Loading...
2021-10-21 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Nathan Wheeler Commissioner Steven Yearsley ABSENT Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Bill Cassinelli Commissioner Maria Lorcher ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the October 7, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Burger King Drive-Through (H-2021- 0051) by Legend Engineering, Located at 6211 N. Ten Mile Rd. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Southridge Apartments Phase 3 (H-2021- 0055) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd. and East of S. Ten Mile Rd. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TM Creek Storage (H-2021-0054) by Brighton Development, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd., Midway Between S. Linder Rd. and S. Ten Mile Rd. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing Continued from August 12, 2021 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. - Recommended Approval to City Council 6. Public Hearing for Elsinore Daycare Facility (H-2021-0061) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 4818 and 4858 N. Elsinore Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request to construct a new 13,535 square- foot, single-story daycare facility on approximately 1.3 acres of land on Lots 12 and 13 of the Paramount Square Subdivision in the C-G zoning district. - Approved 7. Public Hearing for Red Aspen (H-2021-0066) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at the southeast corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.99 acres of land with a request for the C-G zoning district for the purpose of constructing an approximate 30,000- square-foot flex space building on 2.19 acres of land. - Recommended Approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing for Meridian South Fire Station & Police Substation (H-2021- 0062) by City of Meridian, Located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to develop the property with two (2) public/quasi-public uses to include an 11,650 square-foot fire station and an 11,550 square-foot police station on 4 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. - Approved 9. Public Hearing for Village Apartments (MCU-2021-0008) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 2600 N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Previously Approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP-15-019) to update the conceptual development plan and elevations and eliminate the requirement for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity/cross- access to be provided to the residential development to the north. - Approved 10. Public Hearing for Aviator Springs (H-2021-0065) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (31.59 acres), L-O (1.64 acres) and M-E (6.77 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting of (93) buildable lots and (13) common open space lots on 31.59 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district, (2) buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-O zoning district, (1) buildable lot on 6.77 acres of land in the M-E zoning district, and (3) future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land. - Recommended Approval to City Council 11. Public Hearing Continued from September 16, 2021 for Fields Sub-Area Plan (H- 2021-0047) by City of Meridian, the Location Consisting of Approximately Four (4) Square Miles and Bounded by Chinden Blvd. on the North, McDermott Rd. on the East, McMillan Rd. on the South and Can-Ada Rd. on the West A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to incorporate the Fields Sub-Area Plan. - Recommended Approval to City Council ADJOURNMENT - 10:20 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 21, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 21 , 2021 , was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Commissioner Andrew Seal. Members Present: Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, and Commissioner Nate Wheeler. Members Absent: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Maria Lorcher. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach, Caleb Hood, Brian McClure and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Nate Wheeler Maria Lorcher X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley Bill Cassinelli Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman Seal: Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for October 21 st, 2021. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the City Attorney and Clerk's office, as well as the City Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to go to watch this -- watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access that at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with the roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Seal: All right. Thank you. So, the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Let me see. I don't think there is any amendments to the agenda. Okay. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Grove: So moved. Wheeler: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 6 Page 2 of 70 Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the October 7, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Burger King Drive-Through (H-2021-0051) by Legend Engineering, Located at 6211 N. Ten Mile Rd. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Southridge Apartments Phase 3 (H-2021-0055) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd. and East of S. Ten Mile Rd. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TM Creek Storage (H-2021- 0054) by Brighton Development, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd., Midway Between S. Linder Rd. and S. Ten Mile Rd. Seal: For the Consent Agenda we have four items on the Consent Agenda. The approval of the minutes of the October 7, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Burger King Drive-Through, H-2021-0051. Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for Southridge Apartments Phase Three, H-2021- 0055. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TM Creek Storage, H-2021-0054. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent -- Consent Agenda as presented? Grove: So moved. Wheeler: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Seal: So, at this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called on once and only once during the public testimony. The Clerk will call the names Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 7 Page 3 of 70 individually of those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted in Zoom or you can come to the microphones here in chambers. You will need to state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf conceding their time, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may come forward in chambers or if on Zoom press the raise hand button in the Zoom app. Or if you are only listening on -- on the phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, for example, please, sure -- please be sure to mute the extra devices, so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard by the applicant will be given another -- the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make final decisions or recommend -- recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing Continued from August 12, 2021 for Centerville Subdivision (H2O21-0046) 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. Seal: Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2021- 0046, Centerville Subdivision, which was continued from 8/12/2021. We will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You stole some of my thunder there, the continuance, but thank you. Jump into this here. As noted this is for Centerville Subdivision. On the screen here we have the view of the land use maps associated with the site. Because it's been almost two months I will go briefly over the entire project and, then, I will come Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission ❑ Item 1. October 21,2021 Page 4 of 70 back and hit on what has been revised since the last Commission hearing. In general, the site consists of 40 and a half acres of land, currently zoned RUT, near the intersection of Eagle and Amity, about a half mile to the east. It includes three existing parcels, as you can see by the three different shapes. I will just wait there. There is no history with the City of Meridian with this site, so no zoning history or anything like that. It is -- has two future land use designations on the site, mixed use neighborhood and medium density residential, with medium density residential being the vast majority, about 31 acres, versus eight acres on the site. The original request was for annexation and zoning of all 40 and a half acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district, the R-15 -- and the R-15 zoning district. It showed 159 single family units and 168 multi-family units with a plat consisting of 190 total lots, which included 124 single family lots, 35 townhome lots, two multi-family lots, one commercial and one clubhouse a lot, with 27 common lots. There was no CUP and still is no CUP, which is a conditional use permit, proposed for any multi- family. The project is still proposed in four phases. I have not been told otherwise. With a majority of the detached single family in the first and second phases. The access is to Hillsdale and Amity and the large center open space is proposed with the first phase of development. Again, that has not changed from my understanding. Let me just -- access to the site -- I will go to this one here. Access to the site has not changed either. The main access point is from South Hillsdale, which is here, and to East Amity up here. The applicant is also extending two local stub streets from the southeast, one from the south, one from the east, with a pedestrian connection in between. There was a TIS required with this, because it has more than a hundred units, with -- well, not to spoil it, but the applicant has reduced the number of units, so the anticipated trips will be reduced as well. Originally it estimated to be about 2,600 additional vehicle trips per day and the TIS recommended some requirements. Those are still being recommended from both city and ACHD. Those improvements are to include an interim signal at the Hillsdale and Amity Road intersection, which is planned for a future roundabout at some point and where the Amity Road entrance is to what is shown Amorita Avenue. ACHD is requiring a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane and a dedicated westbound left-turn lane. Staff is recommending that both of these, the interim signal as well as the turn lanes, be constructed with the first phase, which is consistent with ACHD's recommendation. In addition, safe access to Hillsdale Elementary is imperative. ACHD recommends and the applicant has agreed to install a rapid rectangular flashing beacon, which most people just say RFB beacon or RFB crossing at the Hillsdale and Hill Park Street intersection. There is an existing RFB beacon, in my understanding, further south directly in front of the school. The school district, the city, and ACHD believe that this is the best location for an additional one, especially with the addition of more units -- more homes in the area. The project area as noted does have two different land use designations on the site. The relatively small area of mixed use neighborhood allows six to 12 units per acre and medium density residential allows three to eight dwelling units per acre. The mixed use neighborhood area is part of a larger area that encompasses most of the area to the west, as you can see here. So, it's about eight acres of -- more than 70 acres of mixed use neighborhood. Approximately half of this area is already residential -- was already approved for residential development, which is the Hill Century Farms North. The remaining area is comprised of commercial zoning that includes self storage, an urgent care, medical and dental offices, assisted living facility and some vacant commercial lots. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 191 Page 5 of 70 Within the overall site -- and this has not changed with any revisions. The applicant is proposing transition a lot sizes and density within the project. This is done by -- around the perimeter and matches the lot sizes to the existing development of the east and the south and it has the higher density along Amity and further to the west, further away from the existing development. Staff does find that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding uses because of this transitional density. Now, for the changes that have occurred since the Commission hearing, this is probably the best way to see it. On the left is the original plan that shows the apartment units. On the right is their new revised rendering. They have removed all of the apartment units and included more of these attached townhomes, which is about three-plexus here. The only multi-family remaining are four four-plex buildings here, which are new to the site -- a new use to the site. In addition, the applicant has added three additional commercial lots to basically comply with some of the mixed use neighborhood regulations. This is still proposed to be a daycare and these propose to be flex space lots. Flex space can have a number of uses, but there are certain specific use requirements that would be -- have to be complied with in the future as those sites develop. This has required the applicant request some commercial zoning, which was not previously requested. The applicant did provide revised legals with that and that was in the record. Overall, as I noted, all the apartments were removed. The total unit count is now 219, which is down from originally 327. So, it's a loss of 108 units. The only remaining portion of the site, as I noted, is multi-family and will require a future CUP for those four-plex units along Amity. This is specifically placed along Amity near the commercial, because of the higher density. That is -- that's Planning 101. So, staff does support the location of the proposed flex -- or both the proposed flex space and the four-plexes. The multi-family was replaced by more townhomes as noted and all of those previous drive aisles, which are all these, were replaced by 28 foot wide private streets, that, essentially, function as alleys for the townhome units. The applicant is required to submit for private streets -- for these private streets prior to the City Council meeting, which, to be clear, private street application is an administrative level only. There is no need for Commission or Council to act on that. They did add three additional commercial lots and removed two and a half acres of the existing residential zoning because of that new commercial zoning as I noted. Therefore, the overall area of the residential portion is now 36 and a half acres, give or take. The gross density is now six dwelling units per acre, which -- and originally it was 8.4. So, again, that's about two and a half units per acre difference that they have done. Because of this -- and they have lost, again, 108 units, staff does find that the applicant has made significant adjustments to the site to mitigate the Commission's concerns over the density and that general impact to the schools, as well as the transportation element. For the additional commercial properties, the applicant did also include and is proposing a right- in, right-out access to Hillsdale, which would be this access here, that was not previously proposed. That would be a new access. It is directly across from the existing access on the west side and ACHD has approved this with their latest revision to their staff report. The applicant also moved the pool amenity, which was previously here, to the central open space, which was also discussed at the previous Commission hearing as wanting to provide equal access for everybody in the development and have that centralized in the site. The initial review of the landscape plan does show continued compliance with all open space requirements. I would like to note that there has been new additions of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 Flo] Page 6 of 70 linear open space for these townhome units to front on, which staff does appreciate, which is these --this large area here, as well as this open space here and the -- it is, essentially, a parkway, but a larger width area than just a parkway along here and the previously proposed parkway here is also remaining. Since the Commission hearing there were -- at least as of about 3:00 o'clock this afternoon there were eight pieces of testimony since the previous Commission hearing. They noted the same issues as before, which was a discussion of traffic, school impact, and overall density. Staff does recommend approval of the subject applications, especially with the revisions that have been in place and I have noted that in a memo dated last week at some point -- I don't remember. I apologize. The specific provisions that I'm recommending to be changed. So, if you do make any motion tonight you could just say per the memo -- or the staff memo. After that I will stand for any questions. Seal: All right. Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward? Name and address and away we go. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm representing Challenger Development on this particular application. Just to kind of give the Commissioners kind of a brief summary of where we left off in our August hearing, we appreciate the Commission provided us the opportunity to go back and rework our plan, rethink it, work with the staff and come up with some new ideas and I just kind of wanted to go through the instructions that the Commission provided us. One, we were asked to eliminate the high density apartments that they were -- that you were convinced that this area was not appropriate for like three story apartments and based on the impact on traffic and schools, that you wanted to see an incorporation of more townhomes and that providing a larger commercial component would be preferred, so that we could meet the mixed use integrity that's talked about in the Comprehensive Plan. One of the other statements was -- you just need to reduce the overall density of the development. One of the other comments was the primary amenity should be centrally located and available to all residents and not located kind of in the south sector of the multi-family area and that we should limit all residential structures to more than -- no more than two stories. We also talked about transitioning from the commercial component to the townhomes and providing a more blended and integrated site plan, which better fits the definition of a true mixed use development and to improve the diversity of the residential uses with less impact on the adjoining neighborhood, the schools, and the transportation network and so what -- what we brought before you today we believe meets those -- those requirements that you -- or that guidance that you gave us to go back to the drawing board. So, I will skip that and go to the preliminary plat. So, we revised our preliminary plat. As -- as Joseph indicated we incorporated a community business district and added that C-C zone -- is this going to work for me? Joe, is it not working? Oh, there it is. I think. Maybe the battery's dead. It should work? Is it me? Okay. Moving on. Here we go. So, this is -- this is the new colored site plan as you can see. So, one of the things that we did is we have a C-C area over there in that -- at the intersection of the collector Hillsdale and Amity Road. As Joseph indicated, we are proposing a C-C zone within that quadrant and, then, we transition from some four-plexes that back up to Amity Road, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 Fill Page 7 of 70 which is an arterial and, then, we transition into a townhome product and, then, into our single family residential. The single family residential portion that was proposed on the eastern side of the project has not changed. Those lot sizes have not been modified and we -- we have those two mixed designations in your comp plan that mixed use neighborhood allows us six to 12 dwelling units per acre. The medium density residential allows us three to eight. As Joseph indicated, we are asking for R-8, C-C and R-15. Our overall residential density is 6.01 dwelling units per acre and that calculation does exclude the commercial. So, it's not skewed by the commercial, it is a net density. We have in the R-8 zone -- thank you. Is it working now? A dead mouse. A dead mouse. There we go. Oh, that's you. Okay. Go ahead. I thought it was me. Within the R-8 zone, which is on primarily the eastern side of the project, our density is still 3.45 dwelling units per acre. Within the western portion of the residential where we have the four four-plexes on the north side and the townhomes, our density is at 7.44 within the R-15 zoning designation. So, the lot sizes on the single family, we have a variety of lot sizes just as we initially proposed, ranging from 36 feet in width, all the way up to 90 feet in width, 95 feet in depth, to 123 feet in depth. We incorporated the townhomes. The average townhome is about 3,104 square feet, whereas the average single family lot is about 5,550 square feet and I want to mention from the last hearing our largest lots are all on the periphery next to Rockhampton and, then, next to the Howry Lane Subdivision No. 2. The development -- we propose both rear and front load townhomes to provide variety. So, 71 percent of the townhomes that we have will be rear loaded and only 29 percent will be front loaded. Obviously, this gives a better curb appeal where we are actually loading them and, then, it provides us the ability to have a MEW on the north portion of the -- of the project. You guys working over there or -- there you go. So, on the north -- on the north portion we still have our collector roadway with our -- with our landscaped entrance, detached walks, and -- go to the west. Sorry. And, then, what we have is -- we have what we call a MEW there that the --the lots --the front of the lots we have sidewalks coming out of the townhomes and, then, connecting to a sidewalk that goes both north and south. Along the south portion we ended up with a linear open space. We have a playground in there. We have pathways. We have interconnectivity to those townhomes and all the townhomes south of our entrance collector are on open space. They back up to open space, either in the linear open space or to the south where we will be piping the Cunningham Lateral and grassing and creating a little nature path that goes on out and, then, our collector buffer. As far as the -- the commercial component, we are at a little over four percent in our commercial component. We kind of racked our brains. We don't want to compete with Hill Century Farms commercial. So, one of the things --the daycare was integral, because that's an essential service that will, obviously, benefit this neighborhood and -- and this project. But the flex space was one thing that we came up with as a great alternative to trying to compete with the -- the commercial that's to the west of us. So the flex space would be small business development and it would be -- there would be no exterior materials, everything being closed. Obviously, would have to comply with your design guidelines for the commercial. There will be no outdoor storage. And, then, on the -- the townhomes we have almost an acre that -- that is in that linear open space. We have approximately a half acre that is the transition from the commercial to the townhomes. That ranges in width from -- I think 35 to about 55 feet. We will have pathways. We will have picnic areas. But when you come into the development the first Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F12 Page 8 of 70 thing you are going to see is our primary amenity and that primary amenity is significant in size. I think it's -- hold on. Got to get to my amenities. It is 1.93 acres. So, just a little bit shy of two acres. We will have a pool facility. We will also have a pickleball court. We have play -- a central playground for the kids and, then, we have pathways that link out through our pedestrian pathways for the project portion that is to the east. We have retained our pocket park to the north. I'm not doing that. We are having a great time tonight, aren't we? So, this -- this shows you what our qualified open space is. So, we have six acres of qualified open space. That's 15.4 percent. Previously we were at about 4.48 percent. Our central amenity with 1.93 acres. We are going to have a plaza, swimming pool, community playground, pickleball court, pathways, off-street parallel parking. We are proposing a ten foot sidewalk along Amity with micro path connections to our commercial component and our pocket park. Our entrance at Amity will have public art, a little plaza area, and, then, our MEW, like I said, is just a little less than half acre with two covered sitting areas and pathways and, then, our linear open space, another tot lot, gazebo, and, then, our micro path and a natural pathway. This was kind of a blow up of the landscape plan. We did submit a revised landscape plan that shows you what -- what we are proposing here. So, we are going to have a significant amount of open space in this project. Far more than was required. When we submitted the application the requirement was ten percent and, as I indicated, we are at 15.4 in our qualified open space. We have done a great job of -- of really spending a lot of time reworking this and working on elevations. These are our farmhouse elevations. This shows you the alley load townhomes. You see every elevation. You can see that there is articulation in the roof lines. Different materials. Different -- different angles to, obviously, provide a visual interest. Oops. This shows you our front load townhomes. They are more of a modern style. But we are still going to have them mesh in with -- with the architectural styles that we will have with our traditional craftsman, modern, and farmhouse styles. Here is the four-plexes. We only have four of those. So, there is 16 units. They back up to Amity. You know, that's going to be a -- that's a major intersection. It's going to be signalized. As you recall, we have to signalize that at there -- our 61 st lot. So, basically, you know, we can get one phase in and, then, we have got to put the light in. So, it's almost like we need to go into design on that with the first phase, so that -- that's in there. As you can see with the four-plexes, there is, you know, roof articulation. They don't look like your standard four-plexes. There is a lot of variety. We only have four of those. Our sample elevations for the homes -- and you can see we will have a combination a two story, three car garage. Single story, three car garage. And, then, on the smaller 64 foot lots will have two story with a two car garage. Single story, two car garage. And, then, on the 36 foot wide lots --this is a new product. So, they have kind of farmhouse styles. They have craftsman. They have modern. So, there is a variety of styles that fit on those lots to, obviously, meet the diversity that we need, especially in today's marketplace where everybody is struggling to meet that affordability that our community desires desperately in these times. I saw the other day the average price of a home in Meridian now is, what, 555,000, which is just like -- it blows my mind. I remember, you know, when -- when you struggled to get a 227,000 dollar house and the hoops you had to jump through. So, this -- this particular project I think hits the mark. It meets the -- the mixed use as far as an anchor on that corner, providing some type of employment opportunity. Maybe someone that lives in here will be able to put up their business there. Walk to work. Bike to work. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F13 Page 9 of 70 The townhomes will all be on separate lots, so they can be sold and, like I said, we have a combination of front load and alley load to meet different -- different tastes, different lifestyles. Smaller lots. Larger lots. This is a great project and with an overall gross density of just 6.01 we have reduced the -- the impact on the schools, the impact on the transportation system significantly and I ask the Commission to support it. Thank you. Any questions? Seal: Do we have any questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead. Wheeler: Can you -- staff, can you tell us just one more time what the net gain or net loss on the total number of units is again? Dodson: Yes. Commissioner Wheeler, that would be a total loss of 108 units. Three hundred and twenty-seven is what was approved before and now there are 219. Wheeler: Thank you. Dodson: If that math is right. Wheeler: Okay. Thank you. Seal: Quick question of staff or the applicant can answer. The -- I'm interested in the parking for the multi-family. I think we have to have at least a minimum of 24 parking spots here. How many are available? McKay: Yes. For the four-plexes we are required to have 30 spaces. Of those 16 will be covered. For the commercial flex space we have 42 spaces. For the daycare we have seven. And, then, staff asked us to include parallel parking along our MEW area that's on the west side of the townhomes north of our collector and we have 12 parallel parking spaces there. Each townhome will have a two car garage, plus a 20 by 20 parking pad in front and, then, we also have guest parking on the south end. There are nine spaces for guest parking and, then, we also have four parallel spaces along our central amenity feature that's outside the right of way. And, then, the townhomes that front on the public street we will have detached sidewalks and the ones -- or excuse me. The ones that have the alley load they will be parking on the public street north of the collector roadway. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: I would like to just add to that as well, just to visually show the -- all of this -- this right here, because -- oh, should say, actually, this north portion here, that's a public road. This entire length on both sides can have parallel parking. Can have on-street parking Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F14 Page 10 of 70 because there are no driveways. So, that's in excess of code requirement. In addition, they are -- all the private streets they are proposing, especially here, as long as they are wide enough, which I believe it needs to be 29 feet wide, they can accommodate the parallel parking on that as well. So, again, this would all be in excess of code for the off- street parking. So, I did not mention that, because they are exceeding all of the parking requirements. Seal: Thank you. Commissioner Grove. Grove: Mr. Chair. Joe, could you remind us -- just kind of give us an overview of what was continued and kind of if there is any parameters on the discussion tonight? Dodson: Commissioner Grove, Becky actually outlined that way better than I did, admittedly, about why we were continued. The majority of it was as discussed, the overall density, including more commercial and, frankly, removing all the apartments -- or some and per some of my recommendations and analysis in my staff report. Those are the -- really the main issues. I guess a secondary one is just overall compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods, but that was based largely in the inclusion of apartments versus townhomes or single family. From my perspective they have responded to each of the comments that were in that previous hearing and have answered -- well, I do not have anymore concerns based upon my previous analysis. Grove: I guess my question is -- I know when we do some continuances we will have, you know, pretty limited discussion points that we are actually bringing forward to discuss. I didn't know if there was anything that we are, you know, asking the public testimony to focus on as -- as we have a fairly full house. So -- Dodson: Right. Grove: Just trying to make sure that we are all on the same page before we get started. Dodson: That's a great question, Commissioner Grove. It was my understanding because of some of the major revisions that are going to occur, it was not limited. That the overall project was going to be basically still open for public testimony. That was my understanding. I hope -- the residency -- the work the applicant and staff have done. Seal: All right. If there is no more questions, we will go ahead and open this up to public testimony. Do we have anybody signed up? A rhetorical question, more or less, but -- Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do. Online the first to sign up was Rebecca Prestwich, representing Hillsdale Creek. Seal: Good evening. Just to set -- right. Just --just to set this up, we have had several public hearings where people come forward to represent a larger group and nobody yields any time to it. So, that is one of the requirements that you are speaking for a larger group and the people that you are representing are yielding their time to you. So, who in the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F15] Page 11 of 70 audience will be yielding their time? Okay. If you would state your name and address for the record. Prestwich: Can you hear me? Seal: Yes, ma'am. Prestwich: All right. Thank you. I don't know who to address, because Madam Chair is not present, so to -- Seal: Chairman. Prestwich: Mr. Chairman, I'm Rebecca Prestwich. I live in the Hillsdale Creek Subdivision on South Bleachfield Way and I am representing the HOA for this meeting. There is a couple of things that I wanted to point out is that I'm an ordinary citizen, I don't have 25 years of planning experience, as Ms. Becky does, and I haven't been before the Commission -- only once before and that was in the last meeting. However, my observation in this meeting and in the last is that the developer's representative tends to embellish her opinions of her own -- of their own presented plan and the community's response to them and so that is something that I would like you to keep in mind as you hear all the members of the community give their testimonies today. The request from Madam Chair as I remember was to the developer to reduce the overall density of the overall proposal, quote, end quote, and that didn't really say we were particularly happy with one plan or one piece of the plan or the other, we were unhappy with the entire proposal and we did want the density reduced and that's why we are here today to see that -- that can be further addressed. Now, with the FLUM, which has been referred to, we understand that the City of Meridian has invested thousands upon thousands of dollars engaged in the research of feasibility studies and engineering towards the Comprehensive Plan and the citizens have invested their hours and time in participating in this planning development process and the citizens feel vested in doing that and, quite frankly, we had ownership in that plan and we endorsed that plan as it exists in the written FLUM and it was an eye opener to me to come to the meeting last time and to have the feeling -- and I was really grateful to Madam Chair for voicing it -- that our voice wasn't being heard and she did say, yes, your voice is being heard and she handed it back to the committee to -- I mean to the developer to further reduce the density and that doesn't mean by a small percentage, it meant to us by a significant percentage that actually represented what we understand the -- the acreage to be developed -- you know, to be designated as in the FLUM. So, I want to discuss what that is. The subject property area presently -- presently consists of two future land use designations. The mixed use neighborhood consists of 9.97 acres, according to the county assessor parcel -- and won't list that out. It's written out and approved in the land use. Medium density residential, R-8, consisting of two parcels totaling a total of 28.98 acres. That's 12 acres for one parcel and 16.98 acres for the other. That's 75 percent of the comprehensive FLUM land use proposal. Now, the Planning and Zoning -- in Idaho Code 67-6115, Subsection A, states: Planning and Zoning Commission shall evaluate the request to determine the extent and nature of the amendment. Particularly they shall consider the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F16] Page 12 of 70 given effects of any proposed zone changes upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services, including school districts within that jurisdiction. The existing conditions report of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan designated that parcel as mixed use neighborhood. That is not what the developer put forward. The developer put forward a much more dense plan than mixed use neighborhood. The intent of a mixed use neighborhood is predominantly single use developments and that means they are supportive of proportional public and quasi-public spaces, places such as parks, plazas, gathering areas, open space -- and I know Ms. Becky would argue -- argue with you that they have provided that in their plan, but if you take a look at that plan and the small spaces and the number of people that are going to live in that community, you will find that it is a relatively small number compared to all of the neighborhoods in the surrounding area. The land uses are supposed to be supporting nonresidential services. Nonresidential service -- excuse me -- services should blend in with the buildings and their uses to provide goods and services that people typically do not travel far for and some employment opportunities. The proposal had a daycare in it and now they have put other commercial proposals into it. Now, there are services, as she mentioned, on the other side. There is actually a pediatric doctor's office, a separate children's dental office, adult dental office and a separate orthodontic office and there are a few vacant commercial building spaces. Those are what the mixed use neighborhood should be consisting of. R-8 houses in the majority, the 28.98, and in that 9.68 a few commercially -- commercial opportunities for business -- businesses to establish. Now, the community does want further additional serving uses to be developed on that parcel, the 9.97 acres. What they would like to see is -- a daycare is a good idea. Possibly a preschool. It was also suggested that perhaps additional elementary school facilities that could be used by Hillsdale Creek to further support the community could be donated by the developer. A coffee shop. A sandwich shop, dog grooming, and service providers that they would visit typically once a month or less and frequent -- and frequent -- or even a less frequent basis. That's not the proposal the developer is putting forth at this moment. The community respectfully requests the Council to follow the Comprehensive Plan and to maintain the current mixed use neighborhood designation for the 9.97 acres of land. We request the City Council to deny the developer's application for 2.5 acres of C-C zoning. I don't believe that most people understood until we really read through this document that that meant that they could include one warehousing unit with -- building within this community and in a -- in a community that exists only of low density urban family housing and they are now trying to place this dense and -- and all the commercial on that place -- on that small 40 acre lot. Furthermore, the community requested -- uh, my mouth is drying out. The developer not -- not be allowed to calculate the common area -- and this is another problem I have is the common area, the buffers, the green space are all calculated into their gross density, which, then, lowers it below the six. But if you go back down to their report, the last page, you will see that they report the 6.1 gross density, but the actual net density is 9.1 and that's far beyond what the FLUM designates. Let me get to the other part and I will be done. So, now that--that is addressing the 9.69 acres. The other 28 acres -- I think it's 20 point what? Six eight? If memory serves me right. Is -- according to the original staff report at maximum allowable density and all they did was add a little bit more --just little few more strips of green space and, then, they calculated it gross and they came out with a 6.1 density and that is not a true number for what will Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F17 Page 13 of 70 happen in that community. Can you imagine 214 households -- individual households on 40 acres? Two hundred and fourteen. That's -- that's -- in my opinion gross. It is just too dense and it doesn't pattern this community. And the other thing I want to address is that originally the developer representative suggested that we were just upset about how many households were going to be there and how much traffic there was going to be and all these things, when, in fact, that wasn't our original concern. Our original concern was the overall impact of a development that dense in a community that is already overburdened in all of the aspects that we were told we could not discuss today. Seal: Ma'am, you will need to wrap up real quick. Prestwich: I will. I'm just about there. So, with regards to the 28.9 acres, the community requests that the --the developer not be allowed to calculate common area, buffers, green space, et cetera, to be calculated in their gross density calculation. I don't think that developers should be allowed to do that. They should base their calculations on net density and that's the actual house on the actual lot and how that affects the overall plan. The community would rather the developer be able to -- to calculate the net density. We believe that if you did that, the calculations would provide a greater possibility for proposed development to conform with the surrounding subdivisions. The community respectfully requests the City Council to return this proposal back to the developer to further reduce the density of the 29.8 acres parcel to R-8 calculated at the net density calculation and I appreciate the time that you have given me and I thank you. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have James Phillips signed in as a representative of the Southern Rim Coalition. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Good evening. We need your name and address for the record, please. Phillips: My name is James Phillips. I live at 4140 East Rockhampton Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. And like was mentioned, I'm representing the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition. Just as a quick preamble, I can appreciate the passion and motion shown already today. There has been a lot of public anxiety, frustration, and concern, not to mention loss of sleep that could have been avoided had the currently revised preliminary plat as we see today had been the version first proposed. I feel that the public is still smarting a bit from the original plan and it actually hurts the public's ability to see and appreciate the revised version. Today I will be focusing in on a number of public concerns where the revised plan continues to fall short of Meridian's vision. This was mentioned before, the importance of having a FLUM and it's super important to underline that. The FLUM is -- is what's used to set general public expectations and we trust P&Z and the City Council to enforce this vision. The FLUM also is used by public entities, like ACHD, West Ada, COMPASS, for planning roadwork, updating school boundaries, projecting community growth that inform city strategic planning. The FLUM also is used by developers for making decisions of whether they should buy a land for development. It Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F18 Page 14 of 70 informs them of the zoning, dwelling units, property types constraints -- constraints that developers are to respect. As you can see there is a large latitude at which development can operate. You can see that swing in number of units in the MUN. The swing in the number of units that are okay for the MDR. This is where P&Z and the City Council come into play. They have the responsibility to be good stewards of public trust by reconciling developer plans with suburban-urban planning development best practices, the expectation and needs of the public and the expectation and needs of the city. Developers are free to accept or reject P&Z recommendations, but City Council has the final say, particularly in cases of annexation and rezoning. Developers take a calculated risk when they purchase the land knowing full well that getting annexation and rezoning of their ideal liking is not a foregone conclusion. So, what are these public expectations being set by this FLUM, this nine acres of MUN, this 30 acre of MDR? These are some of the areas where -- where we still see the revised -- even the revised version falling short. This slide was taken out of the original slide deck. A few things to note. A number of concerns that break public trust had been reduced enough to actually now enumerate them here and you can see I have got a few bullet points around that. I will go into detail about that. But also a number of major red flags found in the agency comments that had been addressed by removing the three story apartment buildings, adding more commercial, adding an entryway into the commercial area. Not to say that there are any additional red flags still, but these red flags will be raised -- we can raised at the city and not necessary here at P&Z. So, let's look at this. This is, again,just outstanding concerns that we have around the MUN component, that nine acres there. In the revised we can see there is three things, actually. The fact that commercial lots are not fronting that East Amity Road is a concern for a few different reasons. One, it's vital for businesses to have patrons come in and when it -- when they are not located off of main transportation corridors they get less patrons. The other thing to note here is when you have it -- that commercial tucked in a little bit things like the public really wants, like a restaurant and cafes, they are likely not to risk their business in putting it in there. Also there is a missed opportunity of increasing some more commercial, reduce what's really needed in South Meridian, which is our employment-to-resident ratio. It's super super low. If you look at the COMPASS reports it's terrible. Absolutely terrible. We are in a restaurant desert in south Meridian. The other thing to note is around adequate parking. For the workers and the patrons of the businesses, guests and visitors of the four-plex, guests and visitors of the 40 townhomes. Possible solution there would be to actually look at Lot No. 52 and make that into a mailbox with -- with additional parking there. A possible solution. The other concern that the public has is a little bit of nuance here, but the awkward traffic flow for those townhome residents that live just south of that -- that would come out of that private alley, that Redding Lane, they can only turn one way. So, if they want to go -- lug some equipment to the park in their car, they can't turn left, they have to do a U'ee or go around. Have to keep an eye on both screens I guess. See if I can coordinate this. So, this guy right here. So, again, removing one of the four--four-plexes for more commercial off Amity. Removing one of the lots for parking. And, then, address the awkward traffic flow. This is pretty bad to navigate. Okay. I won't get into -- I will just kind of skip this slide. Just note that -- that the ideas that we will propose in the next slide are based off of coming off the Comprehensive Plan and that's where the slide come from. You can revisit it if you have any questions, but -- so, one of the -- let's start with the most glaring Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 Fig] Page 15 of 70 issue that I see and that has to do with the 39 attached townhomes that continue to extend into the MDR designated area. We ask that we swap those -- those attached townhomes for single family residents, again, to meet that expectation of medium density residential area. Next glaring concern is actually more going further south, is that those -- again, those 11 townhomes just south of West Lachlan Lane. Taking a step back you can see a plan -- you can see how there is a natural east-to-west density being transitioning until it hits up against Rockhampton neighborhood, which is great to see that. We don't get the same thing going north to south going into the Rockhampton and while Becky paints a picture that there is no need for that transitional density there, that simply is not the case. There is two considerations that have to be -- have to be made. One, the extreme difference in density between the townhome lots and the neighboring single family lots, one of which my home is. The other one is -- actually has to do with elevation. You can't really make it out, but the elevation on those is -- it's higher there and so having those two story attached to townhomes tower over the homes that are just adjacent across the street and over the entry is not appropriate. It's not cohesive with the surrounding neighborhood. So, the proposed solution would be make those single family -- single story family lots. Now, kind of putting it all together, there is a few things I would want to highlight. One is on the red. I will just walk through the different colors. On the red ones here in the comp plan talks about density transitions and where they should take place. Over alleyways or roads. Here they are taking place across back fences. This is problematic. This is -- does not meet expectations. And so the red actually puts it into alignment with the Comprehensive Plan by adjusting the lots to be aligned and density with their back neighbors. The purple, like I mentioned in the slide before, addresses the neighborhood compatibility issue and the surrounding areas to the south. The orange, again, to meet MDR expectations set by the FLUM we ask that these townhomes be replaced with single family residents. Lots for the green. This is to address walkability within the neighborhood. There are some good things of walkability east to west, but not going north to south, particularly as it goes to those neighbors walking to the main park there. And, finally, the last thing I want to highlight is actually the entire areas of blue. Propose that this should be R-8 zoning. Right now the smaller single -- the smaller lots you see in that area they are on average 3,500 square feet. By having an R-8 zoning it would require that to be a minimum of 4,000 square feet. And why is that? Why does that matter, just 500 square feet? Well, a couple different things. First, when it comes to real estate, just remember what they say, location, location, location. It's not lot size. Price is impacted more by surrounding neighborhoods, amenities, build cost, quality than would be by 500 square feet of lot size. The economic factors out -- there is economic factors outside the control of one builder in one preliminary plat that's going on in Meridian right now. The existing surrounding neighborhood -- exuberant home values have bigger impact on the prices of these homes than the square lot. So, why -- what is that difference? What does that 500 square for -- Seal: Sir, you will need to wrap up quickly. Phillips: That 500 square feet lot will allow individuals to have -- to make their house a home. Front porches for neighborhoods. Patios for family to gather in. Additional living space to watch Boise State games, areas for a family getting started. Additional storage Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F20 Page 16 of 70 so they can actually park in their garage. And so that's why I request that that be made R-8 zoning. Thank you. Seal: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have any -- who else do we have signed up? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we had several people sign up in house. Only one indicating a wish to testify and that's Thomas Dayley. Seal: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record and -- Dayley: Thank you. Thomas Dayley. 4892 South Willandra Way, Boise. 83709. 1 guess I would -- first of all, I would like to thank the Commission for extending their time for consideration. We appreciate the fact that you have done that. You asked them significant questions in the August meeting. Some of those were addressed and I would like to talk about some of those as well and appreciate the developer as well trying to accommodate some of the issues that were brought forward by the Commission, as well as the community. However, I don't think all of those were addressed and that's where I would like to get to. I am a very supporter of private property rights. I think the developer has his property and he has a right to develop it. That's not what we are talking about here. It's how it's developed. By the same token, the people who own the homes adjacent to that property also have property rights and they are going to be impacted negatively by the proposed -- proposal as it's being developed and I think that's part of what the Commission needs to be considering as well. Not only the developer's property rights, but the land -- other landowners' property rights as well and try to -- try to accommodate both of those. We have had significant questions asked here by the -- by the people that have been brought forward and I think -- one of the questions I would like to ask to the Commission is do you feel that all of the questions have been appropriately answered as you consider approving this or not? And another question is are there other alternatives that a developer could use to reduce the density and one of the options that I would like you to consider is -- in my previous work I worked with the National Resource Conservation Service, which has what they call an urban farming program and that dedicates places within an urban environment where a developer or a landowner can actually get an easement -- paid money for an easement. That easement, then, dedicates property for urban farming for plots for -- for gardens -- urban gardens. Education. You have a school right next to part of the -- the plan there, as well as it's an educational purpose for kids in a school where they can see farming, how it's done, et cetera. So, there are lots of options like that a developer could have, which will reduce the density and also provide a very good use. And the developer gets paid for this. There is an easement and they get paid current land values for that property and I know this developer has owned this property for a long period of time and is now finally getting to develop it. So, I understand that. But for the last 20 years that they have owned it and haven't been able to develop, it -- it's increased in value. They haven't lost value and that's what this urban farming program would do as well, it would allow a time period and at the end of the 20, 30 years for the easement, they can still come back and develop it and it would actually do more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan of transitional. Twenty years from now that portion of the City of Meridian will be much more attuned to the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F21 Page 17 of 70 development of commercial and the other things and this developer would still have the ability to retain it -- retain their value and also be able to have a transitional development process and it would also reduce the impact at this point in time with the adjacent landowners. So, I think -- I guess my request to the Commission is to -- there has been significant questions asked here that I still don't think have been addressed. Like the parking. The traffic flow. The commercial development where there is a warehouse. A warehouse does not fit in this community. But that's part of their commercial -- commercial proposal. Seal: Sir, you will need to wrap up here real quick. Dayley: So, just to wrap up, the townhouses to single family homes. That's a significant impact that I think that the Commission should deal with. Request for zoning. Parking. When they said -- at least my understanding is 219 homes and nine guest parking. That's why I just -- and maybe I misunderstood what she said, but that is not sufficient. There is some quite -- there is still unanswered questions I think that the Commission should be asking of the developer that we should walk through. Thank you. Seal: Thank you. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, that's all we have signed in indicating a wish to testify and I don't see any raised hands online at this time. Seal: Anybody in Chamber, if you would like to testify, please, raise your hand. Okay. If there is nobody else online, would the applicant like to -- Dodson: Mr. Chair? Seal: Oh. Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: I would like to go first, if I don't-- if you don't mind. If the applicant doesn't mind. Just a couple things to clarify for the Commission. On the proposed flex space is not -- how do I put this? It cannot be all warehouse that's for sure. There are minimum requirements that are specific use standards that require a minimum of 30 percent office, no more than a certain amount of retail, but that does not mean that the remaining 70 percent is always warehouse. Largely these flex space units are a pretty even mix of kind of an office, warehouse type of deal that some small business uses to have a little bit of product, I guess, and, then, they have their offices there. I have seen this work really well throughout the city and throughout the valley. It's becoming more and more popular and they are generally low impact on both vehicle trips, as well as overall traffic. So, I do think that that's why the applicant chose that. If the Commission so desires additional -- like we discussed previously -- multi-tenant building for some kind of retail, commercial, restaurant, coffee shop kind of use, that will increase traffic compared to a flex space building for sure in the area. So, that kind of goes against some of the other issues that we have been discussing -- discussing. So, I do want to make that clear. And, then, the -- the density conversation has -- and the future land use map has come up repeatedly, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F22 Page 18 of 70 not just with this project. That's every project. I do want to be clear that the -- the area shown on the future land use map for the future land use designations is not parcel specific. So, it's very difficult to say that certain parcels should have certain future land use map on it or certain acreages and things like that. That's not how we do that. Secondly, to make this applicant utilize the net density versus gross density is completely against what we have in our Comprehensive Plan. Our Comprehensive Plan specifically designates that the density is based off of gross. That's every single project, including the existing that's already there. It's all based on gross density. This does happen to have a fair amount of area that's buffers and they have a large amount of open space. Regardless, they are absolutely meeting their density requirements. Commission and future hearings at the Council can disagree overall and that's fine, but minimally code and future land use they are complying with those density requirements. I just wanted to make that clear. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back up. Or did Joe steal all your thunder? I stole some of his tonight, so I'm feeling bad about that. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. As far as the density of this plan -- I mean we -- when -- after we heard the Commission's comments and the neighbors comments -- none of the comments were ignored. I mean we sat down and we spent a couple hours basically going through my detailed notes of not only your comments, but the neighboring comments. We reduced our density by 108 units. We have dropped our density 33 percent. At the same time we have increased our open space significantly and I'm not even counting the eight foot landscape buffer that's on my detached walks along my local streets, which you are allowed to count. I have excluded that. There was a comment about -- that we are embellishing our plan. I mean we have been working really really hard over the past couple months on this plan. We even sent some drafts to the staff to get feedback. We have provided 104 parking spaces. Staff said, hey, we want some parallel parking spaces. So, we --we have them inset. They are not on the private drive or the alley, they are inset to the landscaping to give that more traditional neighborhood look, that more integrated look. The FLUM was brought up. The FLUM, the UDC, every other municipality in this state looks at density from a gross density standpoint. We provide the gross density calculation. We also provide the net density calculation. That R-8 zone allows three to eight dwelling units per acre or 3.45. The R-15 allows 15 dwelling units per acre and we are 7.44 and our overall density, excluding the commercial area -- so, all we are talking about is the residential zoned area, we are at 6.01 gross density, which is within that medium density designation. There was comments made about mixed use. Mixed use doesn't mean commercial. Mixed use doesn't mean townhomes. If you look at your Comprehensive Plan, your definitions within your ordinance, mixed use talks about townhomes. It talks about -- it talks about four-plexes. Detached single family dwellings. Attached single family dwellings. Neighborhood commercial. Flex space. Flex space is not warehouse. A flex -- I -- there is property on the northwest corner of Hill Road and Highway 55 that has sat vacant for -- it's pushing probably 15 years. Finally a use went on it and it's a mixture of some flex space, where it's a business, but they have -- they have material storage in their -- in their building and, then, next door to them is a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F23 Page 19 of 70 coffee shop. So, it's kind of integrated and I thought, you know, that's -- that's unique and the -- the elevations of the building meet all of the design guidelines for commercial. I mean we are trying to figure out -- one of the comments was the transportation. The lowest traffic generator is something like a combination flex space, maybe a little retail component and a daycare, so that we are not generating so much traffic. Absolute retail generates a significant amount of traffic. A comment was made why don't you have an approach out to Amity Road? Amity Road is a major artery -- or minor arterial. ACHD will not allow us to have any access to Amity. We did add another access to Hillsdale Avenue, which is a collector, to make our commercial component more viable and if you look at that site plan -- if Joe could bring it up -- you can see that it has -- the commercial node has its own access and that will be a full access. We only asked for a right-in, right- out. ACHD came back and said, no, that will be a full access, because it's a full access that you are aligning with on the west side at the Hillsdale commercial. So, you can see that we have added another access to make that commercial component viable and allow it to have transfer -- or access outside of the neighborhood and within the neighborhood. It was mentioned this plan falls short of the vision. This is a priority growth area that the city has spent a significant amount of money for the regional park. They wanted the South Meridian YMCA, elementary school. West Ada School District owns additional property north of Amity. There is a charter school that's going to come online next fall that will also serve the same area as Hillsdale Elementary and at the same time that we are being bashed, we are also going to have to install the signal at Hillsdale Avenue and Amity, which is going to benefit not only us, but everyone in this community and allow them to make left-hand turns more easily. We are also going to be widening all of our frontage along Amity. We are going to have a turn lane. We are not solely depending on Hillsdale Avenue, an intrusion into this neighborhood, and it's not intrusion, because that is a mid mile collector that was intended to handle a significant amount of traffic. But we also have our Amity Road approach. So, that gives us an opportunity for our residents to go eastbound and make a right-hand turn on Amity. We have connected to the stub streets. I have nine and ten thousand square foot lots all around my perimeter, matching them lot line for lot line. And, then, transitioning the lots across from those lots, so that we have different variety of lots. That is the whole objective of mixed use, that we provide a variety of home products, a variety of mixed uses. The traffic that we were initially going to generate was 2,600 vehicles per day. I have got that traffic down to about 2,025. That's at build out. That's over four phases, which will probably be built over a four year period. So, this -- this project will come online incrementally. My overall landscaping is seven acres and that seven acres -- I mean you got to remember the size of the property is 38 and I have 7.19 acres of common area. That's 18 and a half percent of this property is in Iandscapable area, with pathways and significant amenities for these residents and we -- we have done -- we have -- we have put plazas in. We have art. We have pickleball courts. We have a swimming pool. We have --we have pathways. Picnic shelters. Multi- use pathways. Nature pathways. I mean for a piece of property that's this size, we have really worked to make sure that it incorporates the vision that's in your comp plan and we missed the mark with the first version. The density was too great. The three story was not appropriate. And I believe the Commission made the right decision to say, hey, Becky, take another look at this. Go back to your client, see what you can do. Come back with a good -- a better plan. A better plan that fits this area. This plan fits this area. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F24 Page 20 of 70 This plan complies with your Comprehensive Plan and to just say, hey, we got to all be single family, that -- that defeats the whole purpose of the land use map and what we are trying to create in Meridian in this particular area and if you can't get density, how do you build the signals? How do you afford to build all the amenities? How do you afford to put in the pedestrian signal to improve the safer route to schools? I mean we are doing everything -- everything we can to not only make our development the best it can be, but to improve this overall neighborhood and make it safer for everyone and I ask the Commission to support it and recognize the effort and the time that's been put into it and the recommendation of your staff. Thank you. Seal: Thank you. Any final questions? If not I will ask that I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2021-0046. Grove: So moved. Wheeler: Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. H- 2021-0046. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? So, motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Seal: All right, Commissioners, who wants to go first? Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Where to start? The -- the applicant did make some significant improvements and the reduction -- I mean that's one of the biggest reductions that I have seen on a project this size for a continuance. Just kind of throwing that out there. So, the two years I have been here I haven't seen that big a reduction on a continuance before. So, kudos to your team for-- for doing that. I definitely see and have read and can feel the palpable emotions of the audience and the residents on this. So, I definitely understand, you know, what is being said and why it's being said. I -- I have some things that I like about it. I have some things that I don't like. I would say the likes that I have on this, with this revision, the second edition connection to Hillsdale to get that commercial, that definitely increases that -- the value for everybody just in terms of reducing traffic and making the commercial more accessible. I like that you have included the commercial. I think that having a better narrative on what that is in terms of -- I don't think most people will understand what flex space is, so as you go forward and making sure that that is better communicated as to the intentions, so that the current residents understand a little bit more of your intentions with that space, so that there isn't hesitancy and confusion and misunderstanding. I think anytime that misunderstandings can be cleared up it works in everybody's favor. This is not a process where we are going to get everything that everybody wants. It's a compromise and just because there is pieces that the developer Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F25] Page 21 of 70 likes and the residents don't and vice-versa doesn't mean that the process is wrong. It means that it's a compromise. I like that you have improved the entrance. The amenities look great. I think that there is room for improvement on some of the -- as -- I think -- let me see if I had it right here. James mentioned some of the north-south connections. I don't know if there is any ability to squeeze those in to get additional north-south passages, but well -- well made point and think that's where I'm at for right now. But I'm sure I will come back on in a minute. Seal: All right. Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead. Wheeler: Thank you, Chairman. I'm -- I am, too, with Commissioner Grove on this, that -- that to go ahead and reduce your -- when a developer comes out to go ahead and purchase a piece of property, obviously, he is doing his proforma and he is trying to figure out, okay, how much can I make per acre and to go ahead and reduce that size -- or that amount by a third, that's --that's significant and still want to move forward with the project. That's -- that's significant. I'm also seeing that a lot of the stuff that we talked about and suggested the developer did put into practice or into this -- into this plan here in order to -- so, it seems like he was responsive and wanting to listen to what was being shared from the Commission. The -- the flex spaces -- yeah, I -- as I look at this you are -- you are next to a daycare, you are going to be next to a school, you are next to the Y. There is no doubt in my mind there is going to be a coffee shop here. It just seems like this is just a perfect little spot for it, somewhere in here on this flex space. One of the things I was looking at, too, was just the traffic pattern, but -- and this is maybe where this might have some jurisdiction over on ACHD side of things, but coming in most likely they will be coming in off a Hillsdale, turning left into the full access that's at the most north -- yeah. Northwestern part of the project and, then, turning right. You got a daycare there. Right again. Right again. And a back. And that landscape buffer that comes in off of Park prohibits people from coming into the daycare with a left-hand turn, going ahead and jamming up traffic within the interior drive aisles and so there seems to have been some good thought on that, on even just the traffic flow pattern on that, so -- and the reduction in the height coming down from three stories down to two, it seems to have accommodated some of the concerns of the neighbors on this. I'm -- I like the adjustments that were done here. I like the way that there was a lot of thought put back into what was said from both the Commission and also written testimony. A lot of open space, comparatively speaking, to other projects of the same size and at the same time I'm with Commissioner Grove on this. There is some things maybe I would do different, but all in all all of this has been put together pretty well with a lot of willingness to listen to the input that was given. Seal: All right. Commissioner Yearsley, you want to jump in on this? Yearsley: Thank you very much. I might be the only one in the room, per se, saying I think Becky did a great job. This looks so much better than it did before. It just -- you know, to come in with that much of a reduction in home -- units is -- is amazing and I think she did a very good job laying it all out and making it look good. So, like I said, I think it looks good. I am one in full favor of property rights and -- and having the developer Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F26 Page 22 of 70 develop as they would like within reasonable limits, with -- as set by the city and I think they have done that and I am in full support of this project. Seal: Okay. Thank you. I'm kind of with Commissioner Yearsley, I think they have done a good job of listening to the concerns, reducing things overall. Like -- like Commissioner Grove said, this is one of the largest reductions I have seen. So, hopefully, a third is -- is enough. I mean if any one of you were asked to give up a third of anything that you have with potential, it's probably a hard pill to swallow. So, they have swallowed it and acted on it. So, if anybody has questions on flex space and what that might mean, you might want to stick around for the Red Aspen presentation we have next -- coming next as far as what a commercial space can do. Flex space can do. It will be enlightening for you. So, they are -- they are good for our communities. I guess one of the things I'm -- I still get a little discouraged about is there is a lot of talk about how, you know, everybody's -- nobody's against development, but they just don't want it in their area, so -- I mean, unfortunately, Meridian is -- it's a big area and it's growing. I mean we are the fastest growing city in the United States. So, it's -- it's coming, it's here, and we do have to manage it well. I applaud the applicant for listening and doing what was asked. I think to ask for more at this point in time is not appropriate, to be perfectly honest. So, with that will -- oh, go ahead, Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: I would like to go ahead make a motion. Seal: Absolutely. Motions are always -- always admired here. Wheeler: After considering all staff, applicant -- staff, applicant, and public testimony, move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2021-0046, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21, 2021, with the -- Grove: With the -- with the changes in the staff memo; right? Wheeler: Do we need to put that in there, too? Okay. And also with the changes per the staff memo. Seal: Okay. Yearsley: I will second that. Seal: Do I have a second? Oh. Commissioner Yearsley, thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2021-0046 with -- with the modifications in the staff memo. All those in favor say aye. No opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for Elsinore Daycare Facility (H-2021-0061) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 4818 and 4858 N. Elsinore Ave. