Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2021-12-02
WE IDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 02, 2021 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Bill Cassinelli Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Steven Yearsley ABSENT Commissioner Maria Lorcher Commissioner Nathan Wheeler ADOPTION OF AGENDA-Adopted CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] -Approved 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for K1 Speed (H-2021-0077) by Josh Shiverick of Cushing Terrell, Located at 1075 N. Hickory Ave. on the Northwest Corner of E. State Ave. and N. Hickory Ave. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Fire Station 8 and Police Substation (H-2021-0078) by City of Meridian, Located at 4250 N. Owyhee Storm Ave. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to develop the property with two (2) public/quasi-public uses, an 11,560 square-foot police station and an 11,637 square-foot fire station on approximately 3.60 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. -Approved 3. Public Hearing Continued from November 18, 2021 for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG Group Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1515 W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C (2.01 acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 44 building lots (43 single-family residential and 1 multi-family residential), 1 commercial building lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. - Continued to January 20, 2022 4. Public Hearing for Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive-Through (H-2021-0073) by Gold Stream Holdings, LLC, Located at 3330 E. Victory Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential use and zoning district on 0.83 of an acre of land in the C-C zoning district. -Approved 5. Public Hearing for Woodcrest Townhomes (H-2021-0082) by Andrew Newell of Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, Located at 1789 N. Hickory Way A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 19 building lots and 4 common lots (including 1 lot for a private street) on 1.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. - Recommended Approval to City Council 6. Public Hearing for Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments (H-2021-0075) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the south side of 1-84, 1/4 mile east of S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2) multi-family residential building lots (i.e. Lots 1-2, Block 1) and six (6) commercial building lots (i.e. Lots 3-8, Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. - Continued to January 6, 2022 ADJOURNMENT - 9:50 p.m. Item 2. F54 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 2, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 2, 2021, was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Members Absent: Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Nate Wheeler. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Nate Wheeler Maria Lorcher X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for December 2nd, 2021. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening you can see that we are here -- or 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 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 soon as possible. Let's begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes this evening, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F55] Page 2 of 64 CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for K1 Speed (H-2021-0077) by Josh Shiverick of Cushing Terrell, Located at 1075 N. Hickory Ave. on the Northwest Corner of E. State Ave. and N. Hickory Ave McCarvel: We have just one item on the Consent Agenda this evening. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for K1 Speed, H-2021-0077. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] McCarvel: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called on only once to provide public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on the website in advance to testify. If you are here in person, please, come forward. If you are on Zoom you will be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures for a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may press raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are listening on the phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone -- computer and phone, for example, please, be sure and mute the extra devices, so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you, you will no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember we cannot call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make final decisions or recommendations to the City Council as needed. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F56 Page 3 of 64 ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Fire Station 8 and Police Substation (H-2021-0078) by City of Meridian, Located at 4250 N. Owyhee Storm Ave. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to develop the property with two (2) public/quasi-public uses, an 11,560 square-foot police station and an 11 ,637 square-foot fire station on approximately 3.60 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. McCarvel: So, at this time we will open public hearing for item number H-21-0078 and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Greeting, Madam Chair, Members of the Planning Commission. Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner with the City of Meridian. This is a proposal for Fire Station 8 and Police Substation and it's a conditional use permit. The site consists of about three and a half acres of land, zoned R-8, located on Owyhee Storm. Basically it's on the southwest corner. It's close to McMillan and McDermott,just north of the new high school. So, this property was transferred to the city as part of the Gander Creek South final plat in 2019 and this property is specifically designated for a fire station and the police substation by the future land use map. This property was actually transferred to the city for that reason. This use of quasi-public use is allowed by R-8 as a conditional use. So, again, the applicant proposes a conditional use for the construction of an 11 ,600 square foot fire station and an 11,500 square foot police substation. A significant -- a significant amount of land around this area has already been annexed and platted in the surrounding area. This includes the Owyhee High School, Gander Creek Subdivision, the Oaks North and South Subdivision, Chukar Ridge and Jump Creek Subdivisions. The proposed fire station and police substation will increase the response times and the tentative developments, they were approved during the -- during the analysis this fire station was taken into account as serving these subdivisions. The site plan that you see here -- I'm sorry, it's kind of tricky to see it, just because it's not very dark. The Gander Creek Subdivision contains a plat note which prohibits direct lot access to North Owyhee Storm Avenue. That's what you see here. That's a collector. But it does have an exception for this particular property. There is actually a specific note that says that this property can have direct access. This is to allow expeditious and unimpeded emergency access without having to travel through the adjacent neighborhoods. So, the site plan proposes one point of access for Grand Rapids Road, which is what you see here, and two points of access from North Owyhee Storm Drive. The southern northern Owyhee Storm access was what you see here, this would be the main access. This would provide access to both, as well as to the public. The northern accesses that you see here -- this is only access for the fire station. The access that you see here -- this is just for employee parking. The landscape plan indicates a buffer of at least 50 feet in width along North Owyhee Storm Avenue, which -- whereas 20 feet is required. There is several large landscaped areas at the north, which you see here and one of the east, which would serve for employee recreations -- will benefit the employees. This landscaping plan exceeds the minimum requirements. However, as noted in the staff report, the city Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F57 Page 4 of 64 arborist had a comment that the maples and the ash trees, the types that were proposed, were actually an invasive species and he gave us a list of recommended trees that should be planted instead. That's one of our conditions of approval that you will see in the staff report is these two particular trees that were listed don't be planted. The Gander Creek Subdivision No. 1 provides a ten foot wide detached pathway that's already existing. That's what you see here. There is also a sidewalk already existing along the road to the north and to the east of the property. That would be West Black Butte and West Grand Rapids Drive. There is a wrought iron fencing of up to eight feet indicated on the site plan. That is shown along here and that fencing is to provide security for the police vehicles. Eight feet is actually higher than is allowed, it's actually restricted to six foot, so they would have to do alternative compliance. However, there was a discussion this morning -- the applicant called us and actually proposed instead of wrought iron fencing they wanted to do chain link fencing. Staff mentioned that this is not our preference, chain link fencing, but they could discuss this with the Planning Commission and at the very minimum we would recommend that if they did do chain link fencing it would at least be vinyl covered, maybe black and not galvanized type. The last thing would just be the building elevations in general. I don't want to get into the weeds on these, because this will be discussed -- this will be discussed with the CZC. This is very similar, if not exactly the same as the -- the plans that you saw for the Meridian South Fire Station at East Lake Hazel. The -- the fill materials that are shown here are showing smooth face CMU and metal paneling. It's important to mention that our ASM, our Architectural Standards Manual, actually says those can't be used as field materials, unless there is two other qualifying field materials. I only mentioned this just in the public hearing, so the -- so that it's known that there is probably going to have to be some additional work done to these buildings or they will have to apply for a design exception. With that we recommend approval with the conditions as listed in the staff report. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Gladics: Yes. Hi, Commissioners. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Gladics: Thank you to staff for the report and Commissioners. My name is Gunnar Gladics, I'm an architect with Rice Fergus Miller and my address is 11400 Olympus Way, Gig Harbor, Washington. And the design team and the fire department and the police department agree with nearly all of the conditions and, in part, really actually agree with Item 7 and thank you, Alan, for bringing that up. We actually have a discussion -- I would like to discuss the fencing a little further. We understand that chain link fencing is not desired and on the existing east side of the property the developer of the Gander Creek Subdivision already has a solid vinyl fence that is six feet in height and we actually are proposing to continue that fencing on the east and south side of the sites to match with what the development already has and, then, continue using the metal picket fence or wrought iron fences, as Alan put it, along the north and along the -- the east -- or, sorry, the west sides of the site and so that would be the only difference from what we have submitted in the report. Other than that we agree. And the building materials on the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F58 Page 5 of 64 outside, we are updating those to remove the smooth face block and comply with that on both this northwest side and south side, so -- for the CZC. With that I would take any questions that the Commissioners have. McCarvel: I do have one question. The staff mentioned that you were considering a chain link fence, so that's no longer part of your request at all, no chain link? Gladics: Correct. McCarvel: Okay. Gladics: We have -- we have talked with the Police Department and Public Works and we -- we don't think that's the right thing to do and we would like to try to match with what the developer is doing, as well as provide the higher quality level at the front part of the station and use the picket fence as -- as described. McCarvel: Thank you. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. McCarvel: Okay. That being said is there anyone in the room or on Zoom that wishes to testify on this application? Okay. And I'm assuming you don't have any further comment then? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Can I ask a question? McCarvel: Sure. Yearsley: So, how come you don't want to use the wrought iron fence along the sidewalk piece of your property? Can I ask? Gladics: That's along the border on the east side with Gander Creek? Yearsley: Yeah. Gladics: We would -- the -- actually one of the intents that the police had when we were originally planning it was to try to block out views into the backside of the police station for safety reasons and so after talking with them about not doing chain link fencing, the solid vinyl fencing actually fulfilled that purpose in keeping people from having visibility into their kind of operations area and their workout area and that was -- that was what we landed on thinking -- and our thinking that the vinyl fencing matching that would be the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F59 Page 6 of 64 best option. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0078? Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0078. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Any other thoughts, comments, or motions to be made? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Who doesn't like a police station and a fire station? No. I guess my only concern -- and, you know, if we are trying to make the -- the back area secure, I'm a little concerned about a -- how secure the -- a vinyl fence would be. I would actually more lean to -- if they were trying to make it more secured, allowing -- I know it's not popular, but the chain link fence, the option, but I will concede to the vinyl fence, but that was my only thought. McCarvel: I guess my thought on that is probably moving more towards either vinyl or the wrought iron, but I can see their desire to have that a little more private back there. Yearsley: Yeah. McCarvel: So, I'm good with their proposed vinyl. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve -- approve file number H-2021-0078 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 2nd, 2021, with the following modification: That we allow the vinyl fence along the east side of the property. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F60 Page 7 of 64 Seal: Second. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval for H-2021-0078 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing Continued from November 18, 2021 for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG Group Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1515 W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C (2.01 acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 44 building lots (43 single- family residential and 1 multi-family residential), 1 commercial building lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is an item continued from November 18th, H-2021- 0071, Lennon Pointe Community and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate the time tonight and mine will be a little longer than the previous. I apologize. But that's just my luck here. As noted this was continued from two weeks ago, because I apparently can't count lots anymore. I just missed one. So, I do apologize for that, but we are here tonight and we will be getting this forward -- moving forward here. As noted, this is for Lennon Pointe Community. The request before you tonight are annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and a conditional use permit. A private street application was also submitted, but that is an administrative approval. The site consists of 8.8 acres of land currently zoned RUT, located at the southeast corner of Linder and Ustick Roads. There is no permit history or hearing level history with the city at this time. The future land use map designates this property as mixed use community, which allows residential dwellings at the density of six to 15 units per acre. The annexation and zoning of this property is requested for 10.41 acres, which as you can tell is quite larger than 8.8, but that's because we require zoning to go to the centerline and when we have two arterial streets abutting your site you tend to add quite a bit of area of zoning that doesn't match the plat. So, just to let you guys know that's where the discrepancy is. It has a request for C-C zoning and that's two acres and a request for R-15, which is 8.3 acres. The preliminary plat consists of 44 residential building lots, 43 single family and one multi-family lot. One commercial lot and two Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F61 Page 8 of 64 common lots on 8.8 acres of land within those proposed zoning districts. The conditional use permit for multi-family development consists of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Again, the applicant did request private street approval. The director slash staff gave approval of this application, so there is no need for Commission to act on that. The subject site does have existing -- existing City of Meridian zoning in all directions as you can see on the map on the left-hand side here. The site is directly bordered to its north and west by arterial streets, Ustick and Linder to be specific. Development of the surrounding areas are still ongoing with detached single family to the east and south, which is part of the Creason Creek Subdivision. Multiple office buildings are being constructed to the north and the C-C parcel north of Ustick and there is existing C-C zoning and an ambulance service in the C-C zoning directly to the west and across Linder Road. In addition to the existing land uses around the property, the subject site contains two major waterways, which you can see a little better on this right-hand side map. We got this Kellogg Drain here and, then, I believe this is the Creason Lateral here. The -- almost the entire site is within some form of a floodplain. Flood way, floodplain, and flood zone. There is different ones. So, it is important that the applicant deal with the waterways on the site. The applicant is proposing to pipe the Kellogg Drain and reroute it along the south boundary or near the south boundary in order to make more area of the site usable, as well as provide adequate open space and pathways in the southwest corner of the site. The proposed land uses are attached single family, townhomes, multi-family residential, and commercial. So, you have attached single family, which is here. You have the multi-family and, then, you have townhomes, which are going to be three or more, which is these here and these here and, then, you also have -- I can't count again. I said three detached single family in my staff report, but I forgot that there is a fourth detached right here. It actually has multiple residential land uses on the proposed project. These land uses are consistent with those outlined in the mixed use community future land use designation definitions when they are properly integrated, both internally and externally to the site. Overall staff does find that the proposed site integrates with -- integrates the proposed uses in appropriate manners. Specifically, the applicant has proposed multi-family residential along Ustick, as well as the commercial buildings at the hard corner at Ustick and Linder. This, therefore, places the most intense uses closest to the arterial, which the comp plan talks about in multiple ways. Therefore, the single family uses are proposed on the remaining area of the site and makes up approximately 70 percent of the site area. The applicant is proposing the single family portion of the site as all two story, except for the six unit townhomes here and here. So, nine units of the 43 are three story, the others are all proposed as two story. In addition to the site design and proposed uses, a certain density is required to be met for the residential projects within the future land use designation and, again, that is six to 15 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is shown -- or -- with the total units as proposed originally is shown as approximately 7.35 units per acre. So, it's a very low end of the MUC designation. Therefore, it meets this requirement. Overall staff does find the project is consistent with the comp plan and the future land use designation of mixed use community. However, staff does find that some revisions to the site plan should occur to offer a better transition from the existing single family to the east into the site. Specifically the height disparity between the proposed four story multi-family along Ustick and the proposal to have alley loaded homes along the east boundary. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F62 Page 9 of 64 existing detached single family home in Creason Creek directly adjacent to the multi- family units is a single story home with a bonus room. Obviously, that next to four stories is a big disparity. Staff has called this out. Despite the separation and has proposed that the applicant basically take the top two units off directly adjacent to Creason Creek. Therefore, there would be -- it would be two story here and two story here and, then,jump up to four story for these. In response the applicant provided revised elevations that showed the loss of one unit adjacent to the east boundary, which makes between the four story and the property line approximately 46 feet of separation between the fence line and four stories. I will leave it to the Commission to determine if they want to stick with staff's recommendation and request that they take another unit or if they are okay with that or whatever you need to do with the multi-family. Staff does recommend that the units along the east boundary -- I guess my next point these units here, staff does recommend that these become front loaded, rather than alley loaded. Staff recommends -- I did not call this out in my staff report specifically in a condition, I called it out saying that I did not think they were going to meet the setbacks and they don't currently for an alley loaded property. They are not getting the, quote, unquote, front setback on the east side of the lots. I have discussed it with the applicant and we are in agreement that we should change these two front loaded and, then, move the property lines, because they technically are ending right up along the sidewalk back here. We would remove the sidewalk and extend the property lines to this boundary and this would become the rear yard and they have the front doors on the front side as normal, which would actually -- you know, they don't have to move the homes. They can if they need to, but they will be able to maintain the rear setback of R-15, which is 12 feet. Staff made this recommendation -- or is making this recommendation, because I believe that having it front loaded will have less of a nuisance and less noise than what is being proposed currently. Having that additional foot traffic on the east boundary I think would be more of an issue for existing residents to the east than having rear yards of single family homes. And, again, to note the applicant and I are in agreement with that change. At least we were yesterday, so -- the proposed residential uses are allowed uses within the R-15 zoning district. So, again, that's -- all of the different proposed uses for residential are allowed. The caveat to that is the multi-family, which is a conditional use, which is why we have a conditional use permit before you tonight. Future commercial uses will be analyzed with future applications submitted for that area. In regards to dimensional standards, the commercial lot meets all the required dimensional standards. But, again, when we get a certificate of zoning compliance and design review in at a later date staff will analyze that in more detail. Multi-family buildings meet all of these standards, except for the height. At least originally. The applicant did revise the elevations of these buildings and they now show compliance with the 40 foot height limit of the R-15 zoning district. The single family area of the site meets all dimensional standards, except for as I noted the east setback for those homes, as well as the center lot and the three-plex is not the minimum 2,000 square foot lot. I do have a condition of approval to correct that prior to Council in my staff report already. Multi-family conditional use is -- has specific use standards that they must comply with. Each multi-family unit is proposed as a two story, with the units on levels one and two differing from those on levels three and four. So, again, it's kind of a stacked product. That's why they are four stories. The lower units provide at least 132 square feet of private open space in the form of patios and the upper Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F63 Page 10 of 64 units provide at least 251 square feet of private open space per unit in the form of private patios. This vastly exceeds the requirement in code for 80 square feet per unit of private open space. Each unit is proposed as being greater than 1 ,200 square feet. So, per the specific use standards 350 square feet per unit of common open space is also required to be provided. Based on the original number of 18 units that equates to 6,300 square feet of common open space that should be provided to meet the specific use standards for the multi-family product. Open space for the project overall is being shared and with that -- I will discuss that very shortly, but overall the proposed open space is in excess of code requirements for both portions of the project. Staff does not have any concern with that. For 18 units a minimum of two amenities from two categories within specific standards are required as well. That applicant is proposing a shared plaza here that has some public art, which meets both amenity requirements from the quality of life and open space categories. Therefore, staff does find that the proposed multi-family project meets the specific use standards outlined in the UDC. Now, to the open space for the project. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space meeting the standards in UDC 11-3G-3 is required for the -- for the single family and the multi-family at this point. Based on the proposed plat area of 8.75 acres, a minimum of .88 acres of qualified open space should be provided. According to the applicant the revised open space exhibit, approximately 1.64 acres of qualified open space is proposed, which is approximately 18.7 percent. The majority of this open space -- this qualified open space consists of this large open space area here, as well as the large MEW in the center of the development and half of the arterial street buffer, which is allowed to count per code. Staff finds that the proposed open space is adequate, both in the amounts and its placement to satisfy all code requirements. Based on the area of the plat a minimum of one qualified amenity is also required to be provided. The applicant has proposed three qualified amenities, which I would like to note is -- the applicant corrected being they were right. I stated in my staff report that the dog park is not qualifying, but it is, in fact, qualifying. I read code wrong and they are providing waste disposal stations, so they are allowed to have that qualify as an amenity. So, the three amenities that are being proposed are the dog park area, which is located here, a ten foot multi-use pathway segment and a children's play structure, which is shown here, and those are all qualifying amenities and exceed the minimum amount. The applicant is proposing pedestrian facilities throughout the entire site that include attached sidewalks along the public road here, micro paths and the multi- use pathway segment as discussed. All these facilities connect and integrate throughout the site as seen through the landscape plan here and going through the MEW along all the private streets, which are not required per the privacy standards. It will connect to the sidewalk along Linder and Ustick, which is existing, and, again, throughout the entire site. Overall staff is very appreciative of the proposed pedestrian circulation system within the site. The project also meets all off-street parking requirements per the submitted plans. However, future building permits for the single family will verify compliance with off-street parking standards based on the number of bedrooms per unit. So, each of those single family is shown with a two car garage and a parking pad, which will meet the parking requirements if they are four bedrooms or less. So, it is assumed that that's what they will have to do. Access for the site is a little complicated, so bear with me here. There is -- again there are arterial streets adjacent to the site. So, Linder Road on the west, Ustick Road in the north. Access from those sites are proposed via two driveway connections, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F64 Page 11 of 64 one to each. They have a driveway connection here and drive a connection here. The Ustick Road driveway connection will be limited to a right-in, right-out for ACHD. This one will be a full access as I -- the staff report notes a temporary full access because the access on the west side is a full access and if ACHD limits one they have to limit the other, so they have decided to leave this as a full access at this time. Sorry. ACHD did approve both of these access points through a review of a driveway analysis made by the applicant's traffic engineer. A TIS was not required because less than one hundred units were proposed with the project. The other public access points to the site are proposed at the -- this is a little easier -- at the northeast corner and the south, because they are extending the existing public roads. You have North Zion Park Avenue, I believe, from the south, which will, then, connect to West Pebblestone, if I'm not mistaken here. And this is a public road through the site. The applicant is proposing a private street through the west portion of the site, as noted, and has received administrative approval for that, so that starts here, winds around and goes here. So, this is also private, because it's -- technically a driveway access with the drive aisle for the multi-family and drive aisle for the commercial. This is all private slash commercial or multi-family drive aisle. But the official private street, which will be an easement, is -- starts here, winds through, and ends here. That -- the private street is proposed to be at least 26 feet wide, which exceeds minimum UDC requirements and it will be within a 30 foot easement on the plat. They -- the private street and the local street are acting as alleys for a majority of the units to make them a majority of alley loaded, which presents a new product type in the area of the city. Again, the private street meets all UDC requirements. The three detached homes in the southeast corner of the site are proposed with -- I'm sorry. The detached single family are proposed off of a common drive -- or at least two of them are and per code you cannot have more than four, so this, therefore, meets UDC standards as well. There was two at least as of probably 2.00 p.m. this afternoon there were a couple pieces of public testimony. One from John and Caryn Bitler. There is concerns of the type of residential units being proposed and the fact that they differ from Creason Creek to the east. Concerns over the inclusion of multi-family, especially considering the height, and overall just the high disparity of the proposed units proposed with those to the east and as usual development there was some concern with the increase of noise and traffic with additional units in the area. Olena and Eder Santana also stated very similar concerns regarding the proposed project. I will note there was also some discussion in the public comments about what was discussed by staff a few months ago and what was discussed at the neighborhood meeting does not align with what's being proposed and that does tend to happen. Some of the discussions I had with the applicant -- I have been working with the applicant on this probably all of 2021 . I can't remember at this point. We had five pre-apps on this. We have worked very diligently on this project. So, the plan has definitely changed over the last ten months or so. So, it does happen. I just don't want the Commission or the public to think that there is any kind of bait and switch or anything changing, but those kinds of things do happen. But staff does recommend approval of the subject application per the conditions in my staff report and, again, I would like to ask that the Commission add one -- one more -- recommend one more recommendation, which would be for the -- to change the units on the east boundary. I noted it right before my bullet points on my outline. It should read similar to the applicant shall revise the site plan to show those units along the east boundary, Lots 1 through 12, Block 2, to be front Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F65 Page 12 of 64 loaded units and remove the shared pedestrian access along the east boundary and revise the plat to show the property lines of these lots going and touching the east boundary of the site for the rear yards of the zone. So, along that I can make it prettier for the staff, but I need -- that would have to be part of the motion if you guys would like that and agree with staff, because I did not have a condition. After that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Wheeler: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I will just upload my presentation here. Dodson: I got it. Wheeler: Oh, you got it? Dodson: Yeah. You can't -- you can't do that. Just use the arrows. The mouse is real finicky, so I would just use the -- Wheeler: Got it. Dodson: -- the arrow buttons. Wheeler: Andrew Wheeler. 2923 North Arthur Circle, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Representing DG Group Architecture. And first I would like to thank staff for their diligence and efforts over the last year and a half. As Joe said, we have had five pre-apps and this has been a pretty complicated project and site to come to quality design solution and thank you all for your time and attention here to review the proposal. The site currently, as Joe mentioned, is a mixed use community zone, which is the -- which has the purpose of allocating areas where community serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. As noted in the staff report comments, this site is proposed as a transitional density from the existing single family to the main arterial streets. It's a -- it's a prime opportunity to have that transition that culminates at that hard corner, which is surrounded by commercial currently. Is this picking up? Am I loud enough here? McCarvel: Yeah. You got to get real close to it. Wheeler: Okay. There we go. Over the past year and a half we have worked closely with staff to come up with a quality solution to the many development problems that this site has and we are excited to present with you -- to you Lennon Pointe, a mixed use community. This image is a site entrance. This would be coming into the site from West Pebblestone. This is the demarcation between the public road and the private. So, existing conditions. So, looking at the site overall at an aerial view of the site from the southeast corner at Linder and Ustick and this shows the network of local streets that connect to the site. You can see there is two connections to Ustick through this local Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F66 Page 13 of 64 street network, as well as one in -- on Claire Street in the south there to Linder. So, there are other opportunities for traffic to reach those arterials, other than the ones directly adjacent to the site. North Zion to the south intersects the site and, then, West Pebblestone to the east. So, here is a survey of the site and this kind of shows the -- the challenges that Joe mentioned. So, the one main challenge is the Kellogg Drain. It really limited the development potential of this site. The site's sat there for a long time because no one's wanted to take on the challenge of how to figure it out. So, we were up for that. It also has the floodway on the southwest corner, which eats up a big portion of the site and, then, as well as the flood zone, which is about half to three-quarters of the site, so we plan on raising those pads to one foot above base flood elevation. Access to the site, as Joe went through with -- on Linder and Ustick is a little complicated to make sure that, you know, we were in compliance with ACHD. We are utilizing the existing curb cuts to provide that access and as well as bringing through that local road, which was a big design factor. The single family to the east is a critical part of this project and so we took steps to mitigate that and provide a lifetime product adjacent to the current two story and one story plus bonus on that eastern side. There is some imagery -- imagery of the existing site. This is the existing curb cut on Linder looking north. The site is to the right. Here is the connection from the Creason Lateral to the Five Mile Drain and another vision of that. That's the Creason Lateral. So, this is looking southeast. This is the Five Mile Drain culvert. This is looking south and that's the existing single family in the far distance and this is on North Zion Park Avenue looking north and, then, looking -- looking east and you can see there are two story and one and bonus room single family and also to note - -we will get into this --the grade elevation is three foot higher on the existing single family than our proposed pads. Here is what that community current look -- currently looks like on Tumble Creek and Northwest 13th Street and this is West Pebblestone looking west that dead ends into the site currently. Here is a vision -- or an image showing that discrepancy of grade elevation of three feet higher. This is the existing single family on the northeast corner adjacent to that multi-family project and, then, this is the curb cut on Ustick looking east as well. So, site design. So, to dive into this, you know, the requirement for mixed use community and three product types, so we are proposing -- proposing the community commercial on the upper left, the multi-family upper right and the single family in the -- the main part of the site. A lot of the challenges that really drove the site -- one was extending the public road and, you know, that dictated where our driveways needed to be in and part and parcel to, you know, where the homes would be and how much distance we had between lots, as well as the floodway and flood zone areas. So, the floodway in the southwest -- so, you can see that area marked there and, then, the Kellogg Drain. So, the red is showing where we would reroute that drain underneath the hard pipe with the same outlet discharge location that it currently is at. So, we are utilizing the nonbuildable land to move that -- that drain and provide a pedestrian amenity in that same location. Arterial street access utilizing the existing curb cuts as mentioned earlier on Ustick and Linder. And let me go back into this. So, the community building -- or the commercial, excuse me, is, you know, pushing that building to the hard corner to buffer the views of the parking, as well as provide two driveways -- drive-throughs for that future use and, then, the other commercial building is adjacent to the hardscape and public art to provide that additional revenue for a commercial use and residents. The amenities, as Joe mentioned, are the public plaza and the art and, then, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F67 Page 14 of 64 that ten foot pathway in the lower left and the tot lot, as well as the dog park. The MEW throughout the center was critical to -- and we went through alley -- two alley load designs to have, you know, porches on the front, eyes on the street, have that community feel and be able to not just have -- be driveways and cars, you know, all throughout the whole site. It's unavoidable to have a complete -- it's unavoidable to have it completely throughout the site, but we did our best to, you know, try to provide that front porch feel. This shows the public -- shows the public road. Everything else would be private. And, then, the pathway plan -- this shows it a little clearer without the Kellogg Drain, the pathways throughout the entire site, so there is great connectivity through the hardscape plaza to the lower southwest path --ten foot pathway required by the Parks Department that would connect to the existing Creason Creek pathway of Creason Creek Subdivision Two to the south. That needs to shift over west a little bit, which is a detail that we are working out. Here is the open space exhibit that highlights what we are counting as open space. 44,415 square feet required and we are providing 71 ,458. Here is a parking plan. This shows that in the upper left, the commercial, there is -- for 500 square foot per stall. Requires 24 stalls. We are providing 25. In the upper right on site B the orange would be surface parking, as well as three on-street parking stalls and, then, the blue is two car garages. Required are 30 -- 36 required and we are -- we are providing 44. In the single family there is 177 required and we are providing 201 and the yellow is on-street guest parking with -- the driveways that are in dark grey would be two car driveways and, then, two car garages. So, four cars per lot. This is a rendered vision of the top down view of that. So, building design, the commercial -- commercial buildings are modern in nature. We don't have a tenant for those yet, but the intent is that they have a modern aesthetic, CMU block, metal panel, concrete. This would be building the larger one on the corner and, then, this is the smaller one, which possibly a sandwich shop, something that's going to serve a use adjacent to that hardscape plaza. Similar materials. And you can see those on the right here with the TPO roofs and, then, again, a view here and there is a few other views. So, this is showing that plaza with the public art and a future commercial use and, then, that MEW to the left. Building A, the multi-family building, so this would be -- this is level one and two. This would be one unit. Stairs are not shown in here. They should be. But it would be accessed from the garage direct into the unit and, then, this would be levels three and four and due to the height limit we have more of a loft situation to that fourth level and, then, you can see on the right we are dropping -- we are losing a unit to address the single family to the east. Here are a couple of elevations of those. On that bottom left image you can see that step. And here is a section kind of showing the design of that and those stacked units and as well as -- you know, it opened up an opportunity to bring in daylight to that upper unit, provide higher ceilings, more robust unit, and a quality of space and that -- those upper units. So, here is showing an example of the two story versus the four story. You can see that it's about 43, 44 feet from the property line to the four story is what we are proposing. The 22 foot -- the small portion of the stair tower is 22 foot tall. But, again, the grade is three foot taller on the residential side existing, so that's actual 19 feet from relative to the adjacent single family and, then, we are 19 foot four to the two story from the property line of a majority part of that -- our eastern unit. So, here is the -- that shows those grades. We are 2,572 for our finished floor and the existing of that homes at 2,575. And that's what that looks like currently -- in the current design. The same -- same look and feel, just stepping it down to address Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F68 Page 15 of 64 that two story unit to the east. Here is another view. This is heading into -- in -- heading west on Pebblestone -- West Pebblestone. That was Building A to your right. And, then, another view looking at that right-in, right-out on Ustick. This building is Building B on the site, which is located facing outward onto Linder facing west. Again, we wanted porches and front doors to face Linder, rather than having garages face Linder and having that aesthetic as you are driving down there. It is a three story product, level -- one story is the garage level adjacent to the street and, then, stepping up with board batten, traditional gable and horizontal siding and stone. That's what that looks like there facing Linder. This is the other three story product of a three unit building. Same materials, same design aesthetic, and this is looking at that pedestrian path connection and that's the Building C to the right and you can see it -- kind of the right middle there as well. Yeah. So, the main majority of the two unit single families -- we wanted to have some variety, so we did a D-1 and a D-2. This is calling it Building D. The main differences in those -- and you can look at the top two images. We have a shed dormer on the -- this thing skipped over. So, the D-1 we have a gable on the -- the main center portion and, then, a hip roof on the garage portion and, then, that flips to a shed dormer and a gable. So, what that ends up looking like is a variety of housing types through the area and this is that -- a view through the MEW and this is a view at that ground level with four foot vinyl fences, wrought iron gates to kind of provide privacy, but keep eyes over the fence and provide connection with neighbors and people living in the area. Here is a view looking at the hip roof of the garages versus the gable. That, again, provides a differentiation between that street. So, they are all -- they are all not the same and, then, we have a single family product, the three units to the southeast corner, which is there on the right and that's the dog park straight ahead. So, there would be the dog park stepping out of one of those single family units and that shows the single family units to the left. At the neighborhood meeting a couple concerns that were brought up that Joe mentioned. Mostly it's the four story unit at the --four story Building A and, then, the two story adjacent townhomes and, you know, when you -- we have a similar issue here as we do on Building A with the grade differential. There is 2,575 at the grade and that's not even at the building pad of the existing home. So, likely the pad is another foot higher or a little bit higher, about 2,575. Our finished floor pads are 2,572. So, when you look at that in section -- this is a section through one of the dormer -- shed dormer models, the grade raises at the -- the right side and -- so, the overall height is of, you know, 19 feet to the -- the eave would actually be 16 feet relative to the eastern homes. So, that's what that looks like in the east side of the property and this is a view on the south looking north. This is the west side looking east. And, finally, the north side looking south. And with that I will open it for questions. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Do you have any questions for staff or the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Is the -- Andrew, the commercial, is that all single level? Wheeler: Yeah. Ten, 12 foot. I mean it's going to be -- you know, depending on the user Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F69 Page 16 of 64 that goes in there, but, you know, possibly 15 feet. No more than -- not -- not a two story. Cassinelli: Did you -- and another question is did you look at putting similar three story product on the north side there against -- against Ustick that's over to Linder? Wheeler: We did. The original intent was to have a larger two -- two story and, then, a step back fourth story and have a larger patio, you know, enhanced views of the mountains out there and, then, having a nice community area or private open space. With the 40 foot height limit that became a challenge to be able to make that work and so we ended up going with the -- with the square footage of the units needing to be at a certain mark. That's why we have the two stacked. So, if we do two stacked and two stacked you get to the fourth. We didn't explore a three story option in detail. Cassinelli: So, you didn't look at putting a similar -- similar units that are on the -- that are fronting Linder to the north side? Wheeler: We did not. You know, in the -- in the spirit of mixed use community and density, being that this is the arterial of Ustick and close to Linder, the whole area being community commercial zoned, we felt it was appropriate to have a different aesthetic that kind of matches the modern aesthetic of the commercial that transitions into the residential. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we had one person sign in, but not indicating a wish to testify. McCarvel: And with that I'm assuming the applicant has no further comments, since there is -- oh, sorry. Forgot about that. Anybody in the room that wishes to testify that did not sign up? Come forward. Pardon me? That's fine. You are here. Come on up. Okay. Please state your name and address for the record and you have -- the timer is on the screen there. You have three minutes. Bitler: My name is Caryn Bitler. My address is 3055 Northwest 13th Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Yearsley: Can you pull the mic -- there you go. Bitler: I don't know why I thought I should do that. Okay. So, to keep me focused and centered, I'm just going to read my e-mail, because I can go off on tangents and I don't want to do that. Okay? So, what I wrote to you guys was: Dear Planning Commission and city staff. We are concerned with the proposed development at 1515 West Ustick Road in Meridian. We understand the land consisting of eight acres has been slated for multi-use development since 2005 with designated commercial area, road entrances and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F70] Page 17 of 64 exits, having already been discussed with Fire and Police Departments for their use. We ask that you consider multi-use development in the form of designating single family detached homes for the housing portion of the development, which will best blend with our Creason Creek and surrounding communities. We are California transplants -- from New York originally, so don't hold it against me. So, we followed our family members that moved up here and they are longtime residents of the area to Boise and Meridian. Decide -- we decided to invest our hard earned money for a very nice, comfortable home in the community of Creason Creek. We were very involved with politics in California and now we are proudly registered voters with our new community of Meridian. We are very concerned about the property along Ustick Road being transferred into multi-family dwellings that will decrease our home values, thus impacting our family wealth and retirement. We request that you consider your decision to support the housing portion of this development for construction of only single family detached homes. This provides a more unified, seamless corridor and environment consistent with our community and the surrounding communities. Even as you consider density requirements for this development, it could be achieved with a proposal of six detached single family homes per acre. There is 43 by 60 square feet in an acre. So, you figure if you have six that's a little over 7,000 square foot lots for the homes. This compromise seems reasonably doable for our community. We request -- as we discuss with our community this pending development several families have decided to sell their homes instead of fight and we believe this will change our community forever. We are losing good neighbors. The proposed units we were told were ten feet from our backyard with the front doors facing us. That's not good. The builder said they would plant numerous trees -- my only question is how many acres are they building on? I know that's like an eight and a half to ten foot acre, because when I figured out what townhomes are going for now, new ones, they are going maybe in the high three hundreds and that's an overestimate. So, if you do 43 townhomes and also the apartments, the condos that they are proposing -- so, it would be more and times -- times 400,000 that's 17.2 million. If you are going to do houses -- our house is -- I mean houses are going for like 700,000 now and so if they do like 25, 30 houses instead, they are going to make more money. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify? Certainly. Please state your name and address for the record. Stinette: Pamela Stinette and it's 3036 Northwest 13th Street. Meridian. McCarvel: Okay. You need to step close to the mic. You can push it up. Stinette: Oh, I can. Okay. I'm taller than she is. It's Pamela Stinette and my address is 3036 Northwest 13th Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. And along with their concerns, I'm not directly impacted by neighbors looking into my backyard, so I don't have that same issue personally, although I understand for all the people that live across the street from me they are having -- going to have to deal with the same thing and I think that's a horrible thing for them. But my issues are not only is this development going in, but on the other side of Linder there is another development going in and so the traffic is going to be horrible. People trying to get out of the new neighborhood that you proposed, one of the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F71 Page 18 of 64 problems is that there is going to be a lot of people --fast food and everything that's going in there, too, and also people trying to get out of that little development coming out on Pebblestone, driving 55 miles an hour to get to work. Already it takes me often where I -- where I use to be able to get out on the street right away, I have to sit there and so it slows me down, so I have to leave 15 minutes earlier every day. So, I'm just worried about the amount of traffic. Also the houses that are on Pebblestone have a lot of little children and so if people are hurrying trying to get to work, trying to compete with our traffic already, that is going to be dangerous. So, at least they should have speed bumps, if nothing else. If-- you know, overall I think there is way too much of a population going into that small segment, because it really isn't that big of a space and I think it's going to impact us terribly traffic wise, people walking to the park in larger numbers because of that many people there and so it's really going to impact us as far as getting in and out of the community. Also as Caryn mentioned, it really will also impact our home pricing. Even the construction of it, because nobody's going to be able to really sell their house for what it's worth during the construction phase with the trucks and everything and, you know, knowing it's going to be a combination of housing that--you know, it's -- it's a mixed use you have different levels of housing and I think that's really going to impact the sales anyway. But even from the time of the --you know, the --the building portion is -- because that doesn't happen very quickly either. So, I'm concerned about the value of our homes, the quality of our lives, and the amount of people driving fast in the whole area, making it more difficult for us to go use the parks or for us to drive to go to work or for us to pick up our children easily from the schools and the impact it's going to have on the schools, too, because there is going to be a lot of children that they are going to need to put into the schools that they can't seem to build the schools fast enough to accommodate everybody. So, that's basically the main points that I have. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Stinette: Thank you. McCarvel: Anyone else wish to testify? Santana: Hello. McCarvel: Hi. Santana: My name is Olena Santana and my address is 3075 Northwest 13th Street. My concerns is -- actually is the biggest question even for you. Would you -- would like to lose the privacy of your backyard and somebody -- it's like that when we bought that property we were told never going to be developed to anything from a backyard. We have right now a beautiful view and our trees are basically our privacy. So, my concern is, you know, the amount of people in that corner and you just basically never will have your little oasis. So, that's the biggest concern I have and the traffic is going to be out of control, because development is across the street, down the street, and, you know, if we have a single family development there it will be maybe more manageable, but multi- family it's really a huge concern for me. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F72 Page 19 of 64 McCarvel: Thank you. Shanaberger: Hi. I'm Shelby Shanaberger. The address 3072 Northwest 13th Street. I guess the -- going last is going to sound kind of like an echo, but, basically, our concern was the same as everybody else's is. We are just worried about the traffic. I have my little one there and we see the speeders and we see the people coming through and I see the construction and it's just concerning to us. Getting out on Ustick alone right now is horrible. So, I was just wondering if there is going to be consideration of a light going in there at all just to get out. Also if they punch through there it's just going to be -- the people that live there, people are going to be driving through there -- basically for driveways, just -- and for my neighbors across the street, just having people constantly looking in their backyard. I think that the --the proposed single family to be a better option and I just would be concerned about the traffic very much for the kids, because we already are dealing with speeders. So, if there is a way to get around that I think that that should be considered for the safety of our neighborhood, as well that we came into and proposed as someone else's oasis and someone else's neighborhood. Well, this is ours that we live in now and we don't really want people looking in on our backyards and looking in and having their wonderful views and ours is taken away from us. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. J.Bitler: Good evening. My name is John Bitler. I live at 3055 Northwest 13th Street. As a homeowner that has a backyard directly facing the proposed townhomes, we are concerned that the townhomes are going to be right on top of us with a setback of only 12 feet. That's from here -- from me to you. They are going to be right on top of our backyards. It's going to affect our privacy, view, and property value. We just landscaped our backyard and I don't want to go outside and sit outside and have somebody, you know, look into our yard. I propose for the townhomes facing all the homes on 13th Street west, maybe do a one story townhome. A lot of people don't want to have a two story townhome, they just want single family -- or single floor living. So, maybe that can be taken into consideration. With the traffic, just with our four homes on our side there is ten children living there. They are always playing in the street, riding bikes. You know, just don't want to see anyone get hit. We just urge you to consider maybe putting some single family homes in there just to go with the neighborhood. I know they have done a lot of work to add townhomes, but as a citizen -- sorry. It's just -- it's a lot. At least -- if you are proposing townhomes at least on our side of 13th Street just maybe make them single family -- or single level townhomes and that won't impact the homeowners on 13th Street as much. So, thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else in the room that would like to -- Reams: My name is Patrick Reams. 11844 Chinden Ridge Drive, Boise, Idaho. These are tough projects. I understand the position that you guys are in, especially what we just heard and I'm -- I'm for the applicant. I represent descendants of the landowners. I just want you to see a different perspective and maybe others. The descendants have had this property in their family for quite some time. They came to us about three or four years Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F73 Page 20 of 64 ago with a challenge that nothing can get done. They have just been working with developers, it's fell out of contract multiple times since the last downturn. It's been going on for about 12 years. So, it's been a rough --this gentleman over here has been working with the planner Andrew and the builder that's putting, you know, his interest on this thing and trying to get it to where -- something that would fit. It's -- I have seen multi-family lock up. I have seen all kinds of different mixed use, which has been a lot of ideas. I will have to tell you that -- that drain, that open -- you know, the Creason Lateral, all that, is a big problem. They resolved it. We are happy about that. It seems like ACHD is, you know, behind the traffic situation. I think the setbacks are -- I heard 15 feet. I think it's actually 18 to the building, but with two story and three story across the street. That's all been discussed. But if there is something that we can compromise, I think that there is some -- there is some areas that could still be worked out, but it --the biggest issue for the seller and for the -- the developer that's moving in is to make it fit and that's the challenge and I have -- I have seen a lot of guys walk from this project. I just want to see something happen and I think the Simmons deserve that and it's a long time coming. So, with that, you know, I hope you guys make the decision here. McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody else wish to testify? Leach: Hi. I'm Jordan Leach. I live at 3039 Northwest 13th. I do think it's sad that we have to feel like we have to develop all of our rural farming areas just because they are there, but some of my concerns -- the traffic studies are from 2018, which doesn't reflect the amount of traffic that we have now, because there has been a lot of development since then and the other traffic study was done during 2020, which we know people were commuting less, not -- we don't have the school traffic as much during that time. The two roads going out of the community onto Ustick Road are already used by many houses. I don't know how many rental -- residential houses there, but it's kind of a mix of like three or four different neighborhoods already using those roads. Also I think that the idea that a three bedroom apartment only needs two parking spaces and one guest spot for every ten apartments just isn't realistic with our current rental market. I think the way that rental prices are compared to wages -- a lot of people have multiple families living in one apartment, maybe three or four adults. So, I think that's something that needs to be taken into account and that's it. Thanks so much. McCarvel: Anybody else? Would the applicant like to come back? Wheeler: Well, thank you for all -- everyone speaking. It's good to hear everyone's perspective and, you know, it is a challenging situation and so -- and we are very mindful, hence, why we have gone through five pre-apps to find a solution that fits -- that fits this site. To kind of piggyback off of what Pat was saying, you know, we did look at three story walk up and multiple different iterations, locations. The City of Meridian was opposed to that for -- out -- out of the gate and wanted to see a lower dense product, which is what we provide and also mentioned the density at 7.15, 1 believe between a range of six and eight, so we are -- we are not pushing the density of the site. A lot of that, obviously, has to do with the Kellogg Drain, the floodway, and those kind of requirements. Now, to mention a couple things that were talked about and kind of dive Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F74 Page 21 of 64 into those. There was a lot of talk of existing single family and this only being single family one level, there is existing two story that we saw in those images that are in that Creason Creek Subdivision and plus single story plus a bonus room. So, it's --we are not building up against a bunch of existing single family one story homes, there is two story homes already there. In the request for a single family detached, our community -- our community needs housing. In the last -- first that we heard providing detached single family everywhere -- I mean this is where development should go. It's where the services are. I mean if we put detached single family and spread it all over that's a burden on the city, it's a burden on police, it's a burden on fire. I mean development needs to go somewhere and on the hard corner that's already zoned community commercial all around it, to me as an urban planner and an urban plan designer, it makes sense that this is where that goes. On -- as far as losing good neighbors, well, there is also a lot more great neighbors that could come in. So, I would like to just make that point. In regards to the 17 million in profit and, you know, some of the numbers that were spoken about, I mean we -- there -- that doesn't even take into consideration any cost of the land, any cost of the construction. That's not -- this isn't a money grab. I mean, yes, people are in this industry to make a living and we are not hiding that, but it's not to just pack as many units and I hope that the Commission can see that by the efforts and the year and a half we have taken to plan a quality project. It was also mentioned out of state. I, myself, am a local here in Boise and, you know, my personal mission is to design quality spaces, to make sure that land like this gets developed in a proper way and talking on the traffic increase -- and I can pull up my slide if I need to, but I showed that slide that had the interconnected local streets. There are two access points onto Ustick and there is one access on McClaire Avenue onto Linder, so it's not that every car in this development is going to be coming out onto the nearest Northwest 12th onto Ustick. There is multiple ways to get around that. Not to mention the private drive by the multi-family directly right- in, right-out onto Ustick, as well as the access point that we are providing onto Linder. School capacity. I would like to note that in the school's staff report they approved this project. They said that they -- while it is tight there is capacity at some of the middle schools and elementary schools. I believe the middle school was at capacity, but they are -- they approved that knowing that they can meet the demand of-- I believe it was 32 students is what that staff report said. Privacy on the eastern backyards. That's certainly a big issue and one that most people here are concerned about. We do provide currently a 40 foot minimum height shade -- shade with Honeylocust. That was something that's in the landscape plan now. Originally in the current design we had that pathway with a ten foot wide utility easement that has an irrigation line to provide adequate maintenance for the --for that landscaping for that purpose. We are open to doing an HOA requirement or something to have minimum amount of landscaping or a type of landscaping to provide additional trees and buffers on that eastern side, which I think could be a good solution to -- to make sure that people are protected and they are screening there, because I -- and I also agree with that. I also note, too, in the design there is -- it's got patios on each side and, then, there is a gable roof in the middle. So, the corners of those buildings are at a two story deck. There is not a roof or windows, you know, over there, so the overall mass is reduced and that was one of the reasons why it's designed that way. Setbacks that were mentioned. They were 12 feet. That would be the actual setback to an invisible line that doesn't mean anything, other than to the plat and planners, but the actual building Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F75 Page 22 of 64 is 18 feet setback. So, that is much greater than 12 feet and, again, just to reiterate the developing rural areas. I mean development is coming and we need to provide housing and I think we all know that and can appreciate that and we are trying to put that in a quality area that's going to put the least amount of burden on the city and provide the most interactive community that we can that supports the City of Meridian planning goals and provides a quality design. That's all I got. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh, sir. Come back. Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. Just -- so, multi-family there is -- you have garages at the lower level; is that correct? Wheeler: Correct. Seal: That -- we seem to be having issues with that and especially as it pertains to parking, so we ask this question to everybody that has multi-family with garages is how are you going to ensure that people are parking their cars in there and not using it for storage and parking elsewhere? Wheeler: Yeah. And that has certainly come up on other projects I have worked on. One, having windows in the garages for one, so there can be a maintenance officer on the site that can inspect those garages and make sure that there aren't -- you know, looking in there to make sure there aren't just, you know, boxes, that people are actually parking there that is part of the HOA. You know, not an invasion of privacy, but, you know, a maintenance to have the site function as its intended to function. Seal: Okay. Next question is the -- the ten foot path that you have running up by the lateral there, would --would you be amenable to extending that up to the corner of Linder and Ustick to kind of match up what's on the -- kind of kitty corner from that? There is a really nice bike path that runs through there and, then, that can be crossed and provide really good access to the park without having to hit a roadway, other than going across the sidewalks. Wheeler: Yeah. Can we pull up that presentation again, Joe? We need to look at a visual here to better understand. Okay. So, we are looking at the ten foot path and you are -- you are asking if we could extend it on the west side of that private drive parallel with Linder? Seal: Correct. It would just basically follow Linder up to the corner, because, again, on a -- I mean on the opposite corner Linder and Ustick there is a pathway that starts there, a ten foot pathway that carries you through and it's really a nice amenity and to have it extend over here would, basically, allow people to drop right down into the park and stay Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F76 Page 23 of 64 off the roads. Wheeler: Separate from the sidewalks existing -- Seal: Correct. Wheeler: Yeah. I don't see an issue with that. I mean currently that's the Kellogg Drain easement as it is. That would impact a little bit the landscape buffer there, but a good tradeoff I would say. Seal: On the -- sorry. I got a lot of questions. Wheeler: That's why I walked away so soon. Seal: That's okay. The -- the dog park I noticed that's on the common drive right in front of one of the properties that's on that common drive. You might want to consider moving that somewhere. Even with clean -- clean-up facilities and things like that it still smells like a dog park, so I think the -- the resident that's going to be in that place off the common drive right by the dog park is -- unless they are really really dog people are probably not going to be very happy with having that right in front of them and I'm not against dog parks, I love dogs, but just might want to consider putting that somewhere where it's not as close to a residence, especially one that's kind of boxed in right there on that common drive. Wheeler: Yeah. And we are working with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on, you know, their approvals and they are on board with this plan. They had a couple comments about moving landscaping that was in some of their easements, so possibly we could put that into that -- those easements and make that a part -- because we need to fence off that Creason Lateral with a wrought iron fence anyways and so if we could incorporate that somehow and I think that could be a good solution to move it to the southwest. Seal: Okay. Last question is just on the four story, especially where it's right up against that house. I mean for good or bad just it -- that part just doesn't mesh very well where you have the -- the four story up there against it in my mind anyway. I mean have you looked into -- I think Commissioner Cassinelli asked early on if there is -- like a three story option or an option to basically drop that down over there, because it's -- to me four stories seems too high in general, especially when we are right up against that house over there. I mean if this were positioned somewhere else, you know, even over off of Linder or something like that, I think it would be less of an issue, but that's a -- that's a pretty hard transition right there. I mean as a for instance, if you flip that sideways, run it north to south, basically, we would be saying that's not a good transition, but the fact that there is only one house there is probably why staff, I would imagine, is even willing to work with it. Wheeler: Yeah. It -- actually that neighbor came out to the neighborhood meeting and he wasn't as opposed as I assumed he would be. He wanted larger trees and there is an Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F77 Page 24 of 64 existing willow that he wanted to maintain. I talked with our landscape architect on that is -- is that the right, you know, type of tree for screening and longevity, but -- so, he -- he just wants to be screened, you know, from it and to me this solves his problem and where -- with the three foot grade differential and we are at 22 feet, so we are really at 19 feet when -- you know, his roof is higher than that. Also mentioned that windows could be removed on that taller four story unit, those two windows, to provide no windows on that side if that would be a -- help to -- from a visual privacy perspective. We can certainly explore other options. I do believe that an urban core wants more density and wants to feel more urban, which is, again, kind of why we went with this design aesthetic and going with the four stories, but we are open to exploring options. Seal: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Joe. Dodson: I just did -- I want to note about the -- Commissioner Seal, your question about the pathway. There is existing sidewalk, which is shown on the master pathways plan as a -- what do they call it -- an alternative -- like -- it's in purple. I can't remember what the pathways coordinator calls it, but it's -- it's -- it's an on-street, you know, pathway technically. I don't know how ACHD and the pathways coordinator would feel about extending the ten foot in addition to it? I don't know how they would feel about that. So, if you make a motion to do that, to have that revision, just, please, give us some flexibility to work with ACHD and our pathways coordinator to work that out. Seal: Appreciate that. And it's more of a suggestion and in -- I don't think it's anything that I would put in a motion, it's just something that I know of the area, I live in that area, I ride that bike path all the time. I go to the park there. So, to me that's just a -- you know, would be a good transition if that was something that could happen and there is kind of a template for it right on the other side of the road, because they provide the sidewalk and the ten foot path already. Dodson: Understood. Seal: More of a suggestion. Wheeler: Yeah. I would agree. Dodson: Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions? Grove: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F78 Page 25 of 64 McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: With the commercial that's in the northwest corner, what is the primary purpose of that in terms of what type of commercial are you going to be targeting for that space? Wheeler: For a while, you know, in the pre-app meeting, one through three, it was a gas station is what we were looking at putting in there, but that idea has been revoked for floodplain issues and also something that is a little more community based. So, possibly could be providing two drive-through lanes. I mean it could be a pharmacy, it could be a bank, it could be, you know, ICC credit union. I'm not going to name -- we are not -- yeah. It could be anything of that nature, I guess, that -- that has the drive-through requirement and then -- which is why the 9,000 square foot building has that and, then, the 3,000 square foot, you know, we vision more of a Jimmy John's, a sandwich shop, I mean it could be any kind of -- something that's -- an ice cream parlor or -- or that could also be to 1,500 square foot units that's, you know, tenant improvements and adjacent to that plaza. Grove: Okay. Thanks. I was just curious if it was going to end up leaning more like office or retail and that answered my question, so thank you. McCarvel: Okay. And I have a question while this picture is up here. This is the -- the sidewalk there that's going between -- right by the fence and that row of trees there, that's the sidewalk that you are thinking about losing -- no? Wheeler: Oh, yeah. Yeah. To the left. Yeah. Yes. McCarvel: Yeah. That -- right along there. So, that sidewalk will no longer be there and, then, those townhomes are going to be loaded the other way; right? Wheeler: Right. So, the design of those will change to provide more of an entry point. You know, as they are now there is not really a front door that kind of shows front door. I mean you are still going to have a garage and, then, a front door around -- around the garage. McCarvel: Right. Wheeler: But there will be some design changes. That was done in order to provide a little bit -- that same community feel and having people -- a feeling of walking up to your front door -- McCarvel: Right. Wheeler: -- and connected throughout -- that path connected to the dog park and throughout the whole site, but I -- McCarvel: It would be more backdoor kind of atmosphere now. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F79 Page 26 of 64 Wheeler: It would be private backyard. McCarvel: Right. Wheeler: Yeah. McCarvel: Backyards meeting up to backyards for the single family homes. Wheeler: Correct. McCarvel: Okay. Wheeler: With the building staying in the same location, so that it provides that -- McCarvel: Okay. Wheeler: If I could go to that section real quick just to verify the distances there. Yeah. So, if the -- you know, we are at 17 foot ten to the front wall and, then, the patio is inset over 20 foot to that deck. So, you are 20 foot ten inches -- almost 21 feet if you are standing on that level two deck from the property line. McCarvel: Okay. And I think -- one other question -- I think staff had recommended on that multi-family unit doing two units, instead of the one, as a -- as a transition, losing that second -- the third and fourth story on more than just the one unit; correct? Wheeler: Yeah. That was a great recommendation as we were -- originally it was, you know -- yeah, we lost the one unit. They are recommending two. In conversation with Joe, their recommendation was to lose the other four story units. So, you would have two two stories. I would almost advocate for losing the ground floor unit here and putting in some type of additional community amenity or a public open space plaza type areas, some benches, that type of thing. I think from -- rather than having two flats -- and I think just aesthetically the backs of the building would -- would be better and provide a -- a community asset, rather than looking over TPO roof or, you know, that kind of thing when you are in that other unit that pops up to the fourth floor. Oh. Sorry. Yeah. So, rather than looking at TPO roofing, if you are in that unit that pops up to the fourth floor and, you know, you have 50 feet of roofing that you are -- it's not that aesthetically pleasing. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Commissioner Seal -- or, sorry, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Either Andrew or -- or Joe, if you can take a crack at this one. On the -- the commercial -- if we can -- I don't know if we can get a slide up of the --just that commercial. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F80 Page 27 of 64 Wheeler: The site plan? Cassinelli: The -- so, right now the -- the entry off of Linder is open right now, but in the future that will be right-in, right-out; is that correct? Dodson: Per ACHD it is a temporary full access, so I think -- because of the use on the west side I don't think there is a timeline for ACHD to restrict it, but, yes, eventually, it probably will be limited to right-in, right-out. Cassinelli: So, I'm -- my question, concern is -- is having that -- you know, from -- with regards to the commercial up there, in looking at the traffic flow that's going to -- that's going to force -- I guess that's going to force things through that other private drive into that commercial. It's going to -- it's going to impact that commercial -- not positively down the road when that is -- you know, looking at that, did you look at the potential impacts to that commercial when that -- and that may not happen for ten years, 15 years, who knows when ACHD does that, but at some point in time they will do that and what is that going to do to the commercial, is that going to wind up being -- nobody's going to want that and it's going to be vacant forever, because you just can't access it? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, that's a great question and, unfortunately, that is driven vastly more by ACHD and part of why we and ACHD especially said no to a gas station and convenience store was access -- is the -- the requirement to have access points closer to that busy intersection and it's already fully improved to its width was just a no go. It just is not going to happen. The existing curb cut on Linder is 360 feet from that intersection already, so they are meeting all the requirements that they can meet. I don't think ACHD will allow anything closer, to be honest. Maybe the one on Linder a little closer, but I believe there is a right-hand turn lane pretty soon you can see kind of on here. You have the edge of pavement. I think that's because there is a right-hand turn lane here. I -- I would hope it wouldn't limit the viability. I think that that's why they have proposed the uses -- or the building types that they have. You know, if you put a bank on the corner it would be nice to hold the corner and generally you don't need a ton of in and out traffic for that, you know, you use it when you need it and, then, they propose the smaller commercial building to have more of a presence for the existing residences. So, hopefully, it will pick up trips from internal to this community, as well as Creason Creek and those others to the east, which I didn't discuss that as much in my staff report, but that is something I do really appreciate, because it really meets a lot of the mixed use points. I know it's a long winded answer there, but I -- I'm not too concerned with it, because you have that access off of Ustick and you have the access off of Linder both with pretty straight access into those commercial areas and I just don't see ACHD allowing anything else. If we remove the commercial altogether, which I do not recommend, I think you are going to get more residential, which, technically, has usually more trips than commercial and for most uses and, then, it's going to be harder for them to meet their mixed use policies, because you only have office across the street and ambulance to the west and the northwest corner is residential, so -- Cassinelli: Again, my concern is -- is -- when I'm looking at this layout is the access to that commercial coming in off of -- coming in off of Ustick. You have either got to go Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F811 Page 28 of 64 through -- you are accessing it through a private drive or through the -- basically, the -- the driveway parking lot of -- as it stands now those apartments there. Dodson: Right. I see what you are saying. Cassinelli: And I -- I get the issues, I just don't know how you could replace one of the apartment units with more commercial and, then, you have less of the residential commercial flow, you know, discrepancy there. I understand that. I don't -- from a planning perspective that would be very difficult to mitigate, but I do understand the concern. I don't know if Andrew has any potential answers. You could do vertically integrated on that building. But, again, you are going to have a mix of residential and commercial traffic through there. I do know that ACHD is not allowing that curb cut on Ustick to be moved. That -- that was -- that was a hard line that they draw. Cassinelli: On Ustick? Dodson: Correct. Wheeler: Yeah. I don't have anything additional to add. I think you covered it pretty well. McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Wheeler: Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Move we close the public hearing on H-2021-0071. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0071. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Further thoughts? Discussion? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Grove: I will jump in if you want. I think this is always going to be -- it's always difficult when you do in-fill. I remember not too long ago we were doing the other side of Ustick and Linder and the challenges that we ran into with -- with that parcel, just -- this is an Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F82 Page 29 of 64 area that has been ready to be developed for a long time and there is going to be challenges when you have in-fill. You have limitations on access. You have limitations on just how you can orient different things. I like the different housing types that they have included. It matches what we were looking for in the Comprehensive Plan for the mixed use aspect and being able to integrate multiple housing types along with the commercial. I think this is a good fit in terms of helping the overall area have different options. We don't want a sea of the exact same house throughout a single area and that's one of the big reasons for a mixed use designation. I think that they have done a good job of, you know, adding in the amenities and I think the -- the challenges that, you know, were discussed in terms of multi-family, I think I would be open to the suggestions that I'm sure a few of you are going to bring up, but I'm pretty okay with whatever direction the rest of the Commission thinks on going with that. I think changing the back yard from a sidewalk and an alley load product to a front load product will improve that -- the -- those eastern boundary units overall. Maybe not a perfect application to meet all of, you know, the neighbors' concerns, but overall I'm -- I'm in favor with how this has been laid out and presented. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I feel like we are trying to shoehorn something in here to meet a designation that we have set back in 2005. 1 personally am not sure if I'm in agreement with the plan using the -- the -- oh, what am I looking for -- the mixed use code in this area. I think the -- the commercial -- I think you are going to struggle to have anybody want to go in on that corner. As Commissioner Cassinelli said, you have no access and the access that's there is horrible. So, I think that corner is going to be a dead corner, because no one is going to want to build there. The other concern that I have is I don't like the transition from the single family to -- to this. It just seemed like it's just like, you know, a single family to a larger development. I would prefer to see on the eastern boundary single family development and, then, go to attached unit. I would almost just nuke the -- my recommendation would be to nuke the commercial, move the apartments to the corner and put some attached townhomes on that one corner next to the house. I think that gives it a better transition to the single family. I understand your -- your -- your concern and your loss of your views. That's a sad thing to lose. However, you know, it's -- it's -- it's unfortunate that -- you know, I do believe in property rights and that this developer this farmer at the time has the opportunity to develop this property and so seeing that go away is sad, but yet it's -- it's understandable, but I think there is things that we can do to help mitigate the property owners next door to it and actually make it a better development. So, those are my comments. McCarvel: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F83 Page 30 of 64 Seal: Yeah. The property owners to the east there, you know, I understand you -- you want to be able to look out your-- you know, your backyard and see something other than a house. I have lost that view myself. So, it's the reason I'm in the house that we are in, because I don't have to worry about losing that view. That said I mean property rights are property rights. This is well within what's going to be developed and, unfortunately, this is the way things line up. So, the transition -- especially with moving things -- I mean they have conceded to make these front load. So, now you are going to be backyard to backyard, which is, you know, 90 percent of the developments that we have out there. So, hopefully, you will get good neighbors. So, yeah, the other part of it is -- I mean overall things seem tall in here. Even the three story stuff on the Linder side, itjust seems like it's -- it's pretty tall for this area. It hasn't developed widely yet. It's definitely coming. This will help fill that in. I look at this kind of as -- it's a hard corner and an in-fill because of everything that's going on with the waterways that are in there. You know, I would hate to give up the commercial just because I hate to give up commercial anywhere. I think it's going to be difficult to get a business in there. I don't think it's going to be impossible and I think when the right business comes in it will -- it will be okay. I mean I would love to see a little -- something go in like the -- like what they have up in Eagle Crossing up there where they have multiple businesses that share one space. Boise Fry Company, Waffle Love is the first one that comes to my mind. You walk into one space and you can get either one of them. Something like that that's -- you know, kind of depends more on -- on foot traffic and -- and local folks coming than it does on anything else would be probably a pretty good fit in there. It would be nice to see something like that down a little closer to the park system that we have there. The -- I like the amenities, the walkways and the way that all that stuff fits in. Again, even without a ten foot pathway that goes up to the corner it's going to be a really good way to get to the park system without having to stay completely on the road, especially on the bridge on Linder Road there. But this, basically, intersects in there. That's a really dangerous place to cross, unless you are on the other side of the road. When it gets to the multi-family part of this I think four stories is probably too tall in my mind and it seems to blend well with the exception of, you know, that one house that's on the corner there, right on the eastern side of the property next to it. I kind of agree with the applicant, if they do something with it it would almost be nicer to see them remove that whole -- instead of going over another unit, just completely eliminate that and make it into a -- you know, some kind of residential use or even more parking, to be honest. Just provide a little bit more privacy for the -- for the homeowner there. I mean the fact that that homeowner isn't here to testify and has had conversations with the applicant is good. So, that's kind of where I'm at on stuff. I mean there is a whole bunch of things going on with access and everything, but, again, I look at it -- this is kind of in-fill and it's a hard corner, which are tough anyway. So, I'm -- you know, I just hate to give up that commercial to do something else with it. Without doing that you really can't move the multi-family. So, I'm a little bit stuck on that. But as far as the project, I think it's viable and something that we can take forward. Cassinelli: Is it my turn? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F84 Page 31 of 64 Cassinelli: I have got -- I have got several challenges, issues with it, and I know it's tough -- you know, I mean if they -- if the developer had 40 acres to work with on this corner, you know, we -- I don't know how many iterations we -- we went through on that property to the -- to the north. Four or five at least. And, unfortunately, I wasn't here when we finally approved that, but -- so, it's tough. And this one is even -- even harder with the laterals there and so what's happening that I'm seeing, because of that is everything is getting pushed to the -- it's like shoved up into the -- to the northeast and because I don't know how many acres are down at that -- down the southwest corner -- a couple almost. At least one and a half. So, it really limits what can be done on this -- on this property. I like the idea of having commercial, but I think it's -- it's tough to do on this. I would -- I -- I would maybe like to see it moved around a little bit. The four story unit I'm -- I can't get behind those at all. We went through mid -- mid mile down across from the Chevron station down on Ustick, what's going in there now. We had discussed -- I think the -- I can't remember exactly if we eliminated all --the four stories in there and went all to three, but that was a big issue down there and there was more space to work with. Sightlines weren't as bad and just the fact that there is only a small handful of units there -- these will be the only four story units all along Ustick there. You are going to have a few three story apartment buildings down there across from the Chevron and, then, you have got some two stories and you get single family, one and two story all along Ustick and, then, all of a sudden you have got -- you got ten four story units and, then, back down to single story commercial. It's just -- it's out of place. That's why I asked about three story. You have got -- there is -- there is more distance, more setback off of Ustick because of the -- of the -- the -- the laterals over there. I would like to see maybe the -- more of that higher density moved over to there to where it's set back a little bit and it's -- it's not up against the -- the single family directly to the east and, then, my other comment there -- what seems really really out of place are those three three story units up against the the two story ones. So, I'm -- that are down in the -- at the bottom on the south end of that. So, to me it just seems like -- when I look at this -- there is a lot of aspects I like about it and don't get me wrong, I like the MEWs, I like -- you know, they have -- they have answered the requirement of having three different product types in the mixed use community and I think for the most part they have done a good job. The restrictions on this property-- I drive by there all the time and I have always wondered what is somebody going to be able to do with this, because it's -- it's -- it's a difficult -- it's really limited what can be done with it. So, you know, I -- I applaud them for the attempt, but it's just -- it's pushing everything up and -- and there is not that -- there is not a good transition and I would like to see -- not necessarily just because of having lower density, but I think it needs to be brought down a little bit, so it -- it fits a little bit better. You can still have the different property types in there, but it -- it would be a better transition to -- to what's to the east. Those are my comments. I just -- right now I'm -- I'm not -- I am not in favor of it. The four story ones that's -- that's a killer for me. I think we have got to -- we have got to eliminate those and I don't know if -- maybe it's -- that becomes the commercial on Ustick, move some of that over. Commissioner Yearsley suggested moving -- moving some of those apartments over to the corner. If it can move around I think they can keep a lot of what's in there and just move it around somehow. It may -- it may require moving some, but right now with where it's at I can't get behind the project as it sits. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F85 Page 32 of 64 McCarvel: Okay. Yeah. I appreciated the -- the sidewalk not being on that east side and being at least -- front load those instead -- instead of rear, so it was more backyard to backyard. But I hadn't thought about Commissioner Yearsley's point of just making those single family homes. But I would be willing to -- I think leave those as townhomes, but more address -- I agree that four story up there is a lot. Even though I -- I love the design and the thought of having those units on the top have more light and that -- that's attractive, just four story next to the residential is a problem and that commercial -- I know it's rough access, but there is -- I'm on the fence on that. I kind of agree with Commissioner Seal, I think there is something that will come in there that doesn't have to have tons of trips and that would be okay. I know -- I mean there is a lot of businesses that I go to that, yes, I can't take a left out of, but I go anyway and I figured out -- I mean it just takes a little longer getting around. But I think it would end up being something useful to the neighborhood. On the other hand, moving the condos over would maybe makes sense as well. I think the biggest point of contention for me is the four stories. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I understand the comments about access for the commercial, but I -- I don't think we can -- I wouldn't be in favor of losing that at all. I think people will figure out access just fine. I live next to a place -- my house is, you know, two doors down from a commercial spot that has right-in, right-out access and there is no problems there. It's constantly busy. And I think, you know, there is other types of options that they are going to probably be able to look at, you know. Daycares, for example. Huge on my mind these days, but, you know, those are things that don't take up as much constant traffic and you also help serve a community that's nearby. So I think there is lots of options that the -- the apartments maybe -- maybe we look at it, you know, suggesting that one of those becomes commercial. Maybe that helps with that cross-access piece across the top there. I don't know. I'm just kind of throwing that out there. But I would -- I would hate to lose any commercial. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I think they are close on this and I appreciate the work that's went into it and I think they have answered some of the concerns, you know, by -- by making these front load homes over on the east property, but I agree that -- I mean the -- the commercial and the multi-family almost need to swap and I would hate to lose a hard corner, you know. Advertising is easy that way, you don't have to put a lot of signs out when everybody drives right by you. That said it almost seems like that would be a better fit for the residents there. You are still on Ustick Road. You are going to get a lot of road traffic in there. But I mean I'm -- I'm kind of-- of the opinion of let's maybe continue this and have them work a little bit more with city staff, try to come up with a little bit better plan and even in swapping the commercial and residential you could actually bring the --that multi- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F86 Page 33 of 64 family in in such a way that -- on that corner-- I mean nobody's necessarily going to care on the corner if there -- you see a -- I would say a three story building there, because I think the four stories is still too tall. But, then, if you put the commercial in on the other side with the road that comes in there you could actually bring that commercial back into the property and have it -- you know, more parking towards the Ustick Road or something along those lines, so people could get in there and you could actually expand it if you wanted to. You could actually have more commercial in that area instead of less. I don't know. It's close, it's just not there yet, and I would rather give them a continuance than recommended a denial, because I think they are close, but I would love to hear what anybody else thinks about that. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: My -- my initial thought was the same thing is to swap the resident -- the apartments and the commercial. I think it provides better access for the commercial and can get -- I don't -- I don't ever expect to have a high use, but I think it gives it better access to that -- that site and at that point I don't know if I have an issue with the four story on the corner, you know, because it's far enough away from the rest of the -- the single family, it actually ties well into the three story next to it to kind of show some drops. I still like the idea of the detached along that east side, though, but I will -- I will concede that one. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: On the east side what I would even support -- maybe not necessarily detached, but a -- a -- more of a patio home feel if -- and even single story patio homes, because, then, you might get some retired folks in there that--that don't want--you know, don't want any two stories. You can get -- really get that good mix. I do -- I'm in big supportive of moving that commercial up along Ustick. I would still be highly opposed to four story if they are going to redraw that out, especially right on the corner. One of the things that -- that -- if you go to the intersection of Linder and McMillan, the buildings up there to me -- they are there two story -- I think they are just two story commercial, but right there on -- right there on the street they just -- it's overwhelming. When everything else around there is set back -- you got single story across the street with Fancy Freeze, you have got -- you have got Walgreens -- everything is single story and, then, all of a sudden you get these huge buildings that sort of just kind of take over things. So, it's not -- it's not a good feeling to me from the -- from the street and everything around it. So, I'm still -- I would still be really leery even if you put the apartments in a corner of going that -- it's the same height, we are talking 40 feet, but it's a -- you know, it's a -- it's a peaked roof versus windows are up top. I like the design of those, I just -- I think they would be cool in a lot of different places, especially The Lofts. That's --that's my thought. I would still want to go -- I would still want to see max three story, but, again, I would want Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F87 Page 34 of 64 to see some more rearranging in this to better transition on the east side and -- and better movements -- I don't want to lose the commercial either, but -- but better -- better access through there. I like Commissioner Grove's idea, I mean I think a -- I think this area is -- is definitely in need of -- of daycare and whatnot, so that would -- that would certainly work in there, but those are some of my thoughts. And I would -- I would be in full supportive continuing this as well. McCarvel: Okay. It sounds like we are headed to the direction of continuance. Does anyone want to take a stab at the motion with the proper guidance? Cassinelli: Dates? McCarvel: Come back with some -- and a date. Dodson: Dates. Date. Dates. Well, I'm busy all the time, so I don't know if I care. January 6th I think is pretty full already. Might be able to squeeze it on the 6th. If not, then, January 20th. That's pretty far out. We have a 5th Thursday this month, so, you know, it bumps everything another week. McCarvel: Yeah. And I get we have been working on -- you guys have been working on it for a long time, I just think -- I mean and -- I think we all feel like it's close, it's just like -- Dodson: Yeah. But I'm sure the applicant prefers a continuance versus denial. McCarvel: Yeah. Dodson: It's -- I think any -- either of the dates in January probably work. Just with any continuance motion just, please, try to be as clear as you can on what you are wanting to be revised or looked at, so that Andrew and I can -- can exchange a-mails or have a meeting or something and figure it out. McCarvel: Okay. Starman: Madam Chair, if you are going in that direction -- McCarvel: Yeah. Reopen. Starman: Reopen. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F88] Page 35 of 64 Yearsley: I think January 20th is probably a more adequate date. You know, with Christmas in the middle of all that I think giving them a little bit more time to -- to take a look at that and -- because that's -- that's a fairly significant configuration change, so -- McCarvel: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Could I get a motion to reopen the public hearing first before we -- Grove: Before we do that I have a question,just kind of-- in terms of what we are wanting to have them look at. I guess do we want to just specify the areas and --where -- because I'm not on the same page as everyone, I guess, in terms of what to do on the -- the east lot, so I -- I don't know if I would be behind say like have to be this product type. So, I would be more in favor letting them make some of those -- having a little bit of leeway in how they decide -- decide some of that stuff. McCarvel: I -- I agree, because I -- I think that's the lesser point for some of us is that -- so, some flexibility on just taking a look at those east sides -- I think it -- the fact that they are going to be front loaded, instead of rear, and that sidewalk is going away is a big step in the right direction. So, that may be it, but, yeah, definitely to -- at least that's what I'm kind of hearing here consensus wise, so -- so, before we reopen the public hearing does -- anymore discussion on -- did somebody have the points down for the motion for the continuance? Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I make a motion we open the public hearing on file number H-2021-0071. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing on H-2021- 0071. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: Commissioner Seal, I will let you make that motion, because you may not like the one I make, so -- Seal: I always love motions that other people make. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move to continue File No. H-2021-0071 to the hearing date of January -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F89 Page 36 of 64 McCarvel: 20th. Seal: -- 20th, 2022. That seems strange to say. For the following reasons. So, that the applicant and staff can work towards a better solution to the transitions between the multi- family and neighborhood to the east, including rearrangement of the commercial property and the multi-family property. That they also solidify the east side -- the east side properties to be front loaded to meet the setbacks and eliminate the walking path behind. That the plat is revised accordingly and that any work that they do together on those to revise the housing types is also included. Yearsley: Do you want to limit it to three stories or are you okay with four? Grove: They understand our concerns. Seal: And to provide a different -- I can't say minimum height. I would say to provide something different than four stories for the multi-family. Grove: Does that -- does that include if they -- no matter where they moved it? Seal: Yes. Including where they are at. Yearsley: I will second that one. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2021-00 -- oops. Seven one. I moved my page too quick. Sorry. With modifications. All those in favor -- so, January -- continue it to January 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: And I'm guessing before we start the next one we will take a five minute break. (Recess: 8:05 p.m. to 8:13 p.m.) 4. Public Hearing for Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive-Through (H-2021- 0073) by Gold Stream Holdings, LLC, Located at 3330 E. Victory Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential use and zoning district on 0.83 of an acre of land in the C-C zoning district. McCarvel: Okay. We are ready to resume and we will open Item No. H-2021-0073, Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive-Through. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of .83 of an acre of land. It's zoned C-C, located at 3330 East Victory Road. A development agreement exists for this property. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F90 Page 37 of 64 community. Yearsley: Can you share your screen? Allen: Oh, I'm so sorry. It apparently isn't shared. Yes -- 4A-2300 -- it's going to be one of those weeks, Commissioners. I will be really glad for this weekend. So, let me back up. So, a conditional use permit is proposed for a drive-through for 2,365 square foot Starbucks Coffee Shop within 300 feet of a residential use and zoning district, which requires approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed development plan is in substantial conformance with the provisions in the existing development agreement. The proposed use and development plan is consistent with the specific use standards in the UDC for drive-through establishments and restaurant uses with the conditions in the staff report. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Nine spaces are required, 19 are provided, including six compact spaces. Street buffer landscaping along Eagle and Victory Roads will be installed with the subdivision improvements. ACHD is requiring the construction of a northbound right turn lane on Eagle Road. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structure as shown. No written testimony has been received on this application. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Would applicant like to come forward? Peterson: Thank you, Sonya. Good evening, Commission. I'm Jim Peterson. Address is 6609 Old Mill Circle, Salt Lake City, Utah, and I don't have a lot to add. That -- what we are planning is a coffee shop on that corner. Once again, kind of like your last one, it is a tough site to fit in there with -- with a canal and other things. It seems like it's going to be a really good use there. We also developed the senior living community, retirement community, just to the east of that that we are just under construction right now. So, for this mixed use we feel like that's a really good fit. The senior community, they will have a coffee shop right -- right there. It will be really good. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, one moment. I wasn't prepared either. Sonya's contagious or something. That was not to throw her under the bus, it was bad joke. McCarvel: It was in solidarity; right? Weatherly: Madam Chair, no, there are no -- no people signed in to testify. McCarvel: That being said, is there anybody in the room or online who wishes to testify on this application? All right. I'm assuming the applicant has no further comment. So, can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0073? Cassinelli: So moved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F91 Page 38 of 64 Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close public hearing on H-2021-073. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I like it. That's all I have to say. McCarvel: You want to move forward with a motion? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I need to get this on the record. So, I live on that corner and I -- it's been only a matter of time before a coffee shop was coming in there. I kept thinking they would put it on the other side of the Rite Aid, but this is actually a pretty good location. So, I think it makes sense. It gets a pretty busy area and it's on the right side of the street, so -- I think it works. McCarvel: You care to give your preferred order? Yearsley: Sure. Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2021-0073 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 22nd, 2021, with no modifications. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2021-0073. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Woodcrest Townhomes (H-2021-0082) by Andrew Newell of Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, Located at 1789 N. Hickory Way A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 19 building lots and 4 common lots (including 1 lot for a private street) on 1.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F92 Page 39 of 64 McCarvel: See if we can get through the next two just as quick. Moving on to -- I would like to open H-2021-0082, Woodcrest Townhomes, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a preliminary plat. The Commission heard the associated comp plan map amendment and rezone requests on this property back in June and July and recommended approval of these applications to City Council. At the Council hearing Council directed the applicant to submit a preliminary plat application to be heard concurrently with the map amendment and rezone request. So, the preliminary plat is before you tonight. The site consists of 1.97 acres of land. It's zoned L-O, Limited Office, and it's located at 1789 North Hickory Way. The property was annexed in 1992 as part of the Angel Park Subdivision. There is no development agreement on the property. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is currently commercial. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 19 building lots and four common lots, including one lot for a private street on 1.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 3,789 to 2,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 2,701 square feet. The proposed gross density is 9.64 units per acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. Access is proposed via a private street from North Hickory Way, a collector street. Street buffer landscaping and a sidewalk exist along Hickory Way. Because this site is below five acres in size, minimum open space and site amenity standards do not apply. No written testimony has been received on this application. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Would the applicant like to come forward? Womer: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Blaine Womer of Womer Engineering. We are located at 4355 West Emerald in Boise. We are representing the owner -- or the developer on the project and we appreciate the fact that we are here again after you approved our change of zone and the comp plan change and we are bringing this preliminary plat to you, which is substantially the same as the Comprehensive Plan that we showed you when we were processing the previous applications. Sonya did a good job of explaining where we are and the chronology and how we got here. I would like to make three quick points that -- of things pertaining to the -- the map during the preparation of the preliminary plat and that was we did take the neighbors and the City Council's concerns into account with respect to the four unit massing versus three unit massing on the northwest corner -- or northwest portion of the site where we are adjacent to the existing residential. We did change that to a three unit massing for that. Also we provided in this application a conceptual landscape plan that addresses some of the boundary conditions there to soften the boundary, if you will, between the neighbors and our proposed development and, finally, we -- parking was an issue during the City Council meeting and we had a parking study done and we provided an additional 20 spaces, which is -- far exceeds which -- the minimum parking that is required for the development. So, those are the three things we did to try to enhance the development to address the neighborhood concerns and City Council concerns at the meeting. So, we are here tonight -- well, I might add, too, we also are in total agreement Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F93 Page 40 of 64 with the staff report and conditions of approval. So, just here tonight to answer any questions you might have. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff or the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Can you just repeat the change that you made to -- on that -- I guess it's the northwest corner that abuts the residential? Womer: Well, yes, it's actually along the northwest property line, because we have some -- that -- those are our closest neighbors -- residential neighbors and the concern we heard, both from Council, again, and the neighbors was that we had a four unit attached -- it has a massed four unit townhome and instead of four we reduced it to three. So, we reduced the mass that -- that they would see there. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Womer: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed in that wishes to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have one signed in, a Dave McDonald. McDonald: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Dave McDonald. 2579 East Grapewood. I'm one of those adjoining neighbors and you heard comments and I'm -- I appreciate the creativity that you guys bring to these -- even the small projects and that Mr. Womer has addressed with a four unit thing. There was one key component that is still a lingering issue. It doesn't feel like it's baked. It needs a little more baking time for me and that was the issue addressing parking on the collector and as -- as well as some questions I think Mr. Womer can clarify, because in a proposed landscape plan, which I think is the simpler issue, it's proposed for Skyrocket and Junipers to be right on top of those -- that utility easement between my property and -- and this development. There is a ton of utilities that run along that line there, the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. All of our high speed internet -- it's all in there and they put Skyrocket and Junipers on the top of those. They grow very quickly. It might become an -- an access easement issue. You know, that's one thing that I want to point out. I'm not sure if the microphone is cutting out. The second issue -- McCarvel: You have to get close to it. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F94 Page 41 of 64 McDonald: Yeah. I will have to scootch down. The second issue -- and I appreciate your comments and similar -- similar issues. I have been watching the City Council and Planning and Zoning for weeks now and the one that stood out on Tuesday just this week are some of the same issues about parking. We are noticing people are having more and more -- and -- and sometimes doubling up in -- in a single unit, which is creating the demand for parking and how -- how can we address the issue with parking that really benefits the townhomes and not the adjacent restaurant as much. That's -- I'm a guy that's a big proponent of human factors and usability and common comments that came from Tuesday was backing -- backing out onto a common drive is a safety concern. That exists here. I would like to see comments from you and from -- from the developer on a possible solution to that. The other issue that stood out to me that also exists here is these parking spaces, according to the narrative that was presented, was intended to be shared for the adjacent businesses and the townhomes and to Louie's Restaurant is going to be a very heavy consumer of these 17 parking spaces that are in the common drive aisles and it seems like it's more easily accessed -- the path of least resistance for the Louie's Restaurant and the adjacent businesses for the 17 parking stalls. I think part of the solution may reside within the original concept plan, which I couldn't find anywhere in any of that documentation where the original three home -- three -- three unit townhome parking area was accessed from the -- the private drive. Now, if there is a reason why that had to be removed because of, you know, where the driveways -- but it still would isolate the parking to the townhomes and make the path of least resistance to those 17 parking stalls. Maybe they have to reduce the number of parking stalls by a few to accommodate, but I would like to see parking stalls interior to the townhomes and the path of least resistance to most of parking for the townhomes and not the restaurant. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You were talking about the utilities. On what street were you saying they had all the utilities with the landscaping? McDonald: So, the adjoining border that goes along the property line by-- by my property in the northwest border -- Yearsley: Okay. McDonald: That's loaded -- that's loaded with every utility you can think of. Yearsley: Okay. McDonald: So -- Yearsley: Because it appears -- oh. Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F95 Page 42 of 64 McDonald: Yeah. McCarvel: I understand that's our only sign up, but is there anyone else in the room or online that wishes to testify on this application? Okay. Sir. Evans: Hello. My name -- my name is Jerry Evans. 2059 North Justin Way. And I have some concerns about the traffic off of Fairview, as that word enter into -- either on Hickory or into the new entrance that they are going to be creating for this development and there has already been in the past the new subdivision that was added just to the north of the church parking lot and the business added to the south of the church and nothing was ever done since then to increase the traffic flow in and out of the area and right now as you are coming from Eagle Road it's three lanes as you are going west on Fairview and, then, it bottlenecks down to two lanes right before it gets to the -- to commuter section at Hickory and I would like to propose that somehow that we could get that third lane continued all way down to the intersection and maybe even past the intersection, so that would lessen the -- you know, the impact on the other two lanes that are transiting the area going into Meridian and I think that that would help smooth things out a little McCarvel: Okay. Evans: And that was all I have. McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back. Womer: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Blaine Womer again, Womer Engineering. Yes, regard to -- with regard to a couple of things that were brought up, the -- the -- the skyrocketing junipers that are proposed there, again, are -- we are trying to do some kind of landscape softening there at the border, which we thought that the adjacent neighbors would prefer and certainly we are not going to plant those in the middle of an easement. So, whatever offset we need to do to make that work that's what we will do to avoid any conflict with existing utilities and we are aware of the existing utilities that are out there. Second, with regard to parking, that was -- the City Council required that we provide a parking study, because they wanted to see how the interaction between the commercial and the proposed residential would work and it was two fold. It was, number one, let's see how the existing parking lot for the commercial, Louie's Restaurant, the bank and the commercial around there is working and what they found out through interviews -- they didn't just use numbers, they went out there and actually talked to the -- the biggest traffic generator out there, which was Louie's Restaurant, and they determined what their peak times were for the restaurant operation and they went out there and they actually did count two different times to make sure they were getting accurate counts and what they found was the parking lot, which has a cross-lot parking agreements, so everybody can park everywhere and utilize the entire parking lot of the commercial center, what they found was that the parking lot is only being utilized at it's peak 55 percent of the total parking. So, there is -- the center is significantly over parked and, then, the second part of the study was to evaluate what the impact of the townhome Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F96 Page 43 of 64 project would be and I know -- I'm not going to get into the weeds of the study, because I know it's in your report, but I do want to mention a couple important things and that is the townhome project is -- generates a need for 27 parking spaces, but when you take the garages and you take the -- the parking in front of the garages and you add the spaces we have added, you come up with a total of 82 parking spaces provided by the townhome project alone and it only needs 27. So, even if you assume that everybody is going to be like everybody else and they are not going to park two cars in a two car garage and you can take 24 of those spaces away, you still have -- we are substantially overparked with the townhome project. So, the likelihood that any of that would bleed over into Hickory parking just isn't going to happen, because the parking is -- is beyond sufficient for this particular project. So, when you add those two things up, you are -- you are overparking the commercial already and, then, there is no -- there is not going to be any bleed over from the townhome project, because of what we are providing on site, I think it's pretty clear that -- that the parking is not going to be an issue. So, I hope that addresses those two issues to the Commission's satisfaction, but I'm still ready to stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Womer: Thank you. McCarvel: Could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0082? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0082. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: And I apologize, we are -- it looks like we also have H-2021-0015 addressed in this application. Yeah. I looked at the parking study that they did and I -- I tend to agree, I think part of the parking problem with Louie's is they all want to park at the front door, instead of around the side and that will probably take care of itself once that dirt lot is no longer there and they will actually use the parking spots and I think they have addressed what Council has directed. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I kind of -- I tend to agree. I also think that these are probably going to cater to a little quieter community maybe where we are -- and on the off occasion, you know, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F97 Page 44 of 64 there is a Super Bowl party or a Christmas party or something, there is -- there will be -- there is plenty of parking there. I think -- I don't think it's going to be as bad. So, I'm -- like the final outcome. I like that they have downsized those -- those units from four to three. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: No one else has any comments, I will make a motion. Allen: Madam Chair? May I clarify something real quick? You mentioned another file number. There is actually only one file application file number before you tonight -- McCarvel: Okay. Allen: -- and that is the one on your agenda, H-2021-0082. The other file number is one you have already acted on. McCarvel: Okay. That's what I -- I wondered how did I miss that, but I glanced over at the staff report and it's still listed on there. Okay. So, just addressing H-2021-0082. Yearsley: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2021-0082 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 2nd, 2021, with no modifications. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H-2021-0082. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments (H-2021- 0075) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the south side of I- 84, '/4 mile east of S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2) multi-family residential building lots (i.e. Lots 1-2, Block 1) and six (6) commercial building lots (i.e. Lots 3-8, Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F98 Page 45 of 64 zoning district. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is H-2021-0075, Rackham East and Eagle View Apartments. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The last application before you tonight is a request for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and a conditional use permit. This site is located on the south side of Interstate 84, approximately a quarter mile east of South Eagle Road and north of East Overland Road on the south side of 84. A small portion of the southwest portion of this site was previously annexed with the development to the west and zoned C-G. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the property is mixed use regional. Annexation of 25.76 acres of land is proposed with a C-G zoning district as shown. A preliminary plat consisting of two multi-family residential building lots and six commercial building lots on 29.7 acres of land and conditional use permit for a multi-family residential development consisting of 396 units on approximately 16 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district is proposed. There is a 14 foot wide sliver of land that exists to the north of the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 1-84 that is not included in the proposed subdivision and that is depicted there in the blue on the left preliminary plat exhibit there at the top. It appears to previously have been part of ITD right of way for 1-84 that was sold off as surplus right of way. Staff has determined it to be an original parcel of record, which deems this property eligible for development without that parcel. The applicant is attempting to obtain the parcel and include it in this development. However, if this doesn't happen there will be an undeveloped enclave with county zoning surrounded by city annexed land with no access and likely no maintenance of the property if this property around it is annexed. Access exists to the site via South Rolling Hill Drive, an existing local street that serves the rural residential properties to the south and via two driveway accesses from the west, which provide access to Silverstone Way, a collector street, through the adjacent commercial property. It will also provide access to the signalized intersection at Overland Road. Rolling Hill Drive is not improved to urban standards. It's narrow, lacks streetlights, and doesn't have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. We do not have the staff report from ACHD yet. They don't expect it to happen until hopefully later next week. ACHD did communicate to staff some of the things they may be looking at requiring, including some site improvements to Rolling Hill Drive, which may include widening of the street in certain areas, traffic calming, and pedestrian facilities. A sidewalk likely on one side of the street. City staff is recommending streetlights are also installed as off-site improvements. The Ridenbaugh Canal exists along the east boundary of the site. The applicant is requesting a Council waiver to allow the canal to remain open and not be piped. No connectivity to this property exists from the single family residential development to the east. The multi-family residential development contains a mix of studio, one and two bedroom units on 16 acres of land and this is an overall concept development plan for the site and a portion of that -- this area here on the left is part of the previous development plan on the adjacent site. Staff is recommending the multi- family property is annexed with R-4, rather than C-G zoning as proposed. The applicant is in agreement with staff's recommendation on that. The gross density of the development is 24.8 units per acre, which is consistent with that desired in the mixed use Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F99 Page 46 of 64 regional designation. Common open space and site amenities are proposed in excess of the minimum UDC standards. Shown before you there is an open space exhibit for the site. The applicant has requested alternative compliance to the private usable open space standards as noted in the staff report. The director has approved a 20 percent reduction to the minimum standard. Shown before you are the site amenity exhibits submitted with this application. Off-street parking does not meet the minimum UDC standards. Six hundred and sixty standard parking spaces are required as a minimum, including 348 covered spaces and 14 spaces for the clubhouse. Six hundred and forty- nine spaces are proposed, with 391 of those being covered in garages or carports, which includes compact spaces. Compact spaces are discouraged, but may be used for parking above the minimum required. Additional parking is required to meet the minimum standards and compact spaces will be required to be removed for those that are required. They may be used for extra spaces, though, as I mentioned. This is a copy of that pedestrian circulation plan for the site. There is a pedestrian pathway around the perimeter of the site, as well as internally throughout the site for pedestrian circulation. Conceptual building elevations are proposed as shown. These are the four story multi- family residential buildings. The fitness building and the leasing building in the multi- family development. And these are the two five story office buildings proposed on the northern portion of the site along 1-84. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. Only one letter of testimony was received from Pam Haynes, an adjacent property owner in Rolling Hills Subdivision. She is concerned pertaining to the volume of the traffic this project will generate on Rolling Hill Drive. She requests the terminus of Rolling Hill Drive at the southern boundary of this site have bollards to block off traffic, but that would provide emergency access to the site. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed applications as noted in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Wardle: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jon Wardle. My address is 2929 West Navigator Drive, Suite 400, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 am here representing Brighton and also BVA. We are partners on the property that's in front of you tonight and they--our teammates are here if there is any questions that come up regarding the project and they will be available to answer questions if I cannot. Make sure I can -- so, tonight before you we have a request for annexation, rezone, and preliminary plat for the Rackham East Subdivision as well and a conditional use permit for the Eagle View Apartments. As Sonya noted, the location here -- the location in front of you is generally located north of Overland, south of 1-84, and east of Eagle Road. The request before you tonight, like I said, is for annexation and zoning of--to C-G and R-40 of about 25.76 acres and a preliminary plat for eight lots on 29.7 acres. The future land use map shown here on the left is designated as R-G. Of note the R-G designation, the regional designation, goes all the way from Eagle Road to the east to the Ridenbaugh Canal and, then, also goes all the way down to Overland -- actually, goes across Overland as well, the R-G regional designation there. On the far right exhibit here that's showing the current zoning that exists today, which is predominantly C-G on the part that is brought into the City of Meridian. There is still existing R-1 zoning, including the property that we own is R-1 and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 Flool Page 47 of 64 RUT, as well as the property going south along Rolling Hills Drive down to Overland Road. This area right here is showing you the part that we are bringing in today. The Rackham East part, which is the 25.7 acres for annexation and zoning and this one shows you what was originally brought in. So, combined these two properties will equal about 90 acres in total. This also shows you the existing roadway circulation, which the public roads, which are to the south of the site and, then, dropping and here is the overall master plan, again, showing some internal circulation, as well as the public road connections going down to Overland Road. When we started looking at the overall project for Eagle View Landing and the uses that had been approved previously and the desire to also include residential living opportunities where we have a mix of uses, we -- we decided -- or we -- we started acquiring the property to the east all the way over to the Ridenbaugh Canal. In doing so we are able to bring to you a complete master plan for all the property, which is south of 1-84 within the city's area of impact. The land uses in the original Rackham project are office, retail, hotel and entertainment and, then, we are bringing forward to you both office and multi-family on the Rackham East part of this. And here is a close up of the same exhibit, just showing, again, the internal circulation that has been planned for the site. There are two major east-west drive aisles on the property to collect the -- the automobile movements in and out of the site. We are intending to connect to both Silverstone. There would be a connection on the far west with Rackham Way, which ends up being a right- in, right-out and, then, to Rolling Hills as well. Those would be the public street connections going down to Overland. Everything north where the public streets end will all be private drive aisles internal to the site. As it relates to the comp plan -- and Sonya did a great job in the analysis in the staff report that the Rackham East project, which is before you, is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan, the future land use map, and policies and staff has noted that they believe the proposed development is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for the area per the analysis within the staff report. Just to be clear as to what is happening here -- like I mentioned before, the annexation and zoning part of this is for 25.76 acres. The preliminary plat is slightly larger than that, because we are incorporating these lots -- these two lots, which were previously platted and incorporating that into the project and so the overall preliminary plat area is 29.7 acres. The original Rackham is shown in yellow. The blue is the new Rackham East and the red boundary is the preliminary plat area that Sonya provided to you in the staff report previously. One of the items on the -- within the staff report was a request to take the residential piece of that and make it R-40. When we made our request we requested all C-G. Multi-family uses, regardless of the zone, whether it's R-40 or a C zone requires a conditional use permit, so we viewed it as the same. The -- the C-G already exists out there and other projects we have done have also been done in the C- G designation, but staff has asked that we modify that residential area to R-40. So, the -- the split would be about 13.8 acres for commercial and, then, the balance of that would be for the multi-family. So, the commercial being green, the multi-family being blue. As it relates the annexation, rezone, and preliminary plat, we do concur with staff on the conditions of approval that are before you tonight. We do agree with modifying the rezone to R-40, like I indicated for the multi-family piece, with the balance of it being C-G and also amending the existing development agreement that was previously approved in 2019, so that these two projects, both Rackham original and Rackham East can be combined in a complete document with one single master plan and one development Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 Foll Page 48 of 64 agreement. Also before you tonight is this conditional use permit for the Eagle View Apartments. As I -- as I noted from the site plan, the -- the apartment part of the project is on the southern piece of the annexation area, which I show in blue there. It is approximately 15.94 acres. We are -- have about 24.8 units to the acre. There are a mix of unit types for a total 396. We are -- based on the required parking we show 648, but staff did a recalculation today and show 660, so we do need to look at that and evaluate it. We do have bike parking on site as well. For overall qualified open space we are about 3.5 acres and we do -- we will develop this property in two phases, 218 units on the west side of it, including the clubhouse, pool area amenities and, then, we would come back and do the other 178 at some point in the future. However, all of the roadway improvements that you see would all be part of the original project with phase one. In the staff report there were a variety of elevations shown for you, but I just wanted to highlight a couple. Here in the middle of the project is the -- the amenity core. We have two different buildings, which is the leasing building, as well as the residents' club and, then, on the backside of that there is a fitness facility and other resident facilities there and, then, the lower left this is the -- looking into the site, pointing the direction to be looking into the site into that building and these are all four story buildings, climate controlled with elevators throughout. Again, just a quick overview of amenities here. In the center we will have a variety of uses there as mentioned already. Entertainment area, game areas, fitness facility, swimming pools, year around internal spa area. There will also be outdoor gathering areas in the center area and Wi-Fi throughout the entire property and smart access into the units and into the community center. On the east and west, if I can just highlight this, internal to each of these buildings is an amenity core. So, the buildings surround this. There is a circulation system going east to west through the site and into the middle community center there. They are pretty similar in nature. There are some variations between them. For example, one side there is sand volleyball, outdoor ping pong table, cornhole, that type of thing. On the other side we would have Bocce ball, Snook ball, but, then, also there will be shade structures, outdoor barbecues, kitchen areas, benches, seating areas. So, there is a lot of outdoor space that is actually accessible very close to each set of buildings on the east and the west. As Sonya noted, we did ask for alternative compliance on a couple of items. We still need to work through a few of those with them, which will be a function of sitting back down through -- looking at the site plan, addressing the parking just to make sure we can make the parking work, as well as the calculation of the private open space and after this, but prior to the certificate of zoning compliance we would sit down with staff and talk through those issues one more time. In conclusion, we do concur with staff. The recommendations that are seen here in the staff report, including the city and agency comments and conditions. We respect -- we request that P&Z approve the conditional use permit for Eagle View Apartments, giving us also the latitude to go back and work with staff on the alternative compliance items and also request that Planning and Zoning Commission support the applications for annexation, zoning, and ultimately a modified development agreement for Rackham East and the preliminary plat. And I stand for any questions you might have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff or the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F102 Page 49 of 64 McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, I'm not sure -- I mean that -- that road that's just to the south of your clubhouse that's not yours, I actually share some concerns about a lot of people trying to drive down that road, instead of going around. Have you looked at any provisions on that -- that section of road that's -- I know it's not on your property, but it will be impacted by your property. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that's a great question regarding the -- the road that we are talking about is Rolling Hills. Rolling Hills is a -- it's a rural road and we have had a couple of neighborhood meetings and I know that it's -- it is a -- it is a concern for all those residents that live on Rolling Hills and the -- the nature of the development and how things will change. While we don't have a current -- we have not received the staff report, we have been given indications as to some of those things that will be required to make that road both safer for pedestrians, but also some traffic calming on there. ACHD has noted passive traffic calming. We don't have an answer as to what that would be, but they are definitely looking at ways to make sure that the traffic that does move up and down Rolling Hills is appropriate in both speed and volume. There is also a requirement that we would install sidewalk on one side at a minimum and add streetlights, which are not on that road currently. So, those are some of the elements that would still need to be worked through with ACHD as they continue to work through their final recommendation, but that's what they have indicated thus far on those improvements on Rolling Hills Drive. Yearsley: Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Yearsley: Madam Clerk, we have one signed in. Alicia Eastman. McCarvel: Okay. Eastman: Good evening. My name is Alicia Eastman and I live at 1485 Rolling Hill Drive. That's singular, not Hills, as is on their map. Which is Lot 3, Block 2, of Rolling Hill Subdivision. My concern is traffic and I believe that Rolling Hill should be blocked off at the end as a dead street where the current residential housing ends and we had a reply from Tonn Petersen of BVA to Gary Rainey on July -- or June 7th, 2001 , that was shared with some of the neighbors. Tonn confirmed that the egress and ingress for this project would be Silverstone. I don't know what was going on today, but this afternoon there was some work being done and I counted two cement trucks and 14 huge dirt trucks, which was a total of 32 huge vehicles going back and forth past my house between like 1 :00 p.m. and 5.00. When the -- just the -- not even the rest of the commercial lots in the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F103 Page 50 of 64 business, just the 396 units, when those are done and they have all residents living in there, I won't be able to back out of my driveway. If even -- there is one car from each of those -- or even half of the number I won't be able to back out of my driveway, let alone onto Overland Road. As was tonight when I left my home I left at 5:20 and I barely made the meeting at 6:00 and that's like Eagle and Overland is our intersection there. So, it's already difficult to access. I'm not really against development and I feel like eventually I'm probably going to have to move, because we are going to do some other phase of that, you know, and I'm -- and I'm even considering, well, maybe I should build on my property. I own an acre. Storage units. I would have some income producing property. But as it is right now if they are -- if they want to widen the road, Rolling Hill, where you have the access to the easement that you can -- that's already there that you can take to put a sidewalk there, that's going to be right on the edge of where my well is. If you widen the road anymore that's going to affect my well and I don't want to annex to Meridian. like having a well and I like having my septic. So, I just think the anticipated traffic that's going to come with this project would really impact us and kind of-- I think that when they started this project -- they started at the wrong end of the street and it just -- it -- it is a lot of housing. It sounds like a wonderful place if you are going to teleport in and out, but how are those people going to get in and out, even if you do widen Rolling Hill or do something with that and do -- went with that project. So, I just think for us the impact would be too great of that traffic coming up and down if we didn't -- well, this space is done, just make that a dead end and go -- use the egress through Silverstone like they said they would. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. That being the only one signed up, is there anyone else in the room or online that wishes to testify? Okay. Come forward. Blowers: Try to be more calm this time. My name is Mike Blowers. I live at 1325 Rolling Hill Drive. I think you probably heard enough about traffic and stuff, but I think that's pretty obvious what's going to be happening. I hope everyone can appreciate that this is not a normal sort of traffic increase, so I would like to bring up some more -- some points we probably haven't talked about as much, but aesthetically -- and -- and I have tried to find this myself, but I'm struggling to understand why we think it's okay to have a residential neighborhood be a thoroughfare for commercial development. I mean, obviously, it's going to connect the TopGolf as well. Aesthetically I don't understand this -- the planning around that. It doesn't make any sense to me. I think it was by design that it's this way. I don't understand why we weren't given the opportunity-- I know no one ever approached us to say, hey, would you be interested in selling your property, anything like that, and I believe that's, you know, by design, but unless someone has information for me about plans to develop our properties -- I mean I know I don't plan on moving, so I don't -- I don't really understand why we are spending the money to develop this road. It's going to look weird. I just picture like the Villages at Eagle and Fairview, just picturing 15 one and a half acre 1960s homes, just -- it would look silly and I know we have been talking about aesthetics on these other projects. At the end of the day that -- and we have been in these talks for four years. No one has still answered the question why can this not be dead ended? Like what specific code, what specific law, what's preventing this from being a dead end -- a dead ended safety access only and if, for some reason, there is a law for Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F104 Page 51 of 64 that -- I know I spoke with -- sorry if I got your name wrong, Jon, but spoke with him in the past about at bare minimum as part of the approval of this project can we at least say, you know, it's a no construction access thing. Some -- something beyond signs. Like contractual, something that can be fallen back on. Like this -- this is going to be a lifestyle change. This isn't, oh, it's going to be slightly noisier, because, you know, there is neighborhood being impact -- or built, you know, two streets down. I mean this is -- our home sits 20 feet from the road. This street was not designed for this sort of traffic. It may be legal, it doesn't make it right, but it's -- beyond all the obvious, like absurdities of what's about to happen with this, I don't understand how we want the city to look this way by design. It -- I encourage you to take the time to drive down the street and see exactly what we are talking about. But as a final point I also don't really know how we could come to a decision on something like this today without having those ACHD reports. I mean it's a big part of this thing. There is a lot that's going to go into it as part of this project and I just think at bear minimum it needs to wait for that information before a decision is made. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Okay. Wattles: My name is Amy Wattles. I'm a resident at 1360 Rolling Hill Drive. I do want to point out kind of what was already addressed, but the fact that they don't even know the street name is concerning. There is no S on it. There never has been. My comments tonight are less about this specific development. All neighbors are sharing the same concerns with the traffic -- the flow of traffic coming down and what that's going to do for our properties. Most of the residents -- or some of the residents have been in these properties long term and the position -- and so tonight is just a representation of one meeting out of 20 years since this plan has -- since the city planning took effect. Every time the residents have to come out and fight whatever the new development is, whatever the new idea is -- and we respect the fact -- we know where we live. We saw all the videos of what's coming and what's planned for our area of town. So, we are not living with any false realities as far as that goes. However, through the years it was, well, we will just annex you. Well, you are just going to get water. Oh, it's just going to be a fire lane. Oh, now it's just going to be an access road for some apartments down your street. It's always something. And when it comes down to it the -- that road, kind of like what Mike said, it's a want. It's not a need. I specifically asked that at one of our neighborhood meetings. Help me understand why you need that road coming down -- access down Rolling Hill. Do you need it or do you want it? We want it. It makes it convenient for the residents. It makes it convenient for the business owners, with a complete disregard for the existing homeowners. Through the years the prevailing message from the city has been development will -- will dictate what happens to our properties. So, when -- when we get a new business coming in, then, it would be annexed into the city. Then it would connect to city water. Our neighbors had that option and they chose to sell out. The developer bought the property, they want to develop it, that's their right. What we are asking is not to be impacted and forced to deal with the consequences of their plan. If they want they can -- they have indicated that in the future there is plans to potentially buy our properties out. Okay. We all know that. So, why the rush to get this road there now? Give us the opportunity to retain our lifestyle and our properties and why we all Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F105 Page 52 of 64 chose to live there. It feels like we are being forced. The residents that are here tonight, there is -- while it's a small number, there is 50 percent of the residents here tonight. That's how strongly we feel. Whether or not they testify or not, that's their own decision. But we are all on the same page. McCarvel: Thank you. Yes. Come on forward. Yeah. And if -- if everybody feels the same and just prefers to raise their hand and not testify, if it's been -- if what you intend to say has already been said, we can see that you are here and acknowledge that. You don't have to -- everybody testify if you have nothing new to add. Okay. Go ahead. Majorca: Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you so much. Amy just spoke and we live next to Amy and she has a -- oh, yes. My name is Chris Majorca and I live at 4160 East View Circle. Amy has a potbelly pig and her cow chases the pig and the pig squeals and I have four kids that just love that and we do feel like we have a shire and it's hard not to think of BVA and Brighton as Sauron and Saruman spreading the shadow of Mordor and destroying our way of life, but I know that sounds a bit dramatic. It does feel like that. Whenever I go to Home Depot I ask a question should I buy this apple tree, because I might not get to see the fruit of it. Leaving those analogies aside, 660 parking spaces, that is -- that is making our quiet residential road a freeway. We understand that -- that -- I know Tommy Ahlquist is on record saying that this is what progress looks like. Perhaps it is and that's fine. If this is what progress looks like in the modern day, we -- we acquiesce to that. We just ask that you would spare us and allow us to live our lives and just keep that road a country road. I can't fathom it being a thoroughway for all that traffic. This is a first world problem, but when I was coming from Overland to take a left onto -- onto Rolling Hills it took me about 90 seconds just to break through the traffic. That is your number one traffic problem in Meridian is Overland and Eagle and you are looking at increasing that traffic problem probably by ten fold with progress. Thank you. McCarvel: Anyone else in the room wish to testify on this application? Thank you. Adsitt: Hi. I'm Lynette Adsitt and I live at 1360 Topaz Avenue. Is there a way we can get that last picture of the presentation up? I wanted the one with the -- the overall picture where you have your -- the -- this -- Rolling Hill coming down and Topaz -- it was the last one that was up. Is that okay to request that? McCarvel: Yeah. It's just going to take him a minute, because he was running it through Zoom. It was our presentation -- it wasn't the presentation that the clerk has. Adsitt: That one. That one right there. Perfect. One thing that I would like to ask the Commissioners to look at is the rural area between Overland and the shaded areas. This is our wonderful little oasis. I have got livestock. I know there are several neighbors that have livestock. Increasing the traffic is detrimental to them. It stresses them out. I would just ask that the consideration be of our lifestyle and we would like to keep that lifestyle. I propose that we block off Rolling Hill. Anything that we can do to preserve this wonderful little rural area is open for suggestion. We do know progress is coming, but there has got to be a way to compromise, so that we can keep our lifestyle and the community can Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F106 Page 53 of 64 grow. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify? M.Adsitt: I am Matt Adsitt. I live at the same address, 1362 Topaz. If I would have known she was coming up I would have asked her to ask this question. So, one thing that -- that I have always wondered is on -- on Eagle and the light there, where the freeway on ramp goes -- the freeway on ramp goes east and, then, there is one coming from the west. If you would just make an access to all that commercial stuff in there, people don't have to come down Eagle, all the way down Overland and get into it from there, they could come in straight from the freeway and they could leave straight to the freeway and it would relieve a lot of congestion Eagle and Overland and that intersection, which is the worst in the county. So, that was my suggestion and I think -- I'm just surprised that -- I mean the light is already there, you just have to make it a four way light instead of threeway, which it is now. McCarvel: Okay. M.Adsitt: So, that's it. Thanks. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, point of order. Sir, could you state your name for the record. McCarvel: Oh. Sorry. Yeah. It was kind of muffled. Come back to the microphone and just say it. It was kind of muffled at the beginning. Adsitt. Adsitt. McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify or online? Okay. We can't have shout out. Everything's got to be in the microphone, but, yes, got you. Thanks. That being said, would the applicant like to come back? Wardle: Madam Chair, for the record again Jon Wardle. 2929 West Navigator, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. The obvious point here is that traffic is going to increase dramatically on Rolling Hills -- Rolling Hill. I apologize, Amy. I did it again. No disrespect. Didn't intend to throw an S on there. But Rolling Hill. It is a public right of way. It is dedicated to ACHD and in talking with them they -- they do have ultimately the say on what Rolling Hill will be. There is enough room that it could expanded to a 36 foot wide road with two seven foot sidewalks on each side. That -- with that stated that doesn't mean that that won't impact all those residents. We know that. I want to, you know, acknowledge that right off. We have had conversations and that's -- that is, obviously, the theme tonight. I did want to address one thing. Mike Blowers mentioned -- and we did have this conversation in our last neighborhood meeting about trying to limit construction traffic in total through the build out of the project to Silverstone. We -- we have been somewhat successful in making that work, but I think that's something we could commit to and try to make that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F107 Page 54 of 64 work so Silverstone is the primary source of traffic for construction. I will tell you that that doesn't always trickle down to the last mile. There -- there is always a delivery, there is always a truck that is delivering, but may not know that, but we -- on other projects we have had we have been very quick to monitor that. I think signage can be helped as well. I do want to clarify Alicia's comment regarding the e-mail that Tonn Petersen did provide to them. We just reviewed that. It did talk about limiting traffic, but it was specific to construction traffic and so just to be consistent there we do feel like we can do -- make our internal roadway improvements and make Silverstone the primary source for construction traffic through. As it relates to long-term, need versus want, I -- we feel like with the public road there it does improve overall circulation. We -- we do intend to connect to it and would prefer to. Ultimately the highway district will make that call whether it would be limited to emergency only. But we feel like having it -- the connection there is important. In the -- you know, in the immediate we want to be good neighbors. We -- we understand that the residents live there and we do need to do our part to -- to make the improvements as -- as good as possible and -- and minimize the safety issues that would occur as well. Long term, as it relates to this, all of this property is mixed use regional. Not saying that it will change today. In fact, there is --there is a lot of-- mention from the residents who live on Topaz that there is also, you know, in that rural designation, but long term it will all change and so we feel like, you know, at least establishing and being consistent with the connection to Rolling Hill is -- is important and we are committed to make the improvements both expanding it and enhancing pedestrian and life safety with streetlights as well. Pardon me. I'm losing my voice a little bit. We do feel like this project is -- is a complete project with the uses that are in front of you today and -- and by tying all of this together into a single project in a development agreement where we really can have all of the uses that are desired within a mixed use regional location, this -- this does it and over time some of these properties of the south will also change and enhance and address the additional or new regional needs. But we feel like this is one complete cohesive project. Like I mentioned, we are requesting tonight your approval for the annexation and rezone of the project, as well as a preliminary plat and at these recommendations of those to the City Council and your approval specifically for the conditional use permit and I stand for any questions you might have. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Do you know is there a hearing date set for ACHD or are they just -- is that already past and they are now just going to report? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, it's my understanding that a staff report will be issued, but it will not go to commission unless there is something in the report that they feel like they need to. But it would be a staff level decision based on the review of the TIS. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F108 Page 55 of 64 Seal: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Jon, just curious. Did you look at having a traffic flow pattern through there that would direct all the traffic out Silverstone? I think it-- and I don't know if that Rackham Way, is that even an option in that property to the -- to the far west? Because, obviously, Silverstone was built to handle the majority of that traffic when the other -- so, you are -- you know -- yeah, everything's zoned there regional. It may never happen. Everybody -- if none of them -- but not the right ones anyway that sell to make that -- to make that happen. If that stays -- if those stay rural one acre parcels on Topaz and Rolling Hill indefinitely, what -- what alternative did you have as far as designing traffic flow through there to come out Silverstone, if any? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, if -- if there is no access to Rolling Hill, then, it would be Silverstone. That's where the traffic would go. And, you know, I think if -- if the access a Rolling Hill eliminated it just -- you know, Silverstone in the -- in the near term would carry all of that, whereas Rolling Hill is a public road and it does get you access down to Overland Road. So, in our traffic study and in the scoping with ACHD we looked at all those public roadways actions to get down to Overland as access points for the project. Cassinelli: If that didn't exist could you make it? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I think that becomes a question of -- kind of a life safety question. Could it -- could it work? Sure. But we feel like with the public road that's already dedicated and making enhancements there that that does provide also another connection to the overall development, so -- based on our conversations with ACHD, however, that was not part of the scope. They -- when -- when we look at these transportation plans they look at all the available public roads and look to see how the traffic would be dispersed and it was included in that review and application with them. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Jon, since we don't have the ACHD report -- I mean a lot of what we have talked about tonight is really related to traffic and will have an impact with what -- what comes out on that report. Is there a reason why we should not postpone until we have that information? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 Flog] Page 56 of 64 Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, that's a good question. The indication that we are getting out of ACHD and also what you find in your staff report is that the -- anticipating the connection to Rolling Hill and they -- and they have looked at everything, they just haven't finalized the report, so it's not in front of -- in front of you tonight. The bullet points, which are in this staff report or the notes that are made in there do come from ACHD directly from their review, so that there was something on the record. So, I don't know that the staff report will vary much from the recommendation or notes which are in there currently. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you very much. Seal: Madam Chair? Oh. McCarvel: Do -- I have heard the word continuance roll around, so I'm wondering do we want to leave the hearing -- public hearing open or do you want to go ahead and close it? Cassinelli: I would be in favor -- I would be in favor of keeping it open right now. Seal: Agreed. Yearsley: I agree. McCarvel: Okay. All right. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I just -- yeah, for this -- without having the ACHD staff report I do have a question for staff. I mean there is a lot of people here that want to weigh in on this. They are weighing in with the city. We don't own the road. ACHD does. So, is there a way to give them the information that they need in order to interface with ACHD on this? Do we know the report number, the hearing number, the -- whatever that might be or do they just get a go through the calling tree at ACHD, like we all love to do? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, Commissioners, the planner assigned to it is Paige Bankhead. The file number is the same as the file number in the staff report for this application. I believe they put on their prefix for ACHD. I think it's MER. Seal: Okay. Allen: Does that cover your question? Seal: I think so. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 Fol Page 57 of 64 Yearsley: They were asking if we could repeat that information so they could write it down. McCarvel: Yeah. I think it cut out just a little bit on your mic. Allen: Paige Bankhead. McCarvel: Okay. And the project number would be the same as this -- the staff number on this application. I guess I have a question for staff or legal. Is it even in our purview to block that road to say that's not an access, it's emergency access only? Starman: Madam Chair, I will start off and I would ask my planning colleagues to join me here, but I think it's already noted -- McCarvel: I don't think your mic's on. Starman: My voice is also going. Is that any better? Yearsley: Yes. Starman: I will yell a little bit. As previously noted, the roads are owned and maintained and controlled by ACHD, so the city doesn't have the ability to close a road. I think you have some ability -- you and the Council through your conditioning process, particularly in a conditional use permit for the apartment complex or multi-family to place some conditions in terms of how the project is designed or how traffic flows, but I don't believe the city has the ability to close the road itself. That would be an ACHD decision and I invite the planning staff to chime in if they think differently. Allen: Madam Chair, I would concur with that. However, I think the city does have some input on that. As long as emergency access is provided to the site I believe it would meet the life safety issues with the Fire Department, but they probably should weigh in on that. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I have been thinking about that and, you know, closing the road doesn't make really good sense, because there is no way to turn around for any vehicle or if you have larger vehicles, but I wondered if-- if you could actually make the last hundred feet or the last 50 feet a one way going north, that way if someone gets down to that road he could actually get out, but people couldn't come down that road. I think that might be a better option than having emergency access only point, you know. Because, I agree, I think it's -- it's going to be a huge amount of cars going to go down that road and disturb that neighborhood, so that would be my -- my recommendation. McCarvel: I seem to remember a couple of projects where we have done something Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 Fill] Page 58 of 64 similar. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: If I could --just on that point, that -- all what -- all that is going to do, really, is cut half of that traffic, because you are going to get everybody going -- they know they can get in that way, they are going to go in that way, they will come out Silverstone, but they are going to go in that way, so that only cuts it -- and that cuts it to half. Half is better than all, I guess, if that -- if that's the option you have. But clearly that road was never designed to be -- to handle this level of traffic and if -- Silverstone was designed with this project in mind to handle the traffic, but I'm -- I'm definitely of the mindset right now that we need to at least continue this to see ACHD's -- what they come back with. We don't know what they are going to come back with. I don't want to assume. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I mean I would add to that. I know that if the city has some input on it -- I mean I have been involved in this in other committee meetings and things for a while and there has -- there has been a couple mistakes that I think Meridian has made. One was eliminating the rural designation altogether, which this kind of ties into a little bit in my mind. I mean this is a very small rural community that's right in the middle of a large area of-- of development. I think if we didn't have some input on this and how this is going to impact those folks it would be yet another mistake that we would be making as a city. I mean we -- you know, they aren't technically residents, because they are residents of the county, but, you know, here they are in the middle of this whole thing, so, you know, I -- as -- as I look at the development and how it's being put together I agree, it's kind of--we are starting at the wrong end of the road. It would be nice to go from Overland out to the freeway, but that's not the way that this is happening. You know, I mean Brighton does -- they have brought some quality products that we have reviewed and that have also turned ACHD on their head a couple times in projects that I have had the ability to review. So, you know, hope maybe there can be something done here with ACHD that will help preserve that road and eliminate the traffic that's on it. I would imagine that--that Brighton and their partners will probably definitely be policing that road a little bit more, hopefully in good faith to help this thing move forward at a future date, but I think there is a whole lot of things that can be done here for all -- all of us to be better neighbors and to bring this project in with a little bit more tact as it would be. Allen: Madam Chair? If I may, I would just like to second Mr. Yearsley's point about if -- if the access from Rolling Hill was closed off a turnaround would be required and, you know, there is no place for that, except for on that adjacent property on the residential property, so -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F112 Page 59 of 64 McCarvel: Okay. Allen I know ACHD is probably going to require a mini roundabout on this site at the terminus of Rolling Hill and, then, the remainder of the existing right of way will be vacated by the applicant. So, anyway, just wanted to second that. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I would like to just kind of clarify some things for the record. One, going back to this gentleman's comment about access to the interchange. It's not going to happen and the reason why is it's ITD right of way. You know, you want to eliminate conflicts on those types of roadways, as you all know. So, I know this applicant has tried to approach ITD and allow for something like that to happen. Others have tried in the past as well. And that's why it's sat empty for so many years, C-G zone, since 1994, because no one could get adequate access to this site. It's constrained by the interstate on the west. On the north we have a canal that has a connect to the city of Boise on the other side and the only funnel outlet to this -- for this project is to Overland Road. So, yes, we have an issue that we have created because of the site constraints. So, what this applicant -- what we can't do, at least from -- from a planning perspective -- and I totally agree with these neighbors, their world is going to change if this road happens, because this is an intense land use on this property, including their property. Right now their -- their property is low density residential. It's rural residential county properties. But in the future -- and I know the city's had many conversations with a lot of the neighbors out there that we have this as mixed use regional and when you look at a mixed use regional designation we anticipate vehicles and trips going with a destination. You draw people to that place and that's what drew TopGolf to this area. So, yes, in instances where we have had challenges with access, the city's had the ability to restrict access to a road for a period of time and, then, at such time as something else occurs we open that road and make it happen and allow it to function the way it needs to function to get other people out of that area. So, I think from my perspective this Commission doesn't have everything it needs to make a decision tonight. That's what you are tasked to do. You are tasked to make the finding that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and it meets the code. If you think you need ACHD staff report to -- to make the appropriate decision, then, by all means continue this and get that decision. If the neighbors have concerns with this project and the traffic, they should be contacting ACHD. That in itself may trigger a hearing at ACHD commission for them to take it under consideration, again, where they could have that ability to say, no, this is pedestrian access only or this is emergency access or whatever it may be. But I can tell you with my experience at the city we have -- so many times we have restricted access from things happening and one example is Woodbridge. I think you guys hear it every time, we had two stub streets to that property and we missed it and now we still have access issues and that's what we could potentially end up here. We have planned for this to be mixed use regional, we have a master street map that's going to have additional collector roadways to serve this area, but what we are not going to be able to do is get another access to any other property -- arterial except Overland and that's the challenge where ACHD is going to have to figure out how to fund that and widen that to seven lanes. It's planned to be a seven lane roadway to try to address some of those concerns -- those congestion issues. But, again, we are not going to solve that issue Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F113 Page 60 of 64 tonight. It's -- it's whether or not you get ACHD's staff report, we fully understand those impacts and whether or not we can mitigate that through the public hearing process. So, that's all I wanted to contribute tonight, so something for your consideration. But certainly if -- if the neighbors reach out to ACHD and it gets set aside to hearing, two weeks isn't going to be enough. A staff -- you know, it may be four weeks before they get it on a docket. I don't know what ACHD's schedule is. But it could be some time before that happens. So, I just wanted you to be aware of that. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I just had a question real quick about Rolling Hill. Is -- what's its classification currently under ACHD and what is it projected to be? Like does it have a -- is it, you know, a collector or what -- like what's -- what's its classification? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, it's classified as a local street and that's what it's planned to remain. Yearsley: So, my guess is what -- what date do we want to continue this to? Because if it has to go to ACHD, you know, do we want to push it into February? Cassinelli: That would be my thought. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think we call the applicant up. We still have the public hearing open. Let's see what -- what they would prefer and, then, we can at least decide on what we should do. Seal: Sure you want February? McCarvel: Yes. Wardle: Madam Chair, for the record Jon Wardle. 2929 West Navigator, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Obviously, we would have preferred to have had a full staff report here and not just parts of that information. As I noted before, I don't know that the staff report will be different than what we have communicated or what we have been told, but, with that said, having that as a point of clarification, so that this Commission has that as information and we know where ACHD will land on that, we -- we don't disagree with that. We -- we are concerned about pushing out until February. We do feel like there will be a staff report that will be issued here shortly. So, our preference would be to not go that far out and we pick a date sometime in January. Allen: Madam Chair, I would recommend January 6th if the Clerk's agenda is available for this project. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F114 Page 61 of 64 Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: I'm wondering with the holiday and everything -- I mean -- Cassinelli: Yeah. I was thinking -- I mean if we make it for the 6th or the 20th, but contingent upon having that. So, if -- if that report is not done and ready then -- then it moves to the -- it slides out from there. Yearsley: Madam Chair, that would be my thought, too, is if we do January 6th we could -- then if the staff report -- if it gets held up we just continue it again would be my -- my thought until we actually get the staff report. McCarvel: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move to continue file number H-2021-0075 to the hearing date of January 6th, 2022, for -- to wait for ACHD's traffic report to understand what's going to happen with Rolling Hills. McCarvel: Hill. Yearsley: Hill. Sorry. Grove: Second. Seal: Could we add a couple things to that? But give them time to deal with the sliver of land that we don't want to have to deal with at a later date. McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: Okay. Seal: And -- McCarvel: Sorry, that was the other one. Seal: Also to work on enforcement of no construction traffic on Rolling Hill Drive. Yearsley: And that one I don't know -- that one there -- that was just more of an internal discussion I think with the construction guys, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. Let's pause the motion for a minute and we do want to address that sliver, because that -- I don't want to -- I don't think we want to move forward without Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F115 Page 62 of 64 having that dealt with. G.Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Geoffrey Wardle. My address is 251 East Front, Suite 310, in Boise. I'm counsel to the applicant. I understand the concern with that strip, but there have been more spent in terms of professional fees for attorneys and title companies and others talking about a 40 foot wide strip that got created because ITD screwed up years ago than the property is worth. Staff raised this issue. We had evaluated this issue. BVA has been negotiating to acquire that property. That property was severed years ago and, then, conveyed to the Petersens and they lost it by tax deed. So, A, that property has never had access. The owner of that property acquired it via a tax deed. Has never asserted access and, ultimately, because of its configuration and shape, if and when we acquire it -- and BVA has been working in that regard -- it will be part of the buffer, because it's within 50 feet of the interstate and so under your code it is part of the landscaped buffer. I mean we -- if we can't acquire it we may go ahead and trespass anyway and landscape it. But I don't know what the condition would be that you would have us to come back and deal with it, because it is an enclave, but it is -- it is a conundrum that was created 50 years ago when ITD and that property owner decided to create it. And just to clarify from staff's presentation, it wasn't property that ITD acquired and, then, got rid of, they literally had a big piece of land that came down 40 feet south of the interstate. They dedicated the right of way through and it was created later when everything to the south was -- was conveyed. So, if that is a concern we understand it. It is something that we have been working on. Mr. Petersen and I have been working on that title issue for going on --well, Tonn has been working on it for years. I first addressed that when Gardner Company had this property under contract seven years ago. So, it's -- it's one of those things that let's not let -- let's not strain at gnats here for something that isn't -- you know, isn't that big of a deal. Give us guidance, but we cannot hold up -- and we had this conversation with staff. You know, we cannot be held hostage to go get somebody else's property and included it in our plat. There is just -- there is no legal basis to do that. We have diligently tried, but I can honestly tell you that I have billed clients thousands of dollars to date over a piece of property that sold for a tax deed for approximately less than 500 dollars 15 years ago. So, give us guidance, but let's not overreach. McCarvel: I am not an attorney, but I think to protect the city you would have to provide access to it if you don't acquire it. G.Wardle: And if that's the concern, then, we will -- we will provide access. We can address that, because, again, it's within the commercial portion and it can only be used by your code -- McCarvel: Yeah. G.Wardle: By your code it can only be utilized for a 50 foot wide buffer, because it's a nonconforming parcel. There -- there -- it's not developable. McCarvel: I would say whatever you come back to with this has to be cleared by the city Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F116 Page 63 of 64 attorney's, because we don't want to put the City of Meridian in a position of being then -- G.Wardle: But -- but, again, it's not the city's fault that there is not access to that property and there is nothing about creating this plat that -- that would create that. But I just -- I'm passionate about it, because, to be honest, I'm sick and tired of the Wood parcel, because every three years I have to go open the file, I have to go back to First American, I have to go back to staff, and I have to share with everybody the history of this parcel. Wardle: We can do access, but it is -- it was deemed to be a parcel of record legally created through that ITD dedication. So, we will work through it, but it does not need to be included in the plat. Yearsley: I don't think we need to include that in the motion. I -- personally. Starman: Madam Chair, I was just going to add two thoughts there. So, I think there is two topics at play. First of all, I'm very sympathetic with the history of that -- that parcel and the ordeal to try to rectify that situation. I think there is two issues at play here. One is the issue of access and to the extent I think we had a concern earlier today that -- that if that sliver of parcel had legal access today and this project would block that access, that would be a concern. In other words, if this project was to land lock that parcel that would be a concern. If the parcel has never had legal access that's a different story. So, I think we could have that discussion. Part two, though, also part of the Commission's concern for sure and part of your consideration is just the public policy consideration of the annexation and do you -- is it in the city's best interest to approve or recommend the approval of annexation knowing that we are going to create a small little enclave that may never be annexed, that may not be maintained and it may be an issue for the community on a going forward basis. So, that would appear is a public policy question for you and ultimately for the City Council. So, there is two issues at play on that issue. One is the legal access issue and that may or may not be a concern if it doesn't have access today, but there is certainly a public policy issue for the Commission's consideration as well. McCarvel: Okay. I guess we would like that wrapped up in a nice pretty little bow before -- before the next year anyway. Yearsley: So, I don't want to include that in my motion. It stands. Seal: Then I will second it. McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to continue File No. H-2021-0075. All those in -- to the hearing date of January 6th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: One more. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. December 2,2021 F117 Page 64 of 64 Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move we adjourn. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 12/16/2021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 3 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for K1 Speed (H-2021-0077) by Josh Shiverick of Cushing Terrell, Located at 1075 N. Hickory Ave. on the Northwest Corner of E. State Ave. and N. Hickory Ave. Item 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 to operate a 50,000 square foot indoor arts,entertainment and recreation facility within an existing 204,000 square foot industrial building.The proposed use includes an indoor electric go-kart track,concession area,meeting rooms, and associated spaces for K1 Speed,Located at 1075 N.Hickory Avenue,on 9.88 acres of land in the I-L Zoning District,by Cushing Terrell,Applicant Representative. Case No(s).H-2021-0077 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: November 18,2021 (Findings on December 2,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 18, 2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 18, 2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 18, 2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 18,2021, 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2021-0077,KI Speed CUP Page 1 Item 1. 1-51 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of November 18,2021,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 November 18,2021, 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 I 1-513-617.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-61.1,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 November 18,2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2021-0077,Kl Speed CUP Page 2 Item 1. 2nd By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of December ,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 12-2-2021 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 12-2-2021 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: 12-2-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2021-0077,Kl Speed CUP Page 3 item �. EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r A M HEARING November 18,2021 Legend DATE: ®® 0Project Location r TO: Planning&Zoning Commission i FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner J 208-884-5533 L� SUBJECT: H-2021-0077 K1 Speed—CUP LOCATION: 1075 N. Hickory Avenue, in the SW 1/4 of ;.T. the NE 1/4 of Section 8,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel#R3073790250) — I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit to operate a 50,000 square foot indoor arts, entertainment and recreation facility within an existing 204,000 square foot industrial building. The proposed use includes an indoor electric go-kart track,concession area,meeting rooms, and associated spaces for K1 Speed on 9.88 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 9.88 acre site Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Non-Residential(MU-NR) Existing Land Use(s) 204,000 square foot warehouse building(under construction) Proposed Land Use(s) Indoor recreation facility/go-kart track Neighborhood meeting date;#of Sept.20,2021;no attendees - attendees: History(previous approvals) A CUP was approved in 1991 for a PUD—General (Gemtone Inc.).Platted as Lots 1-4,Block 4,Gemtone Center No. 3;H-2020-0094(Vacation);A-2020-0165 (Hickory Warehouse CZC). B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District Page 1 Item 1. Description Details Page • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Two(2)accesses via E. State Avenue(local street)and two Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) (2)accesses via N.Hickory Avenue(industrial collector). All access points are existing and approved from previous approvals(A-2020-0165)for the overall warehouse building. Existing Road Network Yes C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 0 Legend VProject Location El Project Location f r r Lu- LU Density � �=R Resideri�tipl �� NR OFiceLU1r ;r <y, 31 Industrial - I �" Ciuic Zoning Map Planned Development Map 0 Legend 1 R-15 J Legend ®® 0 Project Location C-G , Project Location City Limits Planned Parcels C-C R-4�D • o R-8 R-40 m o m RUT 'T J L-O C-G L-O C-G ' 777 C-G Itit�� ITITQI Page 2 Item 1. 1-91 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Josh Shiverick, Cushing Terrell—800 W. Main Street, Suite 800,Boise,ID 83702 B. Owner: H.O.T. 2, LLLP—PO Box 1335, Meridian, ID 83680 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/2/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 10/27/2021 Site Posting Date 11/3/2021 NextDoor posting 10/28/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Comp. Plan) This property is designated Mixed Use—Non-Residential(MU-NR)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the MU-NR designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted,as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these areas. For example,MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be buffered from residential. Developments are encouraged to be designed similar to the conceptual MU-NR plan depicted in Figure 3E in the Comprehensive Plan(see page 3-18). The Applicant proposes to develop the site with an indoor recreation facility(i.e. an indoor electric go-kart business)within a portion of an existing warehouse building. The warehouse was approved under an administrative application(A-2020-0165) due to the existing industrial zoning and planned unit development in 1991 (through Gemtone CUP). The planned unit development approved in 1991 allowed a myriad of uses beyond just those typically allowed in the I-L zoning district. Across both adjacent streets there is a church,offices, flex space,other warehousing uses, and an indoor recreation facility for a swim school was recently approved—within the subject warehouse where this use is proposed only one other tenant is known at this time and that is a cabinet maker in the northwest corner of the building utilizing approximately 30,000 square feet of the 204,000 square foot building. Therefore,this industrial zoned area is already providing a number of varying uses in the vicinity of the proposed go-kart use. In addition, directly to the west of the subject warehouse is an area of Mixed-Use Community and multi-family housing in the R-15 zoning district that is partially constructed(Pine 43 project). A number of residential units are occupied at this time with additional units under construction; a mix of commercial buildings are also under construction further to the north and along Fairview Avenue. Staff finds the proposal to place an indoor recreation facility adjacent to multi-family residential as a benefit to both uses for the following reasons: the residential would activate the recreation component of the proposed use; an Page 3 Item 1. 10 indoor go-kart facility would offer an additional recreation opportunity for residences nearby and for those throughout the City; existing conditions of landscaping,physical separation, ingress/egress, and the use being indoors offers adequate mitigation of any noxious outcomes. Therefore,because the use is adjacent to residential, office, flex space, and other recreation facilities uses,it should be an appropriate use in the MU-NR FLUM designation for the reasons noted above. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-NR areas: (Staff's analysis in italics) • No new residential uses will be permitted(existing residential may remain).No residential uses are proposed. • All developments should have a mix of at least two types of land uses.Because the use is proposed within an existing building, it is too small of an area to allow the development of multiple land use types. However, the overall MU-NR designated area does have a mix of uses; offices,flex space, and a church exist to east of this site within the MU-NR area. • Development is not required to comply with the minimum number of uses in the general mixed-use standards.Noted. • Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code.No new streets are proposed. • There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, food service/restaurants,industry, or warehouse uses.Noted. • A transitional use is encouraged on the perimeter of the MU-NR areas between any existing or planned residential development.As discussed above, Stafffinds an indoor recreation facility as a transitional use between the existing multi family to the west and the western boundary of the MU-NR area where this use is proposed. The following goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are supported by the proposed development: • "Plan for an appropriate mix of land uses that ensures connectivity,livability, and economic vitality."(3.06.02) The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area and should add to the livability and economic vitality of the community. • "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 subject mixed-use area currently contains office, church uses, and a swim school. The proposed use will provide a recreational opportunity in close proximity to residential neighbors to the west thereby reducing vehicle trips and enhancing livability of the area. • "Provide,partner, and preserve public and private indoor and outdoor recreation amenities for a diverse range of physical activities."(5.01.01 C) The proposed private recreation facility offers opportunities for recreation through electric go-karts to the public and will contribute to the range of physical activities offered in the City. Page 4 Item 1. F11 VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UD The proposed use,an indoor recreation facility, is listed as a conditional use in the I-L(Light Industrial)zoning district per UDC Table 11-2C-2. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2C-3 is required and are met because the proposed use is internal to an approved structure. VII. STAFF ANALYSIS As discussed above in Section V,the proposed indoor go-kart facility is considered an appropriate use and meets the development guidelines listed for the MU-NR designation.The use is also consistent with the Planned Unit Development approved in 1991 for Gemtone Inc.,which approved a mix of commercial and light industrial uses in the I-L zoning district. This use is proposed to be contained within an existing warehouse, as noted above. The tenant space for the go-kart facility will be approximately 50,000 square feet within the warehouse with no exterior spaces or modifications proposed. The Applicant submitted a conceptual floor plan showing internal spaces that include a reception area, concession and seating area, and a few meeting rooms— these areas constitute a few of the accessory uses within the proposed space and are allowed per the specific use standards outlined below. In addition,the hours of operation are a key component of analysis when determining the compatibility of adjacent uses. The Applicant's narrative states the planned hours of operation for the proposed use vary throughout the week but do not exceed loam to I Ipm. Because of the nature of the proposed use and the existing multi-family residential to the west, Staff is recommending a condition of approval consistent with these hours of operation. The proposed use is subject to the following Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-2) -Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Facility,Indoors and Outdoors: (Staff analysis in italics) A. General Standards: I. All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred feet(100') from any abutting residential districts. The playing areas of golf courses,including golf tees, fairways, and greens, are an exception to this standard. (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10-2007).No outdoor recreation areas are proposed; all activities will take place within the building. 2. No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty feet(50')of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of six o'clock(6:00)A.M. and eleven o'clock(11:00)P.M.No outdoor events or activities are proposed. 3. Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail, equipment rental,restaurant, and drinking establishments may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. Noted. 4. Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "Outdoor Speaker Systems",of this title.No outdoor speakers are proposed. B. Additional Standards for Swimming Pools: Any outdoor swimming pool shall be completely enclosed within a six foot(6)non-scalable fence that meets the requirements of the building code in accord with title 10, chapter 1, of this code.Not applicable. C. Additional Standards for Outdoor Stage or Musical Venue: Any use with a capacity of one hundred(100) seats or more or within one thousand feet(1,000')of a residence or a residential district shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005). No outdoor stage or musical venue is proposed. Page 5 Item 1. 12 Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Four(4)driveway accesses are depicted and approved on the overall site plan—two(2)accesses via E. State Avenue (local street)to the south and two (2) accesses via N. Hickory Avenue(industrial collector)to the east.ACHD has approved the location of all access driveways with the administrative approvals for the overall warehouse(A-2020-0165). The proposed use is located at the south end of the warehouse with the public entrance at the southeast corner of the building, closest to the"corner"accesses of State and Hickory. Staff anticipates these two access points will be the main points of ingress and egress for the facility due to their proximity to the business entrance. Should warehouse uses be introduced in the remaining area of the warehouse that require large truck traffic, Staff anticipates the other access points to the site located in close proximity to the west and north property boundaries will be used for ease of access to the roll-up doors on the west side of the building. Staff has no concerns with the ingress and egress to the proposed business. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Based on a proposed tenant space of approximately 50,000 s.f. of gross floor area,a minimum of 100 off-street parking spaces are required. As noted throughout the staff report,the building and other site improvements are existing and include the off-street parking for the entire warehouse building. According to the submitted site plan showing the existing site conditions, a total of 106 parking spaces are outlined in blue directly adjacent to the area proposed for K1 Speed, exceeding UDC standards. Based on 106 parking spaces provided for this use, a minimum of four(4)bicycle parking spaces are required to be provided. Bicycle parking facilities were approved at the time of CZC submittal but the submitted plans do not appear to clearly depict where they are located.At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance Change of Use(CZCU) application,the Applicant should provide plans that clarify the bicycle parking location(s)for this use. Because a vast majority of the area proposed for KI Speed is the actual track that has limited capacity of karts, Staff does not have concern on the number of parking spaces available for the proposed use. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 There are existing 5-foot wide attached sidewalks along E. State Avenue and N. Hickory Avenue that meet UDC standards. Any damaged curb, gutter or sidewalk is required to be replaced. A 5-foot wide continuous internal pedestrian walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s); the walkway should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 10-foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along E. State Avenue,a local street, and a 20- foot wide street buffer is required along N. Hickory Avenue, a collector street, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Parking lot landscaping is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.A 25-foot landscape buffer to the existing multi-family residential to the east is also required. All required landscaping has been proposed and approved with previous approvals. Staffs analysis of the approved landscape plan show compliance with all applicable landscaping code sections. Staff anticipates the proposed use to be less noxious or detrimental to the existing residential so no additional landscaping is recommended by Staff at this time. 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 Page 6 Item 1. 13 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-11C. All outdoor lighting was approved with the CZC approval in 2020. However, any future business signage must comply with all standards outlined in UDC 11-3D. Fencing(UDC 11-3A- : According to the approved landscape plans,it is unclear if any fencing is existing or proposed along the west boundary between the building and the multi-family residential. Code does not require perimeter fencing but if any fencing is proposed in the future, a detail of the proposed fencing should be included on with the CZCU application that demonstrates compliance with the standards in UDC 11-3A-7. Building Elevations: The approved building elevations and perspectives were submitted for the warehouse structure as shown in Section IX.D.As stated throughout this report, these elevations have already been approved through the administrative process and the building is already existing. The submitted elevations are for supplementary purposes only. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (UDC 11-5B-1): A Certificate of Zoning Compliance Change of Use(CZCU)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. 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 November 18, 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: Josh Hersel, Cushing Terrell(Applicant Representative) b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Josh Hersel. d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons,Planning Supervisor(on behalf of 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. None 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 7 Item 1. ■ IX. EXHIBITS A. Approved Site Plan(date: 9/11/2021) Cush GEN—L-TES Terrell. td I __jKEvxaTEs K19peed Tenant Improve 106 P"k, R— ,,g 157 q.... feet wlll be intlusxlal uses. 13: 0 T �d J'F Ll—LL I ------- ------- tY O O 1111 11N A002 Page 8 Item 1. F 1-5 1 B. Approved Landscape Plan(date: 10/7/2020) rn 3snOH3NVM ANOM31H CD CY) u I N F F 'A 4, om V !"n `Z- i'M N -0�Di4tpn� T Al yl IN, z II 22 Qj Q, 4 XV11,11), lo Page 9 Item 1. 16 C. Conceptual Floor Plan(dated: October 2021) Cushing Terrell. ------------------------ - -- +--------------- I i i i I -------- - --L--_—_ ----------- J - - ; I z ? \\\ _ a 4 z z N w z 1{I L I = ' 0 FIRST FLOOR PLAN LARGED FIRST FLOOR PLAN Ow r ocr:.nri A101 Page 10 Item 1. F17 D. Approved Building Elevations (dated: 8/7/2020) HICKORY WAREHOUSE c_ epp •(ti 6 - W� a- �,- a 03 Page 11 Item 1. 18 X. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. The applicant shall comply comply with the site plan,landscape plan, and building elevations approved with A-2020-0165. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2—Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Facility,Indoors and Outdoors, including but not limited to the following: a. Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail, equipment rental,restaurant, and drinking establishments may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only, and not the general public. 3. Hours of operation for the indoor recreation facility shall be limited to 12:00pm— 10:00pm Monday-Thursday, 10:00am— 10:00pm on Sundays, and 10:00am— 11:00pm Fridays and Saturdays as proposed. 4. Prior to building permit submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance Change of Use approval to establish the use and provide staff with any revised plans. 5. The site/landscape plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance Change of Use application shall depict the following: a. A detail of any proposed fencing that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. b. A detail of the location of the required bicycle parking. 6. 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. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=242188&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty A Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was not required for this project. C. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancioy.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=242001&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.ory WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=242183&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty XI. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: Page 12 Item 1. 19 1 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 the dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district for the proposed use. Therefore, 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. Commission finds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide an indoor recreation use which will contribute to the mix of uses desired in the MU- NR designation and should act as a transitional use to the existing residential to the west as desired. 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. Commission finds the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed use with the conditions imposed, should be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity and shouldn't 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. If the proposed use complies with the conditions of approval in Section X as required, 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. 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. Commission finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. Although traffic will increase in this area due to the proposed use, it should not be excessive and would be less impactful than a warehouse use requiring additional truck traffic. The proposed use should not involve any other activities that would 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) 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 13 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: Item #2: Fire Station 8 and Police Substation (H-2021-0078) Application(s): Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.6 acres of land, zoned R-8, located at 4250 N. Owyhee Storm. History: The property was transferred to the City as part of the Gander Creek South No. 1 Final Plat in 2019. The subject lot is specifically designated for a fire station and police sub-station by the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). 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. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 11,637 sq. ft. fire station and 11,560 sq. ft. police substation building (public or quasi-public use). As already mentioned, the property was transferred to the City as part of the Gander Creek Subdivision No 2 specifically for this purpose. A significant amount of land has been annexed and platted in the surrounding area. This includes the Owyhee High School, Gander Creek Subdivision, the Oaks North and South Subdivision, Chukar Ridge and Jump Creek Subdivision. The proposed fire station and police sub-station would increase response times and the approved and tentative developments anticipated location of these facilities during the project analysis. The Gander Creek South Subdivision No. 1 contains a plat note which prohibits direct lot access to N. Owyhee Storm Ave. with the exception for the subject property. This is to allow expeditious and unimpeded emergency access without traveling through the local neighborhood. The site plan indicates one point of access from W. Grand Rapids Dr, (local street) and two points of access from N. Owyhee Storm Ave. a collector. The southern N. Owyhee Storm driveway provides the primary public access for the property. The northern driveway from N. Owyhee Storm Ave. is reserved only for fire equipment access. The access from W. Grand Rapids Dr. serves as access for employee parking. The landscape plan indicates a buffer of at least 50 ft. in width along N. Owyhee Storm Ave and landscaped per the minimum requirements. There are several large landscaped areas at the north and east of the proposed fire station as well as fit pads that can benefit the employees. The landscaping plan exceeds minimum requirements. However, staff notes, t he City Arborist has commented that the Norway Maples and Emerald Ash Borer trees that are proposed on the landscape plan are considered invasive species. The Arborist has included lists of recommended alternatives to these trees. Staff recommended these alternatives as a condition of approval. The Gander Creek South Subdivision No. 1 provides a 10 ft. wide detached pathway paralleling N. Owyhee Storm Ave. along the east. No other pathways are proposed with this project. Attached 5 ft. wide sidewalks have already been constructed along W. Black Butte St. and W. Grand Rapids Dr. at the north and east property lines. There is a 6 ft. wide walkway connecting the west side (front) of the proposed fire station to the 10 ft. detached pathway along N. Owyhee Storm Ave. Wrought-iron fencing of up to 8’ in height is indicated on the site plan to provide security for police vehicles. Staff notes fencing height is limited to 6’ in height in the R-8 zone district. The architect contacted staff this morning inquiring into whether chain link fencing could be used as a substitute for the wrought iron fencing. Staff noted this was not a preferable option but the Planning Commission could make the decision as to whether this was appropriate. The building elevations as submitted may not 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 the ASM states metal panel and untextured concrete can be a field material only if there are at least two other qualifying field materials. At least 30% of the façade must use a combination of concrete, masonry, stone, landscaping or unique variation in color around the base of the building, whereas it does not appear there are any distinct materials along the base. 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. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the conditions as listed in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0078, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 2, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny H-2021-0078, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 2, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0078 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #3: Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) Application(s): Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit; Private Street application was also submitted but is an administrative approval. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 8.8 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at the SEC of Linder 7 Ustick. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-use Community (MU-C, 6-15 du/ac) Summary of Request: Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C (2.01 acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts; Preliminary Plat consisting of 44 residential building lots (43 single-family residential and 1 multi-family residential), 1 commercial building lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts; Conditional Use Permit for a multi- family development consisting of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Note: The Applicant has also received private street approval in a portion of the project; this application is reviewed and approved by the Director so Commission action is not required. The subject site has existing City of Meridian zoning in all directions. The site is directly bordered to its north and west by arterial streets, Ustick and Linder Roads, respectively. Development of the surrounding areas are ongoing with detached single-family to the east and south in Creason Creek Subdivision and multiple office buildings being constructed to the north across Ustick Road. C-C zoning and an ambulance service exist to the west across Linder Road. In addition to the existing land uses around the property, the subject site contains two major waterways and a large area of floodplain that traverse a large segment of the southern half of the site, the Creason Lateral and the Kellogg Drain. The Applicant is proposing to pipe the Kellogg Drain and reroute it to make more area of the site usable as well as provide open space and pathways in the southwest corner of the site and along the west boundary. The proposed land uses are attached single-family, townhomes, multi-family residential, and commercial. These land uses are consistent with those outlined in the MU-C future land use designation definitions when properly integrated with both internal and external uses. Overall, Staff finds the proposed site design does integrate the proposed uses in appropriate manners. Specifically, the Applicant has proposed their multi-family residential product along Ustick and the commercial buildings at the hard corner of the Ustick and Linder intersection which places the most intense uses closest to the arterials. Therefore, the single-family uses are proposed on the remaining area of the site that makes up approximately 70% of the site area. The Applicant is proposing the single-family portion of the site as all two-story except for the 6-unit townhomes along Linder and one additional 3-plex near the southwest corner of the site; these buildings are proposed as 3-story units. In addition to site design and proposed uses, certain densities are required to be met for residential projects within the MU-C future land use designation (6-15 du/ac). The proposed project as shown is approximately 7.35 du/ac, meeting the gross density requirement. Overall, Staff finds the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the future land use designation of Mixed-Use Community. However, Staff finds some revisions to the site plan should occur to better transition from the existing single-family to the east. Specifically, the height disparity between the proposed 4-story multi-family building along Ustick and the proposal to have alley-loaded homes along the east boundary. The existing detached single-family home in Creason Creek directly adjacent to the site is a single- story home with an upstairs bonus room. Despite the separation of the side yard of the single-family home and a proposed micro-path area of 20 feet wide between the two uses, Staff finds the height disparity of the existing home and the proposed 4-story multi-family building is not an adequate transition. Staff is recommending the top two (2) units directly adjacent to Creason Creek are removed so there is approximately 65 feet (includes landscaping and unit width) of separation between the existing home and the 4-story portion of the multi-family building. Applicant has provided revised elevations with the loss of one (1) unit adjacent to the east boundary. Staff recommends the units along the east boundary to be front-loaded instead of utilizing the public street as an alley. Staff recommends a new preliminary plat condition of approval to address this prior to City Council. It should read similar to: “Applicant shall revise the site plan to show those units along the east boundary (Lots 1-12, Block 2) to be front-loaded units and remove the shared pedestrian access along the east boundary; and revise the plat to show the property lines of these lots going all the way to the east boundary for the rear yards of these homes.” Proposed residential uses are allowed uses within requested R-15 zoning district. Future commercial uses will be analyzed when future applications are submitted for this area. Dimensional standards: o Commercial lot meets dimensional standards. o Multi-family meets all standards except for the height—Applicant’s revised elevations of these buildings show compliance with the 40’ height limit of the R-15 zoning district. o Single-family area of the site meets dimensional standards except for the center lot of the 3-plex (Lots 8-10, Block 1). Multi-family Specific Use Standards - Each multi-family unit is proposed as a two-story unit with the units on levels 1 & 2 differing from those on levels 3 & 4. o Lower units provide at least 132 square feet of private open space in the form of private patios; upper units provide at least 251 square feet of private open space per unit in the form of private patios. o Each unit is proposed as being greater than 1,200 square feet so 350 square feet per unit of common open space is required. Based on original number of 18 units, 6,300 square feet of common open space should be provided to satisfy this requirement. Open space for the project is shared throughout the development and the Applicant is proposing open space in excess of code requirements for both the single-family and the multi-family portions of the project. o 18 units = at least 2 amenities from two categories—the Applicant is proposing a shared plaza and public art from Quality of Life and Open Space categories to satisfy this requirement. A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the single-family portion of the site. Based on the proposed plat of 8.75 acres, a minimum of 0.88 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy this requirement. According to the Applicant’s revised open space exhibit, approximately 1.64 acres of qualified open space is proposed (approx. 18.7%). The majority of the qualified open space consists of the large open space area in the southwest corner of the site, the large central mew, and half of the required arterial street buffers. This area exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. Staff finds the proposed open space is adequate in amount and placement to satisfy all code requirements. Based on the area of the proposed plat (8.75 acres), a minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided. Applicant proposed three (3) qualified amenities (correction to staff report that states 2)—a 10-foot multi-use pathway segment, a children’s play structure, and a fenced dog park area. The proposed amenities exceed the minimum UDC standards. Applicant is proposing pedestrian facilities throughout the entire site that include attached sidewalks, micro-paths, and a multi- use pathway segment. All of these facilities connect and integrate the site offering more than adequate pedestrian circulation. All proposed sidewalks/pathways meet UDC standards. Project meets all off-street parking requirements per submitted plans. Future building permits for single-family will verify compliance with off-street parking standards based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Access from the adjacent arterials (N. Linder Road and W. Ustick Road) is proposed via one 25-foot wide driveway connection to each arterial street. o The driveway to Ustick Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out, per ACHD, and passes through the multi-family portion of the project where it connects to the parking drive aisle for the multi-family units and then connects to the proposed private street. o The driveway access to Linder Road is a temporary full access and is located approximately 360 feet south of the Linder/Ustick intersection. ACHD has approved both of these arterial access points through review of driveway analyses made by the Applicant’s traffic engineer. No Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was required because less than 100 residential units are proposed. o The other public access points to the site are proposed via extending a public local street through the site. N. Zion Park Avenue is being extended from the south property boundary and W. Pebblestone Drive is being extended from the east property boundary in the northeast corner of the site and is shown to connect for a completion of the public road system in this development. o Applicant is proposing a private street through a portion of the residential area (west half). According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing this private street to be at least 26 feet wide and be within a 30-foot easement on the plat. The proposed private street and local street are functioning as alleys for a majority of the proposed residential units as the main entrance to each home is located opposite of the garage access. Complies with UDC standards. o Applicant is proposing three (3) detached homes in the southeast corner of the site. These lots take access from a common drive off of the local street extension, N. Zion Park Avenue. The proposal for the number of units and access complies with code requirements. Written Testimony: John & Caryn Bitler – Concerns over the type of residential units proposed being different than the existing homes in Creason Creek, inclusion of multi-family, height disparity of proposed units to the existing homes, and the increase of noise and traffic, etc. Helen & Eder Santana – Similar concerns as above. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of subject applications per the conditions in the staff report. 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- 2021-0071, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 2, 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- 0071, as presented during the hearing on December 2, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0071 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive-Through (H-2021-0073) Application(s): CUP Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.83-acre of land, zoned C-C, located at 3330 E. Victory Rd. History: A DA exists for this property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) Summary of Request: A CUP is proposed for a drive-through for a 2,365 square foot Starbucks coffee shop within 300’ of a residential use/zoning district, which requires approval of a CUP. The proposed development plan is in substantial conformance with the provisions in the existing DA. The proposed use and development plan is consistent with the specific use standards in the UDC for drive-through establishments & restaurant uses with the conditions in the staff report. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards (9 req./19 provided including 6 compact spaces). Street buffer landscaping along Eagle & Victory Rds. will be installed with the subdivision improvements. ACHD is requiring the construction of a northbound right-turn lane on Eagle Rd. Conceptual building elevations are proposed as shown. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0073, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 2, 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-2021-0073, as presented during the hearing on December 2, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0073 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #5: Woodcrest Townhomes (H-2021-0082) Application(s): Preliminary Plat The Commission heard the CPAM & RZ requests on this property back in June/July & recommended approval of these applications to City Council. At the City Council hearing, Council directed the Applicant to submit a preliminary plat application to be heard concurrently with the CPAM & RZ requests. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.97-acres of land, zoned L-O, located at 1789 N. Hickory Way. History: This property was annexed in 1992 as part of Angel Park Subdivision (no DA). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: A Preliminary Plat is proposed consisting of 19 building lots & 4 common lots (including one lot for a private street) on 1.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 3,789 to 2,000 s.f. with an average lot size of 2,701 s.f. The proposed gross density of the subdivision is 9.64 units per acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. Access is proposed via a private street from N. Hickory Way, a collector street. Street buffer landscaping and a sidewalk exist along Hickory Way. Because this site is below 5 acres in size, minimum open space & site amenity standards don’t apply. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0082, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 2, 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- 0082, as presented during the hearing on December 2, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0082 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: Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments (H-2021-0075) Application(s): Annexation, Preliminary Plat & CUP Location: This site is located on the south side of I-84, ¼ mile east of S. Eagle Rd., north of E. Overland Rd. History: A small portion of this southwest portion of this site was previously annexed with the development to the west and zoned C-G. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: Annexation of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district; Preliminary Plat (PP) consisting of 2 MFR building lots & 6 commercial building lots on 29.7 acres of land; and CUP for a MFR development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. There is a 14’ wide sliver of land that exists to the north of the eastern portion the site adjacent to I-84 that is not included in the proposed subdivision, which appears to previously have been part of ITD ROW for I-84 that was sold off as surplus ROW. Staff has determined it to be an original parcel of record, which deems this property eligible for development without that parcel. The Applicant is attempting to obtain the parcel and include it in this development. However, if this doesn’t happen, there will be an undeveloped enclave with County zoning surrounded by City annexed land with no access and likely no maintenance of the property if this property is annexed. Access exists to the site via S. Rolling Hill Dr., an existing local street that serves the rural residential properties to the south; and via 2 driveway accesses from the west which provide access to Silverstone Way, a collector street, & the signalized intersection at Overland Rd. Rolling Hill Dr. is not improved to urban standards (it’s narrow, lacks street lights & doesn’t have curb, gutter and sidewalk). ACHD may require off-site improvements to Rolling Hill Dr. which may include widening of the street in certain areas, traffic calming, and pedestrian facilities; City Staff is recommending street lights are installed. The Ridenbaugh Canal exists along the east boundary of the site; the Applicant is requesting a Council waiver to allow the canal to remain open & not be piped. No connectivity to this property exists from the SFR development to the east. The MFR development contains a mix of studio, 1- and 2-bedroom units on 16 acres of land. Staff is recommending this property is annexed with R-40 rather than C-G zoning as proposed – the Applicant is in agreement. The gross density of the development is 24.8 units/acre, which is consistent with that desired in the MU-R designation. Common open space & site amenities are proposed in excess of the minimum UDC standards. The Applicant has requested alternative compliance to the private usable open space standards as noted in the staff report – the Director has approved a 20% reduction to the minimum standard. Off-street parking does not meet the minimum UDC standards – 660 standard parking spaces are required, including 348 covered spaces & 14 spaces for the clubhouse; 649 spaces are proposed with 391 of those being covered in garages/carports, which includes compact spaces (compact spaces are discouraged but may be used for parking above the minimum required). Additional parking is required to meet the minimum standards. