space lot(Lots 13-17,Block 3)to the south boundary to front on W.Aventurine St. and match the home placement on the north side of this open space lot. This appears to require a loss of three (3) lots based on dimensions but with Staff's other recommendations to add up to four(4) additional townhome units, the project could net one additional housing unit with Staff's revisions. If the Applicant can make these revisions without losing 3 lots, Staff would also support that as they Applicant is well within the allowable density for this site. This change to the home layout around this open space lot creates a large and linear open space from east to west and more directly connects one of the stub streets on the west boundary to this open space. Which, in turn, has the added benefit of not having future headlights shining directly into the front of homes as would be the case with the current configuration. A Fencing(UDC 11-3A-69 I1-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and appears to meet UDC standards as proposed except for the 6- foot closed vision fencing proposed adjacent to the large open space lot(Lot 1,Block 3)in the north half of the site and shown on the rear lot line of the homes surrounding this open space lot. Per UDC 11-3A-7A.7b, when an open space lot is greater than 250 feet in length, an open vision or semiprivate fence shall be used. The closed vision fencing shown on the landscape plans does not comply with this code section. The Applicant should revise the landscape plan at the time of the applicable final plat application. Staffs recommendation to make this open space lot more linear in nature does not remove the need for this fencing revision because the lot is deeper than 250 feet. N. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The subject site contains a large section of the Mcbirney Lateral, an irrigation lateral maintained Page 15 Item 5. F144] by Boise Project Board of Control(BPBC). The Applicant is proposing to both reroute and pipe this lateral to change the location of its easement and the subsequent encumbrances of said easement. The Applicant has worked with BPBC over the previous 2 years to perform necessary processes prior to submitting to the City of Meridian. Piping this lateral will allow for more consistent and buildable area of the subject site, include additional linear open space for the development, and allow for easier maintenance by BPBC. Staff supports the piping of this irrigation lateral and the proposed plan complies with UDC 11-3A-6. O. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-I5): The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the development in accord with 11-3A-15. Land Development will review pressurized irrigation plans in more detail when specific plans are submitted with future Final Plat applications. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested Rezone, Development Agreement Modification,and approval of the requested Preliminary Plat application per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 16 Item 5. 145 VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Map DESCRIPTION FOR TN-R ZONE BRIAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION A parcel of land located in the Southeast 114 of the Northeast 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36,T.31N., RAW., B.M.,City of Meridian, Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 36 from which the East 1/4 corner of said Section 36 bears North 00°05'08"West,2669.88 feet;thence North 00°05'08"West, 1334.94 feet to the South 1/16 corner of said Section 36 and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 89112'25"West, 1,322.74 feet to the Southeast 1/16 corner of said Section 36; thence North 00°10'51" East, 1,331.37 feet to the Center-East 1/16 corner of Section 36; thence on the West boundary line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 36, North 00134'27" East,20.00 feet; thence on a line parallel with and 20.00 feet North from the South boundary line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 36,South 89°21'32"East, 1,317.53 feet to the centerline of State Highway No.69,as shown on the right-of-way plans for Federal Aid Project No.STP-3782(101)on file in the office of the Idaho Transportation Department; thence on said centerline the following two(2)courses and distances: 378.93 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 57,295.78 feet,a central angle of 00°22'44"and a long chord which bears South 00'06'14"West,378.93 feet; South 00°05'08" East,976.00 