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F27 Page 23 of 70 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request to construct a new 13,535 square foot, single-story daycare facility on approximately 1.3 acres of land on Lots 12 and 13 of the Paramount Square Subdivision in the C-G zoning district. Seal: All right. Thank you everyone. With that we will move to open public hearing for Elsinore Daycare Facility, H-2021-0061. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Seal: We will go ahead and give everybody a minute to clear out here. Sorry about that. Dodson: No problem. Seal: All right, Joe. Go ahead. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Seal. Onto the next one. And I have the one after this, so, sorry, you got to hear me more. The application before you tonight, Item No. 6, Elsinore Daycare Facility, which is for a conditional use permit. The site consists of 1.38 -- sorry -- 1.3 acres of land, currently zoned C-G, located at 4018 and 4858 North Elsinore. So, they are currently two properties. They have tentative approval for a property boundary adjustment to combine the properties into one for the proposed use. Brief overlay of what is surrounding this development. To the north is C-G zoning, with some commercial, which also does include an existing daycare, which is about two lots -- it's on this lot -- where is it? This lot right here. To the east is C-G zoning and some undeveloped commercial, as well as existing commercial. To the south is McMillan Road. South of that, obviously, is some medium density residential. To the west is R-40 and as you can see on the aerial -- so, higher density. Multi-family residential. The proposed use of a daycare, which has more than 12 children, daycare center, is a community serving commercial use that fits within the future land use designation of commercial. The proposed location is at the western edge of a commercial subdivision and directly across the street for multi-family residential, which functionally creates a mixed use development. The daycare use is needed -- is a needed use throughout the entire city and providing it at nearby higher density meets many of the city's desired outcomes for commercial development. A daycare center, again, which is more than 12 children, is listed in the UDC as a conditional use within the C-G zoning district. It is also subject to specific use standards. Discussions with the applicant have yielded that 165 children are proposed to be served by this daycare center, with approximately 10 to 12 staff members. The number of staff members will be determined by state required student-staff ratios. Staff has recommended a conditional use permit to limit the child capacity to 165 children. When a commercial district, as is the case here, directly abuts a residential zoning, which, again, is to the west, the C-G zoning district limits the hours of operation from 6.00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The applicant has stated that their intended hours of operation actually is 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m., which is within this range. Staff did not specifically limit the hours of operation to the 6:00 to 6:00 as was proposed specifically, because we wanted to give them flexibility if they happened to want to do additional later hours, you know, 7.00, 8:00 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F28 Page 24 of 70 for some of those workforce housing people who may not get off at 5:00 p.m. Direct lot access is proposed along the west boundary via a driveway connection to Elsinore, which is the public road here, and loops around to the north and east. An additional driveway connection is proposed to the north property boundary as shown. So, you have one access here, another access here. Because this is to a public road that has to meet offset requirements per ACHD, this is a shared drive aisle, so there are no such offset requirements. The shared drive aisle along the north is existing and goes through the entire commercial development. This creates cross-access and is already existing as noted. So, the entire commercial subdivision provides multiple points of access to Meridian Road and McMillan. As part of this application the applicant was required to perform a turn lane analysis by ACHD for the Elsinore and McMillan intersection, which would be right here. Sorry. I wanted to do this to obtain data on the existing traffic movements at this intersection and what the proposed use would incur to this intersection. ACHD reviewed this and staff agrees with its findings as well. The requirements are to construct a dedicated westbound right-turn lane. I said that wrong. A dedicated westbound left-turn lane from McMillan onto Elsinore and, then, eastbound -- I completely messed that up -- and eastbound right-turn lane from McMillan onto Elsinore. Staff is not sure if the right-turn lane will affect any dimensional aspect of the site, but anticipates that it will not. My only concern there is where the existing right of way is and, then, the existing landscape buffers. It's my understanding that the landscape buffer was already measured from the ultimate right of way and anticipated a right-hand turn lane, but per the submitted plans that has not been shown. That is the Joe's 90 percent probable on that one. The specific use standards require that onsite vehicle pick up or parking and turnaround area shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients -- or children in this case. Access to the building, again, is shown with a two way 25 foot wide driveway along the west side of the building, with parking on both sides that equals 36 total spaces. Code requires a minimum of 27 per the one per 500 ratio. There is not a specific additional ratio for daycares. The proposed building size is 13,500, which is how you get 27 spaces. The site plan does not show any dedicated pick up or drop-off location like a turnout or something like that, which is fairly common in other daycares, but not always a requirement. Staff has concerns that the proposed parking and drive aisle as noted could be overrun in the morning and afternoon peak hours with the current site design. Staff does recommend a reduction in the building size in order to scoot everything south -- everything by play area south and create additional parking as noted here. Basically, emulate this and put it here and you have at least approximately ten additional parking spaces that can be added in total 46 for the site would help with the concerns regarding any backing up of parents dropping and picking up their children. Staff -- with these changes staff does not anticipate reduction in the play area, but just the building. do want to make that clear. I don't want to lose the outdoor play area for the children at this location. That was really the only issue that staff found, to be honest, and that's -- other than that I will say that the --there is no written testimony and staff does recommend approval of the subject CUP, but with the conditions that are outline in the report, one of which being add this additional parking. I will stand for any questions. Seal: At this time would the applicant like to come forward? Is the applicant online? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F29 Page 25 of 70 Kozlowski: I am here. Good evening. My name is Samantha Kozlowski. I'm here on behalf of 814 Development. We are a development company located at 1695 12 Mile Road, Suite 100, in Berkley, Michigan. 48072. Thank you, Joe, for taking the time to go through that presentation. I think that you have painted a really good picture of the development and what we are trying to accomplish here and all of the benefits that we will bring to the City of Meridian. I know in the staff report there were a couple of items that, unfortunately, we will not be able to abide by. The major one being the reduction in the building size that you had requested. We are working with a specific childcare tenant. This building, the 13,535 square feet, is their prototypical building that they use and they need it to operate functionally with the number of students, being the 165 students maximum, with the ten to 12 staff members. So, operationally, that is the building size that they have used in the past and that would be the prototype that they would be most comfortable moving forward with. A couple of other concerns. I know that you had recommended adding some additional parking. We see currently that we are meeting the parking requirements and, actually, exceeding the parking requirements with the 36 spaces, where the 27 are actually required by the zoning ordinance. We are -- we think that with the two drive aisles that there shouldn't be an issue with parking or any increase to traffic from this development. That just -- the reason why we think that goes along with the actual operation of the daycare facility--so, parents or guardians actually are required to park and, then, drop off -- or, I'm sorry, to park and walk in the student to the school and actually sign them in at a front desk. So, we don't have your typical pick up, drop off area where the students can be waiting outside. The garden -- the guardian is actually going to have to escort them into the building and, then, when they want to pick them up at the end of the day they will have to go inside the building to retrieve the student as well. So, we kind of see that as mitigating some of the traffic concerns and just to go along that note, we are working with ACHD right now on a proposed plan for the turn lanes onto North Elsinore Road. So, we also think that if that development plan were to move forward and we are working on developing the plans right now, that that would help mitigate any traffic concerns as well and those really are the major things that I just kind of wanted to explain and give you a little bit more color into why they may not work for the tenant and just kind of wanted to give you their overall needs and wants for this project and just kind of explain that operationally a smaller building will not work for them. So, we would like to move forward with the 13,535 square foot building and maintain the existing parking layout that's shown on our concept plan, since it already meets the parking requirements in the zoning ordinance. We do feel that this is a need that is desired by the City of Meridian. We think that it would add a lot of benefit to the community, not only providing a place for parents and guardians to have their children in daycare, but also to provide a number of jobs to the local community as well. So, we know that Joe has expressed that this is an inherent need within the City of Meridian and we ask that the City of Meridian support our project going with our existing concept plan. Seal: Is that everything? Kozlowski: That is all I have at this time. If you have any other questions I'm more than happy to address them at this point. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F30 Page 26 of 70 Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. From our Commissioners are there any questions of staff or the applicant? Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Mr. Grove, go ahead. Grove: Joe, real quick. You said there was another childcare facility fairly close. Is your parking concern based on concerns that we have had with that facility and do we have any numbers on what the parking is at that facility? I mean I know it might not match square footage wise, but it might give us some -- something to go off of. I have my own personal experience with it, so I have some thoughts on that later, but just wanted to know if there was any information that I'm not seeing. Dodson: Commissioner Grove, great question. I do not know the specific counts for those. They have a different site design where they kind of put the building in the corner and, then, they have a one way drive aisle and angled parking and, then, a specific drop off location as well, so that -- that creates in and out very smoothly. This has a two way traffic, which with the multiple avenues in and out with the -- with the shared drive aisle, I did note that in my staff report. Some of those concerns are mitigated because of that. If we didn't have a shared drive aisle through the subdivision, the commercial subdivision, this would be a complete disaster. So, thankfully that's there. You and Mr. -- Commissioner Seal are on the same page there with having had other issues with this with daycares. It is my understanding that specifically we have not. We have had a lot more issues with drive-throughs, specifically coffee shops that shall remain unnamed, but not so much with daycares. The issue largely comes up when Fire and Police get involved and there are -- there are general life and safety concerns about just kids running across parking lots, the parking area is now becoming the drop off area, other than just a park and walk kind of thing. There is just kind of those concerns that we have. So, anytime we can add some additional parking to help mitigate some of those concerns staff is going to ask for that. I will say regarding the overall size of the building, it is unfortunate to hear that reducing the size might kill the overall project just -- just because the Commission has approved more children in a building less than half the size of this. So, that's not really saying business wise that makes sense, but it is possible to have this is -- this is literally twice as big as another CUP that we did for a daycare that had 20 additional children. So, there -- there is precedent here that a 13,500 square foot building is rather large for a daycare, especially for this number of children. That is also why we capped it at 165, with the understanding that if we don't there could be a potential to have vastly more children, which would be more cars and more traffic and further exacerbate the issue. Long winded. I apologize. Seal: Joe, quick question. Is there parking allowed on Elsinore or on the street to the north? Dodson: Commissioner Seal, I believe Elsinore is a local -- it is a local road. So, technically, yes, you could park -- as long as it's wide enough, which it's a public road, so Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F31 Page 27 of 70 it's going to be wide enough to have parallel parking on both sides where there aren't any driveways. The shared drive aisle, no. That's just a drive aisle. Except for, as I have noted, where you put parking like this. But this is wide enough to have on-street parking. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome. Seal: Any other questions at this time? All right. At this time we will take public testimony. Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, there is not. Seal: All right. Anyone raising their hand online? Anybody in Chamber would like to testify? Just raise your hand. Okay. Seeing none -- Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Oh. Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Just say I move to close public testimony on File No. H -- Seal: We are close. You are ahead a little bit. Would the applicant like to come back? Is there -- is there anything that the applicant would like to add at this time before we do close the public hearing? Kozlowski: This is Samantha with 814 Development. Again the applicant. Thank you again for your concerns and all the comments. I do understand the concern with the building size. However, as stated, this is the tenant's proposed and prototypical building type that they are used to using. So, I think that they favor a smaller number of children in classrooms, so that each child can get enough attention and time from the team members that are working within the facility. So, I think that that is really important to the tenant and, then, just, again, wanted to stress that there is no drop off and pick up area, so all the parents and guardians are actually going to be parked. So, there shouldn't really be an influx of a bunch of cars all at one time. There aren't any specified pick up and drop off times either, so parents and guardians are kind of coming throughout the morning. There are peak hours, but they aren't all flooding in at the exact same time. So, just wanted to stress that and, obviously, we are working with ACHD to try to mitigate any further traffic concerns and, again, we hope that you are in support of the project as the current site plan stands and thank you again for your time this evening. Seal: Okay. Thank you. At this time can I get a motion to close public hearing? Wheeler: So moved. Grove: So moved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F32 Page 28 of 70 Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. H-2021- 0061 for Elsinore Daycare Facility. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Seal: Okay. Who wants to jump in first? Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove. Grove: All right. Back to the parking piece. Having to go to a childcare facility multiple times a week and do pick up, drop off, I'm very familiar with the in and out setup versus a drop off setup. I had an experience with that at another facility. But the in and out I think you are looking at -- let's say 12 staff. You have 36 parking spots. That means you have 24 spots for parents. Without specified pick up and drop off times at a childcare facility like this I don't see this being an issue. I have never seen 24 people come in to pick up and drop off. The only time this is going to be an issue is when the facility decides to have an event to have all of the parents come in at once for holiday singing or Father's Day, Mother's Day, those types of things. That is when that is going to be an issue and I think that having a good relationship with the surrounding businesses is going to be a key element for those times and that the applicant needs to take that into consideration. But for day-to-day operations I don't see the 36 parking spots being an issue. With that I would be in favor of not requiring additional parking and I think, you know, anything we can do to get more childcare facilities in I think we got to really push that. It's -- it's pretty tough out there. Seal: Joe, just real quick, what -- what is the specific requirement number that's in the staff report for the parking? Dodson: Commissioner Seal, do you mean the minimum code requirement? Seal: No. Just the -- what number is it in the staff report? Dodson: Oh. Condition you are talking about. Seal: Condition. Sorry. Dodson: I do not have that up. In a motion, if you guys want to remove my recommendations, I think there is multiple, so that I think a general motion of saying approve without staff's recommended conditions of site modification I can go through and handle that. That's specific enough for me. Seal: Just in case. I want you to be ready. Mr. Wheeler? Mr. Yearsley? Either one. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F33 Page 29 of 70 Yearsley: You know, I will defer to Commissioner Grove on daycare. I have not had to take my kids to daycare, fortunately enough. But I like it. I think it's a good -- you know, it's a good facility. Looks -- in a good location and I would stand in support of it and also not requiring the additional parking. Seal: Okay. I have got a little bit of mixed feelings on this. I do think the parking is adequate and when I say adequate I think it's just adequate at this point in time, so it does exceed the minimum parking requirements for a facility like -- or, sorry, I should say a building like this. That said, it's -- with the drop off and pick up, I have had experience where it can get crowded, it can be a problem, depending on how traffic does actually flow through there. So, I think the way that it's laid out and the way that traffic can flow through that it mitigates some of those issues. The fact that there can be on-street parking to handle the events, like Commissioner Grove talked about, because that was one of the things in my mind is you have the Christmas program and all the parents show up and, you know, grandparents and aunts and uncles and everything, then, it gets really crowded really fast and those -- those become an issue, so -- but I like the idea of this. I think it's a -- it's a good area to put it. I think, you know, they -- it looks like they have kind of a cookie cutter approach to it, so they know what they are doing as far as laying it out. That seems to work for their business. I could essentially go either way, basically, on the parking recommendation at this point. So, I think it's -- but I do think it's a good -- good proposal. Would be good for the area. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Seal: Joe, go ahead. Dodson: Specifically the conditions that would be noted -- I do remember now that the applicant also wanted to strike an additional condition that she did not bring up, so I will do it for her. Regarding adding a pedestrian connection to McMillan. Their justification was they are proposing one here, which is fine. It was just me being picky. I'm okay with saying no or -- and striking that. So, it would be condition 6-A for the parking and 6-C for the sidewalk, if Commission is amenable to that. Seal: Understood. And thank you for being picky. 1, for one, appreciate that. With that if anybody has anymore to add or always looking for a motion. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove. Grove: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0061 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21 st, 2021, with the following modifications: That we strike conditions 6-A and 6-C. Wheeler: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F34 Page 30 of 70 Seal: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2021-0061 for Elsinore Daycare Facility with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing for Red Aspen (H-2021-0066) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at the southeast corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.99 acres of land with a request for the C-G zoning district for the purpose of constructing an approximate 30,000-square-foot flex space building on 2.19 acres of land. Seal: All right. We are coming up on 8:00 o'clock. Would anybody like a quick bio break before we press on? Okay. It looks like we are pressing. So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for Red Aspen, H-2021-0066 and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is my last one for the night and, then, I won't bug you for two weeks. So, we will hammer through this. The application before you tonight is for annexation and zoning of 2.99 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT and it's located at the southeast corner of Linder and Overland. To the north Overland Road. How about that? North of that you have I-L zoning with Camping World RV service, storage, and I don't know what else is there. Sales I believe as well. To the east is R-8 zoning and the -- Meridian's newest fire station. To the south is R-15 zoning and existing multi-family residential and to the west is Linder Road and, then, west of that would be C-C zoning and some -- I believe there is one existing building and the other -- some of the other properties are currently under development. There is no history of applications with the city. The property does have two future land use designations. You can't really see it on this map, because of the lines, but there is a sliver of medium density along the south boundary and the rest is commercial. The annexation and zoning request of the nearly three acres is a request for the C-G zoning district for the purpose of constructing an approximate 30,000 square foot flex space building on 2.19 acres. So, as you can tell there is about -- I can't do math -- eight-tenths of an acre of land that's purely in -- the zoning this goes to the centerline of the roads. Despite two future land use designations, the city does anticipate commercial uses on this corner property, especially because it is adjacent to two heavily trafficked arterial roadways and near the future planned, hopefully coming soon, Linder Road overpass directly to the north. The proposed use of flex space is subject to specific use standards 11-43-18 and is proposed to serve as the core office and warehouse of a local business Red Aspen. It is a social selling, which is online, beauty company that aims to utilize this site as their brand new main hub for their growing business. Flex space is a principally permitted use in the requested C-G zoning district. Access to the site is proposed to be one connection to Linder and one connection to Overland, with both accesses being restricted to right-in, right-out per ACHD. The access to Overland is existing, whereas the access to Linder Road is an existing 25 foot wide Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F35] Page 31 of 70 access that is projected to be widened to 40 feet and be shared with the residential property. In my staff report I noted that no agreement had been provided. Since my staff report I have been given that agreement and it has -- it is in place. Both proposed access points are as far away from the Linder and Overland Road intersection as physically possible. So, again, they -- they really can't move them over anymore to the east or to the south. The applicants propose to place the building near the hard corner and pull it away from the existing multi-family residential to the south. It's approximately 119 feet from the loading docks -- or I should say really the building wall to the south property line. This area that's 119 feet does include the required 25 foot land use buffer here. No buffer is required adjacent to the fire station, because it is not a residential use. As proposed the required five feet of landscaping per the parking lot standards -- parking lot landscaping standards. The applicant is also showing the required landscape buffers to the adjacent arterial streets Linder and Overland. The buffer adjacent to Overland is shown wider than the required 25 feet. Due to required right of way dedication and the larger landscape buffer, the proposed building is shown approximately 42 feet behind the existing sidewalk -- attached sidewalk along Overland. The -- it has the building being further south than staff did originally anticipate. In order to help the site gain back some of this usable area and create more space between the building, the proposed use and the existing residential to the south, staff is recommending the applicant reduce the landscape buffer to Overland by going through the alternative compliance process with future applications, which for the record, tonight just annexation and zoning, because the use is principally permitted. In this -- in the requested zone of C-G their next step would be administrative approvals, which would be certificate of zoning compliance and design review. Staff finds that the revision to the site of moving it further north had two positive outcomes. The building can be moved further north towards Overland to create a better presence and streetscape along this corridor and, secondly, moving the building further north creates further separation from the existing residential to the south, while at the same time allowing more area for truck turnaround in the south area of the site. The applicant has stated that the hour -- the planned hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with occasional Saturday hours during peak holiday season, which would be about this time of year, October through December. Most importantly, the applicant has stated that any freight deliveries will only occur during normal business hours. Due to the proposed hours of operation staff does believe the proposed development agreement provisions, the screening method -- and the screening methods will be sufficient in mitigating any negative consequences of the proposed use. Staff did not include any specific provisions to limit the hours operation, because, again, it is adjacent to the residential district, so they are limited by code from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. If Commission finds it needed to limit it further you have that purview. Designed floor plans do show compliance with all specific use standards for the proposed flex space as discussed with Centerville. That includes the percentage allowed to be warehouse and the percentage allowed to be office, retail -- well, office and, then, retail -- there is comments in there. The loading docks and -- oh, sorry. The applicant is proposing two loading docks and one roll-up door for the building. All three of those do face to the east and are located at the south end of the site. Code requires that they cannot face a residential use, so they are complying with that code section. In addition, I would like to note -- I did not put this in my outline, but the -- any kind of heavy truck traffic is not Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F36 Page 32 of 70 anticipated. It is my understanding that they currently don't do business like that, but they are showing this for potential future growth. Most of their deliveries -- from what I heard 90 percent of them occur with the UPS, USPS kind of trucks. Smaller trucks that are not going to be nearly as loud as a 53 foot truck and trailer. Regardless, they are proposing loading docks for some future expansion or larger shipments that they may or may not have. Staff does recommend approval of the requested annexation and zoning due to the proposed use and site design. In addition, staff does find it very important to keep local businesses like Red Aspen within the city where they started. With that I will stand for any questions. Seal: Turn on my mic now. Thank you. At this point would the applicant like come forward. State your name and address for the record and if anybody else wants to speak on behalf of this, please, have them do the same. Thank you. Moore: Amanda Moore. 389 East Pisa Drive, Meridian. 83642. Reese: Genie Reese. 1308 East Holly Street, Boise, Idaho. 83712. McKinney: And Jesse McKinney and our business address here in Meridian is 989 South Industry Way, Unit 102, but we are very excited and hoping to be annexed in tonight. Seal: Thank you. Go ahead. McKinney: So, we are Red Aspen and we are a social selling beauty company based here in Meridian, Idaho. We just celebrated our fourth anniversary last week. Genie, Amanda and I founded Red Aspen. We -- we had just a little bit of money and we had a really big dream. We started out and we had pretty much nothing. We had barely two pennies to rub together and we are incredibly excited, because we are going to end the year at over 30 million dollars in revenue, which is really exciting for us. We support women. Our mission is to inspire women to stand up, stand out and stand together by uniting passion with purpose and we do that through our independent sales model where we utilize brand ambassadors, reps all over the country, of which we have about 10,000 nationwide to sell our beauty products, which Genie is going to talk just a little bit about right now. Reese: Yes. So, we focus on what we like to call beauty solutions and I'm going to explain what that means to the lovely Planning and Zoning Committee here tonight. So, what is a beauty solution? It is a beauty product that saves time, it saves money, it's a salon replacement, so you don't have to go into the salon, you don't have to leave the house or get a babysitter. It's consumable and it's incredibly easy to demo on social media and online, where the majority of our sales reps, our brand ambassadors, do sell these products. So, we launched with six false lashes and since then we have expanded our product line to include pop-on nail dashes -- thank you, Amanda. At home tanning and clean color cosmetics. Today we have over 150 active views on our website and we custom formulation and development on every single one of these products, with some of our manufacturers even located here locally in Meridian, Idaho. So, our products are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F37 Page 33 of 70 small, but we have maxed out our current Meridian office space and we are excited about the potential to have space to grow. Moore: So, Amanda, as our COO I am responsible for everything operations. I need to make sure we have a house for everything and that products get shipped out. We ship out roughly 3,000 orders a day from our Meridian warehouse here, but we are excited to have the opportunity to have everybody come together. We currently have two different addresses here in Meridian and we would love to combine into one. We were so happy and grateful for the growth that we have had and the fact that we could even have the possibility of staying in Meridian and not having to go outside is so exciting for us. We have over 60 people on staff right now all from throughout the valley and for us to keep a centralized location here in Meridian to support our team members that are in Boise, our team members that are in Nampa, we have so many jobs that we have been able to create to support even our local community here in Meridian, we are just so excited to be able to stay here with you guys. So, we hope you love our plan and our beautiful building and a little splash of pink out there. Seal: All right. Thank you very much. Well, I was going to say at this point do you have any questions for the applicant or for staff? None? Commissioner Yearsley, anything? All right. So, at this time we will take public testimony and if anybody has signed up. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have a few people signed up. I didn't catch everybody's name, so I want to make sure that I -- Amanda Moore. That was you; right? Genie Reese. Okay. And, then, Jesse McKinney. Okay. Perfect. Then Joshua Jantz. Jantz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Josh Jantz with KM Engineering. Address 5725 North Discovery Way, Boise, Idaho. After the two pieces you have before you there is pretty much nothing else I can say. But I'm here to help answer any questions you have related to zoning or site plan specific. We also have Cornel, the architect, that helped out with the project here to answer any questions related to the building itself. Do you have any questions on it? Staff covered it pretty well, but -- Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: I guess the one question that I have is are you in agreement with the staff report? Jantz: Yes. Yes, we are in agreement with the staff report. Yearsley: Thank you. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F38 Page 34 of 70 Seal: Joe, go ahead. Dodson: Sorry? The -- before we close up their public hearing, the one thing I did notice doing my outline, I missed a condition I should have added and I request that the Commission add that and that is that the applicants obtain a property boundary adjustment prior to building permit. That the applicants provide a -- or obtain approval for a property boundary adjustment prior to building permit. That's because there is three existing parcels and to do what they are asking they can't do that. So, I'm just wanting to clear that out. Whether that means they combine them into -- three into one, I don't really care. Or if they move the lines in order to accommodate that, that's fine, because it can be underneath parking areas, but we can't have a building -- the property line underneath or going through a building. And I apologize to the applicants for missing that. Hopefully that's okay. Seal: Okay. If there is no questions, does the applicant have anything left to say? Oh. Sir, go ahead. Come on up. Need your name and address and the floor is all yours. Larson: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Cornel Larson. I'm the architect on this project. Larson Architects. Address 210 Murray Street, Garden City. Is that better? I thought I would explain to you a little bit on the building. We have -- we have a little bit of concern about shifting it up too far to the north, because our client really likes to have and would like to see a decent amount of land. So, that it could be beneficial. They planned on some logos that promote their company and things to be integrated into the landscape. We do want to move a certain amount up there, because we would like to have a little more turnaround room for the trucks on the south side. So, we will probably make a shift and we will work through that with staff if that's okay. The other thing -- there was a condition on page 16 under item eight that noted a 40 foot height limitation and, then, prior to that there was a condition that noted a 50 foot height limitation. We would -- in the C-C zone. We would like to stay with a 50 foot limitation. We are right at 38 right now. If we needed a mechanical unit or something up there and we want to make sure we can screen those, especially if they do extend the Linder overpass. So, if we could stay with the height limit in the C-C zone and if staff would agree with that we would like to do that. The other item we had that was a little bit of a concern was the uses are fairly limited on page 16 and if the building were to need to -- or if the Red Aspen folks would need to downsize in the future, if the economy changes -- or upsize, it would be really -- be really nice if we could add a clause or something that allowed us to add an additional use to that site, maybe through a conditional use or some other application, as long as that use was within the C-G zone or was permitted in that zone. And, again, I haven't talked to staff about that at all at this point in time. So, I apologize to them for that. And, then, we would also like to thank staff for helping us get to this point. We have been about three and a half, four months. The first time I met Amanda Moore she had jingle nails on, which if -- so, that was their Christmas promotion. It was nails and had little Christmas balls on the end of them and so they were planning ahead for Christmas at that point in time. So, they are looking ahead at staying in Meridian and enjoying Meridian. I also need to thank our neighbor to the south, Steve Smith, who is very willing to help us with a shared access to the site through his property and that helped solidify Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F39 Page 35 of 70 the site, so that it worked for the Red Aspen folks and it would become usable for maneuvering back out onto Linder and being able to hit a stoplight and go two directions on Overland Road. Would be happy to answer any questions about the building or the site that you might have. Seal: Joe, I will -- I will just ask you the question, so -- for the C-C zoning is the height restriction 40 feet or 50 feet? Dodson: Mr. Chair, so the -- the requested C-G, which has a height limit of 65 feet. Seal: Oh. Okay. Even better. Dodson: I wanted to -- I wanted to limit that only because of the existing development in the area, including the residential to the south. Having a 60 foot or even a 50 foot building right there might be quite a lot considering even the other warehouses that are on the north side are not that large either. They are probably 30 feet, give or take. I understand the concern with any mechanical equipment. That wouldn't be part of the height limit. It would be any kind of buildable area, building area, and not necessarily the screening materials. The discrepancy of 50 and 40 feet is probably me not being smart enough to go through my analysis again and change that and, then, I did change a condition to say 40 feet. I'm amenable to 50 feet, which does correlate to the C-C zoning. So, that's why -- I know that's a lot here. That's why I messed it up. That -- that's -- I'm amenable to that. I think that's acceptable, in case they need something and they maybe want to add a second story of actual area and -- for additional office or something. I understand that. The other points were the -- Seal: Additional -- additional use, if they needed an additional use they would just have to file for a CUP and come back; correct? Dodson: It depends on the use, I guess. I guess, Cornel, what would you guys need? Larson: The thought was, you know, there is a list of approved uses in the C-G zone. Dodson: Right. Larson: But in the staff report you listed some very specific uses. Dodson: Correct. Larson: If we had a use that was in the C-G zone, not necessarily specific to your list, if we could process a conditional use application or something to allow the city to look at it, that might help us if in the future we need to change something on that site. Especially, if we are going to limit the site with a DA. We were just looking for a little more flexibility. Dodson: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F40 Page 36 of 70 Parsons: Joe, if I may chime in. So, Mr. Chair, if I can elaborate where our thinking was on this particular restriction on the uses. This site's very challenged with access. I mean, you know, a future overpass is going to happen. It's imminent. At some point it's going to get built. We have planned for it. It's in our Comprehensive Plan. How that gets funded we don't know yet, but we are working on it. So, what we wanted to make sure we did -- what we set up this property to do is develop with the uses that, one, not only integrate it with the surrounding residential to the south, but also made sure that they could be successful there and, again, I applaud the applicant for wanting to be -- come up with creative ideas, but I don't think we have to. This is simply an annexation. If you guys feel that we don't need to restrict the types of uses that go on this property, you could simply just strike -- strike that from the record. A CUP just -- is not going to get you what you want, because they could either modify the DA, too, in the future. So, either way it's a public hearing, either before you or before City Council. So, again, I don't know what that gains us. If we want some assurances for us the assurances are the requirements in the development agreement and that can be changed as well. So, again, if you guys feel comfortable that Red Aspen will continue to grow and reach that 50 foot height limit, we are happy with that and you can certainly strike any of those use restrictions on the property and just allow the C-G zone to control. Seal: Okay. Starman: Mr. Chairman? Seal: Yes, sir. Starman: I echo what Mr. Parsons said in the last minutes or so on that is that -- that that condition that we are talking about will become a portion or section of the development agreement and so to give the applicant some comfort and the Commissioners, the applicant can always ask later for a modification to the development agreement and expand the uses at that point. So, there is a mechanism to accomplish that. So, that -- I think that may provide some comfort to the applicants here is that there is an opportunity to ask for additional uses respectively if the need occurs. Seal: Understood. I mean -- I can't speak on behalf of the entire city, but I think supporting a growing business is going to be something that we would want to do as a city in order to keep that business here. So -- Larson: Thank you. Seal: Thank you. Larson: Questions? Seal: No, sir. Larson: Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F41 Page 37 of 70 Seal: Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. If the applicant has nothing further to add, then, I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Wheeler: So moved. Grove: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2021-0066, Red Aspen. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Seal: All right. Commissioners, jump right in and let me know what you think. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Mr. Grove, go right ahead. Grove: I will just be first tonight. Seal: Yeah. Grove: Love that it's a Meridian company. Want to do whatever we can to get this forward. I like the project. It will be interesting to see how the overpass impacts this general area, but with this I think that that will be a good piece on that section. So, I'm in favor of this project. Seal: Mr. Wheeler, go ahead. Wheeler: Yes. Same here. I'm very much in favor of the project, especially since it's here in Meridian, wanting to stay in Meridian, want to help out with that. I felt like at your initial pitch I felt like I was on Shark Tank more than I was at, you know, the P&Z Commission here at Meridian. But I enjoyed the bravado and I enjoyed the enthusiasm. Just hopefully you can carry on and as you guys continue to grow and -- and expand. So thank you. Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, you want to jump in? Yearsley: I have nothing to add. I think it's a great project and I am glad that they are excited to stay in Meridian and we are glad to have them. Seal: All right. I'm on the same line as that. It's nice to see a company grow and I have seen Ms. Moore in a previous life when we were both doing different things, so it's nice to see the success that's coming out of the company, both personally for people and for the company itself and the growth of Meridian. So, it's very nice to see that the need is there. With that, if anybody would like to take a crack at a motion, I am all ears. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F42 Page 38 of 70 Grove: Okay. Before I make a motion, Mr. Chair -- Seal: Go ahead. Grove: Could I get some clarification on what we want to do with the -- that DA modification piece that you were talking about, Kurt? Starman: It's the Commissioners' prerogative. If you want to eliminate that condition all together and rely upon the underlying --or the zoning district itself, that's --that's an option to you. I think my recommendation would be that -- there is some thought that went behind that condition, that my recommendation would be to include the condition, but with the understanding that things change, the applicant can come later to the City Council for a modification to the development agreement. I think the Council -- can't guarantee that, but I think it would be receptive to if the business is doing well and might need a modification, so -- but if you have any hesitancy about that I think you could eliminate the condition altogether and rely upon the zoning district to set the uses. Grove: I got it. Seal: You got it? Okay. Wheeler: I did have a question of clarification if you are okay with that, Commissioner Grove. Joe, can you -- what were the limitations that were on that, if you can speak to those uses? Dodson: Commissioner Wheeler, great question. Off the top of my head -- again I don't have my staff report in front of me. It was flex space, obviously. It was -- Bill is going to save my butt again. Thank you, sir. Seal: Flex space we learned at the last one was just --just a warehouse; right? Dodson: Right. Seal: Sorry. I couldn't resist. I just -- Dodson: I listed the -- allowed uses show flex space, a financial institution, healthcare, social services, information industry, personal and professional services, retail, including beer and wine sales. Restaurant. Research and development and vertically integrated residential. And I just noted that the applicant shall adhere to any applicable specific use standards for a future use for a proposed use. So, I thought that that was pretty exhaustive in the sense of what could potentially go here. The main point is a gas station would be a disaster. Restaurant probably wouldn't work financially anyways, because of the restricted access. Granted vertically integrated does allow that, but that's a whole separate discussion. And general warehouse, where it will be a hundred percent warehouse kind of thing, I believe that's already a conditional use within C-G anyways. So, we just wanted to eliminate that possibility, because we wouldn't just want a --just a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F43 Page 39 of 70 warehouse here, you know, we would love the idea of -- of what they propose already with the flex space, with the office component for the business to continue growing there. Wheeler: So, it would allow them to expand into more office space if need be, if they grow and hire and things of that nature. Dodson: Absolutely. Absolutely. Wheeler: That's my biggest concern on this one when they talked about some limitations, as Commissioner Grove. Seal: And what was the condition for the 50 -- or the 40 foot height limitation? Do you know which one that was right off the top of your head? Dodson: 8-A-B. Or 1-B. Sorry. 8-A-1 B. Seal: Okay. Just in case Mr. Grove wants to add that. Grove: I wasn't planning on getting that specific, but -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2021-0066 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21 , 2021, with the following modifications: That the applicant obtain property boundary adjustments prior to City Council and that the applicant works with staff to adjust the building location north to an agreed amount and that they address the height limit as presented in 8-A-1 B. Wheeler: Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2021-0066, Red Aspen, with aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 8. Public Hearing for Meridian South Fire Station & Police Substation (H- 2021-0062) by City of Meridian, Located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to develop the property with two (2) public/quasi-public uses to include an 11,650 square-foot fire station and an 11,550 square-foot police station on 4 acres of land in the R- 8 zoning district. Seal: All right. With that we will go ahead and move on to the public hearing for Item No. H-2021-0062, for the Meridian South Fire Station and Police Substation. That was a mouthful. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F44 Page 40 of 70 Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner with the City of Meridian. I was kind of hoping my project would be a warm fuzzy, too, but I'm not sure. Certainly one everybody will like. This is a conditional use permit to develop a roughly 11 ,000 square foot fire station, 11 ,000 square foot police substation, with some change on approximately four acres of land. Let's see. The site consists of four acres. It is now zoned R-8 in the city, located at 2385 East Lake Hazel. You probably will remember in April this property was annexed and zoned for the purpose of having a police station and the substation. There is an interagency cooperative agreement. So, we are going to look at -- on the left is what the site plan was that you saw when it was annexed. On the right is the site plan that is being presented now. So, it's very similar to what was approved. One of the requirements -- one of the conditions of approval is regarding having to build a collector road along the east. There is a cooperative development agreement with Brighton Corporation for that area. Brighton owns a piece of property to the east that went into effect when all this was annexed. Brighton would have to build that collector road. Fire -- or city knows that. They would have to build that collector road along the eastern property line down to a cul- de-sac at the southern property line. There would also -- they know they also have to build the pathways, which would be a ten foot wide pathway along the north and the ten foot pathway along the east. They are over their parking they are required. They have provided 32 parking spaces over what's required and three parking spaces for the fire engines. One I guess correction is -- I noted previously that there was a condition to make sure all existing residential structures be removed. Stacy with the city was kind enough to let me know they were already removed, so that condition -- you could keep it, but it is not necessary. Really, the only issue -- and I'm not even sure if I would call this an issue -- is that there has been some changes in the elevations from what they were to what they are now. If you look at this, this is what was presented with the annexation and you can see they had some -- the -- the building materials showed CMU and it had some texturing to it and there was that -- the sloped roof with the exposed timber frame and some different accents. Not sure if it's a cost issue or not, but we have gotten to a much -- more of a basic design. I'm just raising this to let you know that they are going to still have to work with us -- we are going to have to work with us, basically, to make sure that we meet all of the requirements of the architectural standards manual or there will have to be a design exception. Again, I don't really want to get into the weeds to this, I'm just for the record noting that this may not meet all the architectural standards requirements. With that if you have any questions I would be certainly happy to entertain them. Seal: All right. Thank you, sir. At this point would the applicant like to come forward? Is our applicant online? I didn't see anybody walking up. Schubert: Sorry. I was muted. I'm online. Can you hear me now? Seal: I think I hear barely -- Schubert: Can you hear-- boy. Can you hear me now? Sorry. I'm trying to talk as loudly as I can. Am I being heard? Is that better? Seal: That's -- that's a little better. If you can turn things up on your end that might help. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F45] Page 41 of 70 Schubert: That's about as high as I can go right there. Hopefully that will work. So, I'm Mike Schubert. I'm with Rice-Fergus-Miller Architects. Our address is 275 5th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, Washington. 98337. So, we just saw this as a -- the police and fire station that is proposed for -- next to Discovery Park to help expand the emergency services to this part of the city, as it is growing rapidly in this area. At the current time we have been -- the city has decided to no longer pursue the police station at this time. It will be -- the site -- they do plan on building a police station in this area, but at this time they don't have the funds to go forward. But the fire station, as originally put in our proposal, will continue. So, one thing I want to bring up is that we are slightly shifting our generator location to a central location within the site that is closer to the fire station, but will still allow for the same development to occur for the police station parking area. But, essentially, the fence line that divided the two apart is, essentially, where the property will not be developed at this time and the interim -- during this time the area will be filled with sod and it will actually be grassed and maintained by parks at this time. So, we have seen the staff report and are in total agreement with it. The -- the comments about the elevations -- we do apologize for the noncolored elevations. The --the texturing that was going on is still occurring in the building. The -- the knee braces of the roof have been removed, but looking at the flat elevations do not look like the -- the three dimensional views that we see before, so -- but the coloration is very similar to this. It's actually --they have gone to -- the fire department decided what they want is more of a beige and brown combination of block, as opposed to the gray colors. So, the colors are a little bit different. But the -- we will still have wood soffits that are underneath the eaves of the roof and the mechanical screening areas and at the -- the lower -- it's kind of shown at the lower right side is there is an additional screen that will be in a metal panel that -- those are in a -- what's called a brownish gray color. But we will be working with -- with the CDC to make sure that we -- we get all of that approved appropriately. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there more you wanted to add? Schubert: I guess that's kind of it, unless you guys got questions about it. Seal: All right. Any -- any questions here for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: I have none. Seal: All right. Okay. With that -- is there anybody signed up to give public testimony? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, there is not. Seal: Excellent. Thank you. Anybody here would like to come and testify on behalf? Please raise your hand or approach to microphone. None? Okay. If the applicant has anything -- do you have anything more to add? Schubert: No, I don't. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F46 Page 42 of 70 Seal: Okay. If there is no questions, I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Wheeler: So moved. Grove: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2021-0062, Meridian South Fire Station and Police Substation. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Seal: Okay. If you guys have anything more to add or I will take a motion at this point. Wheeler: Take a motion. Yeah. You got the last one; right? Commissioner Grove. All right. I will take this one. Unless Commissioner Yearsley has anything to add. Yearsley: Who doesn't love a fire station. So, I'm on board. Wheeler: Alrighty, then. Here we go. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2021-0062, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21 st, 2021, without any modifications. Seal: It's been moved and seconded -- oh, do I have a second. Grove: Second. Seal: Sorry. I got ahead of myself. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item H- 2021-0062 with no modifications. All in favor say aye. No opposed. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Seal: All right. Thank you, everyone, on that. Okay. Does anybody want a bio break before we go on to the next one? Yes. All right. We will take a five minute break and we will be right back. (Recess: 8:36 p.m. to 8:43 p.m.) 9. Public Hearing for Village Apartments (MCU-2021-0008) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 2600 N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Previously Approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP-15-019) to update the conceptual development plan and elevations and eliminate the requirement for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity/crossaccess to be provided to the residential development to the north Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F47 Page 43 of 70 Seal: All right. It sounds like we are ready. So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for Village Apartments, MCU-2021-0008, and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I'm starting to get a complex. The room seems to clear out every time I have to present a project. I don't know if I should take that personally or not. But next application before you this evening is the Village Apartments. This is a conditional use modification. History on this property. It was before you in 2015 for a CUP for a multi-family development, consisting of 336 multi-family units contained within 11 structures and that was really probably -- this particular property that you see in front of you here. You can see the Comprehensive Plan has it as a mixed use regional. I would mention to the Commission that there is a commercial component that goes along with the multi-family, but it's not part of tonight's application. But it is tied to the overall project in a recorded development agreement that was approved in that same year. So, the site plan before you here is what was previously approved. As I mentioned, you can see how the -- the buildings were oriented on the site. Again, the applicant is here to discuss reorienting the site, changing the landscaping and open space and, then, also modifying conditions of approval that required cross- access -- pedestrian access and connect--access to the property to the north here, which was the Veraso North project and because the way that site's designed out and there is an existing irrigation easement there, staff is amenable to removing that condition and not requiring any access with that northern piece. They do have access via Records Avenue through their own private street and, then, of course, with the commercial farther to the west, there is going to be cross-connection with that and, then, also with the multi-family development to the south they are tying into their parking lot as well. So, there is some additional accesses is being provided with the new site plan that I will show -- share with you shortly. So, here are the --again, the--the approved site plan and elevations. Typical garden style of what we see in Meridian. Again, mixed use regional designates 60 to -- six to 40 dwellings to the acre. So, the C-G zone requires a conditional use. So, they are just here, again, tonight to modify those items. So, here is the new plan that they are proposing. Now, you can see here they -- they maintain their existing access to Records Avenue and, then, you can see where they have oriented the buildings -- reduced the buildings, but increased the footprint. So, the unit count remains the same, but what's unique about the plan is they have more centralized open space. So, they have consolidated that. Provided more parking than what code requires. I would also mention to the Commission that this site is in close proximity to Kleiner. So, typically when we first analyzed this project back in 2015 we made the finding that it didn't necessarily need as much open space, because it had a regional park about 500 feet to its south. But the applicant, again, in this application, by reorienting the site and having larger buildings and a bigger footprint, has -- was able to get actually more open space than was previously approved. Again, staff is recommending approval of this site, because, one, it's oriented better and, two, it makes -- it's a higher quality development than the previous plan. I did receive written testimony from Derek, the applicant. He had some concerns about a condition of approval. If you can see my cursor here, around the -- the pool house are some covered structures and he was -- the way it's structured and the staff report Sonya had conditioned him to provide details for a gazebo. This isn't necessarily a gazebo, it's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F48 Page 44 of 70 just more of a covered shade structure. So, he's asked that we strike the word gazebo from condition 2-C. Staff is amenable to that as well. They will have to, obviously, go through certificate of zoning compliance and design review to work out those amenities as he goes through that staff level approval. In your hearing outline -- I'm not going to go through all of the amenities that the applicant is proposing, because it's in excess of UDC, but the code does allow you to determine whether or not they have adequate amenities for a development of this size. Again, as I mentioned to you, we have Kleiner Park directly to the south and, again, they are -- they are proposing a pretty great amenity package here, as you can see on the exhibit. So, with that one change that I just mentioned, staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you may have. Seal: All right. Thanks, Bill. Would the applicant might come forward. All right. Please state your name and address for the record and it's all yours. Gasser: Good evening -- sorry. I will lean forward. Is that better? Seal: That's -- that's perfect. Yes. Gasser: Derek Gasser. 74 East 500 South, Suite 200, Bountiful, Utah. 84010. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you, Bill, for your presentation. We are here to request modification of the previously approved conditional use permit for the Village Apartments. As Bill mentioned in a little more detail on it, rather than doing 11 Garden style walk-up four story buildings, we would like to propose building six buildings, four story, with elevators. Those units would also have controlled access, which we feel is-- is a benefit. We feel this is a much nicer product. Like Bill mentioned with the location next to Kleiner, with what CenterCal has done with The Village, we feel like this type of product is -- it fits the land, the area or the location, better than your traditional garden style walk-up product. We -- Sonya put in -- or staff put in a condition for a play structure, a children's play structure, and we are -- we are agreeable to that. I think with that if -- if there is any questions we can answer. Seal: Anybody have any questions for the applicant or staff? Wheeler: I do. Seal: Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead. Wheeler: How many -- staff, how many -- or I guess the applicant can also answer this one, too. But has there been any increase or decrease with the number of units overall, even though that the buildings have changed? It's all the same? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, unit count is exactly the same. 336-336. So, no change to that. Wheeler: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F49 Page 45 of 70 Seal: Any other questions? Mr. Yearsley, do you have anything? Yearsley: Not at this time. Seal: Okay. Thank you. With that, if you want to take a seat or just see if we have anybody signed up for public testimony. Yearsley: Sorry, Mr. Chair. We do not. Seal: Okay. Anybody in the audience want to testify? You can raise your hand. All right. Seeing none, do you have anything else to add now would be the time. Gasser: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, thank you for your time. We -- we do feel this is a superior product and we are excited to build it. Thank you. Seal: Excellent. Thank you. We will take a motion to close the public hearing. Wheeler: So moved. Grove: Second. Seal: It's been moved -- moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Village Apartments, MCU-2021-0008. And one point here is when you make your motion it is to approve or disapprove tonight, so -- or approve or deny. We are the deciding body, not the recommending body. Wheeler: Mr. Chairman? Seal: Go ahead. Wheeler: For the commercial aspect; is that correct, staff? That -- aside from the commercial aspect? There is -- there is a commercial component that's not going to that we are not approving tonight; is that correct? As far as my understanding. Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that is -- that is correct. That -- my -- my point with the discussion tonight is this is a phased project and this is one part of that phase. So, the commercial -- the applicant's working with ITD and adjacent landowners for some cross-access and -- and doing their due diligence on that part. So, really, they want to get ahead and move forward on the residential portion of their property at this moment. Seal: Mr. Grove? You were reaching for the mic. Grove: I was just going to motion, unless anybody had anything that they wanted to interject. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F50 Page 46 of 70 Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: Bill, what is to the east? Is there -- is that residential? On the east side of that property. Seal: Records, I believe. Yearsley: I know, but on the other side of Records is that residential? Parsons: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes. That's -- I believe that's a county subdivision across the other side of Records. Yearsley: Okay. And, then, nobody has --you know, they have been noticed and nobody had issues with the --the bigger block of apartments facing Records is my understanding. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I did look at the public record this evening and no other testimony has been provided on this application. Yearsley: Okay. Then I'm good. Seal: Yeah. The only thing I will add is that this is an interesting piece of land and the commercial development has other implications that are coming in the future, but I like the overall layout of this and the way that it was changed. I don't like that Records is -- it's my secret way to get into The Village and the secret is out, so -- but at this point I will entertain a motion if somebody wants to throw it out there. Grove: All right. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to approve file number MCU-2021-0008 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of October 21st, 2021, with the following modification: To strike the word gazebo from Condition 2-C. Wheeler: I second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. MCU-2021-0008, for Village Apartments with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 10. Public Hearing for Aviator Springs (H-2021-0065) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (31.59 acres), L-O (1.64 acres) and M-E (6.77 acres) zoning districts. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F51 Page 47 of 70 B. Request: A Preliminary Plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting of (93) buildable lots and (13) common open space lots on 31.59 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district, (2) buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-O zoning district, (1) buildable lot on 6.77 acres of land in the M-E zoning district, and (3) future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land. Seal: With that we will open the public hearing for Item No. H-2021-0065, Aviator Springs, and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item is Aviator Springs. The application before you is an annexation and preliminary plat. The site consists of 40 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county and physical address is located at 3235 North McDermott Road. There has been no history on this particular property as far as city goes and the current Comprehensive -- Comprehensive Plan designation is mixed use neighborhood. If you looked at the planned development map here, you can see how many other additional residential developments have occurred in this particular area. So, the applicant is here tonight to discuss with you annexation of 40 acres, again, with R-8, and which is approximately 31 acres of land, an L-O zone of 1.6 acres of land and an ME zone, which is 6.7 acres of land. They are also requesting to develop the site with 93 residential detached homes at a gross density of three dwelling units to the acre. To help kind of clarify density, if-- if the Commission -- may understand this, but typically in a mixed use neighborhood designation we anticipate densities between six and 12. So, this particular project tonight is under -- quite a bit under what we anticipate in this area and rightfully so. If you have had a chance to --this particular project we spent quite a bit of time trying to analyze this for you as far as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It's unique. It's -- it's different, because of the fact you have a school bounded by -- on its west -- western boundary -- boundary. You have an R-8 development already to the north of it that's developing with an existing street segment. You have a state highway that's going to be extended in bifurcating the property, which doesn't allow the project to really integrate as much as we anticipate in a mixed use neighborhood and, then, we also have property to the south that is a different, more intense land use designation. Although mixed use that hasn't come in yet. And so I can tell you in working on this particular property and also with the developer of the property on the southern boundary of this site, we were hoping they would all come in together, so that we could work out a lot of those things and make sure that we had a little bit better integrated project. But we are here this evening talking about this one. So, you can see here -- here is the pre-plat that the applicant is proposing. It's -- it's the same -- it's two phases. The first phase is the western half and, then, the second phase is the opposite side on the McDermott Road side of things and that's -- that's why we tried to present it to you in the staff report that it is -- it won't be integrated, because it's -- it's impossible. What the applicant's tried to do -- and they have done a great job and -- what we told them to do in order for them to garner our support, they really needed to justify it in their narrative when they submitted their application and I think they are doing the best that they can with --with the limitations that they have on this site. But they are proposing two office lots, which are located along the western boundary here. One will be a future home Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F52 Page 48 of 70 of an LDS seminary to go along with a high school. That's pretty typical here in Meridian. And, then, the southern lot they are hoping to deed this -- or dedicate it to Boys and Girls Club to have that other civic use here and, then, again, most of the residential type in here -- all of the residential lots in here are single family detached homes. So, typically in our mixed use zones -- or even in our comprehensive plans, we try to encourage a mix of residential types at a minimum. We try to have walkability. We try to have detached sidewalks and parkways. Providing some of those pedestrian scale elements and that's what the applicant's done with this application. So, you can see the walking path that runs along future Highway 16 and, then, also some additional walking paths through this MEW that ties into the commercial and ultimately gets to the high school to the west. So, as far as interconnectivity and trying to link all the uses together on the west side, staff felt that they have done a pretty decent job of doing that. Now, we did pose to you -- we have not recommended that they provide any additional residential types. That's something that certainly is within your purview if you think additional density is desired in this area. But I can tell you looking at the ACHD staff report, there are some access challenges for the Ada County Highway District as well. Not so much for the city. So, as this body knows when -- with the fire department you can have no more than 30 homes on a single access. But if you have secondary access, then, it's not really an issue and so down here in the southwest quadrant of the development the applicant was able to work with the school district and secure a secondary emergency access to allow them to move forward with their 93 homes. But if you have had a chance to look at the ACHD staff report, they have reached out to the city and -- me in particular, because I'm taking -- I'm covering this for Sonya this evening. But they are concerned with the number of homes taking access off of one entrance -- one public street access. So, their current policies say no more than a thousand vehicle trips on a local street access and because we don't have the property to the south coming in with the application, we only have a stub street, this -- this entire development really is stuck with one public street access that comes in north, runs east-west along the school site and, then, ties into this development and so they -- they have placed a condition on this development that they either can't develop anymore than 96 residential homes, which, again, this plat is 93, so I don't know where that 96 came from. Or they would not allow development on the Boys and Girls lot and develop -- or they restricted development to the Boys and Girls lot and, then, only allow up to 84 homes to be developed. So, I think this body -- at least the Commission should ask the applicant if they are amenable to ACHD's condition as one and, two, what are they willing to do to restrict further development from happening on this site, because, in my opinion, staff's opinion, they should probably adjust their phasing lines to make sure that they don't go beyond a certain threshold until such time as the property to the south develops. I think that's really really critical in this particular development, just because of all of the other constraints that we have going on here and it's something that we talked about, again, at all of the pre-app -- pre-application meetings. Is this the right time for this particular development given what's -- since we don't really have a lot of connectivity out here. So, again, the preliminary plat consists of 112 lots. Ninety-three of those are residential, two our office, and, then, there is that one ME lot over here that will develop. The residential portion is, again, 31 acres. L-O is 1 .6 and the ME is 6.77. The applicant gave us a general concept for phase two, but nothing specific per se. So, we do have a recommended DA provision that they come back and modify that DA in the future when Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F53 Page 49 of 70 they have actual development plan proposed for that future lot. They were amenable to that as well. As I mentioned to you, access -- this is the access here. You can see my cursor. This is the only public street access in here. Like -- I don't want to keep beating that drum, but it is something to be really cognizant of tonight is -- there is a lot of people that could potentially live out here with very limited access and I know that is a concern for our Fire Department, even though they do meet their requirements. So, I'm hoping this applicant can work with the property owner to the south and figure out an appropriate street segment in the future, some connectivity. We did receive written testimony from the developer of the southern property and he would like this stub street on this -- in the southeast corner to shift over a little bit farther to the east, so it aligns more with the development plan that they have -- or they want to bring forth to the city at some point. Applicant is required to provide ten percent qualified open space. The plan here, because of the abundance of open space that they are providing, they have 7.64 acres of open space, which is approximately 23.8 percent open space. So, a tremendous amount of open space for this particular development. If you also notice in the staff report to try to get some of those densities numbers up is we tried to make the justification that this really was a buffer to minimize the impact on the adjacent residential. So, we actually removed this buffer out of the requirement for the density and it did up the density slightly to 4.38. So, not a significant increase, but an increase nonetheless. And, then, there is also a minimum two qualified open spaces -- or qualifying amenities are required. So, the applicant is proposing a swimming pool, pedestrian pathways, an additional qualifying open space of 20,000 square feet and, then, also children's natural play area and they did give us some exhibits on how some of that would look and be developed along the state highway in that large green central open space area. Again, here is their -- their parking exhibit. I know that's pretty important to all of you, too, so they showed us how they could park all of these units. Again, you can see the circulation on the side and how it relates to Owhyee High School and, then, they also provided some proposed elevations. Again, because this is going to be visible from the state highway we are requiring that they get some level of review from planning prior to issuance of building permits. The other unique item associated with this is that staff is recommending a six foot berm with a six foot tall sound attenuation wall along the highway there and the reason why is because the project to the north, which is Chukar Ridge and, then, Gander Creek, which is farther north -- which is north of that development, the Commission was pretty consistent and they -- they wanted to see more sound -- sound attenuation along that state facility. So, staff felt that we should be consistent in those approvals, so we required the same thing of this proposed development. And, again, staff did receive concurrence from the applicant that they are in agreement with all conditions in the staff report. So, with that -- as I mentioned to you, Todd Tucker is here this evening to speak to you probably on the relocation of that stub street. But with that staff is -- is recommending approval of this application this evening and I will stand for any questions you may have. Seal: All right. Thanks, Bill. Would the applicant like to come forward? Adams: Good evening. This is Matthew Adams, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. And I'm representing the applicant tonight. And I would like to share my screen. All right. Can everybody see my presentation up in blue? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F54] Page 50 of 70 Seal: Yes, sir. Thank you. Adams: Excellent. All right. Thanks. I'm really happy to be here and very thankful that you allow for remote presentation. Appreciate that. It's been a long night, so let's think of this as a nice evening together discussing great community planning, rather than just a presentation. The Aviator Springs Subdivision -- I'm going to go over Comprehensive Plan alignment with you, the proposed project, why it's amazing. Community partners that it takes to put this project together. Then I would like to spend some time on the context and how it relates to the Fields Sub-Area Plan that you are actually going to hear next after my item. And, then, at the very end we do have some municipal code alignment items to share. Ultimately at the end of the day what we are requesting is approval of the annexation, rezone, the preliminary plat. So, I do want to say Aviator Springs is the right community at the right time in the right place and this is why. Really Aviator Springs embodies the 2019 Meridian comp plan. It is a premier community that is safe and secure, where people can live and possibly work, but at least easily get to work on the roadway network with Highway 16 and Ustick and thrive. We meet the evolving community goal of the comp plan, because we are adapting to change. This area was conceived as a neighborhood. The high school, the highway, various conditions have required that we adapt and present the best possible community we can in this area. Livability. We are promoting family friendly recreation for healthy living. We are focused on stewardship through natural systems. For stormwater, cooling of the air, and we are making a major focus in coordination with Fire and Police from Meridian city on promoting public safety through crime prevention environmental design standards. It's a vibrant community. We are maintaining the historic character of ag and the drain systems --drain ditches in this area and we are also nearby creating good safe connections to vibrant activity centers that the school itself and the future park spaces in the sub area plan to the west and, finally, it's a connected community. It's safe. It's got efficient transportation. And we are working closely with ITD to ensure that Highway 16 to successfully move forward. So, as you can see we meet all of the intended goals of the Comprehensive Plan. So, let's talk land use for a minute. This is the 40 acre project and you are looking at it from the south. We are looking to the north and slightly to the east, with Highway 16 on the right side of the screen and, then, the high school would be on the left side and the residential project shown in yellow. This project is a mixed use neighborhood. We have got R-8 zoning. Residential. We have L-O zone for our civic uses of LDS seminary and the Boys and Girls Club, which we are very proud of. And we have ME zone proposed for the Acclima Research and Development facility on the east and we do provide the three unique zones that are required in the MUN land use designation. We are primarily a single family detached residential development, which is also MUN. The LDS seminary is more than just a place where some of the kids go during the school day, it really acts as a youth community center for many many children for a long long time and it is an anchor to the community. The Boys and Girls Club is very exciting as it's an opportunity for boys and girls to have some presence in the west end of the city, which they do not have right now, and it also creates a lot of great positive energy and positive interaction within this community and for--you saw all the rooftops, the lots Bill showed on the image before. There are going to be hundreds of kids in this part of Meridian and a Boys and Girls Club is a great -- great opportunity for them. And, then, we have got Acclima as a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F55] Page 51 of 70 research and development center and an employment center, which is also exciting. It is impossible for us to provide a direct connection between the housing and that research and development and employment center. However, it does provide a really great buffer to the existing rural development and county sub that's on that side of the property and to the east of McDermott and when we had our neighborhood meeting the neighbors were quite excited about the arrangement of the uses on the site. And, then, I will point out you can see the little graduation cap. Of course we have the high school to the west. Now, we have got great pedestrian connectivity to that facility. Circulation is critical in communities. We have got the ten foot multi-use pathway that is on the east edge of the residential development within the buffer to the highway. We have got detached sidewalks, which allow you to have a great tree canopy and great walkability throughout the community and, then, again, we have the strong connection to the high school. We also have connectivity so you can get to the future elementary school, which is north of the high school. Again, as I said, we are partnering with ITD to ensure success of Highway 16. We have got roadway connectivity to the north and to the south. So, we are not land locking anybody. We are providing great connectivity. And, then, the last thing I want to say is there is a little purple kind of line in the bottom left. We have coordinated with Joe Bongiorno with Fire and we have recorded easements in place to provide fire access through the high school site to this property that will provide the secondary access until the public roadway system extends south to Ustick. We all wish we had access to south to Ustick, but this applicant does not control the property to the south and, therefore, we cannot dictate what happens there. And last let's talk amenities on this project. We have got pathways, which are safe and abundant in this property. We have got a pool and play field. The play field's clipped a little bit. You will see it more in future slides, but we have the pool itself with a lot of lawn space around it and a play field in that southwest corner. We have the high school itself and the elementary school. Those are amenities. Tennis courts at the high school. Large open grassy areas and the playground and open grass field with the elementary school as an amenity. And, then, we have this really great open space buffer on the east side of our project. Now, we are required to do a 35 foot landscape buffer between ITD's property and our homes. Well, mean in reality that is not great, 35 feet from an expressway. What we have done is we have actually done a minimum of a hundred foot landscape buffer and, then, if you take from the nearest home to the actual pavement of the highway, we are at 200 feet. So, we have got a 200 foot buffer from the roadway itself. One hundred foot width of that is landscape and includes pathways, stormwater management and play features. Pathways. Really really great system throughout the park. These are some images of what these can look like, really, to demonstrate that we are servicing all segments of the community on the pathway system from young to old, families, kids, retired folks, et cetera. The pool. We are very excited about the pool. When you have kids between -- guess four and 12, the pool is the prime spot and when you turn over houses and you keep little bubbles of kids moving in and growing up through communities, the pool stays active and it can be a great great amenity. We also have our playfield. There is extreme pressure on playfields throughout the Meridian community, for soccer, T-ball, flag football practices and we have got a nice large one acre spot for that kind of activity to occur. The open space on the east it will have some lawn or turf grass. Landscape. However, there is a large portion of it that is designed to handle stormwater and to be climate appropriate Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F56 Page 52 of 70 and resilient, that we anticipate low water use or water wise, climate appropriate landscape. It will provide habitat, unique aesthetics, and it will minimize the maintenance. Important to us is the HOA inherits a landscape that is maintainable and that they can afford to maintain and intense areas of turf grass are not always affordable for a long time. This is also meant to really lock in or maintain the rural character that is slowly dissipating in this area. Play. We are really proud of the play features that we have come up with. Within that buffer we have created an unstructured play environment that is safe. So, the parents can send the kids out the front door, down to the end of the cul-de-sac and they can play in a space where there is no outlets, no street, and the parents don't have to worry about them. They can play in an unstructured way. They can climb on rocks. They can look for bugs. They can dig holes. This is free range kids in Meridian, Idaho. Very exciting. This is a view of what this play area could look like and you can see that the planting is not traditional mown grass, it's actually much better. It's an area where kids can find, again, bugs and butterflies and beetles and maybe even water snakes and everything else that it's fun to find when you are a kid. And we have got these great nontraditional features where the kids make up the game. The kids decide what they are doing. The kids decide what this means. They use their imagination and they can thrive here and stay healthy. All right. We do have some architectural character included. As Bill said, we need to follow the code, because we are visible from the highway. We do take that serious and we have got some different styles that we want to implement on this project. The one thing that I think can get lost in these projects is how many people it really takes to pull it off. It seriously takes time, effort, energy, investment and commitment from the City of Meridian, from West Ada School District, from ITD on this one in particular, from Ada County Highway District, from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, who we work with closely. From the LDS Church on this particular project. The Boys and Girls Club of Ada County. All of these groups have worked hard to bring this project to you tonight and I think that needs to be recognized. Also Lennar Homes. Jeff and Nick from Lennar. IAG capital. That would be Larry, Ryan, Wade and Brady. Those guys work hard and they let us kind of have free range with design, which we appreciate. And, then the Landreth team, Tyler, Chad, Jim, Kristin, Mike, Dan, Ben, Dustin, and Dylan, all have worked really hard to get this in front of you tonight. So, big big effort, big investment of energy and time. Context. The Fields Sub-Area Plan. We are going to -- in the following slide look down at this lower corner, which is Star Road on the left or west. McDermott on the right. McMillan on the north. Ustick on the south. We feel that we fit excellent -- or we integrate in an excellent way into The Fields Sub-Area Plan. That blue square is where our project sits. So, this is the land use plan. The star of The Fields Sub-Area Plan and that's where our projects sits and if you look at The Fields Sub-Area Plan, the higher density projects are appropriately placed near the center of the community, near the corner of the major transportation route. Higher density is not appropriate any longer in this location, because of the way the highway cuts through the project. This is the transportation graphic from the sub area plan and I should say thank you to the City of Meridian and Logan Simpson who helped us get these graphics together and let us use their graphics. We are connecting to all of the anticipated connectivity identified in that sub area. Economics. This is where they show kind of mixed use centers. Appropriately place that at signalized intersections, not backed up into the corner against the new state highway. Our project does provide economic activity and the high Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F57 Page 53 of 70 school does and the Boys and Girls Club, but it would not be appropriate to have a major commercial development in this neighborhood. And, then, here is the park and pathways -- Seal: And in the interest of time we need to have your wrap up pretty quick. The timer is dinging over here. Adams: You got it. This is the parks and pathways. We are connecting with multi- purpose pathways to all of the anticipated pathway system that goes to the west. All right. Really quick. Zoning. This is the zone. Bill showed you this. We are really proud that we are providing all three uses as required. We have got safe, efficient and connected circulation systems and we have paid a lot of attention to a great pedestrian connection to the high school. We can get a lot of kids walking. We are required to provide four stalls per housing units. That's in the garage and on the driveway. Not -- that's off street. That would be 372. This subdivision can park 400 -- 546. So, we are anticipating reality over the code regard parking. We are really excited that we have got 23.8 percent open space. Bill said ten percent required. I think the new code bumped that to 15. And, then, the amenity points in the new code we are required to have eight. We are providing 11. We have no objection to the ACHD staff report conditions. We have no objection to the Meridian Planning and Zoning conditions. And I will just finish by saying that this is really a partnership to bring 93 new homes to Meridian. It's fully integrated with the Comprehensive Plan and The Fields Sub-Area Plan. This is a premier community for a growing city. It's a family friendly community with great connectivity to activity centers. This is the right community, the right project, at the right time, in the right place. Thank you. Seal: Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant or staff? Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: I guess the first question is for Bill. What's their general guess for the highway extension? I know they have said, but do you have a crystal ball guess? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I haven't been part of those discussions at all, so I don't want to speculate what it is, but I know there is momentum there, obviously, and there is funding being set aside for it. And as part of this project we actually have applicants, when they come in and annex, we have them set aside that lot as a nonbuildable, so when the time is ready ITD can negotiate and purchase that lot, so they can extend the highway and that's what we have done pretty consistently along that corridor. This applicant is required to do that,just like every other one, and it's conditioned appropriately. But I don't have a timing -- a time frame for you as to when that's going to be constructed. Grove: Thank you. And, then, Matthew, I had a question for you. Is there a connection Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F58 Page 54 of 70 between the -- between the LDS and the Boys and Girls Club? It looks like there is a sidewalk. Does that-- are you planning to have that connect into the high school property or does that terminate before it gets there? Adams: That's a great question. Thank you, Chairman and Commissioner. We have -- so, we have a nice oversized sidewalk that takes you from kind of the south end of the community to the north end and provides access to the pool area, Boys and Girls, and the LDS seminary and, then, we have a five foot sidewalk that takes you into the high school site and we have coordinated with West Ada to have an opening in the fence, so the kids can cut -- go straight through and, then, there is a safe sidewalk connection all the way to the building entry as well. Seal: I have got a quick question for you here. It looked like on one of the slides he had that the -- the bike paths actually joined into other existing bike paths. Adams: Yes. So, there is a requirement -- code requirement that along all state highways or expressways -- I don't know exactly how it reads -- that you have to do a multi-purpose pathway. So, Chukar Ridge has a multi-purpose pathway and we are connecting and extending that southward. And, then, it's our understanding that Gander Creek will also have some connectivity. So, you should be able to take pathway systems to the north and, then, we do connect to the west on our sidewalks system and get you out to Owyhee Storm, so you can get into the -- the heart The Fields Sub-Area Plan. So, as far as we know we are connecting everywhere we need to and we are compliant with the pathways master plan. Seal: Okay. Quick question on -- there seems to be a glut of swimming pools. Would you be willing to consider something more of a water feature type park, instead of a pool? Those just seem to have a lot more longevity. Adams: Yeah. I think -- I'm not the decision maker on that, but I can definitely take that back to the developer, the client, and see what they think on that. Seal: Thank you. Mr. Yearsley, any questions? Yearsley: I know Bill had brought up the activity -- the connectivity right now. ACHD has their condition that they would like. What is your plan for that -- meeting that condition? Are you going to build your 96 -- or 93 homes first or be less and do the Boys and Girls Club? What's -- what was your plan with that? Adams: Thank you. Good question, Chairman and Commissioner Yearsley. What we -- right now we need to meet and talk with the Boys and Girls Club. So, we got the staff report on Tuesday and so we haven't had a chance to meet with everybody. But they need time -- they have accepted the donation, but they need time to fundraise and come up with a plan; right? So, it is likely -- most likely scenario that they won't be ready to construct until there is connectivity to the south. So, right now our plan would be to construct the 93 homes. To plat the lot for the Boys and Girls Club, but have that lot be Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F59 Page 55 of 70 conditioned that you can't construct there until there is public roadway access to the south. We need to meet with them. If they are fast tracking and they got a huge donation tonight, because of this amazing presentation, then, we would -- we would consider and look at that and -- and what it sounds like is we need to be able to present at the Council level what that plan is. So, it can be in the DA and not be kind of vacillating around. It feels like it needs to be pinned down at the DA level. Yearsley: I agree. And I have reservations of 96 lots dumping out into one street right now. So, I -- I think something needs to be looked at very closely on how best to work. Seal: All right. Grove: Sorry. I had one more question. Bill, I'm not real familiar with the ME. Is that something that we have a lot of or have some of in -- in Meridian and, if not, like can you give me like a 30 second rundown of what that means. Parsons: Certainly. Happy to try to explain it to you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. So, ME's -- there is some of it in the Ten Mile area and when you look at the broad definition of that -- it's a commercial zone and in that it's -- it's meant to be on collectors, arterials, great access for research, development, office type uses and that's why the applicant's requested that zone. And given the -- what he's -- what they have explained to us at the pre-apps -- pre-application meetings and everything, it seems like this -- this Acclima is -- it's just that, they actually test sprinkler systems and grow things and try to manage water conservation, if I'm not mistaken. Matt could probably give you more details on that. But to me it seems to kind of -- that's the one thing that I think intrigued staff, was that we are keeping with our heritage of having agriculture and keeping some of that out in this area I think makes a lot of sense, just given the fact that that's what everyone's asked in the Comprehensive Plan. How do we preserve open space and keep it going and this seems to be like a unique situation to do that and that's why we felt comfortable at least allowing ME to go, but we want to make sure -- like I said in my presentation, we wanted to make sure that we at least have the development team come back with a development agreement modification when they are ready to actually construct on the property, so it doesn't get sold or something else occurs and we end up not knowing what -- and we end up giving too much away. We want to make sure we have a detailed plan for that property before anything happens on it. Grove: Thank you. Seal: Mr. Wheeler, do you have questions? Wheeler: I do. Thank you, Chairman. I'm with Commissioner Yearsley on this. Just wanted to see just some more thoughts out on the connection part of it, too. And, then, the other thing that kind of strikes me a little bit is the playground areas up against the buffer that acts -- as a buffer next to a major thoroughfare. I'm just kind of thinking of, you know, semi trailers, things like that, that are going to be going by, equipment, things of that nature or just a lot of traffic at that juncture. So, I'm just -- I'm trying to get my head Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F60] Page 56 of 70 around that, but -- yeah, that's kind of where I'm at on it. Seal: Question, Bill, for the -- well, I guess is for the applicant or Bill. Do we have a good graphic of where the -- essentially, the fire road comes in on the adjacent property and what that looks like? I haven't -- I mean we have got kind of this thing that shows a pencil drawing of it, but do we have something that's a little bit more representative of exactly what a fire truck would have to go through in order to get there? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we don't. Seal: I mean this drawing right here shows that we are going to go out into a -- you know, a football field area or baseball field. So, I'm just-- I'm kind of scratching my head on how a fire truck gets in there. Parsons: Certainly the--the Fire Department has provided comments on it. They support the secondary access and Matt's very aware -- aware of the Fire Department's requirements. So, that road is 20 feet wide. It has -- has to be able to -- capable of supporting 80,000 pounds and so I know Chief Bongiorno has looked at it and signed off on it. I did the sign-off on the high school when they opened up, did the inspection out there, and it's -- it's more open back there than you think it is. The irrigation district, if I'm not mistaken, don't they have their pump house back there, Matt, are somewhere in there as well. Adams: Correct. It -- can everybody see my cursor? Seal: Yes. Parsons: It comes through, yes. Adams: Okay. So, from Owyhee Storm Ave there is a dedicated fire lane and driveway access that comes south of the high school building and, then, there is a dedicated -- it's actually an easement and a sewer maintenance road, as well as maintenance access that comes through and, then, there is -- there is two turns for the fire truck. So, they come straight in, two turns, and they are right into the neighborhood -- right into the community. And we -- Joe is great, because Joe makes himself available. We can run ideas back and forth. We can show him all this and he -- he is quick to say no if he's not okay with it and, then, he is -- he is also quick to say yes once we get him something he is satisfied with. So, from Owyhee Storm we have good, clear access through established fire lanes on the high school site and, then, we have this in here. We also have an easement agreement between the high school and the school district and this developer that runs with the land that protects and maintains that as an open route and it requires that it be maintained properly for the fire department to access through. So, we are really -- really confident that this does provide access. I want to say we are not going to be built out until 2026 on these homes and it would be great if some things could happen where we get public roadway access, but if that doesn't happen this does meet Fire Department requirements. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F61 Page 57 of 70 Seal: Okay. Thank you. All right. If there is no more questions, public testimony? I think we have one person signed up. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, indeed we do. It's Todd Tucker. Seal: Just need your name and address and -- Tucker: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Todd Tucker. I represent Boise Hunter Homes. Business address 729 South Bridgeway Place, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. So, we -- we are actually the landowner of the property directly to the south of this subdivision and we are in support of this application, actually, but we do have one -- one minor request that we wanted to get on the record. I did submit a letter last week, but just wanted to provide public testimony as well in the verbal form. So, we did submit a development application about a year ago for the property directly to the south of this and we are currently working on some revisions to that -- that -- that development plan. But in either scenario we provide, with our development--or anticipate providing with our development a frontage road, we would call it, that actually runs parallel to State Highway 16. So, we -- we actually have some of the same concerns that, Commissioner Wheeler, you hinted at a little bit with -- with common area, play area next to a highway. We understand that that is -- that that's part of the -- the code and what's been required of the other developments. We have a little bit different feeling about how that should function. I have lived here for 15 years now. I have never seen one person ever walking on Eagle Road. Never once. And I have also never seen anyone walking on Highway 84 either. 1-84. 1 have never seen anyone ever walking along that way. They do have sound walls. They do have developments on the backside. I did a quick search today, just to kind of look on 1-84 to see if there is any pathways anywhere near 1-84. 1 couldn't find one anywhere in the valley. So, we have a little bit different view. We think that it's a better design and safer to run the street and have the street function as the buffer along Highway 16 and that provides more developable space, more area for usable open space within the development. So, our -- our meager ask is really just that they -- they are providing a stub street to the south that would connect to our development, which is great. It's -- and it's almost in perfect alignment, but we just request that that be moved approximately 40 to 45 feet to the east, so that when we come in with our development proposal that those projects could align and we would have a better connection in that area. So, I will leave that with you. That's -- that's our testimony. I will keep it quick, because it's been a night -- long night for everyone. So, that concludes my testimony. Grove: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Seal: Absolutely. Grove: Mr. Tucker, a question. I'm not great with geometry, but are the -- I mean it looks like there is room on your project and where they are proposing that they can somewhat align. It doesn't look like it's that far off. Is it -- is it possible to -- is there an agreement to come to or is it kind of a black or white scenario? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F62 Page 58 of 70 Tucker: No. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Grove, I think we could work with the applicant to the north and come up with a solution. He actually reached out to me when I submitted the letter and -- and had some questions about the 35 foot buffer and he's like I don't want to -- really want to redesign this, unless the city is on board with your design and so you are right, I think with a little bit of a give on their part and a little bit of give on our part I think we can make it work pretty easily and not negatively affect either one of our developments. Seal: I got a question real quick, so -- I had a question on the bike paths and everything connecting to the north. It looks like with this configuration the bike path is just going to end, so -- and I will let you know that's one of my pet peeves, because I live in an area that has some beautiful biking paths that go nowhere. So, this seems to be one of them. How -- how is that going to be -- it's not your project, but if they -- if the road does align the way that you want it to align, how is that bike path going to continue on through? Tucker: Sure. Mr. Chairman, I think, you know, with -- with a public road we are going to be required to provide sidewalks. This is a situation where we could provide maybe a wider sidewalk that would accommodate pedestrians and bikes -- bicyclists. It is going to be a public road. But, like I said, I think we can make some flexibility and to move some stuff around, so that we would have that connectivity of bike lanes, pedestrian pathways and it would all work. It may transition from a pathway to a sidewalk, but still it would be a dedicated area for pedestrians and bicyclists. Seal: Thank you. Anybody else? No one else signed up. Weatherly: Not that I see, Mr. Chair. Seal: Anybody else want to raise their hand and come forward on this one? No? All right. With that if the applicant would like to come back up -- come back on. Do you have any closing remarks? Adams: I do. Can I share my screen again? And I will -- let me just start as if that's coming up, but -- so, the play -- the play area, it's not near the highway. It might seem that way. It is on the west side of a six foot berm, with a six foot solid wall, which that wall is over one hundred feet from the highway itself and there are neighborhoods all over Boise that are dramatically closer than that to 1-84 and different highways. We have a great separation here. It's very safe and that east buffer is incredible. The play area is -- so, the top of the wall has to be 12 feet above the centerline of the road. That's your code. And so that's why you have a berm and a wall. And, then, our play area is kind of depressed down. So, the play area is down where you don't get the noise, you don't hear the sound, you don't hear through the wind. You can't -- there is no flying debris. We are safe and protected. The second thing is -- that I want to emphasize is 93 families can walk to elementary school, walk to parent-teacher conferences, walk to the special events. The field day at the end of the school year, which is awesome. You can walk to the football game, which would be awesome, too. So, that's -- as the way we all drive now, that's like 180 cars off the road, because every family needs at least two to get to a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F63 Page 59 of 70 football game. And, then, I do want to say on the south road alignment, Todd did send that letter. We responded back immediately. Absolutely. We can coordinate. I hate when the streets have little kinks in them or don't align. I am confused. I don't think you can do a six foot berm, wall, and a multi-use pathway, which is in the Meridian City Code and put the road up against ITD. However, if that all works out, we will shift and angle and align our road, so that we have connectivity between the two projects. We think that's just as important as the neighbor does. And I think that's -- that's about all I would like to cover. I can answer any other questions if you have any. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Is there any additional questions for the applicant or staff? All right. With that, if anybody wants to motion close the public hearing. Wheeler: So moved. Your turn, Nick. Grove: Second. Seal: All right. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. H- 2021-0065, Aviator Springs. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Seal: Who would like to go first with comments or a motion? Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: I really like a lot of the pieces of this project. Just kind of starting off, the -- the ME is something different. I think that's -- not a huge piece of what we talked about tonight, but just in general I like that. The play area was something that really stood out to me on this project. It is something completely different that we don't normally see. It's not just the standard, you know, green and blue metal tot lot and so I like the creative pieces to it. Also getting some of the other pieces in this with the L-O, you know, Boys and Girls Club and LDS seminary, but great additions to making this a mixed use area and providing some different community pieces there. And I like the -- the thought process behind integrating their design concepts to purposely tie into a larger area, especially in relation to some of the family design features that they are wanting to incorporate. It's really cool when somebody takes -- you know, they have 40 acres and they have donated some of the land. So, I think that's pretty cool. And I don't see a lot of issues with this, it's almost because of the site constraints this to me feels similar to some in-fill projects almost and so that's kind of how my head has been thinking about this as I go forward. Seal: Commissioner Yearsley? Commissioner Wheeler? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F64 Page 60 of 70 Wheeler: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Seal: Go ahead. Wheeler: Yes. And I like the -- I like these tie-in projects next to schools a lot. I live somewhat near Mountain View and it is neat to see all of the attraction for residential mixed use development that starts to fill in all around it and how that becomes a fantastic place and actually kind of a hub for light office, commercial, like you say in walking distance, things like this, and taking more vehicles off the roads. That matters a lot, especially during those high commuter times when school starts and when they are traveling -- when they are traveling and so I -- this project to me -- I like that it's just -- it's different to see that playground area next to the Highway 16. 1 did think -- I saw that as creative for sure, but I'm kind of -- to me it's -- it's kind of unique to see it right next to a major arterial, with walkways and playground equipment close to it. It's just a little different. I'm not saying that it's wrong, not saying that it can't be done, it's just --just my head goes sideways just a little bit to kind of look at it, but I like the creativeness of it. Thanks also for clarifying the fire access on that and to realize that that was just a couple turns and they can be there quickly. So, thank you. Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, do you have anything to add? Yearsley: You know, this is a tough site, even with the access to the south -- or to the south it still has very limited access and -- and -- but -- but, again, you are -- you are kind of constrained on two different sides to provide access. So, I am really concerned about access and about the -- you know, how it's all arranged. It -- to me it doesn't feel like it flows very well to get out of there and I think ultimately it's going to have traffic problems trying to get out, even with the south access. But I do like the open space. I do like the connectivity with it. I'm okay with the density. I don't think we want to -- especially in that area to try to make it a higher density back in there. I don't think it fits, but -- but with that I am in favor of the project. Seal: Thank you. And I'm along the same lines there, so I'm a little concerned with the access, especially with the road being in a high school, because when I was in high school I never parked anywhere I shouldn't have, of course, like all high schoolers, but that is a little concerning for me that that's the secondary access in there, especially with a seminary and a Boys and Girls Club going in. So, I do like the layout and the concept of it. I like the fact that it has a lot of walking paths, open space, bike paths, that -- that's kind of unique. I'm glad to see that that's going in. I'm glad to see more of it happening in Meridian. The one concern I do have -- and I kind of wish this was coming in together with the southern property, especially if the southern property is a lot of multi-family, is there is going to be a lot of people in this subdivision that are not going to be happy about sharing all those things with multi-family establishment. So, we continually battle that. But that's probably for another day to come in here, so -- but that is a concern looking forward on this. But outside of that -- I mean I agree it kind of feels like in-fill where if this doesn't go in there what will. You know, I mean a business isn't going to survive back here. It's going to be residential. So, I think with the low density like this, with the open Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F65] Page 61 of 70 space it has, is about the best fit we are going to have for it. With that I will entertain any motions anybody would like to make. Not all at once. Parsons: Mr. Chair, I had one clarifying comment for you. Seal: Go ahead, Bill. Parsons: I did notice on the applicant's presentation that they were requesting to get one building permit for the seminary or -- so they can get that under construction and, again, it is something we have done with previous projects, so if that -- I know they are in a hurry. I have been working with the architect that's doing the seminary project and in a hurry to get that built, because of the high school and so staff is amenable to that condition, if you want to add that they are able to get under construction with the seminary prior to recording a plat would -- would appreciate it. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Bill, with that do then -- do we need to condition anything else with that, like roads or sidewalks or -- Parsons: Yeah. They -- they will have to bring all of that in as part of their development. So, absolutely. All of that access that you see from -- from here in will have to be completed to make that happen. Grove: To make the seminary ready. Parsons: Correct. Yeah. We want to get that connectivity and everything built out there. Grove: Okay. Seal: Commissioner Grove. Motion maker tonight. Grove: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council a File No. H-2021-0065 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21 st, 2021, with the following modification: That a building permit -- what Bill said is included and they are able to move forward with the seminary. Yearsley: I will second that. Seal: All right. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2021-0065, Aviator Springs, with the aforementioned modifications. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F66 Page 62 of 70 Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Yes. Yearsley: I move -- I move we adjourn. Seal: We are not quite done yet. Yearsley: Oh, we -- we have one more? I thought this was the last one. My apologies. Wheeler: We will let you do the last motion, since you haven't done any today. Yearsley: All right. I was getting excited. 11. Public Hearing Continued from September 16, 2021 for Fields Sub- Area Plan (H2O21-0047) by City of Meridian, the Location Consisting of Approximately Four (4) Square Miles and Bounded by Chinden Blvd. on the North, McDermott Rd. on the East, McMillan Rd. on the South and Can-Ada Rd. on the West A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to incorporate the Fields Sub-Area Plan. Seal: All right. And we like to pick on Caleb, but I mean that -- that's just going too far. All right. We would like to -- at this time we will open up the public hearing for Item No. H-2021-0047, Fields Sub-Area Plan, which was continued from 9/16/2021 and we will start with staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. If you don't mind I'm going to pull this down, so I can talk and a little bit easier to hear. So, I'm Caleb Hood. Brian McClure is here as well. We have 48 slides, but just because Commissioner Yearsley is in such a rush we will go ahead and, you know, make sure we run through each one of those, so don't worry, you don't have to listen to me the whole time, Brian's going to take about half of them, so -- no, we don't have 48 slides. So, as you -- as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, this has been continued from your September 16th agenda. You asked us to meet with the applicant, discuss some of the concerns they brought to your attention during that meeting and we have done so and I know there is a letter and we have members in the audience that will address you, so I won't go too much into the detail, but we have met with them and good -- good productive meeting and thanks to Brian and -- and the Mark Bottles team for -- for putting up with us as well. So, there is a -- there is a letter in your packet and Brian will touch on some of the details, but I do want to spend just a second setting the stage a little bit more. This project is something that the City Council did ask us to -- to take forward as a continuation of the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in December of 2019. 1 need to stop calling it the new Comprehensive Plan, because it's almost two years old now, but it's still relatively new, but they did want us to put a finer point on some of the existing land uses that were adopted with that plan and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F67] Page 63 of 70 go through the specific area plan. So, we retained the services of Logan Simpson to help us craft the specific area plan that's before you this evening and the text of that plan was -- well, the plan itself will be adopted by reference in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. So, that really is the request we have for you tonight is to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan. Brian's going to summarize a little bit more of what the plan is, but I want to just remind you what this isn't or doesn't do and they are on the slide there, but this is not a future land use map amendment. There was some conversation last month about that. We aren't proposing to change any of the map designations on the future land use map. Again, we are --this --the intent of this plan is to put a finer point on the existing map designations. And, then, we aren't proposing to annex any property with this. So, if you are eligible for annexation, this doesn't change that at all and, again, we are just trying to provide some of those details. So, again, without belaboring the point, we believe we have done what you have asked us to do. Brian's going to, again, summarize a little bit more, just because it has been a month, but we are asking for your support tonight and I will turn it over to Brian, unless you have any questions of me. Seal: No, sir. Thank you very much. McClure: Thank you, Caleb. Good evening. This slide here helps to provide some geographic context. I'm putting this up front this time. The image --the image shows the region, the location of the Fields on the left and, then, the adopted 2019 future land uses on the right. As Caleb previously mentioned, the future land uses drive -- are driven by the Comprehensive Plan and these drive densities and more broadly the uses in the area and we are not touching those. As we discussed at the last hearing, the Intermountain Gas liquefied natural gas tank is a big deal. That's called out for reference and the Williams pipeline runs past it. Northwest and southeast through the city. The candy striped line on the --on the east-- right side of the image there, is the future State Highway 16. You had a question for Bill earlier. The answer to that is next summer. So, they -- they are expecting to start construction on that soon. Now, there is three different--three different phases of each -- of each project. They may start this -- the north part, the south part, or in combination, but they are going to move on it. That -- State Highway 16 will only have crossings Ustick, Chinden, McMillan, and Five Mile Creek within this area. As previously mentioned, they are moving forward. Star Road down the middle of the area has a river crossing and is planned for five lanes. ACHD is actually going to be making some bridge improvements to support that here in the upcoming years. They are working on the design right now. I probably neglected this area a little bit too much in the last meeting, so I will just try again here. The purpose of this plan is to ensure that the Fields area implements the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and is vibrant, self sufficient and distinctly Meridian. All the unique location, specific circumstances and challenges in this area are opportunities when consistently channeled and furthered within the context of the plan. Said another way, the sub area plan is about the relationship and integration of uses, with a key focus on central neighbor -- on a central neighborhood center, services and accessibility. Finally, a large part of this plan is just how we accomplish this and most of that comes down to money and partnerships. We have already had two discussions with the Council on that point. It was kind of a quick recap. Next up is a specific text amendment request and, then, some recommended changes to address the various Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F68 Page 64 of 70 plans. A big request, as Caleb mentioned, for Commission tonight is to adopt the Fields Sub-Area Plan by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. This is what that looks like. It goes on page 3-3 of the -- of the beginning of that document. Along with a text amendment we have some recommended changes to the draft sub area plan. These are a result of discussions and comments with other agencies and stakeholders and specific to the sub plan -- the very plan itself. The first group of recommended changes were either included in the staff report or recommended at the September 16th hearing. Specifically we had a few changes to address some comments by COMPASS. We continue to recommend those. The second group of changes came as a result of Commission's requests to meet with the Mark Bottles team and after the last public hearing. Staff believes these changes address some of their biggest concerns by making it clear that the defined vision isn't tied to a specific solution. There is flexibility in how we reach the goal and, hopefully, these changes not only alleviate stakeholder concerns, but serve as a reminder for future entitlement and development decisions. All these changes, except those to address COMPASS comments, were included in the memo on 10/15 that we sent last week. We will step through these quickly in reverse order. This, again, is a new change. These were covered in the memo and, again, came as a result of working with the -- Mark -- Mark Bottles team. The block of text here shows and describes the wants and needs for the main street concept within the Star-McMillan center. The purpose of this section is to provide the vision and describe need, but not intended to be prescriptive. The only will statement included in the text was not brought up as a concern, but has been revised to help in consideration during future review by others. There are many ways to approach these concepts and ideas. There are many ways to respond to the needs and goals. Nevertheless, staff believes that the strength in the underlying text address stakeholder concern, clarify that they aren't explicit or prescriptive in all conditions and does so without undermining the need for a clear vision with appropriate context. We still want the main street. We still want to make use of the pathway integration and we still need an intensity of uses that provide for the geographic consolidation that many of the services that the existing and future stakeholders will need and want. This slide here was not an original stakeholder request. The recommendation by staff came about in discussions with the Mark Bottles team about the types and balances of uses. This small area of the yellow product identified as housing, it's highlighted in pink, now shown as purple, near the central commons. That could have just as easily been purple, which is why we are revising it. The mixed use allows for housing. Simply stated, the reason we changed it is because we want to continue to convey that there is flexibility. Showing specific buildings of similar sizes and specific color sort of lends itself to -- well, that we were being specific and we really weren't. The graphic shown here has been revised since the original was presented to Planning and Zoning Commission as part of the September 16 public testimony. After several iterations by the Bottles team, staff is recommending the concept shown as an additional exhibit in this draft Fields Sub-Area Plan. The balances of use -- the balance of uses, which is very important, is generally supported in more detailed concept by the project consultant, but also conveying to future decision makers that there is flexibility in the final design. A future development application would still need to be considered as a plan text. Elements such as integration with linear open space, authentic pedestrian experience, and so on. Basically a main street. The October 15 memo goes into this first bullet point quite a bit, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F69 Page 65 of 70 but, stated simply, this wording does not disallow any materials. That was the original primary concern in public testimony. The next step would be to better define this and related policies for the Fields area. Many of the materials listed on page 420 in those action items of the sub area plan can be really cool. Unfortunately, they are also frequently abused when you consider our administrative design review process. It provides a fast lane for review that meets minimum level of effort and, then, if you want to be innovated you go through more traditional design and discretionary review process. For the second revised action item, 411, the one on the bottom there, staff and the project consultant are fine with removing that one. The future land use map already does this. If you don't want to meet the density -- the plan density ranges you can apply for a map amendment. These changes are not addressed in the staff report. So, these are the older ones by COMPASS and I neglected include those in the memo last week. But we continue to recommend those, so if you make a motion to recommend the approval of this, please, consider the slide here. And these are all just clarifying comments to address the COMPASS comments. This screen and the next are both in the staff report and the memo sent last week as part of the staff recommendation. I won't linger here. This language is all intended to provide more context on why some of the information is there and why it's important. This page is more of the same. This, again, was all in a staff report and in the memo. So, that's the abbreviated presentation. Staff recommendation is to consider all the changes outlined as presented and included -- includes the original request in the staff report, the changes to this COMPASS comments and additional changes in the 10/15 memo. We are happy to revisit context and slides from the previous meeting or to respond to any questions. Seal: Thanks very much. Do we have any immediate questions? Mr. Wheeler, go ahead. Wheeler: Thank you, Chairman. I'm sorry, I missed your first name. I apologize. Brad? Is it Brad? McClure: Brian. Wheeler: Brian. I'm sorry. Brian. I'm still learning things here. So, thank you very much. So, Brian, on the -- on the map amendments -- or not the map amendments, but all the verbiage and things like that, you said that there was like a letter that was attached to it; correct? That's going to be added in on it; is that correct? McClure: I'm not sure I understand that. I apologize. Wheeler: Is there -- that was -- that was added to it; right? Seal: Right. Essentially that's -- everything that he's come through tonight is addressed, essentially, in the letter that -- that was submitted, with the exception of what he has listed here as the post 19/16 -- or 9/16 memo. McClure: So, Commissioner Wheeler, yes. So, there was a memo sent last week on the 15th that identified all the changes that we just showed you, except for the ones from Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F70 Page 66 of 70 COMPASS, which I added to the slides here tonight. Wheeler: Okay. So, that was the one that was saying that's going to be part -- okay. McClure: But those ones were from the previous public hearing as well. So, they have been reviewed by -- before. Or considered anyways. Wheeler: Okay. I guess I had a couple questions about some -- some of the changes on there. Like one of them had to do with -- yeah, you can -- if we can keep on going back a little bit to one of the further slides, because I kind of took a look at this, too. Yeah. Go -- we can start right there. And just kind of thought through it. One of them was -- I remember one of the comments that was made was right here, which you guys struck here was the two to three story mixed use buildings. That was something that they -- that -- that some of the stakeholders were like, hey, this is something that might hurt development or something along those lines. I'm trying to envision myself going through some of the other developments around, like even in Meridian, and thinking about going through -- like even The Village and thinking of walking in and seeing single story, you know, just brings kind of a different aura to it and so -- but seeing something that's larger that has kind of that facade stone on it just kind of gives it a different kind of a feel and so I'm kind of curious on what was the -- what was kind of the thought on why we -- why we don't want to have two to three story mixed use buildings in that pathway or that driving path there. McClure: Commissioner, thank you for the question. So, the intention is to still have some of that. The original language -- the stakeholders felt that it implied that in all conditions that would be there and that was not our intent. It still needed to -- to -- some of it still needed to generate the intensity of uses and the opportunities for all the services we are looking to support, but it doesn't necessarily need to be there all the time either and so the way that's captured now is down below where it basically says -- I lost it. Authentic opportunities for retail or office on the ground floor and residential and/or office uses above. So, we are still encouraging that, we are just not requiring it at all conditions, which was never the point in the first place. Wheeler: Okay. All right. That sounds good then. And, then, we can go ahead and bump forward just a little bit here. I'm just trying to make sure that I'm understanding some of it. Go ahead and go forward again, if you don't mind. I'm -- one of the graphics there. Yeah. I think this was something that some of the other testimony kind of spoke -- spoke about was some of the --just really high density dwellings or zoning in this mile by mile block in this area specifically, that it didn't kind of phase down to single family dwellings, that it didn't phase into something different than just exclusively apartment style or very dense residential zonings and I understand that the stakeholders have interest on that, too, but what about the -- you know, some of the other testimony that was given on that about, hey, can we try to spread out some of the density that's in these areas and things? McClure: Commissioner Wheeler, again, thank you for the question. So, as we said Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F71 Page 67 of 70 before the land uses here are adopted as they are, they do have a range they are seeking. Part of that is very purposeful, because through -- part of the analysis that the consultant did was to understand what sort of rooftops we needed to support the center that we were looking for. It is envisioned that we have some medium high density residential out here, including multi-family. However, those plans did not depict those in all areas or -- and did not indicate that they weren't transitioning. You can have a variety of product types in the medium density residential, including things like patio homes or townhomes or row homes. There is an opportunity for a lot of diversity in housing out here. It doesn't have to be multi-family. I think you would expect to see more of that in the urban housing or close to the road, but we are not setting that right now. We have concepts and things could happen that way, but we still have the policies in the Comprehensive Plan that fall back on to -- which say things like transition. Hood: If I can just build on that for one second. I want to go just back-- put that in context a little bit more, because this was also I think something -- the scale of that last graphic kind of gets lost a little bit when we are zooming into that area so much and I want to just put that, again, in context a little bit. It doesn't look like this mouse can do it. But, Brian, if you can kind of just highlight what was just on the screen, when you are talking here, it is just, basically, that brown area right there. So, we are talking four square miles. This is that much of one of them. So, there is density here, but when you look at it overall, the vast majority of it is still medium and low density residential. So, I just want to put that scale back into context for you that we are not talking, you know, a huge community or a square mile of higher density, we are talking about the neighborhood center and the scale of that here in that area. Wheeler: Okay. Okay. That helps me out on that, too, then. Thank you very much. But is there going to -- so, they can, obviously, have some of the high density apartments there and, then, they can transition that out, like we have seen a couple times tonight, even with like the patio or row homes, is that -- as it goes down further into the mile block, so to speak? McClure: Commissioner Wheeler, there is lots of ways to transition with roads and landscape buffers and creeks and pathways, than just having different size homes next to each other. The comp plan certainly speaks to having a transition of uses, though, and the land use plan requires a transition of uses just by having them stagger like that. So, it doesn't concern me at all, but -- Wheeler: Okay. And, then, yeah, go forward if you don't mind, please, again. Okay. So, I -- that makes sense, then, on that other one there with the limited single family development on that. That sounds good. Is there a reason -- but it also let me speak to the other thing that's crossed off there on the very top there -- or composition siding into commercial structures. Was there a reason why composition siding was something that didn't want to be used in this? McClure: I'm not trying to blame the consultant, but I'm not really sure. It's -- it's -- it's a pretty common material and it's probably overused and I think the desire was to have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 21,2021 F72 Page 68 of 70 something elevated and more distinct and not just have a primary material be that. The only way to require that as is, though, would be to specifically put that into a development agreement, because you get to our administrative design review process, is not one of the disallowed materials. So, it's sort of a -- it doesn't do a lot, unless -- unless the Commission and Council want to get really specific. Wheeler: Good. Good. Okay. And, then, just if you don't mind moving it forward again, please. That's fine there. And, then, just one more time, please. Yeah. I think those were my -- really just my biggest questions that I had in that use there. So, thank you. Seal: Commissioner Grove, do you have something? Grove: Yeah. I was just going to provide Commissioner Wheeler with a little more context for the -- some of the planning that went in three, four years ago or whenever it was. But looking at this four square mile area, the comprehensive planning committee spent a lot of time on this -- these -- this section in looking at how to make sure that there was high density areas close to the expressway and being able to also tie into the school system with the high school and the elementary and keeping it close to that area and making sure that it didn't end up, you know, just a sea of single family housing and so that was a big piece that came up multiple weeks during that two year process. Wheeler: Thank you. Then -- yeah. And that was, I guess, some of my leaning in to try to understand this. We did get the paperwork to take it home, took a look at it, you know, to try and understand it and a lot of it for me was just to make sure that that intent that was originally done there isn't getting, you know, pushed out or getting moved to where all of a sudden, as something has a first splash in this area, that that's going to set a tone and, then, it's going to be the tone that we are all going to want to -- hey, kids, look over there instead when you are driving by it or it's just not going to give the feel that we wanted in this area and so that was some of my -- more my questions were at was just making sure we weren't getting off too much -- or at least from my perspective getting off too much of where the initial intent was and what the vision was that -- when everybody was going through that, so -- Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, do you have anything? Yearsley: Nope. I'm good. Seal: Do we have anybody signed up for public testimony? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not. Seal: Anybody in the audience would like to come up? No? With that, Caleb, do you want to close or -- all good? All in all good? Excellent. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing. Wheeler: So moved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F73 Page 69 of 70 Grove: Is this a public hearing that we need to close? Okay. Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item No. H- 2021-0047, Fields Sub-Area Plan. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Seal: Anybody have any additional comments or motions? Mr. Yearsley, you can throw one out there. Yearsley: Are we approving this or recommending -- Seal: Then you can get onto your next one. I know you are in a hurry for that, so -- Yearsley: Are we approving this or recommending approval to City Council? Seal: I think we recommend approval to City Council on this and the graphic that's on the screen will be helpful in making a motion. Yearsley: Hold on. I'm trying to juggle screens. Seal: That's okay. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend File No. H-2021-0047 as presented in the staff report to City Council -- recommend approval to City Council for the hearing date of today with the following modifications: To include the original staff report changes. Add COMPASS changes and the post 9/16 memo changes. Wheeler: Aye. Grove: Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved -- moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2021-0047 Fields Sub-Area Plan with the aforementioned modifications. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, I just want to say thank you very much for stepping back in tonight and helping us make quorum. We really appreciate you doing that. Yearsley: My pleasure. Wheeler: I second that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October21,2021 F74 Page 70 of 70 Seal: And -- and with that if you would like to make a -- make a motion. Yearsley: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn. Grove: Second. Seal: It's been motion and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you all. Yearsley: Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 11 4 1 2021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 4 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the October 7, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 7, 2021 F66 Page 62 of 62 Cassinelli: All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony -- testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0054 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 7th, 2021, no modifications. Grove: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item H-2021-0054, Ten Mile Creek Storage, with no modifications. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Seal: Okay. Take one more motion, please. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn. Lorcher: Second. Seal: Motion to -- motion and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thanks, everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:18 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 10-21-2021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 2. 67 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Burger King Drive-Through (H-2021- 0051) by Legend Engineering, Located at 6211 N. Ten Mile Rd. F-1 CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN .,.. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW �` AND IDAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a dual-ordering drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another approved drive-through establishment for a 2,910 square foot Burger King,Located at 6211 N.Ten Mile Road in the C-G Zoning District,by Legend Engineering. Case No(s).H-2021-0051 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 7,2021 (Findings on October 21, 2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7,2021,incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7, 2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7, 2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7,2021, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2021-0051—Burger King Drive-Through CUP Page 1 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of October 7,2021,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 October 7, 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 I 1-513-617.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC I 1-513-617.2. 