Loading...
2021-12-16 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Maria Lorcher Commissioner Nathan Wheeler ABSENT Commissioner Bill Cassinelli Commissioner Steven Yearsley ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the November 18, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting 2. Approve Minutes of the December 16, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive-Through (H- 2021-0073) by Gold Stream Holdings, LLC, Located at 3330 E. Victory Rd. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Fire Station 8 and Police Substation (H- 2021-0078) by City of Meridian, Located at 4250 N. Owyhee Storm Ave. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing Continued from November 4, 2021 for Moshava Village Subdivision (H-2021-0067) by JUB Engineers, Inc., Located at 4540 W. Franklin Rd. and 4490 W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 5.14 acres of land with the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of a total of 30 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 6.48 acres of land. - Continued to January 20, 2022 6. Public Hearing for Verona Live/Work (H-2021-0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 & 3042 W. Milano Dr., Near the Northeast Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four (4) buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-O zoning district. - Continued to January 20, 2022 7. Public Hearing for Apex East Subdivision (H-2021-0086) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on Parcel S1405120902, South of E. Lake Hazel Rd. Between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd., in a Portion of Government Lot 2 and a Portion of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1E. A. Request: Rezone of 32.21 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to allow the proposed development plan. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 97 building lots and 14 common lots. - Recommended Denial to City Council ADJOURNMENT - 7:31 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 16, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 16, 2021 , was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Nate Wheeler. Members Absent: Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove Steven Yearsley Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for December 16th, 2021. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions during the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e- mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. Let's begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have H-2021-0067, Moshava Village and H-2021-0080, Verona Live/Work that are both requesting continuances this evening and we will open those solely for that purpose of continuing them. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify on those particular applications, we will not be taking testimony this evening. So, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Seal: So moved. Lorcher: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 5 Page 2 of 28 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the November 18, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting 2. Approve Minutes of the December 16, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive-Through (H-2021-0073) by Gold Stream Holdings, LLC, Located at 3330 E. Victory Rd. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Fire Station 8 and Police Substation (H-2021-0078) by City of Meridian, Located at 4250 N. Owyhee Storm Ave McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have four items on the Consent Agenda. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Seal: So moved. Lorcher: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept 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: So, at this time we will briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. The staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor up for public testimony. Each person will be called on only once during public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance. 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 or a presentation for the meeting, it will be displayed Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 6 Page 3 of 28 on the screen and the 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, please, 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, please, be sure and mute those extra devices so we do not experience feedback and can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have a question for you, you will no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember that we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard and the applicant -- 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 City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing Continued from November 4, 2021 for Moshava Village Subdivision (H-2021-0067) by JUB Engineers, Inc., Located at 4540 W. Franklin Rd. and 4490 W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 5.14 acres of land with the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of a total of 30 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 6.48 acres of land. McCarvel: So, at this time we will continue Item No. H-2021-0067, which was originally opened and continued on November4th, 2021, for Moshava Village Subdivision and they are requesting another continuance this evening to continue their modifying of the plat. Do we have any additional comments from staff? Okay. Could I get a motion to -- and I think datewise were we looking -- I think January -- the first meeting in January is somewhat full. Are we looking at the second meeting in January for that? Weatherly: Madam Chair, there are several items on the first January agenda. I would recommend if you want to stick in January, then, January 20th is the best bet. McCarvel: Okay. And that was good with staff; correct? January 20th? Okay. Can I get a motion to continue H-2021-0067 to the hearing date of January 20th, 2022? Seal: So moved. Lorcher: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2021-0067 to January 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 7 Page 4 of 28 6. Public Hearing for Verona Live/Work (H-2021-0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 & 3042 W. Milano Dr., Near the Northeast Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four (4) buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-O zoning district. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is also requesting a continuance, so we will open H- 2021-0080 and I believe that one is also potentially looking at January 20th. They are requesting a continuance in order to meet with staff and respond to the staff report. Does staff have any other comments on this application? Okay. And January 20th with that other one was still a viable meeting date? Weatherly: Madam Chair, that would round it out, in my opinion. McCarvel: Okay. Could I get a motion to continue H-2021-0080 to the hearing date of January 20th? Seal: I moved. Lorcher: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2021-0080 to January 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing for Apex East Subdivision (H-2021-0086) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on Parcel S1405120902, South of E. Lake Hazel Rd. Between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd., in a Portion of Government Lot 2 and a Portion of the SW '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1 E. A. Request: Rezone of 32.21 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to allow the proposed development plan. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 97 building lots and 14 common lots McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is Apex East Subdivision, H-2021-0086, and we will begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 8 Page 5 of 28 Tiefenbach: Greetings, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner, City of Meridian. This is a request for a rezoning, a preliminary plat and a development agreement modification. The property is a little more than 32 acres in size. It's currently zoned R-4 and it's located near the southwest corner of East Lake Hazel and South Eagle Road directly east of Discovery Park. This property was annexed and zoned R-4 as part of the south Meridian annexation and this annexation at the time consisted of a little more than 1 ,300 acres of property. There are numerous development agreements associated with this annexation. Each development agreement was specific to the property being annexed. This particular development agreement allows -- the one that's currently in place allows agricultural operations to continue on the property, but, basically, it says that any other plans for development would require a DA mod to incorporate that development plan. There is also a provision in there that talks about the applicant's allowed to do a free zone -- a free rezone. It was intended that at some point they were going to be doing this DA modification and looking to rezone. Future land use map recommends this property for eight to 12 dwelling units per acre, which is medium density residential. Again, the summary of the request is the applicant proposes to rezone 32 acres of land from R-4 to R-8. A development agreement modification to create a new DA, which, basically, would allow this and to develop a preliminary plat consisting of 97 residential building lots and 14 common lots. The R-8 zone district requires -- requires minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet, minimum square -- minimum street frontage of 40 feet. The plat data table for this proposal indicates a minimum lot size of 6,900 square feet, with an average lot size being about 8,400 square feet. These are lot sizes which are smaller than The Keep Subdivision to the east, but they are larger lots than the Impreza East Ridge and Lavender Heights Subdivision across Lake Hazel to the north. These lot sizes are well within the future land use designation of medium density residential. The plat proposes two access points from a new collector road. So, access point here and access point here. This new collector road, which is called South Recreation Avenue, parallels the west property line. The primary access will occur roughly about the middle of this. That's shown as East Wickham Street. There will be a second southern point of access, which you see down here, if you can see my pointer. That will align with the drive aisle into Discovery Park, which is what you see here directly to the west. The south Meridian station that was recently approved, the fire station, the police station, is right here, if you remember where this is. There is also two stub -- stub streets proposed, both at the southeast corner. One here, which is going through what right now is a county lot and one here to the south, which is also still unincorporated. Per an interagency cooperative development agreement, Brighton Development, who is the applicant here, they are required to construct this road south -- South Recreation Way, basically from a cul-de-sac at the property line all the way up to East Lake Hazel. They are also required by this development agreement to install pathways on both sides of this road -- this collector. The first pathway has already been approved through the Meridian Fire and Police Station. The eastern pathway is the one that you are looking at tonight. One of the things we mentioned in the staff report -- and you can see a little dotted line here. There is a southern pathway that runs along the south perimeter of the property and, then, connects into the Farr Lateral -- Lateral, which you see right here. This pathway is shown on the Meridian master pathways plan. We are okay with this. Our only comment is we thought that this pathway should align a little better with the entrance Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 191 Page 6 of 28 into Discovery Park. We were afraid about people coming along this pathway and just cutting across the street. Pedestrians tend to take the -- the path of quickest route, so we were afraid of either people walking across the street without taking the crosswalk or starting to see the grass just wearing away as people were cutting this corner and walking across that grass. So, we thought it would probably be a better idea to just realign the pathway in that particular way. There is three common driveways that are proposed with this subdivision. The applicant has provided common drive exhibits, which demonstrates no more than three units are served, whereas a maximum of four are allowed. Common driveways meet the minimum width of 20 feet and do not exceed the maximum length. On the right-hand side of what you see here, the applicant submitted an open space exhibit and this reflects almost 22 percent open space -- of qualified open space. This includes two one acre --two one acre parks at--two one acre parks at the south perimeter of the property and one a half acre park more towards the center or towards the top north. It also credits a hundred percent of the collector buffers, one half of the arterial buffer and several trail connections. However, the open space exhibit also includes this 55 foot wide Farr Lateral easement. This is what you see here. So, this is also credited on this open space plan as being qualified open space. Per our development code it talks about that protective buffers that are at least ten feet wide, they can be counted towards open -- to meeting the open space requirements. However, they need to be dedicated for some kind of active access. The people need to be able to use them if they are going to be actually qualified as open space. Because the lateral is behind the existing homes, staff also has issues with this -- with CPTED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. So, we are afraid that if this goes here and there is no connection to this back here, it is behind these houses, we do have some concerns about whether this will, first of all, be a no man's land back here and, secondly, it may not be the safest thing. Staff, in our conditions of approval, you will see that we have recommended that this should be converted into some kind of usable open space and we have also recommended that there would be a connection at the north up here and some connection down to the south. So, this is actually incorporated into the development. It is more of a walkable loop. The Farr Lateral, again, runs along this eastern side and per our codes they are supposed to pipe this lateral, but the applicant is requesting a waiver from this. It's a pretty wide lateral and their -- their request includes that this would be cost prohibitive to have to pipe this. This would be something that the Planning Commission could recommend supporting or not supporting and Council would ultimately approve this waiver. The landscape plan also includes a fencing plan and the reason why I show this just kind of to talk a little bit more about the lateral. What you see in blue here is solid fencing. So, solid -- in particular there is solid fencing here along the north side of the property, but what you see here in the red is open style fencing. This -- I'm sure the applicant will -- will comment -- is their intent to try to open up this lateral, so there is some visibility, but, again, staff still thinks that there should be some kind of usability, where you can actually get into this and that there is some eyes on the houses and we are not sure what's going to develop in here, but in the meantime we are afraid of this just kind of becoming a scary no man's land. One thing I want to mention is in the staff report we originally had some comments about the elevations and about attached single family and what I mean is that the original elevations showed duplex type lots. Our conditions of approval included that the applicant needed to show on the preliminary plat which of those lights would be attached and which Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 Flo] Page 7 of 28 would be detached and the reason why it's an odd number of lots. The applicant responded that actually the elevations that were submitted were not the correct elevations, these are actually all going to be single family attached houses. So, here are the elevations -- these are the updated elevations of what they want to do. That would eliminate the conditions if the -- if the Planning Commission were inclined to support this, one of the conditions -- two of the conditions in the back of the staff report -- one of them talks about the applicant having to show the zero lot line lots for the attached single family on the plat. There is also a condition there -- in there that talks about that single family attached has to go through design review, so both of those would be defunct if the single family detached project -- product was approved with this and with that I would entertain any questions. McCarvel: Thank you. At this time would the applicant like to come forward? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. 2929 West Navigator in Meridian. I just want to make one comment before I give you a very brief background with regard to the Farr Lateral and the piping question. You will note that the properties to the north of Lake Hazel that have been recently approved and platted did not pipe that as well, because of the size of that particular lateral. So, we -- just from a perspective of -- I guess consistency within that area, we are anticipating leaving the Farr Lateral open and Josh Beach will chat a little bit more about that lateral and the open space issue in a moment. So, can I have our PowerPoint up and I will just make a few background comments. Alan noted very adequately the background issues. The 2015 city annexation for the entire south Meridian area also included sewer extension to the northwest corner of the Apex or Pinnacle project area. He also noted correctly that the development agreements -- and there were quite a few of them -- not only for properties that Brighton owned at that point, but also with the Murgoitio family and this Apex East is actually a parcel that we have acquired from Murgoitio where we have an agreement with them for all of their land eventually. But it's anticipated in that development agreement applicable to this parcel that there would be a future potential rezoning, as well as a development agreement modification certainly, since the ownership of that property has changed. So, a year ago -- about a year and a half ago, actually, the area outlined in the golden rod, essentially, was the property that we brought forward at that point. It was rezoned. There were development agreement modifications approved as anticipated and preliminary plats. Okay. Go back here. And, then, a preliminary plat approved in accordance with the schematic that's in front of you and at that point there was the Apex Northwest at the intersection of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove and Apex Southeast and final plats for both of these areas have been approved for all of the phases anticipated in those projects. On January 6th you will be hearing an application for the area designated here as Apex West, which is to the west of the Apex Northwest plat that was approved and is under development currently. Apex East is the one on the east side of the park as noted and that's the one that is being considered this evening. It was, again, annexed in 2015. Development agreement anticipated the rezoning and the development agreement modification. So, as a combined exhibit that shows all of these, the approved and developed or developing northwest and southeast, the west preliminary plat that will be forthcoming in early January and, then, the Apex East. Even though it's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 Fill Page 8 of 28 separated from the rest of the development by the city park, it will be integrated into the whole of the Pinnacle project as it will be marketed subject to the same CC&Rs and also the same HOA management system. So, I'm going to turn the time now to Josh to discuss the preliminary plat details and respond to the staff report. Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. Josh Beach, Brighton. Address is 2929 West Navigator Drive in Meridian. Thanks, Mike, for going through the history. Mike's been around for a while, so he does a good job and understands kind of the full scope of everything that's been going on. So, to go back to just the basics and the project itself, as Alan indicated, you know, we are requesting that this be rezoned from R-4 to R-8. Our lot sizes are well within what is allowed in the R-8 and specifically it -- except for a couple of lots typically fits what is required by the -- by the R-4 zone and most of the reason is for flexibility and design, the request to go from R-4 to R-8. There is different setback requirements and things like that to help us with a variety of -- of product in a subdivision and so I won't cover this too much, but density is about three dwelling units per acre. Alan discussed a little bit about the open space and we -- we -- we looked at that. As you can see here along the Farr, we have now -- we have worked with our landscape architect. Internally we looked at that and we don't have a plan for providing a pathway along the Farr Lateral, it's -- it's controlled by the Boise Project Board of Control and they -- they don't allow pathways in their easement. All they allow is landscaping. And so understanding the code and the concern from staff that there is not a pathway connection back there, we have removed that from our qualified open space and we have adjusted the calculation. So, instead of the 21 and some change percent open space, we are about 18.3 percent open space that we are -- we are providing without that area along the Farr. It's -- it's just kind of a nonstarter to -- to put a pathway there. So, we -- we opted instead to just remove that from our -- from our calculation. So, with that the amenities -- we have some extra open space above the 15 percent that's required. We are providing a play structure here in the north on this -- see where the mouse is here on this common lot here on the north. A multi-use pathway, as Alan mentioned, along the south and, then, a gazebo and benches. And this is the landscape plan here. Alan's comments about the pathway along that south we agree with. It -- it makes sense that we align that up with the entrance to the park to get folks as direct access as we can. We will still provide the sidewalk as required along Recreation Avenue there, but we will have to work with staff a little bit on the design. Our desire, because there is the Williams Pipeline natural gas easement right there, which we will cross, is to cross that as directly as we can and, then, to stay outside that easement just to minimize the impact in that easement. So, our proposal would be to kind of parallel the easement on that west, southwest side, and continue that pathway up and to comply with that -- that condition as requested by staff. There will be two phases. I don't know how much -- how quickly those phases will follow each other, but current plan is to develop the north 39 lots that you see in green first and, then, phase two would be in yellow with the blue dots there on the south following that. So, as I said, we do agree with staff's recommendation to realign that pathway. It makes some sense and we have -- we will work with our landscape architect to -- to modify that and to work with staff to get that pathway where they would like that to be. So, we concur with condition 2-E and, as Alan mentioned, there is a couple of conditions -- 2-A -- at least two that we noted. 2-A and ten were specific to the attached Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F12 Page 9 of 28 product. This -- this entire development here, these 97 lots, will be detached homes and we brought up those elevations for staff to review. Those are -- again, those are conceptual, but those are pretty typically what we -- what we construct. And, then, 2-D, as I -- as I mentioned, they have asked us to revise the landscape plan to show pathway connections there, which -- which we can't do with Boise Project Board of Control. So, we have -- we have provided those open vision fencing along the pathway there with, you know, landscaping as allowed by Boise Project Board of Control within their easement to have eyes on that area; right? There is -- there is some -- some concern that there will be things happening back there if there is a solid fence and you can't see it. Also code requires if it is open space, whether qualified or not, that there would be open vision fencing up against that. So -- so, we are -- we are providing that as required by code. So, with that we concur with staff's recommendations for approval, including the city agency comments and the conditions with the previously noted modifications and we request that you support this and transmit City Council our request for the rezone, preliminary plat, and development agreement modification. Stand for any questions that you may have on the -- on the application. McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions for staff or the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Real quick. It looks like the -- the first phase has 39 lots in it, but there is only one entrance. So, are we reduced to 30 lots as per fire code on that one? Beach: I believe that -- well, obviously, we are going to -- going to comply with the fire code, but there is an emergency access on that north side down the common driveway, which we would utilize temporarily to be able to get those -- those lots and, then, that would be -- that would be closed off. We -- pretty standard with these multi-phase developments that we are required to provide another means of access -- Seal: Okay. Beach: -- or phasing, so that -- so, we can comply with the fire code. Seal: Right. Then a question more aimed at staff. With the Boise Project Control Board -- or Board of Control, do we maintain any kind of relationship with them where we can get an exception to allow them to put a pathway back there? It seems like a huge missed opportunity right there. Parsons: Commission, Commissioner Seal, I haven't worked that closely with Boise Project Board of Control. Usually Nampa-Meridian and Settlers are a little more amenable. In my experience with them, yes, they typically hold a tight string. They don't want to relinquish -- or allow a lot of improvement. So, the applicant is correct, they are -- more than likely they would allow some landscaping, but typically they don't allow trees Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F13 Page 10 of 28 and we had the similar situation with the development on the north side with Impreza Eastridge Subdivision, they had the same irrigation lateral along the east boundary and what we got was, basically, slope with some hydroseed and a gravel road and that's about the best we could do working with that irrigation district. Now, the code does allow -- or does anticipate situations like this, so -- and, again, I don't know how amenable the applicant is to this, but the code would allow them to add an additional -- widen that common lot outside of that easement and do some of those improvements along the easement and add the five foot walking path and some of those trees, but I don't know how deep those lots are, I don't know -- and I see that they have detached sidewalks, so there is an ability to possibly attach the sidewalk and push those lots closer to the road and, then, add some of that on the rear of the lots and enhance that area and try to incorporate that into the development. But, again, as the applicant noted, they are meeting -- they are exceeding the code requirements of 15 percent. So, that's really up to you whether or not you guys want to see that enhanced and incorporated as part of the overall design for the subdivision. Seal: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Beach: Thank you. McCarvel: I have got one, Josh. Beach: Sure. McCarvel: Was there ever any -- I mean up in that northwest corner there where -- and I'm sure you know where I'm going with it --with those three houses -- I mean, technically, it's just the three houses on that common drive, but, man, that fourth is awful close and they are -- all of those houses are just pointing right at that corner. I mean, you know, we don't even have to wait for a big party to happen, that's your average Friday night where I can see that's going to be really congested up in that corner. Beach: And you are referring to -- sorry, Madam Chair, you are referring to -- McCarvel: Yeah. Where -- Beach: -- parking issues on the -- on the three lot common driveway? McCarvel: Yeah. Parking, livability, trash services, you know. And I know you have got that fire -- that secondary fire access during -- before you get into phase two, but, you know, that's a long term issue for a short term fix, you know, just -- because everything else, you are right, it is so close to an R-4 being just -- being able to be labeled an R-4, except for a few lots, and I got a feeling, you know, a couple of those are it. You know, some -- just your average nice pie shaped lots back up in there and make it, you know, the prime lots, instead of the ones that are stuck in there. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F14 Page 11 of 28 Beach: Sure. So, you are -- you are -- just so I understand, the concern is the size of those lots. You would potentially propose that there would only be a couple versus -- versus the three? McCarvel: Well, just -- yeah. Something that makes it so you don't have -- I mean it's kind of one of those things that sticks with us and with the common driveway it just -- you know, it kind of reduces the quality of life living in those spaces. I mean I know they will get, you know, bought up, because everything here does get bought up, but I mean long term somebody's got to live with that then. Beach: Sure. McCarvel: Yeah. Beach: These are, you know -- well, obviously, I understand what your concern is. We have got a pretty good track record of making sure that the things that need to happen in terms of trash and parking and those types of things aren't an issue. Our -- our desire would be leave them as proposed. Obviously, we will take any -- we will take that feedback and I will -- you know, we will discuss that. McCarvel: Yeah. Because you really look at how many houses are on that little tiny corner and you could -- I mean that's about -- almost seven houses, really, that have to live on that little corner, all tucked back in there, so -- Beach: I'm not sure what -- which -- which seven are we -- McCarvel: Well, I mean you have got the ones right on the driveway and, then, you have got that corner. I mean you have got basically everything pointing right at that curve. Beach: Sure. So, all those -- those seven kind of on that north -- McCarvel: Yeah. Beach: -- north side are your concern? McCarvel: And I know you would probably have to lose a lot or two to do it, but I think the long term livability for people there would be much better. And, then, the same with that little alcove there in phase one, you know, there could be some adjustment there on -- inside the circle of how those houses layout to maybe get your open space, you know, up on the corner more, instead of that pie shaped piece in the middle, if you just flipped a couple of lots there it looks like you can get some better usable open space there for the community, instead of that little tiny sliver on the side of that one house, then, the pie shaped along the backside of those -- Beach: Sure. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F15] Page 12 of 28 McCarvel: I think if those lots got flipped around there it would be a little more usable open space for everybody and more access for that corner. Is that something -- Beach: We will look at it. You know, we -- we definitely spend quite a bit of time weighing these out and making sure we -- we can provide adequate open space and -- and good amenities. So, we have -- we have definitely, like I said, spent quite a bit of time -- I'm not saying we are not going to take your feedback back to the office and, then, look at those things, but -- but we have spent some time. So, we will look at it a little bit more and see if there is anything we can -- we can do to -- McCarvel: Yeah, because I mean -- Beach: -- change those lots. McCarvel: -- I kind of understand the other two, because I'm sure you are probably trying to get around the -- you know, that road just going all the way through there, you know, because of the length limit, but -- you know. So, those aren't near as bad as the issue -- the congestion I think that subdivision is going to end up with up in that corner there. Beach: Thank you. Wheeler: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley? Wheeler: This is Wheeler. McCarvel: This is Wheeler. Okay. I thought Commissioner Yearsley had joined us. Yes, Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: No worries at all, Madam Chair. Yes. So, I just had a question for the applicant. Are you saying that you are -- you are willing to go ahead and comply and -- with the staff's recommendation concerning covering the canal? McCarvel: No, I don't think -- Beach: We have requested to keep the -- the canal open. So, that -- we haven't been conditioned to tile the canal. We have -- code allows us to request a waiver to keep it open and we are requesting that due to the -- due to the size of that facility and to the -- the cost that it would be to -- to tile it. McCarvel: Right. And that's -- Wheeler: Okay. McCarvel: And that -- staff, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's Council's -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F16 Page 13 of 28 Beach: Correct. McCarvel: -- purview, not ours. Tiefenbach: That's correct. Council will grant the waiver. Our -- staff didn't have an opinion on this. We were just commenting that the applicant is requesting a waiver. Wheeler: Okay. Okay. I did -- that was a clarification on my side. And, then, the -- the other question that I have is -- when it comes down to some of the -- the open space there, have you -- do you guys consider with some ultimate plans or some ways to maybe bring that more centric into your -- to your subdivision in here? Beach: So, this is what we have -- I guess, no, this is -- this is -- this is the plan that we came up with and we feel like we are providing an amenity along the pathway on the south, which is going to catch folks from -- as they are walking on the pathway. Typically we like to split the open space up, so that there is some relatively close to all of the residents. So, in this case we did not put it in the center, we have -- we have split it up so that there is pieces on the north and on the south and there will be amenities on both sides as well. Wheeler: Okay. McCarvel: And you have got the park across the street. Wardle: Madam -- Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wardle again. I would like to just -- before we open it up to public input, I want to go to the -- this particular exhibit, because of the comment about a pathway along the Farr. There is no pathway along the Farr in any of the area out here that has already been approved and developed. It does not -- your city pathway plan is depicted in the upper left of this exhibit and we are complying with and providing that pathway. So, a pathway along the Farr up to Lake Hazel Road would be a pathway to nowhere, because it does not tie into anything to the north. So, I just wanted to clarify that particular item. And with regard to the Farr, again, it's -- it has not been piped anywhere in that particular vicinity in any of the projects that have been approved and developed and it's not a question of whether it's just feasible or not, it's just a very large canal and it -- it does not warrant that particular thing. So, again, we would suggest that the changes that we have made to the open space calc in taking that area out, with the open fencing at the back against the Farr for visibility aspect, but no pathway and that being left open. I do concur, Madam Chair, with your comment about the open space pattern there. We will take a look at reconfiguring those lots and kind of making that a little bit more of a -- an area. But as Josh pointed out, we have smaller areas with some passive facilities available close by, as well as an 80 acre city park. would be happy to answer questions as well. McCarvel: Yeah. Is there any way to do without that common drive? I mean it -- I know you need it in the short term, but maybe not -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F17 Page 14 of 28 Wardle: Actually, with all due respect, it's not just a short term, that will stay there, because if you note that the -- the way that the loop is on that north pod, that -- that will stay there forever as a fire access. Now, we will take a look and see if there is a way that we can modify and mitigate some of your concerns, but we have done this before and, frankly, we have not had -- and we have not had experience with any challenges in our project. This was actually done in our Hill Century Farm project in the first phase and -- anyway, we will take a look. Certainly before we get to City Council and see if we can modify some things to address those expressed concerns. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: So, real quick on the common driveway. Your Spurwing product that's there off Chinden, Spurwing -- what is it? West I think? I -- I visit there frequently and there is a common drive that serves three households on there and I can tell you on trash day that corner is a nightmare and a mess. So, there is somebody that lives right on the corner of it and there is just -- it's -- it's hard to get through and navigate it in a car, much less a service vehicle, to -- to service that part of it. The other part of that subdivision is -- I mean as a Commission we kind of have a record of any time we see these common driveways and the use of them where, you know, it seems like they are going to be congested -- so, that's -- we are not just beating up on you guys. You know, we kind of are pretty deliberate about, you know, letting folks know that that's something that we don't like to see. In that same Spurwing Subdivision there is -- there are some common driveways in there. It used to be less that you could have and, then, they saw what you guys could do with it in there as far as those horseshoe shaped ones that are in and that is a beautiful way to pull this off. The recommendation came down to increase that. I don't think anybody on Planning and Zoning wanted to see it go through with more than two on a common driveway when that came back through, because we didn't want to see things like this develop out of it. I mean the --where we are seeing that horseshoe shaped and things like that, that really lends itself to kind of beautification and livability, that's an amazing way to do that. This right here is what we were afraid of seeing. So, to see it in another product like this that you are delivering is -- you know, it makes me have mixed feelings about it. So, you know, in here it looks like we have got the ability to do an R-4 and keep it an R-4, but we are just trying to put too many houses in here and it squeezes the whole thing. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, when we had the pre-application meeting staff noted that, yes, we, essentially, meet the R-4 lot standards, except there are some frontage questions, as well as a few setback issues and so staff recommended that we look at the R-8 and that does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. It complies with the developments that have been approved in that particular area. So, we understand the concern. I think -- we will certainly look at the one at the northwest corner, but the other two, serving two lots each, we have found that -- and I think the chair made the comment about pie-shaped lots. Well, in the olden days we did a lot of pie-shaped lots and it ends up some really weird yards and challenges and so I almost am the one that pioneered Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F18 Page 15 of 28 -- because as Josh noted, I have been here for a long time. I kind of pioneered this concept of getting the access into these corners with a better shaped lot and more consistency in the way they lay out, than just the wedges that we always saw in the past. McCarvel: I had one of those wedges for a long time and I really enjoyed it. Wardle: I'm sure it was the biggest lot in the neighborhood, too. McCarvel: It was. Seal: I had the same thing. I hated the fact that, you know, the front of the lot was this big and the back of the lot was huge, so -- Wardle: And you could probably get caught in the corner of the fence where it -- it pinched down to that really tight. But, anyway, we appreciate the feedback and we will look at it. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Beach: Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do have a couple people signed up. First is Wendy Webb. Webb: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Wendy Webb. My address is 2299 East Lodge Trail Drive in Meridian, Idaho. I am speaking on behalf of the Southern Rim Coalition. At this time the Southern Rim Coalition is in opposition to the request to rezone the property from R-4 to R-8. I was not aware before tonight of the 2005 -- 2015 development agreement. So, just so you know that from the beginning. I was not aware of that. I'm a little disappointed. It's a little deceptive when it looks like, you know, when you look at it everything looks like it's supposed to be an R-4, you don't know that there is a development agreement behind -- behind that that allows for -- for the rezoning. I feel like it's very deceptive to the residents in the area that may not be aware of that. As you know, many people are really disappointed with the step-ups that happened in -- in -- in the planning and zoning in our city. Even just this last week City Council Tuesday night looked at rezoning something from an R-4 to an R-8 and our citizens are not happy with that. They feel like they can't trust the city or the land designations that are assigned in the city. Too often this is happening, applications are being stepped up. We understand that this development is on the low side. We appreciate that. It's so close I am like you, can't we just make it an R-4 by making a few adjustments, so that it will fit the designation? I'm not sure why you would put R-4 on it when you could change it to an R-8 or something else later on. I think that's -- that's wrong. And the other point that I have is proper transition. I don't feel like it's being held accountable as the Comprehensive Plan encourages. The property to the east has a very large estate home. The home is less than ten years old. Recently the owners invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in landscaping, adding trees, a brick paved drive with a beautiful Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F19 Page 16 of 28 water fountain. There is a barn. They have put in an orchard. A gazebo. Clearly this property value is very high and I think proper transition should be encouraged. At the southeast corner of the proposed development the property borders a subdivision called The Keep. The average lot size in The Keep is 33,000 square feet. Very different from the average proposed in the Apex East Subdivision. Their original designation of R-4 zoning is more appropriate for this land and I understand a lot of it does fit the R-4 zoning. The variety of housing as encouraged in the comp plan is not occurring. Almost everything being passed in the last year is R-8 and above. There is the desire for larger lots. All 58 lots in The Keep to the east were presold. Ninety percent of the buyers and new homeowners are from the local area, who just wanted a little more elbow room. Large lots are desired. Community surveys have showed the desire and importance for open space in the community. I'm trying to stay in touch with the community and especially with the affordable housing crisis that we are having. I wondered if any sentiment had changed towards larger lots. You know, comparing that to affordability. So, I just put a question on Facebook really quick and within two hours I had 20 comments that absolutely confirmed and left no doubt that people still want those larger lots. I just thought that was interesting that I would -- I would let you know that. Open space is desired not only in parks and in neighborhood open spaces, but also in larger lots. Large lots are almost nonexistent in south Meridian. So, don't get me wrong, I like Brighton. The Southern Rim Coalition feels like Brighton is one of the most responsible developers that we have in the city. If all those homes backing the adjoining property were R-4 zoning standards and it was only the homes backing Lake Hazel that were R-8 standards, we would still be in opposition. The reason is the principle and the precedent. We would like to stick to the plan and setting a precedent that others can follow. Not trying to be catty, I'm not trying to be contentious, I feel like we have enough of that in our society right now. I'm only here to -- to honestly represent the city and citizens of south Meridian. You know how -- you need to know how we think and how we feel about these -- these important matters that affect our community. Thank you for your consideration. I understand that you don't really -- you are not really looking at schools here tonight. That's a whole other ballpark to open up and that that is a concern we have, but we will probably take that to City Council. Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Clerk, who is next? Weatherly: Madam Chair, Mary Affleck. Affleck: My name is Mary Affleck. I live at 6519 South Raap Ranch Lane. I live in the little pie shaped acreage next to the subdivision that's going in. So, you are going to get all the personal stuff from me. I'm so sorry. But I'm going to start out by telling you that we are happy with Brighton. If there is any developer that we would sooner have on the south side of Meridian it's Brighton, because they have been very honest with us. There is a few things that have changed that we would have appreciated knowing about, but they -- I think that they do a pretty good job. The one thing that I wanted to say, though, is I had somebody tell me don't burn your bridges, you will -- you will lose more, and I'm like we have lost everything. Let me tell you what we have lost, just so you can keep in touch with the people in Meridian. We lost our privacy. We lost our view. The subdivision Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F20 Page 17 of 28 to the east of us that went in, this was all farmland, what, two years ago when we -- our house was built before then. But they built it up about 12 feet, so that everybody now looks down on us and can see into our area. So, that's our privacy. We lost our view on the north side. They built it up 60 feet on the far end, so that they could have view lots all the way around and people could see over the city. Yeah. That's ours. We lost our view of the city. We lost our peace and quiet. We have no wildlife now. We had deer, coyotes -- we didn't care so much about the coyotes. And our resident owl left. We have -- still have birds there. Grateful for that. We lost a house. We are losing a house that's right down there on the road and the offer that we are getting from it by the highway department, which is highway robbery. Now I know what that word means. They are offering us 150,000 considering we put 100,000 into their house and we have our children down there. It's a family of five. So, we lose our family, too. We lost a half acre of land and as you can see, you know, how much land is worth where we are, we were offered 50,000 for a half acre. In The Keep it's around 400,000 per acre. We lost an irrigation system down there on the front. We will lose a well. People travel through our property and walk through it all the time now. We did gain a few things, so I don't want you to feel too bad for us. We got all the gophers that were in the field to the east of us and we will get all the gophers on the west and it's cost us over a thousand dollars so far to try to get him out of our field. It's ruined our alfalfa and it will cost us more, because, obviously, we are building again. We lost -- my son said to tell you we gained our night vision, because now we have lights all over the road and lights on the park, where it was all dark and we could see everything at nighttime before and now we can't. Now we can see everything; right? We have park and highway lights. The one thing that I wanted to talk about was the fencing and you were talking about the walkway on the canal bank there. That canal is very dangerous. It is our moat. We would sooner keep it than have it covered, even though it's dangerous for our grandkids. But it keeps the people from coming into our property, which we have all the time. The irrigation district put up a sign for us to -- that it was private property, because people don't know that. They think the canals are public and so they are walking there all the time. All the time. And on the far side also. So, the fencing we were told was going to be privacy fencing and that they weren't going to build up the land, so that they would overlook us again. I do not like the open fencing. That's what we have on the east side of us and everybody looks into our area. All day we have got eyes on us. It's not a great thing. And, you know, it's one more thing. I guess it was the fencing and the pathway. It would be nice to have a beautiful pathway, but it is a very dangerous canal and if it's not covered it would not be a good place for a pathway. If it is covered, then, we lose our moat and -- I don't know. We have lost our privacy. If my husband was a little older we would retire and just move out of the area, because we really like rural and that's why we were there in the first place. So, anyway, just wanted you to know that it does affect real people. And I'm with Wendy Webb. I think the step- up is huge going to R-8 from rural. It was all rural and everybody seems to come in and there is a pattern, they get it changed, and, then, they come back and they get it changed higher until we are just packed in there with not enough schools, not enough open space. It's just a sad thing and I know people are coming in and want a place to live, but they don't have to live in Meridian, there are other places. Meridian is beautiful and we love it. That's all I have to say. Thank you for listening. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F21 Page 18 of 28 McCarvel: Okay. Madam Clerk, anyone else? Weatherly: Not that I show signed up, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Okay. And I can see there is nobody else here in the room. Is there anybody on Zoom who wishes to testify on this application? Okay. With that would the applicant like to come back? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission, Mike Wardle. We appreciate -- and we have had, actually, over time really good communications with the Southern Rim Coalition and I'm aware that they have an interpretation of the way the Comprehensive Plan and the --what the future was going to be out here, but I want to go to a couple of -- first I want to talk about the Comprehensive Plan itself. The area in the comp plan -- and it did not change in 2019. The land uses anticipated prior to 2019 remained the same and you will see that along that corridor, the lake Hazel corridor was anticipated and still will be a mobility corridor over time. It's going to be a lot of traffic. It's going to be a major connection. Eventually clear out to the interstate at Eisenman. But, regardless, the Comprehensive Plan anticipated in the -- the FLUM that was retained in 2019 -- in fact, two years ago December -- that there would be higher density uses along Lake Hazel and, of course, the community core there on the intersection of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove. We are creating -- and if you recall the concept that we have approved, there is a -- a village center at the northwest corner of that intersection. The area in the yellow is the medium density residential and anticipates a rezone potential up to R-8, which is not a step up, that complies with the Comprehensive Plan, and so this was the actual zoning as of yesterday when I took it off the city's website. Yes, currently it is zoned R-4 and for the most part our uses conform to the R-4, but because of some of the lot frontages and a few of the setback areas, we are asking for R-8 for those purposes, but not in terms of the size of the lots typically. The smallest lot is 7,000 square feet, but the average is 8,485. So, we actually conform and certainly the density anticipated of three to eight units per acre and we are at three, that really conforms to the low end of the anticipated, even within an R-4 zone. The comment was made of precedent. It's a little hard to see, but you can -- you can tell by the approvals that have already been granted in that area that the precedent was established first when the city annexed and set up development agreements in anticipation of what would happen when development actually occurred. So, you look at the approvals with some R-40, R-15. There is some R-2 as was noted over in The Keep. But one interesting thing about this property -- and I appreciate the -- the comment about the moat. In reality the Farr Lateral provides that, because it's above -- it's four to six feet above our property and we are not filling our property to gain any elevation or visibility. So, part of the challenge that we have with that -- that lateral and the right of way there is the slope that we have to take care of regardless. The actual access road for the Boise Project Board of Control is on the east -- the northeast side of that particular lateral. So, there won't be people walking on our side and certainly if we keep the -- a pathway conforms to the city's pathway plan along the lateral to the south as we propose and not put one up on the banks of the -- the Farr, then, at least we are protecting some of the concerns that have been expressed. So, in reality, the fact that, yes, we are requesting the R-8, we are keeping the basic elements of an R-4 density. We Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F22 Page 19 of 28 are doing the R-8 simply to take care of some of the frontage issues as suggested by staff when they looked at the original concepts. I will affirm to you as we discussed a few minutes ago that we will look at the open space in that northerly area and we will look at that -- the lots along that fire access out to the northwest corner and we will work with staff prior to City Council and make any adjustments necessary and present them at that point well in advance of it, so that the Council would certainly have a look at them. I don't know that there is a lot more to say, other than the area out here has been anticipated by the city to be different over the long haul and everything that's been proposed and approved conforms to that plan and it does include a diversity, because you have got the larger lots to the east. You have got smaller lots to the north that, again, conformed to the Comprehensive Plan density anticipated and even though we are requesting that R- 8 zone, we are providing consistency between the products that we are offering on both sides, east and west of the park. We appreciate your consideration. We ask that you recommend approval of the rezone to the City Council with whatever modifications you would like to recommend that we will work with staff to achieve. Answer anymore questions that you might have. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you, Madam Chair. McCarvel: With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0086? Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close public hearing on H-2021-0086. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Any other thoughts? Comments? We had several questions of the applicant, so -- Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I will start off with this. The -- I'm still kind of at the point where I would rather see this stay an R-4, because I think this -- on that side of the property anyway -- that side of the park it will set a precedent. I kind of firmly believe that. So, understand where they are at in making it feel like an R-4, but they need the R-8 designation. I won't pretend to completely understand that. I just understand that if this happens it sets that precedence to where everything around it, you know, basically that's going to be their excuse to keep increasing it. So, I would almost rather see them come back and try and make this fit Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F23 Page 20 of 28 completely into that R-4 designation, so that doesn't need to be -- we don't need to have it rezoned into R-8 and take that opportunity to take a look at that common drive servicing as many houses as it does in that northern section. Outside of that I like -- you know, actually like the way that the -- that it's put together. I mean it is next to a park. It does fit into everything else. I mean, I remember when Apex East came in and everything went through on that, that one knocked my socks off, to say the least. So, I understand that Brighton has been -- they have tried to be very responsible in their development of that area. This one here is really really close. I just think that R-4 designation needs to stick at this point. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I think I understand the R-4, R-8 and why we would want to keep it, but from my understanding of how it was presented at least, the -- when it was brought into the city as R-4 that was more of a placeholder similar to what we had a month or two ago with the Urban Renewal District on the Northern Gateway at Cherry and Meridian and it was more of a placeholder designation than a -- a true like platted designation that we would normally work with and so to me it doesn't feel like it's setting any precedent, because the precedent was set when it came in that there would be changes based on the future land use designation, which is not a zoning designation. And so to me it still feels like it's exactly what was presented, then, because the change was anticipated. So, I understand it -- the optics of it, but I feel like I -- I'm okay with the R-8. I think the area as it expands for the Lake Hazel Road itself being more of a fully built arterial, it has the capacity to handle that as it grows. Maybe not right now, but as it grows it does. I think putting more density close to a regional park versus a standard park is also a good use of city space. It allows a much larger facility to handle the recreational needs. I think the -- the biggest concerns that I have were brought up by Madam Chair with the northwest corner and I would prefer to see a lot reduced in that common drive area and it -- I think it feels even more crowded, as Madam Chair put it, because of the type of corner that it is, it's a very sharp corner to begin with and having a common drive with three lots directly on the common drive, plus whatever else is in that area, makes it even more crowded than a traditional three home common drive. I think that there are opportunities to reconfigure that to make it less problematic. Overall I think it's a good development. If it was not right next to a regional park I might have some thoughts about, you know, spacing out the -- the open areas, but because of its location next to a regional park and the fact that it is a little bit landlocked in the shape of the overall development I don't have concerns with that. I think that the --the changes that were made by staff and agreed to by the applicant makes sense to me. Overall I'm okay with this project. Wheeler: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: No. This is Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F24 Page 21 of 28 McCarvel: Oh, sweet. Wheeler: I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. This is Commissioner Wheeler. I'm just playing with you, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Well, it was -- okay. We had thought -- I'm sorry, we had thought Commissioner Yearsley was just going to be late, but he's, obviously, gotten really late, so we will just -- like these voices that just come at me from the speakers, you know. Wheeler: Right. Exactly. McCarvel: They are competing with the ones in my head. Wheeler: Well, then -- yeah. Then a head cold and, you know, now my voice lowers an octave and now I can start doing voiceovers for radios and stuff, so -- McCarvel: All right. Wheeler: But, Madam Chair, I have -- my thoughts on it is similar to yours and what Commissioner Seal has also said. I just have some concerns up in that northwest corner with the congestion that that would -- that would create. I also have some other thoughts, too. I'm -- I would like to see some of the open space -- and where it's at, I understand that there is a buffer that goes along that -- that eastern side, but unless there is some way that we can connect that or be able to make that more usable than what it is, it's not -- I'm trying to figure out how that's going to benefit the -- the residents there. So, it would be nice to see a little bit of that and I understand that they are -- you know, if they want to have some fun they can just go across the street and go into a park, too. Big regional park. So, you know, you don't want to duplicate those amenities here to when they can just go across the street to some greater amenities. But some -- some of the issues I have, too, is on that -- that entry that's right there at the bottom of that green zone. As it comes in right there, I just -- I just -- to me I just see a lot of congestion issues and some traffic issues. I think that the way to solve that is on that R-4 zoning or lightening up the density more so and I think that that's a -- I think if there could be a plan that could come back that could share that, that would be something that I could support. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: Brighton has done such a good job of being able to create subdivisions that, you know, accommodate the space. Looking at this to me it seems way too crowded. If you look at the middle section as --as a letter A, I don't even understand what's happening here in the middle with these little spurs that come out and how these houses even work together. With all the land that they have and your comments about the northwest corner being congested, where the southwest corner is not, there should be a different way to be able to configure this in a way that creates that open space, keeps it the R-4 and being able to maximize their -- their product. I do take exception -- I live in a rural part of Meridian as well and as current homeowners you are almost forced out, because Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F25] Page 22 of 28 everything comes around you and doesn't really take into account of what's already there. So, I appreciate your comments and I understand, because I'm feeling it in my neck of the woods as well. But the middle part of the A there is -- there is no road, it just it's like backyard after backyard after backyard and there is plenty of space here to create a good product. I think it just needs to be reconfigured a little bit more. I would be inclined to only keep it R-4. McCarvel: Okay. Yeah. I would agree. I mean there is such a -- it seems like there is so few lots that are -- that they are wanting the R-8 dimensions for and I think a lot of our concerns would be solved with a little configuration of-- in keeping with the R-4 standards. I think a lot of those little niches that we are concerned about would go away. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I mean I can't speak for everybody, but it seems like we are all on the R-4 bandwagon for the most part. But I would almost think that we should maybe open it up -- the public hearing open up again and see if they were -- the applicant would be more inclined to want a continuance or we can act on a denial and they can take their chance with City Council. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Question for staff, because this was recommended by staff to go from R-4 to R- 8, essentially; is that correct? Tiefenbach: Staff supports the application that's proposed to us. This density that they are proposing is actually less than the range of density that the comp plan recommends. The comp plan recommends eight to 12. This is about four. McCarvel: Yeah. I don't think it was the density that -- yeah. It's the setbacks and it's the lots that we are having issue with. I mean just -- I don't know. Maybe it's a -- recommend moving it forward and recommendation to Council that, you know, those -- see what we can do with the common lots going away. But I think that's a big enough redesign that maybe we want to see it and not just kick the can down to Council. Seal: I would agree with that. And part of this is -- I mean it's, you know, the lens that you view it through, so I -- you know. And I understand that it's probably not going to reduce lot count drastically, if at all, as far as the density and the count goes. So, it will reduce something, obviously, but there is a large push -- I mean everybody that I talk to they do not want more, they want less. So, this is an example of where, you know, perception and reality -- the perception is it's going to be more homes if it's R-8. The reality is even with R-4 it probably isn't going to be more homes, it will still be the same Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F26 Page 23 of 28 amount of homes, it will just have to be reconfigured. You know, that said I'm -- you know, in order to help the perception piece of it I think R-4 is where it needs to land. McCarvel: Yeah. And I -- I think we are just trying to hold on to a piece that is so close and we finally have, you know, a density count that is matching more of the R-4, because there is so much that's being thrown our way that's tight. Sometimes it's -- it's not really in-fill, but the odd shape lots just lend themselves better to just, you know, open it up a little bit, instead of trying to cram stuff in. So, with that, do we have a motion or do you want to -- Seal: Madam Chair, I would prefer to talk to the applicant again and see what their wishes are, so -- McCarvel: Do we need a motion to open up the public hearing? Seal: Yeah. Madam Chair, I move to open the public hearing for H-2021-0086. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing for H-2021-0086. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, that's a good question and I don't know -- you may be correct, Commissioner Seal, that the density may not change, the number of lots may not change, but I suspect that it will. I think our druthers at this point -- we are comfortable with the design with the suggestions that have been made relative to the northwest corner and a little bit of finessing on the open space to the interior. We would appreciate a recommendation to the Council, so that we can move it forward, because I think that we are compliant with virtually everything in the comp plan and the expectations of what happened when the city annexed this with -- as a holding zone until development applications came forward. So, we would ask that you move it forward, provide your recommendations, and let us take the Council's determination. Seal: Okay. Appreciate that. McCarvel: And I guess this is a question for legal and/or staff or maybe fellow commissioners. I don't know. Is it possible for us to -- in our recommendation that it would be -- that we recommend the R-4 or is that -- once it's been posted and like as an application for the R-8. Tiefenbach: You are going from less --from more to less. I would probably defer to legal. This -- it's been noticed as R-8, but they want to go to R-4. It's less lots than they are proposing. Generally less is better. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F27 Page 24 of 28 McCarvel: Yeah. Starman: Madam Chair, if I understood your question correctly -- your question is can this body recommend R-4 to -- yes, it is your purview to do so. You can make a recommendation to City Council. From a noticing perspective, which would -- which is what Alan was referring to -- we are fine from a noticing perspective, because the notice is R-8 and -- Wheeler: Can you, please, speak into the microphone? Starman: It's this portable microphone, so I will hold it close to my mouth. McCarvel: That's much better. Starman: How about that? McCarvel: Yeah. Wheeler: Thank you. Starman: If I need to repeat something just let me know. My -- so, I think, just to sum up, it's certainly within this body's prerogative -- prerogative to recommend to the Council R- 4 and from a noticing perspective, because it's noticed as a higher density, we are fine from that perspective as well. Wheeler: Thank you. Parsons: Madam Chair, Commissioners, the property is already R-4. There is no recommendation to make it R-4. That's what it is. McCarvel: But with what Alan said it's -- you know, it's the application before us. So, in -- Parsons: Yeah. You would recommend denial of the rezone. McCarvel: -- making that motion to City Council. We know what we can and can't. Tiefenbach: That's what I was going to say. You wouldn't -- you would be supporting the development agreement modification, but not supporting the rezoning and you could pass your concerns on with what you think should be done, that it be kept R-4 with the open space reconfigured and the common lots --the northwest corner and supporting that there will be a development agreement modification. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Seal? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F28 Page 25 of 28 Seal: I guess my question was more based on do we -- would the applicant like a continuance in order to come back and present something that was R-4 or would they like us to go ahead and move it along, which he said -- the applicant said they would like to move it along. My opinion is we do that with a denial, because they are presenting R- 8. We would like it to be R-4. We can -- I think we can present it that way. That way it does move to City Council and which they can plead their case at. McCarvel: Right. And that was my question to staff and legal is can we -- in our motion recommend that it stay R-4 and with -- and with, you know, the other modifications we asked. But it can move forward without having to be a denial per se, because we are not recommending a higher use, we are recommending it stay the lower use classification. So, we can -- Wardle: Yes, Madam Chair, just -- we do want it to move forward. Thank you. Tiefenbach: That would be a denial, Madam Chair, if you wanted to -- you would be denying -- you would be proposing denial of the R-8 zoning for it to be kept R-4 and you could express what your issues were. I would put that into the staff report, that these are the things that the Planning Commission discussed. McCarvel: Okay. So, we are recommending denial of the proposal, but with -- with the modifications that, yeah, we would like to see. Weatherly: Madam Chair, just for the record I wanted to note, while the public hearing is open, there is a J.E. Edwards that came late into the Zoom platform and has had their hand raised a couple of times throughout the meeting. Just for the record. McCarvel: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair, we -- we created this mess, so I think we should hear them. McCarvel: I agree. All right. Go ahead, Madam Clerk. Weatherly: J.E. Edwards -- or J. Edwards, you should have the ability to speak. Edwards: Hi. Can you hear me? Hello? Hello? Weatherly: Yes, ma'am. McCarvel: Yes, we can hear you. Edwards: Okay. McCarvel: You have three minutes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F29 Page 26 of 28 Edward: My name is Julie Edwards and my address is 1310 East Mary Lane and I just wanted to say-- I had a couple comments. My first one is I appreciate that you recognized the congestion up in the northwest corner there. I think a lot of people -- or a lot of the developers assume that people moving in they don't mind, you know, having -- they just want everybody to have the rectangular lot and so something up at that corner, you know, I think that the diamond shaped lot, whatever lot can fit in there, where you have those three homes on that common driveway, you know, make it into one. It's okay to --to have a subdivision that has regular size lots and slightly larger lots, you know, there -- just to have a variety for people to choose. Also within -- how you said -- up on the screen -- my screen, anyway, there is Apex East. So, like the A on the right side of there there are the two common driveways that lead to those four lots. So, one concern as a parent, when they are talking about usable space -- in this it's kind of spread out, a triangle here up at the north and at the south and, you know, as a parent I want my kids kind of to be tucked in and what about remove the -- down on the southwest corner, you know, you could add two more lots right there, but, then, up on the right side of the A where those four lots are by the common driveway, turn that into a park, connect those two common driveways, make it a walking path, you know, so -- yes, you are eliminating four houses in that slot, but you are also -- I don't know how the resident that spoke that's just to the east of there, how she feels, but, you know, at least when she looks out her maybe kitchen window she sees a park, she doesn't see the back of four houses and the same thing on the southeast side, you know, there is those two houses in the corner there, you know, maybe turn that into two lots and they might be odd shapes, but in all honesty people like -- they don't mind odd shapes. You know, they can put a garden in the back, they can grow some fruit trees, they can do things like that. So, really, I think those are my main concerns with this. I think sometimes less is more and the residents that move in I believe would actually appreciate that, rather than, you know, just being elbow to elbow with their neighbor. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Anyone else on Zoom, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Madam Chair, that's it. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Seal: I move that we -- Starman: Madam Chair, I was going to recommend for -- in matter of fairness for due process we should allow the applicant to respond. McCarvel: Yeah. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F30 Page 27 of 28 Wardle: Madam Chair, the only thing that I wanted to comment relative to Julie Edwards' comments, the southwest corner that -- that green open space cannot is not buildable. It's a pipeline. Two 24 inch pipelines run through there. So, that's open space. But -- thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair, I move we close the public hearing for H-2021-0086. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0086. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Who would like the honors? Seal: I can try it here. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny H-2021- 0086 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 16th, 2021, for the following reasons: That we would like to see the R-4 designation followed for this, instead of bumping it to the R-8. That the configuration in the northwest corner with the common driveway be altered or changed or completely eliminated, if possible, to get rid of the common drive and the congestion that's going to be caused on that -- that area and that the common area be reconfigured in that same area as well to alleviate more congestion on that corner and that items 2-A and 10 are excluded from the staff report as they are not applicable. Grove: I believe 2-D as well. McCarvel: 2-A and 2-D. Seal: And 2-D. Wheeler: I second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend denial of H-2021-0086. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Grove: Nay. McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do you need a count? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 16,2021 F31 Page 28 of 28 Weatherly: Madam Chair, just to clarify for the record. Commissioner Grove, you voted nay; is that correct? Grove: Correct. Weatherly: That's the only nay I heard, Madam Chair. McCarvel: That's the only one I heard as well. Motion to deny H-2021-0086 passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Next motion? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move we adjourn. Grove: Second. Lorcher: I second. McCarvel: It has been moved, seconded twice that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:31 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 1 I 4 12022 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 3 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the November 18, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. November 18,2021 F52 Page 49 of 49 homeowner's association, but if it's an easement, then, it will be owned by the property owner -- or maintained by the property owner, unless -- McCarvel: So, property owner or homeowners association or business owners association. You want all three of them in there. Yearsley: Oh. Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number ZOA-2021-0003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 18th, 2021, with the following modifications: That the language submitted by the applicant be added and the w-- ith the inclusion of the word homeowners being added to the text. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve -- recommend approval of ZOA -2021-0003. All those in favor--with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move we adjourn. Seal: I second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:58 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 12 1 16 12021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 2. 53 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the December 16, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission 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 3. Ll 18 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive- Through (H-2021-0073) by Gold Stream Holdings, LLC, Located at 3330 E. Victory Rd. Item 3. 119 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN w IDIAN;_-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Establishment within 300-Feet of a Residential Use and Zoning District on 0.83-Acre of Land in the C-C Zoning District for Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive-Through,Located at 3330 E.Victory Rd.in the C-C Zoning District,by Gold Stream. Case No(s).H-2021-0073 For the Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. December 2,2021 (Findings on December 16,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 2,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 2, 2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 2, 2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 2,2021, 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 § I I-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2021-0073 Page 1 Item 3. F120] 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 December 2,2021, 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 December 2, 2021, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of December 2,2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2021-0073 Page 2 Item 3. 121 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 16th day of December ,2021. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER NATE WHEELER VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED AYE Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman 12-16-2021 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 12-16-2021 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: 12-16-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2021-0073 Page 3 Item 3. EXHIBIT A C� E IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT f D A H 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 12/2/2021 Legend go DATE: IdPrc-eof Lc=lion - i TO: Planning&Zoning Commission W FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner _ 208-884-5533 "uW66 SUBJECT: H-2021-0073 n Inglewood Coffee Shop Drive-Through �E-1ICTRY=R ICTY=R� —CUP - LOCATION: 3330 E.Victory Rd., in the SW 1/4 of Section 21,Township 3N.,Range IE. 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 1 Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant(coffee shop)with a drive-through Current Zoning 1111rm 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 Item 3. F123] EXHIBIT A A. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend o Legend Prajeot Lccafan Projent Lim 0 C W W 8- � d a a � —EICMA RD 'VaTO Y RD ' fir.LILL J i4�15AgR1' -� 4. FA ixr' w ensify s' m 'I ° r}7 f Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend IL-L'O fiU Legend go Pra'e fi e'Luca �R-$ Project Lima5on - -y I i Ilaw! {- City Lin-rk lie TI LLJ —R T n — Planed Parcels "- d - R=8 W W ,,-C R- RUF R1 � _ RUT =EM I CT RY-:M— E- I CTORY_RD E_ I CTOWAD C-8 R.8 i RUT III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Clint Tolman, Gold Stream- 197 W.4860 S.,Murray,UT 84107 B. Owner: Jim Petersen, Gold Stream 197 W. 4860 S.,Murray,UT 84107 Page 2 Item 3. F124] EXHIBIT A 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 11-2B-2 and 11-4-3-1 IA.1. The proposed development plan is in substantial conformance with the provisions in the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #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: Staff's analysis is in italics. 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles and the public right-of-way by patrons; The 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 3. F125] EXHIBIT A 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is proposed. 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 3. F126] EXHIBIT A 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 11-2B-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 VII,UDC standards and design standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on December 2,2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jim Petersen. Gold Stream(Applicant) b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. None 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 5 Item 3. F127] EXHIBIT A VII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 9/23/2021) II �i ______________________________________ _______________ WJ-- --------------------- -----------------r--- - ---��,I------ -- Z J �• i ?