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 40.992 acres,more or less. End of Description. a Page 17 Item 5. F146] N SCALE: 1-=300' C 75 150 3CC 600 { I + N O'34'27"E --20.00' _ 589'21'32"E 1317_53=_ _ 1/4 C-E1/16 - �_- -- ---- ----� S.36 S.31 I I LN 6 I po Lo I I I 1 r`I m 1 MI O M rl z1 oW Wi TN—R ZONE v Io N nl t40.992 ACRES to o U1 0 o CO O zl = 10 I Z Im NCO olco �m rn 0 o1 0 o I I - I I REAL POINT I I OF BEGINNIN1-�:' S1/16 SE1/16N 89*12'25"W1322.74' 1334.94' T.3N31 T.2N6 oNPL LAND 5��\I✓ENS 11779 CURVE TABLE N�`7 ,,�//�zl�O CURVE LENGTH RADIUS I DELTA I CHORD BRG. CHORD DIST. C'p09TF OF Cl 1 378.93 57295.78 O'22'44" SO'06'14"W 1 378.93 yM, MAccNN`� e Ci—R Rr�nn Canc nv L/;;-?l 1 IoDAHO' EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR JOB NO, 17-345 SUITE.WATERTOWER ST. TN—R ZONE SURVEY MERIDIAN I CY Il L SHEET NO. MERMAN,IQ4H083342 BRIAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION 1 1208J B9G65�0 GROUP, LLC LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 AND THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 DWO,DATE OF SECTION 36,T.3N.,RAW.,B.M.,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO 2/14/2021 Page 18 Item 5. F147] sE2l'32"e 13 7.53 N N �O II II m r o_ o m o� c 0 0 �o 0 w m 1322.74 n89°12 5"w 779 � ieI/Z.zt�. mv 2/14/2021 Scale: 1 inch=200 feet File: TN-R Zone.ndp Tract 1:40.9917 Acres,Closure:s09.3235w 0.04 ft.(11126409),Perimeter=5347 ft. 01 e128.13 n522.92 07 00.0508e 976 02 n89.1225w 1322.74 03 n00.105le 1331.37 04 n00.3427e 20 05 s89.2132e 1317.53 06 Lt r-57295.78 delta=000.2244 chord=s00.0614w 378.89 Page 19 Item 5. F148] B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 4/7/2021) o[g PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRIAR RIDGE SUBDMSI0N - OPIAZZ41 M -_ ® z e+dru � i U.� ..w PROJECT to y ® ® raniSITE ® z _ au�v rcrxn N® e ®©R®®® '�—.... � _/.•..CO � it ......,._., 3 PL % •- --� » ,---. —..—_ --_— a -'. '.F'. ,11 l! ,1 f {� l� N'f;.f"f 1,'I s I' It -L= t R{ •,,� -; CETr,L_ L Z U JAL.,L ELF I'—F HE ";-GEL BELL Q [] Z J N — oz tT Quo sa�=w Z w Ld [d LE �. _,- PPEE,1 Page 20 Item 5. F149] ------------------------------ - —,—,— — — �1• ,, ,r - m I o s p LLfl' — a o t i Page 21 A - 4 ill EI gill� a. oil @i► �Il�<<g �e�fl�► �+i�■� ,^��„ , ' � ^_. I��, f ill■^ = `flu 1"li ; ' ill+,®�� ■I �: 111�� ��1 I� ■ _aw Illto lum— _. ., �. �i@i� �r .rl� ,. �i:. �■�+� Ii�� iG :,ice.+a+ �� Item 5. Fl 5-1gg 1 w `4 - lu 01 ta t- LLL ju UL UL ILI OL (D ..... .... .... CL ............ CL cr LU 0 Lu Page 23 Item 5. ■ _.I „• _ � -r�- ,.,/' +N- r,. I•,'f-K, � III M .. .... i � C y ' _ f C; 1 ` 1 57 MATCHLINE L2 w KEY MAP �x wrnn arm er. PLANT PALETTE41 El fir__- mid JENSEI.'YaTS c�e a icnoo I— Page 24 Item 5. Fl 53 MATCH.NE L�._ 1 tI ��tta III c� 77 L £r1�LL I k �l l _ k IJ II A 1 I I I I s 8 , KEY MAP PLANT PALETTE NOTES € 0 r, — J µ�..z. -.. !,.0 ce ng,Inc. _ y � pu�Fne�n Pwn CAW Page 25 Item 5. Fl 54 D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 4/7/2021) 8. ---- --- ---- LOC 9..._._. i z U O 2 1 ------------------L BLOCK 3 ! ! 1t m m --_ ® LOCK 3 O ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® O Y O ._.._..____ i ® O i I O eL c s I 00 40�, I©O g O f O„ 0wU4 51, �OHO 14 - -' - - O BLC " OO IOOsOOO ' 2 °3®9O°7i OD O ® O © O ® E r 6 ® 101 _ 9 1 � O 00 ® 00000 ® �+ ®— i Page 26 Item 5- Fl-551 E. Phasing Plan � I era j --- ------------- ------------- — — — — — --- — — — — — ____ _W CUARTZ CREEK ST. LOC 2 g LOC 9 x 4 0 (D to w 7,2) o a PH.ASE - qO W JARVIS ST. 1 W JARVIS ST. 2 O Q 11 9 050 © ® O O 4 O BLOCK 3 kµ. � Q W HE SIOTROPE © © m T. O 4 LOCK 3 ® j 0 ® ® ® ® ® II O ® I 11 11 I W AVENTURINE ST. -14 0 5 m a W AVENTURINE ST. .,'j OO 30®OO BL K 7 ALLEY ® � ;. my�`�.. � ��I, . _ ALL � O z 1�� vi 1 I � W ROCK CRYSTAL ST. . m 11 a r W ROCK CRYSTAL ST. wj i O OO 03 04 Qs Oa OO 30 flz ® J ?0 % ® BL x a ® 7 Q ® W'j.I W CHRYSOCOLLA ST. _t z 77. �_ - ® ©- - - B X 5 W.HOWLITE 5T. 1 j Page 27 Item 5. F156 F. Conceptual Building Elevations L oil _ J _ ME MEN mmm , I I r . Page 28 1 3 i r x Page V 3 �. Ad id- 11 { a OL ILI �I - 'vim Item 5. Fl 60 - l- r , - 1 -T -Al I` 4 jGt f Ip i t Page 32 Item 5. 161 G. Water Markup—Public Works P—rde MAMHt1NE SEE LOWER LER- SHEEi PP-4 �� - water stubs o the—th I,.'PmPE� This east to '.f estwater g I 'I t Y� line needs , obe 12" ae } 2 3 Wm w O o i' xo,® 2 w,�--© � � Q3 Q � 1 aterllne slang 10 _ he eastern I © ® O O Oe s OOD �7� 9 11 ® \ o O --- i 1 2 3 4 5 B 2 34� -- o Ili o -1 _ i� � (7, iJu� g © h „ _ - Meb oaunto z P ® © T 0 9 -® �- �_ 11 LO , w,_Noaus - .