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 October 7, 2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2021-0051—Burger King Drive-Through CUP Page 2 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 21 st day of 00-tebar--,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 10-21-2021 Attest: Chris Johnson,City Clerk 10-21-2021 Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 10-21-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2021-0051—Burger King Drive-Through CUP Page 3 Item 2. EXHIBIT A E STAFF REPORT REPORT a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/7/2021 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0051 ® � 6 Burger King Drive-Through—CUP LOCATION: The site is located at 6211 N. Ten Mile Jun Road, on the west side of N. Ten Mile Road,approximately 500 feet south of Chinden Boulevard(Lot 11,Block 1, Lost Rapids Subdivision),in the NE 1/4 of HT the NE 1/4 of Section 27,Township 4N., /' j' HE� Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit request for a dual-ordering drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another approved drive-through establishment for a 2,910 square foot Burger King with 37 parking spaces on 0.877 acres of land in the C-G zoning district,by Legend Engineering. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.877 acres Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use 1 Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant with dual drive-throughs Current Zoning W lip' General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of June 22,2021;six(6)attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2018-0004(DA#2018-079970,Lost Rapids-GFI Meridian Investments II,LLC);FP-2019-0056 Page 1 • 1 . 1 . I I VAN � d ■C 111 - rf■ e - ��Y 111 Illii 1111111111 � _ sF 14.7Mmw - IIIIIIII111111 ��nnnrlunnrl r n 'rMEN II Illr... W■Ilrllrr rr111■ r1 ■■rloL_ - Inn a 1_ r■uu nrrrl . ._ e■urP�. - --:n;I - . .nrr min ■ ■ ........ . J a, ...1... 1 •„ M ME W i�� ii■11 � :. i __� � I nr1111 1111111111111I•y i'` { Z �I , • • r I� Irnunll r1111umi1 � r W. �Ir111 ll1���y 1 ■ � _ � �—rs� �- :. ME ii all dII11. �r� ..�11 �'� � i • �Illll ° " • i� IIIII I. il. . , I11111111Illlll11111111111111IIIIIIIII 1i II Kmlllllwllllllll ON g� 1, iI C .� I�IL 1 I• = olu r • . -. •. - Illu NONE ra • �'■ .d��1111 mill MI 11: 11111 � CHIN DEN �W —CHIND.ENJ'� unnlminnll �■ IIIIIIII111111111111111 �����I ■■■■■Ilmiunl; �■ IJ'I■■Ir11r. rr1111_ �� 111111 r.■111111 - I .rlr11r1 rrlrlr N �� 1111�� _ � Irrlr ■rlllr■ .� ■1111� _IIIII p � ��rlrllrr■Illlr u •+ -.III •rrlr. _� mill IIIII— _� IIIII— 1111111 ■ ...—� �� IIIIIII EMIINI W ...... .1 1 1111111 1 Ja��■�■■■�.a SO u �lrrr rrrrrr.. i. ■. ` mYrrr rrlrrrlr�l �J Inrllll■■I111111111try . . Zn11111■min11111111 _� ��=■ � Imilllmill IIIIIIrrI �. ��Q� � �Ww�I�1111I IIIIIIIr II �Ir111 111 l..I 1 ■� � �Ir111 111 l..I 1 p 1I11111 ' bI — .i�� 11I11111111�: bI ■ ��_ .i M1 ■ lgII111 -...� . ��■11 ■ lgIIl11111 -...� ��■11 fI11111 I IIIIII I 1II11Il1l ••S � == CIN l N 111I •i•i IN III1lIll llllll1 111111111111 1IIIIIIO �� II 1 � --1 -•- 1 11 1 -.- :� 1 ttem 2. EX H I B I T A 73 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 8/27/2021 Radius notification mailed to 8/25/2021 properties within 500 feet Site Posting Date 9/23/2021 Next Door posting 8/26/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed use is for a restaurant with a dual-ordering drive-through that is within 300-feet of a financial institution drive-through to the south that has recently received Commission approval (Mountain America Credit Union,H-2021-0019),which requires Conditional Use Permit approval (CUP)per UDC Table 11-213-2. There is also residential zoning to the east across N. Ten Mile Rd. but because the uses are separated by an arterial street, this is not a factor in the CUP requirement, per UDC 11-4-3-IIA. Specific Use Standards: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11,Drive-Through Establishment. A site plan is required to be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties.At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: Staffs analysis is in italics. 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways,drive aisles and the public right-of-way by patrons; The proposed drive-through has two ordering menu boards with stacking for approximately three (3) vehicles per lane, according to the submitted site plan. Each stacking lane is approximately 60'deep from the edge of the 30'wide drive aisle that is proposed as the main access to the future building and the drive-through exit in the north end of the site. The proposed 30'drive aisle is 5'wider than required by code which allows some relief if stacking backs up into the drive aisle while ordering. The total stacking length is approximately 128'from the edge of the drive aisle to the pick-up window along the south side of the building; this allows at lest 7 vehicles to stack according to the submitted site plan. Staff believes the stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to serve the use without obstructing driveways and drive aisles by patrons because the inclusion of two menu boards allows double the stacking than the singular distance of 60'. 2)The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designed employee parking. Per the submitted site plan, the stacking lanes are off of the northernmost drive aisle and provide at least 120'of stacking with each menu board location and approximately 128'in total to the pick-up window before any vehicle would impede this drive aisle. No parking is impeded by the proposed stacking lanes and nor would any be should stacking exceed the proposed depth because of the site design. 3)The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing Page 3 item 2. EX H I B I T A 74 residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length from the drive aisle to the pick-up window. Therefore, the Applicant has proposed an escape lane adjacent to the drive through lane along the southern boundary. This escape lane configuration meets this standard. 5)The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is not directly adjacent to the nearest public street(N. Ten Mile Road) along the east boundary of the site but the south boundary of the site and the pick-up window is still visible from Ten Mile. To help meet this standard, Staff is recommending revisions to the landscape plan to remove some of the proposed landscaping that would obstruct the line of site from the street to the pick-up window as currently proposed. If this cannot occur or would incur undue costs because the street landscaping is already in place, there is ample surveillance opportunity from within the commercial subdivision and internal drive aisles. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through in compliance with the specific use standards as required,especially with Staffs recommended revisions to the landscaping along Ten Mile. The proposed use of a restaurant is also subject to a specific use standard(UDC 11-4-3-49)which dictates the minimum parking ratio shall be 1 space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed site plan appears to show compliance with this standard. Access: Two (2)driveway accesses are proposed to the site from the internal drive aisles of the Lost Rapids commercial development: one dedicated access at the north end of the site and one via a shared access at the southwest corner of the site. This access will be shared with the adjacent financial institution discussed above. There are multiple access points to the overall development from the adjacent public roads, Chinden Boulevard and Ten Mile Road. A reciprocal cross-access easement exists for lots in this subdivision as noted on the Lost Rapids subdivision plat(note#12) and in the Declaration of Easements,Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(Inst. 2020-071547). Parking: A minimum of one (1)parking space is required to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area for the proposed restaurant use per the specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-49. The Burger King is proposed as a 2,910 square foot building which requires a minimum of 12 parking spaces (rounded up from 11.64). The submitted site plan shows 37 parking spaces exceeding UDC minimums by 300%. The recorded Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for this development establish cross-parking easements for lots in certain groups within the development(Inst. 2020- 071547,Amended Inst. #2020-171404). This lot(Lot 11) is grouped with Lot 12 directly to the south and shares a perpetual,non-exclusive cross-parking easement with that lot. A minimum one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Two (2)bicycle parking facilities are shown on the submitted plans in compliance with code. Pedestrian Walkways:No pedestrian walkway is depicted on the site plan from the arterial/perimeter sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Road to the main building entrance.UDC 11-3A- 19B.4a requires this connection for all nonresidential uses. Therefore, Staff is recommending a Page 4 Item 2. EXHIBIT A condition of approval to add a pedestrian connection near the drive-through exit that connects the arterial sidewalk to the patio area of the pad site. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping is depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.B in planter islands within the parking area as required. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer is required to be provided along the perimeter of the parking or other vehicular use areas as set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C.1. The submitted landscape plan shows the required perimeter buffers with the correct number of trees and other vegetative ground cover. Street buffer landscaping, including a sidewalk, along N. Ten Mile Rd. was installed with development of the overall subdivision. The submitted landscape plans show a majority of this buffer remaining as it currently exists but Staff is recommending that the southern portion of the site have some of the trees removed to increase visibility from Ten Mile to the pick-up window. If the trees can be relocated to other areas of the site, Staff supports this. Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment for the building and any outdoor service areas and equipment should be incorporated into the overall design of the building and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. If mechanical equipment is proposed to be roof-mount, all equipment should be screened and out of view from the furthest edge of right-of-way. Building Elevations: The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the future Burger King restaurant. The building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VII.0 and appear to incorporate two main field materials, fiber cement siding and stucco with horizontal reveals. The siding and stucco are two contrasting colors(wood colored and a coal-like color,respectively)which adds to the overall rustic-modern design of the building. On the northeast corner of the building,the main entrance is enhanced by full-length storefront windows and glazing facing north and the patio along the east side of the building. The conceptual elevations combined with the site plan appear to also show adequate wall modulation along each building fagade. Staff will verify compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual with the future Design Review submittal. No elevations were submitted for the proposed trash enclosure;this should be submitted with the future CZC submittal and the material and color should match those of the proposed building materials. Certificate of Zoning Compliance &Design Review: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and Administrative Design Review is required to be submitted for the proposed building and use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure consistency with the conditions in Section VIII and UDC standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. The Director has approved the administrative design review request. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on October 7,2021.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: Lonny Reed,Applicant Representative Page 5 item 2. EX H I B I T A Es b. In opposition:None c. Commenting Lonny Reed: Gary Moore.Burger r King operator(Applicant) d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Orientation of proposed building and drive-through in regards to whether headlights will be facing towards Ten Mile to the west—this is correct. b. Access to the specific site and the overall Costco development in relation to the subject site. C. Location of parking for those who must wait for their food after paving. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 6 item 2. EX H I B I T A El VII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 9/03/2021) I I I ' 'm^ 261,513 r -- - --- ACHD PERMANENT EASEMENT 11 STALLS ! i' i PER INST 10 STALLS fr i• NO.2019-106797 nl 3 Rd_DO ! I T 5 + - LANDSCAPE O y 25.00 30.00 `�' BUFFER PER r4f'Y R3,00 R5.00 R3.00 71.35 2 + Q III�II LOST RAPON ol� R4.00 RZ50 I I 9•� R3.0 ,'r 5UBOIVISI O I I�I R3.00 '.`1•. .'.. 12.00 19.00 6 7O STALLS .`.I_._I PUE J I5. 2-00 122.35y � 4 1 I I• 3 I o z a s LJ 24.00 'p _ 25.00 FR Ir- '•�.',i '�' ' 14.00 CANAL _ r EASEMENT PER V `-s` . .`L INST,NO. R2.00 _ / ••I• .Y. 114008299 RI6.00 .4 .� R17.50 - - LP 51): 24.00 2&47 - ��.`.j.•. 59.41.15"W`,•.•.•. - -- - - I � I — I Page 7 item 2. EX H I B I T A �$ B. Proposed Landscape Plan(dated: 7/08/2021) r 0 LAVM i uwk ` 51,%t Triangle Irn + LaWN + v A I a F ■ LAWN LAW I + I I i i .00 I Sigh{Triangle -%/��� + (2Oa1 O') V Tree Calculations t9 ,e STREET FRONTAGE(Ten Mile Rood) 144 L.F. Tree:Required 4 (1 Per 35 LF.Frontage) sm.n r..e:;/W-V-a' Trees Provided 4 TREE SPECIES(28 Total Tree:Provided) Tree Speclee Required 3 Tree Species Provided 5 Page 8 item 2. EX H I B I T A 79 C. Conceptual Building Elevations(dated: 6/07/2021) u - _ KING e. BURGER KING -MERIDIAN Page 9 item 2. EX H I B I T A so VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2018-079970, Lost Rapids-GFI Meridian Investments 11,LLC) and associated conditions of approval(H-2018-0004; FP-2019-0056). 2. The site plan submitted with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a pedestrian walkway from the sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Road to the building entrance near the drive-through exit. Construct the pedestrian crossing of the drive- through, or any other pedestrian facility that crosses a vehicular use area,with a different material—stamped or colored concrete,brick pavers, or similar are acceptable forms of meeting this requirement per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. Page 10 �tem2. EXHIBIT A El 3. The landscape plan submitted with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict the required pedestrian walkway as noted above,per UDC 11-3A-19B.4a and UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. b. Revise the layout or reduce the number of trees shown in the southeast corner of the arterial street buffer to increase visibility from N. Ten Mile Road to the pick-up window and drive-through lane. 4. Submit elevations of the trash enclosure that matches the proposed building color. 5. Comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 —Drive-Through Establishment. 6. Comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49—Restaurant. 7. Hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. becuase the property abuts a residential district to the east,per UDC 11-2B-3B. 8. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. 9. An Administrative Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed building prior to submittal of a building permit application. 10. Prior to receiving Certificate of Occupancy,the required 35-foot landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road shall be vegetated and completed in accord with previous approvals and UDC I I- 3B-7. 11. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Commission finds the proposed restaurant with a dual-ordering drive-through will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design, construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Page 11 Item 2. EXHIBIT A Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water, and sewer. Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise,smoke,fumes,glare or odors. Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.(Ord. 05-1170,8-30-2005,eff. 9- 15-2005) Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. Page 12 83 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Southridge Apartments Phase 3 (H- 2021-0055) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd. and East of S. Ten Mile Rd. CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;_-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of 164 Units on 9.07 Acres of Land in the R-15 Zoning District for Southridge Apartments Phase 3,Located South of W.Overland Rd. and East of S. Ten Mile Rd.,by The Land Group. Case No(s).H-2021-0055 For the Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. October 7,2021 (Findings on October 21, 2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7, 2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7,2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7,2021,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). SOUTHRIDGE APARTMENTS PHASE 3 CUP H-2021-0055 Page 1 Item 3. 85 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of October 7,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 7, 2021, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of October 7,2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). SOUTHRIDGE APARTMENTS PHASE 3 CUP H-2021-0055 Page 2 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 21 st day of October ,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 10-21-2021 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 10-21-2021 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 10-21-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). SOUTHRIDGE APARTMENTS PHASE 3 CUP H-2021-0055 Page 3 Item 3. ■ EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f D A H 0 HEARING October 7,2021 Wegend DATE: f T 0 I�/JI Project Lacfliar — TO: Planning&Zoning Commission TQM FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ' SUBJECT: H-2021-0055 F - Southridge Apartments Phase 3 -- LOCATION: South of W. Overland Rd. and east of S. Ten Mile Rd., in the north''/z of Section 23,Township 3N.,Range 1 W. (Parcel #S1223120955) ------ - - - I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 164 units on 9.07 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 9.07 Future Land Use Designation High Density Residential(HDR) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Uses Multi-family development Current Zoning T R-15 Proposed Zoning NA Number of Residential Units(type 164-units(apartments) of units) Pagel Item 3. F88 Density(gross&net 18.08 units/acre ross /19.05 units/acre net Open Space(acres,total[%]/ 2.08-acres(22.9%) buffer/qualified) Amenities Fitness facility Physical Features(waterways, The Ridenbaugh Canal runs off-site along the southwest hazards,flood plain,hillside) boundary of the site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of May 11,2021;no attendees other than Applicant attendees: History(previous approvals) RZ-11-002(DA Inst.#111099621);MDA-15-010(DA Addendum Inst.#2015-112096); H-2017-0077;H-2020-0109 (2'DA Addendum Inst.#2021-018471) B. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 0 Legend Pro"ea- Laefl=ar — leiProiec:- Locof4r > phi' --- "Employ nt� Industna �r a e ��n • e a High n.s' aiA ntial . �JIUn'Y�' � Sld n r w- nsity 'R sid�ntial Zoning Map Planned Development Map (fLegend it (fLegend 0 IetPreject Lacainan IetPratect Lcca=ar T — + i city Lines i }:Rf—M E UT C- — Planned Pumes �❑ f 4 TN--R TN-C R- l WIS R�15 _R1 R-S TAR - .4 R-8 74 �R- --- R- R- R- RUT RUT R1 Page 2 Item 3. 89 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Kristen McNeill, The Land Group—462 E. Shore Dr., Ste. 100,Eagle,ID 83616 B. Owner: Timothy Eck, Southridge Farm, LLC 6152 W. Half Moon Ln., Eagle, ID 83616 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 9/17/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 9/15/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted 9/25/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 9/16/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(Comprehensive Plan and TMISAP) Land Use: The subject property is designated High Density Residential(HDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)in the Comprehensive Plan and is within the area governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP). HDR designated areas are multiple-family housing areas where relatively larger and taller apartment buildings are the recommended building type. HDR should include a mix of housing types that achieve an overall average density target of at least 16-25 dwelling units per gross acre. Most developments in this area should fall within or below this range, although smaller areas or higher or lower density may be included. Residential densities can be concentrated in multi-story projects with up to 50 dwelling units per acre allowed. Design: HDR designated areas are typically relatively compact located adjacent to or very close to larger MU-COM and Employment areas, and other intensively developed lands. The design and orientation of new HDR buildings should be pedestrian-oriented and special streetscape improvements should be considered to create rich and enjoyable public spaces.A strong physical relationship between the commercial and residential components to adjacent employment or transit centers is critical. Housing types desired in HDR areas are apartment buildings,townhouses or row houses,and live-work units; however,the expectation is that most buildings will be relatively dense multi-family types. Transportation:The Transportation System Map (TSM)in the TMISAP does not depict any local, collector or arterial streets across this site. A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required by ACHD for this development. Proposed Use: A multi-family development containing 164 apartment units is proposed to develop on the site at a gross density of 18.08 units per acre(gross)consistent with the land uses and density desired in the HDR designation. Page 3 Item 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed multi family apartments will contribute to the variety of housing types and financial capabilities for such in the City as desired. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers." (2.01.01H) The proposed multi family development is located in close proximity to S. Ten Mile Rd., a mobility arterial,providing access to 1-84 and is within an employment center area. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) The proposed multi family apartments will contribute to the mix of housing types available in the City. There is currently a mix of housing types, including single-family and multi family dwellings, in close proximity to this site. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed multi family apartments should be compatible with existing multi family residential uses to the north and existing and future single-family residential uses to the west, south and east. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems; services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • `Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop,dine, play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips,and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The proposed residential uses will allow residents to live in close proximity to future employment, retail and restaurant uses in the area which will reduce vehicle trips and enhance livability. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A Conditional Use Permit(CUP) is proposed for a multi-family development consisting of 164 apartment units on 9.07 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district in accord with UDC Table 11-2A-2. This is the third and final phase of the Southridge Apartments development;phases 1 and 2 were approved under H-2017-0077 Southridge Apartments(A-2017-0170&A-2021-0033 —CZC&DES). Page 4 Item 3. F-91 The recently approved Development Agreement(Inst. #2021-018471) allows development of this site as proposed. One(1)2-story 8-unit building and 13 3-story 12-unit buildings are proposed. A total of 79 1-bedroom units, 79 2-bedroom units and six(6) 3-bedroom units are proposed with an option to build fewer 3- bedroom units and more 1-or 2-bedroom units. A 1,500 square foot building for a fitness facility is also proposed in this phase. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-27): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff's analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent properties.Building#43 is depicted on the site plan over the north property line;the site plan needs to be revised to comply with the minimum setback requirement or a property boundary adjustment application should be requested to adjust the boundary of the property or consolidate the subject property with the property to the north. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened trash enclosures; all proposed transformer/utility vaults and other service areas shall comply with this requirement. 3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet(s.f.) of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios,decks,and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title.Each unit proposes 84 square feet of decks/patios in accord with this standard. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title.Based on 79 ]-bedroom units, 79 2-bedroom units and six(6) 3-bedroom units, a minimum of 289 off-street parking spaces are required with 164 of those being covered in a carport or garage; 165 uncovered spaces and 173 covered spaces are proposed for a total of 338 spaces, exceeding UDC standards. (Four additional uncovered spaces are proposed for Phase 2 and four carport spaces are proposed for Building 43 as noted on the site plan) Bicycle parking is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6G and should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. One bicycle parking space is required for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof. Based on 338 spaces, a minimum of 13 spaces are required. The site plan notes each apartment building will be provided a bicycle parking area next to each entry point. Bicycle parking in accord with UDC standards should be Page 5 Item 3. 92 noted on the site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application;a detail of the bicycle rack shall also be depicted that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) The earlier phases of development include a clubhouse where the property management office, maintenance storage area and mailboxes are located.A directory and map of the development is located at the main entrance from the public street at the east boundary of the development. C. Common Open Space Design Requirements: 1. A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area. There are no units containing 500 s.f or less of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.All 164 units fall within this range; therefore, a minimum of 41,000 square feet(or 0.94-acre) of common open space is required. A total of 2.08-acres (or 22.901o) is proposed in accord with this standard. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. There are no units proposed that contain more than 1,200 square feet of living area. 2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area,and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20'). The common open space areas depicted on the open space exhibit in Section VIII.D meet this requirement. 3. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. This phase complies with the open space standards. 4. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4') in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, ef£retroactive to 2-4-2009) D. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. Page 6 Item 3. 93 (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. b. Open space: (1) Open grassy area of at least fifty by one hundred feet(50 x 100)in size. (2) Community garden. (3) Ponds or water features. (4) Plaza. c. Recreation: (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two(2)amenities shall be provided from two (2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20) and seventy-five (75)units,three(3) amenities shall be provided,with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy-five(75)units or more, four(4)amenities shall be provided,with at least one from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision- making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) In earlier phases (H-2017-0077;A-2017-0170;A-2021-0033), a clubhouse with a fitness facility, indoor spa, swimming pool and a gazebo; a pool house with a fitness facility, indoor spa, covered patio and outdoor kitchen; and three open spaces consisting of over 50'x 100'in area, were proposed as amenties to serve 476 units. Another 1,500 square foot fitness facility is proposed as an amenity for this phase of development consisting of 164 units. Because all of the amenities will be shared, Staff is supportive of the existing and proposed amenities which will serve the overall development. E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(3')wide. b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches (24") shall be planted. Page 7 Item 3. 94 c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict landscaping along the street facing elevations adjacent to S. Grand Fork Way in accord with these standards. F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited to, structures,parking,common areas,and other development features. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. Access: One(1) access is proposed via S. Grand Fork Way, a local street, along the east boundary of the site; access is also available from the north via Grand Fork through the earlier phases of development. Driveways are proposed for internal access. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A street buffer is not required along S. Grand Fork Way, a local street,per UDC Table 11-2A-7. Landscaping is required within parking lots in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping is required within common open space areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G- 3E. Calculations should be included in the Project Calculations table demonstrating compliance with this standard. Pathways:No multi-use pathways are required with development of this site.A multi-use pathway is being provided on the southwest side of the Ridenbaugh Canal with the adjacent development. Fencing:No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan for this development. Any fencing constructed on the site should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. To preserve public safety, Staff recommends a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence is constructed on this site adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structures as shown in Section VIII.D that are consistent with those approved in previous phases. The architectural theme is modern northwest; building materials consist of a variety of painted hardboard sidings, stone veneers and architectural asphalt shingles. Three(3)different building types are proposed; each type has two separate roof and elevation designs and will utilize multiple color schemes. Final design is required to comply with the design guidelines in the TMISP and the design standards in the Architectual Standards Manual. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP in accord with the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on October 7,2021.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jason Densmer b. In opposition:None c. Commenting None d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons Page 8 Item 3. ■ f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Parking ratio for the all three phases. b. How phase 3 fits into the overall context with the other two phases, specifically open s 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 9 Item 3. 96 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 8/4/2021) M t ral Leoen�d Property Owner THE P ❑ LAND No[-A-Par[ - - �« ""�" 6ROUP II soulhri dqe Apari—b Phase 1 _ Nemot. Eng in ram.Wd—pp Artlil t Planne Building M a.ew ldin9 Idm Ma: ti - ruf W LU t� .fir.` - — •';) E 9: is f _ Parking M.: x x Ap rlmerd Yu lding Key. lA y - s '. �\ C­TaYle CUP-8 Plan —� CUP 1.00 Page 10 Item 3. F97 B. Landscape Plan(dated: 8/4/21) LRE . x 1 a-Paa iO1P l/ •j SoutM1�tlge apa tments PM1aw i !TTeu�Wl�wh[iuna: SXEETLU � .c t ..:•..m.:e.i.•:.:.em w 40) q a rA Pl SXEET .� is C L1.02- W H A F X.M ID �. nd CUP-Lascape Plan Overall -n L1.00 .. snas at» TNE LAND Laaaaaaw Leoeaa GROUP EJ El OW - `% 8aulhriEPe AP hn M Phases { �� e LU UJ .� r. o d: a�. _ M:• FJ m r LL CD NZ 1 a 1 yy i 11 c so RR4i1 RI#F _ 4�t�a1 _ �� E�It��A�}R �����■ ob r f: ors - t l t 41 �. CUP uma ssape Plain AX A Page 11 Item 3. ■ THE -. 1l GROUP XX El El k. l', yH 2 �w W I � CC � I� I 1 p I �V 1 M : cm nw I ' — L I y M. s XX *' CUP-Laedscape Plan Area B "M scnesaLE TN E ® LAND GROUP mom=7MM�— pa umxwc mR umrslm - wa uim..reim �.re� un ns,ttskswr M W _ a m Lu La�a.�ea�Q.a � W LL Typical Landscape for Building Types L_� ar Hs H H !9 '.�� �, un.y�ec�s L1.5o Page 12 Item 3. ■ C. Open Space Exhibit OPEN SPACE CALCULATION: 90,542 SQFT QUALIFIED OPEN SPADE TOTAL BOUNDA Y SQUARE FOOTAGE: 395.089 SQFT PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE: 22.9% LLLI { fi� T —T .I y r € D 1w 3CHT Open Space Exhibit Hari orrtel Scale:1"_ 'Sr' ft)mlNo.:12MD 0M d Issuwe .1D.04. M sTH Sauffiridge Apartments Phase 3 ,r— LAHR Souffiridge Farms, LL �GROUP Meridian, Idaho Lu IN Ii• Page 13 Item 3. 1 00 D. Elevations(dated: 8/18/17) KEYNOTES .w,..r�.A,..w.. HIEARCIIRERYDHICE� Wt— m EH m m m .c....,°w..° ..........ram BUILDING TYPE IA 1 FRONT ELEVATION SRUTHRENGE APARTMENTS .:.. - -- --0 ,-� � GENERAL NOTED ... m / m �1YF m C� m OESNIM REVIEW 100c D �oo- BUILDING FYPE 1A BUILGIRG TYPE IA ESFERIOR FINISH SCHEDULES a..� LEFT 6EGE ELEVATION RIBNT SIDE FIEYAtl6X Q ...._ 20 ... 3w,.. m m m m m =t- ml m CI] Ell i m [� _ BUILDING TPPE to REAR ELEYATIDN .�: ��r. ��®— eul¢�nc lTPElq mis 10:176TE8 Or 1HEAMMECISDFfI[E' �p Lu o-: BUILDING TYPE 11 � 'M...�.. 1 FRONT ELEVATION �-•__...,. SURTHRIDGE APARTMENTS GENERAL NOTE$ low }��}E -m MIIIlIY6 MEIN BUILDING TYPE IS ERERMR FINISH SCHEDULES Q , LEFT 16E 8 ELEVATION^ RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ww<� .B A� m m m m ,m Ell M - - -- a BUILDING TYPE IS AA5.1 NEAR ELEYhHUM W IlpirvGttv[19 Page 14 Item 3. Fl-ol IErNOTEs o o T/�0_ _____-___`o � .,^°°••�•�®:m. THEAROIREfIS6FFICE� Ell m m m Ism m m m m li i m ' - o�o�©o'0000©'o• BUILDING TYPE 2A �����-�� •sue: 1 FRONT ELEVATION --^^•-��-- fOOTHRIDBE APARTMENTS TEN MILE RD& m ❑ m m ❑ m - _Q .OEMERAL NO" mm 11J L-L-I Unial"VIEW BUILDING TYPE 2A BIHLGINO TYPE 2A EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE Q� 2LEFT SIDE ELEYATION 3 RIBNT SIDE ELEVATION --- WTi m m m m m = — � m m m m BUILDING TYPE 2A - 4REMELEMAHGN ,ww hin-h. � &l lNc PEA tlM KEYNOTES OO TA 0-- THELMITECISOFRGl arm—amnt; m m m m m10 MI �p -oo®oao = o-©a BUILDING TYPE 2B 'FRONT ELEVATION SOUTHRIDGE —O APARTMENTS .ems •�� m ❑ m __'� m\ ❑ m -F _� GENERAL MOIES •v•. DESIGN REVIEW 0 BUILDING TYPE 2B BUILDING TYPE 2B ENIEAIOR FINISH SCHEDULE 2LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 3 R1611I,SIDE ELEVATION m m to m m m m m ... m Lu m m li L-4-I sBIL6111GmE26 AA5.3 4 OEM ELEVATION Page 15 Item 3. Fl 02 DEVOTES o TA O; "".•°°•"'°°x^."'°°`°"`�°°'°M`�' THFARaETEFlSOFfUFF. m m m m m m m J m m BUILDING TYPE 3A 'FRONT ELEVATION + SOUTHRINGE APARTMENTS � - m ❑ m '-0 II] ❑ m GENERAL YOEEB:m••-�•�p• m m _--0 m m _..:-®••�. DESIGN REVIEW O 9 IEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION FINISH SCHEDULE BUILDING PE SA BWIDINR TYPE 311 EITTERNIR� 2: 3n.... IIIe� EO LD m m m m m [II ~o LI] CD m m CD I . .. -00 - --- iE BUILDING TYPE 3A REAR ELEVATION W iiMG ttaE eq KEYNOTES O .","'•;"'a"°'"°°`"° INFARaTTECSOMCU,, I m m m I m m m m m I 1� ,m 'm Wo e BUILOINB TYPE 31 1.. FRONT ELEVATION ®_ 9NNTHNINGE mjU4 /� . �o�.�� APARTMENTS ownumnD AFa',� ,,.�Z �Q �a� u;ew,[awnaumenr vm.nn m _--® m ❑ m _ e GENERAL NOTES DESIGN REVIEW BUILDING TYPE 311 ORIGIN TYPE 3B EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE QQ. LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RNIHT RIDE ELEVATION m m m m m m m m 07 07 m m i m m 1w. L VwD CO(4 0�2- 49 0119� OUILOIYO TYPE 31 4 REAR ELFranox ..j__ WiWNGv ¢YF DUm Page 16 Item 3. ■ BEYNDTES Oo T eOV< - __ ••'��•, utl+�vmaau w TNFAROIRELISG m j [I] [I] m CIS QL] ®=- , �p. m BUILDING TYPE 4A 1 PRONTELEVATION — SOUTHNIDOE VINATMENTS .HN.Mae RD mmim.iwo GENERAL NOTES m m `TT BEENIN REYIEyI J m IJ Q] BUILDING TYPE 4A BUILDING TYPE 4A ERTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE Q� 2LEFT SIDE ELEVATION '3 RIGNY SIDE ELEVATION . sac®;"` op,j- m m ID [I] m — , ,6 .g BUILDING TYPE 44 - 4 REAR ELEYAfiQX m_.m_ eft Wi¢�NE mEM Amre DEYMOTFS�.- TAB ----- _ ® � _ro - {,! - THEARCHIIEMOFFI(E m m m m m m 7777777mmmmmm - w� BUILDING TYPE 41 1 FRONT ELEVATION � + SOUTHRIDGE A .IFS ®" g APARTMENTS .N wRicim.DER) 10 ID ' GENERAL NOTES FflBESNIN BRIEN m [Lid] Lo . P BUILDING TYPE 4B BUILDING TYPE 4B EIOERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIDHT SIDE ELEVATION + 2 3._: . - -0 -, lip— shhlr-�lift m ] m m m RDILDING TYPE 66 • a • am x.xeYw AA5.7 4._ REAR ELEVATION Page 17 Item 3. Fl 04] TA 0-- SOUTHRIDGE APARTMENTS ...........w 7=7- EINERIORFINISHSCHEIRLE ;ffi-A&!— ign AA5.8 ---G KEYNOTES 1KARCHITEMUFFIEE9 ............... rp 'Fp EAST ELEYAflDM roan '-0b - SOUTHRIDGE APARTMENTS LJ MILE RD 9 u.R—RD FRFI : 2 NOFOHELEVAnON 8,O,60 L--------=L-=------------------------------ ONERALNOWS DESIGN REVIEW LT 34ESTILIFIRITION Hall 1* 10 EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE Lill AC5.0 Q-00TH ELEVATION �t-C� Page 18 Item 3. ■ - ICEYYOlES TA 0-- miAR(mracisumap �1.=I 7EEI EEJ IE EI 11 A t[ a I o bo'o`o-0q 1 SDLI N FRONT ELEVATION SOUTHRIDGE � �,,1wie,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,�,,,,� APARTMENTS vaF mn�i.irr.in Y5 MINA` ElEV 'm $ ................_..._.........._ _-��___- GENERAL NOTE$ DESIRN NEVIEW REAR ELEVATION 3,.RTR,NO,. oe — EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE °— mums- -0' AP5.0 4 WEST$WE ELEVATION xou xousL ELEVAl10r15 Page 19 Item 3. F106 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Conditional Use Permit: 1. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions in the existing Development Agreement (Inst. #111099621,RZ-11-002);Addendum Inst. #2015-112096—MDA-15-010; 2'Addendum Inst. #2021-018471 —H-2020-0109), and all other previous conditions of approval (H-2017-0077; PBA- 14-012,ROS#10035). 2. Development shall comply with the dimensional standards for the R-15 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7. 3. The multi-family development shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. 4. The multi-family development shall record a legally binding document that states the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of said document shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 5. The site and/or landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised as follows: a. Building#43 shall be relocated to comply with the minimum setback standard in UDC Table I I- 2A-7 and 11-4-3-27; or, a property boundary adjustment application should be submitted to consolidate the subject property with the property to the north or to adjust the boundary of the property. b. Bicycle racks shall be depicted next to the entries of each building. At a minimum, 13 spaces shall be provided per UDC 11-3C-6G; a detail of the bicycle rack shall also be depicted that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. c. All transformer and utility vaults and other service areas shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. d. Depict landscaping along the foundations of all street facing elevations adjacent to S. Grand Fork Way as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27E.2. e. Depict landscaping within parking lots in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8C. f. Landscaping is required within common open space areas per the standards listed in UDC I I- 3G-3E. Calculations should be included in the Project Calculations table demonstrating compliance with this standard. g. Depict 6-foot tall wrought iron fencing adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal to preserve public safety. 6. A street light plan will need to be included in the building permit and/or final plat applications. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://Www.meridiancit .00rglpublic_works.aspx?id=272 . 7. An application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and administrative Design Review shall be submitted for the proposed project and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. Compliance with the design guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual,as applicable,is Page 20 Item 3. F107 required. See the Application of the Design Elements matrix on pg. 3-49 of the TMISAP for design elements applicable to the proposed development. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Easements are required over all water and sewer mains. Each utility must be covered by a minimum 20 foot wide easement, centered over the main. Easements must be free of all permanent structures including but not limited to trees,bushes,buildings,car ports,light poles,infiltration trenches, fences,trash enclosures, etc. It appears that there are areas that may have carports in conflict with easements. General Conditions of Approval 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 5. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 6. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 7. 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. 8. 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. Page 21 Item 3. Flo] 9. 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. 10. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 14. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 hyp://www.meridiancioy.oMlpublic_works.aspx?id=272. 20. 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 No comments were submitted. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments were submitted. Page 22 Item 3. E E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=237893&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City&cr =1 F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.orF WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=238155&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.oLglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=238203&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciby.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=236263&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=237542&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-513-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-1 S zoning district(see Analysis, Section V for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds the proposed use is consistent with the future land use map designations of HDR and the multi family residential use is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 in the R-1 S zoning district. 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 proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with other existing and future uses in this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. Page 23 Item 3. 1 10 1 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water, and sewer. The Commission finds that essentialpublic services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Page 24 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TM Creek Storage (H-2021-0054) by Brighton Development, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd., Midway Between S. Linder Rd. and S. Ten Mile Rd. F-1 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;--- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Self-Service Storage Facility on 7.8 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District for TM Creek Storage,Located South of W.Franklin Rd.,Midway between S.Linder Rd. and S.Ten Mile Rd.,by Brighton Development,Inc. Case No(s).H-2021-0054 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. October 7,2021 (Findings on October 21, 2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7,2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7,2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 7,2021,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. It-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). TM CREEK STORAGE CUP H-2021-0054 Page 1 F113 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of October 7,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 7, 2021, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of October 7,2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). TM CREEK STORAGE CUP H-2021-0054 Page 2 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 31 st day of October ,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 10-21-2021 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 10-21-2021 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 10-21-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). TM CREEK STORAGE CUP H-2021-0054 Page 3 Item 4. EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f D A H 0 HEARING October 7,2021 �� DATE: W-geff TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner , 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0054 TM Creek Storage -CUP LOCATION: South of W. Franklin Rd.,midway - �a _ between S. Linder Rd. & S. Ten Mile Rd., in the NE 1/4 of Section 14,T. 3N., R.IW. (Parcel#S1214121134) ' 4 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a self-service storage facility on 7.8 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 7.8-acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Commercial(MU-COM)TMISAP Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Self-service storage facility,including RV storage Neighborhood meeting date;#of July 22,2021;one(1)attendee attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2020-0074(DA Inst.#2021-089157);FP-2021-0047 Page 1 Item 4. 116 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes Traffic Impact Study is not required. • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State S.Benchmark Ave.,collector street(proposed) Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Existing Road Network Yes C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Le end 0 Legend Pra}ect Lacaiian 9. ��Project Lccafiar e' n u tnal- }ram nt !7W-C MU-Res 1 W Low-D pity IdealI si 111 r1 Zoning Map Planned Development Map ffeegend W R0 (fLegend 0 IPrayed Lflcaiian fl _ IetPraject Luca-Ron City Lines 11 — Planred Parcels ~ R1 I-L u TNN 'RUT -N R� R R-8 R1 R- Page 2 Item 4. F117 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Josh Beach,Brighton Development, Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: SCS Brighton 11, LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400, Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 9/17/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 9/15/2021 Site Posting Date 9/27/2021 Next Door posting 9/16/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Comp. Plan) This property is designated Mixed Use—Commercial(MU-COM)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan. Future development is governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP)and the existing Development Agreement. The purpose of the MU-COM designation is to encourage the development of a mixture of office, retail,recreational,employment, and other miscellaneous uses,with supporting multi-family or single-family attached residential uses. While the focus of these areas is on commercial and employment uses,the horizontal and vertical integration of residential uses is essential to securing entitlements. As with all mixed-use areas,this designation requires developments to integrate the three major use categories—residential, commercial and employment. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with a self-service storage facility consisting of 448 storage units in climate controlled&non-climate-controlled structures with covered and uncovered RV storage. The site is located in close proximity to the I-84/Ten Mile Rd. interchange and Franklin Rd., a commercial arterial street. While a storage facility is not necessarily an optimal use in the MU-COM designation due to the nature of the use which requires it to be a secure site and does not allow for integration of uses or pedestrian oriented design or public spaces,it will provide a much-needed service for residents in nearby multi-family developments and is consistent with the Development Agreement. The following goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are supported by the proposed development: • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City services can be provided to serve the proposed development. • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, Page 3 Item 4. F-1181 shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips,and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The proposed storage facility will provide a much-needed service in close proximity to multi family developments in the area, which will reduce vehicle trips. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE UD The proposed use,a self-service storage facility,is listed as a conditional use in the C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-2, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34: Self-Service Storage Facility. VII. STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant proposes to develop this site with a self-service storage facility consisting of 448 storage units in climate controlled&non-climate-controlled structures with covered and uncovered RV storage. Per UDC Table 11-213-2, a conditional use permit(CUP) application is required for a self-service storage facility in the C-G zoning district. The proposed development is generally consistent with the conceptual development plan included in the Development Agreement(Inst. #2021-0891 S7)for this site which depicts flex/light industrial/storage uses on this site, and complies with the conditions governing development of the subject property in the agreement. The proposed use is subject to the following Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-34)—Self-Service Storage Facility: (Staff analysis in italics) A Storage units and/or areas shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a self-service storage facility is specifically prohibited. B. On site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with chapter 3, article E, "temporary use requirements", of this title. C. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five(25) feet. D. The storage facility shall be completely fenced,walled, or enclosed and screened from public view. Where abutting a residential district or public road, chainlink shall not be allowed as fencing material. E. If abutting a residential district,the facility hours of public operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. F. A minimum twenty-five-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided where the facility abuts a residential use,unless a greater buffer width is otherwise required by this title. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-9.0 of this title. G. If the use is unattended,the standards in accord with section 11-3A-16, "self-service uses",of this title shall also apply. H. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes. 1. All outdoor storage of material shall be maintained in an orderly manner so as not to create a public nuisance.Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. Stored items shall not block sidewalks or parking areas and may not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. J. The site shall not be used as a'vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. Page 4 Item 4. 119 1 K. For any use requiring the storage of fuel or hazardous material,the use shall be located a minimum of one thousand(1,000)feet from a hospital. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-31: Access is proposed on the site plan via S. Benchmark Ave., a collector street, and a driveway from W. Franklin Rd. approved with the preliminary plat(H-2020-0074). Parking(UDC 11-3C): A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required for every 500 square feet(s.£)of gross floor area of the office space(depicted as retail on the landscape plan)—parking is not required for the storage structures. Based on 862 s.f., a minimum of one(1)parking space is required. A total of eight(8)parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC the minimum standards. A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required for every 25 vehicle parking spaces per UDC 11-3C-6G. Bases on eight(8)vehicle parking spaces, a minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required. A bicycle rack is depicted on the landscape plan. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Benchmark Ave., a collector street, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping is proposed in excess of the minimum standards. There are no residential uses abutting this site;therefore, a buffer to residential uses is not required. Parking lot landscaping is proposed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Pathways: No pathways are required with this application. The Ten Mile pathway will be located on the south side of the Ten Mile Creek. Outdoor Lighting(UDC 11-3A-11): All outdoor lighting is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11C unless otherwise approved through alternative compliance. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of 1,800 lumens or more are required to have an opaque top to prevent up-lighting;the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a full cutoff shield in accord with Figure 1 in UDC 11-3A-I IC. Details of the lighting proposed on the site that demonstrate compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11 should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-�: Fencing is depicted on the landscape plan along the perimeter of the site where there is a space between buildings to enclose the site for security purposes. Metal panel siding is proposed as a fencing material as shown on the elevations in Section IX.C. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations and perspectives were submitted for the proposed structures as shown in Section IX.C. Building materials consist of EIFS in four(4) different colors,brick,metal standing seam roof and metal awnings. Final design is required to comply with the architectural design guidelines in the Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines. Page 5 Item 4. F120] Certificate of Zoning Compliance(UDC 11-5B-1): A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure compliance with UDC standards and the conditions listed in Section X. Design Review(UDC 11-5B-8): An application for Design Review is required to be submitted to the Ten Mile Crossing Design Review Board prior to submission to the City for a CZC as set forth in the Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines. VIII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section X per the Findings in Section XI. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on October 7,2021.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Josh Beach b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. The regulations pertainingto the hobby garages for residential or commercial uses. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 6 Item 4. 121 IX. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 8/2/2021) mmom ---- ------ t`h i: ----------------------- a i i � incxrr�ee ]. F7, �-� � SNffTIN�IX����� «' .—� ��•L. ..tea w 4 e—��+�—��_. -n � as._�<p���n� ,e� ��..Y.....=�.R,... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-SITE PLAN Page 7 Item 4. 122 B. Landscape Plan(date: 8/2/2021) c C " G ----------- -------------------- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LANDSCAPE PLAN --•— o _ ua ui SMEET TREE I'A1fl1LATIONS{STREEf35lFI (rf"•"a•�•'"-•`•�••••L16 � •�•••••••�• m •v- �� g TOTAL STREET TREES PARKING LANDSCAPE RNNTR IITREF/.l j s ru ma q�•mmw xvwan«m.m. w""..w°:o rw`�'c PAIIKING CKC\.VG1oNS ®�,e„tea�m®�. n.e rc a.nr�m.�rwc ° TREE S°ECIES =mvv MITIGATION REGOIREMENTS TAT + �a . km TOTALTREO REQUiRMD RWIDED ""aetK�n eeecmcrerwcv.vccow wow �� - m.w.ruz Page 8 Item 4. 123 C. Elevations(dated: 4/22/21) %4knM44ammam. w o 0 0 „ l o fcw �.. 4.a. T "aim 0 Kj� �`] Ca 0 QYl w m w © m Y�1 © u V00'iJ 0 m m m ® Y•1'O,lfa m 5.... II I a� f][I@IOC ltN190AL E9Ef:11OM so�iL.ILEEDRvovGi Puri.S�.�.� ..,..A*�S.,.u.,,...e.�ve.m,.d.�i.�......a. .... Page 9 r � w III d� I _ r Page 10 Item 4. ■ 2 Page 11 Item 4. F126] X. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34—Self- Service Storage Facility. 2. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. Lighting details shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with these standards. 3. A street light plan will need to be included in the building permit application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.oM1public_works.aspx?id=272 . 4. A portion of this project lies within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District.Prior to any development occurring in the Overlay District a floodplain permit application,including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is required to be completed and submitted to the City and approved by the Floodplain Administrator per MCC 10-6.A larger setback from the floodplain may remove the need for floodplain permit. 5. The facility hours of public operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. because the property abuts a residential zoning district per UDC 11-4-3-34E. 6. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the site as set forth in the Development Agreement. 7. An application for Design Review is required to be submitted to the Ten Mile Crossing Design Review Board prior to submission to the City for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance as set forth in the Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines. 8. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of a building permit application. B. Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval I. The future sewer main extension in S. Benchmark Avenue should be shown as a 12" diameter pipe. 2. The water main extension in S. Benchmark Avenue must be a 12" diameter pipe. 3. Fire hydrants must have a 6" diameter lateral. The hydrant on the east side of the project shows a 2" diameter lateral. 4. Connect to the existing water main stub from Twelve Oaks Villas Subdivision on the east property boundary. 5. 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.meridiancioy.oMIgublic works.aspx?id=272. 6. A reclaimed water connection will not be required. 7. A portion of this project lies within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring in the Overlay District,a floodplain permit application, including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is required to be completed and submitted to the City for Page 12 Item 4. F127] review by the Floodplain Administrator per MCC 10-6. A larger setback from the floodplain may remove the need for a floodplain permit. General Conditions of Approval 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 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. 11. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 12. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 17. 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. Page 13 Item 4. 128 18. 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. 19. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 20. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=238713&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=237350&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty A Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was not required for this development. D. Fire Department 1. Access: All electric gates are required to be 20' in width and equipped with a Fire Department key switch as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.6&National Fire Protection Standard 1141, Section 5.3.17.3. 2. Access: This project will be required to provide a 20' wide swing or rolling emergency access gate as set forth in International Fire Code Sections 503.5 and 503.6. The gate shall be equipped with a Knoxbox padlock which has to be ordered via the website www.knoxbox.com. All gates at the entrance to fire lanes shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the roadway and shall open away from the roadway,unless other provisions are made for safe personnel operations as set forth in National Fire Protection Association 1141, Section 5.3.16 -2017 edition. Page 14 Item 4. F129] 3. Roadways: Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 80,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked"No Parking Fire Lane"per International Fire Code Sections 503.3 &D103.6. E. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=237584&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty XI. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: I. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The site meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district for the proposed use. Therefore, the Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide a needed service within close proximity of area residences and will contribute to the mix of uses desired in the MU-COM designation. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use with the conditions imposed, should be compatible with the other commercial and residential uses existing and proposed in this area 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. If the proposed use complies with the conditions of approval in Section X as required, the Commission finds the proposed use 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. The Commission finds the proposed use will be serviced adequately by all of the essential public facilities and services listed. 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. Page 15 Item 4. F130] 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use should not involve any activities or processes that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission finds 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. Page 16 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: Item #5: Centerville Subdivision (H-2021-0046) CONTINUED FROM 8/12 HEARING 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 any multi-family was submitted with this application—one will be required in the future to construct multi- family dwellings. REVISIONS:  All apartments were removed; 219 units now (down from 327). Only remaining portion of the site that is MF is the addition of 4 new four-plex lots along Amity Road near the northwest corner of the site.  MF replaced by more townhome units and drive aisles are replaced by 28-foot wide private streets since the units front on green space. Applicant is required to submit for Private Street approval prior to the Council meeting (administrative level approval).  Added 3 additional commercial lots and included a proposal for a portion of C-C zoning, similar to what is to the west. This reduced the overall area of the residential portion of the project down to 36.45 acres, a reduction of 2.5 acres.  Gross density is now 6.01 du/acre (219 units/36.45 acres), down from 8.4 du/ac. – Staff finds with a loss of over 100 residential units, the Applicant has made a significant adjustment to mitigate the Commission’s concerns over density and its impact to nearby schools and the transportation network.  For additional commercial properties, Applicant has proposed a new right-in/right-out access to Hillsdale Avenue for additional access to the commercial lots. Its location is in alignment with an existing commercial access on the west side of Hillsdale so ACHD has approved this additional street connection.  Applicant moved the proposed pool amenity to the large central open space lot consistent with the Commission discussion.  Initial review of revised landscape plan shows continued compliance with required open space. General: 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.  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.  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. 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. Testimony since continuance: 8 pieces of testimony – noting same issues as before. 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 recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0046, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21, 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- 0046, as presented during the hearing on October 21, 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 #6: Elsinore Daycare Facility (H-2021-0061) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.3 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 4818 & 4858 N. Elsinore Avenue. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:  North – C-G zoning, commercial (including an existing daycare to the northeast within same commercial sub.)  East - C-G zoning, commercial  South – McMillan Road  West – R-40, multi-family residential History: MDA-13-010 (DA Inst.# 113083665); RZ-15-001; PP-15-002; FP-15-020; PBA-2021-0015 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request:  The proposed use of a Daycare Center (more than 12 children) is a community-serving commercial use that fits within the future land use designation of Commercial. The proposed location is at the western edge of a commercial subdivision and directly across the street from multi-family residential which functionally creates a mixed-use development. The daycare use is a needed use throughout the City and providing it nearby higher density residential meets many of the City’s desired outcomes for commercial development.  A Daycare Center (more than 12 children) is listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as a conditional use in the C-G zoning district, subject to the specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-9).  Discussions with the Applicant have yielded that 165 children are proposed to be served by this daycare center with approximately 10-12 staff members; the number of staff members will be determined by state required student/staff ratios. Staff has recommended a condition of approval to limit the child capacity to 165 children.  When a commercial project in the C-G zoning district directly abuts residential zoning, hours of operation are limited to six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. The Applicant has stated intended hours of 6am-6pm complying with this standard.  Direct lot access is proposed along the west boundary via a driveway connection to N. Elsinore Avenue to the west. An additional driveway connection is proposed to the north property boundary where an existing shared drive aisle exists. Therefore, cross-access is provided to the east and north through the rest of the commercial subdivision which provides multiple accesses to Meridian Road and McMillan Road.  As part of this application, the Applicant performed a turn lane analysis for the Elsinore and McMillan intersection to obtain data on existing traffic movements at this location for the purpose of determining if any turn lanes are warranted. ACHD reviewed this analysis and agrees with its findings – two dedicated turn lanes onto Elsinore Avenue are warranted with construction of this development.  The Applicant is conditioned to construct a dedicated westbound right-turn lane on McMillan and an eastbound center left-turn lane on McMillan as well. Staff is not sure if the right-turn lane will affect any dimensional aspect of the site but anticipates it will not.  Standard – On site vehicle pick up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. o Access to the building is shown with a two-way, 25-foot wide drive aisle along the west side of the building with parking on both sides to equal 36 total parking spaces (code requires a minimum of 27 spaces based on the proposed building size of 13,500 square feet). o Site plan does not show any dedicated pick-up/drop-off location other than the parking spaces. Staff has concerns the proposed parking drive aisle could be overrun at peak pick-up/drop-off hours in the morning and afternoon with the current site design. o Staff recommends a reduction in building size to allow for additional parking along the north end of the site, similar to what exists within this commercial development to the east. If a similar sized parking area is included on this site, approximately 10 additional parking spaces should be able to be added to the site to total 46 for the project. Staff does not anticipate the play area along the north boundary being reduced with the inclusion of additional parking because only the building itself should be reduced in size, nothing else. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with specific conditions of approval as outlined. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0061, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21, 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-2021-0061, as presented during the hearing on October 21, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0061 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #7: Red Aspen (H-2021-0066) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.99 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in the county, located at the southeast corner of Linder and Overland Roads. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:  North – Overland Road; I-L zoning and Camping World RV service and storage;  East – R-8 zoning, Meridian Fire Station  South – R-15 zoning, multi-family residential  West – Linde Road; C-C zoning and developing commercial land. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial and Medium Density Residential (small area along south boundary) Summary of Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.99 acres of land with a request for the C-G zoning district for the purpose of constructing an approximate 30,000 square foot flex space building on 2.19 acres of land.  Despite two future land use designations, the City anticipates commercial uses on this corner, especially because it is adjacent to two major arterial roadways (Linder and Overland) and near a planned interstate overpass.  The proposed use of Flex Space is subject to specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-18) and is proposed to serve as the core office and warehouse of a local business, Red Aspen. Red Aspen is a social selling (online) beauty company that aims to utilize this site as their new main hub for their growing business. Flex Space is a principally permitted use in the requested C- G zoning district.  Access to the site is proposed via one connection to Linder Road and one connection to Overland Road with both accesses restricted to right-in/right-out only maneuvers. The access point from Linder road is an existing 25-foot wide access point for the multi-family project adjacent to the south and the Applicant is proposing to widen the curb-cut to 40 feet and share it with the residential project. ACHD has reviewed this proposal and supports the Applicant’s request to widen the existing Linder access. Both proposed access points are as far away from the Linder and Overland Roads intersection as is physically possible.  The Applicant has proposed to place the building near the hard corner and pull it away from the existing multi-family residential to the south, approximately 119 feet from the south property line (includes the required 25-foot landscape use buffer); no buffer is required adjacent to the Fire Station because it is not a residential use.  The Applicant is also showing the required landscape buffers adjacent to the arterial streets with the one adjacent to Overland being shown wider than the required 25 feet. Due to required right-of-way dedication along Overland Road, the proposed building is shown approximately 42 feet behind the existing sidewalk which has led to the building being further south than Staff originally anticipated.  In order to help the site gain back some of its usable area and create more space between the proposed use and the existing residential to the south, Staff is recommending the Applicant reduce the street buffer to Overland Road by going through the Alternative Compliance process with future applications. o Staff finds this revision to the site has at least two positive outcomes: the building can be moved further north towards Overland to create a better presence and streetscape along this corridor, and; moving the building further north creates further separation from the existing multi-family development to the south while at the same time allowing more area for trucks to safely turnaround in the south half of the site.  The Applicant has stated the planned hours of operation are Monday thru Friday, 9am to 5:00pm with occasional Saturday hours during the holiday season (October-December). Most importantly, the Applicant has stated that any freight deliveries will only occur during normal hours of operation. Due to the proposed hours of operation, Staff believes the proposed Development Agreement provisions and screening methods will be sufficient in mitigating any noxious consequences of the proposed use (Staff did not include any provisions to specifically limit the hours of operation).  