Loading...
2022-01-06 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AMENDED AGENDA City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 06, 2022 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Bill Cassinelli Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Steven Yearsley ABSENT Commissioner Maria Lorcher Commissioner Nathan Wheeler ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Cassinelli, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley 1. Approve Minutes of the December 16, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. Continued to February 3, 2022 A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single-family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R- 15 zoning districts. Motion to continue to February 3, 2022 made by Commissioner Seal, Seconded by Commissioner Grove. Voting Yea: Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley 3. Public Hearing for Ten Mile RV Storage (H-2021-0090) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located on Parcels R5629430106, R5629430090, and R5629430080, Located Near the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Burley Ave./W. Nelis Dr. Application withdrawn A. Request: Rezone of 5.65 acres from C-G to I-L. B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to enter into a new development agreement to revise the approved concept plan to allow for a self-storage facility including outdoor RV storage. Application withdrawn 4. Public Hearing Continued from December 2, 2021 for Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments (H-2021-0075) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the south side of I-84, ¼ mile east of S. Eagle Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council A. Request: Annexation of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2) multi-family residential building lots (i.e. Lots 1-2, Block 1) and six (6) commercial building lots (i.e. Lots 3-8, Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Yearsley, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley Voting Nay: Commissioner Cassinelli 5. Public Hearing for 1160 W. Ustick Annexation (H-2021-0092) by The Housing Company, Located at 1160 W. Ustick Rd., on the north side of Ustick Rd. Between N. Linder Rd. and N. Venable Ave. Recommend Approval to City Council A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.54 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district for the future purpose of constructing an affordable housing, multi-family residential project. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Grove, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley 6. Public Hearing for Friendship Subdivision (H-2021-0083) by Mike Homan, Located Near the Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Rd. and E. Chinden Blvd. Recommend Denial to City Council A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.058 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 7 common lots. Motion to recommend denial to City Council by Commissioner Seal, Seconded by Commissioner Yearsley. Voting Yea: Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley 7. Election of 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson Motion to name Commissioner Seal Commission Chair made by Commissioner McCarvel, Seconded by Commissioner Cassinelli. Voting Yea: Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley Motion to name Commissioner Grove Commission Vice Chair made by Commissioner McCarvel, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley ADJOURNMENT 8:51 pm Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 6, 2022. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 6, 2022, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Nate Wheeler. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Kurt Starman, Caleb Hood, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Nate Wheeler Maria Lorcher X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for January 6, 2022. If you are joining us by -- 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 we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply to you as quickly as possible. With that let's begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We do -- it is an amended agenda and H-2021-0087, Apex West Subdivision, and H-2021-0090, Ten Mile RV Storage -- actually, Apex West Subdivision will be opened only for the purpose of being continued and Ten Mile RV Storage will -- is requesting withdrawal. If you are here tonight to testify on either of those applications we will not be taking testimony this evening. So, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Seal: So moved? Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 6 Page 2 of 50 aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the December 16, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting McCarvel: Next is the Consent Agenda and we only have one item on the Consent Agenda, the approval of minutes for the December 16th, 2021, Planning and Zoning meeting. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: So, at this time I 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 to public testimony. Each person will be called on only once during public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. If you are here in person, please, come forward and if you are on Zoom you will, then, be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record. If you --and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures for -- or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will run the presentation. After all of those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may press the raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are listening on the phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, for example, please, be sure to mute those extra devices, so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you, you -- you will no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember we will not call on you a second time. After testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another -- another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished -- 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 and recommend -- or recommendations to City Council as Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 7 Page 3 of 50 needed. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single- family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for H-2021.0087, Apex West Subdivision, and they are requesting a continuance to February 3rd due to the proof of public hearing notice signposting not being submitted to the city within the required time frame prior to the hearing. I think they had actually put January 20th, but it's a pretty full agenda already and so we are looking at February 3rd on that. Do we have any other -- do we have any further comments from staff? Allen: No, Madam Chair. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move to continue file H-2021-0087 to the hearing date of February 3rd, 2022. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2021-0087 to February 3rd. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Ten Mile RV Storage (H-2021-0090) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located on Parcels R5629430106, R5629430090, and R5629430080, Located Near the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Burley Ave./W. Nelis Dr. A. Request: Rezone of 5.65 acres from C-G to I-L. B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to enter into a new development agreement to revise the approved concept plan to allow for a self-storage facility including outdoor RV storage. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 $ Page 4 of 50 McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is H-2021-0090, Ten Mile RV Storage, and that application is requesting a withdrawal. So, I don't believe we need a motion of any kind. It's just being withdrawn. 4. Public Hearing Continued from December 2, 2021 for Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments (H-2021-0075) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the south side of 1-84, 1/4 mile east of S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2) multi-family residential building lots (i.e. Lots 1-2, Block 1) and six (6) commercial building lots (i.e. Lots 3-8, Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. McCarvel: Okay. Moving on. Next item is H-2021-0075. It is continued from December 2nd, Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This item was continued, as noted, in order to get ACHD's report to understand what's going to happen with Rolling Hill Drive, to allow more time to address the issue with the out-parcel at the north boundary of the site, which will be an enclave if this property is annexed and to work on enforcement of no construction traffic on Rolling Hill Drive. The most recent draft staff report issued by ACHD earlier today states ACHD is supportive of the applicant's request for sole access to the site to be provided from the west from Silverstone Way and Overland Road, with emergency access only via Rolling Hill Drive if an updated operational analysis as submitted for the intersection of Silverstone and Overland Roads. ACHD will determine if restricting the site's access to Rolling Hill Drive to emergency only will be acceptable based on the updated analysis and district policy. If determined acceptable no additional offsite improvements will be required to Rolling Hill Drive, including traffic calming measures. A cul-de-sac will be required to be constructed at the terminus of Rolling Hill Drive -- excuse me. If determined not to be acceptable or if the applicant chooses not to restrict access to Rolling Hill, the applicant shall be required to restrict Rolling Hill Drive on Overland Road to right-in, right-out only, construct passive traffic calming measures on Rolling Hill, improve Rolling Hill with 24 feet of pavement, three foot wide gravel shoulders and six foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of the road within existing right of way. Construct a mini roundabout at the terminus of Rolling Hill Drive and enter into a CDA to replace the crossing over the Five Mile Creek. The applicant would be restricted to phases one and two, the residential portion of the development, and may not proceed with phase three, the office portion, until the existing residential properties on Rolling Hill Drive are purchased and annexed into the city with commercial zoning. When there are no remaining residential homes on Rolling Hill Drive Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 191 Page 5 of 50 ACHD may reclassify this roadway as a collector or commercial road and require additional improvements at that time. Since the last hearing an updated concept plan was submitted as shown for the multi-family residential development that depicts 20 extra parking spaces along the driveway at the northern boundary of the site. This is planned to be a private street in the future. These spaces could serve as guest parking, but don't meet the requirements for off-street parking as they are on street. The ACHD report also expresses concern pertaining to adequacy of available parking proposed in the multi- family portion of the development and the potential for overcrowded on-street parking on Rolling Hill Drive as ACHD traffic services has received several complaints about overcrowded on-street parking in the city with new apartment complexes. The report states it appears there are more tenants per apartment unit causing parking issues on adjacent public streets near apartment complexes in general due to lack of affordable housing. For these reasons staff is recommending the minimum amount of parking required for the use is provided internal to the development. A minimum of 11 additional spaces are needed. Staff is recommending the following changes to the staff report. The