-� -- - � ,Linebthe -- 12"Water -:'south - Line .. - :a tl Page 33 Item 5. ■ VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Within six(6)months of the City Council granting the subject modification,the owner shall sign and obtain Council approval of the amended development agreement that includes an updated development plan per the submitted preliminary plat, as shown in Section VII.B;the amended DA shall include the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan, open space exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The submitted phasing plan shall be strictly adhered to and include a secondary access to Meridian Road/SH 69 with the first phase of development and shall be revised as follows: the large open space lot(Lot 1,Block 3)shall be constructed with phase 1 development. c. The Applicant shall extend the water main from E. Quartz Creek Street on the east side of Meridian Road/SH 69 and not extend water down SH 69 from E.Amity Road. d. W. Quartz Creek Street(the new collector street along the north boundary),the required multi-use pathway, and the required collector and arterial landscape buffers adjacent to W. Quartz Creek and S. Meridian Road/SH 69 shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development. e. The elevations/facades of 2-story structures that face S. Meridian Road, an entryway corridor, and W. Quartz Creek Street, a collector street, shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B,dated April 7,2021, shall be revised as follows prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise the plat to reorient building lots (Lots 13-17,Block 3 and Lots 18-25,Block 3)on the west and south side of the large open space lot(Lot 1,Block 3)to mirror the layout on the north side of this lot to only have lots on the south side of the open space lot fronting on W. Aventurine Street,per the analysis in Section V.L. b. Revise the proposed alleys between the townhome lots in Block 17&Block 18 to be minor urban local streets constructed at a minimum of 24 feet wide with curb and gutter,no sidewalks, and no parking on either side,per ACHD requirements. c. Add striping or other traffic calming measures(i.e.bulb-outs)where the proposed multi-use pathway crosses local streets within the development; coordinate with Meridian Fire and ACHD as necessary. d. Add a plat note stating that direct lot access to S. Meridian Road/SH 69 and W. Quartz Creek Street is prohibited. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated March 10,2021, shall be revised as follows prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise the landscape plan to match the plat revisions noted in VIII.A2 above. Page 34 Item 5. F163] b. Show striping or other traffic calming measures(i.e.bulb-outs)where the proposed multi-use pathway crosses local streets within the development; coordinate with Meridian Fire and ACHD as necessary. c. Prior to Final Plat submittal, add two(2)new lines of calculations in the landscape calculations table to show the linear feet of parkways and linear feet of pathways and include the required number of trees and proposed number of trees in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. d. Any landscaping within the ITD right-of-way shall be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.5. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2D-3 and UDC 11-2D-6 for the TN-R zoning district. 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 6. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 7. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 8. Prior to the first Final Plat submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review(DES) approval for the townhomes in this development. 9. Prior to signature on a final plat,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along Meridian Road to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14' in width (10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side). 10. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 11. 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 of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A 12" water main is required to be extended from the Northwest corner of the subdivision to the Southeast corner. To do so,the water main in W Quartz Creek,part of S Jasper Ave,part of W Jarvis St, S Blue Quartz Ave, S Celestine Ave, and W Howlite St will need to be increased to 12" pipe. 1.2 A 12" water main extension to the South property line is required near the corner of S Ametrine Way and W Holite St. 1.3 Two water main extensions to the North property line are required,one near the corner of W Quartz Creek St and S Carnelian Way and the other near the corner of S Jasper Ave and W Quartz Creek St. 1.4 A 12" water main extension to Meridian Rd is required near the corner of S Celestine Ave and W Howlite St. 1.5 A well lot is to be donated to the City from this development. Page 35 Item 5. ■ 1.6 Do not install sewer services through infiltration trenches. 