� 101 _� urroM I =_-= - --_-__• __- � .. /' '_ <, ._ a ,....�.�. �€ - ------------- - _ DIGLIH �- C1.01 Page 6 Item 3. F128] EXHIBIT A B. Proposed Landscape Plan(dated: 9/24/2021) LANDSCAPE SCHEMM ALTA HILLS LANE w,.w .+. .•¢..... .......r .o .,.. W 9 I zi LLI ar It Lu cn W 2 �. ia.rc..xx.��m..emn emu•.r�.,naxm.xr.r .xr w.� 0 g ¢w,ar..• . �u�w.v.�w..®m� c¢..�wu c.iwrn.w.umu�w •.a .¢n ® 4 ra.. n um.ocouc ommr •.cmmou msmmnr..mm ..� .wee • , ..�.cw.warwu¢ e•u..u.,mwewu.•u e.a.r ..r wn d (n U So .tea •�.. �..� .¢.• .a ..�•�� .,.. � �� .�.. ...a y a®® W � M o�w.owoa.. YICTCRY ROAD SITEAMENTY SCHEDULE o a REFlRBiDE lID'IEA 139sALNOTE mw.¢ .C•m.� `" A L2.01 Page 7 Item 3. F129] EXHIBIT A C. Building Elevations(dated: 7/21/21) _ M nt i ^FA31 f1EYATIXJI Fa� Sdenafic Oesgn _— ELEVATIONS `� ]NORM ElEVA1pNl F so2.1 ElEYR1MlNl561NNiNRlER4LLEGBO MLMnt /.\U LLEVATION7 a s�mati oe NN ELEYAT10N5 e 2 O^:0WM ELEVA11EN1 S 2 LJ L Page 8 Item 3. F130] EXHIBIT A 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. £ 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 11-3A-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 3. F131] EXHIBIT A 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 ky https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=241022&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty C. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=242203&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243209&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: I. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-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. The Commission finds the proposed restaurant(coffee shop)with a drive-through will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Page 10 Item 3. EXHIBIT A F3 The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 11 Item 4. Ll 33 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Fire Station 8 and Police Substation (H-2021-0078) by City of Meridian, Located at 4250 N. Owyhee Storm Ave. Item 4. 134 CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN�-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND � DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit to Develop a 11,637 sq.ft.Fire Station and 11,560 sq.ft.Police Substation Building,Located at 4250 N. Owyhee Storm in the R-8 Zoning District,by the City of Meridian. Case No(s).H-2021-0078 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: December 2,2021 (Findings on December 16,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 2,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 2, 2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 2, 2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 2, 2021, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2021-00781 Page 1 Item 4. 135 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 December 2,2021,incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § I I- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of December 2, 2021, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two(2)year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521,any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52,Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of December 2, 2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2021-00781 Page 2 Item 4. F136] By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 16th day of December 2021 , [year]. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER NATE WHEELER VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED AYE Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman 12-16-2021 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 12-16-2021 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: 12-16-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2021-0078] Page 3 'tem4. EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 12/2/2021 Legend �+ DATE: ' F^aj,,i L..f.r 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. FFFT 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 4. 138 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 Residential AAU-C fined-High dium Derrs ily „ �Re ntial " Dens Residen Page 2 Item 4. 139 Zoning Map Planned Development Map ++ Legend _ Legend lei li Ia 0 Project Lucann ; Project Locafen IELY City Linvk — 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 4. ■ 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 4. 141 • 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 4. F142] 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 1I- 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 facade) 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 facade must use a combination of concrete,masonry, stone,landscaping or unique variation in color around Page 6 Item 4. F143] 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. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on September 2.2021.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: Gunnar Gladics b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Gunnar Gladics d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach f Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Discussion regarding the applicant mentioning chain link fencing was being considered to provide security around the back lot of the police precinct verses wrought iron. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Commission approved change to fencing surrounding eastern parking lot(rear lotl of police precinct to allow solid vinyl whereas wrought iron was initially proposed. Page 7 Item 4. F144] VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 10/7/2021) 2 2 �6E1PNG CN]F4 . ............ ..•.. ), 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 4. 145 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 4. 146] 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 4. F147] 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 4. ■ 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. Solid vinyl fencing is approved to provide screening and security for the eastern lot(rear) of the police precinct. 7. All ACHD conditions of approval shall be complied with. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-I I shall be complied with. 11. 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. 12. 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 Page 12 Item 4. F149] 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. 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:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.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. Page 13 Item 4. F_15o] Commission finds the proposed fire station and police sub-station will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis in Section V of this staff report. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. 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. 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. 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) Commission is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site; thus, Commission finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 14 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: Item #5 – Moshava Village (H-2021-0067) requests another continuance to continue modifying plat. Item #6 – Verona Live/Work (H-2021-0080) – Applicant requests continuance in order to meet with Staff and respond to staff report. Item #7: Apex East Subdivision (H-2021-0086) Application(s):  Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Development Agreement Modification. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The property is 32.21 acres, zoned R-4 and located near the southwest corner of E. Lake Hazel Rd and S. Eagle Rd, directly east of Discovery Park. History: The property was annexed and zoned R-4 as part of the South Meridian Annexation. This annexation consisted of 1322.14 acres of land. There were numerous development agreements associated with this annexation; each development agreement was specific to the property being annexed. The subject property is governed by the Murgoitio Development Agreement. This DA allows agricultural operations to continue until the property is developed. At the time the property was annexed, the City anticipated the rezone and platting of the subject property. Prior to any development, the DA requires a development plan be approved and anew DA created at no cost to the applicant. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential 8-12 du/acre Summary of Request: The Applicant request to rezone 32.21 acres of land from R-4 to the R-8 zoning district, and a development agreement modification to create a new DA to develop the proposed preliminary plat consisting of 97 residential building lots and 14 common lots. The R-8 Zoning District requires a minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft. and minimum street frontage of 40 ft. The Preliminary Plat Data Table for this proposal indicates a minimum lot size of 6,967 sq. ft. and an average lot size of 8,485 sq. ft. These are lot sizes which are smaller than the Keep subdivision to the east, but larger lot sizes than the Impressive East Ridge and Lavender Heights Subdivisions across E. Lake Hazel Rd. to the north. The lot sizes are well within the FLUM designation of MDR, which allows densities of between 3- 8 dwelling units per acre. The minimum 40 ft. street frontage is exceeded on all lots. The plat proposes two access points from a new collector road (S. Recreation Ave.) which parallels the west property line. Primary access will occur at approximately the middle of the subject property’s western property line (shown as E. Wickham Street). There will be a second southern access which will align with a drive aisle into Discovery Park (shown on the plat as E. Ambition Dr). S. Recreation Ave. will also provide primary access to Discovery Park as well as the South Meridian Fire Station No 7 and Police Substation. Two stub streets are proposed at the southeast portion of the property; one stubbing to the south and one stubbing to the east. Per an Interagency Cooperative Development Agreement, Brighton Development is required to construct S. Recreation Ave. from a cul-de-sac at the south property line to Lake Hazel Road. They will also be required to install 10 ft. wide pathways on both sides of this collector. The proposed plat also depicts a 10 ft. wide pathway running along the south property line to the Farr Lateral east of the site and 5 ft. wide detached sidewalks on both sides of roads internal to the subdivision. As mentioned in the staff report, staff does think the southern pathway should align with the eastern entrance into Discovery Park on the opposite side of S. Recreation Ave. Staff has concerns the westernmost segment of the pathway will encourage people to cross S. Recreation Ave. out of a designated crosswalk or “cut across” the open space in the vicinity of the Williams Pipeline Easement. Staff recommends the plat and landscape plan be revised to provide a more direct and aligned connection between the southernmost pathway and the entrance into Discovery Park. Three common driveways are proposed with this subdivision. The applicant has provided common drive exhibits which demonstrate no more than 3 units are served whereas a maximum of 4 units are allowed. The common driveways meet the minimum width of 20’ and does not exceed the maximum length of 150’. The applicant has submitted an open space exhibit which reflects 21.8% (7.05 acres) of qualified open space. This includes two one- acre parks at the south perimeter of the property, a ½-acre park toward the center of the development, 100% of the collector buffers, ½ of the arterial buffer, and several trail corridors meeting the minimum requirements of 20 ft. in width, 50 ft. long and with an access at each end. The open space exhibit includes the 55 ft. wide Farr Lateral easement along the eastern property line. The UDC states that protective buffers a minimum of ten feet (10’) in width dedicated for active access along laterals or ditches may count toward meeting the open space minimum requirements. However, as presently shown, staff is unsure this area provides the “active access” required to be counted as qualified open space. Because this lateral is behind existing homes, staff also has concerns regarding visibility and whether this area would comply with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that prior to Planning Commission, the plat and landscape plan be revised to provide access to some or all of the open area shown along the Farr Lateral. Only areas accessible and useable to the residents as open space should be included on the open space exhibit. Also, if this area is to be credited as qualified open space, it should be landscaped as required unless otherwise prohibited by the irrigation district. The Farr Lateral runs along the eastern property line. The applicant has requested a waiver which requires piping the lateral with the explanation that piping the lateral would be cost-prohibitive. The landscape plan reflects turf sod in this area. Coordination will be ongoing with the irrigation district managing the waterways to meet their requirements. The landscape plan includes a fencing plan. 6 ft. high wooden fencing is provided along the S. Recreation Ave. landscape buffer, and along the side of interior trail connections adjacent to residential lots (leaving them visible from the roads). Open style metal fencing is provided along the portions of the open spaces visible from the internal roads, and along the portions of the Farr Lateral that are not visible from E. Lake Hazel Rd. Although this does provide some visibility into the lateral, staff would still prefer some or all of it be accessible to the residents both for security and for open space. In the staff report, staff mentioned the building elevations show a single family attached product and recommended as a condition that the applicant show which lots will be the single family attached lots with zero side lot lines. The applicant has since responded the incorrect elevations were submitted and the entire project is single family detached. With that, staff sees no need for condition 2.a. 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-2021-0086, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 16, 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-2021-0086, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 16, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0086 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 16, 2021 Item #7: Apex East Subdivision (H PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM 0086) -2021- Color Rendering and Open Space Exhibit Fencing Plan Item 5. Ll 51 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from November 4, 2021 for Moshava Village Subdivision (H-2021-0067) byJUB Engineers, Inc., Located at 4540 W. Franklin Rd. and 4490 W. Franklin Rd. Applicant Requests Continuance A. Request: Annexation of 5.14 acres of land with the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of a total of 30 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 6.48 acres of land. Item 5. 152 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: December 16, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from November 4, 2021 for Moshava Village Subdivision (H-2021-0067) by JUB Engineers, Inc., Located at 4540 W. Franklin Rd. and 4490 W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 5.14 acres of land with the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of a total of 30 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 6.48 acres of land. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 6. L153 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Verona Live/Work (H-2021-0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 & 3042 W. Milano Dr., Near the Northeast Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four (4) buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-0 zoning district. Item 6. 154 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: December 16, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Verona Live/Work (H-2021-0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 &3042 W. Milano Dr., Near the Northeast Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four (4) buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-0 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 16,2021 Legend DATE: IrnI U Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission - ' -- FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner - ®EH 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0080 Verona Live/Work—CUP LOCATION: 3020&3042 W. Milano Drive,near the northeast corner of Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road in the SW 1/4 of the SW U r 1/4 of Section 26,Township 4N,Range 1 W. � �� � I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four(4)buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-O zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.75 acres Future Land Use Designation Office Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Vertically Integrated Residential Project Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 9,2021;at least four(4)attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) Verona Subdivision(AZ-03-005);Verona Subdivision No. 3 Rezone(RZ-05-006);Verona Subdivision No. 3 FP(FP- 05-046);DA Mod(MI-08-006,DA Inst.#108101152). B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Not at time of report publication • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Page 1 •• • • 1 ■■■■111 ITIY -m • • - • • • n on 111 � - s son on■Il111■ � • - • • • ` a.■lrrr IIIr � W z ' _ - MCM-I�L-L-AN MCM3L-L-AN �-r 111111 � ��Ir1111■r■m■ 1 t Nil ■■� 111N ! Its r • ` a �_. NINE ON MEN i 1 it ii mm■l1 - . - ■ ■■1 - . - ■■■l1 mo■111 m■■IBM I mom ■111 !lout' 111NO■m1111 r111111 IIIP■m1111■ 11� 00111M a 11� 111■■m11m■■. . ■_�IIi ■■■■ IN■m11111■■1 ■■1■■.r 11111111 ■ul■.���� 1l111111 � �11111/�ip��11111111■ �'': III■►�~a��ml1111111 ri1� YJ =NONE► a /11111111 III /•a��� J ■ ��■i mrrr IIIr � W�jtIU!� ■��m111 mmmll !■■.■ •luIIIII Mill in J ■ �, 11■�■■■11111111 �lmlm 11111 in 111LU 1 1 • .�+�, ■11111► m11111111 pp ■� Z ' ■►1p�Illll Pi• •_ �- �_ eat %Illllllllllm �1'iii: _■ F 1 NJ' � Illy 11� 1 + cm :::L-L-AN ndl 111111 °�Ir11mlm 111111 � _„� IImlmr■ mrl: __ME C. nni _ ., q ■1111 IIm _ - - lN!!!I IN �� 1111111111` •'• '� mill 1 �� INI INIIIIIIIII ■hi mill I" .0 i .E Ir1111 - a MC Imm� •Ir11tm1 � p� I11111 ■�� a IIm� Ir1ltml 'nnnl 00 ••:i i NOONIN 'nrrn= M!■ul u■■ 1 ■■11 he eaae� . ■■1 Item 6. F157 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Wendy Shrief,JUB Engineers, Inc.