first bullet in your hearing outline please disregard. It was pertaining to minimum seven foot wide sidewalks to be provided where parking stalls abut sidewalks. The applicant did submit an updated site plan that shows that they are complying with that. The previous site plan did not include the curb dimension in that, so they are good on that. I am asking for a new condition to be included requiring construction traffic to access the site from the west from Silverstone and Overland Road intersection, rather than from South Rolling Hill Drive, as committed to by the applicant at the last hearing. And also modification to Condition A-1-G, a development agreement provision pertaining to ACHD required off-site improvements to Rolling Hill to simply require compliance with ACHD's requirements. And, then, one additional condition that is not on your hearing outline per the applicant. I believe they committed to this at the last hearing to provide an access easement to that out-parcel along the north boundary, so that the property owner can maintain weeds or anything else on the property. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you, Sonya. Would the applicant like to come forward? Wardle: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jon Wardle with Brighton. My address is 2929 West Navigator Drive, Suite 400, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. If I can I would like to share my screen on this. Appreciate the opportunity to come back. At our last hearing back in the beginning of December there were a few items specifically related to traffic that were -- that were raised. One of the issues was that we had not received an ACHD staff report at that time, which had left some open-ended questions and the other one was also regarding Rolling Hill Drive and how that would be treated with the concerns of the existing homes on Rolling Hill Drive. After that meeting we immediately had two conversations, one was with the Meridian Fire Department to talk about whether Rolling Hill Drive could be emergency access only, and the second conversation we had was with the Ada County Highway District on -- first off where -- where were they with their traffic study, but could we also consider that as an option. An interim report was submitted, but from there we went back and forth several times and I would like to kind of discuss where we landed. I would like to note from Meridian Fire Department they indicated that, yes, it could be used as emergency access only. So, provide the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 Flo] Page 6 of 50 appropriate turnaround at the end of the road, but also it could be bollarded or some other mechanism that would ensure that they could get through, but access from the commercial property and from the apartment project wouldn't access Rolling Hill Drive, that it would remain just as it was. So, tonight we wanted to talk specifically about that, Rolling Hill Drive. ACHD -- they did provide an updated staff report. There were two options. Option One, which I have placed in front of you, talks about using Rolling Hill Drive as emergency access only. The criteria there that they want to have us provide them -- and our traffic engineers are working on that -- is updating the traffic study that showed the trips that would be on Rolling Hill Drive and moving those to Silverstone. Silverstone is a collector. It is a signalized intersection and what that would be. We don't have that where we have been able to provide that to ACHD yet, but they are asking for that and we will. Option Two is that we do use Rolling Hill Drive and that Rolling Hill Drive would need improvements to it, including the access out onto Overland. We have concluded, however, and have talked with a few of the neighbors that the approach that we want to take is to do emergency access only -- is to provide that needed turnaround at the end of that public road, provide the appropriate approved restriction onto -- at the end of Rolling Hill from the neighbors to the south and us to the north, so that Fire could get through, but the access couldn't be made from residents or businesses out of the project, that they would go to Silverstone. We still need to provide that report, but we feel like the trips that would go to Silverstone -- it can be accommodated. There is a signal there and, as I mentioned, I have spoken with a couple of the neighbors, either by phone or via e-mail, face-to-face, just discussing that we are pursuing this as an option. So, what does that mean? Just a quick exhibit here is just showing our internal circulation and how that traffic would come out-- out to Overland Road on Silverstone and they could also access Rackham Way, but Rackham Way would be a right-in, right-out only, so any trips that wanted to go out there they could use that, but Silverstone would be the point of access to it. We are -- we do understand what the -- what the neighbors have asked, the concerns about those trips on there while they still are residences. The Comprehensive Plan does show that at some point that we will transition -- transition to something that it is -- something different than it is today, but those plans aren't there today and so we are trying to do our best to listen to what they have asked. In fact, this was very specific at the hearings and the last hearing was can we use Rolling Hill as emergency access only. We believe that, yes, we can. Like I said, we still need to check that box with ACHD on providing the updated study, but I think we will all be able to note and agree that putting those trips to a signal on a collector road is the better option at this time. Like I said, ACHD has requested that we provide them with an updated analysis of that intersection. It's in process. We will provide that to them shortly. But we -- like I said, we are hopeful that they will be able to extend that determination that Silverstone is, in fact, the appropriate place at this time