Site and floor plan show compliance with all specific use standards for proposed Flex Space use. Including position of loading docks. Applicant is proposing two loading docks and one roll-up door for the building. The loading docks and roll-up door are proposed to be located at the south end of the building and face the east property line, towards the Meridian Fire Station. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of requested Annexation and Zoning due to the proposed use and site design; in addition, Staff finds it important to keep local businesses within the City where they started. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0066, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21, 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- 0066, as presented during the hearing on October 21, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0066 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #8: Meridian South Fire Station & Police Substation (H-2021-0062) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel Rd (South side of E. Lake Hazel Rd, between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd.). Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Property is zoned R-8, surrounded by R-4, R-15, and R-40 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential. Summary of Request: Conditional Use Permit to develop a 11,637 sq. ft. fire station and 11,560 sq. ft. police substation building (public or quasi-public use) on approximately 4 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes:  The property is 4 acres, zoned R-8 and is directly east of Discovery Park.  The property was annexed specifically for this purpose in April of 2021. Plans are to develop the fire station and the police substation separately, with the fire station construction planned for 2022.  Per an Interagency Cooperative Development Agreement, Brighton Development will be required to construct a new north/south collector roadway along the site’s east property line from the south property line to Lake Hazel Road.  They will also be required to install a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the stub street since it will be longer than 150- feet.  The applicant has proposed to construct 2 driveways from the site to the new collector roadway; one for the police station and a wider driveway for the fire station. The applicant will be required to close the 2 existing driveways from the site onto Lake Hazel Road.  Although ACHD is requesting the applicant construct 5’ wide sidewalk along this collector, per the Parks Department, Brighton will be required to construct a 10’ detached pathway along this section.  This E. Lake Hazel Rd / Collector Road intersection is planned for signalization.  They have provided 32 parking spaces over what is required, with 3 additional spaces for fire trucks.  Staff notes a condition of approval was removal of all residential structures. The applicant has clarified this has already taken place.  Staff is not certain the building elevations as submitted meet the minimum requirements of the ASM for commercial buildings. Issues include field materials of smooth face CMU and metal paneling being a field material, and whether all requirements for architectural accents have been met. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DE) the standards of the ASM must be met, or design exceptions may be granted. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to APPROVE File Number H-2021-0062, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21, 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-2021-0062, as presented during the hearing on October 21, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0062, to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #9: Village Apartments (MCU-2021-0008) Application(s):  CUP Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 11.38 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 2600 N. Eagle Rd. History: A CUP was approved in 2015 for a 336-unit MFR development on this site consisting of a mix of 1- and 2-bedroom units in (11) 4-story walk-up garden style structures. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: This application proposes to modify the site layout & building elevations and eliminate the requirement for pedestrian & vehicular connectivity/cross-access to be provided to the residential development (i.e. Verasso) to the north. The same number of dwelling units (i.e. 336) are proposed among six (6) 4-story buildings each containing 56 units with elevators and internal access for security. A mix of 1-bedroom (200), 2-bedroom (120) and 3-bedroom (16) units are proposed. The two (2) residential buildings previously shown in the center of the development adjacent to the clubhouse and common area were removed and common open space with amenities and a clubhouse are now solely proposed in this area with multi-family structures around the perimeter. This change allows for a larger central open space area. One (1) access is proposed via N. Records Ave., a collector street, at the east boundary of the site. A driveway connection is proposed at the SWC of the site to the multi-family development (Regency at River Valley) to the south & two (2) driveway connections are proposed to the west to the future commercial development for interconnectivity. Staff is amenable to the request to remove the requirement for pedestrian & vehicular connectivity/cross-access to be provided to the residential development to the north as there is a sidewalk along Records Ave. that will provide pedestrian connectivity and UDC 11-3A-3A doesn’t require vehicular cross- access/ingress-egress easements to be provided between residential properties. A total of 2.03 acres of common open space is proposed within the development in excess of the minimum required (i.e. 1.97 acres). The site is also within 600’ of Kleiner Park, a 60-acre City Park to the southeast of this site. Site amenities are proposed consisting of a clubhouse with a fitness center, dog washing station and bike repair station, a swimming pool with a spa/hot tub, a 50’ x 100’ open space area, gazebos, and a dog park in the central common area; and walking paths. Staff recommends children’s play equipment is also provided. The Commission may require additional amenities commensurate with the size of the proposed development if desired. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of the minimum standards required; a minimum of 572 spaces are required with 336 of those being covered – a total of 582 spaces are proposed with 336 covered spaces in a garage or carport. A typical conceptual building elevation was submitted for the proposed MFR structures; final design is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions - Staff finds the proposed changes result in more diversity in rental options with the addition of 3-bedroom units, a larger central common open space area and in general, a higher quality of development & is consistent with the Comp Plan in regard to density and land use. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number MCU-2021-0008, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21, 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 MCU- 2021-0008, as presented during the hearing on October 21, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number MCU-2021-0008 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #10: Aviator Springs (H-2021-0065) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 40 acres of land zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-N Summary of Request: Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (31.59 acres), L-O (1.64 acres) and M-E (6.77 acres) zoning districts. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with 93 SFR detached homes at a gross density of 3.0 unit/s per acre (or 4.38 units/acre if only the developable area is included in the calculations, excluding the street buffer along future SH-16), an LDS seminary, and donation of a lot to the Boys & Girls Club for a facility on the west side of future SH-16 and research & development uses on the east side of SH-16. Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis in the staff report. Although the proposed density is below that desired in MU-N designated areas (i.e. 6 to 12 units/acre) and there are no supporting services for the residential development, Staff believes the proposed development is appropriate for this area based on the lack of access available to the site from collector or arterial roadways. The proposed uses will provide a mix of uses as desired in the Comp Plan (i.e. residential, civic and commercial) and an LDS seminary and Boys & Girls Club will provide religious and childcare facilities within close proximity to the high school on the abutting property to the west which will be a benefit for area residents and the community. If Commission/Council feels additional housing types (i.e. alley-loaded, SFR attached, townhomes) should be provided, it would increase the density for the development. Staff did not include a recommendation for additional housing types to be provided due to the limited access available in this area and lack of employment uses provided in the residential area. Given the limitations with surrounding land uses, existing development pattern, poor access and bifurcation of the property with the extension of SH 16, it is not feasible to achieve full integration of uses as desired in MU-N areas. However, the applicant’s narrative does discuss how they believe the proposed development is consistent with the MU-N designation. Preliminary plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting of (93) buildable lots and (13) common open space lots on 31.59 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district; (2) buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-O zoning district; (1) buildable lot on 6.77 acres of land in the M-E zoning district; and (3) future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land. Two (2) phases of development are proposed; the first phase is nd the area on the west side of future SH-16 and the 2 phase is the M-E zoned area on the east side. Access is proposed to the western portion of the development via the extension of two (2) local streets from the north from Chukar Ridge Subdivision. Future SH-16 is planned to bisect this site on Lot 1, Block 5. Access is proposed to the eastern portion of the site via N. McDermott Rd. Direct access via future SH-16 is prohibited. One (1) stub street is proposed to the south for future extension and interconnectivity. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Based on the area of the plat (40 acres), a minimum of 4 acres is required (10%); 7.64 acres (or approximately 23.8%) of common open space is proposed which includes a large common area adjacent to future SH-16 which will provide a buffer to residential uses. A minimum of two (2) qualified site amenities are required. A swimming pool with changing rooms, pedestrian pathways, additional qualified open space of at least 20,000 square feet in area and children’s natural play structures are proposed as amenities in excess of the minimum standards. As noise attenuation for future SH-16, a 6’ tall berm & 6’ tall wall on top of the berm is required within the street buffer. Conceptual building elevations for the residential portion of the development were submitted as shown. The non-residential buildings are required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: Todd Tucker, Boise Hunter Homes – Requests the stub street to the south is shifted approximately 45’ to the east so that it abuts the east side of future SH-16 ROW to provide a better alignment w/the street connection planned to the south on the Boise Hunter Homes property. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/a DA Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0065, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21, 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- 0065, as presented during the hearing on October 21, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0065 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 October 21, 2021 Item #8: Meridian South Fire Station & Police Substation (H 8 zoning district.-public use) on approximately 4 acres of land in the R-building (public or quasiConditional Use Permit to develop a 11,637 sq. ft. fire station and 11,560 sq. ft. police substation 0062) -2021- AERIALZONINGFLUM Presented with AnnexationPresent request AT1 Slide 4 AT1 Alan Tiefenbach, 3/18/2021 Fire Station AT1 Slide 5 AT1 Alan Tiefenbach, 3/18/2021 Police Station AT1 Slide 6 AT1 Alan Tiefenbach, 3/18/2021 Presented with Annexation AT1 Slide 7 AT1 Alan Tiefenbach, 3/18/2021 Item #9: Village Apartments PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Conditional Use Permit Modification– Previously Approved Proposed Site Plan & Elevations Item #10: Aviator Springs PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Preliminary Plat & Phasing Plan Landscape PlanOpen Space Exhibit Cross& Natural Play AreaPedestrian Pathways Roadside SwalesConnection to Chukar RidgeNorth Landscape Buffer Sections- Parking ExhibitCirculation Exhibit Conceptual Building Elevations Exhibit pertaining to Boise Hunter Home’s request Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 12, 2021 Item #5: Centerville Sub. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Maps– Revised Landscape RevisedOriginal Plan Item #6: Elsinore Daycare CUP AERIALZONINGFLUM Maps– Site Plan Item #7: Red Aspen AZ AERIALZONINGFLUM Maps– Conceptual Site Plan Item 5. Ll 31 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from August 12, 2021 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 5. 132 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: October 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from August 12, 2021 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 1 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 21, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Centerville Subdivision (H-2021-0046) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (marl(X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 ti VVCA-- 2 3 4 5 w 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 5. Mayor Robert E. Simison El E IDIAN.� City Council Members: =�� Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault D A H O Luke Cavener Liz Strader October 15, 2021 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission CC: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions FROM: Joseph Dodson, Current Associate Planner RE: Centerville Subdivision AZ, PP (H-2021-0046) Dear Commissioners, Centerville Subdivision AZ, PP(H-2021-0046) was heard by Planning and Zoning Commission on August 5, 2021. At that hearing the Commission continued the project to the October 21, 2021 hearing date in order for the Applicant to address Commission concerns over the proposed density, amount of commercial versus proposed density, and overall project integration. Since the hearing, the Applicant has submitted revised plans to Planning Staff which has resulted in a number of recommended changes to the conditions of approval and development agreement provisions. The revisions made by the Applicant are noticeable throughout the west half of the site and require analysis of the overall site. Any updated numbers will be added to the staff report following the Commission's final recommendation to City Council to ensure transparency. Please refer to the attachments and subsequent bullet points below regarding the specific changes since the Commission hearing. The revised plans show the following changes made by the applicant based on the Commission's discussion: • Removal of all apartment buildings—the Applicant has removed all apartment buildings previously shown in the project and included more townhomes (3 or more attached units, individually platted). The only component of the project that is still multi- family are four(4)new four-plex lots along Amity Road near the northwest corner of the site. With these changes, the proposed unit count is now 219 units (down from 327 units). o The overall gross density is now 6.01 du/acre (219 units/36.45 acres). The total residential acreage has also been reduced due to the inclusion of 2.5 acres of Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org item 5. commercial zoning. Staff finds with a loss of over 100 residential units, the Asa Applicant has made a significant adjustment to mitigate the Commission's concerns over density and its impact to nearby schools and the transportation network. o The Applicant has provided revised legal descriptions and exhibits for the change in zoning boundaries proposed. • Applicant is now requesting 2.5 acres of C-C zoning with their annexation application to accommodate four(4) commercial building lots instead of the original one (1) daycare lot proposed. The revised plat still shows the daycare use which Staff appreciates. The other commercial buildings are proposed to be located north of the daycare lot and along Hillsdale, nearby the existing commercial on the west side of Hillsdale. According to the revised narrative, the intended uses for the additional commercial lots is flex space (combination of office, retail, and warehousing within one building). o The C-C zoning district requires a 25-foot landscape buffer between it and any residential use. According to the revised preliminary plat, this requirement is met with adequate landscaping on the east side of each building. Furthermore, there is a private street and landscaping separating three (3) of the proposed commercial buildings from the townhome lots to the east. o Applicant is also proposing a new right-in/right-out access to Hillsdale Avenue for additional access to the commercial lots. Its location is in alignment with an existing commercial access on the west side of Hillsdale so ACHD has approved this additional street connection. • With the removal of the apartment buildings, the Applicant replaced that area of the site with more townhome units and replaced the multi-family drive aisles with 28-foot wide private streets and more open space that the townhome units front on. The new private streets are functioning as alleys for a majority of the townhome units and as the access for the commercial lots. o Private Street standards outlined in UDC 11-3F-4 require a minimum 24-foot wide driving surface so the proposed 28-foot wide private streets exceed code requirements. In addition, sidewalks are not required with private streets but the Applicant is proposing detached sidewalks throughout the townhome area for access to the units. • Applicant moved the proposed pool amenity to the large central open space lot consistent with the Commission discussion. The changing rooms for this use require off-street parking consistent with nonresidential uses. The Applicant intends on utilizing on-street parking along S. Stockport Way to meet this requirement because the total changing room area is minimal; this request requires Alternative Compliance which should be submitted with any future Final Plat application that includes this open space lot. • The Applicant did not submit a revised landscape plan or open space exhibit at this time so Staff cannot specifically review that data. However, because the unit count has been reduced and it visually appears the open space has increased, Staff is not concerned with the Applicant meeting the minimum open space standards. Prior to City Council, Staff will perform this review when additional revised plans are submitted to the City. The parameters of the Commission motion to continue and the revised plans have resulted in Staff modifying certain conditions, striking others, and adding an additional DA Provision. Staff recommends the following changes be made to the staff report by the Planning and Zoning Commission, noted with strikeout and underline changes below: 2 Item 5. • ModifyA.le. —Per the submitted and revised preliminary plat, Lot 3058, Block 1 shall 135 p rY be reserved for a future daycare facility and Lots 17, 59, & 60, Block 1 shall be reserved for future commercial uses. • Modify A.1 f—All future pedestrian crossings within the subdivision that traverse a driving surface f,Wr-e multi family r-esi en4i 1 area of the site shall be constructed with brick, pavers, stamped concrete, colored concrete or similar to clearly delineate the driving surface from the pedestrian facilities,per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. • Strike A.lj —The fu4u-e multi family development shall be eonstmeted with no than 128 units with all 12 plex buildings being no more than two stories in height. • Modify A.11—All open space and amenities throughout the development shall be shared by the single family and multi famil all portions of the development; the future Conditional Use Permit application shall show compliance with all multi-family open space and amenity requirements for the development as a whole. • Add Provision—The elevations/facades of 2-story structures that face E. Amity 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. Sin le�story structures are exempt from this requirement. • Add Condition—Prior to the City Council hearing, the he Applicant shall submit a Private Street application and pay the applicable fee for the proposed private streets in the west half of the site for access to the townhome units and commercial building lots. Exhibits: A. Revised Zoning Exhibit and Legal Descriptions B. Revised Preliminary Plat 3 item 5. A. Revised Conditional Use Plan (Site Plan) 136 CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION - REZONE EXHIBIT THE NW'/4 OF THE NE%OF SECTION 33, T3N, R1 E, BM,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO POINT OF BEGINNING E. AMITY ROAD BASIS OF BEARING 29 26 26 C-C ZONE N89'1518 W S89'14'44"E 1330.22' E 1/16 1330.22, 28 27 32 33 V 2660.59' 1/4 33 1-10 681.60' 459.90' S89'14'44"E 33 34 I- POINT OF POINT OF IJ Q w �� BEGINNING BEGINNING a w R15 ZONE R8 ZONE I LJ a vi zo- N I N N J .L4._ a~N LLJ L� IN m a I Q i i fn N— C14 J R-15 ZONE ~' �J L15 J J AREA=24.17 ACRES a' `� I E. HILL PARK ST. � J-) _ NCD o p " SI =� Y � m S� I �o Z co �L5 _ _459.40'-- - -------- J `o L8 � N89'14'44"W R-8 ZONE _ rnr G AREA=13.38 ACRE y5 JI x5 a 444.00' 885.05' CN 1/16 -- N89'27'31"W 1329.05' NE 1/16 HOWRY LANE SUBDIVISION N0.1 HOWRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO.2 N of /— LINE TABLE CURVE TABLE LINE # LENGTH DIRECTION CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD Li 174.00' S0'47'14"W Ct 7.71' 347.00' 1 116'25" S7'38'12"E 7.71' L2 47.37' S6'25'57"E C2 31.42' 20.00' 1 90'00'00" S45'45'16"W 28.28' C 1/4 L3 95.00' SO'45'16"W LINE TABLE (CONT.) C.y�pNP;T�OSG L4 179.00' S89'14'44"E LINE # LENGTH DIRECTION LINE # LENGTH DIRECTION �L L5 16.72' S81'43'35"W � � � 110 188.72' S8914'44"E L13 146.91' S9'00'00'W L6 79.75' SO'08'44"W 1 1, 1 18 O L11 175.85' SO'19'12"W L14 50.72' S079'12"W COL I ;a L7 47.00' N89'14'44"W N O L12 29.40' S17'25'38"E L15 175.50' N89'40'48'W OQ. � LS 60.13' N6914'44"W OF \ �� L9 170.12' SO'45'16"W ON W"NP /// j'n StOluthills 0' 150' 300' 600' Land Surveying and Consulting 231 E.5TH ST.,STE.A MERIDIAN,ID 83642 (208)288-2040 (208)288-2557 fax —jandsolufions.biz JOB W 20-16 4 Item 5. 137 Legal Description Centerville Subdivision —C-C, 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 '/4 of Section 33,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: C-C REZONE BEGINNING at a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said NW'/4 of the NE'/4, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northwest corner of the NW '/4 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 '/4 S 89°14'44" E a distance of 188.72 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly boundary S 0°19'12"W a distance of 175.85 feet to a point; Thence S 17°25'38"E a distance of 29.40 feet to a point; Thence S 0°19'12"W a distance of 271.47 feet to a point; Thence S 9°00'00"W a distance of 146.91 feet to a point; Thence S 0°19'12"W a distance of 50.72 feet to a point; Thence N 89°40'48"W a distance of 175.50 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of said NW %of the NE'/4; Thence along said westerly boundary N 0019'12" E a distance of 672.70 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 2.95 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. R-15 REZONE Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said NW'/4 of the NE ''/4, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northwest corner of the NW'/4 of said Section 33 bears N 89'15'18"W a distance of 2660.59 feet; Thence along the northerly boundary of said NW '/4 of the NE '/4 S 89°14'44" E a distance of 188.72 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said northerly boundary S 89014'44" E a distance of 681.60 feet to a point; Thence leaving said 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; J Lzii'di)bl17t1C11'1�5 Centerville Subdivision ��- Lana Surveying and Consulting Job No.20- Page 1 off 3 3 5 Item 5. 138 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 0°08'44"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 31.42 feet along the arc of a 20.00 foot radius non-tangent curve right, said curve having a central angle of 90°00'00"and a long chord bearing S 45*45'16"W a distance of 28.28 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N 89'14'44"W a distance of 60.13 feet to a point; Thence S 0'45'16"W a distance of 170.12 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 656.40 feet to a point; Thence leaving said boundary S 89°40'48"E a distance of 175.50 feet to a point; Thence N 0°19'12" E a distance of 50.72 feet to a point; Thence N 9°00'00"E a distance of 146.91 feet to a point; Thence N 0°19'12" E a distance of 271.47 feet to a point; Thence N 17°25'38"W a distance of 29.40 feet to a point; Thence N 0°19'12" E a distance of 175.85 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 24.17 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. R-8 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 NW'%of said Section33 bears N W1518"W a distance of 2660.59 feet; La"d^r/old work Centerville Subdivision Li wm S ry ymg a,d co wtmg Job No.2 Page 2 of of 3 3 6 Item 5. 139 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'/4; Thence along the easterly boundary of said NW%of the NE'/4 S 0'22'10"W a distance of 1324.15 feet to a point marking the southeast corner of said NW'%of the NE'/4; Thence along the southerly boundary of said NW'%of the NE '/4 N 89027'31" W a distance of 885.05 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly boundary N 0'45'16" E a distance of 170.12 feet to a point; Thence S 89°14'44" E a distance of 60.13 feet to a point of curvature; Thence a distance of 31.42 feet along the arc of a 20.00 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 90°00'00"and a long chord bearing N 45045'16"E a distance of 28.28 feet to a point; Thence S 89°14'44" E a distance of 47.00 feet to a point; Thence N 0n08'44" 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 1016'25" and a long chord bearing N 7°38'12"W a distance of 7.71 feet to a point; Thence N 81°43'35"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 0045'16" 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. This parcel contains 13.38 acres and is subject to any easements ONPL LA/V s existing or in use. 5` T 6 �p L Clinton W. Hansen, PLS Land Solutions, PC a 11118 Revised October 12, 2021 " (v112�2�� _ OF CD �T N W Ut11 bIJJrion:5 Centerville Subdivision 16 I.anO Surveying antl Consulcing Paagege 3 Job f 3 3 o of 3 7 Item 5. 140 B. Revised Preliminary Plat i � II - - -- I' LLF IA 4 LI \L u� AL r kl If �I — ---------------- : - I -- r ' e n ,.r. .. E : -A xF �at�?q ppg=y, o s � �. ."s q ------- ' g I; C PLANNER- CENTERVMLE ENGINEERING CONTACT DEVELOPER OWNER OF RECORD e SUBDIVISION SOLUTIONS, fll o PRELIMINARYP AT-TILE SHEET g 1 J u tk w.ays1 e°as" °ipfaw, lend e� 8 — j - i _ — — — --- -------------- EMS 1 14­ MT14!44'E SR914441 I IJQ-Iij' -—-—-— IE 1216 M GLOCK 2 Al_nl� E.wwNLmu sT 55 NO 12 y 13 14 15 "22- 2— LOC 3 ?3, 4 40 30 M 37 36 -M 3A 31 12 IN 31 NJ 29 15 ?RNAR UeE OWN ly ---------- A N - PROM�ff R1 1 17 57 ZON I 5EC-q s c 29 28 la 2 3 4 5 R"PIED 12 t ZO ILLOCK "E R-8 12 �� { I �'J J� I I SS 38 12 F=TF ------- z;V1 1 2 ==,O I z PARE'IT-RIF Z PAW SAE7 "K 4 15 URN------ ;41 33 PROPOSED 11 3 34 F ZME R-1 3s 7, 36 37 3:9 27 —21 �E ly 45T- 112. 5 14 1 12 114 4.r 9 AI ly 2fING M p D� DO .21 22 26 27 29 3a 17 - - ZONE 40 LW,%.FNICC4LNE)49 41 N3F4 51 49 50 51 57 55 50 N 54 & 81 62 66 1 97 NB9'27'31'W 4E E)LT I,"_n Item 5. 142• T", zO M-111".11.111!11.111 r.T 7.,, -z' -All PRE-2 74 li Ll 41 M-�- MEff S� E�M AT Hl18QyE AVENM All PRE-3 10 Item 5. ■ 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 5. F144] 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 5. F145] 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 5. F146] 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 '/4 mile to Hillsdale Park and YMCA(9.54 acres in size)directly west of the (+size) project. Page 4 Item 5. ■ 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 5. 148 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 5. ■ 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 5. ■ 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 5. 551 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 5. F152 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 5. F153 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 5. ■ 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 5. ■ 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 5. ■ 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 5. F157 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 5. F158 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 5. Fl-591 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 5. F160] 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 5. 161 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 5. ■ 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 5. 163 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 5. 164 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 5. Fl 67 �. 'aSRUl107Us' is d wvNu„naafi„x CHODA 10 d3NMo dadO7e c iOVINOO SMI833#is7 NOISFAIQSRs -d3NNVld aZZrAx.7.Ln1�3 � = 0 l 7 a� F O 8 x 8 ir R ; V If q 11 � � ---------------- r z - - IF ' �- 7 w } j 3 Page 25 Item 5. F168] 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 5. F169] 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 5. Fl 70] Ul �M N, tu -4 ❑ '44 < 777 . LA z < J-1 Y In lu A -A N-1 lu 41 1 LU _j uj U10 LU E Page 28 Item 5. Fl 71 �aN2r� Y�I II Afl- Up I _d S Idl15aLFA'hTVF �/ IJ� i h - Llll I III I rYr' A. CIA m r'�e��c �,v,, MA aidK � e _ I T I � �t OF OF � I I w I1 15Ir F A - TH ,4T k 3s 4IL �I Yry \ - - z ? CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN,ID m PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 29 Item 5. 172 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 5. Fl 73 W N- on ON / & 1y% mU ggg WR rn rn F� 70 a D z A ti fl9 m Dit a r 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 5. ■ 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 5. F175] 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 5. Fl 77 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 5. 179 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 5. F180] 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 5. 181 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 5. F182] 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 5. F183] 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 5. F184] 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 5. 185 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 5. F186] 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 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION October 21, 2021PUBLIC HEARING MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONANNEXATION AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATIONS CENTERVILLE Vicinity Map– CENTERVILLE Preliminary Plat– CENTERVILLE Preliminary Plat– CENTERVILLE Preliminary Plat– CENTERVILLE Landscape Plan– CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION adjoining subdivisionspath and natural path connections to -Micropathways, a tot lot and gazeboLinear Open Space (0.92 acre) with landscaping, pathwaysMew Area (0.45 acre) with covered sitting areas and Amity entrancepathway at and Pocket park (0.28 acre) with public art, plaza connectionpath -10’ sidewalk along Amity with microstreet parallel parking-playground, pickleball court, pathways and offarea, swimming pool facility, community acres) with a plaza -Central Common Area (1.93Qualified Open Space of 6.00 acres (15.4%)Amenities– CENTERVILLE Landscape Plan– CENTERVILLE Landscape Plan– CENTERVILLE TOWNHOMES (RearLoad)- CENTERVILLE TOWNHOMES (Front Elevation Unit Building)-for 3 CENTERVILLE TOWNHOMES (FrontLoad)- CENTERVILLE FOURPLEX- CENTERVILLE FOURPLEX- CENTERVILLE SAMPLE ELEVATION80’ and 90’ Lots CENTERVILLE SAMPLE ELEVATION74’, 80’ and 90’ Lots CENTERVILLE SAMPLE ELEVATION74’, 80’ and 90’ Lots CENTERVILLE SAMPLE ELEVATION64’ Lot CENTERVILLE SAMPLE ELEVATION64’ Lot CENTERVILLE SAMPLE ELEVATION64’ Lot CENTERVILLE SAMPLE ELEVATION36’ Lot CENTERVILLE SAMPLE ELEVATION36’ Lot CENTERVILLE Landscape Plan– C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) MERIDIAN Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan.Vision outlined by the FLUM and Subdivision adheres to Meridian’s by ensuring Centerville public trustgood stewardship of A call for P&Z to demonstrate COALITIONSOUTHERN RIM Mixed Use 30.26 Acres FLUM (PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS)-FUTURE LAND USE MAP Developer : 163 units•Public: 121 units *•Units: 90 to 240•Density: 3 to 8 du/acre•Size: 30 acre•(MDR)Medium Density Residential Developer: 56 units•Public: 51 units *•Units: 48 to 108 units•Density: 6 to 12 du/acre••N) -(MUNeighborhood – CENTERVILLE PRELIMINARY PLAT BREAKS Exasperating public concerns seen as major red flags found in Agency Comment folder•Certain designated area continues to have unsustainable density concerns•Limited north/south paths to plan’s main common area hurts walkability•Transition density requirements and expectations are not being met•Not meeting public expectations set by Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan •N designated area-Parking, commercial and traffic continue to be concern in the MU•N designated area-Townhomes continue to extend outside the MU•sheets-Not meeting public expectations set by the FLUM & designation cut•PUBLIC TRUST BY (REVISED) •N OUTSTANDING CONCERNS)-CENTERVILLE’S REVISED PLAN (MU: Swap lane location with the open spaceSolution•private alley (Redding Lane) south of E. Hill Park St.Townhome residence wanting to exit Centerville from •forAwkward traffic flow •with parking.: Swap townhome lot #52 with mailbox lot Solution•Guests and visitors of 40 townhome residents•plex residents-Guests and visitors of four•Workers and patrons of the businesses•forInadequate parking •: Swap four plex for a commercial lotSolution•residence ratio (very low in south Meridian)Missed opportunity to increase employment to •Less attractive space for restaurants/cafes•Lower passerby traffic•results inLack of E. Amity Rd fronting commercial lots Transitional Densities street designand bikeable community through good site and walkable Foster a -Comp Plan’s Policy Direction action 5.01.01A •Walkability police, transportation, schools, fire, and parks.facilities and services, including water, sewer, publicEstablish and maintain levels of service for -3.02.01G •to functionhow roadways or public transportation service are able of direct effect on the effectiveness and sustainability decisions have a land use -7 (continued) -Comp Plan 3•infrastructureintegrate development with existing and planned ; and minimize conflicts between incompatible usesand densities should be efficient and sustainable… The location and balance of land uses -7 -Comp Plan 3•Sustainable Density MDR (PUBLIC EXPECTATION)-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL .City, and the best interest of the Meridian citizensits suitability, impact on the quality of life for considering proposed physical development and provide the framework for policies that will implement technical guidelines and adopt it is necessary for the City to -4 -Comp Plan 1•Appropriate Zoning, and other best site design practices. densities, transitional buffering, screeninguses throughcompatible with surrounding Require all new development -Comp Plan 3.07.01A •between residential densities and housing types.from dissimilar land uses, and used to transitionAlleys and roadways should be -13 -Comp Plan 3• •CENTERVILLE’S REVISED PLAN (MDR NOT INLINE WITH FLUM)single family residential lotsSwap townhomes for Solution:•for MDR designated areaThis breaks public expectations •Meridian’s FLUM.N area as designated by -MU39 townhomes extend outside •or converted to additional open space and/or parking.: Restrict lots south of W. Rincon Lane to single story family homes Solution•. (see Comp Plan 3.07.01A)cohesive to surrounding arealots need to be neighboring homes to the south. These highly visible These lots sit on a higher elevation then neighboring home to the east and •CENTERVILLE’S REVISED PLAN (INADEQUATE TRANSITIONS)density.adequate transitional This is not problematic. single family lots is to 13,000 and 10,000 sf townhouse lots adjacent Having 2,800 sf MDR (HOW TO MEET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXPECTATIONS)Vision (gross density 4.04 du/acre)Creates a plan better aligned to Meridian’s •facilities: Parks, YMCA, Day CareMitigates overcrowding of surrounding •Mitigates traffic and parking concerns•Mitigates school overcrowding by 29 students•42 units total)-units (Reduces MDR designated area from 163 to 121 ------------------------------- -------------------------------9 units)-(8 Zone to require 3,500 sf lots to be 4,000 sf -Use R+11 units)-townhomes with single family lots (Ensure sustainable MDR density by swapping +3 units)-Add north/south walking paths to park (+7 units)-cohesion (Use single story family lots for neighborhood +12 units)-Eliminate back fence density transitions ( We ask P&Z to demonstrate good stewardship of Ensure that all planning, zoning and land use decisions balance the interests of the community-*Comp Plan 3.05.00 Ensure walkability for all residents in the proposed plan•Enforce appropriate density transitions to internal & surrounding areas•facto minimum lot size of 4,000 sf)8 Zoning (de -Ensure sustainable densities by zoning entire MDR area as R•single family lotsN designated area with -•MDR Park St.N traffic flow concerns for townhome residents south of Hill -Address MU•Increase parking to better serve patrons and residents (remove 1 townhome)•plex)-Add an additional Amity fronting commercial lot (remove 1 four•N-MU by recommending Challenger Development to:trustpublic C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) Community Rebuttal to Proposed Centerville Subdivision (Revised October 14, 2021) Neighborhood Meetings: On June 3, 2020, the developer held a neighborhood meeting at the site. The developer's representative presented the proposed plan to the significant number of residents present. The representative presented the plan implying that the plan was what the city planners wanted and in fact asked the developer to create. All resident's present were angered and outraged with city planners and the developer. Numerous residents were upset that the city would want an additional 314 households planned for the 40-acre parcel; especially when their expectation of the proposed development would be single family homes with a similar look and feel to all the surrounding established developments. The resident's primary concerns were the number of people occupying 314 households, who would have the same expectation of accessing city services as they had when moving into the surrounding community. Current residents expressed that their primary concerns were, currently experiencing increased traffic delays along the arterial roadways, increased automobile accidents, non-existent bike lanes and safe pedestrian pathways along Howry Lane and the unimproved arterial roads(Amity Rd and Cloverdale), Hillsdale Elementary already busing of children living in the community to schools miles away from where they live, non- existent transportation services, increase in traffic in an already overburdened community, cut- through traffic to Hillsdale Creek subdivision down S Bleachfield Ave., down W Lachlan ST, through the Rock Hampton Subdivision and out to S Cloverdale RD and cut-through traffic to Rock Hampton subdivision down W McCumbo ST leading out to S Cloverdale RD, the increased traffic impact to Hillsdale Creek and Rock Hampton subdivisions, the inability of the fire department to respond to a recent house fire in Century Farms where the house was completely damaged due to fire and smoke damage and addition fire services not planned to be developed for possibly two or more years. Last of their concerns were the conformity of the proposed building elevations to the existing elevations of the surrounding communities, multi- family three story apartment buildings in the middle of an All urban family community without services for residents requiring transportation services and access to public services. On June 23, 2021 a second meeting was held at the subject site. The revised plan presented by the developer's representative was presented. A greater number of community residents from the surrounding developments attended the meeting. The residents expected to be heard and have their concerns addressed. The developer's representative presented their revised version of the proposed plan and again implied that the plan was what the city planners wanted. Again the resident's present were angered and outraged with city planners and the developer. Little change was made to the second plan revision. The same concerns listed above were expressed. The applicant stated that they contacted West Ada School District about school capacity and safe routes to school. A member of our community forum contacted the West Ada School and its was confirmed that no more than a telephone conversation had occurred between the developer's representative and the school district. The West Ada School District forwarded a letter outlining the limited school capacity throughout the district, the negative impact of busing children to distant schools in the district and the burden of the additional cost of busing the children. The overflow school, Silver Sage Elementary, is miles away from the proposed subdivision. The district has recently stated that schools are reaching a 'Crises' status. The West Ada School District suggested the developer donate land for the construction of a much-needed elementary school for the community. 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. 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." Idaho Code § 67-6511(a) requires: ...planning and zoning commission shall evaluate the request to determine the extent and nature of the amendment. Particular consideration shall be given to the effects of any proposed zone change upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services, including school districts, within the planning jurisdiction." 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, \ 'cur-plus i -�— orUuplexes8� �q Plaza Area 74 Ufficear o Service Use o _ Collector Road Material Fact Current FLUM 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 daycare, preschool, or additional elementary school facilities, coffee shop, sandwich shop, dog grooming, service providers one visits on a monthly or less frequent basis 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." 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 community respectfully requests the City Council follow the Comprehensive Plan and maintain the current Mixed Use Neighborhoods (MUN) designation for County Accessor Parcel S1133120701, 9.97 Acres of land. We request the developer is DENIED their application for 2.5 acres of C-C zoning for the intended uses for the additional commercial lots (combination office, retail and warehousing within one building). Furthermore, the community request that the developer not be allowed to calculate common area, buffers, green space etc., to be calculated in the gross density calculation. The community would rather the developer be allowed to only calculate Net Use Density Calculations to more accurately reflect the actual size and immensity of the developer's proposal. Definition of Medium Density Residential R-8 This Density allows for dwellings units at gross densities of three to eight dwellings units per acre. Medium Density Residential Site Pattern 11. a . F Material Facts Current FLUM 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. 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. Idaho Code § 67-6511 requires: "The zoning districts shall be in accordance with the adopted plans." Idaho Code § 67-6511(a) requires: ..."planning and zoning commission shall evaluate the request to determine the extent and nature of the amendment. Particular consideration shall be given to the effects of any proposed zone change upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services, including school districts, within the planning jurisdiction." Material Facts 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 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. Material Fact 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, consisting of two parcels totaling 28.98 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. Idaho Code § 67-6511 requires: "The zoning districts shall be in accordance with the adopted plans." Idaho Code § 67-6511(a) requires: ..."planning and zoning commission shall evaluate the request to determine the extent and nature of the amendment. Particular consideration shall be given to the effects of any proposed zone change upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services, including school districts, within the planning jurisdiction." 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. The community respectfully requests the City Council follow the Comprehensive Plan and maintain the current 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. Furthermore, the community request that the developer not be allowed to calculate common area, buffers, green space etc., to be calculated in the gross density calculation. The community would rather the developer be allowed to only calculate Net Use Density Calculations to more accurately reflect the actual size and immensity of the developer's proposal. The community believes that the Net Density Calculations provide a greater possibility of the proposed development to conform with the surrounding subdivisions. Item 6. L187 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Elsinore Daycare Facility (H-2021-0061) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 4818 and 4858 N. Elsinore Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request to construct a new 13,535 square-foot, single-story daycare facility on approximately 1.3 acres of land on Lots 12 and 13 of the Paramount Square Subdivision in the C-G zoning district. Item 6. 188 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: October 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Elsinore Daycare Facility (H-2021-0061) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 4818 and 4858 N. Elsinore Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request to construct anew 13,535 square- foot, single-story daycare facility on approximately 1.3 acres of land on Lots 12 and 13 of the Paramount Square Subdivision in the C-G zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 6. 189 STAFF REPORT E IDIAN --- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/21/2021 Legend DATE: I�l U Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 > ®� m SUBJECT: H-2021-0061 Elsinore Child Care Facility �o Hop o LOCATION: 4818 &4858 N. Elsinore Avenue, I generally located at the northwest corner of Meridian Road and McMillan Road. RED R� I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit request to construct a new 13,535 square foot, single-story daycare facility on approximately 1.3 acres of land on Lots 12 & 13 of the Paramount Square Subdivision in the C-G zoning district,by 814 Development, LLC. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.3 acres Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial—Daycare Center Lots(#and type; Two(2)existing building lots(tentative approval for bldg./common) a Property Boundary Adjustment to consolidate lots) Neighborhood meeting date; # August 12, 2021;no attendees of attendees: History(previous approvals) MDA-13-010 (DA Inst.# 113083665); RZ-15-001; PP-15-002; FP-15-020; PBA-2021-0015 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes — Page 1 Item 6. F-19ol Description Details Page • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access to N. Elsinore Avenue along west boundary (Arterial/Collectors/State via a new driveway connection; additional access to Hwy/Local)(Existing and shared drive aisle along north boundary via new Proposed) driveway connection. Elsinore Avenue and shared drive aisle are existing facilities. Stub Cross-access to adjacent parcels is already in place Street/Interconnectivity/Cross with the commercial subdivision via the shared drive Access aisles. Existing Road Network Yes Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 0.6 miles from Fire Station#4 • Fire Response Time Within 5-minute response time goal Page 2 1 1 I • - • • • .�==1111111 IIII O � � � • • • • a `- 1t 11N;M� �I,.� a i4D�- I��111■` ► 1 1 ' �' Z Ii'' :p umnn nn �i ■►.nnu111 u ;� � � '�„a �� ��%,,. �IIIIIIIII11111 111111 — " 1.1 �;-® .�unmml Inns -4i , ..1imp �■ M;CMILL M'ChLAN� = - �■ ■n a■■■■�■nunrli unnll 111111111111 -- �� ` i �.. 1' (I l�u`I:'--_ ■-=- ijllllllll ■IIII �, 1 111111■ 1 f p O - u u -r==��■e n11■11 IIIIIIII ■ F � `4' ■ Ir III■ �fl � 1 •e=1 unl�i.Z011M �.\■ - . o - nln 11 ea:- � _ _ 11!■F � 111111 /11111111-� 1 � - • - • ■ J i I ■IIII .�111111111111111=�: 11111111111 ■■ ■ �1 Ir �111 ■nnnwnll W: 111111111111 �-:■ '� ; ff ■,;,,■111111111111 :�� (IIIIIIIII �'r'�� � 'i � -�,__ ���,;�Y �■\\ .�pp Ilnlll� ■ I IIIII i. ` � - 1 I 1 1 I I I - • - • Rom_■° � _� ,�♦ - • - • ���� �■ ♦ == Illlllllj� � = =1111111 - • - • • • .�.- I • - • • • �`-� _IIII III I _.� 11 . IIP , ♦ 1IIIr�=c1■ III IIII I■� �jV� 11■III■1\? Di IIIII 1 � • -• '• - ZC Illll ;yl 1�1 I a,II 1 1 I11 IIII G��9�/ 11111111� 11 ■■■n■■■■■■■n■■w�', 11111111� �1�1 111� ../11111111 11111�► LU ../11111111 IIIII Znnnuuml orrn �unnuunn o11n .�Inumml 11un .�Inulnn■ nun aI ■�� ��11- mnl (IIIII■-1 � p='= nnn IIIIIIII J � ■nn (IIIII■� ,,�;� - �' nn (IIIII■� I� � � IIIII Illllllllla � , � rlllllll IIIIIIl111a1�1 a^A .MC LAN _MCh�+LL-ANC ■■, .■ n IIIIr■1 IIIIIIII 1111111 Ills M■ ■■ 'n■,n�nu' ■1 IIIIu11111111111 11111111 111111111111 •V .Jr � - -- r IIII Iln� IIIII r• ! 0l :- ---_ �1111111 IIIIIII ■ •■ ■� I- ulul :- - - �I11111111 1111111 ■ IL 1�■■■I•� ■\-- _IIII\III ■11111 �• ,I�u` .�■_ =-- IIId 1 IIIIIIIII=� ■ iiiiii :is--.1111� _ \I IIII■111 �i�..11n� = \\1 IIIIIIIII r 11 :nnnln . ■ I Imo 1► �aRr ; r 11■__-_nnmlll - ■ I I o 1► Nam. ■■==11111111111111 "-I . '�i �� ■■==11111111111111 .- ��. Ni� �� --1111111111111111 ry p- -�� ��� .� ■ -I 1111111■��.■ .� ■ � 1111111■���■ - ■ 11111111111�IIIIII i 111111111111 �.C� i ■ 11111111111 1111111■ 111111111111 ��11-■F � 1■111 lllllllll a .■■ ■1-�� � 111111 /11111111 a �..■■ ■III . IIIIIIIIIIIIII� 11111111;111 �■ ■■ ■IIII■N�' �. 111111111111111� . 11111111111 �■ all 11111111111111l- 111111111111 ��■�i� 111 11111111111111�- 11111111■II ��ij ■--111111111111 \(IIIIIIIII . . E■--111111111111 11111I1111 . �� �■\\ pp 111111= - IIIII ��\■ pp 111111= - I■■\\ as i Item 6. F192 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/5/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 10/5/2021 Site Posting Date 10/6/2021 NextDoor posting 10/5/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) The future land use designation for this property is Commercial—This designation will provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail, restaurants,personal and professional services,and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. Multi-family residential may be allowed in some cases,but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity, and amenities. Sample zoning include: C-N, C-C, and C-G. The proposed use of a Daycare Center(more than 12 children) is a community-serving commercial use that fits within the future land use designation of Commercial. The proposed use can serve both the immediate area the nearby community at-large. The proposed location is at the western edge of a commercial subdivision and directly across the street from multi family residential which functionally creates a mixed-use development despite the future land use designation not being such. The daycare use is a needed use throughout the City and providing it nearby higher density residential meets many of the City's desired outcomes for commercial development. Specific policies are noted and analyzed below but Staff finds the proposed use to be consistent with the Commercial future land use designation.In addition,Staffs transportation analysis is below in section Y.E& Y.G. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play,and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips,and enhancing overall livability and sustainability" (3.06.02B).As noted, the subject area is not part of a mixed-use designation on our future land us map but this area has developed as a mixed-use area with high-density multi family residential adjacent to a commercial subdivision with ample pedestrian connectivity. Staff finds adding a daycare use in this location introduces an additional use to immediate area and a use that is commonly used by those who reside within multi family. In addition, this property has easy pedestrian access to the adjacent apartment complex to the west, therefore promoting overall sustainability and the benefits of having a supportive commercial use nearby high-density residential. • "Encourage the development of supportive commercial near employment areas" (3.06.02C). The proposed daycare is not near an employment center but is part of a medium-sized commercial subdivision and nearby several schools. Furthermore, the remaining undeveloped properties within this commercial subdivision should contain additional employment opportunities making the location of this daycare to those future employers equally important. Page 4 Item 6. F193 • "Locate smaller-scale,neighborhood-serving commercial and office use clusters so they complement and provide convenient access from nearby residential areas, limiting access to arterial roadways and multimodal corridors."(3.07.02B). The subject use is proposed adjacent to commercial and higher density residential. This property has pedestrian access to the apartment complex to its west via existing facilities that should help reduce vehicle trips and provide convenient access overall. In addition, the Applicant is not proposing any direct access to the adjacent arterial street, McMillan Road and is instead proposing internal access from existing facilities. • "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods."(5.01.02D). With the landscaping and landscape buffers to McMillan and Elsinore Avenue being existing, the proposed use should be both buffered and integrated into the existing neighborhoods. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject site has some partial improvements from its original approvals in 2015 including a drive aisle along the northern project boundary that connects to Elsinore Avenue,the public road directly to the west of the site to accommodate existing cross-access agreements. There are no other existing structures or site improvements on this site. D. Proposed Use Analysis: A Daycare Center(more than 12 children)is listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as a conditional use in the C-G zoning district, subject to the specific use standards noted below. See narrative included in the application for more specific details on the proposed use from the Applicant's perspective. Staffs specific analysis is in the next section. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group: 1. In determining the type of daycare facility,the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children,is the determining factor.Discussion with the Applicant have yielded that 165 children are proposed to be served by this daycare center with approximately 10-12 staff members; the number of staff members will be determined by state required student/staff ratios. Therefore, the type of daycare facility proposed is a Daycare Center because it is providing care to more than 12 children (UDC 11-IA-1). 2. On site vehicle pick up,parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. The submitted site plan shows a two-way, 25 foot wide drive aisle along the west side of the building with parking on both sides to equal 36 total parking spaces. The building is shown as approximately 13,500 square feet requiring a minimum of 27 parking spaces per code requirements for nonresidential uses (I space/500 square feet). Therefore, the Applicant is proposing parking in excess of code requirements. However, the site plan does not show any dedicated pick-up/drop-off location other than the parking spaces. The Applicant is proposing two points of ingress/egress for the subject site; one access to Elsinore Avenue to the west and one access to the north to the existing shared drive aisle that runs east-west through the commercial development. The inclusion of two access points for the parking area provides more than one avenue for parents to access the site. Page 5 Item 6. ■ In addition, ACHD is requiring a dedicated westbound right-turn lane and a dedicated eastbound left-turn lane to Elsinore Avenue from McMillan Road. With these dedicated turn lanes and multiple ways to access the subject site, some of Staffs concerns regarding access are mitigated. However, Staff does have concerns the proposed parking drive aisle could be overrun at peak pick-up/drop-off hours in the morning and afternoon with the current site design. During discussions with the Applicant, it has been noted the daycare operator prefers parents to park to discharge and pick-up their children instead of simply a quick stop-and-go drop-off. To help mitigate this concern, Staff recommends a reduction in building size to allow for additional parking along the north end of the site, similar to what exists within this commercial development to the east. See below: 1� E• *d6d9 Emulate parking to the east along the north end of subject site. VA lk6 If a similar sized parking area is included on this site, approximately an additional 10 parking spaces should be able to be added to the site to total 46 with this recommendation. Staff does not anticipate the play area along the north boundary being reduced with the inclusion of additional parking because the building itself should be reduced in size, nothing else. Staff has recommended a condition of approval commensurate with this option. Despite recommending a change in the size of the building, Staff believes the maximum number of children discussed below is still relevant and should not be reduced. With Staffs recommendation to add parking, Staff finds the proposed use and site design shall provide for safe discharge and pick-up of children. 3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. The submitted narrative states the daycare will serve children from as young as 6 weeks in age to as old as 12 years of age. The building will have multiple rooms for different age groups. As noted, the Applicant has stated to Staff an anticipated number of children being cared for at this site to be 165 children. Staff recommends a condition of approval that a maximum of 165 children shall be allowed at any one time within the proposed building because of the proposed business operations and the fact there is no dedicated pick-up and drop-off location beyond that of the drive aisle and parking spaces for the building. Staff has written a condition of approval commensurate with this recommendation. 4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11,Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior Page 6 Item 6. Fl-951 to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence,the hours of operation shall be between six o'clock(6:00)A.M. and eleven o'clock(11:00)P.M. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit. The subject property is zoned C-G and is not directly adjacent to a residence. However, the only separation between the subject property and existing multi family residential and residential zoning is a commercial local street, Elsinore Avenue. Therefore, the hours of operation shall be limited to 6am to IIpm per zoning district standards in UDC 11-2B-3B. The Applicant has stated in their narrative that they intend to operate from 6am to 6pm; this lies within the allowed hours and the Applicant is not seeking to go outside of the allowed hours of operation with this CUP. Staff does not recommend the inclusion of a specific provision limiting hours of operation due to the existing limitation of code for the C-G zoning district adjacent to a residential district. Staff finds it prudent to allow the daycare operator flexibility in future hours of operation should they decide to operate later in the evening for residents who do not work standard business hours (8am-5pm). 6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district, the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-4B of this title.Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record within one hundred feet(100) of the exterior boundary of the subject property. This standard is not applicable to this project. B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot(6)non-scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The submitted landscape plans show a 6'vinyl coated chainlink fence along the perimeter of the play areas which surround the building on the north, east, and south sides. Chainlink fencing does not qualify as non-scalable fencing so the Applicant is required to revise the fencing material. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to provide fencing consistent with code requirements (i.e. wrought iron fencing or vertical steel tube fencing). The outdoor play area may be reduced in size as a secondary consequence of requiring more parking or a discharge/pick-up area along the north boundary of the site.However, Staff is also recommending the building size be reduced which should not inherently require the outdoor play areas also be reduced. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet(6)high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. The play equipment specifications being proposed are not known at this time;Applicant will comply with this requirement with future applications. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk.Not applicable, C-G zoning district. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The daycare center will be in a new building that requires Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review approval prior to building permit submittal.All UDC dimensional standards appear to be met with the submitted site plan but the Applicant shall comply with the required dimensional standards at the time of CZC submittal. Page 7 Item 6. ■ G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Direct lot access is proposed along the west boundary via a driveway connection to N. Elsinore Avenue, an existing local street that separates this commercial area from the apartment development to the west.An additional driveway connection is proposed to the north property boundary where an existing shared drive aisle exists. Therefore, cross-access is provided to the east and north through the rest of the commercial subdivision which provides multiple accesses to Meridian Road and McMillan Road. Because the shared drive aisle is not public and connects to a local street,the access to N.Elsinore Avenue meets ACHD policy. As part of this application,the Applicant performed a turn lane analysis for the Elsinore and McMillan intersection to obtain data on existing traffic movements at this location for the purpose of determining if any turn lanes are warranted.ACHD reviewed this analysis and agrees with its findings—two dedicated turn lanes onto Elsinore Avenue are warranted with construction of this development. According to the turn lane analysis and ACHD,the Applicant should construct a dedicated westbound right-turn lane on McMillan and an eastbound center left-turn lane on McMillan as well. Staff recommends the Applicant adhere to all ACHD conditions of approval but is also including a specific condition of approval for this to ensure appropriate timing. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): The proposed building is shown as 13,535 square feet,requiring a minimum of 27 parking stalls. 36 parking stalls are proposed to meet this requirement. In the specific use standards section above, Staff has discussed adding two additional spaces at the south end of the parking area and potentially adding more along the north while reducing the overall building size. Staff intends to increase the availability of parking regardless of the proposed building size so Staff's recommendations of reducing the building size should not be reflected in a change in the number of parking spaces provided. Please see that section for those specific recommendations (Section V.E).All parking and parking lot landscaping appears to meet minimum UDC standards. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): There is an existing five-foot(5) detached sidewalk along the south boundary adjacent to McMillan Road and along the west boundary adjacent to Elsinore Avenue;no additional sidewalk is required along the adjacent public roads. There is no existing sidewalk along the shared drive aisle at the north boundary nor is there any along this drive aisle further to the east with already developed parcels. The sidewalk along Elsinore and McMillan create a loop around the commercial development which provides safe pedestrian access from the perimeter to the commercial lots. UDC requires that new commercial buildings provide 5-foot wide sidewalks from all public entrances to the arterial sidewalks. The submitted plans show one such connection via striping across the drive aisle and a small segment of sidewalk to the sidewalk along Elsinore;no other sidewalk connections to the existing sidewalk network are proposed. Per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b, pedestrian facilities that traverse vehicle use areas(including drive aisles and parking lots) shall be constructed in a material different from the driving surface to clearly separate the pedestrian facility from the driving surface—painted striping does not satisfy this requirement. Therefore, Staff is recommending a condition of approval to revise the site plan to show any pedestrian facility that crosses a driving surface be constructed with stamped or colored concrete,brick pavers, or similar to meet this code requirement. Code requires an additional connection to the sidewalk along McMillan Road,an arterial street, and the most logical and feasible place for this to occur is by continuing the sidewalk south along the front of the building and connect to the McMillan sidewalk within the existing landscape buffer. In addition,with Staff's recommended changes to the north end of the site to add parking Page 8 Item 6. F197 or create a pick-up/drop-off area, additional 5-foot sidewalk should be added adjacent to the new vehicle use area to connect to the sidewalk at the front of the building for safe access to the building. Staff is recommending the site plan and landscape plan are corrected at the time of CZC submittal to show the required sidewalk connections and any revisions to the site plan. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The project requires a 25-foot landscape buffer to McMillan Road, an arterial street, and a 10-foot buffer to Elsinore Avenue,a local street,per C-G dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Both of these required buffers are already existing and contain the detached sidewalk. However, the submitted landscape plans do not show the existing buffers and landscaping and this should be corrected with future plan revisions to ensure the adequate buffer width is maintained. Staff s recommendations to revise the site plan to accommodate more parking should not alter any landscaping requirements. In addition,the requirement to construct a right turn lane onto Elsinore Avenue should also not affect the existing buffer because there is adequate space for this. Should this not be true,the Applicant is required to maintain the minimum 25-foot buffer width. All other landscaping proposed is for the parking lot landscaping and appears to meet UDC standards. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing is discussed in Section V.E with the specific use standards. L. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): All new non-residential buildings require Administrative Design Review(DES) approval prior to submitting for building permit. The Applicant has submitted conceptual elevations but did not submit for concurrent design review;the design review will be completed and reviewed with the CZC application. However,initial review of the submitted elevations show they do not appear to meet all applicable architectural standards. The southwest corner of the building is shown with a beautiful spire and architectural element that makes the entrance look like an old schoolhouse but beyond that element,there is no other roof variation. Additional fenestration and wall modulation should also occur,especially on the south and west elevations facing public streets to create additional visual interest and pedestrian focus. Staff will analyze the elevations in more detail with the future required DES submittal. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 9 Item 6. F198 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(no date)NOT APPROVED . . . . . . . . ,+ FT PPLAY AREA ` R37 { ---- - ----- ---- - --- i �,015 St4.FY_ •rirw�!fix!. -__ __ rr�11'14 xn■ -- -- 1 + i 1 L 'r" --- ---- a PROPOWD BUILDING _ -- 13,93S SO.FT. ' ------- ----- - ----- -=-- �4 Y AREA. + x - -------------- - x WFS rMCAM(64NAV4P Page 10 Item 6. 199 1 B. Landscape Plan(no date)NOT APPROVED i I PL ' I I —�� r -------------------- -------------- ,�� I 'I OOHT PROM"DUCLOIN-0 I I �I� -Y. - - --------------------------- `FF` NIa'S i We --- - I -- -' _---y - -:- ---- a -- � .•o.ua�wta `a�.♦aa�..it r WFSTld('-UlzI bgAlR040 Page 11 F200] C. Conceptual Building Eeaions 0 3SWO C, 0 _, �\ � \\\ �� � . � � \ }. //\\ \ \ } ` � � � . � � � � � � H. -Z 8 . \ ^� ^\ \ ^\\ \ � � \ LU / ^ � ° , \ � \ LU LLF 2) -SP LU cf) LE Page 12 Item 6. F201] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. The Applicant shall comply with all existing conditions of approval and Development Agreement provisions including but not limited to: MDA-13-010 (DA Inst.# 113083665); RZ-15-001; PP-15-002; FP-15-020; PBA-2021-0015. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 for Daycare Facilities. 3. The maximum number of allowable clients(children)at the facility at one time shall be limited to one hundred and sixty-five (165)unless building/fire code limits this further; the more restrictive number shall apply. 4. The daycare/pre-school shall operate between the hours of 6:00 am and 11:00 pm,per C-G zoning district regulations outlined in UDC I I-2B-3. 5. The Applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11,Idaho Code prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. 6. The site plan and landscape plan shall be revised as follows prior to the Commission Hearing: a. Revise the site plan to show a reduced building size to accommodate additional parking at the north boundary of the site adjacent to the shared drive aisle similar to what exists to the east. b. In accord with UDC I I-3A-19B.4, show any pedestrian facility that crosses a driving surface be constructed with stamped or colored concrete,brick pavers, or similar; c. Add a sidewalk connection from the site to the existing sidewalk along W. McMillan Road in accord with UDC 11-3A-1913.4; d. Revise the type of fencing proposed around the perimeter of all play areas to be non- scalable per the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 (i.e. wrought iron fencing or vertical steel tube fencing); e. Show the existing and required street buffers along N. Elsinore and W. McMillan. The existing landscaping shall be protected during construction in accord with UDC 11-313- 10; f. Include the turn lanes required by ACHD from W. McMillan Road to N. Elsinore Avenue—an eastbound center left turn lane and a westbound right turn lane;prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the building,the Applicant shall provide proof to the Planning Division that these turn lanes have been constructed per ACHD requirements. 7. The Applicant or owner shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 8. Prior to building permit submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review approval from the Planning Department. 9. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. 10. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. Page 13 — Item 6. F202] 11. 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. 12. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements,acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.4. B. Public Works Division 1. This project has two existing sewer services, one of which does not appear to be used.Any unused services must be abandoned at the main that is to remain in service. 2. A 20 foot wide easement is required for all water main and up to all fire hydrants with a 5 foot radius easement around the hydrant.No permanent structures can be within this main including but not limited to buildings, car ports,trash enclosures,trees,bushes, infiltration trenches, light poles, etc. 3. Minimum separation between the water main and building must be 10 feet,which is currently not met on the south end of the building. 4. Maintain a minimum of 4 feet separation from water main lines from the UE line. 5. On site water main should be minimized. 6. A street light plan will need to be included in the building permit application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridianciU.oMIgublic_works.aspx?id=272 C. Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=237614&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr--1 D. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=237904&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https:Ilweblink.meridiancity.ore/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=239713&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The site appears to meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the C-G zoning district for the proposed use and will be verified upon CZC submittal. With the recommended revisions to the site plan, Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. Page 14 Item 6. F203] 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 daycare center will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide a much needed service for area residents with easy access to and from the site. 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 operation of the proposed daycare should be compatible with the residential and commercial uses in the close vicinity and the existing and intended character of this mixed-use 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 daycare complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII as required, Staff finds the proposed use 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 surrounding buildings, Staff 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. Staff 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 in this area due to the proposed use and clients dropping off and picking up children, Staff finds the conditions of approval of the City and ACHD mitigate negative outcomes from the proposed use; therefore, Staff finds the proposed daycare should not be detrimental to the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features in this area and finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 15 Item 7. L204 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Red Aspen (H-2021-0066) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at the southeast corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.99 acres of land with a request for the C-G zoning district for the purpose of constructing an approximate 30,000-square-foot flex space building on 2.19 acres of land. Item 7. F 05 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: October 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Red Aspen (H-2021-0066) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at the southeast corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Overland Rd. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.99 acres of land with a request for the C-G zoning district for the purpose of constructing an approximate 30,000-square-foot flex space building on 2.19 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 7. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/21/2021 Legend DATE: Project Location ON TO: Planning&Zoning Commission _ r FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner - 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0066 0 0 1 Red Aspen ' LOCATION: The site is located at the southeast corner of S. Linder Road and W. Overland m � Road, in the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of - Section 24,Township 3N.,Range 1 W X I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and Zoning of 2.99 acres of land with a request for the C-G zoning district for the purpose of constructing an approximate 30,000 square foot flex space building on 2.19 acres of land,by KM Engineering,LLP. IL SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—2.99 acres; Project Site—2.19 acres Future Land Use Designation Commercial(majority) and Medium Density Residential Existing Land Uses Vacant Proposed Land Uses Flex-Space Lots(#and type; One (1)commercial building lot bldg./common) Physical Features (waterways, None hazards, flood plain,hillside Neighborhood meeting date; # August 31, 2021 —no attendees of attendees: History(previous approvals) N/A Page 1 Item 7. F207] B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via two driveway connections to the adjacent arterial (Arterial/Collectors/State streets—the access to Overland Road is existing and is proposed to remain. Hwy/Local) (Existing and Proposed) Stub There is no opportunity for stub street or connectivity between adjacent sites Street/Interconnectivity/Cross and the subject site due to existing development.Applicant is proposing to Access widen an existing access to Linder Road and share it with the adjacent residential development to the south. Existing Road Network Yes. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No buffers exist along Linder or Overland; existing sidewalk along Overland Buffers but not along Linder. Proposed Road No road improvements are required with this application because the Improvements Overland/Linder Road intersection is planned for future improvement. (see ACHD staff report in Section VIII.D). CIP/Five Year Work Plan for adjacent&nearby roadways: Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)!Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be constructed as a new 4-lane 1-84 overpass and widened to 5-lanes on each side of 1-84 with a level 3 bike facility from Franklin Road to Overland Road in the future. • Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Victory Road to Overland Road between 2036 and 2040. • Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Overland Road to Franklin Road between 2036 and 2040. • The intersection of Overland Road and Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened 6-lanes on the north and south legs and 7-lanes on the east west legs and signalized between 2036 and 2040. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station rec Ditly adjacent to Fire Station#6 Police Service • ---FN—on—e/no one/no comments Wastewater • Distance to Sewer 0' Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Page 2 1 1 1 1 r. � � • rl ..-r r 1 �MqjqllPlll 1 oil r , � 1 1 HIM 11 ERLAND_ OVERLAND SF ril" tj e 1 - - • / - - _ LU a •, lllnLLI �1 - y i;� ���r� H in 1 � � t{(� • - • it y ���i�1 - • - • 1 soon Is 11 • �� 111111 noon I 11l11l111! � �; 111111 noon �-yj!!!!!!Ip! �OVERL-AND OVERLAND ...-, -■N -=- - == -- _== -- Lu- 111111111 _rry: W- a,lllllllllllllb 0 l!! '�e a ?% Z �#►fill,!! ME Simi 1 nm1 Item 7. F209] III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Joshua Jantz,KM Engineering,LLP—5725 N. Discovery Way,Boise,ID 83713 B. Owner: Jeffrey Majors,Jamco Investments, LLC 4700 N. Cloverdale Road, Ste. 210, Boise, ID 83714 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/5/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 10/5/2021 Site Posting 10/7/2021 Nextdoor posting 10/5/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Commercial—The Commercial designation is meant to provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services,and office uses,as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. Multi- family residential may be allowed in some cases,but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design,connectivity, and amenities. The project site is approximately two (2.19)acres in size and currently consists of three parcels located at the southeast corner of Linder and Overland and directly abuts the newest Meridian Fire Station along Overland. In addition to the Commercial future land use designation, there is a small area of Medium Density Residential(MDR)along the southern boundary. Because land use designations are not parcel specific, this land use designation is also represented on the subject site but correlates to the residential project to the south (Linder Road Apartments). However, the City anticipates commercial uses on this corner, especially because it is adjacent to two major arterial roadways (Linder and Overland)and near a planned interstate overpass. The proposed use of Flex Space is subject to specific use standards (UDC H-4-3-18) and is proposed to serve as the core office and warehouse of a local business, Red Aspen. Red Aspen is a social selling(online) beauty company that aims to utilize this site as their new main hub for their growing business. Flex Space is a principally permitted use in the requested C-G zoning district and has no restrictions on semi-truck traffic. However, the Applicant has specifically stated the amount of truck traffic for this business is minimal and mostly handled by smaller delivery trucks. The submitted concept plan shows the proposed truck docks being along the end of the building but facing east towards the Fire Station and meets code as submitted. However, Staff does have concern over the general proximity of the truck docks and turnaround area to the residential project to the south. Further analysis is below. Page 4 Item 7. F210] The Applicant has proposed to place the building near the hard corner and pull it away from the existing multi family residential to the south approximately 119 feet from the south property line. The submitted concept plan depicts this 119 foot distance to include the required 25 foot landscape buffer and solid fencing along the southern property line abutting the multi family project; no buffer is required adjacent to the Fire Station because it is not a residential use. The Applicant is also showing the required landscape buffers adjacent to the arterial streets with the one adjacent to Overland being shown wider than the required 25 feet. Due to required right-of- way dedication along Overland Road, the proposed building is shown approximately 42 feet behind the existing sidewalk which has led to the building being further south than Staff originally anticipated. In order to help the site gain back some of its usable area and create more space between the proposed use and the existing residential to the south, Staff is recommending the Applicant reduce the street buffer to Overland Road by going through the Alternative Compliance process with future applications. Stafffinds this revision to the site has at least two positive outcomes: the building can be moved further north towards Overland to create a better presence and streetscape along this corridor, and; moving the building further north creates further separation from the existing multi family development to the south while at the same time allowing more area for trucks to safely turnaround in the south half of the site. Staff finds the landscape buffer and linear distance between the proposed use and the existing residential to the south offers adequate transition and mitigation between uses. In addition to the proposed use on the subject site, it is worth noting the surrounding uses in the immediate area.As noted, Fire Station#6 is directly to the west of the subject and there is an existing multi family residential and R-15 zoning to the south. In addition, Staff has noted S. Linder Road and W. Overland Road abut the site on the west and north, respectively. On the west side of Linder, there is existing C-C zoning with a partially developed commercial/office center. On the north side of Overland is I-L zoning and Camping World, an RV storage, service, and sales business. Furthermore, on the opposite corner of Linder and Overland is the Artemisia Subdivision,zoned C-G and proposed with a number of commercial uses including vehicle sales. Thus, when looking at the surrounding area, nonresidential uses are commonplace. Access to the site is proposed via one connection to Linder Road and one connection to Overland Road with both accesses restricted to right-in/right-out only maneuvers. The Applicant is proposing to share and widen the existing access to Linder Road that the multi family project uses directly abutting the southern property line. Staff has not seen a written agreement for this shared access and one should be submitted with any future applications. However, Staff does support widening and sharing this access so the site has adequate circulation; without a second access point to the site, any future development on the site will be severely hindered. The proposed access to Overland is an existing curb cut that is supported by both Staff and ACHD. Both proposed access points are as far away from the Linder and Overland intersection as is possible. Staff supports the access to the site as proposed but is recommending a DA provision that the Applicant provide proof of an agreement with the property owner to the south regarding the shared access to Linder with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The hours of operation for the facility are an additional factor in determining if the proposed use fits in this location. The Applicant has stated the planned hours of operation are Monday thru Friday, gam to 5:06pm with occasional Saturday hours during the holiday season (October- December). Most importantly, the Applicant has stated that any freight deliveries will only occur during normal hours of operation. Due to the proposed hours of operation, Staff believes the proposed Development Agreement provisions and screening methods will be sufficient in mitigating any noxious consequences of the proposed use. Page 5 Item 7. F 11 Staff finds the proposed site design combined with the proposed Flex Space use to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed below. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-651IA.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 owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /g comQplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G). City water and sewer services are readily available to the subject site.As previously noted, the subject site is directly adjacent to Fire Station#6 so fire service is not an issue. The proposed access points to the site are supported by Staff and ACHD. Therefore, Staff finds the project complies with this policy. "Promote business retention, expansion, and improvement programs." (2.07.01). The subject application is for Red Aspen, a locally grown and sustained business. Due to the success of their business, this company needs to expand its footprint here in the Treasure Valley. The owners have a strong desire to remain in Meridian with the proposed project that will help it continue to flourish. Creating a flex space building for existing and future warehouse and office needs is a great fit for this location and the City of Meridian as a whole. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Despite the project not being a residential development, a segment of multi-use pathway is required and shown adjacent to Linder Road along the west property boundary. The Applicant is proposing to construct the required segment of pathway and complete this large segment of multi-use pathway on the east side of Linder Road creating a continuous pathway from Overland to Victory Middle School. This connection and added pathway would connect to the existing sidewalk along Overland that connects east and west to various projects and uses. In addition, the submitted site plan shows adequate internal sidewalk connections to the arterial sidewalks for overall connectivity. "Work with existing industrial businesses to expand or relocate operations to appropriate areas." (2.08.03Q. The proposed business is not an industrial business but Stafffinds it equally important to support existing local businesses to relocate to appropriate areas when expansion is needed.After discussions with Staff and other entities, the Applicant determined the subject corner property is the ideal location to construct their own building designed solely for their business operations. Because the subject area is planned for commercial uses and a majority of the nearby uses are also nonresidential, Staff agrees with the Applicant and believes the subject site is an appropriate and ideal area for Red Aspen. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or site improvements. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is for offices and associated warehousing,which falls under Flex Space within Meridian development code. This use is a permitted use in the requested C-G zoning district per UDC Table 11-213-2 and is also subject to Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-18). As Page 6 Item 7. F212] previously discussed within the Comprehensive Plan section above, Staff supports the proposed use at this location—it is a nonresidential use which complies with the comprehensive plan, it is an expansion of a locally grown business, and Staff finds there is adequate pedestrian and landscaping improvements proposed. Therefore, Staff finds this is an ideal location for this business and proposed use. Staff analysis of the Specific Use Standards is in italics below: UDC 11-4-3-18—Flex Space: A. Office and/or retail showroom areas shall comprise a minimum of thirty(20)percent of the structure and/or tenant space. The submitted concept plan shows the office area of the building comprising approximately 8,700 square feet in area, equating to approximately 30%of the building area. Proposed office area complies with this standard. B. Light industry and warehousing shall not comprise more than seventy(70)percent of the tenant space.According to the submitted concept plan, approximately 20,800 square feet of floor area is reserved for the warehouse component of the building which equates to 70%of the total building size of 29,440 square feet. Thus, the proposed site plan complies with this standard. C. In the C-C,C-G and M-E districts,roll-up doors and loading docks shall not be visible from a public street.According to the submitted concept plan and conceptual elevations, the Applicant is proposing two loading docks and one roll-up door for the building. The loading docks and roll- up door are proposed to be located at the south end of the building and face the east property line, towards the Meridian Fire Station. Per the submitted concept plan, the loading docks should not be visible from Overland or Linder Roads so Staff finds the proposed locations of these design elements to be in compliance with this standard. In addition, any off-street loading spaces must adhere to UDC 11-3C-8 which prohibits any loading space (i.e. loading docks) to face a residential use and limit hours of operation should it be located within 50 feet of a residential district. The submitted concept plan shows compliance with all standards outlined in this code section—the loading docks face the fire station to the east (not a residential use) and are not within 50 feet of any residential district or use. D. Retail use shall not exceed twenty-five(25)percent of leasable area in any tenant space. Because Red Aspen is an online business, there is no retail area included in the building design. Therefore, this standard is not applicable to the submitted site plan. However, the Applicant will be required to comply with this standard in perpetuity should any redesign of the building space occur and a retail component is added. Additional analysis on the proposed use and how it integrates with adjacent uses is in the Comprehensive Plan analysis section above. Staff will confirm compliance with these specific use standards with any future Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The Applicant is proposing to annex the subject property into the City with the C-G zoning district which does not have a minimum lot size. As noted above,the proposed use is a permitted use in the requested zoning district.Furthermore, according to the concept plan,the proposed building, drive aisle and vehicle use areas, and the proposed parking stalls meet UDC dimensional standards. The project requires a minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to both Linder Road and Overland Road, arterial streets. The submitted concept plan shows compliance with the required street buffers with the landscape buffer along Overland being shown as approximately 42 feet wide and the required 25 foot width along Linder.Within the comprehensive plan section above, Staff has recommended a reduction in the Overland landscape buffer width to be less than 25 feet from the ultimate right-of-way. Through Alternative Compliance, Staff believes a reduced buffer Page 7 Item 7. F213] would help mitigate any noxious uses of the site for the residential project to the south by moving the building further away from the south property line.In addition, shifting the building further north would aid the building in holding this corner and creating a true presence at this intersection. In addition,the C-G zoning district requires a minimum landscape buffer of 25 feet to any residential use which is applicable along the south property boundary where an existing multi- family residential development exists. The submitted concept plan shows this 25-foot landscape buffer compliant with the required dimensional standards. According to the conceptual elevations,the building is proposed with a height of approximately 38 feet in height. The C-G zoning district allows a maximum height of 65 feet so the proposed building height complies with this dimensional standard. However,because of adjacent C-C zoning and development, Staff believes limiting the height of any future building on the subject site to the 50-foot height limit of the C-C zoning district instead of the 65-foot limit in the C-G zoning district is a prudent provision to add within the required Development Agreement. Staff recommends this provision in case the proposed use and building is not constructed and a future Applicant proposes a taller building—Staff believes constructing a building up to the allowed 65- foot height in the C-G zoning district does not integrate with adjacent development. With future CZC submittals, Staff will confirm conformance with the required dimensional standards of the C-G zone and the Flex Space specific use standards (11-4-3-18). Therefore,the proposed project meets all required dimensional standards outlined in UDC I I-2B-3. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the future flex space building; Administrative Design Review(DES)and a formal review of the elevations will be required with a future CZC submittal. Per the submitted conceptual elevations,the building is proposed to be constructed with tilt-up concrete panels that have a texture coat applied to it. The elevations also show ample cornice work visible on all elevations, faux windows with fenestration,parapet variation,accent material and color around the base of the building,and two-story windows with painted steel canopies. Staff will analyze the future building elevations submitted with the DES application for compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access to the site is proposed via one connection to Linder Road and one connection to Overland Road with both accesses restricted to right-in/right-out only maneuvers. The access point from Linder road is an existing 25-foot wide access point for the multi-family project adjacent to the south and the Applicant is proposing to widen the curb-cut to 40 feet and share it with the residential project. ACHD has reviewed this proposal and supports the Applicant's request to widen the existing Linder access. Staff has not seen a written agreement for this shared access between the adjacent land owner this one; Staff recommends said agreement be submitted with any future application(s). However, Staff does support widening and sharing this access so the site has adequate circulation;without a second access point to the site,any future development on the site will be severely hindered. The proposed access to Overland is an existing curb cut that is supported by both Staff and ACHD. Both proposed access points are as far away from the Linder and Overland Roads intersection as is physically possible. Staff supports the access to the site as proposed but is recommending a DA provision that the Applicant provide proof of a reciprocal cross-access agreement with the property/property owner to the south regarding the shared access to Linder with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Page 8 Item 7. F214] H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II- 3C-6B for nonresidential uses based on the ratio for commercial zoned properties of one(1) space for every 500 square feet of gross building floor area.A 29,440 square foot building requiring at least 59 parking spaces with the required parking ratio is proposed. According to the submitted concept plan, 59 parking spaces are proposed, exceeding the minimum requirement by one(1) space. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of CZC submittal. The proposed use of a flex space will rarely have the full allotment of parking spaces utilized because the warehouse component of the building takes up a larger area while not traditionally requiring the same amount of parking as office or other commercial uses. Furthermore,there will be no customers that go to the proposed building so all of the parking will be for employees. Therefore, initial review of the concept plan does not give Staff any concern over the amount of parking due to the proposed use of a Flex Space building. I. Sidewalks and Pathways(UDC 11-3A-17& UDC 11-3A-8): 5-foot wide attached sidewalk exists along Overland Road and is required to remain. A10-foot wide multi-use pathway segment is required along the west boundary and adjacent to Linder Road per the Master Pathways Plan.ACHD is requiring both pedestrian facilities be attached facilities due to future planned road widening and intersection improvements. The concept plan also shows at least 7-foot wide sidewalks adjacent to the future building that connect to the arterial pedestrian facilities offering adequate pedestrian connectivity for the subject site. Furthermore,the additional segment of multi-use pathway and its connection to the sidewalk along Overland would create a fully connected pedestrian network from Overland to Victory Middle School,Bear Creek Park, and back with the additional benefit of connecting the pathway system to the arterial street sidewalk network that has vast regional connectivity. The proposed sidewalks and pathway meet UDC requirements. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The Applicant is required to construct landscape buffers along Overland Road,Linder Road, and along the southern boundary as a landscape use buffer. The buffers along Overland and Linder are governed by UDC 11-313-7; the land use buffer along the south property boundary is governed by UDC 11-3B-9. The Applicant did not submit specific landscape plans for the project and no landscaping is shown on the submitted concept plan. However,the minimum required landscape buffer widths are shown on the concept plan. Staff will ensure compliance with all landscaping standards with the future CZC submittal. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. 6-foot high vinyl fencing is depicted on the concept plan but it is not labeled as existing or proposed. Staff is aware there is existing fencing along the south and east boundaries constructed with the adjacent development. In general, 6-foot fencing should be included along the south and east boundaries for security and screening purposes especially between this subject site and the residential development to the south. Should fencing be proposed, Staff will analyze that with the future CZC submittal. L. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 S): The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the development in accord with 11-3A-15.No irrigation plans have been submitted for Flex Space use at this time. With future development applications,the Applicant will be required to provide a pressurized Page 9 Item 7. F215] irrigation system for the required landscaping around the site. Land Development will review these plans in more detail at a later date when specific irrigation plans are submitted. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement 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 10 Item 7. F216] VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps TEALEY'S LAND 12594 W. Explorer Drive, Suite 150 • Boise, Idaho 83713 SURVEYING (208) 385-0636 a] — Fax(208)385-0696 Project. No.:4865 Date:July 30,2021 DESCRIPTION FOR ANNEXATION PARCEL-ASPEN GROVE HOLDINGS,LLC A parcel of land lying in the NW 1/4 of Section 24,T.3N.,RAW.,B.M.,Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said Section 24, thence along the North boundary of said Section 24 South 89°07'25" East 327.10 feet to a point on the extended West boundary of Record of Survey No. 9277, filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho under Instrument No. 112056125; thence along said extended West boundary and along the West boundary of said Record of Survey No. 9227 South 00°41'26 West 397.51 feet to the Southwest corner of said Record of Survey No. 9227,marked by a 5/8"iron pin;thence North 89°33'34"West 327.10 feet to a point on the West boundary of said NW V4 of Section 24;thence along said West boundary North 00°41'26"East 400.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said parcel contains 2.99 acres,more or less. t,L LANoS,G 34'7 0 9 9TE OF l� ti� ��ICK A. W,"965JOaRaportW865-annex desc.docx-Itic Page 11 Item 7. 217 17] WEST OVERLAND ROAD (PUBLIC R/W VARIES) S 89'07'25' E 327.10' 13 _7s 89.071250 E 23 24 BASIS OF BEARING24 I ➢------------------------------ ------ ----------------------------------------------- Z' 01 Im ----------------------------------------------------- o z 2.99 ACRES U) N 84T0777—372f.—10—'ANNEXATION ------------------ si EX 1-41 S 1 7F FOR ASPEN GROVE HOLDINGS, I-L-C L00 A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4, SECTION 24, T.3N., R.lW., B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 01 23124 % 4347 9� OF TEALETS LAND SURVEYING A. 12594 W.EXPLORER DRIVE, SUITE 1-30 L'If208-385-0636 BOISE,ID,83713 j­ DATE:7/30/21 PROJECT:4865 Page 12 Item 7. ■ B. Proposed Concept Plan(dated: 7/29/2021) 4 13 BASIS OF BEARING B9'07'25_'E 2655.65' 23 TRAFFIC =�LEVA'Too'm"ET2'6opoN, SIGNAL _ WEST OVERLAND RCA S OO• FIRE STATION `SIGNAL LIGHT g S 89°07'25"E 85.43'- - 3$9° `\b, T '''�v -- _ _ / �IRRIGATIO 11I L ❑FpNND 5/8'3pON PIN t. ��IRRIcanD p 51' 4 =,F 11EEDE1 AREA _ 0\ II E DITCH— I I I i I 9 r _ I I I NEw ID FaoT 'd - AULTI DSE PATHpAV O I 1 I J I W'y RONR EGHT�.. I F II PROPOSED �` Q BUILDING 029,440 S.F® - I - I - c 59 PARKING \ �rhrraN e I �/� STALL$ m _ m N 1 a o NI XLSRF o I00 I F illl O _ EEVED261 ARIE 4 G pINGRETF 7 New ________ � zs-a sETa�cN uNe _ 4 CIE IRS OCTYP DED J 616N F b'VINYL FENCE -- - III 25 A _ __ __ _ -2613- - 615, N B9°33'34"W 276.10' N 99'33'34•W 5I.00' \ 33 INVESTMENTS LP CONCRETE m LINE TABLE EX TRUDED LINE NEARING LENGTH C RE(TYP) g L- N 45°47'00'F 35.31. L-2 5 SI.29'S7.E 6.56' E L-3 5 69.07'25'E 20.0D' L-4 N 53'21'49"E 6.56' CONCEPTUAL N 1 SITE PLAN N RI Page 13 Item 7. ■ C. Concept Elevations 1575 -4= Y=1 NC,FfT1- ELEVA71CIN C2� -7 I L-1 -L-1 n Ltd 80UTH ELEVATION Page 14 1575 Item 7. ■ IL EAST E-EV.NrioN �AiI -I VNE'T El EIATION Page 15 Item 7. F221] 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 and the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the approved concept plan and conceptual elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Future development of the subject site shall have a height limit of 40 feet consistent with the proposed flex space building. c. With the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application,the Applicant shall provide a copy of the recorded reciprocal cross access agreement to share an access to Linder Road with the property to the south. d. The allowed uses on the subject site shall be: flex space, financial institution, healthcare/social services,information industry,personal and professional services,retail (including wine and beer sales),restaurant,research and development, and vertically integrated residential. The Applicant shall adhere to any applicable specific use standards for a proposed use. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. There are no changes to water or sewer infrastructure proposed. Any changes to water or sewer infrastructure must be reviewed by Public Works. 2. Any used services or mains must be abandoned at the main that will remain in service. 3. Sewer service lines should not run through infiltration trenches. 4. Parcel S 1224223460 has a sewer main stubbed to it that is currently not covered in a City utility easement. A 20 foot wide easement is required onsite until the line transitions to a service. General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. Page 16 Item 7. F222] 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. 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. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 13. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 Page 17 Item 7. ■ 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. 17. 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. 18. 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.meridianciU.oMIgublic works.aspx?id=272. 19. 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. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=239643&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.or,g/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=230783&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky 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; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the C-G zoning district with the proposed Flex Space use 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 requested development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested C-G zoning district and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Page 18 Item 7. F224] Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, especially if all conditions of approval are met. 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. Staff finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 19 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Red AspenOctober 21, 2021City of Meridian Annexation, Zoning, Development Agreement Introduction Project Location & Adjacent Developments StorageRV L-I SubdivisionArtemisia G-C MFD #6 F MeadowsFall Creek MDRC-CC-CMDR WorldCamping L-I Future Land Use Map Project Site Zoning Map Project Site Conceptual Site Plan Out Only-In / Right-RightShared AccessOnlyOut -In / Right-RightS. Linder RoadW. Overland Road Building Elevations (North & South) Building Elevations (East & West) Thank you Item 8. L225 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Meridian South Fire Station & Police Substation (H-2021- 0062) by City of Meridian, Located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to develop the property with two (2) public/quasi-public uses to include an 11,650 square-foot fire station and an 11,550 square-foot police station on 4 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Item 8. F 26 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: October 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Meridian South Fire Station &Police Substation (H-2021-0062) by City of Meridian, Located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to develop the property with two (2) public/quasi-public uses to include an 11,650 square-foot fire station and an 11,550 square-foot police station on 4 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 8. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 10/21/2021 legend DATE: 0 Pco e c- i oc a-on TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner UUILUX 9M 208-884-5533 - - Bruce Freckleton,Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2021-0062 , Meridian South Fire Station&Police /Jy Substation Conditional Use Permit � 1 LOCATION: 2385 E. Lake Hazel Rd South side of E. Lake Hazel Rd,between �/` �• ' S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit to develop a 11,637 sq. ft. fire station and 11,560 sq. ft.police substation building(public or quasi-public use)on approximately 4 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 4 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Residential/Rural Proposed Land Use(s) Public or quasi-public use(Fire Station and Police Substation) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 1 Phasing Plan(#of phases) 2,with the fire station proposed for develo ment first. Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of June 16,2021,no attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) This property was annexed and zoned in April of 2021 (H- 2021-0008) Page 1 Item 8. F 28 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report es/no Staff report was completed with the annexation/rezoning Access(Arterial/Collectors/State E.Lake Hazel Rd/New N/S collector that is planned for Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) construction at the east of the property. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross An Interagency Cooperation Development Agreement Access exists between ACHD,the City and Brighton Development (who owns the adjacent property to the east).Brighton Development is required to build all pathways bordering the site as well as the collector road along the east which will stub at the south adjacent to the southern property line. Existing Road Network E.Lake Hazel Rd. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None along property. There is an existing 10'pathway Buffers along the Discovery Park frontage to the west. Proposed Road Improvements Brighton Development is required to construct 10' pathway along E. Lake Hazel Rd and will construct the new north/south collector roadway at the site's east property line to stub to the site's south property line as well as 10'pathway along this frontage as well. Distance to nearest City Park(+ Discovery Park(South Meridian Regional Park)directly size) adjacent to the west and south. Fire Service This proposal is for a fire station. Police Service This proposal is for a police sub-station. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services N/A • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.08 • Project Consistent with WW Sewer will come from Discovery Park,which is currently Master Plan/Facility Plan not constructed. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See Application ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns Water will come from E.Lake Hazel Rd. Page 2 Item 8. F 29 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend hiu Pro.;ev' Lcca3at3 -,��, �u ��ProjEc#Lflea=or siden ial d-H ig 3k oil 'rrty Residential f ct w�D ity �tesidentia! Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend � � end � � 0 Wajec#Lccafian �_�y, F•ajec+Lflcaiooa3 0 R I-y C1 n-y - %f rted PaRC2-5 R-15 R!-�LF 1 C- R-i3 4 # 1 8 - II ,. I III. CITY INFORMATION A. City/Representative: Stacy Redman, City of Meridian 33 E.Broadway Ave,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner: City of Meridian 33 E.Broadway Ave,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 3 Item 8. F230] IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/5/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 10/5/2021 Sign Posting 10/4/2021 Nextdoor posting 10/5/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The property is 4 acres,zoned R-8 and is directly east of Discovery Park. The applicant is the City of Meridian. The property was annexed specifically for this purpose in April of 2021 (H-2021-0008). Plans are to develop the Ere station and the police substation separately,with the fire station construction planned for 2022. A. Future Land Use Map Designation(hgps://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan) The property is designated for medium density residential(MDR). This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The FLUM shows a fire and police station symbol in the general vicinity(north side of E. Lake Hazel Rd). The purpose of this designation is to preserve and protect existing and planned fire and police station locations throughout the Area of City Impact which provide efficient emergency response. The proposed fire and police station in this location would be consistent with the recommendations of the FLUM. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /g compplan): • Develop and implement master plans for all public facilities, services, and safety to guide the growth of the City. (3.02.01). The subject property is shown to be within an area designated as afire/police station on the Future Land Use Map. • Support the appropriate expansion of City facilities, services, staff, and other resources to keep up with demand and established levels of service. (3.02.01D) • Ensure that quality fire protection,rescue and emergency medical services are provided within Meridian. (4.11.03) • Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer,police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks. (3.02.01 G) A significant amount of land has been annexed in the surrounding area. This includes the Impressive East Ridge, Bicentennial Farms,Apex and Apex Southeast, Lavender Heights, Sky Mesa, Pura Vida and The Keep subdivisions. Much of this area is not within the City's preferred 5-minute response time, and this future fire station and police sub-station were anticipated during the analysis of these projects'analysis. This conditional use would support appropriate expansion and maintenance of services and would ensure quality fire and emergency services and would significantly improve the emergency response times. Page 4 Item 8. ■ • Ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. (4.04.01A) The Pathways Master Plan shows a future 10'wide pathway along E. Lake Hazel Rd. as well as a 10'pathway along the eastern portion of the property(in the area of the future collector road). The 10'pathway already exists along the northern perimeter of Discovery Park; Brighton Development is required to complete this pathway along the north and eastern property lines. • Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross access agreements,access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. (6.01.02B) The property presently takes access from two driveways off E. Lake Hazel Rd. However, a future collector is shown at the east side of the property. This collector is intended to serve the subject property as well as provide access to Discovery Park. Brighton Development will build this collector road from E. Lake Hazel Rd to the southern property line.As is required by UDC 11-3A-3, both driveways accessing E. Lake Hazel Rd will be closed. • 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 site plan shows landscape buffers along E. Lake Rd and the future collector street. Landscape screening is reflected on the plan to screen the site from Discovery Park at the west and south. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing residence and agricultural buildings on the site which were constructed in 1940. All buildings should be removed with development of the site. D. Proposed Use Analysis: UDC defines fire station and police stations as a"public or quasi-public use."This use is allowed in the R-8 zone district as a conditional use, subject to the specific use stated below. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): UDC 11-4-3-30 states public or quasi-public uses shall meet the standards for office use in accord with the district in which the use is located. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): This is a conditional use to allow public or quasi-public uses in the R-8 zone district. Dimensional standards in the R-8 zone district include a minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft., front setbacks of 25' from a collector street,rear setback of 12' and 10' side setback. Building height is limited to 35'. A 25' buffer is required along arterial roads and 20' along collector roads. The concept plan as submitted appears to meet the minimum dimensional standards. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Lake Hazel Road is improved with 2-travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. There is 50-feet of right-of-way for Lake Hazel Road. Lake Hazel Road is planned to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2036 and 2040. ACHD is requiring dedication of right-of-way along Lake Hazel Road abutting the site. ACHD has mentioned a minimum of 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk should be constructed,but Page 5 Item 8. F232] as already mentioned,the Parks Dept is requiring construction of a 10' detached pathway along E. Lake Hazel to connect to the pathway to the west. Per an Interagency Cooperative Development Agreement,Brighton Development will be required to construct a new north/south collector roadway along the site's east property line from the south property line to Lake Hazel Road. They will also be required to install a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the stub street since it will be longer than 150-feet. Although ACHD is requesting 5' wide sidewalk along this collector,per the Parks Department, 10' wide detached pathway will be constructed along this section. This E. Lake Hazel Rd/Collector Road intersection is planned for signalization. The City has proposed to construct 2 driveways from the site to the new collector roadway; one for the police station and a wider driveway for the fire station. The 2 existing driveways from the site onto Lake Hazel Road will be closed. Direct access is prohibited to Lake Hazel Road in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): UDC 11-3C-5 requires one(1) space for every five hundred(500) square feet of gross floor area. With 22,710 sq. ft.between the first station and the police sub-station,46 parking spaces are required. The concept plan indicates 53 parking spaces for the police substation, and 25 parking spaces for the fire station. 12 of the parking spaces would be covered and would be for the use of the police vehicles only. The concept plan shows at least 3 additional spaces for fire apparatus at the east side of the fire station. The parking plan appear to meet most of the landscaping requirements of UDC 11-313-8 except there are several landscape islands which do not reflect trees as required by UDC 11-3B-8. Also, pedestrian crossings across the drive aisles are striped whereas UDC 11-3A-19 requires the internal pedestrian walkway to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete, or bricks. This should be addressed at the time of CZC submittal. I. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan shows a future 10' wide pathway along E. Lake Hazel Rd. as well as a 10' pathway along the eastern portion of the property(in the area of the future collector road). The 10' pathway already exists along the northern perimeter of Discovery Park;the landscape plan reflects a continuation of the 10 ft. wide pathway along the north and a new 10 ft. wide detached pathway along the eastern property line. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): See analysis above. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-2A-5 requires a 25' wide buffer along arterial roads and 20' along collector roads. These buffers must be landscaped at one(1)tree per thirty-five(35) linear feet. If there is any surplus right-of-way, and the unimproved street right-of-way is ten(10) feet or greater from the edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property line,the developer shall maintain a ten-foot compacted shoulder meeting the construction standards of the transportation authority and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative ground cover. Parking lot landscaping is required around the perimeter of the parking lot, and no linear grouping Page 6 Item 8. F233] of parking spaces shall exceed twelve(12) in a row,without an internal planter island. Parking islands are also required at the ends of all parking rows. The landscape plan indicates a buffer of at least 40 ft. in width from the property line along W. Lake Hazel Rd. (the pathway is included in this buffer)and 20 ft. wide from the property line along the collector to the east(although the 10 ft. wide pathway is outside of the property line. As mentioned above in the parking analysis,there are several internal landscape islands without trees which must be landscaped in accord with UDC standards set forth in UDC 11-313-8C. L. Waterways(UDC No waterways are associated with this development. M. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Wrought-iron security fencing of up to 8' in height is shown on the site plan. Staff notes fencing height is limited to 6' in height in the R-8 zone district. The City should apply for alternative compliance concurrently with the CZC. N. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The submitted Water Main& Service Sizing Plan indicates 8"water and sewer lines serving the property. Water would be provided from a main in E. Lake Hazel Rd. Sewer would be provided from a main at Discovery Park. O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The City has submitted colored elevations for both buildings. Architecture consists of sloped roof buildings with CMU and wood grain metal panel as the primary field materials. Staff is not certain the building elevations as submitted meet the minimum requirements of the ASM for commercial buildings. The only field materials indicated on the elevations are smooth face CMU and horizontal metal panel whereas 5.1B requires at least two distinct field materials (material of more than 20%of the fagade) and only allows metal panel and untextured concrete as a field material if there are at least two other qualifying field materials.At least 30%of the fagade must use a combination of concrete,masonry, stone or unique variation in color around the base of the building,whereas it does not appear there are any distinct materials along the base. It does not appear there is at least 30% fenestration or a fenestration alternative as required per ASM 3.3E on the facades of the buildings. Finally,the elevations that were approved as part of the annexation indicated timber frame accents and overhangs over entrances,whereas it appears these elements have been removed from the updated drawings. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review(DE)the standards of the ASM must be met,or design exceptions may be granted. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit per the provisions and comments included in Section VII in accord with the Findings in Section VIII. Page 7 Item 8. F 34 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 8/26/2021) ] p ❑ --*-�-- --�---'I' I I '•,},.J�.J J �--J, J J �°� J 1~J�.• � li e .'r,:;`n a*`.,4,",+?-i?}: ti;:}�' � ':o.•r:��o>�c::� i:� a:v:c+.o:� ��$�� ='�=='= :a$� �:c:^:n:�^.o:� ^:o:.• - .,�y,. i'b'�,•.'!r'. - - ''..- -.{^"�"+`�:C�:�'�:0:�"+:a):��`a:O:�"a:O:�"�:tO:i:;p�'.•'++�.:{;>`�:0:�"+:0, :0:�:+:0:� rail �� It .' < 4? 0.,�.; vl Y. Nil P43LICE PREUNCT - ,.. " :o. :" ,'4 19fll as I TY IL if � _ _ - of :'J� �� .�"'"*`#,',•:;:�,' ..i `ti'.`l { - #0. 01 ':+- -71 TR PEOPQSER N 1.Y�'_ -'. FIRE STATION L— J .i� .• ,'yip , i �'4.t.��.tra.-., �`o �`o; o:•^or•�>;.:e �,� .:c.r :�: �� ,,^•o':�`o•�` +'fir':` :}o:.�:;,:,:a.;;.� ��w rye.,-.'7;EY;'#'tii.�'{':' .•• V. F _ ^O:;>`i G O' �:'+'p•;•rp•..,-r rMr.^r-y.'.`t r<k1.,.irbY ;} r#,#. 'r�,•eY .Ctt t;�;rY' *: `.'9,?:'.`. *'• ':` a:O:vi: a. '4` Lq.C�:+:•'�;:0:,:;.0:,,y..0..^:0:::•, �2:�:+�:4;_ }',..�`^�?�: ,t::�::^.4ti'+`..L::�:4?-_• '�+�•',-..�',-.:..^`�. ,.��L'*�'-i:•'�•i.._,_.:.�.::siti:::::�c:,+:•,�.r:0;�+:0;i�:�;,+�0;�' — F T Page 8 Item 8. F235] B. Landscape Plan(date: 8/26/2021) r r T • - - - _ P il[C�EYgF4 WI El III HIRE NEW I �� •Prow�M - • �1 r ]Y R.�'� w�4+�-- �� ; * � K'� LL'I';W -;_f-_i�_'•--- - - - ;IfYrtYMY,ti{_� ;--I-;i i';-�'i-��';}i'i';�-i'� ;-;+ Yl•;Y. 1 .i, PROFGSE6JTH — PIDUCE PR€CIP CT — b 1 ;I 01 I14 I _ � i7. '; �'I j1 j J L F I I I I I II _i I f L.. � i� I I I I il•�' �� �f 1 I I PIRDPQSED ,+ . FIRE' I - -I I -- I I I - - -{�° r �F r I I' 1 %4 Conditional Use Permit-landscape P120 Page 9 Item 8. 236 C. Fire Station Elevations(date: 8/27/202 1) t r, T �TA q @3;M MUATION -WEST EYE EE T OG uViT0N-301RH EVATMN-NDRTH `[ y Y _T! , -De I IEI" 0 0 0 Page 10 Item 8. 237 D. Police Station Elevations(date 8/26/2021) RLaTO! Nu�iwppu -------------- ........... ......................i........... ............... Page 11 Item 8. F238] 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 buildings shall either meet all architectural requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)or there should be a request for a design exception as part of the CZC submittal. 2. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the site plan,landscape plan, building elevations,and the provisions contained herein. 3. Any existing residential structures shall be removed prior to certificate of occupancy. 4. 10' wide detached pathway will be constructed along E. Lake Hazel Rd and the eastern property line as indicated on the landscape plan prior to certificate of occupancy. 5. All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. An application for Design Review shall be submitted concurrently with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. 6. The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site (AZ H-2021-0008). 7. A segment of the City's 10-foot multi-use pathway along E. Lake Hazel Rd,the section along the east property line, and the new collector street planned along the east boundary of the property shall be constructed prior to certificate of occupancy. 8. Multi-use pathways shall be constructed consistent with the location and specifications set forth in Chapter 3 of the Meridian Pathways Master Plan unless otherwise approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. 9. Direct access to E. Lake Hazel Rd is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. 10. The required landscape buffers along streets shall be constructed consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC I I-3B-7C in accord with the installation schedule in UDC I 1-313-14. 11. All ACHD conditions of approval shall be complied with. 12. All parking lots shall meet the standards as required per UDC I I-3B-8C. 13. All proposed fencing and/or any fencing shall be constructed as required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and I I-3A-6B, as applicable, or developer shall submit a concurrent alternative compliance to increase the fence height. 14. Outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-I I shall be complied with. 15. Ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal shall be complied with. 16. Tree preservation mitigation standards shall be complied with per UDC 11-3B-10. B. PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION 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 Page 12 Item 8. F239] service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 10. 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. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. Page 13 Item 8. F240] 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. A streetlight plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Streetlight plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Streetlighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 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 site meets all dimensional and development regulations of the R-8 zoning district. The site will provide the required landscape buffers,parking is adequate, and except for the islands mentioned in the landscaping section the parking area will be landscaped as required by UDC 11-3B-8. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 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 fire station and police sub-station will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis in Section V of this staff report. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The subject site is directly adjacent to Discovery Park to the west, and will be located on the corner of an arterial and collector street. The property on the other side of the future collector street(to the east) is presently vacant.As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan analysis, the subject property is specifically within an area designated for afire and police station. The required landscape buffers will be installed, all landscape requirements for a parking lot will be Page 14 Item 8. ■ met, and architecture will be required to meet the standards of the ASMfor commercial architecture. The proposed use should not change the character nature of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff ,finds the proposed use 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. The proposed use will be served adequately by all services and is a public facility. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Staff finds the proposed use 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. This proposal is for afire station and police station. There could be sirens associated with emergency events. However, this is a critically-needed facility in this location to serve the South Meridian area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site; thus, Staff finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 15 Item 9. L242 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Village Apartments (MCU-2021-0008) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 2600 N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Previously Approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP-15-019) to update the conceptual development plan and elevations and eliminate the requirement for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity/cross-access to be provided to the residential development to the north. Item 9. F 43 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: October 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Village Apartments (MCU-2021-0008) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 2600 N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Previously Approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP-15-019) to update the conceptual development plan and elevations and eliminate the requirement for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity/cross- access to be provided to the residential development to the north. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 9. ■ C�, EI IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT .►a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/21/2021 Legend DATE: ff -, I�Project Lflcfli�ar TO: Planning&Zoning Commission -- FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ' SUBJECT: MCU-2021-0008 Village Apartments - -- LOCATION: 2600 N. Eagle Rd.,in the NW 1/4 of Section 4,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel #S1104233730) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the previously approved conditional use permit(CUP-15-019)to update the conceptual development plan and building elevations and eliminate the requirement for pedestrian& vehicular connectivity/cross-access to be provided to the residential development to the north II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 11.38 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land approved for a multi-family development(apartments) Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family residential Current Zoning W C-G(General Retail&Service Commercial District) Physical Features(waterways, The Milk Lateral runs across the northeast corner of the site hazards,flood plain,hillside) within a 50'NMID easement and the Finch Lateral runs along the southwest boundary of the site within an 80'wide easement that partially encroaches on this site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 8/11/21 &8/12/21; 1 attendee(Henry Duskett) attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-03-021 (DA Inst.#104129529);PBA-14-005;MDA- 15-012 [DA Inst.#2017-121321 (removed subject property from previous DA)];A-2017-0277(CUP time extension); Page 1 Item 9. F245] H-2019-0144(CUP time extension-to expire on 12/15/21);A-2020-0115 (PBA ROS#12423) A. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map (fLegend I I JA (fLegend Prajeot Laoa n I Project Lacaion M MU M Law• rit Rid i iu Zoning Map Planned Development Map �I ' Legend 1 R- � Legend 72 ff ff Pr::-eot Lacaiior I Praleot Lccafian _ _-- UJI N ®� + i Caty Limit pp R1 - 1TH- R- — Planned Parcels h R R1 .y8 R1 ®� R-15 - - R= _ �CH RUT R- R RUT - - R1 R1 = RT 72 R1 R-4 FaRt R1 Ru FFFP -4 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering,LLP-5725 N.Discovery Way,Boise,ID 83713 Page 2 Item 9. F246] B. Owner: Derek Gasser, GFI—Meridian Investments,LLC—74 East 500 South, Ste. 200,Bountiful,UT 84010 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/5/2021 Radius notification mailed to 10/5/2021 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 10/7/2021 Next Door posting 10/5/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The existing Conditional Use Permit(CUP-15-019)approved for the subject property is for a 336- unit multi-family development on 11.38-acres of land in the C-G zoning district with a gross density of 29.5 units per acre. Eleven(11)4-story walk-up garden style structures [(10)32-plexes and(1) 16- plex] containing a mix of 1-(136) and 2-bedroom(200)units and a 4,389 square foot clubhouse containing a business center,leasing office,exercise room, great room, a pool room and bike storage with a covered patio was proposed(see site plan&elevations in Section VII.A). This application proposes to modify the site layout and building elevations and eliminate the requirement for pedestrian&vehicular connectivity/cross-access to be provided to the residential development to the north. The same number of dwelling units(i.e. 336) are proposed among six(6)4-story buildings containing 56 units with elevators and internal access for security.A mix of 1-bedroom(200),2-bedroom(120) and 3-bedroom(16)units are proposed. The two(2)residential buildings previously shown in the center of the development adjacent to the clubhouse and common area were removed and common open space with amenities and a clubhouse are now solely proposed in this area with multi-family structures around the perimeter. This change allows for a larger central open space area.Note: Because the proposed use, number of multi family units and height/number of stories of the structures isn't proposed to change,Staff deems the proposed development plan to be generally consistent with the site developmentplan included in the Development Agreement as required. Specific Use Standards: The proposed multi-family development is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27,Multi-Family Development. Plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should demonstrate compliance with these standards. Access: One(1)access is proposed via N. Records Ave., a collector street, at the east boundary of the site. A driveway connection is proposed at the southwest corner of the site to the multi-family development(Regency at River Valley)to the south and two (2)driveway connections are proposed to the west to the future commercial development for interconnectivity. Staff recommends cross- access/ingress-egress easements are recorded granting access to these properties. Page 3 Item 9. F247] Staff is amenable to the request to remove the requirement for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity/cross-access to be provided to the residential development to the north as there is a sidewalk along Records Ave.that will provide pedestrian connectivity and UDC 11-3A-3A doesn't require vehicular cross-access/ingress-egress easements to be provided between residential properties. Common Open Space: Based on the square footage of the living area of the proposed dwelling units [320 between 500-1,200 square feet(s.f.); and 16 over 1,200 square feet], a minimum of 85,600 s.f. (or 1.97 acres) of common open space that meets the standards in UDC 11-4-3-27C is required. A total of 88,591 s.f. (or 2.03 acres)is proposed,which is 2,991 s.f. (0.07 of an acre)more than the minimum required in accord with UDC standards. The site is also within close proximity to Kleiner Park, a 60-acre public park,that is 600'+/-to the southeast of this property. Amenities: For multi-family developments with 75 units or more, four(4) amenities are required with at least one(1) from each category(i.e. quality of life, open space and recreation); for developments with more than 100 units,the decision-making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. Site amenities are proposed from each of the required categories as follows: a clubhouse with a fitness center, dog washing station and bike repair station, a swimming pool with a spa/hot tub, a 50' x 100' open space area, gazebos, and a dog park in the central common area; linear open space areas in various locations; and walking paths. Staff recommends children's play equipment is also provided; a detail of the equipment should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Off-Street Vehicle&Bicycle Parking: Off-street parking is required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family developments. Based on(200) 1-bedroom, (120)2-bedroom and(16) 3-bedroom units, a minimum of 572 spaces are required with 336 of those being in a covered carport or garage. A total of 582 spaces are proposed in excess of the minimum standards, including 12 ADA spaces,with 336 of those being covered—7 garages buildings are proposed along with carports. Based on 582 vehicle parking spaces, a minimum of 23 bicycle parking spaces are required that comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A total of 25 spaces are proposed in excess of the minimum standards; four(4)bicycle racks are proposed at various locations for each building. Landscaping: Landscaping should be provided in street buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Internal common open space areas are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. Parking lot and perimeter landscaping is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A landscape plan that complies with these standards is required to be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Pathways: Pathways are proposed throughout the site through the central common area and between buildings.No multi-use pathways are depicted on the Pathways Master Plan on this site. Waterways: The Milk Lateral crosses the northeast corner of the site and lies within a 50-foot wide NMID easement;the Finch Lateral runs along the southwest boundary of the site within an 80-foot wide easement which partially encroaches on this site. The existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2017-121321)requires the Milk Lateral to be piped in accord with UDC 11-3A-6A. If not already piped,the Finch Lateral where is lies on this site should be piped in accord with UDC 11-3A-6 unless used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. Fencing: Any proposed fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-T T. Stormwater: An adequate storm drainage system shall be required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow Page 4 Item 9. F248] Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. Storm drainage facilities should be depicted on the site/landscape plan. Building Elevations: A conceptual building elevation for the 4-story multi-family structures was submitted as shown in Section VII.D. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Wayfinding signage and clear addressing should be provided on buildings for emergency responders; coordinate with Joe Bongiorno,Fire Dept. and Terri Ricks,Land Development. The Applicant should coordinate with the Police Dept. on emergency access for the secured buildings. Certificate of Zoning Compliance/Design Review:A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application(s)is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of building permit applications to ensure consistency with the provisions in the development agreement, conditions in Section VIII,UDC standards and design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff finds the proposed changes result in more diversity in rental options with the addition of 3- bedroom units, a larger central common open space area and in general, a higher quality of development. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit modification with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 5 Item 9. F249] VII. EXHIBITS A. Previously Approved Site Plan&Building Elevations(CUP-15-019) THE VILLAGE APARTMENTS TA EAGLE ROAD MERIDIAN,IDAHO "ff OVERALL GENERAL SITE NOTES .. SCALE: ... ........_.........1'=40'-0"M ARGIMM FT ZONING AREA.......................C-G _ TOTAL AREA:................11.38 ACRES T DENSITY PROPOSED:.........29.5 D.U./ACRE c QQQ � L SITE NOTES: --� V 700.05 III NUMBER OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS:... .......11 �r NUMBER OF GARAGE BUILDINGS:...............14 NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS:...............336 � �' TOTAL PARKING REQUIRE 0IPROPOSED:.....6307645 A"- N pIII OPEN SPACESl2%HC 29616 — a 41Ii COVERED SPACES REQUIRED]PROPOSED:....3361336 GARAGE SPACES/2%HC ..128+3 el __LIj��L1. __ CARPORT 1PA1E111%HC....... ....288/4 S„� 1 1I BICYCLE PARKING SPACES PROPOSED(1:25):.....90 ru l VILLAGE COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED:......84,000 S.F. 3asD.u.:zsOs.F.o.u. e4,000s.F. APARTMENTS COMMON OPEN SPACE PROPOSED:.....84,097 S.F. EASL1RaD mEaloln9.lonxo F I. III MAX.BLD.Hi PROPOSED O... ...... .45-6'fO � � (MID POINT OF SLOPED ROOF( � '; eA R ae iEE�E SITE DEVELOPMENT AMENITIES PROPOSED: ,OOOsf — — �� - "�`' = A. clu6xousE B. FITNESS CENTER(WITHIN CLUBHOUSE( letall C. CHILDREN'S PLAY STRUCTURE -� —z 0. SWIMMING POOL os E. ENCLOSED BIKE STORAGE(WITHIN CLUBHOUSE( l _ F. BIKE REPAIR STATION { G. ON SITE STORAGE +F I DEVELOPER: DevCo,LLC 4824 W.FAIRVIEW - �+"�• �'^ BOISE,IBAH083706 J ' (208)33fi-5355 K_ 5 LANDSCAPE: iD ENGINEERS / I ai it 777 CHINDEN BLVD. ], BOISE,IDAH083714 s.nao + IF (208) 23 2288 IJ y• tit4—� CIVIL CIVIL INNOVATIONS,LLC. —`—L ENGINEER) PO BOX 170811 \� T TT— — �I' BOISE,IDAHO 83717 sws 263 -�� ripe _ ______— - ___�-�ll $ II (2081884-8181 Tw— -- 89'22'03" LV 1 SLYE PLAN ® ARCHITECT/PLANNER: rz®I�um v 7A CZC1.0 0'- ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN Page 6 -------- I _ _--_--_--_ -�° ' = 1 ■11■ 11_ n■ ■I;■�I1i11:111111■■ ■ ■m Iln ■111. ° ■11■=11= li■■■ ■ai■==111=:=111=-n■■!■:n=-=11--■111: �■�_ _-_�I_�i�_ _i �7�,_ ■■■ m "",!1, `III ... 11==11=-n■! ■n-=111=_=111=-n■ ■00MM-=MEE �■■h , �■■I C MIN Wall -1 I■■ I'-- I■I■I 11 11 -1 all m ° ------------------------- ■®�-----=--■ice _ ------ ® = ®■— _ .■. III n■■E ■li■■■INMI-RON NMI--III �IIII-I 11_■11■ ■11■=111===im=■ ■n==111===111--i■I■�■aiil-=-11=■11= 11==11===1i1■I■I � I■■1--1111==111=-1■■I � I■■1=__11==11= 11==111=-im==■ ■]i■==111= =Sol I■ ■]iil-=11==11=1 m ;al.. ■■■■i■_■�■G■i=i m I=■■■■■■■■■■■■=I ■-■■■■11=11■■■■-�=1 m ■-■■■■■■_■1■■■■ ■11Allmin ■■■■■■ -I� iiiii■ ■i■■■i■ iww rya'. Oki -- _www www ..r-- ---. "all mmm is— i� RenderingBuilding Elevation LLL = ' _ III—fo VILLAGE i 1 o] _ _ mill -_ -IIIIIIII� = = - _ - _ _ _ _ _ =-=========-=-==-___=_----_®_= ------------------ ��4� IhIIII I- �I ' ICI =� li __.__- 1= o���■�=� = eeeeeenene neeeeeeeee= - m m 5 — v � a r Item 9. F 53 B. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 8/27/2021) tf�r�o 26 ru oc HIM HIM I - J I I; Il t III V •�• ' I .woe w�c 3 III �� Ili oa[N sae[ — E.se ® A 11i Lj III � III. I � II �I w�m km �x1 of 5 Page 10 Item 9. C. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 10/15/2021) OPEN SPACE TA EAGLE ROAD MEAIDIAN,IDAHO o ' BDILDINGA e _ c p '- quo Inn y� F�-'"F I J- �I_{ _1 1 r� I. �19,1 a ___�_:. _ ____, _ _ �I `r"'ieee»,-xxx. _I- I - - z. - - - - -- - 1I ;' m VILLAGE I j I BUILDING �. - IF ` ' ] ----- T ' ''; APARTMENTS BUILDINGF1_------- FF LJ T[ -� �. we rax I I' I"-� • @ �.a:,rr�..�wn�.ism<m�vmemn L•'aC-r,c= i�-�- ��ll -JI'- --i I.. 12 T i -.L.��. ' I 1+ -•II .1. � - - - - IIIII BUILDING C -F _f--Il Erg I BIIILDII6 E ewrvx E L_. BYILDIM6 D ---- - I. I T �J-J•'r1. E rrk. °-N� �ri' R,I h .I cas.,.0 IE- I-________. - r - r -1Trrm OPEN SPACE SIZE PLAIT A1.O OPEN SPADE Mil Orr Page 11 Item 9. D. Proposed Conceptual Building Elevation TA 0--- IE ® ® ® ® mm ® ® m ® ® ® 4 ® ® HI ® ® ® L.s LEI TYPICAL SLOE ELEVATION VILLAGE APARTMENTS E LCLE_-LC 1:P..1-LH C�H] �r m m �r TYPICAL END ELEVATION A5.0 E%TERIQR ELEVATIONS Page 12 Item 9. F256] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. All future development shall comply with the provisions in the existing Development Agreement(MDA-15-012 [DA Inst. #2017-121321)and the site plan, open space exhibit, amenities, submitted with this application and with the associated conditions of approval contained herein. 