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for the (2) 5-story office buildings, (4) 4-story MFR buildings and the fitness and leasing buildings for the MFR development. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: Pam Haynes, adjacent property owner in Rolling Hill Sub. – concern pertaining to the volume of traffic this project will generate on Rolling Hill Dr. – requests the terminus of Rolling Hill Dr. at the southern boundary of this site have bollards to block off traffic but that would provide emergency access to the site. Staff Recommendation: Approval 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- 2021-0075, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 2, 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- 0075, as presented during the hearing on December 2, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0075 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 December 2, 2021 Item #2: Fire Station 8 and Police Substation PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Landscape Plan Fire Station Item #3: Lennon Pointe Community AZ, PP, CUP AERIALZONING Maps– Proposed Site Plan Building Elevations & Renderings Item #4: Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Through CUP- Site & Landscape Plans Elevations Item #5: Woodcrest Townhomes AERIALZONINGFLUM Preliminary Plat– Landscape PlanPreliminary Plat Item #6: Rackham East AERIALZONINGFLUM Conditional Use Permit–Eagle View Apartments Annexation & Preliminary Plat; – Annexation Boundary Preliminary PlatLandscape Plan Conceptual Development Plan for Overall Site Site/Landscape Plan Phasing Plan– Open Space Exhibit Site Amenities Pedestrian Circulation Plan Conceptual Building Family -Multi–Elevations Fitness buildingFamily Development -MultiLeasing building Office Buildings Conceptual Building Elevations Item 2. 20 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Fire Station 8 and Police Substation (H-2021-0078) by City of Meridian, Located at 4250 N. Owyhee Storm Ave. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to develop the property with two (2) public/quasi-public uses, an 11,560 square-foot police station and an 11,637 square-foot fire station on approximately 3.60 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Item 2. F21 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: December 2, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Fire Station 8 and Police Substation (H-2021-0078) by City of Meridian, Located at 4250 N. Owyhee Storm Ave. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to develop the property with two (2) public/quasi-public uses, an 11,560 square-foot police station and an 11,637 square-foot fire station on approximately 3.60 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 2. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 12/2/2021 legend �+ DATE: ' Project Lc=afor � t TO: Planning&Zoning Commission i FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner SUBJECT: H-2021-0078 - Fire Station 8 and Police Substation Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 4250 N. Owyhee Storm Near the southwest corner of W. ' McMillian Rd and N. McDermott 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 3.6 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 3.6 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential—Fire Station and Police Station Existing Land Use(s) 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 development first. Physical Features(waterways, McFadden Drain is to the south,although not on the hazards,flood plain,hillside) subject property. Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 22,2021,no attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ H-2019-0013,DA Instr.2019-060657,FP H-2019- 0108 Page 1 Item 2. F 3 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Staff report was completed with the annexation/rezoning Gander Creek Subdivision Access(Arterial/Collectors/State N.Owyhee Storm Ave(Collector) Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Existing Road Network N.Owyhee Storm Ave(Collector) Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Existing 10 ft.wide pathway along the eastern side of N. Buffers Owyhee Storm Ave,5 ft.attached sidewalks along W. Black Butte St and W. Grand Rapids Dr. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service This proposal is for a fire station. Police Service This proposal is for a police sub-station. Wastewater • No changes to public sewer infrastructure shown in record.Any changes must be approved by Public Works. • Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. • Flow is committed. Water • There is no water infrastructure shown in this record.Water will be served from the east from Gander Creek South No 2. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map a r Legend Legend 0 leiP•o"eci Lacaiian Project Lccaiian ke Resldenflal AAU-C fined-High dium Derrs ily Dens Residen Page 2 Item 2. F24 Zoning Map Planned Development Map ++ Legend _ (Legenda 0 I leiProject Luca ; I Project Loca fen City Linvk ELY — Pk3rred Fors= u ILI T u i R-4, R�$ , f R-W �We 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 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/16/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/10/2021 Sign Posting 11/15/2021 Nextdoor posting 11/12/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The property is 3.6 acres in size,is zoned R-8,and was transferred to the City as part of the Gander Creek South No. 1 Final Plat in 2019.The subject lot is specifically designated for a fire station and police sub-station by the Future Land Use Map(FLUM).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. A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /�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. Page 3 Item 2. ■ The FLUM shows a fire and police station symbol in the general vicinity(east of N. Owyhee Storm Ave. and south of N.Jarbridge Ave.). 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://www.meridiancity.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 and platted in the surrounding area. This includes the Owyhee High School, Gander Creek Subdivision (400+/- lots), the Oaks North and South Subdivision (approximately 1,000 lots), Chukar Ridge (63 lots) and Jump Creek Subdivision (318 single family lots and 2 multifamily lots). There are also several significant nearby developments presently in the entitlement process such as Aviator Springs and Aegean Estates. The proposed fire station and police sub-station would increase response times and the approved and tentative developments anticipated location of these facilities during the project 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. • Ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. (4.04.01A) The Gander Creek South Subdivision No. I provides 10 ft. wide detached pathways along N. Owyhee Storm Ave. These pathways connect to the Owyhee High School to the south. • 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 Gander Creek South Subdivision No. 1 contains a plat note which prohibits direct lot access to N. Owyhee Storm Ave. with the exception for the subject property. This is to allow expeditious and unimpeded emergency access without traveling through the local neighborhood. The site plan indicates one point of access from W. Grand Rapids Dr, (local street) and two points of access from N. Owyhee Storm Ave. a collector. The southern N. Owyhee Storm driveway provides the primary public access for the property. The northern driveway from N. Owyhee Storm Ave. is reserved only for fire equipment access. The access from W. Grand Rapids Dr. serves as access for employee parking. Page 4 Item 2. 26 • 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 S. Owyhee Storm Ave. at the west and W. Grand Rapids Dr. at the north and east.Access for emergency vehicles will occur at N. Owyhee Storm Ave., a collector, to reduce impacts on the internal neighborhood. Design review will be required during the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZQ to ensure the future facilities are compatible with the surrounding properties. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The property is presently vacant. 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 ft. from a collector street,rear setback of 12 ft. and 10 ft. side setback. Building height is limited to 35 feet. A 20 ft.wide buffer is required along collector roads. The site plan as submitted appears to meet the minimum dimensional standards. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): N. Owyhee Storm Road is improved with 2-travel lanes, and a 10 ft. wide detached pathway along the eastern side. W. Black Butte St. and W. Grand Rapids Dr.,bordering the property at the north and east, contain 5 ft.wide attached sidewalk. Landscape buffers have not yet been installed. Primary access will occur from two accesses off of N. Owyhee Storm Rd. Although UDC 11-3A- 3 typically requires any property that takes direct access to an arterial and/or collector roadway to be configured to take access from a local street is available,the Gander Creek South No. 1 plat has a note which specifically allows these accesses. This is to allow unimpeded emergency access directly to the collector instead of requiring travel though the local neighborhoods. There is an additional employee access provided from W. Grand Rapids Dr., at the east side of the property. 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 23,197 sq. ft.between the first station and the police sub-station,46 parking spaces are required. The site plan indicates 69 parking spaces for the police substation, and 21 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 west side of the fire station. The parking plan appears to meet most of the landscaping requirements of UDC 11-313-8. Page 5 Item 2. 27 I. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): The Gander Creek South Subdivision No. 1 provides a 10 ft. wide detached pathway paralleling N. Owyhee Storm Ave. along the east.No other pathways are proposed with this project. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Attached 5 ft.wide sidewalks have already been constructed along W. Black Butte St. and W. Grand Rapids Dr. at the north and east property lines. There is a 6 ft.wide walkway connecting the west side(front)of the proposed fire station to the 10 ft. detached pathway along N. Owyhee Storm Ave. This walkway also crosses the drive aisle and connects to the proposed police substation,although it appears the internal pedestrian walkway is not distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as required per UDC 11-3A-19. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-2A-5 requires a 20 ft. landscape buffer along collector roads. These buffers must be landscaped at one(1)tree per thirty-five(35)linear feet. Parking lot landscaping is required around the perimeter of the parking lot,and no linear grouping 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 50 ft. in width along N. Owyhee Storm Ave and landscaped per the minimum requirements. There are several large landscaped areas at the north and east of the proposed fire station as well as fit pads that can benefit the employees. The landscaping plan exceeds minimum requirements. There are no existing trees that qualify for preservation or mitigation. The City Arborist has commented that the Norway Maples and Emerald Ash Borer trees that are proposed on the landscape plan are considered invasive species. The Arborist has included lists of recommended alternatives to these trees. Staff recommends the above listed trees be replaced with one of the alternatives as a condition of approval in accord with the approved tree species listed in UDC 11- 3B-5A.1. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Wrought-iron fencing of up to 8' in height is indicated on the site plan to provide security for police vehicles. 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 to allow the increased fence height as proposed. M. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Water and sewer will be provided from the Gander Creek South No. 1 to the east. N. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The City has submitted elevations for both buildings. Architecture consists of sloped roof buildings with CMU and wood grain metal panel as the primary field materials. The building elevations as submitted may not 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,landscaping or unique variation in color around Page 6 Item 2. 28 the base of the building,whereas it does not appear there are any distinct materials along the base. 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 V in accord with the Findings in Section IX. Page 7 Item 2. F29 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 10/7/2021) 2 2 �6E1PNG CN]Pf . ............ ..•.. ), rr •,k vim.---- :,';;>:,::• .,. I _ PROPOSED FIRE STATION.#;:_ ,,,. C 101: , . G: I I 3•- 'f 91 P,� d- AE s f„„r,.;;;�g:•_{;fl':=> PROPOSED P6LJCE PRECINCT sm nditional Use Permit-Site Plan i •1. .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. . Page 8 Item 2. F30 B. Landscape Plan(date: 10/7/2021) 1 2 3 4 5 r Lordms�"urementr r.anumepa �,: ..' '^.' '•V �� mew �,m.a �,� o.gn...n. ±' �uinrVWl�J�oN�Y� v.onvw. •�._' � •� �� nn.e a.w nw. mar• .wwm.ww� ''� �L',;•y•''''•'•��'!'''•:'.�''�,.••'.•'�'':•,.::�'''�•F�i�'. iw.r.n1'aY rFw.sn - ''• — -tom t L— r" Ell 4 E PROPOSED R FIE STATION An . :1 m L r PROPOSED ` xA POUIGEPRECINCT iditianal Use Permit-Landscape Plan *® A. . . . . . . . . . . .I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9 Item 2. F 3 C. Fire Station Elevations(date: 9/22/2021) i lrk% F—-I L 0I) Ww ELEMTIM EAg Ep - ----------- E�D -------------- - ----- - SJATIO 10 G G 8 14 El Tr-(APP-n Page 10 Item 2. 32 D. Police Station Elevations(date 9/22/2021) Of � I � i � �... . I •' I fl � I I !1 FSIWIal F3fVAlIOX•1YF51 u.ir 1O1{f !] F%IF110AFlfYAIXXI.514R �`� m ![ FAIFACH FlF1111X11•FAST 9IXFJ�IP.l1[E � Xuv .f•re Ytl N•H Q !u �.ie I—, "`1~ I I I I I -aj I I I "' I I I I p--• ��� Q IXIWIaI[ifVA1gX�ILWN@ Q fSiF110A[ifYAlgX.41NM@ 6 fSIF110A[1fYA •1lallN I i = --+-='� --+ ---�----t -�--- 1-------- -�-----� ---'fie i �E{RlVOI.FSfVAIgX•11alIX® oa FI1fA0A Fannon vim _J I_— F- ..m��_rt_ V I I I — a©I I FI TP�6FP9X6 FIMiilafl F3 E%fk FI�AFIEVAT:IX�FiW ti^�~ Page 11 Item 2. 33 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. All Norway Maples and Emerald Ash Borer trees indicated on the landscape plan shall be replaced with alternatives as indicated on the list provided by the City Arborist in accord with UDC 11-313-5A.1. 4. The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site (H-2021-0003,H-2019-0013). 5. The required landscape buffers along streets shall be constructed consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. 6. All ACHD conditions of approval shall be complied with. 7. 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 11-3A-6B, as applicable, or developer shall submit a concurrent alternative compliance to increase the fence height to 8 feet as proposed. 8. Per UDC 11-3A-19, a continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of five(5)feet in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s)for nonresidential uses. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,or bricks. 9. Outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-I I shall be complied with. 10. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to meet the specific use standards for the proposed use as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-30. 11. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2)years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two(2)years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. B. PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches 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. Page 12 Item 2. 34 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. C. CITY ARBORIST https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243356&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity D. ACHD https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=239734&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty 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 the parking area will be landscaped as required by UDC 11-3B-8. There are additional areas for employee fitness and leisure. 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. Page 13 Item 2. 35 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. As mentioned 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 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. As the subdivision was platted and designed with afire station and police substation intended in this location, 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 North 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 14 w 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ I Landscape Requirements: Landscape Calculations: Project Information: ;�;.;.'. `,• �. PER MERIDIAN, IDAHO CITY CODE: NUMBER OF STREET TREES AND LINEAL FEET OF 40 (MIN.)TREES PROPOSED, 1368 TOTAL I - -•• • • - �� ` �' •;-;•; STREET FRONTAGE L.F. OF STREET FRONTAGE PROJECT: SOUTH MERIDIAN FIRE STATION&POLICE STATION ` ` ' '- •`��� '+`,`,`,-, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ALONG STREETS (11-3B-7-3) � I ILL. w G _ ONE (1)TREE PER THIRTY-FIVE (35) LINEAR FEET WITH SHRUBS, LAWN, OR OTHER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TREES N/A APPLICANT ' - I VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER. COMPANY: MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS Ivot , g;,;;�• ..... .-.-.-,',-;•;-� • •. . . -'+`.'.'+`.`.` ,®• ACREAGE AND PERCENTAGE DEDICATED FOR COMMON N/A CONTACT: STACYREDMAN, FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGER ' +• •`•• •�fi•+•- +` . STREET TREES REQUIRED TREES PROVIDED OPEN SPACE -®`+`+-� , + + — — , •�, '-•�--` N. OWYHEE STORM AVE. (505 L.F.) 15 TREES 15 TREES ADDRESS: 33 E. BROADWAY AVE. STE 200 2 � EE•`+'+`.`+`.'.`,` �+ +-,` '•', W. BLACK BUTTE ST. (110 L.F.) 3TREES 3TREES ACREAGE AND PERCENTAGE DEDICATED FOR N/A MERIDIAN, IDAHO© • •; .r +`+ 2 W. GRAND RAPIDS DR. (409 L.F.) 12 TREES 12 TREES QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE ARCHITECTURE /,`,`,` no ( h -;I• -+• N.WOOLEY CREEK AVE. (344 L.F.) 10 TREES +10 TREES PHONE: 208.489.0374 • ;_; /.' `.`, .'�.`• NUMBER OF TREES PROVIDED ON COMMON LOT(S) N/A © - +; .+I;};• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, CIVIL ENGINEER A ; ,'I•t y INTERIOR PARKING LOT(11-3B-8-C-2) WIDTH OF STREET BUFFERS 20-FT MINIMUM, SEE PLAN COMPANY: THE LAND GROUP, INC ;•;-� . . �'+;I+`+;.�.;. ONE (1)TREE AND LOW SHRUBS, LAWN, OR OTHER VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER PER EACH CONTACT: BOB SCHAFER, PLA(PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT) .;I ;+• • INTERIOR PLANTER THAT SERVES A SINGLE ROW OF PARKING SPACES. WIDTH OF PARKING LOT PERIMETER LANDSCAPE STRIP 8-FT MINIMUM PROVIDED, SEE PLAN CONTACT: ERIC CRONIN, PLA (PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER) '•�'-'-'• PIVOT NORTH ARCHITECTURE, PLLC. + ' ��'t'++ PARKING AREA TREES REQUIRED TREES PROVIDED ADDRESS: 462 E. SHORE DR., SUITE 100 1101 W. GROVE STREET '1` •-•- .I'1••• 21 INTERIOR ISLANDS 21 TREES 17 TREES* BUFFER WIDTH BETWEEN DIFFERENT LAND USES N/A EAGLE, IDAHO 83616 BOISE, ID 83702 *FOUR (4) LESS TREES PROVIDED DUE TO SITE CONSTRAINTS. HOWEVER, FOUR (4) NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS AND PERCENT OF 90,APPROXIMATELY 15% PHONE: 208.939.4041 www.pivotnorthdesign.com + + , , , .I'•II ADDITIONAL TREES ARE LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE SITE TO ACCOMMODATE FOR LOSS. PARKING AREA WITH INTERNAL LANDSCAPING •��'-' `.I`.`. :'I.` ` .' NOT FOR +�-�` TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES AND TREE SPECIES MIX 83 TREES, 10 SPECIES MIX CALLOUT NUMBERS COORDINATED STAMP r 11 w +� TO NUMBERED NOTES BELOW. c J , . •�` . , , , , . . , . . •� Ke notes: �� V ;,•• ; •+•`+`+-.`+.,-,`,`+`,.,•,+,+,•,.,+,-;;:;.;+;•`;� ;+� .�+� MITIGATION FOR REMOVAL OF EXISTING TREES N/A-NO EXISTING TREES 1. 20'x 10'DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE 2. 40'x 40'CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE Qo • •� ,�. •� 3. 3'-4'HEIGHT LANDSCAPE BERM. 33%MAX SLOPE. 1-FT CONTOUR INTERVALS. U_ w + + + CONSTRUCTION Landscape Legend � 11.94 + 10.07 8.94 ;r;. ;.;.;.;.;.;.`.;.;,;,;,;.;,; ;,;.;.`.;.;,;..` mw \ ' ' ' ' ' + SHRUB BEDS, 'l "- "' +} `I� + + + - - +� + ;, q3 \ TURF SOD / / / / / SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND � � -• 2 REFERENCE SHRUBS FOR + + ����-��-��+ TYPICAL SPECIES. 3-IN DEPTH, 1-IN BLACK RIC BILLER -+• AND TAN MULCH +�•. .+r•�+��+-�-+��•`�-•`+•�.++++�+�.•.+.�`.`,-,•,•.+�•�.�+�+��� -\ �•�• \ PROPOSED TREES SEE PLANT 12-IN DEPTH 6-IN ROUND w COBBLESTONE FOR HOSE SCHEDULE AND ° J `+•+. ++ `+` +-`-``•-+`�•++�+-�•++�+`�`� `.`+-+`.`. +� -+�% \ REFERENCE TREES TRAINING TARGET .�� IV , , . . , , , , -,�,• �• W - - G - - _ _ G FOR TYPICAL ��. •�� G - G - - G _ G ❑� SPECIES w •�`� `��' G - - , , , , , , , �� �- �� - w G G —GrR _G G_ _ G G � B .�•. -- '�' '� \ 0 PLANT SCHEDULE ��+`�• + , , , . . • , , , , •�� TREES BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE CONTAINER wv Q o ` +- --•-•`+.••�+++ + - \+•- �+ AA ACER SHIRASAWANUM AUTUMN MOON /AUTUMN MOON MAPLE 5 GAL. �' Z O . , + . + . . •.I-,` .:mot. . . . , 0 CE . u_ LL W , . , . . - -__ . . . , , -+-++ , -++ . -++ • t + I-+``�-�� •`.'. +• - '� �' DECIDUOUS TREES BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE CONTAINER J C, F-j :I,+I `f.-'�• LO .````''`+ - - • - • • • + �' '- °° ►� GRAND R4pIDS 0 AD ACER PLATANOIDES 'DEBORAH' /DEBORAH MAPLE 2"CAL. B&B ` `- i i i i i i / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / •`•'+ FP FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA PRAIRIE SPIRE /PRAIRIE SPIRE ASH 2 CAL B&B ' +I'•I`+`+`+`+`+f+•.'.`.',-.-,-, I LEDITSIATRIACANTHOSINERMIS SKYCOLE T /SKYLINETHORNLESSHONEYLOCUST CAL &B i `�^ - � G G M 2" B -I .I•• `� - - / -- -A 1 G .r Q+ `G �-- • - iv LS LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA 'SLENDER SILHOUETTE' /COLUMNAR SWEET GUM 2"CAL. B&B /� _ 10T 2 G G G U ILL. ILL. W •+ac �, .r.— �1- r_ �F-- `T+T — — •,�` — ` _ , EVERGREEN TREES BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE CONTAINER W -F �� ' L + + -"r•- PF PINUS FLEXILIS VANDERWOLF'S PYRAMID /VANDERWOLF S PYRAMID PINE 6 HT. B&B I O O -;`;` ; .; `! ��`,• PG PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA' /COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 6' HT. B&B ------ • W \L(D i - —` +'+ �•;`; PK PINUS KORAIENSIS/KOREAN PINE 10' HT. B&B w I of o . , . , . . , , , , . , . . . . . . . . . . . ':` `;' i U FLOWERING TREES BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE CONTAINER CA CERCIS CANADENSIS 'APPALACHIAN RED' /EASTERN REDBUD 2"CAL. B&B O w O I I . , . . . . . . , , ,. �I` . . 3 r . . B B PROPOSED I � � + � - + + •�•;•�•-• ° :I + ,�;� w i MS -SPRING SNOW CRAB APPLE 2 CAL. & m R1 I I -�.- +.•+•`-+-'•'+'•''•`' '`+`+`+`'`'`-`•` ` ° V SHRUBS BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE CONTAINER o Z FIRE STATION L----- co + + - R1 I I -� -'+`+ +`.'.`.`,`.`.`.'+•,•,`;-;•;•;•,•,- +•�•'•;+;+ ° ° - • CK CALAMAGROSTISXACUTIFLORA 'KARLFOERSTER' /FEATHER REED GRASS 1GAL. O ,t,•,•, .;.;. .I;.;.;.;� 2.04'0o CM COREOPSISVERTICILLATA MOONBEAM/MOONBEAM THICKLEAFTICKSEED 1 GAL. — �I 2 O , + -- —` - +— '' ` -';-•_+_T•; `J FE FESTUCA GLAUCA 'ELIJAH BLUE/ELIJAH BLUE FESCUE 1 GAL. . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . o ; / / / / / . , •i�+i+�+ + . , , . . . . . . , . , , . . .+ . � GA GAILLARDIA X GRANDIFLORA ARIZ ONA SUN' BLANKETFLOWER 1 GAL.... . . 5.11' HB HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA 'BRAKELIGHTS TM RED YUCCA 5 GAL._ IV HB2 HELI TRI N SEMPERVIRENS �BL E ATS� BL E AT GRASS 1GAL. Q ZQo / HP, HEMER ALLI X 'PARDON ME' PARDON ME DAYLILY 1 AL.OC S 0 0 G �` . W .li.•: + + , / i 8' / i / i / `�`r` HP2 HOSTA FORTUNEI/PLANTAIN LILY 3 GAL LU �•+`+` � -I+•�• 41 ° " i i � ' �`+` JB JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM BLUE ARROW /BLUE ARROW JUNIPER 5 GAL. • . ` . ` , ` . . LM LAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA 'MUNSTEAD' /MUNSTEAD ENGLISH LAVENDER 1 GAL. 7 Li . , , ,+� • �`.h+•+. . �' `�' o " ' i MP MISCANTHUS SINENSIS PURPURESCENS /FLAME GRASS 1 GAL. z Q •�+ + ♦ .'I•` `.I.. - •46.46'+ ;� f. MR MAHONIA REPENS/CREEPING MAHONIA 3 GAL. 0.91' `�• + + ,I�, / / PH PANICUM VIRGATUM 'HEAVY METAL' /BLUE SWITCH GRASS 1 GAL. Q O " ' N .11.99' . 10.16'f8.93" + i , , , , i i .,I` I FIN PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS SUMMER WINE' /SUMMER WINE NINEBARK 5 GAL. . . w . . .•. `I.t.• PP PINUS MUGO VAR. 'PUMILIO' /MUGO PINE 3 GAL. _/ / , a--+ w • U `�'+ +rI+ .-I•;.;,;,•,;, ;, i i o „ „ , + + + + FIG RHUS AROMATICA GRO-LOW /GRO LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC 2 GAL. c ?� / O + o w ��-���• +I`+ / / / i , „ , j , / / + , .�lt;, SS SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM THE BLUES /THE BLUES LITTLE BLUESTEM 1 GAL. .� +ram• I . .`/.`.- / / / / / / . N ` • Ln u_ w `� I / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / .M� / / / / / / / / / � r ,� I .co , . z D CD t rr F `I•r. I � -�-'17 LL 'bi U . . +. •'I�`� +�� + . , . . .- / / / / / / / / / / / I -) •`.:T.Tr' �`I- Project No: 20-049 _ 0 I .`+'+'•+. O Date: 10/07/2021 " I z �� ;�• ; ; , I `1' I' `� Checked By. EC/BS ` + " Drawn B y: CR/JL/DD/HD . . , .•.`, Sheet Name : •�, LU I rn =� •- LU Landscape Plan �°�`• cry . . . ;:r: .'�• -f:�:�:;::� :�.=: ; , PROPOSED I , ' � . . •}-'+`-`=�:;- " " ' " POLICE PRECINCT % z N. L.L - E , . . . . . . =a= z 1 56. + � �. 'E�• Sheet No . 44. 1 M� / /65. — r ED CL w L1 .00 x— y_ V ., N Conditional Use Perm it=Landscape Plan 20' 40' N 0 Horizontal Scale: 1" = 20' Item 3. 36 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from November 18, 2021 for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG Group Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1515 W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C (2.01 acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 44 building lots (43 single-family residential and 1 multi-family residential), 1 commercial building lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Item 3. F37 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: December 2, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from November 18, 2021 for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG Group Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1S1S W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C (2.01 acres) and R-1S (8.3 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 44 building lots (43 single-family residential and 1 multi-family residential), 1 commercial building lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-1S zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-1S 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 3. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r A M O HEARING 12/2/2021 DATE: Legend I PI-1 0 g Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner --- 208-884-5533 d._ SUBJECT: H-2021-0071 IaJUB Lennon Pointe Community I LOCATION: The site is located at 1515 W.Ustick H--iFFFrFE- Road,in the southeast corner of N. Linder Road and W.Ustick Road in the NW'/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 1, Township 3N.,Range 1 W. ME „ . I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C(2.01 acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres)zoning districts; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 44 residential building lots (43 single-family residential and 1 multi-family residential), 1 commercial building lot,and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts; • Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district,by DG Group Architecture,PLLC. Note: The Applicant is also applying for private streets in a portion of the project. This application is reviewed and approved by the Director, Commission action is not required. Analysis of the private street design is provided below in section V. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 10.41 (R-15—8.3 acres;C-C—2.01 acres) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Community Existing Land Use(s) County residential Proposed Land Use(s) Residential(townhomes,single-family attached,single-family detached, and multi-family)and Commercial Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 47 total lots—43 residential lots; 1 multi-family residential lot; 1 commercial;and 2 common lot. Phasing Plan(#of phases) No phasing plan was submitted Page 1 Item 3. F39 Description Details Number of Residential Units 61 residential units—4 detached single-family lots,30 single-family (type of units) attached lots,9 townhome lots,and 18 multi-family units. Density Gross—7.35 du/ac.;Net— 18.55 du/ac. Open Space(acres,total 1.64 acres of qualified open space(18.7%)—large open space area in [%]/buffer/qualified) the southwest corner of the site,the large central mew,and half of the required arterial street buffers Amenities 2 qualifying amenities for UDC 11-3G-3—segment of 10-foot multi-use pathway and tot-lot(non-qualifying dog-park area is also proposed). 2 qualifying amenities for the multi-family residential(UDC 11-4-3-27) —shared plaza and public art feature. Physical Features(waterways, Kellogg Drain and Creason Lateral traverse the southern portion of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) site.Floodplain exists over a majority of the site. See Public Works comments for further requirements,Section VIILB. Neighborhood meeting date September 7,2021 History(previous approvals) N/A B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access to the adjacent arterials(Ustick and Linder)is proposed via one driveway (Arterial/Collectors/State connection to each. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Private Street access is proposed to the internal local street being extended through the Proposed) site. Traffic Level of Service Ten Mile Road—Better than"E"(1.474/1,540 VPH) Pine Avenue(existing section only)—Better than"D"(182/425 VPH) Stub Two local stub streets exist to the east and south property boundaries—Applicant is Street/Interconnectivity/Cross proposing to extend each street and intersect them within the site. Access Applicant is proposing a private street through the west half of the development that connects to the extended local street. Access to the commercial property at the northwest corner of the site is proposed via drive aisle connections to the proposed private street and the multi-family drive aisle. Access to the multi-family units is proposed via a typical drive aisle. Existing Road Network Internal road network is not existing. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Existing arterial sidewalks;The required landscape buffers will be installed with this Buffers project. Proposed Road Improvements None proposed or required with this application.Below are anticipated improvements to adjacent roadways: Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)I Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Ustick Road to Cherry Lane in the future with the design year of 2025. • Ustick Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Linder Road to Ten Mile Road in 2025. • Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Ustick Road to Cherry Lane between 2036 and 2040. • Ustick Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Linder Road to Ten Mile Road between 2021 and 2025. Page 2 Item 3. F40 Description Details Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.5 miles from Fire Station#2 • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 85%. • Risk Identification Risk Factor 4—commercial with hazards(multi-family waterway) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds;Fire has signed off on Private Street layout. Addressing for project is very important for emergency responses;Applicant shall work with City Addressing Agent and the Fire Official to have lighted maps wherever necessary. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 4.2 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximate 4-minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 10/1/2019-9/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 4,584 calls for service within the reporting district(M731)of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 442. See attached documents for details. Between 10/1/2019-9/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 62 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Additional Concerns None West Ada School District Approved prelim Approved MF plat parcels per units per Miles Enrollment Ca aci attendance area attendance area oe.to xhooq River Val ley Elementary 453 700 433 560 4.8 Meridian Middle School 1097 1000 800 1798 2.2 Meridian High School 1769 2075 3728 2300 2.0 School of Choice Options Chief Joseph School-Arts 498 700 N/A NIA 3.7 Barbara Morgan-STEM 412 500 N/A N/A 1.0 Water • Project Consistent with No—See attached water markup in Exhibit VII.F and conditions in Section VIII.B for Master Plan required revisions. • Comments • A water main connection will be required to Ustick Road. • Current design does not follow the utility corridor.Water mains should be located north and east of roadway centerline. • A water main connection will be required to the existing stubs in North Zion Park Avenue and West Pebblestone Drive. • The proposed main west of Building B should be eliminated. • Complete the water loop by extending the water main in the private road between Building B and Building D1 to the northeast. • Minimize water main length near the commercial lot at the northwest corner of the development.Bring the water main only as far as needed to provide a hydrant for the buildings' fire protection.Extend service lines from the main to serve the two retails buildings. • Water mains should not cross through landscaping or sidewalks. Wastewater • Project Consistent with No—Development needs to tie into sewer at W.Pebblestone Dr.and not in W.Ustick. Master Plan Page 3 Item 3. F41 Description Details • Comments • Services should not cross other residential lots.The services in the southeast corner do this and need to be adjusted. •Sewer needs to tie into the cleanout in W.Pebblestone Dr.The cleanout is supposed to be temporary until this parcel developed.The City does not want the clean out there permanently. •There is a manhole located in a landscaping area(located at the NE corner nearest Pebblestone Dr).Reconfigure so this manhole is in the ROW. •20'Utility easement for sewer and 30'utility easement for sewer and water needed. •Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement. •Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches. COMPASS—Communities in 72 Motion 2040 2.0 Review Housing w/in 1 mile 5,240 Jobs w/in 1 mile 970 • Ratio 0.2—indicates an employment need(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered healthy ratio). Nearest Bus Stop 3.1 miles Nearest Public School 0.5 miles Nearest Public Park 0.25 miles—Approximately11/4 mile north of Tully Park(18.3 acres in size). Nearest Grocery Store 1.6 miles Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full file. Page 4 � m 1 1 1 �Il • • - • • • 1 �m anlrjrl nn■II■ � • - • • • � - L��rlyj IIIII _ �i IIII =- � away 7 L � Imo` • • �IIIIII�` IIII�� -. 4 �:: ' °' ■■■■■f ■fff■■■■■I■1ISTIC - ,- - - '' r rum ■f■ a■fn _ C �G, �'. -� ■i■;:■ I � —III L:d111111111111x111� t - Yl _ -,I �■ - • i w --__ no -_IIh IIIIII Illllnln �� ',CI ' _— ■■ ■fff■■� IIP�-w-_- � ��� 1_I CII iif■ No■ ■iiii■���u■n �I— \ ,J w k �..rZ .:: ■ �.. �. ', � ,yam; r, � - ♦ ■�� IIII ■ ����nfn� ,,: ray �� � i 'P��a �� -�n .■■nfn■ m u■ m room r■■nnn � - -�... r..... ■n - • - • , - - • - • I _ � r IN J �rl nnr111■ Iiln nnlr.11 nnllll■ Irurr unl Illll IIIII � �Ir+m unl IIIII IIIII-�r. � Llnlnirr�' lux l � f�iir! luxln Q: ■_:_ IIIII un IIIIIIIIIIII nm ml 'IIIII.II1.111111, ' • -• •• IIIIIII=C:1. ■ �■■■■ n _x�Illl 11i1► _IIIIIII==Y►1 ::�=IIII 1111 ► ram. '71■- nm=_ _ -n■= ROOMI=nlln9ulil= u US7ICK= , miif mno■i■ri � K — ■■.r�r r■■N■■■■I■1 ,IIIII! IIIII i�I r � i�a/r1 _�iix� ,r�. *...■..� ,��is� IIIIIII_ ,r�. *.....■. �.r�r — _IIIIIII_= � �.■■■■■ ■■■■n ■■■ '�, o. .Ill/�■ —p `- ■■■■f■^ �� I;._--=1111111111111111111111 J�ww■ ■ --�_ �� -rnlllllll � ■■ ��■w■■��`,�tir,��i r �-_�I1111111111 IIIIIIIIII- ` son �� ii�f1r�■�■�ii __ww riE =_ _ ■■ �ii Z _ww w--w w___ ■■■■ �■■� ■■■■■■■■■■ - -a-_� �� ■■� ■■_ ■■■■■■■■■■ ---w� ■■■■■■■■■■■ ---- oil :iiiiIfI P-� ■■■moons ■■■ f ■ Z f■■■■■d1�--�1�■ �r�yam�+■1;�:r_ :: ■ ■■■■�- 1:iiii■M ■ _ ■�■lr 7gl�e z... MENNEN ■■■■■■■■ ■■ ♦ � ■-- - I ■I r.■■■■■■_ � ■.- IIII .■■■■■■_ w � _ ri:nm: :�•=�n_ riinm: r■■f ■�fa r■=-_ ■w■■■■■■ �■ �■� ■=w= ■w■■■■■■ jii ME u■ n� r■min I . r■■nnm m■n ■n n. noon I . ■,�fnno ■■■ ■n■■ffff■ff■f r■■■■■■■ 6 _ �■■■■■ ■ iN■■■■ ■n■ff■ff■ff■ffr;��■■■■■■■■■ i 1 1 �� i 1 i � i • i Item 3. 43 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/2/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 10/27/2021 Site Posting 11/2/2021 Nextdoor posting 10/28/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan) Mixed Use Community—The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community- serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU- R) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to(up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. The subject site has existing City of Meridian zoning in all directions, including across the adjacent arterials to the north and west. The site is directly bordered to its north and west by arterial streets, Ustick and Linder Roads, respectively. Development of these areas are ongoing with detached single-family to the east and south in Creason Creek Subdivision and multiple office buildings being constructed to the north across Ustick Road.An ambulance service and C- C zoning exist to the west across Linder Road. In addition to the existing land uses around the property, the subject site contains two major waterways and a large area of floodplain that traverse a large segment of the southern half of the site, the Creason Lateral and the Kellogg Drain. The Applicant is proposing to pipe the Kellogg Drain and reroute it to make more area of the site usable as well as provide open space and pathways in the southwest corner of the site and along the west boundary. The proposed land uses are attached single-family, townhomes, multi family residential, and commercial. These land uses are consistent with those outlined in the MU-C future land use designation definitions and preferred uses when properly integrated with both internal and external uses. Overall, Stafffinds the proposed site design does integrate the project and proposed uses in appropriate manners. Specifically, the Applicant has proposed their multi- family residential product along Ustick and the commercial buildings at the hard corner of the Ustick and Linder intersection which places the most intense uses closest to the arterials. Therefore, the single-family uses are proposed on the remaining area of the site that makes up approximately 70%of the site area. The Applicant is proposing the single-family portion of the site as all two-story except for the 6-unit townhomes along Linder which are proposed 3-stories. Because of the proposed transitional density and placement of the proposed uses, this project is generally consistent with the concept diagrams in the City's Comprehensive Plan for mixed- use designations. However, the one area of the site that Staff finds could provide more transition is the 4-story multi family building along Ustick that is also adjacent to single-family to the east. The existing detached single-family home in Creason Creek directly adjacent to the site is a single-story home Page 6 Item 3. 44 with an upstairs bonus room. Despite the separation of the side yard of the single-family home and a proposed micro path area of 20 feet wide between the two uses, Staff finds the height disparity of the existing home and the proposed 4-story multi family building is an adequate transition.According to the Applicant, the multi family units are each two stories and are being proposed as being stacked, which is how the 4-story concept is proposed. Therefore, Staff is recommending the top two (2) units directly adjacent to Creason Creek are removed so there is approximately 65 feet(includes landscaping and unit width) of separation between the existing home and the 4-story portion of the multi family. With this revision, the height of the two story multi family units would be approximately 21 feet depending on how the Applicant proposes to roof the units (flat roof or pitched roof). In addition to site design, certain densities are required to be met for residential projects within the MU-C future land use designation. The proposed project as shown is approximately 7.35 du/ac, meeting the 6-15 du/ac requirement(see community metrics above). Therefore, Stafffinds the density proposed with the annexation and plat is consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Mixed-Use Community(MU-Q. NOTE: The gross density will decrease slightly with staffs recommendation to lose two of the multi family units. Mixed-use designations also require at least three (3) types of land uses. When analyzing projects within the MU-C future land use designation, the approved and/or developed land uses nearby must be considered. Therefore, Staff has taken into account adjacent land uses that can be traveled between with relative ease. The closest development to this property is an office development that is under construction to the north. Specific uses of this project are not known at this time but the property is zoned C-C and does not have limitations on the allowed uses outside of zoning. Furthermore, this project is proposed with different residential land uses as well as two commercial building footprints. Staff finds the appropriate number of uses for a mixed-use area is met. Therefore, as noted previously and with Staffs recommended revision,Staff finds the proposed project to be generally consistent with the Mixed-Use Community purpose statement and concept diagram.Further and specific policy analysis is 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 VULA1. 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 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://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01 G).Lennon Pointe Community is proposing a project with a combination of land uses in the form of single family attached, townhomes, multi- family, and commercial within one development.A vast majority of the housing that exists around this development are traditional detached single-family homes. The Applicant hopes to add additional housing types in this geographic area and within this MU-C area that will delineate a unique living opportunity in the City and add to the housing diversity available while being within safe walking distance to future commercial uses. "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 7 Item 3. 45 proposed site design incorporates mews,private streets, an extension ofpublic streets, common open space, and different land uses within the same project area.As discussed above, Staff finds the proposed site design is compatible with adjacent uses through transitional density, buffering, and overall design. "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 existing facilities abutting the site. This project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal of S minutes. Linder and Ustick Roads are currently built at their ultimate anticipated widths directly abutting the site. West Ada School District offered comments on this project and estimates 32 additional school aged children would be housed in this development.According to the letter received, the allocated elementary and high school for this site have capacity but the middle school is already over capacity. Staff understands that school enrollment is a major issue to be dealt with on a city- wide scale. Due to the incorporation of different housing types and a unit count on the low end of the allowed density, the Applicant has minimized the project impact on area schools. Staff finds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create conditions for adequate levels of service to and for this proposed project. "Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation, conservation, and aesthetics" (4.05.0117). The proposed project offers open space that exceeds the minimum requirements in the unified development code (UDC). The Applicant has placed a large area of open space in the southwest corner of the development where the irrigation facilities and their easements exist. In addition, there is a mew running north-south through the center of the development for the attached single-family units to front on green space rather than the road network. This adds to the green space and adds a more livable component to the project. Other areas of open space are also proposed along the west boundary that would act as a buffer from Linder as well as a proposed dog park area in the southeast corner of the site. In addition, all of the open space areas are accessible through pedestrian facilities that connect throughout the entire site. Staff supports the proposed open space areas and anticipates they will provide recreation, conservation, and add to the aesthetic of the project. See further analysis in Section V.F and V.L. "Establish distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use centers through design standards."(2.09.03A).As discussed above, the proposed project offers a distinct set of uses and design that are currently not available nearby the site. Included in this is the incorporation of two commercial buildings at the northwest corner of the site with a shard plaza for use by the residents and future business patrons. This is a desired aspect of mixed-use areas that helps engage the commercial buildings with the residential component of a project. In addition, according the submitted elevations and site renderings, the Applicant is proposing distinct architecture for the project that creates a specific identity for this development and corner property. In addition to general Comprehensive Plan policies,projects in mixed-use areas should also aim to meet the mixed-use policies.Rather than list them all in this report,Staff has analyzed the project against them and finds the project to be consistent with a majority of those policies outlined in the mixed-use area of the Comprehensive Plan here. Therefore,Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a majority of the mixed use policies. Page 8 Item 3. 46 C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The site currently houses a single-family home and other accessory buildings. All existing structures will be removed upon development of this site. The Applicant will be responsible for maintaining the existing arterial sidewalks along Ustick and Linder Roads during construction. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The Lennon Pointe Community proposes multiple residential uses and a commercial component within the same project. The commercial area is proposed at the very northwest corner of the site and shows two building pads totaling 12,000 square feet on 1.47 acres of requested C-C zoning. No tenants are currently known at this time but the submitted site plan shows the larger building closest to the hard corner with a drive-through and the smaller building along the south boundary of the C-C area adjacent to a shared plaza. Should a drive-through be proposed on this commercial lot, it will require a future Conditional Use Permit(CUP)because it is within 300 feet of a residential use and district. Commercial buildings require Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review so Staff will evaluate uses for compliance with code with future application submittals. The remaining area of the site(7.28 acres)is proposed with the R-15 zoning district and residential uses. The residential areas of the site are proposed with three(3)detached single- family homes(located at the very southeast corner of the site),attached single-family(2 attached units with each on their own lot),townhomes(3 or more attached units on individual lots), and multi-family residential.All of the proposed single-family uses are permitted uses within the requested R-15 zoning district. The multi-family residential use is a conditional use in R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. No phasing plan was submitted so it can be assumed development is proposed to be constructed in one phase.Administrative Design Review is required for all of the proposed residential uses except for the three(3) detached homes proposed in the southeast corner of the site. This application was not submitted concurrently with the other applications so the Applicant will be required to submit this prior to obtaining building permits for any of the attached product and the multi-family. The Applicant has provided conceptual elevations and renderings of all residential uses and Staff s initial analysis is that the buildings comply with the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The commercial and multi-family residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat.All of the single family lots also meet the UDC minimum lot size standard except for the central lot in the 3-unit townhome at the south end of the site—this lot is shown as less than the minimum required 2,000 square feet and should be corrected with the final plat submittal to meet UDC standards. The 3-unit townhome building contains the three smallest building lots in the development and includes the non-conforming lot. Other than these three lots, the smallest building lot is approximately 2,800 square feet. Furthermore, it appears the site plan shows building footprints too large for the proposed building lots—the building footprints do not meet the minimum building setback to the entrance sidewalks of 10 feet. When future building permits are submitted, the Applicant will be required to show compliance with all R-15 dimensional standards as outlined in UDC Table 11-2A-7. According to the submitted conceptual elevations,the proposed 4-story multi-family buildings are 46 feet in height which is above the 40 foot height limit for the requested R-15 zoning district.Prior to submitting for CZC and Design Review, the Applicant is required to correct this to comply with the R-15 dimensional standards. Page 9 Item 3. 47 In addition to the building lots,the Applicant is proposing a private street through a portion of the residential area. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is proposing this private street to be at least 26 feet wide and be within a 30-foot easement on the plat. Sidewalks are not required along private streets but the Applicant has proposed a 5-foot wide sidewalk along the proposed building rather than adjacent to the private street. Overall,the minimum UDC standards outlined in UDC 11-3F for the proposed private street are met per the submitted plans. The inclusion of sidewalks adjacent to the townhome units on the west end of the development adds to the pedestrian circulation of the site despite not being required for private streets. The same can be said for all of the pedestrian facilities shown on the submitted site plan that provide the entrances to each unit and creates alley-loaded homes for a majority of the site. However, the "detached"sidewalk on the east side of the 6-unit townhome building should be moved to be located adjacent to the private street so the sidewalk is less likely to be blocked by cars parked on the parking pad between the street and the garage door. In addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans appear to meet the UDC requirements of this section. F. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): The proposed multi-family development use is subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and subject to specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3- 27 and below: 11-4-3-27—Multi-Family Development: A. Purpose: 1. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. 2. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. 3. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community,provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe,interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent properties.Proposed project complies with this requirement according to the submitted plans. 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 that are only visible from internal to the site; all proposed transformer/utility vaults shall also comply with this requirement. 3. A minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this Page 10 Item 3. 48 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 multi family unit is proposed as a two-story unit with the units on levels I &2 differing from those on levels 3 &4. According to a document submitted by the Applicant, the lower units provide at least 132 square feet of private open space in the form of private patios. This document also states the units on the upper levels provide at least 251 square feet of private open space per unit in the form of private patios. The submitted conceptual elevations show the fourth floor patio is essentially a roof-top deck above the third floor. Based on the submitted elevations and data provided by the Applicant,Staff supports the proposed private common open space and finds it exceeds the required area. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 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. 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. See analysis in staff report below. 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) Applicant is proposing 18 units so this requirement is not applicable to this development. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall depict these items. 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. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. 2. 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').Each multi family unit is proposed as greater than 1,200 square feet so 350 square feet of common open space per unit is needed to meet the specific use standards. The maximum common open space Page 11 Item 3. 49 required for the overall project is 44,415 square feet with 6,300 square feet of that needed to satisfy the multi family standards. Because the project is relatively small, all open space is proposed to be shared between the single and multi family residential units. The open space shown on the submitted open space exhibit shows 48,824 square feet of total qualified open space but does not include all areas that are qualifying per UDC standards. However, based on the number of units, the inaccurate amount of open space shown still meets all required open space area. With the pedestrian facilities proposed in this project Staff finds it applicable for all of the residential units to share the common open space proposed. 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 project is proposed to be developed in one (1)phase. 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, eff.retroactive to 2-4- 2009). The buffers along Linder and Ustick Roads are not included in the open space exhibit calculations at all so this area was not part of the area shown to satisfy the common open space requirement for the multi family units. D. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life,open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2)Fitness facilities. (3)Enclosed bike storage. (4)Public art such as a statue. b. Open space: (1) Open grassy area 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. Page 12 Item 3. 50 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) Based on 18 proposed units, a minimum of two(2) amenities are required. The Applicant is proposing a shared plaza and public art from two categories to satisfy this requirement. 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(Y)wide. b. For every three(3) linear feet of foundation,an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches(24") shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plans provided appear to show compliance with these landscape requirements and will also be verified at the time of CZC submittal(see Exhibit VII.D). G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, I1-3H-4) &Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): Access from the adjacent arterials(N. Linder Road and W.Ustick Road) is proposed via one 25- foot wide driveway connection to each arterial street. The driveway to Ustick Road shall be restricted to right-in/right-out,per ACHD, and passes through the multi-family portion of the project where it connects to the parking drive aisle for the multi-family units and then connects to the proposed private street. The driveway access to Linder Road is a temporary full access and is located approximately 360 feet south of the Linder/Ustick intersection. ACHD has approved both of these arterial access points through analysis of driveway analyses made by the Applicant's traffic engineer.No Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was required because less than 100 residential units are proposed. The other public access points to the site are proposed via extending a public local street through the site.N. Zion Park Avenue is being extended from the south property boundary and W. Pebblestone Drive is being extended from the east property boundary in the northeast corner of the site. The proposed local street is shown as 32 feet wide with 5.5-foot wide attached sidewalk within 47 feet of right-of-way. This does not meet ACHD standards so the Applicant will be required to revise the plat to show the public road as 33 feet wide with 5-foot wide attached sidewalk. This revision can be easily made as the Applicant is providing the correct amount of right-of-way; no revisions to the plat are needed to make this correction. A private street is proposed through the west portion of the site for vehicular access to some of the residential units. The proposed private street and local street are functioning as alleys for a Page 13 Item 3. 