1.7 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations. Due to the existence of bedrock in the area,the project engineer shall show the bedrock depth and location on all applicable profile views. 1.8 A streetlight plan is required to be submitted with the Final Plat application. 1.9 A future streetlight installation agreement is required for a total of five Type 1 streetlights on Meridian Road. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any 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 Page 36 Item 5. 165 Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review,and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.oMIpublic_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the Page 37 Item 5. F166] amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=234616&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty- D. SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=234722&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. BOiSE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridiancit E.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=234547&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinklDoc View.aspx?id=232901&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty- G. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridiancitE.org_lWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=231945&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. PARKS DEPARTMENT-PATHWAYS https:llweblink.meridiancitE.org_lWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=234524&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridiancitE.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=234296&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty J. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianci(E.otylWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=231836&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Page 38 Item 5. 167 Lty K. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) Technical Report- hgps://weblink.meridianciby.or lWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=233231&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty Conditions Report- hyps://weblink.meridiancity.or_/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=233230&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty L. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.or lWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=228248&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment to Rezone the property from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district with the proposed preliminary plat and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested TN-R zoning district and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone and traditional neighborhood zoning districts in general. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to,school districts; and Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Subject site is already annexed so Staff finds this finding nonapplicable. Page 39 Item 5. 168 B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Stafffinds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACED considers road safety issues in their analysis and has offered their support of the proposed development with the proposed road layout in mind. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 40 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Briar Ridge Subdivision Meridian, ID South MeridianParcelsAnnexation2015 Mass South MeridianComp PlanAnnexation2015 Mass South MeridianZoningAnnexation2015 Mass Vicinity Map withdevelopmentsexisting and approved Briar Ridge Subdivision parkRegional path on Hwy 69, connects to •Detached sidewalks & street trees•structuresacre park w/play & shade -2.4•Over 11% qualified open space•alley load–106 townhomes •loadfront load & alley –121 detached •227 single family homes•38.86 acres•R zone-TN• Front load detached single family homes Alley load single family detached homes &attached townhomes Briar Ridge SubdivisionMeridian, Idaho Thank you. Preliminary Plat Gazebo/PergolaPlayground