2. The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall include the following: a. Demonstrate compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 Multi- Family Development,including but not limited to the following: (1) All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage,disposal facilities,and transformer and utility vaults shall be depicted on the plan and be located in areas not visible from a public street,or shall be fully screened from view from a public street as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. (2) Depict the location of the property management office,maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location(including provisions for parcel mail)that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicle access, and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (3) Depict landscaping along the foundations of all street facing elevations as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27E.2, as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plants. b. Depict children's play equipment in the central common area. c. Include details for the children's play equipment and gazebos. d. Depict a 20-foot wide street buffer along N. Records Ave., measured from the back of curb, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. e. Depict all proposed storm drainage facilities; landscaping shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. f. Include a calculations table that demonstrates compliance with the landscape standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C(street buffer), 11-3B-8C(parking lot), 11-3B-12C(pathway), and 11-3G-3E(common open space). 3. Submit floor plans for the units with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with the private usable open space requirements in UDC 11-4-3- 2713.3 (a minimum of 80 square feet is required for each unit). 4. The Milk Lateral shall be piped as set forth in the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2017-121321)in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. If not already piped, if the Finch Lateral lies on this site it shall also be piped in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B unless used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. 5. The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in Page 13 Item 9. F 57 UDC 11-4-3-27F; submit a copy of this recorded document to the Planning Division with the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 6. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be granted to the properties to the west(Parcel #S 1104233650)and to the south(Parcel#R0748300210) in the locations where driveways are depicted on the site plan; a recorded copy of these easements shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for this development. 7. Wayfinding signage and clear addressing shall be provided on buildings for emergency responders. Coordinate with Joe Bongiorno,Fire Dept. and Terri Ricks, Land Development. 8. Coordinate with the Police Dept. on emergency access to the secured buildings. 9. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. An Administrative Design Review application shall be submitted concurrently with the CZC application to ensure consistency with the standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. B. PUBLIC WORKS SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. No water or sewer infrastructure was shown with this record.Any new water or sewer infrastructure must be reviewed by Public Works. 2. Water must be connected to North Records Ave to the east. GENERAL CONDITIONS 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 6. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 7. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. Page 14 Item 9. ■ 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 20. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. Page 15 Item 9. F259] IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: I. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff ,finds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff ,finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff ,finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 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. 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) Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, Page 16 Item 9. F260] 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 17 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Village October 21, 2021Planning and Zoning Commission City of Meridian Project Location & Information Original and Proposed Site Plan ProposedOriginal Original Site Plan Proposed Site Plan Original and Proposed Building Elevations ProposedOriginalProposedProposedOriginalOriginal Proposed Building Elevations Open Space and Amenities Bicycle repair station •Dog washing station •Fitness center•Clubhouse•Swimming pool & spa/hot tub•Dog park••2.03 acres (approximately 18%) qualified open space• Conclusion Item 10. L261 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Aviator Springs (H-2021-0065) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (31.59 acres), L-0 (1.64 acres) and M-E (6.77 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting of(93) buildable lots and (13) common open space lots on 31.59 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district, (2) buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-0 zoning district, (1) buildable lot on 6.77 acres of land in the M-E zoning district, and (3) future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land. Item 10. F 62 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: October 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Aviator Springs (H-2021-0065) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (31.59 acres), L-0 (1.64 acres) and M-E (6.77 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting of(93) buildable lots and (13) common open space lots on 31.59 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district, (2) buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-0 zoning district, (1) buildable lot on 6.77 acres of land in the M-E zoning district, and (3) future right-of-way lots on 40 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 10. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING October 21,2021 Legend DATE: Project Lc=ton TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0065 4. Aviator Springs—AZ,PP LOCATION: 3235 N. McDermott Rd.,in the SE '/4 of Section 32, TAN., R.1W. (Parcels � #R7824220044&#R7824220042) f II }5 �5 r I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (31.59 acres),L-O (1.64 acres) and M-E(6.77 acres)zoning districts; and Preliminary plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting of(93)buildable lots and(13) common open space lots on 31.59 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district; (2)buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-O zoning district; (1)buildable lot on 6.77 acres of land in the M-E zoning district; and(3) future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 40 acres Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Neighborhood(MU-N) Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural land Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR)&a church(seminary) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 112 lots(96 buildable/13 common/3 future ROW) Phasing Plan(#of phases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units(type 93 SFR detached dwellings of units) Density(gross&net) 3.0 units/acre(gross);3.92 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 7.64 acres(or 23.8%)common open space [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities Community swimming pool&changing rooms,multi-use pathway,qualified open space in excess of 20,000 square feet. Page 1 Item 10. F264] Description Details Page Physical Features(waterways, The Eight Mile Lateral crosses the southwest corner of this hazards,flood plain,hillside) site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 7/7/21; 3 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) None B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via the extension of two local streets(N. (Arterial/Collectors/State Keklik Ave.and N.Alameda Creek Ave.)at the north boundary Hwy/Loca1)(Existing and of the site. Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Ustick Rd.—Better than"E" Stub A stub street is proposed to the property to the south for future Street/Interconnectivity/Cros extension. s Access Existing Road Network A north/south collector street(Owyhee Storm Ave.)exists''/4 mile to the west of this site,which provides access via a local street to this site through Chukar Ridge Subdivision to the north. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ NA Buffers Proposed Road Ustick Rd. is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Star Improvements Rd.to McDermott Rd.between 2026 and 2030. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 4.5 miles • Fire Response Time Falls outside the 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#2—cannot meet response time goals. When Fire Station#8 is constructed in late summer of 2023, it will be within the 5:00 minute response time area. • Resource Reliability 85%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would be adequate to supply service • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. Project will require a secondary emergency access in order to exceed 30 lots or buildings will need to be sprinklered. • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;cannot meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 1,500 gallons per minute for two hours,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Police Service • Distance from 4.2 miles police station Page 2 Item 10. F 65 • Police Response Priority 3 (goal is within 3 to 5 minutes): 3:47 Time Priority 2(goal is within 8 to 10 minutes): 7:06 Priori 1 (goal is within 15 to 20 minutes): 10:43 West Ada School Approved prelim Approved MF plat parcels per units per Miles District Enrollment Capacity attendance area attendance area 1D t°Shoo° • Distance(elem, Pleasant View Elementary 546 6S0 3089 21 2.9 ms,hs) Star Middle School 823 1000 7967 278 7.1 • Capacity of Owyhee High School 1477 1800 5782 58 0.0 Schools School of Choice Options • #of Students Chief Joseph School-Arts 507 700 N/A N/A 6.8 Enrolled Barbara Morgan-STEM 659 750 N/A N/A 4.5 • #of Students Predicted from 93 school aged children predicted from this development by WASD. this development I School Impact Table Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed North McDermott Trunkshed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.21 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with W W Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • Property is subject to the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Agreement Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 1 - • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None ' • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works site specific conditions Page 3 Item 10. F 66 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend LegendMo Proyeci Lcca-fior LiI I Prove t Lnca Tton Mffm Densh Residential x AALI-C hti A IN Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend - - Legend 0Proyea, Lcca=or BSI IetProjeci Lncaion RUT ;_ City Limitr -$ R-4 — Planned Parcels R-4 11fi r+ r} A. Applicant: Matt Adams, The Land Group, Inc.—462 E. Shore Dr., Ste. 100,Eagle, ID 83616 B. Owner: Acclima, Inc.— 1763 W.Marcon Ln., Ste. 175,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 4 Item 10. F267] III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 10/5/2021 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 10/5/2021 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 10/11/2021 Nextdoor posting 10/5/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use -Neighborhood(MU-N). The purpose of the Mixed-Use designation is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses within a close geographic area that allows for easily accessible and convenient services for residents and workers. The intent is to promote developments that offer functional and physical integration of land uses,to create and enhance neighborhood sense of place, and to allow developers a greater degree of design and use flexibility. NOTE: Given the limitations with surrounding land uses,existing development pattern,poor access and bifurcation of the property with the extension of SH 16,it is not feasible to achieve full integration of uses as desired in MU-N areas.However,the applicant's narrative does discuss how they believe the proposed development is consistent with the MU-N designation. The purpose of the MU-N designation is to assign areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single- use developments by incorporating a variety of uses.Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential with supporting non-residential services.Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be smaller scale and provide goods or services that people typically do not travel far for(approximately one mile)and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged. 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 in Figure 3B of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development consists of a total of 93 single-family detached dwellings, an LDS seminary, a lot to be donated to the Boys and Girls Club for a future facility and commercial(research &development)uses. The gross density of the residential area is 3.00 units per acre,which is significantly less than the desired range of 6 to 12 units per acre in MU-N designated areas. The primary use proposed is residential as desired;however,no supporting non-residential services are proposed. Although commercial uses(i.e. employment opportunities) are proposed on the east side of the development,they are not directly accessible from the proposed neighborhood due to the future extension of SH-16 through the site which will separate the residential from the commercial uses. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-N areas: (Staff's analysis is in italics) • Development should comply with the items listed for development in all Mixed-Use areas as follows: Page 5 Item 10. F268] o A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone. The proposed development includes three (3) different land use types (i.e. residential, commercial and civic). o Where appropriate,higher density and/or multifamily residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69.Due to limited access for the western portion of this site and constraints due to the future extension of SH-16 through this site with no access allowed via the highway, Staff is of the opinion a higher density development is not appropriate for this site. Additionally,for the same access constraints, the western portion of this site is not viable as an employment center. o Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed-Use designation. Staff recommends a Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation to ensure certain MU-N guidelines are met in the absence of a conceptual development plan. o In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space.If multiple buildings are proposed in the commercial development area on the east side of future SH-16, the site should be designed and buildings arranged in accord with this guideline. o The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development. Commercial uses consisting of research&development facilities are proposed on the east side of future SH-16. The future highway will provide a separation between the commercial and residential uses. o Community-serving facilities such as hospitals,clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares,civic buildings,or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments.An LDS seminary and a lot for a future Boys & Girls Club is proposed on the L-O zoned lots which will provide community-serving uses within the development. o Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas,outdoor gathering areas, open space,libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count.A high school(Owyhee) abuts this site on the west. o Mixed-use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi-public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered.Although a mix of residential, civic and commercial uses are proposed, this isn't a typical mixed-use development due to the limited access &connectivity available to the site and the future extension of SH-16 through this site. o All mixed-use projects should be accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian circulation should be convenient and interconnect different land use types.Vehicle connectivity should not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood access. Two vehicular accesses (local streets) with pedestrian sidewalks alongside and a pathway through a connected common area (i.e. Lot 9, Block 2)are proposed between Page 6 Item 10. F269] the development to the north (Chukar Ridge)and the subject development. Pedestrian connections are also proposed for interconnectivity between the high school campus to the west and the proposed seminary and lot where a Boys & Girls Club is anticipated to develop along the west boundary of the site.A multi-use pathway is proposed through the common area along the east boundary of the site, which will provide a connection between adjacent developments to the north &south. Because SH-16 will bisect this site, it's not feasible for the commercial portion of the site to be connected to the residential/civic portion of the site. o A mixed-use project should serve as a public transit location for future park-and-ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops and/or other innovative or alternative modes of transportation. Because this site doesn't have direct access via a collector or arterial street, a public transit facility is not feasible on this site. o Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types.Roadways are proposed as a transition between residential and civic uses. Only one housing type (i.e. single-family detached) is proposed. o Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town,development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein. This guideline is not applicable. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 40%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 12 units/acre.Residential uses comprise 76%of the developable area including open space;however, the gross density proposed of 3.0 units per acre is significantly below the target density noted in the guidelines for development in MU-N designated areas. Because this site does abut a future highway, staff has also calculated what the residential acreage would be if the buffer along the state highway was removed. With the buffer removed, the developable acreage would total approximately 21.22 acres; increasing the density for 3 units to the acre to 4.38. Staff is of the opinion that additional density can be accommodated within the proposed development. The applicant could provide a more diverse mix of dwelling units in the form of alley-load, townhomes, or secondary dwelling units, as submitted one type of dwelling is proposed. The feasibility of multi family in the area is desirable as there is no employment proposed for the portion of the property that is mostly residential. Staff anticipates higher densities to development on the property directly south of this one based on its designation of Mixed-use Regional. In making the finding for consistency with the plan the Commission and Council should determine if the proposed density is appropriate for this project due to the limiting factors noted in this section of the report. • Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with residential buildings. Future civic buildings should comply with this guideline. • Three specific design elements should be incorporated into a mixed-use development: a) street connectivity,b)open space, and c)pathways.Street connectivity, open space and pedestrian pathways are proposed in this development and connect to the abutting residential development to the north and the future development to the south. • Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and commercial land uses,maximum building size should be limited to a 20,000 square-foot building footprint. For the development of public school sites,the maximum building size does not apply.None of the proposed structures exceed a 20,000 square foot building footprint. Page 7 Item 10. F270] • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places such as parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas,open space, libraries, and schools should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement.Although not on this site, a high school exists on the adjacent property to the west; a large amount of open space(S+/-acres) is proposed along the east boundary of the residential development abutting the SH-16 corridor.A total of 19.1% qualified open space is proposed overall. • Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development above the minimum 10%,the developer may be eligible for additional residential densities and/or an increase to the maximum building footprint.None are requested. • A straight or curvilinear grid or radiating street pattern is encouraged for residential areas, and most blocks should be no more than 500' to 600' long, similar to Old Town or Heritage Commons; larger blocks are allowed along arterial streets. The proposed development generally meets this guideline. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) Only one housing type, single-family detached, is proposed in this development. Other housing types(i.e. single-family attached units, townhomes,secondary dwellings or multi family)could be added to this development for variety, which would increase the density of the development more in line with the guidelines for mixed use designated areas. However, because of the limited access to this site, Staff is hesitant to recommend more units be provided in this development. If Commission feels a variety of housing types at a higher density should be provided more in line with the MU-N designation, Commission should require revisions to the plat accordingly. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services." (3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available in Chukar Ridge Subdivision to the north and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response time for the Police Dept.falls within the established goals.At this time, the emergency response time for the Fire Dept.falls outside of the 5-minute response time area; once Fire Station No. 8 is constructed in the summer of 2023, it will meet the response time goal. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) Staff believes the proposed uses and site design are compatible with each other and with the existing high school to the west. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are Page 8 Item 10. F271] required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) A 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed within the common open space area adjacent to future SH-16, which stubs to the north and south for interconnectivity with adjacent development; other pathway connections are proposed to this pathway throughout the development.A pedestrian pathway is also proposed to the high school campus to the west.A substantial amount of usable open space &quality amenities is proposed in this development. • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)."(3.01.01A) A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was required by ACHD for this development and was taken into consideration in ACHD's report. WASD submitted comments stating that approximately 93 school aged children are estimated to be generated by this development; enrollment at the affected schools is currently under capacity. The closest City Park to this site is Seasons Park, a neighborhood park consisting of 7.13 acres, to the southeast of W. Ustick Rd. and N. McDermott Rd.A future City Park is designated on the FL UM within a half mile of this site to the northwest. • "Require all development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The proposed site design features a large linear common open space area as a transition and buffer between the proposed residential area and future SH-16. Lots proposed along the northern boundary are compatible in size and area with those in Chuker Ridge. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are proposed as required with this development. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis above.Although the proposed density is below that desired in MU-N designated areas and there are no supporting services for the residential development, Staff believes the proposed development is appropriate for this area based on the lack of access available to the site from collector or arterial roadways. The LDS seminary and land proposed to be donated for a Boys & Girls Club will provide religious and childcare facilities within closeproximity to the high school on the abutting property to the west which will be a benefit for area residents and the community. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS A. Annexation: The proposed annexation area consists of 40 acres of land with R-8 (31.59 acres),L-O (1.64 acres)and M-E(6.77 acres)zoning districts.As discussed above in Section IV.,the uses proposed in this development are consistent with the MU-N FLUM designation. The proposed residential use (i.e. single-family detached homes) is principally permitted in the R- 8 district; future development should comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table Page 9 Item 10. F272] 11-2A-8. The LDS seminary(i.e. church or place of religious worship)is principally permitted in the L-O district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-6;the Boys&Girls Club(i.e. civic, social or fraternal organization)is a conditional use in the L-O district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-7; and research and development is a principal permitted use in the M-E district—future development should comply with the dimensional standards for the applicable district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. The property is contiguous to City annexed land to the north and west and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary.A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area along with individual legal descriptions and exhibit maps for the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts are included in Section VIII.A. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure future development is consistent with the development plan proposed with this application and with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends a new DA is required with this application,containing the provisions noted in Section VIII.A, as discussed herein. Because a conceptual development plan wasn't included in this application for the commercial M-E zoned portion of the site, Staff recommends the DA is amended to include a conceptual development plan for that area that is consistent with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the MU-N designation. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of a total of 112 lots consisting of(93)buildable lots and (13)common open space lots on 31.59 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district; (2)buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-O zoning district; (1)buildable lot on 6.77 acres of land in the M-E zoning district; and(3) future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land for Aviator Springs Subdivision. The subdivision is proposed to develop in two(2)phases as shown on the preliminary plat. The first phase will contain the land on the west side of future SH-16 and the second phase will contain the land on the east side. The Applicant requests approval for one building permit for the LDS seminary building to be issued prior to subdivision of the property. Because there are no structures on this property, Staff is amenable to the request. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or site improvements on this property; it's currently agricultural land. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets and block face. The proposed plat complies with these standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-31 Access is proposed to the western portion of the development via the extension of two (2)local streets from the north from Chukar Ridge Subdivision. Future SH-16 is planned to bisect this site on Lot 1,Block 5. Access is proposed to the eastern portion of the site via N. McDermott Rd. Direct access via future SH-16 is prohibited. One(1) stub street is proposed to the south for future extension and interconnectivity. Page 10 Item 10. F273] Typically,a street generally paralleling the state highway is required with development to provide connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the Applicant's property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road. Because the developments to the north(i.e. Chukar Ridge&Gander Creek)did not provide such a road, Staff is not requiring one with this development. The stub street to the south is located at the back edge of the street buffer along future SH-16,which can be extended to the south to Ustick Rd. in accord with UDC 11-3H-4B.3. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Garages and parking pads in driveways are proposed to satisfy this requirement. The proposed street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets for guests in addition to driveway parking spaces on each lot; 146 spaces are proposed for guests in the residential area along with another 28 spaces as depicted on the parking plan in Section VII.E. Staff is of the opinion sufficient parking can be provided for this development. Off-street parking is also required for the 600 square foot building/changing rooms at the community swimming pool. A minimum of(1) space is required; a total of 11 spaces are proposed,including(1)ADA space,in excess of UDC standards. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan does not depict any required multi-use pathways on this property. A 10' wide multi-use pathway is proposed within the common open space area adjacent to future SH-16. The pathway is required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public use easement,which shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature on the final plat(s)for Phase 1. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along all internal public streets where detached sidewalks are proposed. All parkways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-17E.Because tree-lined streets are desired in MU-N designated areas, Staff recommends trees and landscaping are added within all parkways per the standards in UDC 11-3A-17E and 11-3B-7C. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required on both sides of future SH-16, a state highway and entryway corridor. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C,which require a mix of trees and shrubs,lawn, or other vegetative groundcover—shrub should be included in the buffer in accord with this standard.A dense buffer is proposed on the west side of future SH-16 consisting of a mix of deciduous&coniferous trees; shrubs should be added as required by UDC 11-3B-7C. No buffer is depicted on the east side of future SH-16; a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer is required in a common lot or a permanent dedicated buffer with landscaping included on the landscape plan in accord with UDC standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. At a minimum, one tree per 8,000 square feet of common area is required to be provided along with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. Landscaping is proposed in excess of UDC standards as shown on the landscape plan in Section VII.C. Page 11 Item 10. F274] Landscaping is required adjacent to all pathways per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C.A 5' wide landscape strip is required on both sides of pathways planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover. The Landscape Requirements table should include the linear feet of pathway with the required vs.proposed number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Landscaping is required within parkways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3B- 7C. The Landscape Requirements table should include the linear feet of parkways within the development with the required vs.proposed number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G1: A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for developments over 5 acres in size. Based on the area of the plat,40 acres,a minimum of 4 acres of qualified open space is required. The open space exhibit in Section VII.D depicts 7.64 acres(or approximately 23.8%) of common open space for the development in excess of the minimum standards. The exhibit includes all of the street buffer along future SH-16,whereas only 50%of the buffer qualifies per UDC 11-3G-3B.4; however,the amount of open space still exceeds the minimum standards. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G�: A minimum of one(1)qualified site amenity is required for developments over 5 acres in size and up to 20 acres,with one(1)additional amenity required for each additional 20 acres of development area. Based on a total of 40 acres of the residential development area, a minimum of two(2)qualified site amenities are required.A swimming pool with changing rooms,pedestrian pathways, additional qualified open space of at least 20,000 square feet in area and children's natural play structures are proposed as amenities in excess of the minimum UDC standards. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report for the subdivision. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 : Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Eight Mile Lateral is a large open waterway that crosses the southwest corner of the site lies within a 50-foot wide irrigation easement that is proposed to be piped. The UDC allows waterways such as this to remain open when used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UC 11-1A-1; otherwise,they are required to be piped or otherwise covered per UDC 11-3A-6B. The decision-making body may waive this requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-D: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 6-foot tall open vision metal fence is proposed adjacent to internal common open space areas to distinguish Page 12 Item 10. F275] common from private areas.A 6-foot tall solid vinyl fence is proposed at the back edge of landscape buffers along local streets and at the rear of building lots facing future SH-16. A 6 Noise Attenuation Wall(11-3H-4D): Noise abatement is required for residential uses adjoining a state highway.A berm or berm and wall combination is required to be constructed parallel to the state highway that meets the standards listed in UDC 11-3114D. A 6-foot tall fence/wall is proposed on the landscape plan that does not meet the required standards as there is no berm proposed. In accord with City Council's direction on previous developments to the north(i.e. Chukar Ridge& Gander Creek subdivisions), Staff recommends a 6-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall wall on top of the berm is constructed within the buffer along future SH-16. The berm/wall is required to be a minimum of 10-feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway; the wall must meet the standards in UDC 11-311 4D.3.A detail of the proposed berm/wall combination that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-311-41) should be submitted with the final plat for the first phase of development. Alternative compliance may be approved by the Director as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5 where the applicant has a substitute noise abatement proposal in accord with ITD standards and prepared by a qualified sound engineer per UDC 11-3H-4D.4. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Two(2)conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes in this development as shown in Section VII.G. Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted for the non-residential portions of the development and approved prior to submittal of applications for building permits. All non-residential structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Because homes on lots that abut future SH-16 will be highly visible,the rear and/or side of structures on lots that face the highway should 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. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat with the requirement of a DA with the conditions noted in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 13 Item 10. F276] VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation/Zoning Legal Descriptions&Exhibit Maps THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION BLAND Pag� 1 OF GROUP July 9.2021 Project No.: 120124 EXHIBIT RA"' ANNEXATION 1 REZONE AVIATOR SRINGS SU BID IVISI0N ACCLIMA INC, An area of land being the Northeast one quarter of the Southeast one quarter of Section 32, Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the East One Quarter corner of said Secbon 32(from which the Southeast corner of sai d Section 32 burs South DO°29'50"West,2633.22 feet distant); Thence South 00'29r 50"West,1316.11 feet,to the South One Sixteenth East corner of said Section 32J Thence North 89'20'14"West, 1324.23 feet,to the Southeast O ne Sixtee rrth carve r of said Section 32; Thence North 00'33'03" East,1316.33 feet,to the Center East One Sixteerth corner of said Section 32; Thence South 89'1Y 39r'East 1323.00 fieet,to the POINT OF BE6INNIN6: The above described area of land contains 40.0 acres,mere or less_ PREPARED BY: The Land Group,Inc. Michael Femenia,PLS �Q� D A OF 1 �ZL:s f�J�4.y� �Tf I {f G kK I Page 14 Item 10. ■ CE I f i th S699'I r l 1323.00, E114 f — — S_32 PDB + i Annexation l Rezone for Accltrna Inc. Being the HE 1 A of the SE 1 A of Section n Township 4 North.Range 1 West.Boise Meridian Ada County.Idaho I 2.021 ;� qo va w MNEIIAMN}REZONE ' AREA=±40.0 Acres I HE OF THE SE IF 1-3 � I SE 1f1M S I/1M E N8M14RIN 132423' — I b,L LA 5.32 SAS- S.5 S_-0— ' SE CDR SEC 32 � �� a ( MANO 0 250 450d'Exhibit B Horiz rtal Scale:1'=254 120MI r � THE Annexation / Rezone TM a LAND Aviator Springs Subdivision � d-GROUP Acclima Inc. �— V Page 15 Item 10. F 78 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TH E LAN D Page 1 OF 2 GROUP October 18,2021 Project No.:120194 EXHIBIT"A" AVIATOR SRINGS SUBDIVISION ACCLIMA INC. ZONE R,8 REZONE DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32,Township 4 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, being more particu larly described as follows: Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 32 of said Township 4 North,Range 1 West, [from which point the South 1/16th corner common to Section 32 and Section 33 bears South 00°29'50"West, 1316.11 feet distant); Thence North 89°19'39"West,a distance of 262.39 feet on the east-west mid-section line of said Section 32 to a point of curve,said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence 673.35 feet on the a rc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 13,000.00 feet, a central angle of 02'58'04",a chord bearing of South 08"15'59"West,and a chord length of 673.28 feet on the proposed centerline of Highway 16; Thence South 09'45' 00"West,a distance of 657.04 feet on the proposed centerline of H ighway 16 to a point on the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32; Thence North 89'20'14"West,a distance of 865.18 feet on said south line to the southeast 1/16th corner of said Section 32; Thence North 00'33'03"East,a distance of 570.42 feet on the west line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32; Thence South 89"25'18"East,a distance of 217.12 feet; Thence North 00'40'21"East,a distance of 176.Q0 feet; Thence North 89'25'18"West,a dista nce of 217.49 feet to a point on the west line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32; Thence North 00'33'03"East,a distance of 19.62 feet on said west line; Thence South 89"25'18"East,a distance of 217.54 feet; Thence North 00'40'21"East,a distance of 155.94 feet; Thence North 89'19'39"West,a distance of 41.70 feet to a point of curve; Thence 25.23 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 67.00 feet,a central angle of 21"34'42",a chord bearing of North 78"32'18''West,and a chord length of 25.08 feet; Thence South 22"15'03"West,a distance of 11.20 feet; Thence North 89'25'18"West,a distance of 147.39 feet to a paint on the west line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32; 462 East Shore Drive,suite 100_Eagle. Idaho 03616 208.938_4041 thelandgroupinc_com Item 10. F 79 October 19,2021 Page 2 Thence North 00'33'03'' East,a distance of 399.96 feet on said west line to a point on the east-west mid-section line of said Section 32; Thence South 89"19'39"East,a distance of 1060.61 feet on said mid-section line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described contains 27.63 acres more or less. PREPARED BY: The Land Group,Inc. P. '7880 10-19-2021 1P o Ot�4 James R.Washburn R WA� Page 17 Item 10. F 80 CE 1116th N89°19'39"W 1323 00' S.32 5.33 ———— -589°19'39"E 1060.61' ---- 262.39' m S22-15-03-W 11.20' N89'25'18"Nf C PDB E114 1 T 147.39 N89'19139141r Tv I } + 41.70' q� x I S� Lu m 1 O z z � I 589°2518"E 21T54 _ w N001'33'031 19.62' 0 0 �I 6n m — N ILaJ I � O DETAIL o o I I� pis w .a­�__r____— 4y cm589°25'18"E 217.12' 'c DETAIL ZONE R-8 SCALE:1"=100 i AREA:1,203,692 FT2 (27.63 AC) I N89'20'14'W 865,18' _ 459,05' SE 1/161h —-- N89`20'14'W 1324.23' S 1/16th E Curve Table LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH T a 880 Cl 673.35' 13,000,90' 2-9'04' S081151591W 573.28' r 10/1912021 5.32 5.33 0 02 25,23' 67,00' 21`3442' N78'32'18"W 25,08' OF k� S.5 S.4 ]� WA SE COR SEC 32 0 250' 500' Exhibit "B" s_ Heo orntal Scale;1'=250 120194Date of Issuance:1g lWC21 f THE Rezone Exhibit LAND Zone R-8 EfOGROUP d�� r Page 18 Item 10. F 81 LEGAL DESCRIPTION iTHE Page 1 OF 2 LAND low GROUP August 20,2021 Project No_:120194 EXHIIBff W AVIATOR SRINGS SUBDIVISION ACCLIMA INC_ REZONE—ZONE L-0 A parcel of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, being more particularly described asfollows: fiaommendng at the East Quarter Corner of Section 32 of said Township 4 North,Range 1 West,(from which point the South 1f16th cornercommon to Section 32 and Section 33 bears South00°29'50"West, 1316.11 feet distant); Thence North 89'19'39"West,1323.00 feet on the east-west mid-section Iinetothe Center East One Sixteenth corner of said Section 32; Thence South 00'33'03"West,a distance of 399.96 feet on the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32 to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 89*25'18'East,a distance of 147.39 feet; Thence North 22°15'03'East a distance of 11.20 feet to a point of curve; Thence 25.23 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 67.0a fleet,a centra I a ngle of 21'34'42",a chord bea ring of South 78"32'18'East,a nd a chard length of 2512 feet; Thence South 89*19'39'East~a distance of 41.70 feet; Thence South 00'40'21'West,a distance of 1-55.94feet; Thence North 89'25'18"West,a distance of 217.54 feet to a point on the west Iine of the North east Qua rter of the So utheast Quarter of Section 32; The nce No rth 000 33'03"East,a distance of 150.33 fleet o n said west line to the PO I NT O F BEGINNING. Th a above d es€ri bed parcel contains 33,162 square feet(0.76 acres)more o r less_ TOGETHER WITH REZONE—ZONE L-0 A parcel of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, being more particu la rly described as follows: Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 32 of said Township 4 North,Range 1 West,(from which the South 1/16th corner common to Section 32 and Section 33 bears South 00029'50"West, 1316.11 feet distant); 452 East Shore DFIVe, Salle 100, EAglle. Mario 63615 20'9.939 4041 thelandgroupinc cam Page 19 Item 10. F 82 August 20,2021 Page 2 Thence North 99°19'39"West,1323.CO feet on the east-west mid-section line to the Center East One Sixteenth corner of said Section 32; Thence South 00°33'03"West,a distance of 569.91 feet on the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32 to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 89 025'1r East,217.49 feet; Thence South 00°40`21"West,a distance of 176-00 feet; Thence North 89025'18"West,a distance of 217.12 feet to a point on the west line of the Northeast Qua rter of the So utheast Quarter of Section 32; Thence North 00°33'03"East, 176.00 feet on said west line to the POINT OF BEGINNING_ The above described contains 38,246 square feet(0-89 acres) more or less_ PREPARED BY: The Land Group, Inc. �+ Ji► "7880 �00 9-20-2021 s� o James R_Washburn DF 1� � .9PA Site Planning•Landscape Architecture■Civil Engineering•Surveying 462 E_Shore Drive,Suite 100.Eagle,Idaho B3616•P 208.939.4041•www_thelandgroupin€corn Page 20 Item 10. F 83 CE1}1OM I NI99'1Y3 f 1323.01Y Ei{4 I N2?'15'03'E 11.29� I 747.39" 589-19-39-E �o POBg1 41.79' I ZONE L-0 r- �•��• —� ry" AiREA±33,182 FTC �;—i HB9°2918rt+1! 217.54' DETAIL I ZONE L� g I ARE) ±38,248Fig I s I I � IL ---;217. ------ N89°25'1 M DETAL I 5E 11161h — SCALE:1'=1 DQ' S 1{1 Gib E F199°2D'14"W 1324.23' � I.A � r O Curve T * b I CLFM LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORDMARING CHURDLETIGTH -20-2021� G1 25.23' 67.00' 21°34'42' S78"32'1B'E 25.0 S_32 S_33 �0 5.5 5.4 WA BE COR SEC 32 ? r EXhibit milm 0 MY 501} G Hormor�Sri 1'=25L1' 12 � Dam Of I.,5uance:0a�`11,TD212D21 THE Rezone Exhibit LAND Zane L-0 0 - RDUP Page 21 Item 10. F 84 LEGAL DESCRIPTION i THE:: W�^'� LAND Page 1 OF 1 GROUP October 19,2021 Project No.: 120194 EXHIBIT"A" AVIATOR SRINGS SUBDIVISION ACCLIMA INC. ZONE M-E REZONE DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32,Township 4 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 32 of said Township 4 North,Range 1 West, (from which point the South 1116th corner common to Section 32 and Section 33 bears South 00°29'50"West, 1316.11 feet distant),said East Quarter Corner of Section 32 being the POINT OF BEGINNING,- Thence South 00"29`50"West,a distance of 1316.11 feet on the east line of said Section 32 to the South 1r15th corner common to Section 32 and Section 33; Thence North 89°20`14''West,a distance of 459.05 feet on the south line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32; Thence North 09'45'OD"East,a distance of 657.04 feet to a point of curve; Thence 673.35 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 13,000.00 feet,a central angle of 02"58'04",a chord bearing of North 08'15'59"East,and a chord length of 673.28 feet to a paint on the east-west mid-section line of said Section 32; Thence South 89'19'39"East,a distance of 262.39 feet on said mid-section line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 10.72 acres more or less. PREPARED BY: The Land Group,Inc. PL. 7880 10-19-20121 s�, a Of 9T or James R.Washburn K.WA� 462 East Share Drive,Suite 100,Eagle, Idaho 83616 208.939.4041 thelandgrnupinc.com Page 22 Item 10. F 85 E114 z 1 S.33 589°19'39"E 1323.00' POB 1060.61' 1 i 6th 262.39 CE 1 J1 S.32 I � 1 r r r � F3 ZONE M-E r r AREA:467,071 W (10.72AC) PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF HIGHWAY 16 �r r r r � 1,LA1Vb SE 1,116th N89°20'14'1N 1324.23' S 1116 E Curve Tahis 7880 CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH a 1011 N2021 r C1 673.35 13,000,0U 2a58'04' NOV659"E 673.28' 5.32 5.33 R,WA 5.5 S.4 e SE COR SEC 32 a s E 0 250' 500' Exhibit "B" s �3 i Horizontal Scale:l'=250 12o1sa Date(if Issuance:1011W021 � s a � THE Rezone Exhibit r LAND Zone M-E o -roGROUP r Page 23 Item 10. F286] B. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan (date: 9/3/2021) m.icmtr..a TNE ' LAID F GROUP _ l � d0 =1;# .�t.JrJt_ L.JL.Jt�;. .Jt•� ' - �=� 1 f T- }• iY .vy = •'aFaFaF' f•JFJ < it L`v°"` �,�...•,,. Pmvergorrcr. _•- �•_�•L .W \� —....� _ -'-`.—.. ^.•. r `,.�,1,:,' I .�• �a.,.,...a� PI.-1.ln9inee6lanascep A,,�n 22 I Iw IW III 3( 1 �'.�� + .�.,��. �„• �•� —J •' I .. ���� Pmlect&Immary: d m ! iZl I�rF,� . .�.M.,�,� mom" ;�:•"" ca ''r •F aF aF• F�F aF a �� I �e Rn-•�,,•,•Oe••co¢,�••1m,• Benchmar6c rRfll7l salon i�'"'J� L., •ILJ L JL JLJL JLJ 1's m ""•°"�"°'®'"• .a r •ir Jrl�rlr-IF-Y-1 'r,lO��t.p ..._� Jt.JLJ � i _ .•».....e — I • van I-mg Aeai to ENS JLJLJ'. i- v.a�a�•..rae Preliminary Plat-OverPiew IEI -- PP-01 Page 24 : 311 _I L - -- 99 - ortr■rr�rrr��rirt - - 4r O s° - 'Ax t.•.y f ,� Item 10. F 88 ueo GROUP tt 7 i Northland—pe luffer-Canneuuon to Chular Ridge Suhdumsim C D 9 y c) I I I a J a Raedaide Sarale m O e3 aW 4 a tow 7 �a �Pedegnan Paths end Mamral Plal AinPathaaPp end Mamral Pla}Area �.. y, n LP-03 Page 26 Item 10. F289] D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 9/3/21) I OPEN SPACE CALCULATION: Lj__j i I QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE: a I 332,967 SR FT p= TOTAL BOUNDARY SQUARE FOOTAGE: W=C unnu eliEw�I�INn• 2,506-SF i 1,742,400 SQ FT =Q II= 4,763-SF — I BOUNDARY SQUARE FOOTAGE MINUS HWY 16- Ca 4,169-SF 1,399,10E SQ FT PCT.OF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE OVERALL 1 LW 19.1% PCT.OF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE MINUS HWY 16- 238% IS/►1'I1i■ . ALL 8,365-SF ; �I --- , "NOTE-OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS DEPICTED ON - } THIS SHEET ONLY INCLUDE FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE AREA COMMON/OPEN SPACE LOT CALCULATION ON PRE-PLAT OVERVIEW INCLUDES 10,873 SF GEA AND THE EC R E SE CONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS.CALCULATIONS INCLUDE BOTH _r 215,356 SF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES. 36,203-SF— J'• -- �I = FUTURE HWY 16 LOCATION 7,126-SF L7 r.i9?-SF =J n a 35,D13-SFr m � i Imo. C17 •"� -� 2.48C-S= a.. >Z wwo 8-MII-E L.-__A_IR:.I3A.TICN'AS EIJ-'JT 2 CM a 0 250' 50 C' 07 y g Preliminary Plat-Open Space Exhibit LP-D4 .. Horizontal Scale:1"_?fir, P ajed Ao,:12h191 �� Dale o1 I�nar D9,0.3JA21 Page 27 Item 10. F290] E. Parking Exhibit II Legend: RESIDENTIAL USE Q= OVERFLOW STREET PARKING W=0 28 SPACES `=Q _ VSITOR OVERFLOW r CM 21 SPACES `�— SREETPFRRING I I 14 SPACES 5 SPACES _ UI 22 SPACES I PARKING CALCULATIONS: - - I RESIDENTIAL USE PARKING: 3-4 BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL LOT{93 LOTS @ 41DU) = REQUIRED:372 PROVIDED:372{INCLUDES COVERED I J 7 SPACES GARAGE PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS IN ++�J I� POOL AMENITY PARKING:(600 SF @ 1 PER 101 SFJ 1 18 SPACES ff +II REQUIRED:2;1 ADA PROVIDED:1O;1 ADA I RESIDENTIAL USE OVERFLOW STREET PARKING: — 4 SPACES I' f REQUIRED:0 J II PROVIDED:146 •4 9 SPACES ICI I y VISITOR OVERFLOW STREET PARKING- REQUIRED:0 PROVIDED-28 + � CA J % o �, �I SPALS� C7+ _ 12 SPACES •� l r ri 17 CA tr7 . 3 17 SPACES J y, i >Z 3 h CJ a29 0 250' 50C' Cr) y d g Preliminary Plat-Parking Exhihit d 4 — �.. Horizorrtal Scale I'=25ff arc�Lwe,,:nG'1�'� LP-05 1� D31c 01 I�FNnCz D9,0.32021 .ma Page 28 Item 10. F291] F. Circulation Exhibit THE w ANO GROUP I. s FUTURE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL .i CHUKAR RIDGE 5UB t jl ..................., F ACHEUVEMEMT STPFEf �f �I . .Y�: 11 i . .a ++ I � ° OWYHEE HIGH k O w l KHOOL _ 4 tij w a - .._ $ 7 cf 0 f C I ' FUTURE 1 CL BY OTHERS II } 3 ENBFAVOR STREET — � l FUTURE BY OTHERS I y — USHCK ROAD �p Surrounding Rreas Ex Page 29 Y is Page 30 Item 10. F293] 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 and the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit and conceptual building elevations. b. A mix of uses shall be developed on this site consistent with that proposed(i.e. residential,church/civic and commercial) and as required in the MU-N designation. c. Prior to development of the M-E zoned portion of the site,the development agreement shall be amended to include a conceptual development plan that is consistent with UDC standards and the guidelines for development in the MU-N designation. If multiple commercial buildings are proposed in the development area on the east side of future SH- 16,the buildings shall be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space in accord with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Use—Neighborhood designated areas. d. One building permit for the LDS seminary building shall be allowed prior to subdivision of the property. e. Noise abatement is required to be provided within the street buffer along future SH-16 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-41)and as required by City Council in previous developments to the north(i.e. Chukar Ridge and Gander Creek Subdivisions - 6-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall wall on top of berm). 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Depict a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer along the east side of future SH-16 in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer on Lot 1, Block 5; include a note stating the buffer will be maintained by the property owner or business owner's association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2. b. Include a note prohibiting access to future SH-16. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Add Class II trees and landscaping within all parkways within the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E and 11-3B-7C as desired in MU-N designated areas. b. Depict a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer along the east side of future SH-16 either in a common lot or a permanent dedicated buffer on Lot 1,Block 5; depict landscaping within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C. Include shrubs within all required street buffers. c. Include calculations in the Project Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with the standards for pathway(11-3B-12C) and parkway(11-3B-7C)landscaping; include required vs.provided number of trees. Page 31 Item 10. ■ d. Include a detail of the berm or berm and wall combination required for noise abatement along future SH-16 that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3H-4D and is consistent with what City Council required on previous developments to the north(i.e. Chukar Ridge&Gander Creek—a 6-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall wall on top of the berm); or apply for alternative compliance as allowed by UDC 11-3114D.4 as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5. 4. A 14-foot wide public use easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi- use pathway within the common open space area along future SH-16 prior to submittal of the Phase 1 final plat for City Engineer signature. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district and 11-2B-3 for the L-O and M-E zoning districts. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all residential units in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 7. The rear and/or sides of structures on lots that are visible from future SH-16 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. 8. Non-residential buildings shall be proportional to and blend in with residential buildings as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 9. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise waived by City Council(i.e. the Eight Mile Lateral). 10. A conditional use permit application is required to be submitted and approved for the Boys and Girls Club(i.e. civic, social or fraternal organization) in the L-O zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-7 is required. 11. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications shall be submitted for the non-residential portions of the development and approved prior to submittal of applications for building permits. All non-residential structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by GeoTek,Inc. indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations. 1.2 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$265.25 per building lot. The aggregate amount of the reimbursement fees for the entire preliminary plat area must be paid with the first final plat application. 1.3 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades Reimbursement fees in the amount of$185.43 per building lot. The aggregate amount of Page 32 Item 10. F295] the reimbursement fees for the entire preliminary plat area must be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. 1.4 Ensure infiltration trenches are located so that sewer service lines do not pass through them. 1.5 Install blow-off valve per standard drawing W 13 at the southern property boundary. 1.6 Ensure no permanent structures(trees, fences,bushes,buildings, car ports,trash enclosures,infiltration trenches,light poles, etc.)are placed within utility easements. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I F 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 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required.If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 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 Page 33 Item 10. ■ 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 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 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. 2.17 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.19 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.20 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridianciLy.oMIpublic_works.aspx?id=272. 2.21 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost Page 34 Item 10. F297] 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. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=237898&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC i &cr=1 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=237478&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=23909 7&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.or,g/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=238412&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=239724&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=239278&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=240021&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv J. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=240082&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-513-3E) Page 35 Item 10. F298] 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 R-8, L-O and M-E and subsequent development is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan due to surrounding land uses, existing development patterns,future extension of Hwy 16 and limited access. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment will allow for the development of single family detached homes which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts. 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. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is generally consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan due to surrounding land uses, existing development patterns,future extension of Hwy 16 and limited access. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section IV. of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. Page 36 Item 10. ■ 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.). (See Section VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 37 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Aviator Springs Subdivision October 21, 2021 Planning & Zoning Hearing Aviator Springs Subdivision APPROVAL of Annexation, Rezone, & Preliminary PlatRequest:Municipal Code AlignmentContext: Fields Subarea PlanCommunity PartnersProposed ProjectComprehensive Plan Alignment Presentation Summary Comprehensive Plan Alignment Safe & Efficient Transportation–Connected Community Historic Character & Vibrant Activity Centers–Vibrant Community Family Friendly & Healthy–Livable Community Adapting to Change–Evolving Community Safe & Secure | Live, Work, Thrive–Premier Community Proposed Project Land Use– Proposed Project Circulation– Proposed Project Amenities– Common Areas & Amenities:PATHWAYS! Common Areas & Amenities:POOL & PLAYFIELD! Common Areas & Amenities:OPEN SPACE BUFFER Common Areas & Amenities:Unstructured Play in a Safe EnvironmentNATURE PLAY!! NATURE PLAY NATURE PLAY Architectural Style & Character Community Partners Context Fields Subarea Plan– Context Land Use | Transportation– Context Economics | Parks & Pathways– Municipal Code(McDermott ROW: 0.8 acres)(Hwy 16 ROW: 7.9)Total Project Area: 40 Acres E: 10.6 acres-MO: 1.6 acres-L8: 27.8 acres-R Zoning N-MU–Land Use Municipal Code ConnectedEfficientSafeStreets & Circulation Municipal Code Provided: 546+Required: 372 (93x4)Parking Municipal Code Amenity Points Provided: 11Amenity Points Required: 8Open Space Provided: 23.8%Open Space Required: 15%Amenities ACHD STAFF REPORT CONDITIONS:No Objection to Conditions•PLANNING STAFF REPORT CONDITIONS:No Objection to Conditions• Aviator Springs Subdivision is a to final plat recordationALLOW one building permit for LDS Seminary prior APPROVAL of Annexation, Rezone, & Preliminary PlatREQUEST:transportation.efficientand safeto the City and Valley through ConnectedAviator Springs is . CentersActivity Connectivity to nearby living through Nature Play and that promotes healthy Community Family Friendly Springs is a . Aviator Growing Cityneeds of a meeting the Premier Community Item 11. L300 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from September 16, 2021 for Fields Sub-Area Plan (H-2021-0047) by City of Meridian, the Location Consisting of Approximately Four (4) Square Miles and Bounded by Chinden Blvd. on the North, McDermott Rd. on the East, McMillan Rd. on the South and Can-Ada Rd. on the West A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to incorporate the Fields Sub-Area Plan. Item 11. F 01 (:�N-VE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Bill Parsons, Caleb Hood, Brian McClure Meeting Date: October 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from September 16, 2021 for Fields Sub-Area Plan (H- 2021-0047) by City of Meridian, the Location Consisting of Approximately Four (4) Square Miles and Bounded by Chinden Blvd. on the North, McDermott Rd. on the East, McMillan Rd. on the South and Can-Ada Rd. on the West A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to incorporate the Fields Sub-Area Plan. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 11. Mayor Robert E.5imison H ER IDAN City Council Members: ��� Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun IJoe Borton Jessica Perreault A H U Luke Cavener Liz 5trader October 15, 2021 MEMORANDUM TO: Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission CC: Cameron Arial, Community Development Director Caleb Hood,Planning Division Manager FROM: Brian McClure, Comprehensive Associate Planner RE: Response to Comments and Additional Recommended Revisions to the Fields Subarea Plan During the September 16th Planning&Zoning Commission hearing,the Commission voted to continue the public hearing on the Fields Subarea Plan(H-2021-0047)to October 21st. The continuation was made so Staff could meet with the Mark Bottles team and then provide the Commission a response to their requests for changes to the draft Plan. Staff met with members of the Bottles team on October 1st,twice on October 12th, and on October 14th Recommended staff changes to the draft Fields Subarea Plan are shown in strive t -,...g (deleted) and underline(added or graphic modification)below.Nearer the end of this memo are the original requested changes Staff does not concur with, along with additional explanation. This memo is formatted as a response to the written testimony received on September 15,2021. If the Commission is supportive of revisions by Staff and the project consultant to the draft Plan then please consider both the Additional Staff Recommended Changes and Previous Staff Report Recommended Changes,outlined in strike-through and underline below,in any motion. Changes outlined in this memo address all recommended changes in the original Staff Report. Additional Staff Recommended Changes The section below is vision text that describes wants and needs for the Main Street concept within the Star/McMillan Center. The purpose of this section is to provide vision and describe need,but are not intended to be prescriptive. The only"will" statement included in the text was not brought up as a concern,but has been revised to help with consideration during future review by others. There are many ways to approach these concepts and ideas, and there are many ways to respond to needs and goals. Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-SS33 ■ Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org Item 11. F303] Never-the-less, Staff believe that the strike-through and underline text below address stakeholder concern, clarify that they aren't explicit or prescriptive standards in all conditions, and does so without undermining the need for a clear vision with context. Revise Text under heading, Center Components on page 3-15: Main Street-style ,two to thfee snten.mixed-use buildings fronting an east-west eufved street� o.,�e,with on-street parking. Buildings along the main street,nearer Star Road and at intersections, should, and that ..,,,,'a blend innovative and historical design thematic and w include authentic opportunities for retail or office on the ground floor, and rresidential and/or-eme office uses above. This area should have a pedestrian-oriented streetscape,with generously-sized sidewalks that can accommodate outdoor seating, and ground floor building transparency that enriches the pedestrian experience by allowing people to see activity inside and outside a building. A centrally-located and highly connected park space is provided with southern exposure that makes the area more comfortable and usable year-round. Original Stakeholder Request Star/McMillan Center 0 c. Reduce limiting or prescriptive language on page 3-1 S of the Plan that may foreclose innovative and market-supported mixed-use development. Specifically: o i. Delete the clause that the Main Street will specifically be comprised of"two or three- story mixed-use buildings fronting a curved street running east-west"and replace with: "Main Street-style that incorporates innovative design and uses based on market demand, with on-street parking and a pedestrian-oriented streetscape ... " Revised Graphic on page 3-16: This was not an original stakeholder request,but the recommendation by Staff came about in discussion with the Mark Bottles team about the types and balances of uses. There is a small area of the yellow "Housing"product shown along the Central Commons, in the draft Plan, and that could just as easily be a purple"Mixed Use",which also supports housing. The revised graphic below shows all purple"Mixed Use"along the Central Commons now.Not having a few discrete structures of similar size be a specific type,helps to better convey intended flexibility. Inset of revised map,highlighting area of Change in dashed pink line.The two southern building were yellow and are now shown as purple. Star/McMillan Center7 , Schematic Concept Mo Use Type 1 . Pamwar8 .`ME,edj�ree�W�r _Commercial 1 -Mixed Use(retail,office,and/or housing) Mixed Use pUrban Housing(e.g. Housing Parking apartments,condos,lofts) - -Parks,Open Space,and Greenways Anchor pmg kio 4ammercial _Civic(e.g.recreation center,library) S ill Il f Roadways and Pathways Q nm ansL. u ban Hey Ong Park7w:a� ,-,�y.�apartments,condos.lofts) p Pathways(access control to he dete mined) Is- 1 ' Pathways ,�,"~i--}} Greenway-Oriented _ 1,,,d Use Potential - Five Mile{r"k , Civic Site(e,g:reaeauon/ Pzdrv;ay and6reenxay k f mmuniV censer,library) - f- IS 2 Item 11. F304] Additional Graphic, after page 3-16: The following graphic has been revised since the original was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of September 16th public testimony. After several iterations by the Mark Bottles team, Staff is recommending the concept below as an additional exhibit in the draft Fields Subarea Plan. The balance of uses is generally supportive of the more detailed concept by the project consultant,while also conveying to future decision makers that there is flexibility in the final design. A future development application would still need to be considerate of the Plan text. Additional Map,between pages 3-16 and 3-17.A legend and title similar to 3-16 would be added. COMM. t M�-Nt MEo-14160 AI- tAVIL 0 1I•It•1k. Mt=D-OK-* 0 p.�410. Ml'1JI� 0 c� Original Stakeholder Request Star/McMillan Center • a.Add the second/alternate concept plan on page 3-16 of the Plan to provide flexibility and illustrate multiple possibilities for a successful mixed-use center. Revised Action Item on page 4-20: Architectural Related Policy The following policy modification is being recommended after an amended stakeholder request.None of the listed materials described in this section are new or innovative,but most have some place in commercial construction when thoughtfully integrated into a thoughtful architectural design. Some are the referenced materials are even desired when used well,and are featured in character images. Most of the 3 Item 11. F305] described materials are however frequently used poorly, are felt to cheapen architecture, and often fail to meet standards aimed at maintaining a consistent level of effort. Further, Staff have repeatedly heard from the public and elected officials that some of these materials contribute less to community character and values, and have been directed or acted directly(City Council)to limit their application in certain commercial areas and projects. As stated in the text,these materials are not disallowed or prohibited;they are discouraged. This practice is consistent with the purpose and application of the City's existing Architectural Standards Manual (ASM)and Design Review. Materials generally conflicting with community design objectives or those that fall outside of general level of effort principles, are discouraged but still allowed either in limited capacity or with additional discretionary review. The review process is administrative(and free), and referred to as a design standard exception. The purpose of this process is to encourage creativity and innovation while limiting abuse. Regardless, Staff is comfortable removing composition siding from this list. Composition siding is more common as a field material. More broadly though,this is a policy suggesting next steps that will be open and include stakeholders engagement—it is not currently a prescriptive restriction. It's possible that these guidelines may be a joint or developer lead effort, as has occurred in the Ten Mile interchange area. • Within commercial structures,discourage or allow only a very limited use of pre-cast concrete, EIFS,PVC or plastic materials,metal siding,plywood,or pressed-board materials Note: This policy was previously recommended for modification, but did not remove composition siding. The original recommended change is not included in the previous recommended changes section below. Original Stakeholder Request Design Standards • a. Reduce limiting or prescriptive language on page 4-20 of the Plan that may close the door on a creative discussion about future design standards and material selections. Specifically: o ii.. Delete the third bullet point("Discourage or allow ...') in its entirety. Revise Action Item on page 4-11: The following policy is recommended for removal by Staff after stakeholder request. While maintaining rooftops is essential in the Fields Area to ensure the Star/McMillan Center is able to be successful,this is not a concern in the current market, and the Future Land use Map as adopted already meets this need long-term. Limit single family developments per planned!and use designa4ions to ensufe suffleient!a-ad Original Stakeholder Request Housing Limitations • b. Delete the first two recommended action items from the table on page 4-11 of the Plan. Previous Staff Report (and continued) Recommended Changes The following changes were recommended as part of the original Staff Report, and which staff still recommend for approval. 4 Item 11. ■ Revise map title on page 1-4: Existing Site Features and underlying Future Land Use Map(at time of adoption) Revise Table 4A notes on page 3-9: Notes: The table above is intended to show approximate ranges of land uses that can be anticipated in the area. The table reflects residential density ranges_ adopted within the Comprehensive Plan. Assumptions for commercial values are based on typical averages from uses supported within designation types. Because mixed use areas vary,the followingassumptions are used within the context of future land use purpose text and descriptions.Assumptions: The Star/McMillan Center and Star/Ustick Center assume 40%residential; Chinden centers assume 20%residential. Commercial uses are broken down as follows: MU-C and MU-R assumes 90% commercial and 10%governmental/other;MU-NR assumes 50%office, 40%office/flex, and 10%other; and MU-I assumes 50%office, 30%governmental/other, and 20%flex. Add text to Development Program, first paragraph, on page 3-9: The Development Program is intended to provide an estimate for understanding service needs and general allocation and balance of uses. Because these are for broad land use areas, and generalized,these are not prescriptive standards intended for case by case review. As shown in above, estimated square footage for retail and office uses are expected to take nearly 50 years to fully build out, while industrial and flex space markets could be built out in only 15 years. The City should consider the aggregated commercial impacts the of development proposals and monitor near-term residential demand and development to preserve opportunities for the lagging, long-term employment demand. Overall balance of residential and non-residential uses is essential. Revise text on page 4-3. Critical path items are actions that should be abided by the Ci prior to and as development occurs. These items include the following: Revise Action Item on page 4-20. Elevate a distinct community identity by creating exterior design standards for the Star/McMillan Center, adjacent residential areas, linear park and greenway and regional park,including a contemporary rural thematic throughout commercial structures and public facilities. • Within commercial structures, incorporate gabled roofs, exposed trusses and rafters, covered porches, oversized architectural hardware,transitional landscape walls, gates,railings, chimneys, dormers,brackets, corbels,belly band board trim,posts,masonry piers,or other thematic elements into eommereials'�- e� ur-es • Within commercial structures,incorporate stone, cultured stone, or brick masonry;horizontal lap siding,vertical board and batten siding,beadboard paneling, and taper sawn shingles; corten and/or wrought iron, or other local thematic materials into eeffifnefeial st,-..etti e • Incorporate distinct architectural elements into monuments, signage,building addressing, and structural infrastructure within landscape buffers,parking lots, and open space that enhances primary structure architectural features. Requested Stakeholder Changes NOT Recommended by Staff The following sections relate to specific requests by the Mark Bottles team, submitted on September 15th and discussed at the September 16th Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff does not support or recommend changes to these elements of the Plan. Only those stakeholder requested changes with no associated staff recommended revisions are referenced below.All other items are addressed above. 