51 majority of the proposed residential units as the main entrance to each home is located opposite of the garage access. As discussed in section V.E above,the private street meets UDC 11-317-4 standards by being proposed as at least 26 feet wide. As noted,the Applicant is proposing three(3)detached homes in the southeast corner of the site. These three lots take access from a common drive off of the local street extension,N. Zion Park Avenue. The proposal for the number of units and access complies with code requirements. In general, and consistent with ACHD analysis and approvals,Staff supports the proposed road layout and arterial access points because the proposal offers appropriate site circulation while also providing avenues to minimize cut-through traffic to the east and south through driveway connections to Linder and Ustick Roads. H. 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 multi-family and single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Based on the proposal of 18 3-bedroom apartment units, 36 parking spaces total are required to be provided—one space per unit must be covered,per UDC standards. The submitted site plan shows 44 total parking spaces for the multi-family portion of the site.Each 2-story unit that enters on the first level is proposed with a two-car garage. The 2-story units that enter on the third level appear utilize the surface spaces but none of these spaces are shown to be covered. Therefore, the submitted site plan does not show compliance with code requirements. The Applicant should revise the site plan to show at least nine (9) covered spaces for the upper level units to satisfy this requirement. If this is not desired, the Applicant can provide a single-car garage space on the first level for each proposed unit. NOTE: Staff is recommending a loss of two units along the east side of the building. This recommended change would reduce the parking requirement by 4 total spaces, two covered and two uncovered. However, due to the overall issues with insufficient parking for multi family projects, Staff does not recommend a reduction in parking. The single-family portion of the site consists of 43 homes but the bedroom count of each is not known at this time. However, each home is shown with a two-car garage and a 20' x 22' parking pad that allows for a 4-bedroom home,per UDC standards.In addition, the submitted site plan shows 35 additional off-street parking spaces around the private street portion of the site meant for guest parking for the single-family homes. The proposed 33 foot wide local street also allows on-street parking where no driveways exist. Staff supports the proposed amount of parking for the single-family portion of the project because it exceeds UDC minimum requirements. The commercial area proposed in the northwest corner of the site is shown with two buildings totaling approximately 12,000 square feet requiring at least 24 parking spaces based on the nonresidential parking ratio of 1 space for every 500 square feet of commercial gross floor area. According to the submitted site plan, 25 parking spaces are being proposed. Each space appears to meet the minimum dimensional standards of 9'x 19'as well. Complete analysis of the proposed commercial area will take place with the first CZC application for the commercial site. Initial analysis shows compliance with all UDC dimensional standards except for how the drive aisle along the north and east of the commercial site functions. The drive aisle along the north boundary of the site is shown as 12 feet wide which implies a one-way drive aisle and it leads to the drive aisle along the east boundary of the site that is shown as approximately 26 feet wide which implies two-way traffic. There does not appear to be a need for the eastern drive aisle to allow two-way traffic if the north drive aisle is a one-way exit in this area. Page 14 Item 3. ■ The commercial area depicted on the site plan is conceptual in nature so future submittals and proposed uses will dictate more detail in the submitted plans. At this point, Staff is not recommending any specific revisions to the commercial area of the site for the reasons noted. I. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the Creason Lateral in the southwest corner of the property. This pathway is slated to connect to the existing arterial sidewalk along Linder Road and to future improvements to the south for a more complete regional pathway network. The Applicant is proposing the multi-use pathway in an appropriate location but its connection to the southern boundary does not appear to match with location of the regional pathway segment approved with Creason Creek No. 2 directly to the south. Upon review of the modified landscape plans for that plat, it appears the Applicant should shift the regional pathway stub to the west to be closer to the Creason Lateral. Final approval of the pathway connections will be verified by the Park's Department and our pathways coordinator. In the interim, Staff is recommending the Applicant show this shift of the regional pathway prior to the Council hearing to better match adjacent approvals to the south. In addition to the proposed regional pathway segment, the proposed sidewalks in this project are essentially micro pathways that connect throughout the entire development and traverse through every open space area as well. They offer increased pedestrian connection and provide for the inclusion of a majority alley loaded residential units. The proposed pedestrian facilities offer connectivity to and from nearby subdivisions as well as safe access to all amenities and the commercial area in the northwest corner of the project. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Attached sidewalks at least 5 feet wide are proposed along the proposed local street extension, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Other sidewalks are proposed throughout the rest of the site for added pedestrian connectivity, as discussed throughout this report. The sidewalks in this development create connections throughout the entire project including to and from the commercial portion of the site. The proposed large open space area and regional pathway in the southwest corner of the development are also easily accessible because of these sidewalks. The sidewalks along N. Linder Road and W. Ustick Road are existing; the Applicant is required to maintain and/or repair any of this sidewalk that is disturbed during construction.As stated above,Staff supports the sidewalk and pedestrian circulation element of this project. In consideration of pedestrian safety as well as traffic calming for the site, Staff is recommending that all pedestrian crossings that cross the private street and any drive aisle be constructed with brickpavers, stamped concrete, or equal, as outlined in UDC 11-3A-19B.4.b. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to N.Linder Road and W. Ustick Road, arterial streets, and to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide easement is depicted on the plat adjacent to both arterials starting at the back of the existing attached sidewalk along each arterial,meeting the UDC requirements for the minimum width. UDC 11-3B-7C.2 dictates that required landscape buffers for residential subdivisions shall be located on common lots and owned and maintained by a homeowner's association. The Applicant's proposal to include this required buffer in an easement does not comply with this code section. Therefore, the Applicant should revise the plat to show the required arterial landscape buffers adjacent to the residential portions of the project within a common lot at least 25 feet in width. The required landscape buffer adjacent to the commercial site can remain in an easement per this code section. Page 15 Item 3. ■ In addition, an area of the Creason Lateral and Kellogg Drain irrigation easements underlay a large portion of the landscape buffer along Linder Road that is currently shown with trees. Staff anticipates the applicable irrigation district will not allow trees within their easements so the landscape plans should be revised to show the removal of trees from the easement area. Furthermore, code requires that if a required landscape buffer is encumbered by easements, at least 5 feet of landscaping be proposed outside of the easement area to include the required number of trees. Because of the extensive impediment these two irrigation facilities create in this area of the site,Staff does not find it feasible to comply with this code requirement in its fullest extent as it would require half of the site to shift to the east reducing the width of the mew in the center of the development. Staff finds the trees that are allowed outside of the easement area, the placement of the access point to Linder, and the separation of the townhome units from Linder offer appropriate and adequate landscaping and buffering. However, to formalize this finding and comply with code, the Applicant should apply for Alternative Compliance with the first final plat application. 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 is included on the first sheet of the submitted landscape plans. According to the submitted landscape plans, the proposed regional pathway in the southwest corner of the site is also within the Kellogg Drain irrigation easement which generally does not allow trees and minimal landscaping. The submitted landscape plans show no trees proposed within this easement. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC H- 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 shows compliance with code requirements. The proposed C-C zoning district requires a 25-foot landscape buffer to any residential district. According to the submitted plans, a 20 foot buffer is proposed to be shared over the commercial property boundary—10 feet on the commercial property and 10 feet on the residential side. It appears the additional required S feet of area can be easily accommodated and will not require any revision to the placement of buildings. In addition, in order to allow the commercial site to be more viable and the fact the proposed development is planned together, Staff approves of the proposal to share the width of the 25 foot landscape buffer across the shared property line. L. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-�: As noted throughout the report,the subject site has two waterways subject to review—the Kellogg Drain and the Creason Lateral. UDC 11-3A-6 dictates these waterways be piped. So, the Applicant is proposing to pipe both waterways to help with the usable area of the site. The Applicant is also proposing to reroute the Kellogg Drain because its easement would greatly encumber the site if left in its current position. The Applicant is proposing to move it closer to the southern property boundary and underneath a segment of the public road and private street; it is then proposed to move north and connect to the existing section of the drain that is piped and currently passes under Linder Road. Staff supports the proposal to pipe and vegetate these waterways. In addition, a majority of the site contains floodplain which will require specific permits and building requirements. Public Works and Land Development will be the departments to handle these reviews as final platting and building permits are submitted. Page 16 Item 3. ■ A portion of one of the building lots (Lot 2, Block 1) is shown on the preliminary plat and site plan within the floodplain area. The building footprint is not so this technically complies with City and floodplain standards. However, to ensure the future homeowner has the easiest access to use their property, Staff recommends this 6-unit townhome building be shifted to the north to get as much of the building lot out of the floodplain as possible. There is adequate room on the north side of this building for this to occur without any other changes to the development. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the single-family portion of the site.Analysis on the open space area required and proposed for the multi-family portion of the site is above in Section V.F. Based on the proposed plat of 8.75 acres, a minimum of 0.88 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy this requirement. The Applicant has revised the open space exhibit per Staffs request to depict the qualified areas and accurately note the amount of qualified open space for the project.According to the revised exhibit, the Applicant is proposing 1.64 acres of qualified open space, approximately 18.7%. The majority of the qualified open space consists of the large open space area in the southwest corner of the site, the large central mew, and half of the required arterial street buffers. This area exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. Staff finds the proposed open space is adequate in amount and placement to satisfy all code requirements. N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(8.75 acres), a minimum of one(1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. The applicant proposes two(2) qualified amenities to satisfy the requirements in this section of the UDC, a 10-foot multi-use pathway segment and a children's play structure. The proposed amenities meet the minimum UDC standards. O. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and appears to meet UDC standards. P. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): As discussed in the comprehensive plan policies analysis, Staff believes the submitted elevations meet the required Architectural Standards. The applicant has not submitted a concurrent design review application for the attached residential buildings. With the final plat application,the Applicant should also submit an Administrative Design Review(DES) application for these units. The Applicant also submitted conceptual elevations for the commercial buildings. These elevations show multiple field materials of brick, concrete wainscot, and lap siding with roof parapet variations and wall modulation—in all,the conceptual elevations appear to also meet the ASM.A separate DES will be required for the Commercial portion of the development with future CZC submittals to verify ASM compliance. 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 conditional use permit and preliminary Page 17 Item 3. 55 plat applications per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. The Director approved the private street application. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 18 Item 3. F56] VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps 4 Fox HMH VLAND SURVEYS engineering Lennon Pointe Annexation Legal Description A parcel of land situate in the North 112 of the West 112 of Government Lot 4 in Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwest corner of Section 1,from which the west one-quarter corner bears,South 00'01'03"East,2699,19 feet,thence along the northerly line of Government Lot 4,South 88°43'02" East,665.57 feet; Thence along the westerly boundary of the Creason Creek Subdivision No.1 recorded in Book 112 of Plats at Pages 16486-16488,South 00°02'45"West,680.06 feet to the northerly boundary of the Creason Creek Subdivision No.2 recorded in Book 119 of Plats at Pages 18301-18303; Thence along said northerly boundary, North 6-Feettowesterly-1inC of Government Lot 4; Thence North 00°01'03"West,693.16 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 10.41 acres,more or less END OF DESCRIPTION Prepared by: Ronald M.Hodge, PLS Survey Department Manager RMHA e`" rF Fad G a 8575 �0 9Tf Of �44D M r3 680 S.Progress Ave.,Suite#26• Meridian, Idaho 83642•Tel:208-342-7957•Web: hmh-Ilc.com Equal Opportunity Employer Page 19 Item 3. F57 EXHIBIT 9' W. Ustick Rd. SURVEYMAP 35 36 388043'02"E 665.57' 2 al — — — — Pont of Beginning ANNEXATION C—C ry. 7 Z. Ln o v O N O C0 (0 O O U) ai N w R-15 0 0 0 a 664.76' N88°59'01"W �- % �y S Tx 48575 77 roazzzfo A 0 100 200 �'O,L"rF OF IM NO � 1 Scale in Feet NOTE:THIS DRAWING IS A VISUAL REFERENCE ONLY. DS.RMH SCALEI'= DATE&28-2021 LENNON POINTE REZONE-ANNEXATION HMH DR.Tuc ADA COUNTY,IDAHO SVRMH SK,1 11 W020-gg SEC.1,T.314,RAW,B.M. enginewirg Page 20 Item 3. F58 61�, FOX HMH LAND SURVEYS engineering Lennon Pointe Rezone (C-C) Community Commercial Legal Description A porcel of land situate in the North 112 of the West 112 of Government Lot 4 in Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwest corner of Section 1,from which the west one-quarter corner bears,South 00°01'03" East, 2699.19 feet,thence along the northerly line of Government Lot 4,South 88'43'02" East, 356.54 feet; Thence South 01°16'58"West, 255.14 feet,- Thence South 89°58'57"West, 350.66 feet to westerly line of Government Lot 4; Thence North 00'01'03"West, 263.17 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 2.10 acres,more or less END OF DESCRIPTION Prepared by: Ronald M.Hodge, PLS Survey Department Manager G STE J a 8p 75 7+5 l D I Z '21:3 9J �P 9Q f OF \ �4 NqC D M ��D RMH:tk 680 S.Progress Ave.,Suite#213 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 •Tel: 208-342-7957 •Web: hmh-Ilc.com Equal Opportunity Employer Page 21 Item 3. F59 Fox HMH LAND SURVEYS engineering Lennon Pointe R-15 Rezone Legal Description A parcel of land situate in the North 112 of the West 112 of Government Lot 4 in Section 1,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northwest corner of Section 1,from which the west one-quarter corner bears, South 00`01'03"East,2699.19 feet,thence along the northerly line of Government Lot 4,South 88`43'02" East,356.54 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along the northerly line of Government Lot 4,South 88°43'02"East,309.03 feet; Thence along the westerly boundary of the Creason Creek Subdivision No.1 recorded in Book 112 of Plats at Pages 16486-16488,South 00°02'45"West,680.06 feet to the northerly boundary of the Creason Creek Subdivision No.2 recorded in Book 119 of Plats at Pages 18301-18303; Thence along said northerly boundary, North 88°59'01"West,664.76 feet to westerly line of Government Lot 4; Thence along said westerly line,North 00°01'03"West,420.00 feet; Thence North 89°58'57" East,350.66 feet; Thence North 01°16'58"East,255.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 8.30 acres,more or less END OF DESCRIPTION L d Prepared by: \ST A Ronald M. Hodge,PLS Survey Department Manager CL 85 0 "v9.z2.7lco p 'TfOF 1 3 G RMH,tk y44 d M ADO 680 S. Progress Ave.,Suite#2B• Meridian,Idaho 83642•Tel:208-342-7957•Web: hmh-Ilc.com Equal Opportunity Employer Page 22 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 10/14/2021) Item 3. F61 -11= INIC)d rq OTM-lHFlio-hlHDHv dr)oHo DO IF-1" 'Izl� 7� ,_IL Ira I I F u Al -7 u —,AP 11 .. ............ -- -------------------- (VI W� Page 24 Item 3. F62 C. Open Space Exhibit(date: 9/13/2021) N0IlV0llddtl lN9 W3-U[lN3 �� N 31NIOd NONN31 Q I o-s€eg o-ld 3anloallrloav dnoam oa ALL`MM°" it N. sw s ♦5 1 b � W�C I � -,i �_ � 1�1I I��T �€ as I ' ® !E �a,� �w E - i I 14fo Y 45 4P o4P o5 II \\�i a�rwd w y V &� �v. — 1 `\Y 1�..�./ / �`\ksC • LN ire 440`4 j 9 w d;.� — — ,BS5L1 M.f0,I0.00N w ae a,—e3 d3_ml NWtla 3lIW AAA a 9 fn �� C .ei eosz.x�.miaw x — 16 ♦ d �, m d3 d3 m a3 m 13 m m " - �m Page 25 Item 3. F 63 D. Landscape Plans (date: 9/15/202 1) NO11V317ddV 1N]A]7i11N3 DiNiOd NONN3-1 92i 11 -O - 5 g;, u M �4 § ffi j ;7 7:7 uj z O'l 6ALU, U) RZ —--—--OVOU aGONITN—--—--—--—--—-- Page 26 Item 3. 64 N.LINDER ROAD m Z 1Te I �t Bmm I, Ty v �.. --- ------ M-LINE-BEE SHEET 1I2 n x�= _ ci a x �a a EE tl'FE� EE .5c �` s 94,s58 Bib `aiT Y5 E. - E'F"a ?s .Y 2 I: 9a .-. .i p --+aT DGGROUPARCHITECTIEREPLLC ---- -� 3' z LENNON POINTE i � ; /\J,'O�`f f ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION Page 27 Item 3. 65 RIAFLHLINE SEE SHEET m Q14. H 11,i o � - - �➢ — Aj to . a I m t a n ✓. Q� I m� � = k v � 'n'A F FfA9& H-13��en v.F - .r a 3 SBy y 3 F is ;�]�' 3 •8i_ Y Ro Y�'_ +KT OG GROUP ARCHITECTURE PLLC Ns LENNON POINTE ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION Page 28 Item 3. F66 L hWTCHLINE SEE SHEEP Li AV Ln r O m 1 �I z � ZZ IJ r — o o:. m °o m o 'I 115 s3 RE—L I — 1 — 444kkR I � m � M h � Jo,C oa ao�°e4°o�Q Imp o i �qE s ni P� HM s£ K, gl6el fs� € E.rsl!e! DG GROUP ARCHITECTURE PLLC w pwllLENNON POINTE .. ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION Page 29 Item 3. 67 N.LINDER ROAD f aT y . r O � ,5- e•0 a o� 0 w I I o i z Q 1uwLL C Z o c�, p 0 — a as a r m e ' - 0 imp g �x £ €FI 3 € 3 e� o art +KT DG GROUP ARCHITECTURE PLLC - z 's y0 ae LENNON POINTE a ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION Page 30 Item 3. F68 E. Site Plan - `�—EP—EPA EP ~EP�M—EP— EP,EP�Ca EP,EP E:. 1f.4��s EP s 89�SOp"E 56623i' E of � _____—______—__ . I I asps I _ SITE B- SITE A� 51.619 SF 64.279 SF — — 1.18 AC— X;` 47 AG W N• Lim � � - ae -- r p - ir 4' p W _ SITE C 861 F I. 3 I ? c p .10A --' _--- -- — 1 I 1 Vim- 'J _ —r. a3 I "` K: aav4TE now 110 nwrNnmc. orw re om+s ca M Y Si,eP�N 2 L' EP o � � � �Z� n4xM�r %ry I I s4 LL � I ;K—Z—�pmz �. Page 31 Item 3. F 69 F. Public Works—Water Markup RIM 2571.47' W�IJSTICK RD. INV IN NV OUT -7 IF SSMH M M70 61 57' INV.'N INV OUT.2 INV IN INV.IN(vv): FH INV.INUITEI I NV T V . . _ SSMH -S H RIM 2562 21' INV. V IN NV IT— V-1 T TI- It "n-I. —T RIM 2 —7' T. -0 f d I r T RIK 257C.3,+, NV OUT �mv11 a r 57' RI M 256967 G IT RSM 2569.85" H x�rct EN v ',N INV.IN(SS —------- �INV�OUT E 7 SSMH INv.IN INV OUT iL IH " -Iill�-- 141,1�I IT- J.TJI 2.1 U 71-N 11- UTILITY PLAN SCALE,1-40' Page 32 Item 3. ■ G. Conceptual Building Elevations and Site Renderings Jo - W. m 2 MJU ULM �p :.� �d 9� — w a Z ee u u A3.2A w � — kM EE - - Gi „IIrITImIC _ I TrIT: - . IITTTITT,�i.T:. I'ITI a - TT-� TTTTT „-TTT a 3, AWE W o z — — - 7, EL ®e A4.2 w T T as R �:J �._ � - �. w Page 33 Item 3. F 7 ------------ L --1 L !N ILI L� MF H� "I t ri 1�11 A5.2 E LHE -m= u olrTI T-1 LU Lt LU [�A6727A Page 34 Item 3. ■ :d J T. F PT 7 !7-1-, RPM _T;A, 111 1 i RI IRI Irl I_l 111; A ill A6.2B L. L A MOP", Elk -MM Lu Lill Jj A7.2 Page 35 »m& 73 \\ - - . � �\\ � .ww.a .am.. 9�- y : \ » _ ������ � � w\ y_ -� . g � A @ P U < s H \± \ cr � z b . . . z : m% Jill- 0 ; & ) } ppr- \. # $ %& w � � > �■� � j z _ [- , � :( Page 36 Item 3. ■ per_ s 4 7 e Tom` � peg uJ s z FAY O d Z O z 4 Z J x Q Z A10.2 AY.Y — � w F O d Z o O :a z s - w J 4 "r A10.3 w r z Page 37 r LLI - - - FA 4 .` 14 GROUP Al • 1 Page • •'1� j,. �— - LLI FA 1 . PIE GROUP RL dD LLI ' r r f • , LLI Page Item 3. 77 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the approved plat, site plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit,and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The 10-foot multi-use pathway along the Kellogg Drain and Creason Lateral in the southwest quadrant of the site shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the development. c. The existing county residential access onto W. Ustick Road shall be closed upon development of the subject site;the only approved accesses to the adjacent arterials are those shown on the site plan. d. All pedestrian crossings within the private street and drive aisle portions of the site shall be constructed with brick,pavers, stamped concrete, or equal to clearly delineate pedestrian facilities. e. The required landscape street buffers shall be constructed and vegetated along the entire perimeter(along N. Linder Road and W. Ustick Road)with the first phase of development. f. No more than 16 multi-family units are approved with the Lennon Pointe Community development—the first two units closest to the east property boundary and Creason Creek Subdivision are limited to two-story units in height. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated October 14,2021, shall be revised as follows at least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Correct the size of Lot 9,Block 1 to meet the 2,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement of the R-15 zoning district. b. Add additional common lots for the required landscape street buffers to N. Linder Road and W. Ustick road adjacent to residential uses,per UDC 11-313-7C.2. c. Stamped and signed by the licensed land surveyor. d. Add a note stating direct lot access to N. Linder Road and W.Ustick Road is prohibited except for those access points approved by ACHD and as shown on the approved site plan. e. Add a common lot for the proposed common drive currently shown on Lot 13,Block 2 and add a plat note stating the purpose of the common drive and which building lots it serves. Page 40 Item 3. ■ 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, dated September 15,2021, shall be revised as follows prior to submittal of the Final Plat application: a. Revise the location of the trees for the Linder Road street buffer to be outside of any waterway easement. b. Shift the proposed regional pathway on Lot 1, Block 1 to the west to better align with the approved segment to the south in Creason Creek No. 2. c. Show the required 25-foot landscape buffer between the C-C zoning district and the R-15 zoning district as required by UDC 11-3B-9C. 4. The site plan, as shown in Exhibit VII.E, shall be revised as follows prior to Final Plat submittal: a. Shift the 6-unit townhome building to the north to move as much of Lot 2,Block 1 out of the floodway zone. b. Move the detached sidewalk adjacent to the east side of the 6-unit townhome building to the east to be an attached sidewalk to the private street. c. Show the required number of covered spaces for the proposed multi-family residential development,per UDC Table 11-3C-6. d. Shift the proposed regional pathway on Lot 1,Block 1 to the west to better align with the approved segment to the south in Creason Creek No. 2. 5. The multi-family residential elevations, shall be revised as follows at least ten(10) days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Reduce the height of the proposed buildings to meet the maximum building height limit of forty(40)feet for the R-15 zoning district. b. Show the loss of the two units on the third and fourth levels of the eastern multi- family building consistent with the DA provision above. 6. With Final Plat application,the Applicant shall submit for Alternative Compliance to the landscape street buffer tree requirements along N. Linder Road for that area encumbered by the Kellogg Drain and Creason Lateral easements. 7. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I I-2A-7,UDC Table 11-2B-3, and those listed in the specific use standards for multi-family development,UDC 11-4-3-27. 8. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family and single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 10. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review(DES) for the attached single- family and townhome units prior to building permit submittal. One DES may be utilized for the entire single-family portion of the site. 11. The Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Administrative Design Review(DES) approval for the future commercial buildings and multi-family structures prior to building permit submittal. 12. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. Page 41 Item 3. F79] 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. The applicant and/or assigns shall comply with the private street standards as set forth in UDC 11-3F-3 and 11-317-4. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Prior to City Engineer signature on the plat,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway along the southern boundary of the site to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. 19. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the Applicant shall provide proof of the required maintenance agreement to the Planning Division in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27—all multifamily 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. 20. Business hours of operation within the C-C zoning district shall be limited from 6 am to 1 1 pm as set forth in UDC 11-213-3A.4. 21. Any drive-thru establishment use shall require Conditional Use Permit approval in accord with UDC 11-4-3-11. B. Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations due to shallow ground water on site. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations. 2. A portion of this project lies within the Meridian Floodplain and Floodway Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring in the Overlay District a floodplain permit application, including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is required to be completed and submitted to the City and approved by the Floodplain Administrator per MCC 10-6—All structures in the overlay district must be elevated to flood protection elevations. 3. A water main connection will be required to Ustick Road. 4. Current design does not follow the utility corridor. Water mains should be located north and east of roadway centerline. 5. A water main connection will be required to the existing stubs in North Zion Park Avenue and West Pebblestone Drive. Page 42 Item 3. 80 6. The proposed main west of Building B should be eliminated. Townhomes can be served by the water main east of Building B. 7. Complete the water loop by extending the proposed water main in the private road between Building B and Building D1 northeast to connect into the water main located south of Building A I. 8. Minimize water main length near the commercial lot at the northwest corner of the development. Bring the water main only as far as needed to provide a hydrant for the buildings' fire protection. Extend service lines from the main to serve the two retails buildings. 9. Water mains should not cross through landscaping or sidewalks. 10. Sewer service lines should not cross lots other than the lot they serve. Services in the southeast corner do not meet this requirement and must be adjusted. 11. Sewer needs to connect to West Pebblestone Drive by removing the temporary cleanout and connecting to the existing main. 12. The manhole located at the northeast corner of the development near Pebblestone Drive must be moved so it is located out of the landscaped area and instead located in Right-of-Way. 13. Sewer services should not cross infiltration trenches. 14. Utility easements are required for all mains outside of Right-of-Way. 15. No permanent structures can be built within a City of Meridian utility easement including but not limited to buildings, car ports,trash enclosures, fences,trees,bushes, infiltration trenches, light poles, etc. General Conditions of Approval 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. Page 43 Item 3. 81 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 30. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 31. 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. 32. 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. Page 44 Item 3. 82 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public—works.aspx?id=272. 36. 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. 37. 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.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240228&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240012&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT—PATHWAY COMMENTS https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=242744&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iu F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridianciV.oty WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=243241&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr--1 Page 45 Item 3. ■ G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciN.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=242517&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C Lty H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240139&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244361&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty J. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240461&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with R-15 and C-C 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; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment and request for the development of multiple housing types will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and within this area. Stafffinds the proposed addition of commercial within the development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial district and consistent with the future land use designation of Mixed-Use Community. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds 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 Stafffinds 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. Page 46 Item 3. ■ Because of the unique and distinct project proposed, the proposed addition of more commercial zoning, and the varying types of housing options proposed, Staff finds 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 VII for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has approved the proposed road layout and connections to adjacent arterials. 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. C. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the submitted site plan shows compliance with all dimensional and development regulations in the R-I5 zoning district in which it resides except for those noted and required to be revised. Page 47 Item 3. F85 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed use of multi family residential, in conjunction with the other residential housing types proposed, is in accord with the comprehensive plan designation of Mixed-Use Community and the requirements of this title. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Despite the proposed use being different than the residential uses closest to the subject site, Stafffinds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character of the same area, if all conditions of approval are met. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property 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. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services as all services are readily available, the nearby arterial street is widened to its full width, and the Applicant is required to construct a new public road extension to accommodate additional traffic flow. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so Stafffinds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise,smoke,fumes,glare or odors. Although traffic will likely increase in the vicinity with the proposed use, all major roadways adjacent to the site are already at their full width and the proposed layout offers the best opportunity for safe circulation. Therefore, Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property, or the general welfare. Page 48 Item 3. 86 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 not aware of any such features; the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. D. Private Street Findings: In order to approve the application,the director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The Director finds that the proposed private street design meets the requirements. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard,or nuisance,or other detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds that the proposed private streets would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity if all conditions of approval are met. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan.(Ord. 05-1170,8-30-2005,eff.9-15-2005) The Director finds the use and location of the private streets do not conflict with the comprehensive plan or the regional transportation plan because the proposed design meets all requirements and the project is also extending the required public road through the site. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10-1463, 11-3-2010,eff. 11-8-2010) The Director finds the proposed residential development is a mew development by having a majority of the units facing green space instead of the private street. Page 49 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation ,. r gip, � •* Y,Hkry�. i.� k• .. _tea_ .�• �., V ram+ Jr �. '• { 'I. �• '� � � t , f5 11 I � � v Id EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS - STREET PLAN y W Ustick Rd W USt1Ck F�'._ W UstiCk i ■X ■ . M ■ ■ W- PEBBLESTONE ■ PROJECT SITE ' x W Parkstone St � . Q LLJ c[■ fir■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ • ■ ■ ■■ •r�S = a< w Stanhope 5t w Stanhope St z F� Q a` z Q m v+ Lowry St W Lowry W Lowry St z r N S"7 r z W Claire St r m4, } Q V QiA U 5 D� 0 z x EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC MAP FOR OG GROUP ARCHITECTURE PLLC. LMO WITHIN GOrERNMENT LOT 4 CF SECTLON 7. TOM,R.7W,B.M. CITY OF BOISE—COUNTY OF ADA—STATE OF IDAHO gga--E — y d 6 - ��7: STICK RD. h a LEGEND 57' 4 a \t p ( UNE TABLE LINE BEARING GISTANCE sF�cn�uelc � \ A� me,,ss � • L1 5 00'16'S8"W 15.00 --°--' 69'53'56"E 17.OD' V 45"57 35"E 49.99 L4 L4 5 89'58'57"W 74-00' nY aF 51CPE v.ERII6N vIMY .- e ICP OF SLOP£ , MAPPING NO7E5 a N+Yr� f�`IF ( 1 z€ � I.ELFVARQNS BASF➢DN NAVD BB „� ASFNFrT M F5 rv01Fd rV q -/'r'jl �;� � vERnCAL Qa TUM 4 \ /' , PROPER IY U➢£5 FLOOD ON X • s/8"!xu!D'n4 Y /�=�`- - ' FCOQD ZdVE Al,A£LPAN£L OA-J.MAP Nog (.. � \\ ( na>E OM1nRnQ�D- mCOwm - \ ! Il�`6 r, cn„ rv'P / ' I. HAVE BEEN£OCA1E0➢FRQN FIELD SUR�iEY \ i--__ - INFORMAIlOIJ OF WS'6LE lfliLlIIES AN➢ S AI-FAIN CAP,Pis 1iM3 _ y \\ 4 Q Z MARKINGS HY➢G1N£UNwE'RO�UND, 4P'etT'o"YAOR n - \C � T 4 "` LQCAnoN sERvlcE rNE aKEs ® 1 a \ I' ND GUARAN]E'£THAT IH£UNDERGRWND SMx .:�. , m U@LVP£S SHOWN COMPRISE ALL I Ill— SUCH 111 ` .E \. Ill—!N iHF AeFA.EI MErz i wCE 0rftPoC Ar�wgE `\\ o ��\ \ `„ 3 poEs oDANi of RVFYOR FURnfER 1 NO ,ws £XACT�LOCAPONTINDICA D AWLTHOUQ4 HEE® IX VALI£ k E A CERTIFY iHpT hi£Y 4RE LOGG RYI IS "A`C ATEL1 AS �R5 _ 5'U ! E 1 MA AA REOR NA5 NOi PN 131OALLY LOQAiEO lNE l r \ � rvrv� UNDERGY2OUND 9 UTILITIES UN A gill ✓ I �4���\\\ �. \\ �(�C•ty _ r0� p�N'�9 IN N1ifEESTRENCE Q�PROPOSED F yam\CA2 FCST � e � �\® \� �\ � •.\ � ES EFT RIGHT-OF-WAY 1; A N t ��n � saun+ERLY DANK of rHE KELLOG➢RAIN_ � c R>= gI^f ERENCES � R1= CREASON CREEK Ne 2 SUHDlYSION � �i 57" BOIXC}i9 CF PLATS PAGE iB30] � _ \<� RZ= GBR MASON PLATS, —II6I- (((��� \ R3= RECORD DF SURVEY No,B)05 \_l 1 I qq � —� R4= REtbPO OF SURVEY No,Bi84 '���+ � � 3 1 . DRAFT0� Q M Ds ABASIS OF BEARING �-'" z ��_ �I acs",A., �iue�E�r3rs T NDOEnw °uND \ d� AND THE]/ANcoR�ER Al �� E COMMON To 9ECTlUNS D '0 ° ACC.. RATE ,�� � � r� '� � �f� __ �M` / ` SIQYEYIXI X kA►YI NI 4306 1602 i Hays BOIse.IdaM1a 837 83]02 �rVrv?�Anco \� -z� i ff iY lt6 vrvrvleccRnBLesurvryo,s,com EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS JJF 1 n�+�• gar _�--- .�-� � '� _�qy°77- 110•�^ "`` 4 - ' lit : � 8 f, 9� i f a •_ �j FlCZeV'�� ''4 0 OFF;:, fW y� do Y:,'i s' s � e . _ - r :.ol r t� wo wF �N V. ? IMS7 . is AP y !. 4 a i L �jr,��L��. �a. ..a .yam•. � 1., � � If EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 2-71 n 'R � r �yi;r,�i� /�F `gyp �j. �. �' �► p,. � 7'l�", �'I � �}°'�b. �� v);i. :_ .1. III[OLIN • jr woy vo Alm, r w: e l�S „-•!��., -.-sc�L �- - ems:-„-� h _ - �- t I P,(.ram / j :% ' ��'. �!?�-��• ¢�..�� .�*�/ iliq 4 �"':i� �r � r� t Ffi�p,�4�u?v� �� �� � - w, i :_. hl 4 � •.l �e 9 � /'r� f ,�;.- � � �. �'.p�} . �' Z.� '�}_�:������`�h1�1,�F- K�yx.R � � � Fry ,r•/ `rv'� 5,�� "`���� 5 h.� � � r2 . r� �1 'Z�,� ._ , v ` 1'thlimp F� ��• t - iv _� -f f�- - r �i� '� � ,s---�:�,ats14. F rra• n x' �,J ..I �t ._,��;. G- h �y� t EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS SS v I w t.fx 0 i. urw `t Y • sa� crate o4 �x4.. �� ✓ >a� p++ RYL- �ai^ft,' �-'�`^� 1'"%��,' #.Z.'���i��^;i�rs7ef�� ���`Or!��'. _�?�.., 'r� z�r ,•ir*,;y,. �}� �� � }�- 1���■1�1 � ��� _, !�;`,. ��7�\�jr � �4�,, ;'.•��'." r -- ,r" a `-iy,�9�a(fi h•,r 3r. �ryX 'E^3+x s ;�:Y i " a �fV i, �y'e 1 ���� �i� '•�. � :,ty'9thy �u ; r,,.,� t ,� �d �Y,y�,�it � �• EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ...... ...... ...... .... N f W", .- -- Now- 4 / - ��}� xi � � F "�'��✓�'S-�'+}7'�r,,� z� �i y � �e q � a '� `-vim 1 � e_cat lt''�T„� AF � J2� '."Y '� •` c� �q; f� lh!�'F lil 1� �,�� �� z5 ryy4 as�'�' 1-n l4 • K S eat ♦ .pi GIs g sw ;f� `t" 4. Al, 4c.�4i � aT_ 'sIGT AdEG:• -�- 11 `- �r_s 1��'•__ __ _ •� a�S4! Elf(MOEA _ tom. .� - �'✓J'S' _ � - '-thy' .'_""�F;.. - �` r it �u r - •• ��`` - `.^��bCr,i+:., - - `e- R EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS MEOW- 31•. dEm ONE r .✓ - <.�.xe. .,.r'"a�M1¢d ,...+'�? .s yd+...w fs,', r �•� � .,.. ` .7 -�, `t�a`J yI' R ° y .�.�-5�r y =� EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS i SITE DESIGN SITE DESIGN AND CONCEPT e � 5 68'43'02'F 266274' — 666.5E• — - — — — — - — - -— p p" �1995.8C EQ IIIiiIxNInIWWII�WnluNlfiii������unuu�l�lullnl�luul•Iq li�ArlNO. YB' ggfll�immp� �J grmm�rfn8 S •a 02 E /3.51' ._ InBIlma�rmlABrmmmrrn`rfilunmuuilfi�'iuunuunurt� \ J SITE A I SITE B COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY i = I 1.47 AC 1.18 AC ' -—-- -- Q � ---- , I u $II Aw— SITE C -- - a = - \ - SINGLE FAMILY 31 6.10 AC o � � a -- �W I __ w nI IUIyyIIII w [4 f111NN1111XH11111 N 91y�hrllrylryl III III 6 �R F!f�J5n770 WCREE er Ep ' 9J95 is LOT d64J'01"E 265 1662JI' -— TMSTp1Y PER MR 199S BL APARTMEM 5411LOP165 SITE DESIGN AND CONCEPT P EP—EP—Ed3 E� P gp9 P [P EP E E SeA I uuERCML90W S li t,Of CGNOO UIJUS III . REIAIL&LOG A _ n-`E- 1 WF SITE B 1 EE IRPIGATq E i i SITE A� 51.619 SF sTRgN r I w m I 64,279 SF 8 AC DRIVING FACTORS E 47AC _ - I — • ; o _ I g � � '"'"' � � RIG5W&E �_ o PExistin zoningand multiple building " _ - type requirements • Extend existing public roadway ORAINOTO REMAIN a I f /� © T • Floodway and Flood zone areas f I _ i sire Kellogg Drain relocation _ 510 F • C Existing one and two story single family i - - - -to the east IFl • Arterial Street Access and circulation i w E I1� 1 .a•Wm Vj !.� 1 1 BLIXi. E-0'wNYL -.-�_ CID -- - yi+ E d� f PG I FENOIN[i I SueE�yO�MIoEK W j 9110 FEbaowAY a'� a e J 11 I ryY ATNWAY CONNECTgNTO I w 2Q W � EM SOUTHERN PROPERTY 1 LL � fI SITEIPLAN I CGPYRgUT CG GROUP ARW RE PLIC SITE PIMI DRAWN WITXOIR THIF XE RE RENEFR OF A SUNVEY SITE DESIGN AND CONCEP W. 1. 1 .4, A A SITE 6 An. ItLLI R rt UY,a 7L zab 4—; z FT x n Wd 21 K PC k3,6 Li 6M L-0 IF 75 Fwrh 'Kgr SME t1 uo"NI—P 'EF "wAfDfcl2wffT LLI OLJ If L4 7 El ILI .z—Li PATHWAY PLAN {' ---_---_--_ __ 1 :} r� s� — SITE A—• s'.0 I'r St 'I. �filrAim 64.279 9F k i . Pa., e SITE I I �� � .1QAJ�'- •� as I rao�n - - snr 3r I - F- - f - L lz -- � y�n,,,,,e—.,v w5rlw��,� ,�rem.e -aawwxa- Y CUP. rx -.. Tie ry WI/Q70K�G Z 44P,a,�Fl91TJ1„ N NLL i QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE LOTCUME ECAWULATI P.Ermxe �r EP�EP-fP-[P EP EP roTP18FlEFlEta PYE000EBIEPACE.TFAea Ei ,� � 88fl51' - pxrgeve £P R EP aPEM �9AS BL NWAUM LM WVFANGE -d1% 11 EP, EP EPA _ -"_ - �•. -_ EP E fP EP EP REQUIRED 44,415 SF SITE A SF { I I 4 f ` 64,279 SF $ 18AI 1 - J L_,_ LLL PROVIDED� �w g F ME< • e � � - g - /, i { . M . 1� .r1li. _A --gym- _ w Iwwoo - w. l Iancc , o -- °cc Lu — d3 � T— P r � Z 5 ¢ � Z W E PE SPACE EXHIBIT Al 2 J r .E MEP �rn � MEE�EFR�Paa Z w PARKING FFrAH urncx fm I � � n�noxsrw 31TE YI r PARKING _a - SITE A. PARKING REQUIRED=500 SF/STALL - (24)STALLS REQUIREDr' PARKING PROVIDED eM ITOA;wl. -(25) PROVIDED 1 .' .. 177-1 IN. SIF a - - SITE B: -- .2 _ - == - 3 APARTMENT UNITS: (17) UNITS - d PARKING REQUIRED =2 STALL PER 3 BEDROOM UNIT A =GUEST: 1 STALL PER 10 UNITS �} •+= I - " - -- I - - ;) (36) REQUIRED ' PARKING PROVIDED =(18)GARAGE _(23)SURFACE — _(3)ON-STREET( )STALLS 44 '�I TOTAL PROVIDED = 4... - SITE C: I - : ,.' Ix o �, ,,,� TOWNHOMES: (43) LOTS _ PARKING REQUIRED =4 STALLS PER UNIT - . =GUEST: 1 STALL PER 10 UNITS =(172)STALLS REQUIRED =(5) GUEST STALLS - =(177)STALLS REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED-GARAGE+ DRIVEWAY PARKING+SURFACE , =(86)GARAGE STALLS PROVIDED " t = (80) DRIVEWAY STALLS lil`7k[4A F4"IP =(35)SURFACE PARKING/ON-STREET =(201)TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED ad I • PAh= n.-.. SITE DESIGN AND CONCEPT g111`IIIHIIII{1{{ll{ - WF Ii i1 � =il Yj r F F I - i x n BUILDING DESIGN COMMERCIAL REVISIONS %EY NOTES C--�— rvrvo�I.I A.I ry. �.�a.,rvs.wlrvoaws�HEo��E. oonem NEruw.LLP.N�T�MNEa�.sa��nrvo_usH rva rvrvo CANC pE 0� afro meuEwnoaw. �CII—III—III-111 lII CIII-1—i1—i�rlll1�1-1i11 I III CII1-1jI III—III�II�II� II III�IIII 'I ill II11-1� Tclnil • �4�auILDING NETAIL A-WEST ELE—HOR Ire I.-0 `1 ee ee a —_ .....• .�. TA.CDNG�ETE n = 1=1 I=1I=1 I=1 I=1 I=11 I=111=11 I=1 I=111=1 11=11 I=1 11= = 11 ll 11=1 I I I—Tff—III I I H I�I I—III—I I I I-1 I�I I I�I:�I I-1 I C I I�I I—III N C I I V /.1 BIIIMING RETAIL A-EAST El IION a`o '✓Ire•=np° a 5 CD 9 CONCRETE o_ III -III -1 -1 IJ -1 L-III III =11J III L-I I_I I I_I -11 I I-1 I_I L-I �I IJ ICI III III -I LI I,-1 I I I'—'� I III III—I I I I—III—III—III—III—III—III—III-11I—Ili—I IE—III—III—I11—III-11I—III-11I—III—III-111—III—III—III I I-11I-11I I I—11I—III BUILDING RETAIL A-SOUTH ELEVATION ^O LL Z o O ¢ Q Z U Z ? J a 3a F w w - - - °� /�V.G LU T o.cancaE I I III III=III I I=1 1=III I-III= I I I III=11 III I III III-III-III III-III I III-III III III III III I=III III III=III I I III=1 1 I I I-III III I I=1 I I I °' LU II IILIII II III,-III I I II-III III I 1-III III„II=111, 111„III-1 III,III, III_III III-III L-III,-III I L-11-III III J 1-III III-11I_III,,,III III-III, III„III=11L ��°k^E�°°^«I�A���+ F_ 2.BUILDING RETAIL A-NORTH ELEVATION F ire•_I�,p•� w w COMMERCIAL KEY NOTES REVISIONS u+osvcclxcenorvs ve aaoP virt.erv,wiurpwseuvou �'�' vPE.euxuFGiPlM av cRax[n wi u[iAI rvFFPALIc+IlFlln AN'w xean rvunwrvo srsrem. i1A20-7 ..1' �weua�nrvEe'caa,�Po�u auunlen III-III-11-� -� .-� -11I-III-III-I LI IT ONCCID OETE�_ I_III-III-I I_I I-III-III-I IJ -�1 LI -� T,� NCRE� .1 DUILOINGRETAIL B-EAST ELEVATION :y BUILDING RETAILfl-WEST ELEVATION _ d U _5Q I � R33 7 Sod F �3 CONCRETE II—III—III II—III—III III—III—III—III—Ill .��—II—III—III—III—II—III—I —I —I —I —I —III—III—III x s sg —III—III—III—III—III—III—III—III—III—III—III—II—III—III—Ilk—III—III—III—IIIIII—III—IIIIII—III—III— U N 3�� 3_SNRDING RETAIL B-MMN ELEVATION 4 we m'=rn EL gym $ n wo It � =a 13 W H ❑❑ Z T.O.COfI[AE-fE n Z o � � U_n flVILOING RETAIL fl-NORTN ELEVATION Z Z J U W IL J z A9.2 W J aa...e.e,�a.s.Bern„e F F z w PI wirlr L 411 fir I LJAw- t � r Si �. �+ �' ���• ,� �. ,�� �.�+ �- . ,off -�� T_ ' r 01 a � ry"• 4 L4L ►� I COMMERCIAL r aN low Lai �{ r '{ • ��' r ..1k t` J yy �T•. !.. f '1�: U I L D I N G A Re r M i 0996d1 Aw TLAflP7 �2 FLOOR RAR•B�JILdN6�•LE�EL2 — �F ��+1ra•.1•rrra•.1•rr a TA w sY 7 dx V� � w � z R jA A A R A A R R A 1 11 ri 11 1 4 f1 !i I 11 f r{ f1 f1 fr II f4 f r 11 1 S r l r 1 1 f 1 f 4 0 f l r 1 i f S 11 f l r 4 f 1 1 1 -- ! ! I L 1 1 ! l P l f 1 f 4 r 1 ± 1 --- --- F - 1 1 1 S ! i 1 1 1 r ! V 1 --- i• '1 f ra --- U f 1 r i f , � 1 r , , f i 1 1 1 1 ! ti + 1 1 r f - --- ! I f l 1 V i 1 ! 1 ! l 1 , �` 1 - --- w A3.1A w J nAXA FLAN•BVILLING A-LCVFLI ~ LL BUILDING A MLCW— Ll:w 0--V- W8"0p'" . ,o L li --oL \L �L I J I - ' f �? Hip o IL I III Hill III - L... L... w... Lu z--- z 0 <c IL Lu z_A3 L4 2 -0.-DNGA LEV L3 Lu BUILDING .r,4�.e.nma.x.vaa.d.a b'-0' �� ttwyp Rs,uwx.�rwy I' f 1 n.nne.n,,x�,wme.a•er,i �,yp, 7DG] r_ — J......_..- � � - wr�ww•q Unix. 71Fn7 7 ar,ePu+[A•us.�tvsid. �eui��r�..wEsr e�rvsiore � \ _ so uovv.c 1 uj ems_ uj BIIILpH°A•9°urH ci rvilp! � Z oo � _ o0 oa s.o u Gyp.c. �I LfL� r..,rr Ri yZ J a 2 OL HE Fill A3.2A W ° v.w ...I 1 I. Ltd aui�owc..nwxrkt�xvar�on ` z BUILDING A 7,-L UNIT B TO O!r4;,J, _...........................................................UNIT.6 UNIT A '�' �v�x"�rsr• JGARAGE UNF A RP, -ll.it lrN II n=;lr�E"'= �g=F"u Ifs � ewa^-.-srcnra�n.aiaan xa-e• [3 y� ro,�x[rvP r. z p euiasao sfc»orre.eim.• — — — Z d �B••iw• d J � ¢ . F z A3�3 z w BUILDING - a 4 STORY i 4 STORY I4 STORY i 4 STORY 2 STORY HEIGHT 6LUO. A2 i TOP OF ROOF r (9) AP4RTMENT PLAITS 431-801 I I I 1 i I { 22'_0" STAIR TOWER - .44- - - 4.-4 --4 - HEIGHT NO WINDOWS AT EAST F o ELEVATION 1-01 1-0 1#a F 2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADE ELEVATIONS * •� r I7l]P?7 2575 2572 _ � rp rc —EF r�—_e� GRADE GRADE _ PLS ELEVATION - _ ELEVATION ' C32 LLC. iy�� "e0 r CS2 LLC. r ? W. USTICK RD. nNE` '4'ANC£ �Qop W UStI K RQ. GRF FE A LTR rR1NING WA w HEdDGA l LU U) 12" PVC INV w ELEV.-2570.77' W J 1 LL- w ❑ �W o D Cs C Q i sr 1 Fie i II W PEBBLES TONE L D � i �a 4 W. PEBBLESTONE ❑ W 6 0 o Q $ EP 00 , p O S 2572.24 11 8 CS2 LLC. CS2 LLC. I IV PE66 ESTONE DR. 2571'83 1 LN PFRR1 FgTr- f7R t lir 'Ile .Low 4 -r2 IAW x �. A 0 1 x� � � .. _- 7� ��` - �:' � - "`ram ,• - C J� BUILDING B REVISIONS NEY NCTES 4}� IEIT -m 5TNJnIN[�SEMINETII FUSING. III=WALL PANEL. �� .� rr NtkwNrtua,wiun�wv vcnwi T.O.L4 GYP _ _ _ _T.O.L4 GYP.C.!� 'W°S�EGIFIGTILN S. 09I16R1 30'-fi" rnEtanuufAcrunEo wluvE aurnlcuEn.colon AS NorEo. ,�..., nLinlut av EnnwEnw uEruwnaP xlw mlln As AW ®® ®® IAFTM nn,--TFu. TLA2O7 -------- s,s�e, --- PD'-a 114" 20'-41la" ® ®® ®® ® MI^I w�µN:�TE,�����Noll EIN,, T.O.L2GYP C T.O.L23 YP C 2o ---- -za II III-III III III-III 111�11-III III 1111=III 1111i= III 1111-III III-- illliiilllillliiillli�lliiillliiillliiillliiillliiill�llliillllliilllillllliiillllilll�__ Illllllilll O BIIILOINGB NORTH ELEVATION �1 BUR➢ING B-SbUTH ELEVATION F I y i ®® ®®® 1a La cra c f s ®I®H U • TD L2o 4Rilq�71 S�z w �s T O_L2 GYP.G — U E� ®77 11 Ij - TO I�7T TI�TiT��TT-�TiT�I I TI�TiT�TF—TT-�I I C I I� r I IIII—III—I�I—I i —III—III III—I�I—III—III—u II�I III—I�I—III III III—I�I T—I—IIII�I I — —III— O W�y 2 BUILCINGB-E—ELEVATION I. W _Z O T.o.La wa c ®® ® ®® ®® _ T.O.L3GYP. 20-41w Z m J F®I I®P1I ®® w J 3 Q T.O.L2 GVP.C.n f , J n,ne u,u na w — II I I I _ - - T�.CONCpEfBE u w _ I II III— I = 1L C vslll'Ig_ ITT�IVA71 NI II I I m m m m m m m— II I I II I II I I III II I I III II I BI I II III I II I II I II I II I II I I III II I II I II I I II I I I—m m z a�ILo N w i '�-'ham R•. � r_'T+ x; � ;- i - E 0 !r Yi4 ti S .f ",V •,. �r I lz ,'� .' a �s'iw 1' �1 i �- +k•. �� t py µ� W7 IN ?1AP s�I n- ,N � a BUILDING C REVISIONS KEY NOTES C�J—� A TE ri�rlcnNONs EE FLWR%AN9.WINWWEGNER°LE, 091,fi2, TfIEMANNFACTRIM F.Y—ERW MECALW Af•ALGNTRINAS AW METAL MILINGSVST" TLA20.] CNL nEf In MwTAR 9m WrtH FIA9HIM;ANo 111-1111 eN• 6TCPC fPRIT AN-A�T C[MTMEACIu eVImINC. - _r oo la aL r � _-_- - -r o.Lae rl_c�� •, s!s•• �'-a s!s•• ® ®® ®I® [ ®I® g _ p a,4 _____ T.O.L2 GYP C r.O.OGYP iC, �[aF wnoe"W T.o.coLNCRErE __ �� � T.o.coNc1zErE = II I II I— II —III— I 1 = — �I 11 I—Ill— III— I II IIll III-1 1— Ill 1LI I I—III— I_ °`0" aK Lu os= n BUILDING G-EAST ELEVATION (1 BUILDING C-N—HELEVATION o= w 8 _r.O.L3 PLATE Il _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ T.o.L3 PLATE l� Lu 29'-a sl9 V j-a5�a ll Li t 11 p k T O.L3 GVP.C.n _ _ _ TO.L3 GYP.C.n O z°'.a va• so.a,w V ® Z ®® ®® ®® T.L2 GYP.0 ® TO.L2 1Y O 6F ,o'.z,rr� ____ ,o.z,rz•'�' � y U W a r o.cGNcaBT� _ I.O.—caN_axBr� - J — II II I I I - - I I —I III III I III i III I I I I II III " ° .III. III III III III III III III.III III III III ' I III I 11 I' II III II III III I. III III III III III III II I II I F w 5.2 � a BUILDING C-s—HELEVATION 4 BUILDING c-WEST ELEVATION LLJ urxca eurn�cs a,�.o� F F Z W BUILDING Cj;41,j*?a w `cif BUILDING D1 REYISI01� Nfl^iP[alm�luRfN nfl piiT-f[wFnfry.yxMl�IreYw fFYfM NilKfx]Fvnffy ifxnnf fFrcn'xvn. rcrn xi irri xa�rrrf EfLvon nxEC Nllwwa[flmuE. Dy16.01 xnF�u�nrurrmxxmx nwl Mrw•�iw Fnn n� Rwn urw iv.i.r rcarr TLA2RF — � La,IG�E,..wN1FLOi��rn u,xsnn��ni. ' III• II` •� _ T C,,YP.L.h ^� T.�I,,��YP c�, _ _ II� � II �T'F-91M�' � �i •�I fF�' N 7 E-T 2I PI 1 ,v•zvr F w 31r _ 000 000 -' - T.O.CCf•1CRElE — i.6.�LVfJCREiE � � v•v� I III � '- p•p� r'.GulLvnb G,-CRG fr GL4un.TlOr+ r:.011ICCM d1-RG.ut GLGvx4lCeu a4� � Fgg a � 3 •,. wu� lol o 8 z u' o To _ C Z T � wrnrvc:f>".I f:ET c�cveTrel fnln rrr.m.l9lr Evnm« d � � J Q J } a r z A6.2A�w J Lu W BUILDING D2 /EY147f45 qEY Ypi�9 GY vnxiirn.wuaKwn yi..af.irr v��ru iwzx,rw ii wm �rt� rub R� ��woxwxu,wrnurYauut OW1G(e1 M i RYY wrprlx Ilr Mefx�n M+N xervlirr nx •• .wn '!La2Df �i ti��uaY�VLYL�rvaaH iw yW nixi W�M:ww�• i41F.1�ifWliTaaiY.�saaa��u�waiMu V. lEld- Eld A/ , COCA nC�C ^Jl��1-�w1-1-_,_:��i Tip -�- —- iiT _i----i_-i-- •i�-11� � a ��� n.�1LlA]P.ASYJ!0.EYAMJ , _�]�RC�6.CYaT✓,1h' 4J K 0 ---- r7+719---- _ 0 -n - - -- r- - -i - - - - m o . . ... - - - - �a�Cfl.RidfefA�YcnOu � � Lu A6.2B W J F Z W BUILDINGS D1 & D2 i - 3 AM T BUILDINGS D1 & D2 71, R� 1 ----- el 77107'- A� �.S f.t. �v ----- el 77107'- A� �.S f.t. �v BUILDING D2 REYISN]NS KEY MOTEe �wusn�,nai unc [„con nxw.wRroweu„pn[. 09'1621 ,uni,M.iaaii ri i aa..ia iia iii,a..uiii V wW r. '0. 1Krl[ca irr iwMee�rYtYnML,iuxxw.iaa:V lxn as �Ki«..n.cmiun nwzaz ,a y nK�,xewi wwn�u sn � pl �• TA.L3 GKv.G T.GL7G1'v.G • ❑ ❑ J—•u' J i nyH�� Ja s 3 W ICIII IC7I CIII IC71CI11=11 CIfl= V rl Willi �E•PKM'ELEVATOY ll rZ WWlWc-LE>f FlcMll1 �13 j U 8 w ° }� a r� , I ®® IP•Q1/I ,Q•21R' I:I''LI l.11 I—III Ill 111 III Ili 711 II III —— .i 1111 Ill'in iii uI CL r�eulLwna e.a�wRe�vwr�� r�euaGlrvGE-R+3,r eal=v+arldi Z U � J W � d J a y � z A7.2 w J z w �ti� - _- ter•.-;.•�J-'•.�^+ �� af•.. 26 - '�'T•�-}er-��'y V = �"I� F IIt�_ flii� _T. sT#ar.. � Y 9 Ki '� � ayl. 4 �3ft{ t s'. C f� .�� 1'S' ••�P+�+E.O •4�,-yFcn�' .. .j '' - _ _� •4 - F :fir'. p� ( i -.r .. � -. _ �Y77 .. ,..y , r it -�`•� �,w.�� "} 770 i,v. ......... . ■��n�,l■ � �'�ra p. J a �■ ?������iqg two r 1 Rv �� r a _ r r 7 ` `r.y ', ^ .'R 4 .-...... f llf�l f111•...-�I IIF����+�f�Ifflll��f!• �- ArkFV ipr I1 t �� ' 1 �� 111 �_,lil.EEIE ifilllllli!�11!!S ' ■ 411 _ _ r rFIZ � 4t • � - •rrr r11111ir,� ����� � tl � 1i :� � ���F. - _ 1�1 � �y .. - 4; R NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING CONCERNS: • Step back 2nd level at East side of site. • Construction access concerns. • Left and right turns out of N . 12th Dr. onto Ustick Rd . EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADE ELEVATIONS Ul O 2571 .75 O 3 � f - — GRADE KIRK J104 11$ c v09 I3�ll 31 `2571_$ ELEVATION -0.fi HEADGAFE 571-75' RTGATT 25 1.62 E . 2571.59 .tJ RE � W i G 06 ,i �41 z. I AARQN J.QUEEN 2577.59 317i NW 13THST. { — ►oP EDER N. TANA—u 571_75 1.3` I rf----- NfAV" 1 3dT5 Nw 5T. ` FFE+2571.75' 25T1.58 - -- 25 Ora ff.4_ _ ---- x -- If f C i2" CONCRETE WV 2571.; ELFV..-2570.75' s GRADE x G rr�] 575 ?.0 �►"' F ' 2572.04' 2571_! _-= s - ELEVATION GRADE j; - 2572.75 ff]ERN.5ANTRFC4 ELEVATION 3075 NW t3TtH STGRA55 572,00' -A-S ---`------ 2.0 257UFFE•2572-W—` -2 0 �- --- I 577 8-0 x l JOREPAN LEACH a -4.8 .3039 nrW i3 rH 5 T. 1 4 2571 84 - I 30MtMS3rHSf. �. f 572:00'2 -5-8 I I FFE:257Z.DO' 2571.59 7 2571.4$ Jar3nw LEwzm x 3039 NW i3TH ST. i72.00' ILI FFE:2572.00' 2571.17 _ 2 8RIAN :5; DE LA MOT :5 70 5 0% I .. _ # 3021;POW J3TH ST - OR"S.DE LA MATTE l 3021 NW i3Ti4ST a 1 1 BUILDING TYPE D1 & D2 - EAST SIDE SITE SECTIONS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 6 0" VINYL FENCE I6'-0" VINYL FENCE cy HEIGHT OF EXISTING SFR co Q, HEIGIHT OF EXISTING SFR T 1 c \ O 1 all I III Ill III III III � III�VII III III III III III III III IIl�III II III III qjj��, 17' - 10" 20' - 10 1/2" SETBACK TO WALL SETBACK TO LEVEL 2 PRIVATE PATIO � 1 1 jor t a �� ilk �ti �� ■ _ . T _ 4 ig ��� �[�. 1� f.- r T � 1 1 41 oil 15, -- ILwr �. ► i :. -- . _ r r9k. fie: r .• + f � n --�� a IWO- ffAF � 1 1 2V -- — T.T. •���� �. _ ,��: ,• - - wr+. .� _ ■� + .�� - . ' _ E ire+•-r � - a. I t y - 40 _� r ...:.. 2 - - - - - - - 1 t� � 1 1 w If — — i v Vo AV AW list - WA �. Ink s i + I = Item 4. 87 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive-Through (H-2021-0073) by Gold Stream Holdings, LLC, Located at 3330 E. Victory Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential use and zoning district on 0.83 of an acre of land in the C-C zoning district. Item 4. F88 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: December 2, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive-Through (H-2021-0073) by Gold Stream Holdings, LLC, Located at 3330 E.Victory Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential use and zoning district on 0.83 of an acre of land in the C-C 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 4. ■ C�, EI IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT .►a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 12/2/2021 Legend go DATE: f ILI Pro"e of Lfl -o-Ron - I TO: Planning&Zoning Commission W FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner _ 208-884-5533 tWn SUBJECT: H-2021-0073 I Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive-Through �E�IIIGTOR1f-R EVICT RY=R� —CUP - I - I LOCATION: 3330 E.Victory Rd., in the SW 1/4 of Section 21,Township 3N.,Range IE. i I I I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit(CUP) for a drive-through establishment for a coffee shop within 300-feet of a residential use and zoning district on 0.83 of an acre of land in the C-C zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.83-acre Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant(coffee shop)with a drive-through Current Zoning Community Business District(C-C) Physical Features(waterways, The McDonald Lateral runs through this site. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 5/25/21;2 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2019-0099(Inglewood Sub.AZ,PP—Development Agreement Inst.#2019-124424);FP-2021-0037 (Inglewood Sub.2) Page 1 m ■ ,•, 11 NNI II " ■■ i i ■ *' - S � Pk IN IIIII IIIIIIII _ � I 11 : II 11 NNI II ii■W�iiiil9' � �� � �� AMEN �. � :1����1 - ■■ .�!