—250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201,Boise,ID 83709 B. Owner: Primeland Investment Group LLC 1140 S. Allante Avenue, Boise, ID 83709 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/30/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 12/2/2021 Site Posting Date 12/2/2021 NextDoor posting 12/6/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Comb. Plan) This property is designated Office on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation is meant to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. These uses would include professional offices,technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses may be considered(particularly within research and development centers or technological parks). Sample zoning include L-O. The property was annexed and zoned in 2003 to the R-8 zoning district. In 2005, a rezone application was approved to change the zoning to the current L-O zoning district. Consistent with this rezone, a final plat was approved for six(6)office lots as part of Verona Subdivision No. 3. In 2008 applications were submitted to allow for the potential of including a church on these lots and was tied to a modified DA(MI-08-006). The DA from 2008 is the relevant agreement for this site but did not have a concept plan for these lots. In lieu of a concept plan,the DA references specific limitations to the allowed commercial area and included a provision that a minimum of three(3) office buildings in this office development. This provision has been satisfied with the existing development of three(3)office buildings. In addition, specific elevations were included as part of the DA that the current proposal generally complies with. Staff notes, despite no Development Agreement Modification being required,the relevant DA contemplates all commercial uses within the subject office lots. Instead of solely commercial uses,the Applicant proposes to develop the site with 16 vertically integrated residential (UDC 11-4-3-41)units across four(4)buildings on two vacant parcels in the L-O zoning district. Two buildings are proposed on each parcel with each parcel also having off- street parking lots in addition to the two-car garages proposed for each unit. Vertically integrated residential projects incorporate commercial spaces and residential uses within one structure and most often include commercial space on the first floor and residential on the floor or floors above. In this project,the Applicant is proposing a small commercial space at the front of the building on the first floor with the proposed residential portion of the units being both behind and above the commercial space. Therefore,the Applicant is proposing a two-story concept for these vertically Page 3 Item 6. Fl-581 integrated buildings with the vehicular access for each unit proposed to be from the rear via a two- car garage for each unit. Vertically integrated residential projects are defined as follows in UDC 11-1A-1: "The use of a multi-story structure for residential and nonresidential uses where the different uses are planned as a unified,complementary whole and functionally integrated to share vehicular and pedestrian access and parking."This use is a conditional use within the L-O zoning district because they incorporate a residential component within a zoning district primarily intended for office uses. However,code allows for this type of use,as noted,through a conditional process with the assumption that appropriate commercial and residential uses can be located within this district and type of development area when appropriately designed. As part of that analysis, adjacent uses should also be taken into account. To the west of the subject sites sit two vacant L-O parcels; further to the west and abutting Ten Mile Road are two office buildings. Because of common ownership of the land,the Applicant is showing an office building directly to the west on the vacant office lot along the north boundary but this building is not part of the proposal and is shown only for reference. To the east and north of the subject sites are detached single-family residential that are part of the Verona Subdivision. To the south is approximately 10 acres of C-G zoned property that includes a number of commercial properties under development. The existing use is on the hard corner of McMillan and Ten Mile and is a fuel service station and convenience store. Directly to the south and across W. Milano,the largest commercial parcel has approvals for a 164 unit 55 and older multi-family development. Staff anticipates future residents of that site could utilize some of the future services provided within the commercial spaces of the proposed vertically integrated buildings. Because the proposed use is adjacent to a mixture of existing and planned uses(residential,office, commercial,etc.), Staff finds it should be an appropriate use in this Office FLUM designation for the reasons noted above. However, Staff does have concerns over the overall viability of the proposed commercial component of these units based on the proposed floor plans and the relatively small area of commercial proposed in each unit.While reviewing this project,Staff recommends Commission determine whether the proposal meets the intent of Vertically Integrated and if the proposed design is desired in the City and in this specific geographic area.Further analysis for the proposed use is below in the Comprehensive Plan policy analysis as well as in Section VII. The following goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are applicable to 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 by providing the opportunity for residents to live and work in close proximity to the same physical space. • "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 site is not part of or directly adjacent to a mixed-use area but is adjacent to a number of commercial and residential uses. Therefore, this area can largely function as a mixed-use area and the inclusion of vertically integrated structures, when properly designed, only furthers that element of this area. The proposed use would allow neighborhood serving commercial uses in close proximity to residential neighbors to the Page 4 Item 6. Fl-591 east and north thereby reducing vehicle trips and enhancing livability of the area. • "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods." (5.01.02D) The proposed vertically integrated residential project is shown with a residential design in order to better blend with the existing neighborhood to the north and east. The Applicant intentionally proposed this building design but Staff finds this design may impede the commercial viability of the commercial spaces for anyone besides the residential tenant. This can work but it is not a guarantee every residential tenant will also want a commercial space. Therefore, with the current design and in these instances, the commercial space may sit empty and never activate the commercial areas as intended with a vertically integrated use. Some of the expected and allowed uses allowed in these structures are as follows: arts, entertainment or recreation facility; artist studio; daycare facility; drinking establishment; education institution;financial institution; healthcare or social assistance; industry, craftsman; laundromat;personal or professional service; restaurant; and retail. With the proposed size of the commercial suites, Staff anticipates a number of these uses would not be viable. Further analysis and recommendations are in subsequent sections below. • "Locate smaller-scale,neighborhood-serving commercial and office use clusters so they complement and provide convenient access from nearby residential areas, limiting access to arterial roadways and multimodal corridors."(3.07.02B) As discussed above, the proposed use and design of these buildings should provide for smaller-scale, neighborhood serving commercial and office uses. Staff finds, if properly designed, the proposed use would provide convenient access from adjacent residential areas and capture some vehicle trips that would otherwise utilize the arterial roadways. • "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 vertically integrated residential project would be a new housing type within this area of the City. In fact, Staff is not aware of this type of use within at least a mile of this property in all directions. The addition of a new housing type in this area helps provide for a diversity in housing for different income levels and housing preferences. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE UD The proposed use,vertically integrated residential project, is listed as a conditional use in the L-O (Limited Office)zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-2. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the L-O district is required and are met per the submitted plans except for the drive aisles proposed to access the garages for each unit. The submitted site plan shows the drive aisles adjacent to the garages as 20 feet wide which does not comply with UDC 11-3C-5 standards for two-way drive aisles.A two-way drive aisle, applicable throughout the site, requires a minimum width of 25 feet. The Applicant should revise the plans to show compliance with this standard at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZQ submittal. Page 5 Item 6. F160] VII. STAFF ANALYSIS As discussed above in Section V,the proposed vertically integrated residential project is considered an appropriate use and meets the development guidelines listed for the Office designation if properly designed. Staff has noted concerns with the proposed floor plan and elevations of the building in regards to the use and long-term viability of the commercial component to this project.According to the Applicant, the commercial spaces of the units will be leased with the residential units therefore, removing the potential of a non-resident utilizing the commercial suite and somewhat minimizing some of the concerns of the long-term viability of the space. In consideration of this information, it is logical the Applicant would propose a relatively small commercial space for each unit(approximately 165 square feet). The submitted conceptual floor plans would indicate the commercial suite in each unit being equal to a home office instead of a standalone commercial space—this design is not specifically prohibited or discussed in the specific use standards for this use or its definition. However, the proposed unit design is what creates concern and Staff finds it does not fully meet the noted definition of Vertically Integrated as currently proposed. The submitted floor plan shows a relatively small commercial suite that has minimal storage space for inventory, no separate room for meetings, and no outdoor patio space to help activate the commercial frontage. Staff is concerned this small space could be rented out as a separate residential unit without the City being the wiser OR would become an office for the residence and not serve the nearby neighborhood as intended with the commercial component of vertically integrated residential projects. The proposed size of the commercial spaces in each unit will likely not support many of the allowed uses noted in the specific use standards for this use. This furthers Staffs concern that these units may become standalone residential, which is not an allowed use in the L-O zoning district. In addition to the units facing the adjacent public streets, the Applicant is proposing two units to the interior of the site that has even less visibility and presents more challenges to having a viable commercial component. Because of the location of this building, Staff is recommending these units are removed in lieu of additional parking and some open space for future residents and commercial patrons. An inclusion of open space for this development presents a more livable project and allows further opportunity for a shared space between the commercial and residential components of the project. Staff is aware the subject project is not proposed in an urban environment and a vertically integrated project more consistent with downtown Meridian would not fit with the existing neighborhood character. Commission should determine if the proposed vertically integrated project, despite meeting minimum code requirements, meets the intent of the proposed use. In order to help with some of the concerns noted,Staff is recommending the following revisions to the plans: 1) expand the commercial area of the units to potentially encompass the entire first level,2)remove the first exterior door to help delineate the commercial and residential areas of the units by creating two exterior facing doors;one for the residential, and one for the commercial suite,and 3) remove the two (2) units that frame the hard corner of W.Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way to incorporate a shared plaza space similar to what exists in the commercial area on the south side of McMillan in Bridgetower Crossing. With the addition of outdoor patio space/shared patio space the commercial component of this development would help activate some of the commercial spaces.Additional and more specific recommendations can be found under the elevation analysis below and in the conditions of approval in Section XA. The proposed use is subject to the following Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-41)—Vertically Integrated Residential Project: (Staff analysis in italics) Page 6 Item 6. 161 A. A vertically integrated residential project shall be a structure that contains at least two(2) stories. Submitted plans show compliance by proposing two-story units. B. A minimum of twenty-five(25)percent of the gross floor area of a vertically integrated project shall be residential dwelling units,including outdoor patio space on the same floor as a residential unit. Submitted plans show compliance with this standard by proposing vastly more residential floor area than commercial. In addition, the conceptual floor plans depict private patios on the first floor of each unit complying with the second portion of this standard. C. The minimum building footprint for a detached vertically integrated residential project shall be two thousand four hundred(2,400) square feet. The smallest of the four(4) buildings is proposed as approximately 3,600 square feet. Therefore, all of the proposed buildings comply with this standard. D. The allowed nonresidential uses in a vertically integrated project include: arts, entertainment or recreation facility; artist studio; civic, social or fraternal organizations; daycare facility; drinking establishment; education institution; financial institution;healthcare or social assistance; industry, craftsman; laundromat;nursing or residential care facility; personal or professional service;public or quasi-public use;restaurant;retail; or other uses that may be considered through the conditional use permit process.Noted and the Applicant shall comply with this specific use standard. As noted above, the proposed floor plans depict approximately 165 sq.ft. of commercial space, Staff has concerns that the proposed commercial space may not be large enough to accommodate many of the allowed uses noted above. E. None of the required parking shall be located in the front of the structure.According to the submitted plans, the required parking for each residential unit and the commercial spaces is located behind or adjacent to the structures. Staff finds the proposed design complies with this standard. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): One(1)driveway access is depicted on the overall site plan and connects to N. Cortona Way along the east boundary of the site—the only direct access to a public street for the project. The submitted plans also show the main drive aisle that bisects the project and lies across the shared property line to continue west to connect to an existing drive aisle utilized for the two office buildings along Ten Mile —this drive aisle connects to W. Milano Drive approximately 190 feet west of the subject sites. The additional office building shown on the submitted site plan is not part of this project and would likely only require administrative applications in order to be constructed. The site plan shows multiple drive aisles off of the main east-west drive aisle for access to the proposed vertically integrated units and the two-car garages. Staff anticipates the two access points shown on the site plans would be needed for safest and most efficient flow of traffic for this proposed project despite the future office building to the west not being a part of this project. Because of this, Staff is recommending a condition of approval to construct the northern portion of this drive aisle with this project to ensure adequate traffic flow for the site regardless of the timing of development of the office site shown west of the subject sites. Staff does not have concern with the proposed access for the project with Staff s recommended timing of the east-west drive aisle construction and previous mentioned recommended condition to widen the drive aisles to meet code requirements. Parking(UDC 11-3C): UDC Table 11-3C-6 requires the following off-street parking spaces for the proposed use of vertically integrated residential project: one(1) space per residential unit and the standard parking ratio for Page 7 Item 6. F162] nonresidential uses(1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area). Based on 16 residential units, a minimum of 16 spaces should be provided. As noted,each unit is proposed with a two-car garage that exceeds our dimensional standards and therefore exceeds code requirements. Each commercial space is less than 500 square feet requiring one additional space per unit—according to the submitted plans, 20 additional parking spaces are proposed on the subject site. Based on the submitted plans,the proposed parking exceeds UDC requirements and Staff has no concern with the parking proposed for the site. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 There are existing 5-foot wide attached sidewalks along the adjacent public streets,W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way and meets UDC standards for these areas. Any damaged curb, gutter or sidewalk is required to be replaced if damaged during construction. The submitted plans do not show any additional sidewalk connections from the front of the buildings to the existing sidewalks, as required in UDC 11-3A-19. Stafffinds this to be a missed opportunity to activate the building frontage with the adjacent streets for the commercial suites. Therefore, consistent with Staffs additional recommendations to add a separate commercial door on the front facade of each unit,Staff is recommending additional 5-foot wide sidewalks are constructed from the front of the units facing public streets(14 of the 16 units). Because of the overall design of the units abutting each other in a mirrored format,Staff is acceptable to shared connections to the attached sidewalks so long as each unit entrance has a sidewalk connection to the shared connection. Please see exhibit below for an example: Or - P � r - r I + I i I � I � I Block 1 2 C I I I I I y- -- Vt,4M0 ---- -�_--- Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 10-foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along N. Cortona Way to the east, a local street, and a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Milano Drive, a collector street, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.Parking lot landscaping is required per the Page 8 Item 6. F163] standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. A 20-foot landscape use buffer to the existing single-family residential to the north is also required. All required street buffers are existing and comply with code requirements. The submitted landscape plan depicts the required 20 foot wide use buffer along the north property boundary but does not show the required number of trees. According to the aerial imagery, there appears to be existing and mature trees in this buffer but this is not depicted on the plans. The existing landscape conditions should be added to the plans with the future CZC submittal. The required parking lot landscaping appears to be compliance with UDC requirements except for the area adjacent to the parking lot along the west boundary on the south parcel. D. This should also be revised with the future CZC submittal. Fencing(UDC 11-3A- : According to the submitted landscape plan,it is unclear if any fencing is proposed with this project. Code does not require perimeter fencing but there is existing fencing along the north property boundary that belongs to those homes within the Verona Subdivision. If any additional fencing is proposed in the future, a detail of the proposed fencing should be included on the landscape plans with the CZC application that demonstrates compliance with the standards in UDC 11-3A-7. Building Elevations: The conceptual building elevations submitted with the application depict two-story units with two-car garages that are attached via internal breezeways. Overall,the elevations depict farmhouse style architecture with the addition of lighter stone accents and larger windows along the first floor commercial fagade. Administrative Design Review was not submitted concurrently with this application so one will be required with the future CZC submittal. Furthermore, Staff will analyze the proposed elevations for compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM) at the time of Design Review submittal. Upon initial review of the conceptual elevations, they appear to meet the required standards of the ASM. However, as stated throughout this report, Staff has concerns with how the commercial suite is delineated from the residential portion of the building. Staff finds the proposed building fagade where the main entrance is located makes it difficult to determine where the residential and commercial lay. In the last pre-application meeting, Staff discussed this issue with the Applicant and requested they look into providing different treatment to the first floor fagade in question in order to more clearly delineate the commercial and residential uses of the building in order to help activate the commercial component. In the spirit of this request and consistent with Staffs other recommended revisions to the building design,Staff is also proposing the future Design Review elevations to include a more traditional commercial storefront for each commercial space by providing more window area, if possible, a different field material on the first floor fafades overall,and to include the dedicated commercial entry door noted on the front facing facade, as recommended in previous sections of this report. With these revisions,Staff believes not only the elevations are improved but the overall project is also improved by providing a better avenue to activate the commercial aspect of the proposed project. Certificate of Zoning Compliance(UDC 11-5B-1): A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure compliance with UDC standards and the conditions listed in Section X. Page 9 Item 6. ■ 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. IX. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 10/6/2021)(NOT APPROVED) S89'36'11°E ] LL— I I I �E I 1 + !! I .emu. I I 1 r I 1 I !r II 1 ! Y — 1 It Y a + 1 E I I Y ri'+t^iH Ea9�Pl roar r F � 1 � I I I j I iwr r 1 I I I j I � 1 � I 1 Y 1 Y ' 1 1 I ` — — ——---------------------- Page 10 Item 6. Fl 65 - r f I _ J I I 11 I I I I I I I I / I e I + + r • � I I F I r F I I I 1 I _ I I I ' I - I I I I , �-I I ` T, Page 11 Gm& F166] B. Landscape/a(date: 9/30/20 q w � ] �\\w, . ---, —w� e � ■ . ' - K ��. • xQa6.. wz \ r �\ n � , Page 12 Item 6. F167] C. Conceptual Floor Plan Ll- 2 3 4 �4PRELIMINARY s LOT BLOCK IL .R A �s W � I _. 1� 3 77 4 03. x�eae FLOOR PLAN-MAIN LEVEL A2.O X Page 13 Item 6. F168] LIVE— 1 2 3 4 II III I I I I I I o�m°oux 3oe�cv3`u� PRELIMINARY I I I I I I I I I I I i II I � rUr�o3E° ° I I I LOT BLOCK . I I II I I VV II �zeE I I I I Fr er I I I I I OWr E W • J.r S Y �LsnT..... znnn yr wnxnM e PC ti accen su r xa c:i�iwczrrt �"Z ��'� - A A 1 2' 3 4 FLOOR PLAN-UPPER LEVEL ° A2.1 Page 14 Item 6. 169 D. Conceptual Elevations(NOT APPROVED) N N Page 15 Item 6. F170] X. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. The Applicant shall comply with the approved site plan, landscape plan, and generally comply with the conceptual building elevations approved in this report as depicted in Section IX and revised per Section X.A. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-41 for the proposed Vertically Integrated Residential Project. 3. Hours of operation for any future commercial in the commercial suites shall be limited to 6:00 AM to 10:00PM,per UDC 11-213-313 for the L-O zoning district when it abuts a residential use or district. 4. Prior to building permit submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Administrative Design Review(DES) approval from the Planning Department. 5. The site plan(s) shall be revised as follows prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing: a. All drive aisles shall be a minimum of 25 feet wide,per UDC 11-3C-5 standards. b. For the facades facing W.Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way,depict additional 5-foot wide sidewalks connecting from these building entrances to the existing sidewalks along the public streets. c. Remove the two units framing the corner of W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona and add a shared plaza space with outdoor seating and shade structures. d. Remove the two units not along the adjacent streets in lieu of additional parking and some usable common open space for the development. 6. The landscape plan(s) submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall depict the following revisions: a. Depict all existing landscaping on the subject sites to ensure compliance with UDC standards. b. Depict at least 5 feet of landscaping and the required number of trees along the west project boundary and adjacent to the proposed parking lot on the south parcel(3042 W. Milano Drive). c. Depict the additional 5-foot wide sidewalks as noted above. d. Depict the shared plaza as noted above with appropriate landscaping elements. 7. The conceptual building elevations and renderings shall be revised as follows prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing: a. The first floor fagade facing and visible from the adjacent public streets(W.Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way) shall depict a different field material and color than the second floor fagade. b. The first floor fagade facing adjacent public streets shall depict a dedicated commercial entry door made of glass to help delineate the commercial suite of the project—this does not mean the overall size of the window front shown on the conceptual elevations should be reduced. Page 16 Item 6. 171 8. Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing,the conceptual floor plans shall be revised as follows: a. Expand the commercial areas of at least some of the units to help the viability of the commercial component of this project. b. Remove the first exterior door to help delineate the commercial and residential areas of the units by creating two exterior facing doors; one for the residential,and one for the commercial suite. 9. The east-west drive aisle depicted on the site plan(s)that connects from N. Cortona Way,to the existing north-south drive aisle on parcels R9010670065 &R9010670015 shall be constructed with the first phase of this project to ensure adequate traffic flow for the site. 10. Protect the existing landscaping on the site during construction,per UDC 11-3B-10. 11. 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) No staff report has been submitted at this time. A Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was not required for this project. C. West Ada School District(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=244897&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv D. Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244941&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: 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. With Staffs recommended revisions, the site meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the L-O zoning district and the proposed use of Vertically Integrated Residential Project. Therefore, 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 use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis and applicable policies noted in Section V of this report. Page 17 Item 6. ■ 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 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, Stafffinds 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. Staff ,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. 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. Stafffinds the proposed use should not involve 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) 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 18 Item 7. Ll 73 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Apex East Subdivision (H-2021-0086) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on Parcel 51405120902, South of E. Lake Hazel Rd. Between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd., in a Portion of Government Lot 2 and a Portion of the SW % of the NE % of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1E. A. Request: Rezone of 32.21 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to allow the proposed development plan. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 97 building lots and 14 common lots. Item 7. 174 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: December 16, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Apex East Subdivision (H-2021-0086) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on Parcel S1405120902, South of E. Lake Hazel Rd. Between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd., in a Portion of Government Lot 2 and a Portion of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1E. A. Request: Rezone of 32.21 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to allow the proposed development plan. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 97 building lots and 14 common lots. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 7. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 12/16/2021 Legend DATE: 0P•o:ect Lacoifian M%;p TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Tiefenbach 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: MDA, PP, RZ-H-2021-0086 00 Apex East Subdivision j 00 I LOCATION: Parcel#51405120902, located on the 0 000 south side of E. Lake Hazel Road between S. Locust Grove Road and S. / ' Eagle Road � I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to rezone 32.21 acres of land from R-4 to the R-8 zoning district,development agreement modification to create a new DA to develop the proposed preliminary plat consisting of 97 residential building lots and 14 common lots. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 32.21 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential 8-12 du/acre Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 97 building lots, 11 common lots,3 common driveway lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units(type 97 of units) Density(gross&net) 3 du/ac gross, 5.1 du/ac net Open Space(acres,total 7.05 acres of qualified open space(21.89%) [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities Two one-acre parks,tot lot,picnic area,pathway along the southern property line. Physical Features(waterways, Farr Lateral parallels the east property line. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 1,2021,no attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ H-2015-0019,DA Inst.2016-007075 Page 1 Item 7. 176 B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access will occur from S. Recreation Ave(a new Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) collector)via E.Lake Hazel Rd. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Two stubs—one to the south and one to the east(both Access connect to presently undeveloped properties). Existing Road Network E.Lake Hazel Rd Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None along the subject property.25 ft.wide buffer is Buffers required along E.Lake Hazel Rd.,20 ft.wide buffer required along S.Recreation Ave. 10 ft.pathways will be constructed along E.Lake Hazel Rd. and both sides of S. Recreation Ave. Proposed Road Improvements The applicant will be constructing S.Recreation Ave. from E.Lake Hazel Rd.to a cul-de-sac at the south property line. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3.1 miles to Fire Station 4.Will be adjacent to Fire Station 7 when it is constructed. • Fire Response Time Presently>5 minutes,will change when Fire Station 7 is completed. • Resource Reliability >78% • Risk Identification 2,resources are not adequate • Accessibility Yes • Special/resource needs Aerial device will be required • Water Supply 1,000 gpm required • Other Resources None Police Service • No comments Wastewater • Flow is committed • Applicant must ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 5 • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Comments • Eliminate the water main in E Wickham St. and install it in the common driveway at the northwest corner into S Recreation Ave. • Coordinate with the CDA project to stub water main from S Recreation Ave.to the common drive. Page 2 1 1 1 - 111 �I f'x � Ill�rti IIIII � II illb IIIIII 11� IIIIII � 1111111= uml +'S III Hill Yi11111,= . ■■ - 1 -uul I y ��r"t�. - ■■ 'I'I WIN Tel No IIIIII �w.: =IIIIII LAKE p Ilry I IIIII -_ � IIIII -_ IIIII - II IIIII '�I NII NII IIII IYuw IYuw-- IIIIII 11�_ I IIIIII IIIIII 11�=1- IIIIII 1111111— I�111111 1111111=IIIII_ �_IIIIII ■■ — 1 —IIIII G■■ — IIIIII� IIIII = IIIII ■■ 11 -+1� w nil -+�1111�1!uuwN Nlu 11 pill+l��1 � iuu ml1 -nil 1!111l�ll� i7l1iI l CIE' _ _ '11 IIII n - 1 sill@ _ -_E- ._IfPI' _ IIIII _ == IIIII -II IN I I�I}II =IIII 2 111 — �I11 _ umlu uluUlll E II , I' Item 7. 178 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Representative: Josh Beach,Brighton Development Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Wy,Boise,ID 83713 B. Owner: Brighton Development—2929 W.Navigator Wy,Boise,ID 83713 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/30/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/12/2021 Nextdoor posting 11/28/2021 Sign Posting 12/02/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The property was annexed and zoned R-4 as part of the South Meridian Annexation(H-2015-0019). This annexation consisted of 1322.14 acres of land.There were numerous development agreements associated with this annexation; each development agreement was specific to the property being annexed. The subject property is governed by the Murgoitio Development Agreement(Inst.#2016-007075). This DA allows County operations to continue until the property is developed.At the time the property was annexed,the City anticipated the rezone and platting of the subject property. Prior to any development,the DA requires a development plan be approved and anew DA created at no cost to the applicant. A. Development Agreement Modification Section 4.2 of the development agreement states"no change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this agreement." Section 20.1 of the DA states "no condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re- zoning of the subject property herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment." Section 5.1.2 of the development agreement states `future development of the property shall comply with all bulk, use and development standards of the R-4 zoning district." The purpose of this DA Modification is to include the proposed preliminary plat,landscape plan and proposed elevations as the approved development plans for the property. If the property were rezoned to R-8 to allow the development as proposed,the new DA should require compliance with the preliminary plat,landscape plan and conceptual building elevations in the Exhibit section below. Page 4 Item 7. ■ B. Zoning: This application proposes to rezone from R-4 to R-8. The property to the west(Discovery Park)is zoned R-4. To the east of the property is land still within Unincorporated Ada County. To the north of the property(across E. Lake Hazel Rd.)is R-40 and R-15 zoning. The R-8 Zoning District requires a minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft. and minimum street frontage of 40 ft. The Preliminary Plat Data Table for this proposal indicates a minimum lot size of 6,967 sq. ft. and an average lot size of 8,485 sq. ft. These are lot sizes which are smaller than the Keep subdivision to the east,but larger lot sizes than the Impressive East Ridge and Lavender Heights Subdivisions across E. Lake Hazel Rd. to the north. The lot sizes are well within the FLUM designation of MDR,which allows densities of between 3-8 dwelling units per acre. The minimum 40 ft. street frontage is exceeded on all lots. C. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) This property is designated Medium Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 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. As mentioned in the zoning section above,the gross density is 3 du/acre and the net density is 5.1 du/acre. This is well within and on the low end of the designated density for the site. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed preliminary plat and requested R-8 zoning district to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Medium Density Residential. D. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): • Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. (2.01.02D) The building elevations show a single-family attached product proposed for this development. Single-family attached housing tends to result in a more affordable product, which is a more attainable product for first time home buyers and/or younger families. This contributes to the variety of housing types that meets the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) The proposed plat depicts 5 ft. wide detached sidewalks on both sides of roads internal to the subdivision, with 8 ft.parkways. There are also 10 ft. wide pathways on E. Lake Hazel Rd., along both sides of S. Recreation Ave., and running along the south property line to the Farr Lateral east of the site. The pathways provide a necessary link to the greater pathway system and provide pedestrian access to Discovery Park across the street although staff believes a segment of the southernmost pathway needs a slight realignment as described in the pathways section below. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) As mentioned above, 5 ft. wide detached sidewalks are provided along all internal roadways, and there are 10 ft. wide pathways along both sides of S. Recreation Ave., E. Lake Hazel Rd. and the south perimeter of the property to the Farr Lateral. The sidewalks stub to the east and south, and Page 5 Item 7. ■ the pathways provide connectivity to Discovery Park on the opposite side of S. Recreation Ave. and future development to the south. "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) The development can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services. Water and sewer will be extended from S. Recreation Ave. at the west. • 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) This development does not take access from E.Lake Hazel Rd. (an arterial road). Two points of access are proposed from S. Recreation Ave., a new collector that will be constructed by the applicant and will also provide access to Discovery Park and the South Meridian Fire Station No 7 and Police substation. Two internal stubs to the south and east are being provided. E. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The property is presently vacant. F. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family attached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2A-2. Per UDC 11-513-8,design review is required for all new attached residential structures of more than one unit. G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district.All proposed lots and public streets appear to meet UDC dimensional standards per the submitted preliminary plat. This includes minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft., and required street frontages of at least 40 ft. Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft,although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided.No block length exceeds 750 ft. Three common driveways are proposed with this subdivision. The applicant has provided common drive exhibits which demonstrate no more than 3 units are served whereas a maximum of 4 units are allowed. The common driveways meet the minimum width of 20' and does not exceed the maximum length of 150'. The common driveways show landscaping of at least five feet wide along one side of each common driveway. The elevations that were submitted suggest single family attached, although the plat as submitted does not reflect an even number of lots and does not indicate which lots would contain the attached product. Prior to Council,the applicant should revise the plat to depict the single family attached lots(zero setback side lot lines). Page 6 Item 7. 181 H. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): The property abuts E. Lake Hazel Rd.to the north, although it will not take access from this road. Lake Hazel Road is improved with 2-travel lanes and there is no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. There is 50-feet of right-of-way for Lake Hazel Road. Lake Hazel Road is planned to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2036 and 2040. The plat proposes two access points from a new collector road(S. Recreation Ave.)which parallels the west property line. Primary access will occur at approximately the middle of the subject property's western property line(shown as E. Wickham Street).There will be a second southern access which will align with a drive aisle into Discovery Park(shown on the plat as E. Ambition Dr). S.Recreation Ave. will also provide primary access to Discovery Park as well as the South Meridian Fire Station No 7 and Police Substation.Two stub streets are proposed at the southeast portion of the property; one stubbing to the south and one stubbing to the east. Per an Interagency Cooperative Development Agreement(Instr. 2016-007073), Brighton Development is required to construct S. Recreation Ave. (the new north/south collector)from a cul-de-sac at the south property line to Lake Hazel Road. They will also be required to install 10 ft. wide pathways on both sides of this collector. ACHD has responded a traffic impact study is not required and has not submitted additional comments as of time of this staff report. I. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 1I- 3C-6 for single-family attached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Future development should comply with these standards. J. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): The Meridian Pathways Master Plan shows a 10 ft.wide multiuse pathway running along the site's northern property line and turning north(crossing E. Lake Hazel Rd.)at the site's eastern property line. The Pathways Plan also shows a 10 ft. wide multiuse pathway along the western side of S. Recreation Ave. The Plan shows another 10 ft. wide pathway connecting from S. Recreation Ave to the Farr Lateral along the southern property line. The landscape plan indicates 10' ft. wide pathways along all these alignments. In addition,although not shown on the pathway plan nor required by ACHD,the development also proposes a 10 ft. wide pathway on the east side of S. Recreation Ave. as well. Staff does think the southern pathway(connecting to the Farr Lateral) should align with the eastern entrance into Discovery Park on the opposite side of S. Recreation Ave. (see the color landscape plan in Section VII). Staff has concerns the westernmost segment of the pathway will encourage people to cross S. Recreation Ave. out of a designated crosswalk or"cut across"the open space in the vicinity of the Williams Pipeline Easement. Staff recommends the plat and landscape plan be revised to provide a more direct and aligned connection between the southernmost pathway and the entrance into Discovery Park. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot detached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. All detached sidewalks include parkways which are meet the minimum 8 ft. with and are landscaped as required per I I-3A-17. Page 7 Item 7. F182] K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are provided between the detached sidewalks and road on both sides of all local roads. As mentioned above, all parkways meet the requirements of 11-3A-17 and 11-3B-7 including at least 8 ft. in width and landscaped with at least 1 tree per 35 feet. L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-2A-6 requires 25 ft. wide buffers along arterial roads(E. Lake Hazel Rd.) and 20 ft. wide buffers required along collector roads (S. Recreation Ave). The landscape plan reflects a buffer of more than 75 ft. along E. Lake Hazel Rd., and a buffer of at least 50 ft. in width along S. Recreation Ave. The detached pathways are in these buffers,there are parkways of at least 8 ft. in width, and the landscape buffers meet the minimum planting requirements of 1 tree per 35 linear feet. Internal sidewalks also contain parkways of at least 8 feet in width. As described below, there are three parks provided with this subdivision that meet the density requirements of 1 tree per 8,000 sq. ft. The landscape plan indicates there are no healthy existing trees meeting the preservation requirements on the property. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): 11-3G-3 has recently been revised to require 15%of qualified open space for properties within the R-8 zoning district. The applicant has submitted an open space exhibit which reflects 21.8% (7.05 acres)of qualified open space. This includes two one-acre parks at the south perimeter of the property, a'/z-acre park toward the center of the development, 100%of the collector buffers, '/2 of the arterial buffer, and several trail corridors meeting the minimum requirements of 20 ft. in width, 50 ft. long and with an access at each end. The open space exhibit includes the 55 ft. wide Farr Lateral easement along the eastern property line.UDC 11-3G-3B states protective buffers a minimum of ten feet(10')in width dedicated for active access along laterals or ditches may count toward meeting the open space minimum requirements. However, as presently shown, staff is unsure this area provides the"active access" required to be counted as qualified open space.Because this lateral is behind existing homes, staff also has concerns regarding visibility and whether this area would comply with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design(OPTED) standards. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that prior to Planning Commission,the plat and landscape plan be revised to provide access to some or all of the open area shown along the Farr Lateral. Only areas accessible and useable to the residents as open space should be included on the open space exhibit.Also, if this area is to be credited as qualified open space, it should be landscaped as required by UDC 11- 3B unless otherwise prohibited by the irrigation district. N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(32.1 acres), 6 amenity points are required. This application proposes two open space parks larger than one-acre (6 points),a'/2 acre parcel at the center,a picnic area(2 points), a tot lot(1 point),and more than'/z mile of multi-modal pathway (4)points. This application exceeds the minimum requirements. O. Waterways(UDC 11-3A--A): The Farr Lateral runs along the eastern property line. The applicant has requested a waiver from UDC 11-3A-6 which requires piping the lateral with the explanation that piping the lateral would be cost-prohibitive. The landscape plan reflects turf sod in this area. Coordination will be ongoing with the irrigation district managing the waterways to meet their requirements. Page 8 Item 7. F183] P. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The landscape plan includes a fencing plan. 6 ft.high wooden fencing is provided along the S. Recreation Ave. landscape buffer, and along the side of interior trail connections adjacent to residential lots (leaving them visible from the roads). Open style metal fencing is provided along the portions of the open spaces visible from the internal roads,and along the portions of the Farr Lateral that are not visible from E. Lake Hazel Rd. The fencing appears to meet the requirements of 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Q. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. Water and sewer will be extended from S. Recreation Ave to the east. A 75 ft.wide Williams Pipeline Easement is indicated at the southwest corner of the property. The plat contains this easement within common lots. The landscape plan shows these common lots landscaped with sod. There are no trees shown within this easement. R. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted building elevations of the single-family attached homes for this project(see Section VI.F below). The single-family attached homes are depicted as one and two-story structures with attached garages and a variety of architectural elements and finish materials including gabled roofs, covered porches, dormers,and lap siding. The submitted sample elevations appear to meet design requirements for single-family homes but do not include elevations of the sides or rears of structures. A large number of the houses will be very visible from E. Lake Hazel Rd. and S.Recreation Ave. Therefore, staff recommends a condition that the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face E. Lake Hazel Rd. and S. Recreation Ave. incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays, banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Single-family attached structures require administrative design review approval prior to applying for a building permit. VI. DECISION A. Staff: 1. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning, development agreement modification and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII.per the Findings in Section IX. Page 9 Item 7. 184 VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezoning Exhibit(date: 10/11/2021) Exhibit A !legal IpeScription for Rezone to R8 A parcel of iand being a portion of Government Lot 2 and a portion of the Southwest 1/4 cf the Northeast 1/4 of Section 5,Township 2 worth,Range 1 East,B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a brass cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 5,which bears N89°56'45"W a distance of 2,659.06 feet from an aluminum cap marking the Northeast corner of said Section 5,thence fallowing the northerly line of said Government Lot 2,S89'56'45"E a distance of 287.51 feet to a 5/8- inch rebar; Thence leaving said northerly line, 500'W42"W a distance of 104.38 feet to a point on the centerline of the Farr Lateral, said point being witnessed by a 5/8-inch rebar which bears NOd"00'42"E a distance of 40.76 feet from said point; Thence following said centerline the following five(5)courses: 1. 569"11'54"E a distance of 194.76 Feet; 2. 153.61 feet along the arc of a cunre to the right,said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet,a delta angle of 44'00'19",a chord bearing of S47"11'44"E and a chord distance of 1.49.86 feet; 3. 525'11'35"E a distance of 135.17 feet; 4. S22°29'45"E a distance of 1,519.71 feet; 5. 549"59'I8"E a distance of 27.38 feet; Thence leaving said centerline,500"59'12''E a cl`stance of 31,97 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N65'00'd9"W a distance of 64.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N46°01'41"W a distance of 379.52 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence SGS"36'SM a distance of 694.76 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S4257`43"W a distance of 108.59 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N78°31'11"W a distance of 191,55 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the westerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 5, Thence following said westerly line, N00°41'10"E a distance of 1,954.56 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 32.21 acres, more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit 3 and by this reference is made a part hereof. , 245 9 2 1;5 V Page 10 Item 7. 185 NE CORNER SECTION 5 E. Lake Hazel Rd. 'OUNO ALUMINUM CAP BASIS OF BLARING 3 33 N39'56'45"W 2659-06' _ POINT 4F BEGINNING 287,57 1 40,78' WC2371.55'— i � � Id 1/4 CDRNER;? SECTION 5 L PL5 4998 MUNa BRASS C.4P 25' PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT-Or-WAY t Unplatted Rezone Area: 32.21±AC Raap Ranch SCS Investments LLC Subdivision S1405170902 (Portion) Current Zoning: R4 CL FARR LATERAL Proposed Zoning: R8 I LI N E TAB LE cf3 LIME BEARIUG DISTANCE + :n Li SO'00'42'W 104.38 . r L2 S69'11,54"E 194.76 w L3 S25'11'35 E 135.17 rt o L4 549`59'18"L 27.38 o - L5 50-59'12."E 31.97 L6 N6504'09'V 54.53 L7 S42'57'43" 108.58 Unplatted L8 N78'31'' 1"w 191.55 w,pl �k L4 Unplatked La w N 0 300 Sao 900 plan Scale: I" =300' Page 11 Item 7. F186] B. Preliminary Plat(date: 10/11/2021) IE7EENTaY I IkwnESSNE LA9 WGE KWDE.FRL L �• Rls SUBBMSIONN L — — h-f -- I l IPIpNN■U1+4 LIIF /iRFCL U ti NTIE€T446TAC1 YJ L'3� 4 � BT317fi70[QO IP [P I � ti3 4 ti I � ll l ,r ► NL %Y AFFLECK iaTou�o 4J 0 5 G �l I L I NELPWhfYdW Qn'4s MERIPM F1�95I17AFB ••• �ti I E lY1CRBAlA iT — � a� eu�xyRi may. 4 ' I ti5 I RE51DENTLI B 2 I % � L B 1 I � 4 I o I I k:/ Bu6lY5 � I f r {r rr � r ie 1k f rf � lJ rr r` Y 3f 4 1L I xIL O -WE IMP-04T;Cam 1' I I , Page 12 Item 7. 187 C. Phasing Plan(Date: October 2021) r%r Ln Lf1JI ,a vu VI Y IJIuIY r"LLI IV I I I Vr%[%i rLrIlI A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4OFSECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO. Itl6fIRw + I 4IIYRFSLVF':efiR W: I fEGpFMIu ` S1iRpmu�RR.: W IiiLF6 � MPIRI[Y µ�.YI[ifE •• RH11610M0 � , RIWICC'pP4 oaT»v L 4. -- SLk5112110 l i L.egen] •'1.' � �a aavPtlm oiwnly uRlt YP ` S�k+IR l.. 11 ' 0 Phase 1 39 Count •Phase 2 58 Count r V5 i + + rn + H�y �� " ,+ RFFD weexlu�u is a gY)ti"m ftW- 'k LTRLWy� GTv O[MFRPYW I � S1Yf63Ld11P T1 PYT#•[ S sag WK%NaR,I ST ' ® (� a * � •PPaY WIY/ltl1E L y f � � � _ + I 1 I PFSIRFPLY4L S PPHsf RR lO1RN11Y.IlfiYtlICIL R i ` 1 f wx + 1 i • + • g �. ® -:;• �; it --— • i ® yk `f�� MWIF NVFLTP HITS W UC ..e'.•.' suoslau+ Page 13 Item 7. ■ Color Landscape Plan(date: 10/1 l/2021) N BRIGHTON CONCEPTLIA1,5UWECTTO CHANGF Y - I E iE51�4NF1}L "Am I 5 5 y F 11 I 5`�I I -Y 7 I t _ w h I .,5 Staff recommends this pathway line up with the eastern entrance into Discovery Park Page 14 Item 7. F189] D. Fence Exhibit(date: 10/11/2021) SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION 6' HEIGHT STAINED CEDAR. SEE PPL4.0-6. 5' HEIGHT OPEN VISION METAL FENCE. SEE PPL4.0-5. 4 ss � fix r I k 4 6s e;} h 5 5 $} I Cl) i 5 I IrOf]I 1 4 F.1 Eu7 4•J gy�pp,, G� � �YYY711i�i1fT- I Pik I EO1 '� I I E.S�'�N; I l oi I @ J-1 @ 4 t k `" rJ Y4 }} r � i I ol [s Y W 44 W l 1 _ t � l PRELIMINARY PLAT FENCE EXHIBIT 6 tih YA 368 Page 15 Item 7. If this is going to be credited as qualified open space,there should be a connection E. Common Open Space Exhibit(date: 10/ 21) to useable open space along the Farr Lateral in this area E. 1� 'I II ll__41 ` nr LEGEND 9L0[]C I {vs] PARKWAY (OVALIFIE❑ OPEN SPACE) s y COMMON LOT (QUAJFIED OPEN SPACE:) 4 COMMON LOT (NOT QUALFED OPEN SPACE) o , I � ry V r It rrn'�s�ama L 01 0. V 1 I r� LJ ll �l l eLocK s a k I i @) I� E.WCHMn. I� 1ti h I 49 i I � 0 `k 0 If this is going to be ¢ `ti credited as qualified O 4B ri 5 open space,there should be a connection to useable open space along the Farr Lateral in this �~ area 5, I 1 11 o , P MAMIE INl'W C}}LLC °MWpSi31ii 134A07 Page 16 Item 7. 991 1 F. Common Driveway Exhibits (date: 10/11/2021) e. rl PI PI PI Po r r try 6LOCK1 � I r � / 5' 5' 5' / _ GARkGE— o � GARAGE o o � r,ApAGE Imo/ 15 mod' s y L FROrR FRONT s � LOT 11 IS A I .. .. '..s.l...'_ '. ..: - r• 1 NON-BUILDABLE COMMON" V 1 LOT WITH A RET W W W W 4• y y W W V. i y y \ G o INGRESS/EGRESS / EASEMENT ETYT IN FAVOR OF -- ". � -• d LOTS 12, 13,A�C 14, r r �.COMMON DRIVE �:: f ,I r• IY r• �, ( y TOBEDRIVEWAY FOR LOT 15 BLOCK I T SIDE g /� 3 w OP BE LOCATED ON THE_ 'ti l W C JO .pf ,: • COMMONDE DRIVE PROPORIY LINE I CA'J y + f� BAfE y�Av L — slo� - - - a/ `+ LOT OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE IN FOR INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING �/ LANDSCAPING ANP IRRIGATION IN W r� THESE AREAS DDILOINO EINELOPE. z TYPICAL. � DRNEWAY FOR LOT 10 BLOCK 1 TO V SE LOCATED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE `h OF THE SHARED COMMON DRIVE T3 10-15 RAT 1 PROPERTY uNE 1 —30'WHE7J PRIMED AT 11 17- - RE4t� F REAR -j REAR RFAR 7 PE4i (— PE4t I I I I I I EI I I ALOPR 1 I IITI Q o X x IN5 A IN s fo BE BE _ rg GAMMON' m la 1 r� FRONT 27. DRIVE 1 J Vi a � a i 3 _ LOMMON.P I r s siDE 11 2D DRIVE £al .BASEWAY \�'p, L SIDE r— +' ' ' 5 EASE WAY 10DR N I Eaa ORrvEWgY Zp 18 12 F 8- T a< fOR Or b T. BE LOC B lOUK SIDE OF THE r OPPOSITE ® 20. LOT U OM'NER IS COMMON ' N so or DRIVE 11e E SH- - / n IiwA HN D� PROEPERIY moss ROV.N PROPERTv ; nenav EDR LOr sa eLceN To rc�iEI LLOPN[ LWCSCAPING OND f0 Tatari D ON THEPPPOSSIITE SIDE E 1mIUL � ''� R CATON EX3.0 f am 25 LINE IS PROPV LINE sIDE� r rm THESE ARCS E NPONSIBL[FOR S SEOFIp I STALLING AND AND IRRGTd!IN TH.1 _ Nth LGy�ilxoN�aAw eeILBLE CRMEWAY FOR LCT 40 BLOCK 1 _ E INGRESS/EGRESS E0.SEl1EM IN YCR M' OF LOTS 42 AND 43.BLOCK VDE OFF MEFSHHARED COMMON LOTS 24-28 AND 40-04,BLOCK 1 IINE 4 R PRINTED AT„N17- I Page 17 Item 7. F192 G. Conceptual Elevations (date: 10/11/2021) T 000� 000� 000Q �000 o000 L--jooa M MIT 000� o000 o=QI-- E== op�r �000 000L o000 000� o000 Ffl IT IT L. I � i Page 18 Item 7. F193 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. 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. City Code in effeet at the time of development. Future development of this site shall comply with the preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations for the single-family attached dwellings included in Section VII. and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face E.Lake Hazel Rd. or S. Recreation Ave shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches, balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Single-family attached structures require administrative design review approval prior to applying for a building permit. c. Required street frontage improvements along E. Lake Hazel Rd. and the construction of S. Recreation Way including pathways, and landscape buffers shall be constructed with the first phase of construction. 2. The Preliminary Plat included in Section VI, dated 10/11/21, is approved with the following revisions: a. The plat should indicate which lots will contain single family attached(zero side lot lines). b. Add notes which indicate Lots 3 and 50 Block 1,Lots 10& 11 Block 4, Lot 1 Block 6, are common lots which will be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. c. All utility easements reflected on the utility plan shall be included on the plat. d. Prior to Commission,the plat and landscape plan shall be revised to provide access to some or all of the open area shown along the Farr Lateral. Only areas accessible and useable as open space to the residents for active or passive recreation should be included on the open space exhibit. e. Prior to Commission,plat and landscape plan shall be revised to provide a more direct and aligned connection between the southernmost pathway and the entrance into Discovery Park at the west. 3. The Landscape Plan included in Section V1, dated 10/11/21,is approved with revisions c, d, and e as listed in Condition No. 2 above, and the following additions: Page 19 Item 7. F194 a. If the Farr Lateral Easement is to be credited as qualified open space, it should be landscaped as required per UDC 11-3B,or as allowed by the irrigation district. b. Prior to the Commission should provide details of the picnic area,tot lot, and other qualified amenities. 4. Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway along S. Recreation Ave.,E. Lake Hazel Rd. and the southern property line to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. 5. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 6. The development shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-313-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-313-13. 7. Pathway and adjoining fencings and landscaping shall be constructed consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A7, 11-3A-8 and 11-313-12C. 8. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable. 9. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to driveways, easements,blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 10. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family attached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 11. All common driveways shall meet the requirements of 11-6C-2-D including a perpetual ingress/egress easement being filed with the Ada County Recorder,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. 12. Development within the Williams Pipeline easement shall comply with the Williams Developers' Handbook. 13. All ditches shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6 unless waived by City Council. 14. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 15. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate with the CDA project to sub a water main from South Recreation Avenue to the common drive at the northwest corner of this subdivision which is currently designated as Block 1,Lot 11. 2. Eliminate the water main in East Wickham Street. 3. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. Page 20 Item 7. Fl-951 General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment. Page 21 Item 7. F196 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the prof ect. 20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancioy.orp,lpublic works.aspx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost Page 22 Item 7. F197 estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243086&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky D. ACHD https:llweblink.meridianciU.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243094&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky E. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244628&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244307&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=244320&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity Page 23 Item 7. Fl-981 IX. FINDINGS A. REZONE (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds rezoning of the subject site with an R-8 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan MDR FL UM designation for this property, if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section VII. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that more diverse housing opportunities will be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city Staff ,finds the proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section VII. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(UDC 11-611-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII. Page 24 Item 7. Fl-991 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIR 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Farr Lateral parallels the eastern property line, but are not natural features.According to the landscape plan, there are no healthy trees onsite meeting the requirements for preservation. Page 25