5 Item 11. F307] Star/McMillan Center A request to delete the character concept on page 3-18 of the Plan is not recommended. It is a simple colorful massing model intended to convey a thematic feeling that elicits the desired character. This character concept is NOT intended for prescriptive application.Point in order,this render describes fewer specific uses than the schematic concept. This character rendering is prefaced by a diversity of character images, and followed by very loose character sketches and additional images. It is not intended, and likely not possible, for any project to incorporate all of these elements. The relationships between these elements and the focus on the linear open space is the important theme to consider with the graphic, and this is likely more easily understood by the public than the 21) schematic concept. Original Stakeholder Request • b. Delete the Center Character rendering on page 3-18 of the Plan Design Standards As previously described, Staff do not recommend additional changes to the design related action items on page 4-20. The language as proposed works well with the adopted process, and is not prescribed because they are not exclusions, and relate to possible future activity which would be open, and that may even be a joint effort. Original Stakeholder Request • a. Reduce limiting or prescriptive language on page 4-20 of the Plan that may close the door on a creative discussion about future design standards and material selections. Specifically: o i. Preface bullet points one and two with: "Incorporate materials such as, but not limited to ... ; Housing Limitations The following policy on page 4-11 was requested to be removed. Staff is not supportive of removing any of the bulleted items below.All of these policies are responsive to on-going and very real challenges that the City is facing. Some of them are already supported in the City's Comprehensive and Strategic plans. The policy does do not define level of effort,timing, or specific tools. The City must balance national market influences with local needs, short and long-term. Subsequent changes by the City contemplated in response to these policies, if any,would require public hearings and involve genuine stakeholder engagement. Referenced Policy • Codify or adopt stronger standards for a maximum percentage of land area dedicated for residential within mixed use areas,to ensure land is preserved for the City's job base. Original Stakeholder Request • a. Reduce Action Items on page 4-11 of the Plan that do not allow for market shifts and creative new ideas and consequently may limit different job models and future housing options. • b. Delete the first two recommended action items from the table on page 4-1 l of the Plan. 6 Item 11. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 9/16/2021 DATE: 16 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 2s 55 FROM: Brian McClure, Comprehensive Associate Planner ' 208-884-5533 Legend ; SUBJECT: H-2021-0047 - Fields Subarea Plan(CPAT) �_:AOCI + �City LOCATION: Northwest Meridian: Generally between Limits —� Chinden,Ustick, Can-Ada, and r wCounty McDermott/SH-16(future). ■ Line Future Road I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This City of Meridian Planning Division submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment(CPAT)that proposes to adopt the Fields Subarea Plan. This amendment will effectively add the Fields Subarea Plan(Subarea Plan) to the Adopted by Reference section of the existing Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). This request does not include an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. The Fields Area is a unique opportunity to plan for one of the City's last growth areas. Surrounded on three sides by other cities/county, and soon to be defined on its east boundary by the now funded SH-16 extension, this area of Meridian may feel disjointed from the rest of the City. Further, other constraints including SH 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard), a litany of large irrigation facilities and infrastructure, and a 7-million-gallon Intermountain Gas Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) storage facility, present barriers to a quality-built and connected environment. Where the area could compete for an identity, the Fields is instead anchored with an inward facing concept that helps to preserve its roots, make use of its challenges, and seeks to further the vision described in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. This Subarea Plan integrates implementation elements to promote high-quality neighborhoods, continues to plan for essential employment, and seeks to expand and further integrate parks and pathways into the area. A central mixed-use activity center, located at the southeast corner of the Star/McMillan intersection will serve as a hub for surrounding neighborhoods. This will provide the community with centralized neighborhood-scale retail and services, office, civic, and park space in an environment distinctly Meridian. Page 1 Item 11. F309] This area is not a bubble far removed; to the contrary it is well connected with access to SH- 20/26, has access to a Boise River crossing along Star Road, and will have an interchange at Ustick and SH-16 soon. Future residents and other stakeholders will be able to enjoy a sense of community with consolidated neighborhood services, linear open space, and the stage set for a future public park all integrated in close proximity homes. While many residents will choose to commute, ideally many will have an opportunity to work close to home, and if-not, then employment centers can capture some Canyon County trips from traversing the City, or reverse commutes can spread the load. After adoption of the Subarea Plan into the Comprehensive Plan, a more detailed guide for how this area should develop will be in place. A"full service" community with opportunities to live, work,play and raise a family are envisioned. Implementation measures will be evaluated by City staff as development is proposed and as opportunities arise to further the vision for the area. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Reference Acreage 2,430 acres, or just under 4-square miles Future Land Use Designation Varies, see Project Area Maps II-B Existing Land Use(s) Varies, see Project Area Maps II-B History(previous approvals) H-2017-0079 Intermountain Gas Map Amendment, V H-2019-0101 New Comprehensive Plan B. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 0 Legend Project Location E31Project Location _ M01 RIG e o MU-1� LDR m MU-C Industrial MHDR - MDR Civic MU-N MU-N'R MU-RG Office I .. Page 2 Item 11. ■ Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend 0 Project Location a N Project Location — Rl R-8 City Limits , Planned Parcels s R7-8 RUT R-15 R-4 R-T5 a R1 R-8 RUT R:-4 o R-8— m R-4 m RUT R-8 III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 8/27/2021 Notification mailed to property Not applicable, see owners within 300' UDC 11-5A-6 Applicant posted public hearing Not applicable, see notice sign on site UDC 11-5A-6 Nextdoor posting 8/26/2021 IV. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Caleb Hood,Planning Division Manager, 33 E Broadway Ave,Meridian, Idaho 83642 B. Owner: Not applicable C. Representative: Not Applicable V. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. Area History Planning work in the Fields has been ongoing for more than a decade,but this Subarea Plan really got its start in 2017 as part of the Intermountain Gas Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)Map amendment. In an effort to address safety concerns by Intermountain Gas, and to reflect the existence of the facility on the City's Future Land Use Map,the City processed a Comprehensive Page 3 Item 11. ■ Plan Map amendment changing the land use designation from low density residential to industrial for the LNG property. However,this change did not address a needed non-residential zone buffer around the plant however. Since there was another regional planning collaborative known as Growing Together causing some concern and confusion for stakeholders at the time,the City agreed to hold off on additional changes until that effort completed. The Growing Together effort, which was largely based on agriculture and ag-tech industry attraction,ultimately concluded without impact. Shortly after the Growing Together effort,the Meridian City Council directed work on a new Comprehensive Plan(2018). Part of that work would include several focus areas, one of which was the Fields Area. The City held several engagement opportunities during the Comp Plan development, including one in-person in the Fields Area where stakeholders generated several mapping concepts. These maps were ultimately synthesized into a preferred future land use concept, included an online review period and ultimately integrated into citywide analysis. This work helped to understand transportation and land use relationships, and the overall balance of land uses across the City. In December of 2019 the new Comp Plan and Future Land Use Map with an integrated,preferred concept for the Fields Area,was adopted. Future land use designations were identified and adopted,putting to rest long-held stakeholders concerns with land uses that were previously seen as interim, or not"highest and best use", stakeholder engagement and response was generally very positive during development of the Comp Plan. However,there was still a desire by both stakeholders in the Area and the larger City to imagine development that better considered both what once was, and what was to come. Broad land uses were not seen as a sufficient solution for future development, given the location, history,and future impacts of a SH-16 extension. The opportunity was great to further define how the area should evolve over time into a premier section of the City. B. Project History: Subarea Plan Development& Outreach After adoption of the Comp Plan, City staff worked with Council to develop a number of priority projects as follow-up work to the broader visioning effort. The Fields was near the top of the priority projects, and in 2020 Council directed Staff to continue work with Logan Simpson on this area. This allowed the original focus area to continue forward in greater detail. Despite some delays due to COVID,the relatively small number of unique properties and the limited area of focus allowed an efficient, if a slightly slow process,to continue forward. Initial work by the project team sought to understand potential pitfalls and hurdles. Several rounds of listening sessions were held with agency partners,developers, finance experts, and City Departments. City staff also met early with property owners in the core of the Subarea(near Star and McMillan), and sought to understand stakeholders' specific vision and future plans for their properties. Several engagement meetings were held early in the process to discuss the project, general purpose, and to receive feedback on conceptual schematics of the Subarea core. This early work was supported by economic and buildout analysis done both with the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, and supplemented with this project. Leland Consulting Group again supported Logan Simpson with this analysis to consider realistic buildout and guide City efforts. Critical to early periods of work,was understanding what it would take to see the Fields Subarea Plan come to fruition. Leland identified areas essential for City guidance,partnership, and investment understanding future demand. This included detailing implementation and funding strategies, and then having discussions with City Council on interest and support for level of City participation and effort. After initial concept work was refined, an interactive online public engagement meeting was held with all stakeholders in the four-square mile area invited. Postcards were sent to every property Page 4 Item 11. F312] owner in the Area. The meeting allowed participants to make live comments,draw, and included image preference surveys to understand the look and feel desired by stakeholders. Most of the received feedback only reinforced what was already known; that stakeholders wanted to maintain some rural thematic elements and site design characteristics, continuing the"Fields"theme. Comments received were integrated, and stakeholders were invited to review and comment on a draft PDF of the plan that incorporated built-in markup tools. Subsequently,new images,text, and other revisions were made, and combined to include the final draft for public hearing. Postcards were again sent out to all property owners in the four-square mile area for the public hearing before the Planning&Zoning Commission. It should be noted that there has been a great deal of land optioning and sales during project development. Some stakeholders that were initially and heavily vested are no longer present, and others have some level of control on new properties. Staff is aware that not all stakeholders are thrilled with all elements of this Plan,but to City staff s best understanding,most of these concerns are not related to prescriptive elements which could be seen as non-negotiable. There are very few"shall"type statements in the Fields Subarea Plan; all density related thresholds and basic purpose and intent type language are still driven by the Comprehensive Plan unless otherwise provided. Some areas which will always have some natural push and pull, are the balance between short- term market demand and long-term need in mixed use, commercial, and higher density residential areas. Change is expected and the Fields Subarea Plan is structured to be adaptable,but the Plan is also fully committed to a diversity and balance of uses. There are limitations of market driven variations when the City is also charged with orderly and efficient growth. While land investments carry with it cost, and investors seek return,there may be cases where waiting for the right use, in the right or a future market,will be essential to achieving a critical mass of location appropriate uses that support the vision. VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan) A. Future Land Use Map Designation (https:llmeridianciU.oMIglannin /g compplan/evolving) 1. General Adherence The adopted future land use designations in the Subarea Plan are broad and intended to provide diversity and address unique site-specific context. These were developed as part of focused visioning activities during the Comprehensive Plan,by stakeholders, and this proposed Plan remains true both to that work, and to the City's larger balance of land uses. The one exception to this is are the 80 acres on the north-west corner of Ustick and McDermott, addressed below. Overall Land Uses (Detailed further in the Subarea Plan): Future Land Use Designations Acres Civic 88 General Industrial 218 Low Density Residential 116 Med-High Density Residential 7� 201 Medium Density Residential ME- 1,523 Mixed Use-Interchange 99 — 80 MU-NR 82 Page 5 — Item 11. F313] Future Land Use Designations Acres MU-RG 3 3 Total Area 2,441 Note: Total land use areas are gross and reflect considerable area of ROW and undevelopable or previously committee land. Some areas will change as the City or other public agencies acquire additional property and changed to revise their civic nature. Land Use totals described in the Subarea Plan are not gross, and reflect more realistic developable land area. 2. Interplay of Future Land Uses As mentioned earlier in this report,no changes to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan are proposed with this application. While no land use designations are changing,the intent of the Subarea Plan is to further define the expectations of how this area will change, evolve and develop over time. This section of the report summarizes some of the details from the Plan and puts into context key areas of importance. Neighborhood Center at Star and McMillan (Mixed Use- Community FL UMdesi ne ation): The area of Mixed Use—Community, at the heart of the Subarea Plan, is a crucial element and requires commitment by the City and future development to fully realize. Even during the Comprehensive Plan,this land was envisioned as a consolidated neighborhood center for which many neighborhood services could be supported. It is intended as an attractive,vibrant, and active space that is worthy of destination travel. These goals and assumptions were inherent in this Subarea Plan work. This Plan has purposefully planned to not bisect commercial opportunities by busy arterial intersections; that configuration can't work here.Adjacent uses such as churches and low density residential would make transitions difficult, and stripped-out commercial would detract from the higher intensity neighborhood center. The neighborhood center was and is located in the perfect area for a consolidation of diverse land uses to occur. Further, its located along the planned Five Mile Creek pathway network and provides a unique opportunity to fully integrate both private and civic spaces. It is worth noting that several interviewed participants suggested increasing commercial along SH-20/26 (Chinden).Additional non-residential along Chinden were not expanded by the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee,because that type of development pattern ends up as linear,non-integrated frontage development. The market does not support the same quantities of this post Amazon effect, and then other uses such as multi-family are requested and proposed as the next best thing. Further, additional commercial along Chinden would compete with the non-residential proposed at the Star/McMillan intersection leaving the market for developing consistent with the vision problematic.Neither highway commercial or higher density residential support this area plan. Rooftops can better support the neighborhood center and provide greater access to more community services for more people, and which reduces trips. The cities of Star and Nampa both have more commercial and mixed use designations along their frontage than is likely feasible, and Meridian's Comprehensive Plan intentionally focused its commercial uses into select areas with high visibility(near interchanges), close to major attractors(such as Owyhee High School), or to buffer and separate uses with higher degrees of incompatibility(around the Intermountain Gas LNG facility). This has the benefit of reducing impacts to major arterials and highways by reducing points of access,which becomes points of congestion, and eventually turn into points of conflict(and crashes). Page 6 Item 11. F314] Non-residential uses outside the planned areas may very easily detract from the Neighborhood Center, and the City must remain diligent in limiting commercial creep into other areas;patience and public amenities like the pathway and future park may drastically quicken the pace for which the Neighborhood Center can be realized and supported. Intermountain Gas Facility Area (Industrial and Mixed Use Non-Residential FL UM designations): The Subarea Plan is fully consistent with the original vision of the Intermountain Gas LNG work in 2017, and with subsequent work done with the 2019 Comp Plan. However,new ownership and the natural change that comes with time,may result in future requests to shrink the Industrial and/or Non-Residential uses planned around the Intermountain Gas LNG property. This area is in Meridian, and likely to be very attractive to new residents given a vibrant neighborhood center and robust pathway and park spaces proposed. The LNG tank is a massive facility that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It is visible for miles around, and made more evident at night with bright lighting, and occasional audible siren tests reminding nearby stakeholders of its presence even when not in view. For simple comparison,the LNG tank is 7-million gallons whereas a large City reservoir tank is only 2- million gallons. While good design can address most potential land use conflicts,it's important to reinforce the significance of this facility.It is essential that Meridian maintain a balanced portfolio of land uses that contribute towards a diverse mix of both dwellings and jobs, and works to reduce transportation related burdens to Meridian residents already heavily impacted by regional commuting patterns. One large industrial area was not approved in the final 2019 Future Land Use Map(north of railroad tracks and McDermott), and subsequent Map amendments have removed a considerable area of non-residential uses (vicinity of the Waste Water Resource Recovery Facility)and that may be further reduced in the future due to simple proximity, additional residential influences, and reduced overall market potential for large projects. Therefore,it is essential that any future land use designation changes proposed in close proximity to this facility in the future consider the need for safety, quality of life, sense of place, and for essential employment opportunities both in the Subarea Plan and citywide. Thoughtful changes to these designations may be appropriate in the future,but as the Ustick and McDermott revision suggest(see below),they require additional analysis and outreach to understand cumulative impacts. Lastly, it's worth touching on the William's Pipeline which ties into the LNG facility and bisects many of the properties in the area. City code already requires buffering and maintaining easements around the pipeline. The Subarea Plan,page 1-4,very generally depicts this high-pressure pipeline facility. Page 7 Item 11. F 15 Y � . OIL jjt., Earthen barrier I c � Image Above: 2017 Isometric aerial,facing east. Farm Combine for reference s . - A- Earthen barr(LNG tank ier than it . Image Above: 2021 photo near Star Road, facing East at dusk. Waterways, Future Parks and Pathways Desiknations on FL UM The City's Comprehensive Plan adopts by reference both the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Pathway Master Plan. The Pathway Master Plan includes a series of pathways shown in the Fields Area, generally along waterways. The Fields Area is bisected by a series of waterways including the Five Mile Creek,Five Mile Creek Feeder,McFadden Drain, Phyllis Canal, and several laterals. Some of the laterals may ultimately be tiled,but the Five Mile Creek and Phyllis Canal will not be. Page 8 Item 11. ■ During all periods of outreach, almost all stakeholders including agency partners discussed the importance of pathways. There was consistent discussion about integrating this system into the Fields Plan, connecting it to adjacent cities and points of interest, and generally doing more. Of greatest importance,the City's Five Mile Creek pathway system traverses this area. There is a planned underpass crossing of SH-16 for the Five Mile Creek pathway even in the interim phase of development,which will allow contiguous connection to the rest of the City. ACHD is also planning for some type of future pathway crossing to the west, across Star Road in the future. That may be some type of pedestrian signalization,or at grade separated crossing like SH-16. Related,the Comprehensive Plan includes a number of park symbols with halos on the Future Land Use Map. These depict in very generalized fashion the need for future park facilities. However,there is no land set aside for parks and there are no planned park improvements despite other prioritized service improvements,rapidly vanishing land opportunities, and despite the access challenges posed by SH-16. The Fields Plan provides a refined opportunity to maximize the location of a future park,generally central to the area and well connected on the Five Mile Creek pathway,near the Neighborhood Center to build synergies, and to transition and buffer uses to the west. This location is not set,but should be viewed as an ideal to strive for. Other parks in the area are likely to be owned and operated by future HOAs or created through other partnerships, and do not have the same level of locational need or benefit. Ustick and McDermott(Mixed Use Interchanze with a future SH-16 Interchanize desi nation on the FLUM): During the final hearings of the Comprehensive Plan adoption process, stakeholders requested a different designation via public testimony, and was granted a Mixed Use Regional designation. This change was not studied by the project consultants, City staff, or the Comp Plan Steering Committee. Staff would have recommended caution had the owner solicited feedback, due to limited access of the future SH-16 and associated interchange at Ustick. The northern 40 acres,under different ownership, is reliant upon the lower for transitions and connectivity. Further,the Owyhee High School approvals did not provide east-west connectivity adequate to support more intense uses near to the future interchange. Lastly, and equally important,both 40-acre parcels had active development proposals (now withdrawn or still pending)during the Subarea Plan development. It's possible that the lower 40-acres will find it very difficult to address findings that describe compliance with the purpose and intent of the Mixed-Use Regional designation. Future development applications here will have to contend with SH-16 improvements and access restrictions intended to preserve interchange efficiency and public safety. As a result of the challenges and previous development applications,these parcels may benefit from this sub- area plan,including identity by proximity,but will adhere only to the adopted Comprehensive Plan,not this specific area plan. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (hops.11www.meridiancity.orz/comoplan): It could be argued that virtually all of the Comprehensive Plan policies have some applicability within this large geographic region and over a longer-period of time with development applications. However, and specific to the proposed text and implementation up for adoption, and understanding that the Subarea proposes no future land use changes or development, City staff finds the following to be most applicable to the adoption of the Subarea Plan. Staff analysis is in italics below. Page 9 Item 11. F317] • 3.03.01,Plan for an appropriate land use mix,recreational and civic facilities, and phased service extension within specific area plans and urban renewal districts. This Subarea Plan continues to support a diverse mix of land uses, and contemplates them interconnected within the broader context of conditions, context, and future community needs. 0 3.03.01A,Continue to develop and implement the desired vision in special areas, areas with specific plans, and along key transportation corridors. This Subarea Plan is the literal continuation of work that began with the Comprehensive Plan, and works to further the vision with additional implementation and context. 0 3.03.01B,Actively engage with City leadership and community members to explore the idea,process, and potential impacts of implementing districts, subareas,neighborhood association areas, or similar concepts. The project team repeatedly invited all stakeholders within the four-square mile area to participate through engagement activities, both during the initial 2019 Comprehensive Plan and as part of specific Subarea Plan work. Further, City staff coordinated with City Council and other agency partners to discuss process, ideas, and level of effort to ensure the planning work was feasible and implementable. 0 3.03.01 C, Consider developing new subarea plans as appropriate for areas with unique characteristics,public/private partnerships in place, and that are compatible with Comprehensive Plan policies in order to provide additional guidance on future land uses, design, infrastructure, and amenities. As a direct outcome of the Comprehensive Plan work, and Council prioritization of follow-up work, this Subarea Plan is directly applicable to this work. The proposed Subarea Plan include additional guidance for development of the planning area. Other high-level policies that are appropriate include: • 2.01.01, Encourage diverse housing options suitable for various income levels,household sizes, and lifestyle preferences. This plan adheres to the adopted Future Land Use Map, which includes a variety of land uses intended to support a range of housing products. The Fields Plan furthers this and includes and integrates a variety of described housing references in both text and images. • 3.03.02A, Engage with service providers, City leadership, and community members to identify priority growth areas. This Area has been prioritized for City service improvements. The project team met with a variety of service providers including Nampa Meridian Irrigation Districts, ACHD, and maintained communication with Idaho Power and others. City leadership was apprised and involved throughout Plan development, and included conversations with City Council. • 3.03.02E, Develop incentives for appropriate investment in strategic growth areas; discourage development outside of established growth areas. While specific incentives are not proposed, the Plan identifies a variety of partnership opportunities and is clear that City participation will be necessary, to achieve desired results given the unique context of the planning area. Page 10 Item 11. F318] • 3.04.02A, Solicit public participation in the land use and entitlement process through a variety of digital and in person methods. Development of the Fields Plan continued the robust public involvement efforts of the Comprehensive Plan. Stakeholders were involved through digital and in person meetings, and included new and innovative tools such as the Mural platform. This has since grown in popularity and been replicated by other agencies in the Valley. • 3.05.00, Ensure that all planning,zoning and land use decisions balance the interests of the community by protecting private property rights for current citizens and future generations. The Fields Subarea Plan is very light on prescriptive standards, understanding that time changes all things. The Plan strives for balance between short-term development pressures and long-term essential needs of the City. • 3.06.02, Plan for an appropriate mix of land uses that ensures connectivity, livability, and economic vitality. The Plan continues the work of the Comprehensive Plan by further linking the integration of land uses by identifying specific needs and opportunities to address connectivity, livability, and economic vitality through additional detail and description. 0 3.06.02A, Support the inclusion of small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments as part of the development plan,where appropriate. The Fields Plan provides a better prototype for how the Mixed Use Community neighborhood center may develop, describing the needs of the center and how it may be supported through other public improvements including pathway and park connectivity. 0 3.06.02B,Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop,dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability. The concept for the neighborhood center is intended to guide future development towards integrated opportunities to live, shop, dine, and play. It is centrally located within an area otherwise bisected by highways and major regional corridors. 0 3.06.02C,Encourage the development of supportive commercial near employment areas. The Plan describes desired non-residential uses in the Fields Area, and includes specific consideration for ensuring that commercial is supportive of employment areas, and not necessarily replacing employment areas. 0 3.06.02E,Discourage residential land uses in close proximity to the Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility,the Intermountain Gas Facility on Can-Ada Road, and other incompatible land uses. The Plan supports prior land use changes in 2017 and 2019, and further describes how changes that may in occur in the future should not lose sight of the needs that adopted land use designations address. • 4.01.00,Pursue partnerships and funding sources to facilitate and expand access to parks and recreational facilities,programming, and services. The Plan recognizes that partnerships and new funding strategies are essential to realizing all intended benefits. The Five Mile Creek pathway integration with the Page 11 Item 11. F319] neighborhood center, and connectivity to a regional like park are paramount to this work. The Plan explores new and old funding tools and compares their pros and cons. o 4.01.01A, Explore additional partnership opportunities as well as build on existing partnerships with focus on low-service areas. The Fields Area has been identified as low-service area without additional work to quickly identify new park site opportunities.All other areas of the City have existing land either in development or slated for future development that will accommodate a public park. The Fields Area may otherwise be the most disconnected and far removed part of the City without a public park. The right park in the right location could help the Fields Area to be realized as a premier park service area or the City. • 4.02.01, Continue working toward the park land level of service goal of four acres/1,000 persons and a 0.5 miles service area radius from residences. This Area has been identified as a low-service area.A park utilizing a new funding source and not competing for impact fees, such as those identified in this Plan, could help the City to recover from recent years of lost progress towards park service goal. The central location of the identified park places it closely to the most populated areas, and maximizes synergies with the neighborhood center. • 4.02.0113, Continue to find and purchase additional land for future park development where level of service is below threshold. This Plan does not propose a specific acquisition of land, but identifies a desired area and the context for the selection.A park is needed closest to high density residential uses to maximize public benefit and minimize vehicle trip generation. • 4.02.01D, Look for opportunities to add parks and pathways in new growth areas. The park opportunity identified in the Fields Subarea Plan is central to the planning efforts. Pathways have already been identified but are further integrated. • 4.04.02 Link pathways to important pedestrian generators, environmental features, historic landmarks,public facilities,Town Centers, and business districts. The 2019 Comprehensive Plan and the Pathway Master Plan already achieve this vision for the Fields Area. The Plan builds on these opportunities and works to create new opportunities and synergies with public private benefit. 0 4.04.02A, Identify opportunities for new paths that connect residential neighborhoods and community facilities, such as the library and city hall,parks, schools, athletic facilities, swimming pools,historic districts,the Downtown, as well as other commercial and retail activity centers in Meridian. The Plan continues the work of the adopted Pathways Master Plan, and is integrated into both the neighborhood center(commercial and retail activity center), and into a future park. The Five Mile Creek pathway network continues into the downtown area, and all the way to Eagle Road. 0 4.04.02C, Continue partnerships with area irrigation districts to continue to expand pathway system along existing waterways. The City has and continues to coordinate implementation of the Pathway Master Plan with irrigation district partners. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) was coordinated with specific to the Five Mile Creek Pathway and the Neighborhood Center. NMID was supportive of a public pathway on the north side of Five Mile Creek. Page 12 Item 11. F320] • 4.1 0.00,Protect public health and safety by guiding growth and development away from hazardous areas that pose a threat to people and property. The Intermountain Gas LNG facility and the Williams Pipeline have both been previously identified as hazards, and include appropriate buffers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents. The Fields Plan includes additional discussion on this topic to ensure that future decisions adequately consider historical context for decisions. • 5.01.02C,Promote area beautification and community identity through context sensitive building and site design principles, appropriate signage, and attractive landscaping. The Fields Plan does include some high-level general guidance and direction for future work, to promote aesthetic design nods towards a unified Fields thematic. • 5.01.02F,Explore development and implementation of architectural and/or landscape standards for geographic areas of the City. The Fields Plan does include some high-level general guidance and direction for future work, to promote aesthetic design nods towards a unified Fields thematic. • 6.01.01D, Pursue construction of the City's pathways network. The Plan identifies the pathway network and especially the Five Mile Creek pathway, as crucial to success of this Plan. • 6.01.0313,Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid-mile location within the Area of City Impact. The Plan supports ACHD's MSM and works to further use and benefit the collector roadway system, and supplements them with robust local roadway and pathway connections, as an alternative network for local stakeholders to busy arterials dominated by regional traffic. C. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Revisions 1. Proposed Text Revisions Pages C through D of the adopted Comprehensive Plan include a List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference. Similar to the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Plan, and Destination Downtown,this CPAT would add the Fields Subarea Plan to these pages. This entry would be added to the end of the list on page D, and include(in strike tht:ettgh and underline): List of Adopted Plans by Reference Plan Lead Agency Link Fields Subarea Plan(2021) City of Meridian https://meridianci_ .or /g fields In the future,a new section of the Evolving Community Chapter(3),may be appropriate to highlight Specific and Subarea Plans. Currently,the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan is described within the future land use section; it has its own unique future land use designations. Destination Downtown is mentioned in several areas, including the Premier Community Chapter(2), and within the Old Town Section of the Future Land Use section (even though the District boundaries eclipse the Old Town area),but has no dedicated section. 2. Proposed Future Land Use Map (none) There are no proposed revisions to the Future Land Use Map. Page 13 Item 11. F321] In the future,and with the broader cleanup revisions to the Future Land Use Map,the Subarea Plan could be better distinguished, and other revisions made to better consider multiple specific or subarea plans more consistently. Informally, and in the interim,this area can be added to interactive maps on the City's website to better highlight the Subarea Plan. 3. Proposed Revisions to Draft Fields Subarea Plan After application submittal and before the public hearing, City staff met with several stakeholders who discussed concerns with language intent. There are several areas that Staff believe can be improved, and are now recommending changes to enhance clarity of purpose. i. Revise map title on page 1-4: Existing Site Features and underling Future Land use Map(at time of adoption) ii. Revise Table 4A notes on page 3-9: Notes: The table above is intended to show approximate ranges of land uses that can be anticipated in the area. The table reflects residential density ranges adopted within the Comprehensive Plan. Assumptions for commercial values are based on typical averages from uses supported within designation types. Because mixed use areas vary,the followinga ssumptions are used within the context of future land use purpose text and descriptions. Assumptions: The Star/McMillan Center and Star/Ustick Center assume 40%residential; Chinden centers assume 20%residential. Commercial uses are broken down as follows: MU-C and MU-R assumes 90%commercial and 10% governmental/other; MU-NR assumes 50%office,40%office/flex, and 10%other; and MU-I assumes 50% office, 30%governmental/other,and 20% flex. iii. Add text to Development Program,first paragraph: The Development Program is intended to provide an estimate for understanding service needs and general allocation and balance of uses. Because these are for broad land use areas, and generalized,these are not prescriptive standards intended for case by case review. As shown i the deve epmen4"r-egr- above, estimated square footage for retail and office uses are expected to take nearly 50 years to fully build out,while industrial and flex space markets could be built out in only 15 years. The City should consider the aggregated commercial impacts this i of development proposals and monitor near-term residential demand and development to preserve opportunities for the lagging, long-term employment demand. Overall balance of residential and non-residential uses is essential. iv. Revise text on page 4-3. Critical path items are actions that should be abided by the Ci prior to and as development occurs. These items include the following: v. Revise Action Item on page 4-20. Elevate a distinct community identity by creating exterior design standards for the Star/McMillan Center, adjacent residential areas, linear park and greenway and regional park, including a contemporary rural thematic throughout commercial structures and public facilities. • Within commercial structures, incorporate gabled roofs, exposed trusses and rafters, covered porches, oversized architectural hardware,transitional landscape walls,gates,railings, chimneys,dormers,brackets,corbels,belly band board trim,posts,masonry piers, or other thematic elements in eammer-cialst..,,et Page 14 Item 11. F322] • Within commercial structures,incorporate stone, cultured stone, or brick masonry;horizontal lap siding,vertical board and batten siding,beadboard paneling, and taper sawn shingles; corten and/or wrought iron,or other local thematic materials in4e eemmer-eial s,r,,,.tufes. • Within commercial structures, discourage or allow only a very limited use of pre- cast concrete,EIFS,PVC or plastic materials,metal siding,plywood or pressed- board materials, or composition siding into ,.,,mme.eia s.,., ett -es • Incorporate distinct architectural elements into monuments, signage,building addressing, and structural infrastructure within landscape buffers,parking lots, and open space that enhances primary structure architectural features. D. Implementation Crucial to the success of the Fields Plan, and the Fields Area itself, is implementation. The unique circumstances and conditions of the area, and the speed at which development is lining up pending planned utility improvements,require commitment by all partners to see the vision of both the Comprehensive Plan and Fields Subarea plan come together. This Subarea Plan isn't a transportation plan,but it considers regional transportation improvements and ACHD's Master Street Map (MSM). As Meridian continues to bear the burden of regional traffic impacts, and particularly east-west travel,the interrelation of land use and transportation is essential. The 2019 Comprehensive Plan took this into consideration, and the balance and mix of land uses is essential in this context not just for the Fields area,but citywide. While time will bring changes, it is essential that City staff and elected decision makers not lose sight of the higher-level vision, and the reasons for past decisions. Shorter-term market driven changes are not necessarily bad and may be very positive,but they should not undermine long- term community needs. Thoughtful changes should consider comprehensive impacts,both within the Subarea and Citywide. Many land use decisions include land development configurations that have the unintended consequences of discouraging desired uses and services later or elsewhere in the City. Further, and depending on the speed of development in the area, it is very possible that some essential services and uses in support of this vision,will take time to realize the required rooftops,trips, and other supportive uses and services to be viable. Some of this may be positively influenced through partnerships including private-private,public-private, and public-public. Regardless, it may be a useful to remember that"highest and best"changes with time,that the Comprehensive Plan does not guarantee timing of additional entitlements or services, and that the City is charged with orderly and efficient growth. Construction of the Owyhee High School, committed improvements for both sewer infrastructure and a new fire station, and prioritized improvements for roadways represent considerable investment by local public agencies in this area. Despite the commitment of so many resources, realizing that the Fields Area is now effectively a growth priority area,more efforts are still needed.Acquiring and constructing park space, and prioritizing pathway improvements to support and advance community spaces in the neighborhood center, are paramount to the Plan. While timing of some improvements may be delayed,building relationships,partnerships, creating agreements, and further identifying or exploring and implementing additional funding mechanisms will need to be fast-tracked to set the stage. Spaces need to be preserved for these critical infrastructure elements. Development carries a high degree of risk, and with full services not yet in the ground and Meridian increasing the need for coordination and commitment to a better-defined Vision,it will Page 15 Item 11. F323] be important for the City to be a partner. The City's role is not a subsidy for development; it's a commitment to work towards service standards in coordination with willing partners. Partnerships are more difficult,but bring additional opportunities. The timing of Owyhee High School was not foreseen by the City and required significant alterations to expectations for market growth and service improvement priorities. The unique conditions of the area require additional coordination and focused efforts,not a disproportional level of services by the City. VII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD Not applicable.No specific development or annexation is being proposed with this application. VIII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends revising the text of the Comprehensive Plan to add the Fields Subarea Plan(2021), to page D, within the List of Adopted Plans by Reference. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 16 Item 11. F324] IX. EXHIBITS A. Illustrative Framework Plan (NOT intended for explicit adherence of development application review) City of Star Area of City Impact / Illustrative Framework CXIWEX NoornaD/US 2ORd L Plan — Aegionil r Interchange Area Use Type ' sh9'Gnol—j comer $� Cahange A Pedmm Density Neighborhoods Cedmm High Density Neighborhoods Anidential tleighbarhood�lg West by Sublarcral Industrial Area Neighborhoods L:Pdrk ��° {' R<nil/Office Areas 2 Resideoml Aesidmtial Neighborhoods Neighborhoods Business Park Win,Eeuaaa Potential School/Church 53'laterzl - Parks and Greemrays Poten1W Chic Si Prcumuon udrTnmitim of Historic Sit, Park Potential Existing Rmal R,ighbodwods l(sdnot chic etc) Grit Sae(srb-oo4 d4-e15-) W_Ltdgerwaod�En/ /'\_ Roadways and Pathways s's°at m1 dur — Hi- vDeovh 7 z Highways and Arterlals ` N V Hearing Collectors Eaisturg —I} , Cemenh i M,M Loral Sneers e - arX Rom 1pm'jA Pathways Higher'Densiry' r Stu/MiNillin Fire.MJa-rnk;Padrwal Hosing �hentei r—1 Rehr to Star/N<Nillan Schematic Concept For PnrXMdr(eeA v. L J additional devil /- �FbeSMdecGeekiPaTway Inurmaunnin Gas Note:The Illustrative Framework Plan is -,Facilih- I conceptml in nature.Final Flaring and design ,,r ra•l.,_ I Highe�Demih Ikladdm:Padrway _ may differ. ng ~ / I Futurt-Elementary Nrw Catucmt Roan NEw CmlEElea Aoao School Sae } y J� � A (Irdusuiil \gym/� �I n Neigh n hebarbnods og Pick /// � Eigh1.M.1,Pathway Nigh Sdaol o� II IB�waness pPa 1 Neighborhood)Park (� Mued;ll e�I Higher Densay O Higg ang J, _ Houseg Abng Ustid Haus®` g=Us AL .. 0 1/8 and, 1/4 mile 112 mile Nao Unra Rocs City of Nampa Area of City Impact Page 17 Item 11. F325] B. Neighborhood Center Concept (NOT intended for explicit adherence of development review; see Fields Subarea Plan for described context of needs and conditions) nan and Greenway Oriented Housing seg. Star/McMillan Center Character appjtrsents,condos,lops) (aa4"... , r Pod � n�.street M m larking i • Ra at fa..mo.to Reside.. � �. Yir-d Use NeighEorhxds rlor Parke Anchor C rdal *, V Poten, h/c tiodwie fi � � .iecrc� o.rtilr ,s� cents,AMaq) Flee Nk[reek , T * Patlwa�a.d re en N Page 18 Item 11. F 26 C. Conceptual Fit and Feel Render of Neighborhood Center �rccc + 1 D. Conceptual Fit and Feel Render of Neighborhood Center Residential 4 V74 J t Page 19 Item 11. F327] X. FINDINGS A. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. The Subarea Plan is an extension of the Comprehensive Plan and which contains all seventeen (17) elements required by Idaho State Statute. Staff finds the new Subarea Plan to continue the vision and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. Staff finds that the proposed Plan provides an improved and more relevant guide to future growth and development with the City.As originally envisioned, this Subarea Plan is a natural extension of the Comprehensive Plan and is an improved guide to future growth and development of the City. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals,objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the proposed policies are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, as all of the original policies are in place, some of which supported this Subarea Plan, and new policies only further and enhance existing policies. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development Code. Staff finds the proposed Plan provides the necessary guidance to effectively administer the requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC), and to direct work to maintain and modify the UDC to remain consistent with the proposed vision. S. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Stafffinds the proposed Plan will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. No specific uses are proposed and no modifications are proposed to general,future land use designations. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Staff finds that the proposed Plan will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Analysis of the proposed Plan has been considered with existing and planned services to ensure that utilities can be provided and maintained in a sustainable fashion. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable) provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. The proposed Plan, including a new Future Land Use Map (FL UM), is not associated with any particular development; no development is concurrently proposed. The adopted FL UM and specific designations within the Subarea Plan provides for a variety of uses. Development proposals in the future, will need to be consistent with the proposed Map and will be reviewed on a case by case basis in consideration of both immediate neighbors, and of the City's larger portfolio of uses and mix. Page 20 Item 11. ■ 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. Staff finds the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City because it is current, furthers states goals of the adopted Plan, and because its more relevant and has been vetted through public engagement. Page 21 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Fields Subarea Plan Caleb Hood, Planning Division ManagerBrian McClure, Comprehensive Associate Planner, 2021 st October 21Planning and Zoning Commission Recap: Introduction proposed AnnexationsNo•a land use plan.NOTrevisions. No Future Land Use Map •by referenceSubarea Plan to be adopted –amendmenttext Comprehensive Plan, for a Staff initiated application•Councilcontinued funding from City High priority project with –Plan2019 Comprehensive from the continuation of work Direct• Recap: Location & Future Land Use LNG Tank Plan Purpose & Summary And to provide implementation solutions–address park preservationMeet service level goals, for example by –Insulate from regional traffic–3)-(page 3amenities.” and distance to, parks and recreation to schools, and equity in distribution of, neighborhoods and centers, safe routes “…to ensure walkability between Summary:2)-(page 1Plan.furthered within the context of this when consistently channeled and and challenges are opportunities specific circumstances -locationAll of the unique distinctly Meridian. sufficient, and -and is vibrant, selfvision of the Comprehensive Plan, that The Fields Area implements the The purpose of this Plan is to ensure REQUEST Request: CPAT Modification would be added to the end of the list on page D, and include.Pages C through D of the adopted Comprehensive Plan include a List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference. This entry Proposed Comp Plan Text Revisions:.underlineand through-strikeChanges in AS PROPOSED IN STAFF REPORT https://meridiancity.org/fieldsCity of MeridianFields Subarea Plan (2021)LinkLead AgencyPlan Request: Summary of Fields Subarea Plan Draft Revisions Very big next steps–additional direction for applicationthey help to add clarity and provide impact vision, goals, or needs; instead, No additional recommended changes –Still not a land use plan–Keep in Mind:•(newer first).We’ll step through these in reverse order with Mark Bottles team.result of Commission direction to meet Additional changes since, and as a •meeting.Planning & Zoning Commission th 16as presented at September andreport Those previously identified in staff • Request: Additional Plan Changes (10/15 Memo)round.-comfortable and usable yearpark space is provided with southern exposure that makes the area more and highly connected located -centrallytransparen cy that enriches the pedestrian experience by allowing people to see activity inside and outside a building. A sized sidewalks that can accommodate outdoor seating, and ground floor building -streetscape, with generouslyoriented -have a pedestrianshould will office uses above. This area some/orresidential andwith the ground floor, and retail or office on include authentic opportunities for withhouseinnovative and historical design thematic andincorporate blend , and that would. Buildings along the main street, nearer Star Road and at intersections, shouldstreet parking-, with onwest-running eaststreet curved west-n eastuse buildings fronting a-mixedstory -to three-, twostyle -Main Street•15:-Revise Text under heading, Center Components on page 3FROM 10/15/2021 MEMO Request: Additional Plan Changes (10/15 Memo)and are now shown as purple.southern building were yellow dashed pink line. The two highlighting area of Change in Inset of revised map, 16:-on page 3Revised Graphic FROM 10/15/2021 MEMO Request: Additional Plan Changes (10/15 Memo)16 would be added.-legend and title similar to 317. A -16 and 3-Additional Map, between pages 316:-, after page 3Additional GraphicFROM 10/15/2021 MEMO Request: Additional Plan Changes (10/15 Memo)demand matures.family developments per planned land use designations to ensure sufficient land for higher density housing as -Limit single11:-Revised Action Item on page 4remove composition siding.notNote: This policy was previously recommended for modification in the Staff Report, but did ., or composition siding into commercial structuresboard materials-or pressed,materials, metal siding, plywoodcast concrete, EIFS, PVC or plastic -iscourage or allow only a very limited use of preWithin commercial structures, d•20:-Revised Action Item on page 4FROM 10/15/2021 MEMO Request: Draft Revisions (from 9/16 Hearing)System concept of Communities in Motion 2040 2.0Road are identified in the 2040 Treasure Valley Public Transportation UstickThe transit routes on Star Road and •Add a note under the legend: –Employer Express Transit RouteValley Connect 2.0, Employer Express Route –econdary Transit RouteSValley Connect 2.0, Secondary Route –4:-Update the legend on the Transportation Framework, page 3•Potential Civic Site (school, church, etc.)Potential School/Church–Mixed Use CentersRetail/Office Areas–Higher Density HousingHigh Density Neighborhoods-Medium–Residential NeighborhoodsMedium Density Neighborhoods–sUse TypeGeneral –2:-Update the legend on the Illustrative Framework, page 3•COMPASS also provided some comments that we can improve on.FROM 9/16 HEARING Request: Draft Revisions (from Staff Report)residential uses is essential.-Overall balance of residential and nondemand. term employment -term residential demand and development to preserve opportunities for the lagging, long-monitor neardevelopment proposals and ofthis inthe aggregated commercial impactsin only 15 years. The City should consider ut office uses are expected to take nearly 50 years to fully build out, while industrial and flex space markets could be built oabove, estimated square footage for retail and in the development program As shown intended for case by case review. and balance of uses. Because these are for broad land use areas, and generalized, these are not prescriptive standards The Development Program is intended to provide an estimate for understanding service needs and general allocation •Add text to development program, first paragraph:I assumes 50% office, 30% governmental/other, and 20% flex.-office, 40% office/flex, and 10% other; and MUNR assumes 50% -R assumes 90% commercial and 10% governmental/other; MU-C and MU-broken down as follows: MUcenters assume 20% residential. Commercial uses are ChindenCenter assume 40% residential; UstickCenter and Star/: The Star/McMillan Assumptionsassumptions are used within the context of future land use purpose text and descriptions. based on typical averages from uses supported within designation types. Because mixed use areas vary, the following table reflects residential density ranges adopted within the Comprehensive Plan. Assumptions for commercial values are Notes: The table above is intended to show approximate ranges of land uses that can be anticipated in the area. The •9:-Revise table 4A notes on page 3(at time of adoption)Mapand underlying Future Land useExisting Site Features •4:-Revise map title on page 1FROM STAFF REPORT Request: Draft Revisions (from Staff Report)within landscape buffers, parking lots, and open space that enhances primary structure architectural features.Incorporate distinct architectural elements into monuments, signage, building addressing, and structural infrastructure •.into commercial structuresmaterialsand/or wrought iron, or other local thematic cortenbatten siding, beadboard paneling, and taper sawn shingles; ncorporate stone, cultured stone, or brick masonry; horizontal lap siding, vertical board and iWithin commercial structures, •.into commercial structuresboard trim, posts, masonry piers, or other thematic elementsarchitectural hardware, transitional landscape walls, gates, railings, chimneys, dormers, brackets, corbels, belly band ncorporate gabled roofs, exposed trusses and rafters, covered porches, oversized iWithin commercial structures, •commercial structures and public facilities.residential areas, linear park and greenway and regional park, including a contemporary rural thematic throughout design standards for the Star/McMillan Center, adjacent exterior Elevate a distinct community identity by creating •20:-Revise action item on page 4the following:prior to and as development occurs. These items include the City Critical path items are actions that should be abided by •3:-Revise text on page 4FROM STAFF REPORT QUESTIONS Post 9/16, Memo Changes.•COMPASS changes; and•Original Staff Report changes;•outlined. These include:Consider each of the following as previously Staff Recommendation: Links https://meridiancity.org/compplanComprehensive Planhttps://meridiancity.org/fieldsFields Project Website PRIOR MEETING SCREENS INTRODUCTION Presentation Outline(not prescriptive or location specific).Residential look and feel image from the Fields Subarea Plan Questions6.Request5.The Plan4.Process3.Background2.Introduction1. Introduction No proposed Annexations•revisionsNo Future Land Use Map •by referenceSubarea Plan to be adopted –amendmentComprehensive Plan (text) •Councilcontinued funding from City High priority project with –Comprehensive Planfrom the 2019 Direct continuation of work • BACKGROUND Look and feel image from the Fields Subarea Plan (not Facility Map Amendment2017 with Intermountain Gas Solidified planning began in •uncertaintyZero traction, lots of stakeholder –work with BSU, U of I, and ULISeveral planning sessions, including •groupsMultiple local and regional work •Multiple studies, white papers•decadesthe area for nearly two Planning work has occurred in •Background prescriptive or location specific). 2021 photo near Star Road, LNG Tankreference scaleFarm Combine, for agglomeration/location benefits)uses could benefit from it (economic Desire to make use of it; what other •Light, noise abatement•foot safety buffer-1,000•Safety, quality of life–gallons)water reservoir approx. 2 million 7 million gallons (typical City –Natural Gas (LNG) TankIntermountain Gas Liquified •Canal.Intermountain Facility near Phyllis Northwest to southeast alignment –Williams Pipeline•Background: Williams Pipeline & Intermountain Gas at duskfacing east From BoiseDev.com. Aerial view, looking south, south need for service planningIdentified Future Land Uses, and –2019 Comprehensive Plan•No neighborhood services•16-improvements, and SHUncertainty with road •No property acquisition for parks•Utility infrastructure•No fire, long police travel time•New challenges:–School.increased with Owyhee High speculative investments) really Development pressures (not just •Background: Development Pressures east. - Background: Location & Future Land Use LNG Tank Background: Comp Plan Land Use uses/sectors.Center. Each have strengths for within: SW, NE, and Neighborhood Employment opportunities encouraged –residential areas due to market viability-City of Star looking at reducing non–Mixed UseMost adjacent regional land uses are –Additional Context:•planning.corridor analysis, and subarea neighboring cities, citywide allocation, Buildout Analysis considered: • Background: Parks Level of Service Standard Resources MapParks and Recreation Master Plan, Systems SubareaFields .miles per component for walkabilityradius of .5 components within parks and a of Service Standard that considers Additionally, the City should develop a Level •four acres/1,000 persons by 2040.increasing to a Level of Service Standard of land per 1,000 persons with a goal of Service that is three acres of developed park The City of Meridian currently has a Level of •of service goalMaintain existing level –Objective 1.1 –Organizational EfficienciesGoal 1: Continue to Improve •2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan: PROCESS Process: Public Engagement within Planning AreaIncluded notice to all property owners –Public Hearing Process•Notice to previous participants–hearing)Public review of draft plan (prior to •Included notice to all property owners–Interactive tools and discussion–Online workshop•(those near the Neighborhood Center)professionals, and key stakeholders development and financing Included: partner agencies, City staff, –Discussed concerns and opportunities–person and online-Began with small group interviews, in•Built on previous efforts• Process: Online Workshop Using Mural https://www.mural.co/ THE PLAN The Plan: Overview Actions•Priorities and City Participation•How we get there–Implementation•Star/McMillan Center•Character•Economic•Parks and Pathways•Transportation•Framework sets the stage–The Plan: Our Vision•Public Process•Introduction•4 Chapters The Plan: Star/McMillan Center to supportLand uses (residential rooftops) –synergiesPrimed for partnerships and –locationMain Street style; destination –Aligned on pathway network–Iconic identity–Central to the area–Heart and Focus• The Plan: Star/McMillan Center The Plan: Star/McMillan Center REQUEST Request: CPAT Modification would be added to the end of the list on page D, and include.Pages C through D of the adopted Comprehensive Plan include a List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference. This entry Proposed Comp Plan Text Revisions:.underlineand through-strikeChanges in AS PROPOSED IN STAFF REPORT https://meridiancity.org/fieldsCity of MeridianFields Subarea Plan (2021)LinkLead AgencyPlan Request: Additional Changes enforceable and flexibilityBalance between something that is •requirements.development agreement drive final UDC, other adopted standards, and any •all things apply in all conditionsJust as in the Comprehensive plan, not –we’re doing thisMemorializing how we got here and why •importantstated because they’re regionally Some important elements need to be –are high level–Keep in Mind:•Minor corrections–Reinforce roles–Better indicate context of text–Additional changes:•A few corrections to regional Plans–General clarifications–Concern for prescriptive standards–some sections–What We’ve Heard:• The Plan: Next Steps Additional studies or standards–like ACHD and NMIDContinued work with agency partners –and quality of lifeand working towards service standards Ensuring efficient provision of services –Park Area•Fire Station•Lift Station•Service Improvements–Coordination & Partnerships•Increasing development pressure–Changing land ownership–Planned Fire Station–Owyhee High School–Other continued transportation impacts–SH 16 Improvements–Challenges & Opportunities•A lot of work to be done Implementation Options Funding options could include general fund, CID, other•City ParkPublic partnership around the •Enhanced Participation to Achieve the City’s Vision:3.Funding options could include general fund, CID, other•Greenway and Pathway Mile Creek -FiveFocused and limited City partnership around the •Targeted Participation:2.Limited funding sources and limited City partnership•Star/McMillan CenterFocused on character the •Conventional Plan:1. Example Tool: public property to private parties through competitive bidding)is not allowed to be transferred to private parties in any way (except through sale of TIF•developmentAgencies are prohibited from backing loans or bonds used to finance private •publicowned land, for the benefit of the -Districts can only fund improvements on publicly•Districts typically sunset after 20 years and taxes return to regular taxing entities•availablebonded), with an agreement to be reimbursed once increment revenues become Typically, developers front costs for infrastructure development (which is often, in turn, •invested towards certain infrastructure improvements within the district) can be TIFIncreases in property tax revenue beyond the base levels (tax increment or •property taxes and other taxing entities outside schools and ACHD)Tax rates are frozen for properties within the district for a period of time (including •underdeveloped areasAllows municipalities to undertake redevelopment activities within deteriorating and •)URDUrban Renewal District ( Example Tool: paid in full Creates a lien against individual properties until all assessments are •Assessments may be paid in a lump sum or financed over time•where new developer/owners may enter the district at a later timeowners are not unfairly burdened with infrastructure costs in cases Can include a “latecomer agreement” to ensure that initial property •district landowners)proposed infrastructure facilities can be shown as directly benefiting Alternatively, an LID may be formed by majority vote of Council (if •residence) must sign a petition to create the LID60% of resident owners (or 2/3 of property owners, regardless of •could be used in in conjunction with or in place of CIDs LIDs•May be initiated by property owners or City•Local Improvement District (LID) Example Tool: developers/partnersBonding would be the responsibility of the •contiguous-Geography of a CID may be non•thirds of resident landowners -landowners or twoDistrict can be initiated by petition signed by all district •property owners that benefit from that infrastructure Distributes costs of infrastructure facility construction across •infrastructure costs areas to administer the allocation of shared capital CIDs can be created within city boundaries and impact •Community Infrastructure District (CID) Example Tools: Property tax levyProperty tax levyPoint of Paymentexpenditures)allowed -funding (within list of Statestructure or add categories eligible for May require vote to change fee authority, a separate entity)None (handled by urban renewal assessment bondsHearing required for special assessment bonds)bonds (hearing only for special Must vote if used with GO RequirementsVote/Hearing Council building permits. Other district types can Paid by property owners on issuance of TIF bondsincrement financing (TIF) and -Taxobligation (GO) bondsrevenue bonds, or general Special assessment bonds, Funding Sourcesother types of public improvements.and parks, but state law allows most Meridian currently limits to fire, police, property or ROW.construction but limited to public Wide range of spending and payments.facilities, but excludes DIF Wide range of infrastructure pay DIFs.proceeds may also be used to facilities (excl. irrigation). CID Wide range of infrastructure Use of FundsNot a separate district/entityboardappointed -Council or councilCity councilCity council (3 members only)AdministrationEnabled by State law.Not a district per se, so not applicable. narrative for other details)approved by council (see Findings of deterioration benefits ALL land owners)council (as long as district owners, OR majority vote of owners or 60% of resident Petition of 2/3 of all land option)landowners (no council vote owners or 2/3 of resident Petition of all district land District FormationCity or County (incl. ACHD)City or CountyPlanning Area)City (including Comprehensive City or CountyJurisdiction TypeConstruction of public infrastructureunder certain conditions)districts of primarily open/ag land deteriorating areas (also allows Incentivizing redevelopment of repair) of local infrastructureFinancing construction (or infrastructureFinancing construction of local Typical UseDevelopment Impact Fees Increment/Revenue Allocation)Urban Renewal District (Tax (LID)Local Improvement District District (CID)Community Infrastructure Funding Comparison Other Approaches new approved CIP projectArea could be potentially be expanded westward without having to add a Trail or park improvements already budgeted in Meridian’s CIP east of the Plan –CityExpansion of facilities already eligible for impact fee funding by the 3.or the StateACHDsuch In some cases, can be complex and involve Meridian and other jurisdictions –individual homes or businessesfacilities) and be reimbursed over time as connection fees are paid for and fund certain infrastructure elements (often roadway or water/sewer Through annexation and/or entitlements developers could agree to construct –Development Agreements/Reimbursement Agreements2.through the CIP.The City could potentially fund additional projects or portions of projects –Direct CIP investments1. Key Assets/Amenities 47 City Park3.PathwayGreenway & Mile Creek -52.CenterStar/McMillan 1. Key Assets/Amenities | Integrates residential.5.or office buildings.different than big/mid box or cluster Offers the opportunity for something 4.making.-environment and placeCenter can provide niche 3.2.Vibrant areas. Meets the City’s vision for Livable and 1.Star/McMillan Center Key Assets/Amenities | easement.Improvements on the south side 5..NMIDMile through coordination with -FiveIncludes pathway on the north side of 4.Connects to “Main Street”.3.urban development.neighbo rhood access and to support space, picnic areas, with 2.Mile Pathway.-wide Five-larger cityPathway system to connect into the 1.Mile Creek Greenway & Pathway-5 Key Assets/Amenities | neighborhoods.and employment areas and Serves as a buffer between industrial 3.creating a regional network.Phyllis Canal Pathway system, Pathway system and a potential Mile -Nexus between the Five2.entire Fields Sub Area. service standards, and central to City park would help meet level of 1.City Park