■ �. - ■1 1■� Of■ .ice S rrOli I �u1■ ��ic;� �UI•I Mfi INS Illm 11111111■ 111 lid•± iti III�IIIIII iii�li�:, IF I IIIII - _ � Illll uuuu - u_' i • Item 4. F-91 C. Representative: Emily Mueller, Gold Stream Holdings,LLC— 197 W.4860 S.,Murray,UT 84107 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/16/2021 Radius notification mailed to 11/10/2021 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 11/18/2021 Next Door posting 11/12/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed drive-through is for a 2,365 square foot Starbucks coffee shop(classified as a restaurant)within 300-feet of a residential use and zoning district,which requires Conditional Use Permit approval(CUP)per UDC Table 11-213-2 and 11-4-3-1 IA.1. The proposed development plan is in substantial conformance with the provisions in the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-124424)and with the approved conceptual development plan included in the agreement.A common green space gathering area(5%)with seating and tables is proposed on the east side of the site in accord with provisions#5.1c and#5.1d in the Development Agreement. Other off-site common areas are proposed on the adjacent properties to the north and east as shown on the site plan. 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. All establishments providing drive-through service are required to identify the stacking lane,menu and speaker location(if applicable), and window location. 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 stacking lane appears to have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles and the public right-of-way by patrons as required. 2)The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. The stacking lane is a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking. 3)The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. Page 3 Item 4. 92 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is proposed. 5)The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is visible from S. Eagle Rd. and E. Victory Rd.,public streets along the west and south boundaries of the site,for surveillance purposes. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through in compliance with the specific use standards as required. The proposed use is also subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 Restaurant, which requires at a minimum, one (1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space, a detailed parking plan is required to be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with UDC standards. Based on 2,365 square feet,a minimum of nine(9)off-street parking spaces are required to be provided; a total of 19 spaces are proposed, including 6 compact spaces,which exceed the minimum standard. Hours of Operation: The hours of operation are restricted to 6:00 am to 11:00 pm in the C-C zoning district per UDC 11-2B-3B. Dimensional Standards: Future development should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. Access: A right-in/right-out driveway access is proposed via S. Eagle Rd.to the north of this site as shown on the site/landscape plans. Access is also available through an ingress-egress easement with the property to the east via S. Titanium Ave., a local street off E.Victory Rd. Parking: As noted above,UDC 11-4-3-49 includes parking standards for restaurants,which the site plan demonstrates compliance. A minimum one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A bicycle rack is proposed north of the building for two (2)bicycles in accord with this requirement. A detail of the bicycle rack should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates compliance with the standards in UDC 11-3C-5C. Pedestrian Walkways: Where pathways cross vehicular driving surfaces,they're required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks.The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C; where it's not feasible to comply with the standards due to the irrigation district easement for the McDonald Lateral,alternative compliance should be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard; or an alternative compliance application should be submitted. Street buffer landscaping along S. Eagle Rd. and E.Victory Rd. is required to be installed with the Phase 2 subdivision improvements. Because ACHD is requiring the construction of a northbound right-turn lane on Eagle Rd.that may affect the width of the street buffer approved with the Page 4 Item 4. 93 final plat, Staff recommends the site and landscape plans are updated accordingly to include the right-turn lane and the minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along Eagle Rd. required by UDC Table 11-211-3.If the existing sidewalk is being removed to allow for the construction of the right-turn lane, a detached sidewalk should be constructed in accord with UDC 11-3A-17C. Waterways: The McDonald Lateral crosses this site within a 41-foot wide easement. The lateral is proposed to be piped with the subdivision improvements. The building is proposed to be located outside of the easement. Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VII.0 that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of fiber cement lap and board and batten siding with metal panel accents. The proposed materials are consistent with those in the residential portion of the development to the east in accord with the Development Agreement. The final design shall be consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure consistency with the conditions in Section VH,UDC standards and design standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 5 Item 4. 94 VII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 9/23/2021) _r zf aE- zj ------- -F--- - � I Q. ..•.�.��...�...•,,. � g a fir'. i 0 v al, ®_ __ z o 9 O�� A� � ✓f ......__.®� "� ..I — I,I ®~mow w�_�.':a_.�.,..,•,� u ��e Es MERU- ii �Q � MIf _ - � l..ir.r~r i �rre�_.rarm.�-�•er F N 3 4 _w..�.. � � G a � ;�����• �r ��.` La.mo.unueu� _ jT� y a `� l l 1111 I I I _-. _- - • ' al _ _W 0IGLIHEw iPLAN C1.01 Page 6 Item 4. F95 B. Proposed Landscape Plan(dated: 9/24/2021) 1AN65CAPE 5CHEDNLE ALTA HILLS LANE V 'f. ! LLI LU W�7p� w z U 5 LU � � m a a xww..mva. �ako,m,rno.ean,.m v .o�r��p� a, — or.crxmacow. VlCrpiYR[Yill SITEAMEMI WHIMULE o �'i� a REFS RENCE NOTE6 MERdANCITY DATA aB�mLroie L2.01 Page 7 Item 4. 96 C. Building Elevations(dated: 7/21/21) ipLMnt ram-HE I /1FASf EIEYATgN1 Sdenatic Hesu� ELe�nnaxs 7 �lN6RTH FlEYA1pNl SD2.1 MLMnt /.1WESTBEVATION7 revwons. Sdema°c Design_ € ELB'ATI0N5 .3iYa— sOImIELEVAnCH1 5D2.2 ._ Page 8 Item 4. ■ VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of the existing Development Agreement [H-2019-0099 Inglewood Place Subdivision (AZ,PP)—Inst. #2019-124424; FP-2021-0037 (Inglewood Place Subdivision No. 2)] and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. The stacking lane, menu and speaker location(s),and window location shall be depicted in accord with UDC 11-4-3-IIB. b. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. c. Include a detail of the bicycle rack that demonstrates compliance with the design standards in UDC 11-3C-5C. d. Where pathways cross vehicular driving surfaces,they shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. e. Depict landscaping within all planter islands within the parking area in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C; where it's not feasible to comply with the standards due to the irrigation district easement for the McDonald Lateral, alternative compliance shall be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5. f. Depict the northbound right-turn lane on S. Eagle Rd. as required by ACHD with a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer in accord with UDC Table 11-213-3 and a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk in accord with UDC I I-3A-17C. 3. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 —Drive-Through Establishment and 11-4-3-49—Restaurant is required. 4. The driveway access via S. Eagle Rd. is restricted to a right-in/right-out access per the Development Agreement. 5. No building permits shall be issued for this site until the property has been subdivided. 6. The hours of operation are restricted to 6:00 am to 11:00 pm in the C-C zoning district per UDC 11-213-313. 7. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19; the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement requires some of the same design elements to be incorporated in the commercial portion of the development as in the residential portion. 8. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or Page 9 Item 4. 98 structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) Staff Report: https:llweblink.meridiancity.ory WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243245&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty https:llweblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=241022&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky C. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=242203&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orQ/WebLinklDocView.aspx?id=243209&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv 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-C zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff ,finds the proposed restaurant(coffee shop) with a drive-through will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff ,finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Page 10 Item 4. ■ 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. Staff ,finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff ,finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 11 Item 5. 100 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Woodcrest Townhomes (H-2021-0082) by Andrew Newell of Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, Located at 1789 N. Hickory Way A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 19 building lots and 4 common lots (including 1 lot for a private street) on 1.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Item 5. 1 o1 (:�N-VE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: December 2, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Woodcrest Townhomes (H-2021-0082) by Andrew Newell of Blaine A.Womer Civil Engineering, Located at 1789 N. Hickory Way A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 19 building lots and 4 common lots (including 1 lot for a private street) on 1.97 acres of land in the proposed R- 15 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 5. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING December 2,2021 Legend ---- DATE: P ® - roject Lacfl�iar - TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 00 FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Woodcrest Townhomes 00 H-2021-0015 (CPAM&RZ) H-2021-0082 (PP) LOCATION: 1789 N. Hickory Way, in the SE '/4 of Section 5,Township 3N.,Range IE. The Commission heard the CPAM&RZ requests on June 3rd and July I"and recommended approval of these applications to City Council. At the City Council hearing on Sept. 7`h, City Council directed the Applicant to submit a preliminary plat(PP) application to be heard concurrently with the CPAM&RZ requests. The Applicant has submitted a PP application as directed&Staff has updated the staff report to include analysis on the PP application (see underlined text). I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map(CPAM)to change the future land use designation on 2.10-acres of land from Commercial to Medium High-Density Residential; and Rezone(RZ) of 2.10-acres of land from the L-O(Limited Office)to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)zoning district. Preliminary Plat(PP) consisting of 19 building lots and 4 common lots (including one lot for a private street) on 1.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Page 1 Item 5. F103 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.97-acres Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Residential and office Current Zoning Limited Office(L-O) Proposed Zoning R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 19 building/4 common Phasing plan(#of phases) NA Number of Residential Units(type 19 units(single-family attached&townhouse dwellings) of units) Density(gross&net) 9.64 units/acre(gross)/13.5 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total[%]/ NA buffer/qualified) Amenities 10'wide multi-use pathway along Meridian Rd./SH-69 Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 1/28/21; 10 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) Annexed&subdivided in 1992 as Angel Park Sub. (Lot 1, Block 1)with L-O zoning;re-subdivided in 2001 (Mallane Commercial Complex PP-00-021);FP-03-001 (Lot 4,Block 1);H-2017-0165 (RZ&CUP—denied) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • Existing Conditions Hickory Way is improved with 2-travel lanes,curb,gutter& 5'attached sidewalk.No additional improvements or right-of- way dedication is required with this application. • CIP/IFYWP NA Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via the existing driveway via Hickory H /Local)(Existin and Proposed) Way. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service See Section IX.C Police Service No comment. West Ada School District Distance(elem,ms,hs) Page 2 Item 5. 104 Capacity of Schools Approved prelim Approved MF Enrolled plat parcels per units per Miles #of Students Enrolled for 21-22 Ca aci attendance area attendance area W 5 h.'I River Valley Elementary 445 700 571 764 1.6 Lewis&Clark Middle School 866 1000 978 1319 2.4 Centennial High School 1981 1900 549 1234 4.8 School of Choice Options Pioneer Elementary(Arts) 713 775 N/A N/A 4.4 Spalding Elementary(Stem) 697 750 N/A N/A 4.1 Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly Adjacent • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.14 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Do not have services crossing private lots •Flow is committed. •Existing sewer not shown correctly.Missing existing manhole and shown as extends further into the property then existing sewer actually goes. •There is an existing 8" stub from existing manhole that looks like it will not be used.If this is the case the existing stub must be abandoned at the manhole per City Requirements. •Ensure that infiltration trenches are located so that sewer services do no pass through them. Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 3 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Do not have services crossing private lots Page 3 Item 5. Fo5l C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend �4'v .'aa ro" Le end Legend ::PSI Wilk iINN I�Project Lacaikor `'d1U Prajeof Lflcci-c�r �;,.:: `:S � s - YJ 'i� ,`"� ` 'Lr2 LLhilk - _ erP'sH ral L_ _ - r—Residr-tial u ri �., _C t Zoning Map Planned Development Map ®h1J T R: {�Rj LU - Legend Legend R1 �3 leiProjec- Laepfl=oTr ® - 1 R-4 Id Project Lima for l TIlT7TrAf1 R. RL1 y iCity Liffk& LG Planned Pumels Y�] TMI L R-4 R-:-L5 L C-G RU L- f R1 � o 0 �T $o �R- R.' R= i WE RUI i 'r FT III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Andrew Newell,Blaine A.Womer Civil Engineering—4355 W. Emerald St., Ste. 145,Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: Don Newell,Landmark Pacific Development, LLC PO Box 1939,Eagle, ID 83616 Page 4 Item 5. F106 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 5/14/2021 & 11/16/2021 7/23/2021 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 5/12/2021 & 11/10/2021 7/20/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 6/10/2021 & 11/19/2021 7/15/2021 & 8/23/21 Nextdoor posting 5/11/2021 & 11/12/2021 7/20/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Commercial on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation provides for 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. The Applicant proposes an amendment to the FLUM to change the existing Commercial designation to Medium High-Density Residential(MHDR). The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with a total of 19 single-family attached and townhome dwellings at a gross density of 10.8 units per acre consistent with the land uses and density desired in MHDR designated areas; and an o ffiee building. This site abuts a larger residential neighborhood to the north and is located in close proximity to mixed use designated land and employment uses to the east and southeast, including vacant land yet to be developed, The Village at Meridian, Scentsy and other uses along the Eagle Road corridor,which will provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. The development should incorporate high quality architectural and site design to ensure quality of place and incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and pathways and include attractive landscaping and a project identity as desired in MHDR designated areas. Transportation: The Master Street Map(MSM) does not depict any collector streets across this property. 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) Page 5 Item 5. 107 The proposed single-family attached dwellings and 3- and 4-unit townhomes will contribute to the variety of residential housing types in this area and within the City as desired. Single-family detached and attached homes exist to the north and northeast in Dove Meadows subdivision, zoned R-8. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "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 single-family attached and townhouse dwellings will contribute to the diversity in housing types in this area, which currently consist ofsingle family attached and detached homes. • "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 proposed residential uses will provide a transition in uses between existing single-family homes to the north and commercial/office uses to the south. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed residential development and site design should be compatible with existing abutting single-family residential homes to the north. • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities,irrespective of existing development." (2.02.02C) The proposed residential infill development shouldn't negatively impact abutting development as existing uses are also residential in nature and the medium high-density residential uses will assist in providing a transition to the commercial/office uses to the south. • "Maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes,housing types, and densities."(2.01.01C) The proposed MHDR FL UM designation for this property will contribute to the range of residential land use designations in this area of the City which mainly consists of medium density residential (MDR). • "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 with development of the subdivision;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.)."(3.07.01C) A street buffer already exists along N. Hickory Way, a collector street, along the northern boundary of the site. Page 6 Item 5. Fo8l • "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 required to be provided with development of the future subdivision. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Development of the subject infill parcel will maximize public services. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT(CPAM) As discussed above,the Applicant requests an amendment to the FLUM to change the future land use designation on 2.10-acres of land from Commercial to MHDR for the development of 19 single-family attached and townhome dwellings at a gross density of 10.8 units per acre. An exhibit map showing the existing and proposed FLUM designations is included in Section VIII.A. Approval of the proposed amendment to MHDR will contribute to the range of residential land use designations and diversity in housing types and densities in this area as desired. Additionally, it will provide for a transition in land uses between existing medium density residential uses to the north and commercial/office uses to the south and east. The change to a residential designation and subsequent proposed development will provide for fewer vehicle trips per day than would result from commercial development. For these reasons, Staff is in support of the request for a map amendment to MHDR. B. REZONE(RZ) The Applicant proposes to rezone 2.10-acre of land from the L-O(Limited Office)to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)zoning district consistent with the proposed FLUM designation of MHDR. A legal description and exhibit map for the rezone area is included in Section VIII.B. This vacant/undeveloped property is an enclave surrounded by property developed with single-family residential uses to the north and commercial/office uses to the south and east; only the property to the west is yet to develop. Developent of the subject property will provide more efficient provision of City services. A conceptual site plan and building elevations were submitted showing how the property is planned to develop with(19) single-family attached and townhouse dwelling units consisting of(1) single-family attached structure, (3) 3-unit townhouses, and(2)4-unit townhouses and a 2,500 bu n . The property is pla+med-proposed to be subdivided thfough^ f,*we apphe^* ^^. The existing subdivision plat(i.e. Mallane Subdivision)requires all lots in the subdivision to obtain conditional use permit approval prior to construction commencing on the lots; this requirement will be removed with re- subdivision of the property. The existing plat also depicts a 10' PUDI easement and 25' wide landscape easement along the west and north boundaries and a sanitary sewer,water main and public utilities easement along the east boundary of the site. The landscape buffer easement will be removed since a landscape buffer isn't required between residential uses and the PUDI easements will be replaced with new easements with the future plat. Single-family attached and townhouse dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table I I-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. Page 7 Item 5. Flog] The conceptual development plan depicts access to the site via a cross-access easement from an existing driveway from N. Hickory Way, a collector street; no stub streets exist to this property. Direct access via N. Hickory Way is prohibited. A private street is planned to provide access to the proposed development and for addressing purposes; an application for such should be submitted prior to the City Council meetin&with the preliminary plat application and compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4 is required. Staff recommends the Applicant work with the property owner to the east to extend the private street to Hickory Way in order to better facilitate emergency access to the site for wayfinding purposes and to comply with UDC 11-3F-4A.2,which requires the private street to connect to a local or collector street. An attached sidewalk is proposed along one side of the private street for pedestrian access. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. A minimum of 2 spaces are required per dwelling unit for 1-and 2-bedroom units,with at least one of those in an enclosed garage,the other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad. For 3-and 4-bedroom units, a minimum of 4 spaces are required per dwelling unit with at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad. Garages are proposed for each unit with parking pads in front of the garages. F Twenty(20)extra spaces for guests are proposed in the common areas oeaf the efftfy. On-street parking is not allowed due to the width of the private street. A minim,&m of one(1) off street pafk4ag ired for-every 500 square feet(s.f-.) of gross fleer- afea for-nen residential uses (i.e. the affiee). Based on 2,500 s.f-. for the offiee, a minimum of(5) spaees are r-e"ked. A total of(9) spaees afe proposed, exeeediag the minimidm standards. N4est of the par-king ID spaees for-the offiee eaer-aaeh within the r-equir-ed 20 feet wide btiffer-to r-esidef4ial tises,whieh is not allowed.An office is no longer proposed. Because the site is below 5-acres in size, qualified open space and site amenities are not required by the UDC per UDC 11-3G-2. A total of 9410.40-acre of open space is proposed as shown on the concept plan,which includes the street buffer alongH ickory Way and parking. A 20-foot wide landscaped street buffer and attached sidewalk exists on this site along N. Hickory Way that was installed with the subdivision improvements that is proposed(and required)to remain. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the single-family attached and 3-unit and 4-unit townhouse structures as shown in Section VIII.D. Building elevations consist of a mix of materials including horizontal wood siding,vertical board and batten siding,wood shake siding and cement plaster with stone veneer accents and architectural asphalt roofing. Geneeptual building elevations were also submitted for-the offiee with building materials eensisting of eemeni plasteF with stene veneer-and deeer-ative wood timber-aeeeffts and ar-ehiteetur-al asphalt roofing eensistent with the r-esidential Final design of all structures is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Detailed review of the elevations for compliance with these standards will take place with the Gei4 fieate of Zoning Complianee ^Na Design Review application prior to application for building permits. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed above and included in Section IX.A. Staff Recommendation: , development of this site is diffieult. The proposed eoneept plan with an offlee at the southeast eor-ner-with par-k4ng that ener-oarehes within the required land use buffer-does not eompty with UDC standards as noted above and is .The Comprehensive Plan states development in MHDR designated areas should incorporate high quality architectural and site design to ensure Page 8 Item 5. 1 10 quality of place and incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and pathways and include attractive landscaping and a project identity.To achieve this goal and alleviate some of the spaeial constrictions on the site, Staff recommends OS B PFOViSiOH of the rezone that the office building is removed from the plan a the plans were updated to include additional open space with quality landscaping and some additional parking as directed by the City Council ' with a pathways along the south and east sides of the development and a gazebo with a seating area as an amenity which can be shared between the residential and commercial development. Staff recommends a pathway is also provided from the sidewalk along the private street through the common area to the parking area at the southeast corner of the site.Prior-to the City Coupe" hearing,the Applicant should revise the concept plan aeeordingl�-. C. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP): The proposed PP consists of 19 building lots and 4 common lots (including one lot for a private street) on 1.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 3,789 to 2,000 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 2,701 s.f. The proposed gross density of the subdivision is 9.64 units per acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site. The western portion of the drive-aisle along the eastern boundary on the site lies on this propgAL. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-15 for the R-15 zoning district.The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Access: Access is proposed from an existing driveway from N. Hickory Way, a collector street. A private street is proposed for internal access to the proposed lots. A private street application should be submitted prior to the City Council hearing.Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4 is required. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A street buffer exists along N. Hickory Way, a collector street,that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscapin is s required to be provided in internal common open space areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. The stormwater drainage pond on Lot 16,Block 1 is required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-11C. Landscapin is s required along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C;the landcape plan shall be revised accordingly. Common Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-3): Because this site is below 5-acres in size, common open space and site amenities are not required. A total of 0.40-acre of open space is proposed as shown on the concept plan,which includes the street buffer alongHry Way and parking. Sidewalks(11-3A-1 n: There is an existing attached sidewalk along N. Hickory Way, a collector street. The UDC requires 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along collector streets; however,because the existing sidewalk is in good condition, Staff does not recommend it's reconstructed as a detached sidewalk. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lightingis s required to be installed in accord with the Ci , 's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Page 9 Item 5. F-1111 Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC I I-3A-18. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map and Rezone with the requirement of a Development Agreement, and preliminM plat per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on June 3, and July 1,2021. At the public hearingon n July l't,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject CPAM and RZ requests to the City Council. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Blaine Womer,Applicant's Representative;Louie Mallane b. In opposition:None c. Commenting?: Dave McDonald; Shirley Moon; Randy Nelson; Ann Atarian d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting gpplication: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Desire for a time limit to be put on the residential FLUM designation/R-15 zoning(if development doesn't occur within a certain timeline,the land use and zoning would revert to Commercial/L-O zoning,); traffic& safety concerns on Hickory Wa- maintenance of the existing masonry wall and landscape strip along north boundary sib b. Inadequacy of parking in this area(Louie's restaurant/bank patrons park on this property); c. Unsafe driving conditions due to lack of visibility of cars pulling out onto Hickory Way from the site due to the curve of the road. 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. In favor of the proposed development plan over previous plans for this site; b. Concern pertaining to safety of access onto Hickory Way; c. Preference for the 4-unit townhome proposed along the north boundary to be reduced to a 2-or 3-unit townhouses for better transition to the existing homes to the north. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstanding issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on August 10 and September 7,2021. At the public hearingon August 10',the Council moved to continue the project to September 7t'in order for the Applicant to prepare a narking analysis for the overall area. See submitted narking analysis_. At the September 7t'hearing.Council continued the project to a future hearing date to be scheduled concurrently with the future preliminary plat application. 1. Summary of the Citv Council public hearing: a. In favor: Blaine Womer,Applicant's Representative Page 10 Item 5. ■ b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Dave McDonald,Ryan Abbott,Louie Mallane d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Request for the 4-unit townhomes to be relocated to the southern lots or reduced to fewer units- b. Concerns pertaining to traffic and parking. 3. Kev issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Council questioned the Applicant on why residential is more appropriate than commercial office use of the property as currently zoned—concern due to the loss of commercially zoned land- b. The bulk and height of structures proposed along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to existing single-family residential homes: c. The adequacy of parking proposed for the development and concern for the parking situation for the overall development area including the adjacent restaurant/commercial and bank uses. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. At the hearing on Sept. 7t''. Council directed the Applicant to make changes to the conceptual development plan to include additional parking in one of the common areas wherever it can be fit in); and expressed concern pertaining to the height and location of the structures proposed along the north boundary adjacent to existing residents. Page 11 Item 5. F113 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Future Land Use Map—Adopted&Proposed Land Uses Date-6/28/2021 Adopted Land Uses 500 1,000 s Feet Medium.Density 'Residenfial MU-KG Legend `TMISAP Boundary Commercial � ���' Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Med-High Density Residential — High Density Residential -Commercial I-C Office General Industrial j - Industrial � civic Proposed Land Uses Old Town Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Regional _ —_ - Mixed Use Non-Residential 0 MixedUse-Interchange edium-Density 'Residential Low Density Employment —j__j---_ I U - High Density Employment Mixed Employment MU-KG —J MU-Res �— Med-High L— MU-Cam ❑enW ® Lifestyle Center Residential •ommercial 1 � MU C Generallndustrial Page 12 Item 5. 114 B. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map WOODCRESI'TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION EXHIBIT'A' LEGAL.DESCRIPTION A PARCHL LOCATED IN THE SOUTIIWEST 1/4 OF TIM SOUTHEAST 114 OF SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF LOT 4,BLOCK 1 OF MALLANE SUBDIVISION,AS SHOWN IN BOOK 87 OF PLAI'S ON PAGES 9881 THROUGH 9883,RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 114 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5 AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; THENCE NORTH 00028'03"EAST A DISTANCE OF 6T 14 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH DIAMETER I ON PIN MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1 OF SAID MALLANE SUBDIVISION; THENCE CONgTNUING NORTH 001128'43"EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3,A DISTANCE OF 252.95 FEET TO A 112 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00028'03"EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4,A DISTANCE OF 129.73 FEET TO A 518 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN; THENCE NORTH 430 19'32"EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4,A DISTANCE OF 257.72 FEET TO 518 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN; I HLNCE CONTINUING NORTH 4301932"EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID NOTIIWESTERLY BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 34.49 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE❑F NORTH HICKORY WAY, THENCE SOUTH 76012'56"EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE,A DISTANCE OF 90.01 FE13T TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE,CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY,HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTER LINEAND SAID TANGENT CURVE,93.24 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL.ANGLE OF 13021'21"TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4; Page 13 Item 5. 115 PAGE 1 OF 2 THENCE SOUTH 00°2644"WEST ALONG SAID PROLONGATION,A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET TO Ala INCH DIAMETER LkON PIN MARKING THE MORTHFAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE SOUTH 00°2644"WESTALONG SAID EASTERLY HOLINDARY,A DISTANCE OF 210.08 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY BouNDARy NORTR 89*3420"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 244.56 FEET TOA5/8 INCH DLAMETER IRON PIN; THENCE SOUTH 00°28'04"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 47.00 FEET TO A 5f8 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE NORTH 8"722"WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOC]NDARY,A DISTANCE OF 129.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 2.10 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT`B'ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. r L Ear 7 732 Page 14 Item 5. 116 m ti� s)�r r2�e R 4 A- 0 za a rn rn o 6 . . . . ... . . . . . . . .... . . . ... ... ..... .. . . . . ... . .. . . ..... .. ... ........ .... .. ... ..... .. .... . ......... . . . ....... .... ...........::....:: .. . �v .. ....... .. .. o LA IV 7732 A-Ivjt&a �rE of� Q '�] A• JN14120 Annexation Description 4/21/2021 Scale: 1 inch= 50 feet File: Tract 1:2-1063 Acres(91752 Sq.l eeta,Ctusure:n00.fl000e 0.00 ft.(1J281991).Perimeter=1276R. 01 n00-2803e 129.73 08 n89-3420w 244.66 02 n43.1932e 257.72 09 s002804w 47 03 n43-1932e 34.48 19 o89.3722w 129.2 04 s76.1256e 90.01 05 Rt,r=400.00,delta=013.2121,arc---93.24 06 s00.2644w 33.93 07 s- 0OIN44w 210.08 Page 15 Item 5. ■ C. Conceptual Development Plan-REVISED "�0"0Ri wnr 14 N � , 11 21 r o, Utt F AI E:.ILI.V.IL 1lnow w1151's helOw. E x Ei. n ry u BLAINE A.WOMER 1'JL YtE'iTi 1'H'IES SI;LI�A4CM1 'F Call before You di ow���HEER,H� ITE IaxaLr ANj Ir+euslon elHldlr 1-1 T IL I- _ -r Page 16 Item 5. 118 D. Conceptual Building Elevations—REVISED ��• .sins �ii� .. ?��~~��'�^Syi�^�''Sk�>>�ry%a�•saS .�.o.®m '3.'3 - —....� I FAIRWAY TOWNHOMES(2 UNIT) Page 17 Item 5. Fl 1-9 1 - LLLLl -_ wim LtS ID Ell tl= FAIRWAY TOWNHOMES(3-UNIT) A sltilIRECTURf 'gym m FAIRWAY TOWNHOMES(3—UNIT) A�}If7EC1URf Page 18 Item 5. Fl 20 8E �0 ® ®g 8�® 8Em ®v ymEED11E Ell-Ell: gm o- �\ 6 FAIRWAY TOWNHOMES)4-UNIT) ARGIRECTURE - „-, lu FAIRWAY TOWNHOMES)4-UNIT) ARGIRECNRE . Page 19 Item 5. 121 E. Prelimina • Plat dated: 9/7/21) PRELI MNARY PEAT OF WOOOCREST TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION A—0-OF AD L'F 1EL N 1HE SOOTHFcST 1/4 W THE 50CIH6 111 'E'IInN 5 T IHF J NORTH,ANNE-F .WEE MPUM1 Cm'OF MEROP•.AVA WVNTY.IRWO SLPTFABFA.2aZi 1 N. N�N Y !� .'i} � ��--`i V E,•M0°RIn.Ndinan i + V L� VICINITY MAP ITS m n .� — ouvENEwvn9 c - PRELIMINARY PLAT LANC USESUMMARY � 1 •� ' 1 V IX ry`•�•f v K�' �,�a;R� .. S''�..':aA�� � �,�.�� DEVELOPMENT NM CUM TABLE --—— `� ,rxi � :: �. i "'" srwmswN '��w.••�.®�..�.�.�.�,<�.m.w.. ,, o�y �i� 'ems; _� � n' �, „�,.,,�,.•�•�..�.��•.o�..•m•R�•�.�•. :., LUND CONTACT INFORMAFIOM ^` �N6 wrruv •• — __ _ —� ac ac AL sTLxrRr•rwcNN ------ wwWe�n,.�... .ne•,oeea •• --- �»mar • ._..—�•rim — -------- w•a.� • - ry,fr s iK•evoiw 9EnL{NL[HEFA 1-cocll_-f_n E-u US •L� y^„—„— Cltt OF MEPoOUH,10 Know whmt below. - � BLAINEAiWOMER = _�� WOOOCREST TOWHHOMFS SURE C311 before you dig. .o cINILExc NEEwrvc •' w«W�w:"A:.:"� 00'M SHEFF PRE.JMINRRT PUT - ,-.• .•.-.,, "r Y�� Page 20 Item 5. F122] F. Landscape Plan(dated: 11/4/2021) LANDSCAPELEGEND ❑I PLANT SCHEDULE" xo � 7rJa WIN 11, ; - . , w..... — I �'A_=/ �q i OUw�w�.vc..• :va. vv.v.r. � A CALLOUT LEGEND E ID V[ti • w W & 1 C E O 3 ao � 1LANDSCAPE PLAN lo Li LANDSCAPE SET SHEET INDEX 0 THIS SHEET L1 0 LANDSCAPE PLAN SEE SHEET L2.0 FOR LANDSCAPE NOTES AND DETAILS. SEE SHEET L3 0 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES 8 DETAILS SEE SHEET L31 FOR IRR IGATION CONTROL DETAILS SEE SHEET L3 2 FOR DRIP IRRIGATION DETAILS LANOSCAPE NOTES 'a` ., VINYL FENCE PANEL Wg» S.PERENNIAL&GROVNDCOVE PLANTING _ m,.e..,,...Y•..- .a, L ;�.! a r.. �— a .W...e —�-i- TREE PROTECTION NOTES: ..�,�...m�a�,•. «o�x Nam _�� ^ii1 BECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING#tug ""—---- Z NNYLF -3'HT TRAN51T30N sVSHRIIBP—avr 0 .........a.,,.p.m.�.. .,°... Z TREE MITIGATION NOTES: Y 11DVRA EDDE STEEL TREE TRANSPLANT NOTES: LEI EDGING '"`" a TREE PROTECTION oeralL^� LL eR! m R L2 0 Page 21 Item 5. F123] IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION P40F tO the City Couneil hearing, Staff recommends the conceptual development plan is revised to Femove the offlee building and r-eplaee it with eommon open spaee with quality landseaping that iHeffpffates the following! par-king,pedeStFiaH pathWaYS a10H9 the south and east sides of the development,and a gazebo with a seating fiFen whieh ean be shared betWeen the Fesidential afld eommeFeial development; 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan,preliminaryplat and building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.An application for Design Review shall be submitted and approved for the single- family attached and townhouse structures prior to submittal of building permit applications. c. Direct lot access via Hickory Way is prohibited. d. The proposed development shall incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity consistent with the Medium High-Density Residential Future Land Use Map designation in the Comprehensive Plan. e. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of^ CeFfi eme of Zoning Gemplianee and Design Review building=permit application(s) for the site. £ The Applicant shall work with the property owner to the east to extend the private street to Hickory Way if possible in order to better facilitate emergency access to the site for wayfinding purposes. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. A separate common lot shall be provided for the private street, include the portion along the east boundary in a separate common lot. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Depict a pathway from the sidewalk along the private street on the west end of the site through the common area to the parking area at the southeast corner of the site. b. Depict landscaping along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. 4. A private street application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed private street; compliance with the standards for such listed in UDC 11-3F-4 is required. 5. Submit a detail of the proposed gazebo on Lot 16,Block 1 with the final plat application. 6. A Design Review application shall be submitted for all of the structures in the development and approved prior to submittal of application(s) for building permits. The elevations submitted shall Page 22 Item 5. F124] comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and the provisions in the Development Agreement. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 No Permanent structures (buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls, fences, infiltration trenches, lightpoles, etc.)can be built within the utility easement. 1.2 Do not have water and/or sewer services crossing private lots. 1.3 The existing sewer is not shown correctly. Missing existing manhole and shown as extending further into the property then existing sewer actually goes. 1.4 There is an existing 8" sewer stub from existing manhole that looks like it will not be used. If this is the case the existing stub must be abandoned at the manhole per City Requirements. 1.5 Ensure that infiltration trenches are located so that sewer services do no pass through them. 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 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 Page 23 Item 5. F125] 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 existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review,and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. Page 24 Item 5. E 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-221 L. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Roadways: When required by the Fire Marshall, "No Parking Fire Lane"signs shall be used per appendix D of the 2018 IFC.No other signs shall be approved: Roadways: All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles,and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside,per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. Roadways: All common driveways and alleys shall be maintained at all times for access by fire, police and EMS at all times of the year. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. E. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=228988&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU&cr =1 F. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=228242&dbid=0&r0o=Meridian City G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=229685&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orb/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=228193&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity Page 25 Item 5. F127] X. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Upon recommendation from the Commission,the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the proposed amendment to MHDR is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed infill development will provide a transiton in uses from single-family residential to commercial uses to the south and contribute to the diversity in housing types in this area as desired. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. The Commission finds that the proposal to change the FL UM designation from Commercial to MHDR will allow a transition in uses between existing medium density residential homes and commercial uses and will provide 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. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section V. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. Page 26 Item 5. 128 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Commission finds the proposed amendment will be compatible with abutting existing residential uses and existing commercial land uses in the near vicinity. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. Sewer and water services are available to be extended to this site. 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 Commission finds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section V and the subject findings above, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City. B. 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; The Commission finds the Applicant's request to rezone the subject property with R-15 zoning and develop single-family attached and townhouse dwellings on the site at a gross density of 9.64 units per acre is consistent with the proposed MHDR FL UM designation for this property. (See section V above for more information) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment to R-15 and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential homes/uses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. Page 27 Item 5. F129] 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This findings is not applicable as a rezone, not an annexation, is proposed. C. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminM plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the followingfindings:indings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is eg nerally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the Development Agreement provisions and conditions ofapproval in Section IX. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Sta finds public services can be made available to the subiectproperty and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds there are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity that are in the IFYWP or the CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of sLipporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability ofsupporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general wel are. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 28 Item 6. Ll 30 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments (H-2021-0075) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the south side of 1-84, % mile east of S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2) multi-family residential building lots (i.e. Lots 1-2, Block 1) and six (6) commercial building lots (i.e. Lots 3-8, Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. Item 6. 131 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: December 2, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments (H-2021-0075) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the south side of I-84, 1/a. mile east of S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2) multi-family residential building lots (i.e. Lots 1-2, Block 1) and six (6) commercial building lots (i.e. Lots 3-8, Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed 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. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING December 2,2021 Legend DATE: -"-- 0 Project Lcofl3tor TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner f{- 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0075 Rackham East—AZ,PP Eagle View Apartments—CUP,ALT LOCATION: South side of 1-84, 1/4 mile east of S. Eagle Rd., in the south 1/2 of Section 16, T.3N.,R.IE. l 1 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation(AZ)of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district; Preliminary Plat(PP)consisting of two(2)multi-family residential building lots (i.e. Lots 1-2,Block 1)and six(6) commercial building lots(i.e. Lots 3-8,Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land; and Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. Alternative Compliance is requested to the following UDC standards with the CUP application: • UDC 11-3A-19B.3,which requires no more than 50%of the total off-street parking area for the site to be located between building facades and abutting streets,to be allowed due the site design which enhances usable site amenities by placingthem internal to the development with parking ostly on the periphery of the site; • UDC Table 11-3C-6,which doesn't include off-street parking standards for studio unit apartments,to allow the parking standards for vertically integrated residential to apply; • UDC 11-4-3-27B.3,which requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space to be provided for each unit,to allow zero(0) for studio units(0%of the standard), 54- 60 square feet(s.£) for 1-bedroom units(67.5%-75%of the standard) and 58-85 s.£ for 2- bedroom units (68%-106%of the standard). II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 25.76-acres(AZ);29.7-acres(PP); 15.94-acres(CUP) Page 1 Item 6. F133] Description Details Page Existing/Proposed Zoning R1 and RUT in Ada County(existing)/C-G(proposed) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant land(formerly single-family homes) Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial(mixed use)and multi-family apartments Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 8 buildable lots(2 multi-family&6 commercial)/0 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase(plat);2 phases(CUP) Number of Residential Units(type 396 multi-family apartment units of units) Physical Features(waterways, The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the east boundary of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 3/3/21 —6 attendees;and 9/1/21 —7 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) None _ B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Not yet • Requires ACHD No Commission Action A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was submitted. es/no Access One access is proposed via S.Rolling Hill Dr. from E. Overland (Arterial/Collectors/State Rd.to the south;and two driveways will provide access from the Hwy/Local)(Existing and commercial development to the west via S. Silverstone Way from Proposed) E. Overland Rd. Traffic Level of Service Only Overland Rd. from Silverstone to Eagle Rd. exceeds LOS thresholds under the 2023 total conditions,there isn't enough ROW to widen it.All other segments meet LOS thresholds. Overland Rd./Eagle Rd. and Overland Rd./Silverstone Way exceeds thresholds under all conditions,but there is not enough existing ROW to improve it. Stub Two(2)driveways will be extended into the site from the west Street/Interconnectivity/Cros boundary. S.Rolling Hill Dr.will stub at the southern boundary s Access of the site. Existing Road Network S.Rolling Hill Dr.,a local street,extends from the south to the north boundary of the site. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are no existing arterial streets on or abutting this site. Buffers Proposed Road None Improvements West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) • Capacity of Schools Page 2 Item 6. 134 Description Details Pg _ • #of Students Enrolled Approved prelim Approved MF plat parcels per units per Miles Enrollment Ca aci attendance area attendance area �oa.wsawon Pepper Ridge Elementary S42 675 313 360 1.6 Lewis&Clark Middle School 886 1000 774 1331 2.S Centennial High School 1946 1900 443 1358 4.9 School of Choice Options Christine Donnell-Arts 489 Soo N/A NIA 5.3 Spalding Elementary-STEM 657 750 N/A N/A 1.S • Predicted#of students 40+/- generated from proposed development Police Service • Distance to Police 2.7 miles Station • Police Response Time Meets response time goals • Calls for Service 3,400(in RD `M752')—between 10/16/19 and 10/15/21) • %of calls for service %of P3 CFS 2.9% split by priority %of P2 CFS 76.0% %of Pl CFS 19.9% %of PO CFS 1.3% • Accessibility • Specialty/resource needs • Crimes 185(RD—M752—between 10/16/19 and 10/15/21) • Crashes 224(RD—M752—between 10/16/19 and 10/15/21) • Other MPD can service this area if approved.For more info, see: https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLinkIDocView.awx?id=241 580&dbid=0&re o=MeridianCi &cr-1 Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.25 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • Do not have a sewer stub to the south on Rolling Hill Dr.These properties will be serviced from Overland Rd. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan Page 3 Item 6. 135 Description Details P • Impacts/Concerns The development needs a second connection to water.There are two options to do so;either connect to Overland Rd via S Rolling Hills Dr or connect to the northwest existing 16"water main. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 0 Legend Prc.�ect Lacai�on � F•o-SC- Loco�ar. IN :.L84 MU-R IR C iv.io ilaa, ' -jo!. e a Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend Legend Prc}eot LacafKi r Prcject Lcca=ar _ x + i City Linlh LSO — Planned Parcels .AN I� CPR. --1 IG R � a RU TL A. Applicant: Brighton Development,Inc. 2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owners: BVA Rolling Hills No. 1,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 4 Item 6. ■ C. Representative: Josh Beach,Brighton Development,Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian, ID 83642 III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 11/16/2021 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 11/12/2021 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 11/22/2021 Nextdoor posting 11/12/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) Land Use: The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R). The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3D (pg. 3- 17). The Applicant proposes to develop the site with office(and possibly some secondary retail uses)and multi-family residential uses. The site is located near S.Eagle Rd. and E. Overland Rd., a major arterial intersection, and the Eagle Rd./I-84 interchange. The proposed offices will provide nearby employment opportunities and services for residents in the vicinity. Other commercial uses(offices, entertainment,multi-tenant retail,hotel, etc.)exist to the west in the larger MU-R designated area for a larger mix of uses as desired in MU-R designated areas. Pedestrian walkways are proposed for interconnectivity within the overall area. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed-Use areas, per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-13): (Staffs analysis in italics) • "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 office and multi family residential(i.e. apartments) which will add to the variety of uses planned in the larger MU-R designated area to the west consisting of office, retail, entertainment and hotel uses. • "Where appropriate,higher density and/or multi-family 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." The proposed multi family high density development should provide housing options in close proximity to nearby employment uses located along SH-SS and I-84. Page 5 Item 6. F137] • "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." A conceptual development plan was submitted with the proposed annexation application for the subject property that's located within the MU-R designation. A Development Agreement that ties future development to this plan and the general guidelines for mixed use developments and specifically the MU-R designation is recommended as a provision of annexation. • "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." The conceptual development plan depicts a common area between the two office buildings that appears to meet this guideline; more details should be submitted on a site plan submitted for development of these buildings that comply with this guideline. • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." Multi family residential uses are proposed on the southern portion of the site adjacent to existing rural residential properties as a transition and buffer to commercial office uses on the northern portion of the site.A 25 foot wide landscaped buffer with dense landscaping is also required in the C-G zoning district along the southern boundary of the site to residential uses. Staff also recommends a 6-foot tall sight obscuring fence is constructed along the southern boundary of the site as an added buffer to adjacent rural residential properties. • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals,clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." No such uses are specifically proposed in this development—the tenants of the office buildings are unknown at this time; however, St. Luke's hospital and medical offices are less than a mile away to the northwest of this site. • "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." An outdoor gathering area is depicted on the conceptual development plan between the two office buildings on the northern portion of the site. Details should be submitted with development of these buildings that demonstrate compliance with this guideline. • "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." The proposed conceptual development plan depicts a plaza/gathering area between the two office buildings on the northern portion of the site.A pedestrian circulation network, which will connect to the larger 90-acre Eagle View/Rackham development to the west, is proposed around the perimeter of the overall development as well as throughout the site that provide pedestrian connections to the multi family development, office, retail, restaurant and hospitality uses within the development. Page 6 Item 6. 138 • "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." The proposed development is directly accessible to residents in Rolling Hill Subdivision to the south by vehicle via S. Rolling Hill Dr. There are no pedestrian pathway stubs to this site from the adjacent residential development. S. Rolling Hill Dr. is currently a substandard street and lacks pedestrian facilities;ACHD is requiring off-site improvements with this application consisting of a sidewalk along one side of Rolling Hill and possibly pavement widening. The Ridenbaugh Canal provides a barrier between the subject property and the residential development to the east; no vehicular or pedestrian connections exist across the canal to this site. Staff recommends pathway stubs are provided at the southern boundary of the site near the west and east boundaries of the site for future extension upon redevelopment of the properties to the south for pedestrian connectivity with adjacent developments. • "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types." A 25 foot wide densely landscaped buffer and a driveway is proposed along the southern boundary of the site as a transition and buffer between existing rural residential properties and the proposed high-density multi family residential development. • "Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town, development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein." The subject property is not located in Old Town; therefore, this item is not applicable. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-R areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pgs.3-16 thru 3-17): • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas. Staffs analysis on the proposed project's compliance with these guidelines is included above. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. The total development area consists of 29.7 acres; the multi family residential portion consists of 15.94 acres, which is 53%of the site in accord with this guideline. Multi family apartments are proposed at a gross density of 24.8 units/acre, which falls within the desired density range. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area. A mix of non-residential commercial uses will be provided on 47%of the development area in accord with this guideline. Retail uses are expected to comprise only a small portion of the development. Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development,the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development(beyond the allowed 50%), Page 7 Item 6. F139] based on the ratios below: • For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say,if there is a one-acre library site planned and dedicated,the project would be eligible for two additional acres of retail development. • For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park,tot-lot, or playfield,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area,the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. • For plazas that are integrated into a retail project,the developer would be eligible for a 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point(such as a fountain, statue, and water feature), seating areas, and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half-acre plaza,the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. This guideline is not applicable as no public/quasi-public uses are proposed in the MU-R designated area on this site. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Urban services are available to be provided upon development. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed commercial uses should be compatible with existing and future commercial uses to the west and the proposed residential apartments should be compatible with existing residential uses to the south. • "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 mix of residential and office uses will provide opportunities to live and work in close proximity. The existing and planned office, retail and entertainment uses to the west will provide nearby shopping, work and play opportunities to enhance livability and sustainability. • "Encourage the development of supportive commercial near employment areas."(3.06.02C) Ancillary retail uses may be provided in the proposed office buildings; no stand-along retail uses are proposed on the site. However, retail/restaurant uses are anticipated in the multi- tenant building(s) within the development to the west. • "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A) The conceptual development plan depicts a pathway within the street buffer along I-84. The pedestrian plan included in Section VITH depicts internal pedestrian walkways throughout Page 8 Item 6. F140] the site for safe and convenient access. • `Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available to this site and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response times for Police Dept. and Fire Dept. meets the established goals. • "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.)."(3.07.01C) A 50 foot wide landscaped street buffer is required to be provided along the northern boundary of the site on land that abuts I-84; noise mitigation is not required per UDC II- 3H-4D. • "Evaluate the feasibility of annexing existing county enclaves and discourage the creation of additional enclaves."(3.03.03I) Excluding the outparcel(#51 11642 7890)along the northern boundary of the east portion of the site from the subject annexation and development plan will create a County enclave surrounded by City annexed land, which is not desired. Note: The Applicant is attempting to acquire this parcel. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban infrastructure is required to be provided with development in accord with UDC standards. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area per the analysis above. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Annexation: The proposed annexation is for 25.76-acres of land with a C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)zoning district. The proposed use of the property will include multi-family residential apartments and office uses. A multi-family development requires approval of a CUP in the C-G zoning district and is subject to the specific use standards for such listed in UDC 11-4-3- 27; office uses are principally permitted in the C-G zoning district as are retail uses. Staff recommended in the pre-application meeting to the Applicant that they request R-40 zoning for the multi-family portion of the development—they did not do so. The proposed use still requires approval of a CUP in the R-40 district; however,the R-40 zoning would more accurately reflect the land uses developed on the site when looking at the City's zoning map.For this reason, Staff recommends the multi-family portion of the site is zoned R-40 instead of C-G; the remainder of the site should be zoned C-G as requested.With this Page 9 Item 6. 141 change,new legal descriptions and exhibit maps should be submitted prior to the City Council hearing.Because the R-40 district is less intense than the C-G district, the project does not need to be re-noticed. The proposed C-G zoning and recommended R-40 zoning is consistent with the associated MU-R FLUM designation as are the proposed uses. The property is contiguous to City annexed land and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Because this site is part of a larger 90-acre overall development that includes the property to the west, Staff recommends that DA(Inst. #2019-037825— Rackham)is amended to include this property and the provisions noted in Section VIII.A., To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the development plan proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA is required with this application, containing the provisions noted in Section VIII.A, as discussed herein. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lots 18 and 19,Block 1,Rackham Subdivision No. I and Lots 8-12,Block 2 and Lots 13-16,Block 1,Rolling Hill Subdivision. The proposed plat consists of two(2)multi-family residential building lots(i.e. Lots 1-2,Block 1)and six(6) commercial building lots(i.e. Lots 3-8,Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land and is proposed to be developed in one phase.Note: The Applicant anticipates that many of the commercial lots will be consolidated or realigned at the time offinal plat as users determine precise site area requirements. Staff recommends the property is subdivided prior to application for any building permits for the site; or,the existing PUDI easements and right-of-way for S.Rolling Hill Dr.may be vacated and a property boundary adjustment application approved to consolidate the existing lots into one(1)parcel. Either method should be done prior to submittal of applications for building permits. Note: There is a 14-foot wide sliver of land(Parcel#51116427890)that exists to the north of the eastern portion of Lot 6 and Lots 7 and 8 that is not included in the proposed subdivision(see preliminary plat exhibit in Section VII.B).It appears to previously have been part of the right-of-way(ROW)for I-84 that was sold off as surplus ROW.It was not included as part of the adjacent building lots in the Rolling Hill Subdivision plat in 1968; therefore, Staff determines it to be an original parcel of record as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. As such,the subject property is deemed to be eligible for development without that parcel. However, Staff strongly urges the Applicant pursue obtaining the parcel and include it in this development; otherwise,there will be an undeveloped enclave with County zoning surrounded by City annexed land with no access and likely no maintenance of the property. Ideally,it would be included in the subject annexation and preliminary plat application, which would require re-noticing and a continuance of the hearing—Staff has suggested this to the Applicant but they wish to proceed without it as they continue trying to acquire the property. Since it is not included with this application,the applicant will have to submit a subsequent AZ application to the City for review and approval. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site; the previous homes and accessory structures have been removed. Page 10 Item 6. F142] Dimensional Standards: Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C- G and R-40 zoning districts in UDC Tables 11-2B-3 and 11-2A-8. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access to the site exists via S. Rolling Hill Dr.,a local public street that currently extends from E. Overland Rd.to the south and runs through this site to the north boundary;this street will ultimately stub at the south boundary. The portion of Rolling Hill north of the southern boundary of the site is required to be vacated prior to signature on the final plat. Rolling Hills Dr. is not improved to urban standards(i.e. it's narrow, lacks street lights and doesn't have curb, gutter or sidewalk). Two(2) driveway accesses are proposed to be extended from the commercial property to the west for access via S. Silverstone Way from E. Overland Rd. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should be provided between all lots in the subdivision as well as to the properties to the west(Parcel#R7319432000 &R7319431900)via a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Road Improvements: There are no projects in the Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)or Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP)that effect this site.ACHD is not requiring any additional off-site improvements at any of the ACHD intersections, or road segments of Overland Rd. or Silverstone Way.ACHD may require pavement widening and will require the construction of passive traffic calming measures on Rolling Hill Dr. A mini roundabout may be required at the intersection of Rolling Hills Dr. and the Rackham Way private drive. Rolling Hill Dr. will be restricted to right- in/right-out only on Overland Rd. Although Overland Road from Silverstone to Eagle Road exceeds level of service(LOS) thresholds under the 2023 total conditions,there isn't enough ROW to widen it. All other segments meet LOS thresholds. The intersections of Overland Road/Eagle Road and Overland Road/Silverstone Way exceed thresholds under all conditions,but there is not enough existing ROW to improve them. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There are no pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this site. Staff recommends internal pedestrian walkways are provided throughout the site for interconnectivity;where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular use areas they should be distinguished through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): There are no public streets proposed within this site; therefore, sidewalks are not required. Sidewalks are not required along 1-84; however, a pathway is proposed within the buffer. ACHD is requiring a sidewalk to be constructed off-site along one side of S.Rolling Hill Dr.with development of this site. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 50-foot wide street buffer is required on Lots 3-6 along the north boundary of the site adjacent to I-84 per UDC Table 11-2B-3,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The buffer depicted on the landscape plan complies with this standard. The street buffer is required to be maintained by the property owner or business owners' association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2b and should be depicted on the plat in a common lot or permanent dedicated buffer. Page 11 Item 6. F143] Landscaping is required adjacent to the pathway proposed along the northern boundary of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.A 5-foot wide landscape strip is required on both sides of the pathway planted with a min of trees,shrubs,lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Report for the subdivision. Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-IIC. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-151: Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. This property lies within the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District boundary. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Staff recommends street lights are installed along S.Rolling Hill Dr.in accord with the City's adopted standards,specifications and ordinances in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC 11-3A- : The Ridenbaugh Canal is a large open waterway that lies within a 100-foot wide NMID easement (50 feet on each side)along the east boundary of the site. The Applicant requests approval from City Council of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B,which requires canals to be piped when not used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11-lA-1,to leave the canal open due to its large capacity. Council may grant a waiver if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved.In order to ensure public safety can be preserved if the canal is approved to be left open,the Applicant proposes to construct a 6-foot tall open vision(wrought iron) fence along the eastern boundary of the site at the edge of the irrigation easement. This project is not within the flood plain. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is not depicted on the landscape plan; however, a 6-foot tall open vision wrought iron fence is proposed along the Ridenbaugh Canal to preserve public safety if Council approves a waiver to allow it to remain open and not be piped. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the future 5-story office buildings,4-story multi-family residential buildings,leasing and fitness buildings as shown in Section VII.I. Final design must comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. C. Conditional Use Permit(CUP): A CUP is requested for a multi-family development consisting of 396-units in four(4)4-story buildings on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district.Unit types consist of 48 studio, 196 1-bedroom and 152 2-bedroom units. The proposed gross density of the development is 24.8 units per acre,which is consistent with that desired in MU-R designated areas.Note:Staff is recommending R-40 zoning, instead of C-G, for the multi-family residential portion of the development. Page 12 Item 6. F144] Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staffs 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.Staff is unable to determine if the buildings depicted on the concept plan meet the minimum setback standard. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should clearly depict the property lines in order to determine compliance with this standard. 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 plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should demonstrate compliance with this standard. 3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other 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 11-513-5 of this title. Alternative Compliance is requested to this standard to allow zero (0) for studio units (0%of the standard), 54-60 square feet(s.f.)for 1-bedroom units (67.5%-75% of the standard)and 58-85 s.f. for 2-bedroom units(68%-106%of the standard). The Applicant's justification for the request is that the extraordinary site amenities proposed coupled with innovative,new urban design with an emphasis on integrated, internal open space, facilities, form the basis of the request in lieu of the standard. The Director is of the opinion that the requested reduction is too much for this site.As an alternative,the Director approves a 20%reduction(i.e. 64 square feet) for the reasons offered by the Applicant as justification for the reduction. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 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 should comply with this requirement. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. The proposed parking meets and exceeds UDC standards (see parking analysis below). 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. Page 13 Item 6. F145] 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) These items should be depicted on the site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 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.All units contain more than 500 square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.All 396 units contain between 500 and 1,200 square feet of living area. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.None of the units exceed 1,200 square feet of living area. At a minimum, a total of 99,000 sf. (or 2.27 acres) of outdoor common open space is required to be provided in the proposed development.A total of 3.49 acres is proposed consisting ofstreet/driveway buffers, area around leasing building, landscaped areas in parking, lot and amenity areas, in excess of the minimum requirement as shown on the exhibit in Section VII.G. 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').All of the common open space areas depicted on the open space exhibit in Section VII.G 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 project is proposed to develop in two phases. The first phase will consist of the west two buildings along with their associated garages and carports, the west courtyard amenities, the leasing office and the fitness building. The second phase will consist of the east two residential buildings along with their associated garages and carports, and the east courtyard amenities (see phasing plan in Section VILE). 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, eff.retroactive to 2-4- 2009)None of the common open space areas are located adjacent to a collector or arterial street. 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: Page 14 Item 6. F146] (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (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) Based on 396-units, a minimum of S amenities are required but the decision-making body is authorized to consider additional similar amenities if they believe the proposed amenities aren't adequate for the size of the development. Amenities are proposed from each of the three categories in excess of the minimum standards (see list and exhibit in Section VII.G).Amenities include several outdoor sport courts/games (snook ball, cornhole boards, bocce ball,ping pong table, volleyball), open grassy areas at least 50'x 100'in size, walking trails, a swimming pool, a clubhouse with a fitness facility, kitchen and lounge, shade structures with seating and outdoor seating around afire table. E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. Page 15 Item 6. F147] 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. 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 on all elevations facing the private drives 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. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided with the subdivision improvements as noted above in Section V.B. Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C.A mix of trees,shrubs,lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover with a minimum of one(1)tree per 100 linear feet of pathway. A minimum 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses is required with development along the southern boundary of the site per UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11- 3B-9C,which requires a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs,lawn,or other vegetative ground cover. The buffer depicted on the landscape plan needs to be widened and additional landscaping depicted in accord with these standards. Parking: Off-street vehicle parking is required for the proposed multi-family dwellings as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. The UDC standards applicable to this application do not include minimum parking standards for studio units; the code has since been updated(on 10/5/21)to require one(1)space per studio unit. The Applicant has requested alternative compliance to allow the parking standards for vertically integrated residential to apply. Because one(1)space is required for vertically integrated residential uses,which is the same as the current code for studio units,the Director finds this request acceptable and,grants the request. Based on 48 studio, 196 1-bedroom units and 152 2-bedroom units, a minimum of 5-70 646 off- street spaces are required with 3%348 of those being in a covered carport or garage. Off-street parking is required for the clubhouse as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6B.1 for non-residential uses. Based on 6,952 square feet, a minimum of 14 spaces are required to be provided. Overall, a minimum of�84 660 standard parking spaces are required. A total of 6-547 649 spaces are proposed with 391 of those being covered in garages (88)/carports (303),which includes compact spaces; compact stalls are discouraged but may be used for parking above the number of required parking spaces.Additional parking should be provided to meet the minimum standards; the site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should be revised to reflect compliance.Note: The calculations on the landscape plan state 651 spaces are proposed, which dyers from that on the site plan. Page 16 Item 6. 148 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. Based on 651 spaces,a minimum of 26 spaces are required.Bike racks should be provided in central locations for each building. Alternative Compliance(ALT)is also requested to UDC 11-3A-19B.3,which requires no more than 50%of the total off-street parking area for the site to be located between building facades and abutting streets,to be allowed due the site design which enhances usable site amenities by placing them internal to the development with parking mostly on the periphery of the site. Because the parking areas on the east and west sides of the site are screened by garages and there is only one drive aisle with parking on each side on the north and south sides of the site and internal parking between the structures,leaving less than 50%of the off-street parkin visible isible from the abutting street/driveway, Staff is of the opinion the site design complies with UDC standards without approval of ALT. Fencing:No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan for this development.A 6-foot tall open vision wrought iron fence is proposed along the Ridenbaugh canal to preserve public safety if Council approves a waiver to allow the canal to remain open and not be piped. As an added buffer to the two adjacent rural residential properties to the south in Rolling Hill Subdivision, Staff recommends a 6-foot tall sight obscuring fence or wall is constructed along the southern boundary of the site. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed 4-story multi-family residential buildings, leasing and fitness buildings as shown in Section VII L Final design must comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the site and building design prior to submittal of building permit applications. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation with the requirement of a development agreement,preliminary plat and conditional use permit with the provisions noted in Section VIII, per the Findings in Section IX. Page 17 Item 6. F149] VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map NOT APPROVED lam E N G I N E E R I N G June 2,2021 Project No.20-219 Exhibit A Lega I Description for Annexation and Rezone to C-G Rackharn Subdivision No.2 A parcel of land being lots 13 through 16,Block 1, Lots 8 through 12,Block 2 of Rolling Hill Subdivision (Book 18 of Plats at Page 1,202,records of Ada County,Idaho)and unplatted land situated in a portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16,Township 3 North,flange 1 East,B.M.,Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16,which bears N00°05'15"W a distance of 2,653.59 feet from a brass cap marking the South 1/4 corner of said Section 16,thence following the westerly line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4,500.05'15"E a distance of 227.22 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate 84 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said southerly right-of-way line,S89'34'32"E a distance of 672.76 feet; Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line,500°00'07"E a distance of 14.37 feet; Thence S89°15'23"E a distance of 478.72 feet to the westerly boundary of Ironwood Subdivision No.3 (Book 77 at Page U98,records of Ada County,Idaho)and the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal; Thence following said westerly Boundary and said centerline the following two(2)courses: 1. S12°52'54"W a distance of 489.5fl feet; 2. S14°05'22"W a distance of 627.49 feet to a 5/9-inch rebar on the southerly line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 114; Thence leaving said westerly line and said centerline and following said southerly fine,N89'14'19"W a distance of 987.95 feet to the Southwest corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 114(Center- 54U6 1/16 corner); Thence leaving said southerly line and following the westerly line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4,N00°05'15"W a distance of 1099.57 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 25.76 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. ta�q I1 a 12459 5725 North Discovery Way• Boise,Idaho 83713• 208.639.693h• kmengflp.com Page 18 Item 6. F150] POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FOUND ALUMINUM CAP CENTER 1/4 CORNER SECTION 16 SO0'05'15"E 227 222' (TIE} Interstate$4 S00'00'07'"E POINT OF BEGINNING 1 .37' S89'34'32"E 672.76' S89`15'23"E 478.72' Parcel q Parcel S1116427950 R7555000280to Parcel V R7555000160 = I L Parcel rid R755500027D Annexatlan Area:25.76t AC. ;n o Proposed Zoning:C-G � I � LO Parcel Un fatted L •c► R7555000261 Parcel I� P a LO o R7555000151 I� crate r T °0lun Parcel Ea Parcel •r .5 S1116428010 o R755S000265 to uL'-1 ;n Parcel Centerline of Parcel R7555000155 Ridenbaugit o L, Canal 3 O p R7555000251 0 Parcel Parcel I R7555000255 R7555000140 rti I � E .o_ i To 3� Parcel 1^ R7555000240 Parcel I A755S000130 yF - I � N89'14'19"W 887.95' S00'05'15"E 1326.80' (TIE) Rolling Hill Jewel Subdivision Subdivision FOUND BRASS CAP SOUTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 16 ❑ 200 400 600 to" Plan Scale: 1"=200' E N 0 1 IN E E R I N 0 5725 NORTM015COVERY WAY Bois E.IOANQ 93711 1..11E am0 6395939 Exhibit B-Annexation and Rezone to C-G kmengRp.com Rackham Subdivision No. 2 OVE- !vn@ 2921 PROJECT: 111-219 SHEET: Lots 13-15, Block 1, Lots 8-12, Black 2 and unplatted Jand in a portion of the 1 OF 1 NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Selz. 16,T31N., R1E., B.M.,Ada County, Idaho Page 19 Item 6. 151 B. Preliminary Plat(date: 10/25/2021) PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWING VI1-MAP 1'=2, ' RACKHAM EAST SUBDIVISION A RE-SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 13-16,BLOCK I,LOTS R-12,BLOCK 2OF ROLLING II ILL SLo[7NISION, L— d LOTS 18-19,BLOCK 1 OF RACKHAM SUBDIVISION AND uN I11 A 1 11 D I AN ls' ALL SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 AND THE NW 1/4 OF THESE 1/4 OF SECTION 16,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,BOISE MERIDIAN, N _ CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO :? IU NE 2021 y �• - uo..ccamir.wxe.n�xo o�rw �PSExo xw 7C., —G C-iC-G C-G C-G ' PRENMINARY PLAT DATA xK i� S t 4 E mnnrt - 1� C-G • _'� PRENMINAP-NOTES -.-.-m[u•m� �-�-ierur,v yr smn mx I,.I o q,,�ao.r-nrnu a�wu�mn¢'rrwox�wP�um[rn w]MEL III • •-•R'•Y I3 w,.�.W.+a I rrll TM1.,: "'®�" [ RACKHAM EAST Sl1BDIYISIDN I I �.. �,m.m®.m,�,v.....,,..,,a.LL��.o.s„a ma MERIDI0.14 ID �II I� wennxex ---�- I I PRfIIMINAPY PUT owl k-m -'-I'I' `.IRTIONw.® I �v.nes mraa 70821 �QQj�� ,yqn R� m.n. o�lulM�Nw.Y� ,,.[...,..,....,.., `....r.� PP1.0 Page 20 Item 6. 152 C. Landscape Plan—Preliminary Plat(date: 10/15/2021) 77 ---- --- _ ::" :..: :T r 0 �a flj ��� L] ^�� E X � V �„nn.,ea•c w mW nbs�e.rw • lid ! ``I�I; � •a•..ean.e .x_ nm ewm= C-G C-G C-6 C-G C� �dAr�l rA—AAA j C-G 1 - ,a�n��A 9••^� a --- ��+®• A o ��� —�-—�— `--! r b - .rs Nn RACKHAMMEAST SUBDIVISION g•+ � �a °'"E^ S �� N MERI DIAN ID s� PPfDMINMERI T WND PIAN PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN 'sagg �.�._e s Wff TREEULCUlAM1 11TREEl3s IF) ;p GG' � '+, �� �" TOTAL STREET TREES F km S w, ` � MMI TIQN REQUIREMENTS �Ae. r<om TOTAL TREES REQUIRED/PROVIDED RPLI.0 Page 21 Item 6. F153 D. Conceptual Development Plan 010 71 z It's r. _ a '_/ F �"�°�•+-LL.[JJ fl fl fl fi� l v s v CO +GAG iiiiinmiiiiiiiiniiig it � 1 THUM h �^ m m• � i• Z r Q N• O 'u5 N it Z N Ne !' "e. ig t. N o " r i!i eE •vN ! KM LLI 'a Q w - 1. - -._ EVL-2 Page 22 Item 6. 154 E. Site Plan—Conditional Use Permit(dated: 6/3/21) &Phasing Plan Ll 1 — �seew •'I _` J `��,. eFy 1[l� i Ida u"Quin,mn�uu urrm.. x.m.wn n,. Q ZV16 I f ----------- .. . "'999222 E � A i Lf f it ----- ��r---n,•...,� -- ----- ------ --- r, ...�_. ... � ' o km CUP SITE PLAN L_L_L_L_L_LJJ o~ m: L10 Page 23 Item 6. Fl 55 - Phase it � 4 I i Phase 1 Page 24 Item 6. r156] F. Landscape Plan—Conditional Use Permit(dated: 6/3/21) Saa `` �-- --- ---- — ----- ------ -- x�pww kk16�x6m . w.X_o xVM tt a't 1 R P ✓ _ x6.e,xu� F e R I 1 Ip/ ' R a 4 n m i CUP LANDSCAPE PLAN z e 1 V BUFFER WIBINS AND TREE CALCU IATIONS(1TREEf35 LF) —0—RNKIN—PERIMETERIAND—E—P «n..�,xEx.:.x:,,..x.. r""" a5ai ws� a NEEPN6��� cam aM n«wax ss PARKING CALCULATIONS ,µr.a��-]xFhaa.n .au r"••• �� �• :. r.mwa[srwnrr •� "°'° n... ..a�ax u m - �/ .«uw,r.�rxxncuu s�[xo[rtsluw„mr xu�m aw wa. s i ,:,a „m PARKING ISIANDTREE-S TREESPEOESMIX MITIGATION REOUIREMENIS QTDTALTRE6R _ Page 25 Item 6. F157] G. Open Space Exhibit for Multi-Family Development(dated: 6/3/21) &Amenities 141 �. Q I � 1 1 L 2 I 1 A ' L ' I 1rrA I 1 r I � _J L I LAlJiL�LLU I 14a1 111 � I Z H 50 1 9- -—--—-7—--—-1—--—--—--—--— �1CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT C PRfLIMINA-Tf Ct LCV QNS k 1 Exi.o Page 26 Item 6. 158 • Amenities o Central Core Amenities ■ 24-hour resident lounge ■ Warming kitchen ■ Entertainment area ■ Game area ■ 24-hour fitness center featuring Rogue equipment ■ Locker Rooms with showers ■ Zoom conference room(s) ■ Wi-fi throughout all amenity areas ■ Resort style pool & year-round spa ■ Pool-side patio and grilling area ■ Outdoor pool lounge ■ Amazon parcel system ■ Dwelo Smart Home Technology o West Courtyard (seepage 10 for exhibit) ■ Shade structure ■ Outdoor Kitchen with BBQ Grill ■ Benches ■ Outdoor seating surrounding a Fire Table ■ Festoon lighting ■ Cornhole ■ Outdoor Ping Pong Table ■ Sand Volleyball o East Courtyard (seepage 10 for exhibit) ■ Shade Structure ■ Outdoor Kitchen with BBQ Grill ■ Benches ■ Outdoor seating surrounding a Fire Table ■ String Lights ■ Cornhole ■ Outdoor Ping Pong Table ■ Snook Ball Court ■ Bocce Ball Court Page 27 Item 6. Fl 59 AMENITY FEATURES --HORNEOAY DESIGN ASPELT WOW RITLHEN WITH- SERIES PLANTER POTS. '.LT-Ik MU /J DFYIS COEDR EOM DARN DaFY. 517t5 VARIES. O I FSP-It,&SP-21 G CORNa+DI[YDAR➢S-- � 144 ti / l , _Ca�.rt�.`.` " �� Ourpodr HNG Pd1G TAEI L. k- SkwcuT cokcanr. a 4 FACE SIAR?1 DE YE STS q 1 PD W ST Lmw RiHD uclrt w ATTkLHYEM. 2 YENCN--__-_ � I -OYERHIFD CITED" � SFwo YOuf TBFIE--'-�_ -- '1------0•__ \ r 9T1EHD LWHF3. y� IL MAT wM eo' '' ,'— ,f// ��-Flat tABLE. UTr EY 7ONE _-OUTDOOR SEATM. v a•i E•PRMLST— COMCKR STE STORE ORE I .S O I P rr i Z `I ! ' [',a�1 7 --:�-__.,�.`-'E�I.L,reD Ne.Fn■s, m __- -OVERNEAD SsOM SIROCTDaE. PCECOIA OR WOE SAMS. N y yj WEST APARTMENT COMPLEX Page 28 Item 6. r160] AMENITY FEATURES CUTOOOR R1rCNLx - bNFT-r LA»x ,: -- F � #i - — FRFL M xc 9EGORArmw rows f.. + FOR ST*I1e1kG LM:kT aTlACxxrxl- S refs s—, wN OLCowrn rusts - FOP TRW:VONT ArE.E".W. �mAwOAY OTsrn ASML[r SCR�Cs 2 PL.Nir!POTS OAYIS COLOR Bou C OAPs GRAY. WrRHCAD CYTERrOP Greom L4WS.--, /� `� SIZES VAIV. R L a Ail KOWEGAY OCSWk ASPLCT SEWS �y .I - a ►LANrLR TOTS OAKS COLOR BGsa �� —Sxrypc p/,{L SIXIPr, BAeR LRAY- 9r($ CORAMOyT-ARM Y AD-rT,ASP-II T yT J CMS TABU. 44 VENC now ru . a --__�_�. , _ r a•Ra•COPCRf TF SAweLrr. may. cokCKTc Sc W, W.I'.PONG I.I.L. V� �UCARB IFOOOLSQ PAYERS.— y pr, 1 ' Jtt��LTICC,,��-,,, ,,, / � d` 4 1 "Tat--� � �•' r , I � OUMN SLATING. oXrRrrw savor srBrrcLrFRE.Y--I' PERGOLA OR SOME SANS. d } �.•, I � r I l µ _ EAST APARTMENT COMPLEX ¢ ° Page 29 Item 6. 161 H. Pedestrian Circulation Plan 1 �7TT1 11 1 i 1 1 \_�� ' � I � .1k —977 F_ m IiEi a — l-I i - f .�:.� i& i' ■ O ..... ei io .,,p ._ L" ep i _i� i , io } W - L_�• — _ e: M1i ii a o a J LU Q TTTTFF TT� W i p a C e e L —__ _--_- Page 30 Item 6. F162] I. Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 5/31/2021) µ ALI ate, � e � gg 99 ze t oo go oU �a 0 00 -W 3 ao ga_ --- 3 _-- ..mm aVw-w�,.NDm,N MmvfL�l..G®•.........a w.savm�r�..«m. v .r uy j OF I�y_ =' -..ta VIEW IANMIN BI LDIM IT Page 31 Item 6. Fl 63 t y awn¢a�.uolN beN.�.6UIEOI..Gm.p�.g �n LE,oIE��N Page 32 ■I ili III I� !!! 111 1��1 Ill ■I - ,� �� u I ■ IIII IIII _ n, I ' ,1 1■ 1� �■ _ - ii■:I� s - r Item 6. 166 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Staff recommends the multi-family portion of the site is zoned R-40 instead of C-G; the remainder of the site should be zoned C-G as requested.With this change,updated legal descriptions and exhibit maps shall be submitted prior to the City Council hearing. A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. An amendment to the existing Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #2019-037825 H-2019- 0005) for the Rackham development is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, an amended DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption. An application for such shall be submitted to the City,preferably so that it can go to Council concurrently with the subject applications; a development plan for the overall area should be submitted with the application that is consistent with the MU-R FLUM designation. The amended 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 specific provisions for the amended DA pertaining to this site will be determined at the time of submittal of the application; the following provisions may be included: a. Development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan,phasing plan, conceptual development plan,pedestrian circulation plan and conceptual building elevations submitted with the application contained herein. b. The two(2)office buildings proposed on the northern portion of the site shall be arranged to create some form of common,usable gathering area, such as a plaza or green space in accord with the mixed-use guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan (see pg. 3-13). c. Provide a pedestrian pathway within the street buffer along 1-84 as depicted on the conceptual development plan with landscaping along the pathway as set forth in UDC I I- 3B-12C. Also provide internal pedestrian walkways throughout the site for interconnectivity; where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular use areas they shall be distinguished through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. d. All future structures constructed on this site shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. e. The final plat shall be recorded prior-to issuanee of building pei:mits for-any stfuetw this side; or,the existing PUDI easements and right-of-way for S. Rolling Hill Dr. shall be vacated and a property boundary adjustment application approved to consolidate the existing lots into one(1)parcel prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the site. f. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi-Family Development, is required. g. Provide off-site improvements for S. Rolling Hill Dr. consistent with Ada County Highway District's requirements, including but not limited to,pavement widening to 24- feet where needed, 3-foot wide gravel shoulders and 6-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the street. Streetlights shall also be installed along S. Rolling Hill Dr. in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Page 35 Item 6. F167] Preliminary Plat: 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note granting cross-access/ingress-egress easements between all lots in the subdivision in accord as well as to the properties to the west(Parcel#R7319432000& R7319431900)via a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. b. Depict the street buffer along I-84 on Lots 3-6 in a common lot or a permanent dedicated buffer,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association per UDC I I- 3B-7C.2b. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a pathway within the street buffer along I-84 as shown on the CUP landscape plan with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C.A 5-foot wide landscape strip is required on both sides of the pathway planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover. b. Depict a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal outside of the NMID's irrigation easement. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district and 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoningdi strict. 5. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise waived by City Council. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver from City Council to leave the Ridenbaugh Canal open. 6. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements shall be provided between all lots in the subdivision as well as to the properties to the west(Parcel#R7319432000&R7319431900)via a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. 7. The right-of-way for the portion of S. Rolling Hill Dr.north of the southern boundary of the site shall be vacated prior to signature on the final plat. 8. The pFepeFty shall be subdivided pr-ioF to issuanee of any building pet:mits fof the site.Not necessaa to include as a plat condition as it's included as a DA provision above in Section V111.A.I e. Conditional Use Permit: 9. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi-Family Development is required. 10. The site/landscape plans included in Section VII shall be revised as follows: a. Depiet a minimum 25 feet wide buffer-to r-esidepAial uses along the seu4hefa betmdary e 11 3B 9GA mi*of evergreen and deeiduous trees, shrubs., laim, er other vegetafive greund e . ?d-within the bftffi�, whieh shall be ins-tailed at Me time of le Not required with R-40 zoning. b. Depict all property lines in order to demonstrate compliance with the minimum setback requirements listed in UDC Table !I-2-B-3 11-2A-8 and 11-4-3-27B.1. c. 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, Page 36 Item 6. F168] or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3- 27B.2. d. Depict the location of the property management office;maintenance storage area; central mailbox location,including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access; and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3- 2 7B.7. e. Depict a 6-foot tall sight obscuring fence or wall along the southern boundary of the site as an added buffer to the rural residential properties to the south in Rolling Hill Subdivision. f. Depict landscaping along all elevations that face the private drives in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27E. g. Depict landscaping along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.A mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover with a minimum of one (1) tree per 100 linear feet of pathway. h. Depict pathway stubs at the southern boundary of the site near the west and east boundaries of the site for future extension upon redevelopment of the properties to the south for pedestrian connectivity with adjacent developments. i. Depict a minimum of 26 bicycle parking spaces per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C- 6G;bicycle parking facilities shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bike racks shall be provided in central locations for each building. j. Compact parking stalls are discouraged but may be used for parking above the number of required parking spaces per UDC 11-3C-5A.6. Based on the number of bedrooms per unit and square footage of the clubhouse proposed, a minimum of 660 standard off-street parking spaces are required with 348 of those being in a covered carport or garage.If these numbers/square footage change, parking may be adiusted accordingly to comply with applicable UDC standards. 11. The Director approved the Applicant's request for Alternative Compliance to the private usable open space standards in UDC 11-4-3-27.B.3 with a modification to the request to allow a maximum reduction of 20%(i.e. 64 square feet)to the standard. 12. 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 as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.5. 13. All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F.A recorded copy of the document shall be submitted prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 14. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the site and building design prior to submittal of building permit applications. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval Page 37 Item 6. ■ 1.1 Instead of running parallel 6" and 8" water main, change the layout to a single 8" water main,connect the hydrant,then install a jurisdictional valve to the fire service line. 1.2 Do not have a sewer stub to the south on S Rolling Hills Dr. These properties will be served from Overland Rd. 1.3 Ensure no permanent structures are within any City easements including but not limited to buildings, car ports,trash enclosures,trees, shrubs, fences,light poles, infiltration trenches, etc. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are Page 38 Item 6. F170] any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer,an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.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 Page 39 Item 6. 171 infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=241985&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=241580&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org,/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=242184&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243206&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty G. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=244287&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) hggs://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=244309&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) A staff report has not yet been received from ACHD for this application. https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=240968&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Page 40 Item 6. F172] Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment to C-G and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the MU-R FL UM designation. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment will allow for the development of a mix of office and multi family residential uses which will assist in providing for the service needs of area residents consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial districts in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds 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 Stafffinds 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. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Stafffinds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use and transportation. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section 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; Stafffinds 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, Stafffinds 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; Page 41 Item 6. ■ 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. C. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-5B-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. Stafffinds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the C-G 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. Stafffinds that the proposed use is consistent with the future land use map designation of MU-R and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2B-2 in the C-G 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. Stafffinds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission and Council should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water, and sewer. Stafffinds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Page 42 Item 6. ■ D. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-5B-5): In order to grant approval of an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR The Director finds UDC Table 11-3C-6 does not include parking requirements for studio units; therefore, this finding does not apply. The Director finds strict adherence or application of the requirements in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 is feasible but to comply, the number of units may need to be reduced or other changes made to the development plan. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the proposed alternative compliance of providing parking for studio units consist with the standards for vertically integrated residential units, which is also consistent with current updated standards for studio units,provides an equal means for meeting the requirement. The Director finds the proposed alternative compliance to the private usable open space standards in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 for each unit unacceptable but does find a reduction of 20% acceptable due to the extraordinary site amenities proposed along with the innovative, new urban design with an emphasis on integrated, internal open space and facilities proposed. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. The Director finds that the proposed alternative means of compliance to UDC Table 11-3C-6 and the Director's alternative approval to the Applicant's proposal for alternative compliance to 11-4-3-27B.3 will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended use/character of the surrounding properties. Page 43 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Rackham East Eagle Apartments Annexation & Zoning Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit P&Z - December 2, 202 Rackham East & Eagle View Apartments 1+ i y t 1 AR Lip uq 84 84 . ONE � � 1WIN NONE ME m MEN ,a a - I _ ■1110 � � ' ' •• ■111• if E ��A 3 W.�' ' ' � r Rackham East g r 5 � • 1 �y Q r � } r T W # ' . ILA c. W /�,,, O •t r . Fq M xar Te naiogi�' { �� �, . �__ - f 1 —.[� Jf jp Rackham _ Rackham (Original) East g r jo a t � � � ti � � .k � .,; }•'� fro I, ' W1 t Z * �- uj � . .p 1d Fq M xar Te nCA I'o - i LOCATION ram~ Ile 10 f �Illkll&Ea i i v - 4 - _ — _ j fah haul• -�4 — - - _ f ti c1 � { i t• ** _ r EAGLE VIEW MASTER PLAN _ IW i :- """L"'IU... A iiii win % IIHIIOIHIO �'; _ - §§ 7 o f �, T .�Y - - - ulti-Famly t; it fIT I Ih { EAGLE VIEW MASTER PLAN ..IJ 1l^� C. i. tertainment t I II r I. �l� I;. �+ so 43F.4. `T'.'� I. �. .�14..� '� �w� �u.II LI�IL� w� �• I -_� ��} .� Ir 4} T 'i pr - I + L + - COMP PLAN _ .. LPm Rackha m East is consistent with the City s Comprehensive Plan, Future Land : Use Map and Policies. From the Staff _ LL W3 Report : E ONYX ST fir!" r ,,:. In summary, Staff believes the proposed W LU E 1flE un rq CIR development plan is generally consistent p p g Y with the vision of the Comprehensive- - : W OVERLAND RD ' Plan for this area per the analysis above." 0 H -� - - ✓ "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and u r COMP mixed-use developments." (3.07.02A) PLAN = ✓ "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian ve 4 T as' water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to N - EAR "' and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Rackham East is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of Plan, Future Land Use Map and Policies. From the Staff development." (3.03.03A) Report: ✓ "Permit new development only where it can be ✓ "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services." (3.03.03F) services." (3.03.03F) ✓ "Require appropriate landscaping, buffers, and noise ✓ "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize mitigation with new development along transportation conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." ✓ "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide (3.07.01C) the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine, play, and ✓ "Evaluate the feasibility of annexing existing county work in close proximity, thereby reducing vehicle trips, enclaves and discourage the creation of additional and enhancing overall livability and sustainability." enclaves." (3.03.031) (3.06.02B) ✓ "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new ✓ "Encourage the development of supportive commercial developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, near employment areas." (3.06.02C) water and sewer utilities." (3.03.03G) N 7i _ �Ii11r111Ns11l� - s � - � Alllrll�Illla _ C ;� � IIt11f11� - Ilk- 1=moil R p 1�1 1 - �1 F �5��/• r 1 1111FIgli1N1 it 1 1 1 + Irr111Ait1t11lllill �I* r` � 11{IIlllill� � � 1111{IYIIINIFiI il � 1r 1 1 1 � — �flllllerinlltll�8� �i� Ip 1� r �� E � � _� '` • .� • � . 3 �Illrullrllrll>EI il; � 'f -.4 .. .•+ _ HIM roug I. l�l4�p 1�!+rrrrrlrlrra��l �� � � � • � �j. �. Rackham y Rackham (Original) 1 - East r *f 1 •I 1 �,�t� I _ r �� � 16 �T age O 2021 Max nologi PRE - PLAT I� g I� Y"rEasrnTE q �I 732' 172' 17$' 157, � 50!1S73T 479L72'——— �# 774' 2w .a BMRl � F M W M C_G { m C - c- - L,Ma 23�33 YF , PRELIMINARY PLAT DATA 1 LGT3 - 10T7 -'- _ 10Tc r P.9 AC.3 Xl.1+U]L 9L�933F iF,"' •ItiyJX51 ;a,017 y+ 51TE DATA CLJRRENT ZONING R1 PROPOSED ZONING C—G Corn jnercial area COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION MIXED USE REGIONAL RACOAM �iyx # ` COMMERCIAL AREA (C—G) LOTS 3-8 13.8 ACRES suppN1514H ,�E ; RESIDENTIAL AREA (C—G) LOTS 1,2 15.9 ACRES WW17 O r TOTAL SITE AREA 29.7 ACRES `may— .6s •s for 7Y TOTAL LOTS 8 ca Residential area (modify to R-40) C-G G 195.iti.'k LUT1 � S l:•il I � §Og7979F fi7ALs PRELIMI ... Wf- 15T THE _ 279 aq5 M7,a P, M{F� +�P`1+'111f 13]Y.3C' S�•1i'1 r•._ ,9 . .. — OF IEADYIN. HCyll}4J4YfJu 3, MO411011 M C,Ip CEx1FF.�CM U*^]SEER gEarl11 31 fi7RhBp N-1n9'n I I 1 MMA..Ws ANNEX / REZONE PRE = PLAT We concur with Staff on : Annex / Rezone / Preliminary Plat • Modifying the rezone to R-40 ( instead of C-G ) • Amend the existing DA so that the entire 90-acre development ( Rackham Original + Rackham East) is one complete project 13 Eagle View Apartments 14 CUP Project Details PHASq I EAGLE VIEW APARTMENTS PHAS� 2 1-8-UnI,,ts __ -:' BRIG HTON 178 Units 15.94 Acres / 24.8 units per acre _-- - CONCEPTUAL,SUBJECT TO CHANGE Living Types --- ------------__ -- -- -- — ------ ---- -- • Studio (616 sf): 48 • 1 Bed (696 sf): 196 !'! j' 2 Bed (977 sf): 152 d'i[- � e J �- _ ;' , 396 units — f _ I Parking i e:s '1 jr' Y • Required: 648 Z Provided: 651 1�2j �� r:' Bike: 32 aid I Qualified Open Space �8 ! J' 21.9%/3.49 acres - r r Two Phases • 218 units ` — — --_ PPI'ETEDRIVE � 0 178 units CUP EAGLE VIEW APARTMENTS Fitness + $RIGH'TON - CONCUMAL.SUBJFCi M CHANGE 00 77. NorthWest Building Leasing Resident Club. fa d 1 i II AMENITIES CENTER AMENITIES EAGLE VIEW APARTMENTS -.- BRIGHTON i I 24-hour resident lounge CONCEPTUAL,SUBJECT TO CHANGE • Warming kitchen Entertainment area -1� ' --- ------------ -FRIVAT -- --!`- -- -- - ------------- —„--- Game area _ 'i 24-hour fitness center r- ;1 I' � 11 AM J � featuring Rogue equipment 3 17Ml f + Locker Rooms with showers Zoom conference room(s) II LL Wi-fi throughout all amenity areas Resort style pool & year- . L r round spa L 9 Pool-side patio and grilling area Outdoor pool lounge Amazon parcel system OV Dwelo Smart Home PPI'ETEDRIVE f Technology AMENITIES AMENITY FEATURES AMENITY FEATURES NOON EOSV DESIGN ASPECT OUIDDOR KITCXEN In"X SERIES PLANTER POTS, SUILi-IN GRILL. DSVIS C.L.8DSA D— GRAY. F OUTDOOR NITCX[N WITX FREE sTAn0.'xc V 6 3 ZEs VARIES: U RVILT-IN GRILL ECORATVC POs1S ASP-rt,ASP-31 FOR SIR NG LLGXT STiACXNEHT DMNHOLE MARK OUTDOOR PING TONG TABLE. FREE STAND3N0 DED"'TIVE POSES _ FOR SIRING LIGHT ATTACHL[NT. '� "' - RORNEGAY DESIGN ASPECT SERIES 4Lam '%4'SAWCVI CONCRETE. - PLANTER POTS,DSVIS COLOR SO6A t d „_. - '' EPEE STANOIN6 6ECORAINE Q OVEPHGO E%TERIOR SPRING UGHfS, - �� SSA-TT.HASP-21 A C7 POSES FOR STRING LIGHT �� ._. ITTACE.E e'_' %ORXEGAY OFSRa� '.U.sEInFS 4 .......... SNOON BALL CWPT. BENCH - OVERHEAD C%TERIOR PUNIER POTS OAVI COLOR ROBA n, a 3 SAND VOLLEYBALL -- -----� .. ":' —.VARIES CORNXOLE BOARDS COURT VAT In' r\ ASP-Tf.ASP-21 / - _ art FIRE TABLE. SAFLTI ZONE -`� OUIOOOR SEATI— b OCCCL mLL COURT. -„ RE IARLE - � �: A'%B'PRECAST _1 _'- - CONCRETE STEPPING Z fir. -Cam RELGARp uCDuuNE PAv[Rs e- 4q fly, ����. � _ \ :. I OVERHEAD SHADE STRUCTURE. CONCRETE SGWCUT. PERGDIA OR SHADE SAILS. ¢ A NCREYC sAwc I _ - —WTDOOR PING PANG TABLE. - cO Ry - �)• 4 "' RELCARO NO➢UUXE PAVCRS - -14V � � OVT900R SE4TIxG, T3 I L�JI J I 11A11 i J R RGOu CTORE. 1 7 V. E, PE oR s1uuE 311I,S. � I �I I:. ._ - N 0 0 21 21 GO m Aa- r �. .. C i WEST APARTMENT COMPLEX - EAST APARTMENT COMPLEX N Fe structure Shade Structure oor Kitchen with BBQ Grill Outdoor Kitchen with BBQ Grill hes Benches • Outdoor seating surrounding a Fire Table 0Outdoor seating surrounding a Fire Table • Festoon lighting 0Cornhole • Cornhole 0Outdoor Ping Pong Table • Outdoor Ping Pong Table 0Snook Ball Court • Sand Volleyball 0Bocce Ball Court ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUEST A few items need additional discussion with the Director related to : • Parking for Studios (VIII .A. 10J ) • Private Open Space (V111 ,A, 11 ) We request the ability to meet with the Director to review these issues and discuss solutions. 19 CONCLUSION We concur with Staff recommendation for approval, including the City / Agency comments & conditions. We respectfully and request Planning & Zoning Commission approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Eagle View Apartments with the caveat that the Applicant will meet with the Director on Alternative Compliance items And request that Planning & Zoning Commission support for and transmit to City Council the Rackham East applications for Annexation, Rezone and Preliminary Plat. 20 Rackham East & Eagle View Apartments 22 SITE CIRCULATION Future Sidewalk f rt Rackham • East kidLU LU V f > •t W J . . Fq Mxar Te naiogi�' • ACHD will determine if a mini-roundabout needs to be constructed at the terminus of Rolling Hill Drive with the intersection of the private road system. ACHD • A 6-foot wide sidewalk will be required on one side of RECOMMENDATIONS Rolling Hills Drive with a minimum pavement widening to 24-feet with 3-foot wide gravel shoulders for the off-site portion. • ACHD will require passive traffic calming measures be constructed on Rolling Hills Drive. • No additional off-site improvements at any of the ACHD AOL7`1� _ � � � • i � intersections, or the road segments of Overland Road or - _ � ' + - Silverstone Way will be required. Only Overland Road from Silverstone to Eagle Road _ �` exceeds LOS thresholds under the 2023 total conditions, to but there isn't enough ROW to widen it. All other ---- segments meet LOS thresholds. k� m w it er t n way �~ Rollin Hills Drive will be required to be restricted to ac a ay �� .-.. � Fiolfrn� Hills Q�ive : ;� , g q �. .os RIRO only on Overland Road with a 6-inch raised median. Overland Road _ r = An existing culvert on Rolling Hills Drive needs to be z ,• � �-- replaced, as it won't be able to handle the construction "�€"� traffic and additional traffic. The applicant will be .: �. pta7 ea Fh o 1 p p .. AL F °i"p"`¢h° 2 required to replace it, but ACHD will provide pf°R`t Phtse 3 "aLtk compensation for the replacement. Intersections and Roast Segments ;n the Study a v��,rLr+di�aP+�,selPoxu+�aoo. The right-of-way vacation for Rolling Hill Drive within the site will be required to be completed before ACHD's signature on the final plat.