for that access to occur. As Sonya mentioned, there was an update to the site plan. We have -- we are providing some additional on- street parking as noted here kind of along the north area. I will -- I do want to note that we do meet the parking requirements for all of the residential units. We do meet that. The difference here or the rub here is -- is the amenity element of the project. We had not calculated the parking for that. There has been -- I guess that has varied from project to project, but in this case staff indicated that we did need to calculate that and so, really, we are meeting the parking requirements for all the residential units and we are able to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 Fill Page 7 of 50 provide additional on-street parking, which will be guest parking on those parallel stalls on the north. We went through pretty extensively before and I can -- I can go back and answer any questions that you have regarding the project if there are any, but it felt like the open items before you to -- that we wanted to discuss tonight were the ACHD traffic study. Do we have that? Yes, we do. And are there solutions for Rolling Hill at this time? Yes, there are. The solution that we are pursuing is the emergency access only and that's what we are proposing and we are hopeful that at the conclusion of our updated traffic analysis of that intersection that ACHD will agree with that as well. We respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the conditional use permit and also that the Commission transmit to the Council with a recommendation for annexation and rezoning and preliminary plat and I stand for any questions that you might have tonight. McCarvel: I will start off, because I don't want it to be a surprise to anybody -- and this did come fairly late, so even though the option you would like to move forward with on Rolling Hills Drive is the emergency access only, that is still predicated on that traffic study. So, I just want -- could you talk a little bit more about what -- what Option B really is and what that entails? Wardle: Well, Option B is the option that has been option number two. I will tell you that there are conversations, even within ACHD, about the importance of using Silverstone. John Wasson, who is the traffic -- kind of -- who is a liaison that I think you see quite frequently on these correspondences, his own concern about, you know, using Rolling Hill. So, they are just asking us to reallocate what would be those future trips, which is at build out about 2,500 daily trips. The peak hours are significantly less than that and what that would mean to that intersection. Preliminarily, we are being told that there is not a significant impact. Will there be a traffic signal at Silverstone? Yes. But that signal that's there and the -- the nature of the road as it's currently built, will -- will be able to accommodate it. We haven't -- we don't have a full report to give at ACHD, but that's what we are being told that appears that it will be -- it will function. ACHD at the same time needs to review that and I think it would be important for this Commission and even the City Council to indicate their concurrence with that and ask that that be the result. Even if there is a little bit of overloading at Silverstone, that overloading today is better than the -- the use of Rolling Hill. McCarvel: And if you could maybe elaborate a little bit -- I know there was the little enclave property. Was there -- Wardle: Yes. McCarvel: -- on that? Wardle: Madam Chair, you are referencing kind -- I hope you can see my little hand right here on the screen, but there is a little piece right there. As of today we have a written purchase agreement for that and so we will -- we will close that transaction and we will include it. I will note we are talking about 14 feet, so its sole purpose -- well, it's improved Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F12 Page 8 of 50 purpose is a landscape buffer. Its use right now is -- are weeds, but we will make that part of the landscape buffer, so that's what we were doing. We will acquire that. McCarvel: I think everybody just didn't want to see it become weeds permanently. Wardle: Nor do we, because it will -- it will not show well for the entryway into the city. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: I'm leaving the parking question to somebody else. Cassinelli: I was -- I'm going with -- I'm going with the Rolling Hills portion of it right now. Jon, there is going to be a turnaround there at the end of the road, if that's -- if that ultimately is the way it's going to be built out. Will that be -- are you going to set that back and put that on your property? How -- how will you accommodate that? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, a couple options. We have been in conversations with the owner here on the east about acquiring property there so that turnaround could happen south of the boundary and so that there is a very clear delineation. There -- there is another option, which I think is a little less desirable, but we own this parcel right here, which is just under 180 feet from the terminus. That would give us an opportunity to do it there. But our -- our preference is to work with this owner here and provide the turnaround right at the boundary. Cassinelli: Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Cassinelli: Somebody else can ask -- talk about parking. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I just got a couple of questions. So, continuing on with that, the terminus there, is that going to be marked no parking? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, yes, it would be marked as no parking. That's -- that's actually a requirement. Many cul-de-sacs are not signed as no parking, but it's actually a requirement that they not be parked on and, yes, we would sign it at the time that we can -- that we construct it and the -- I guess the other kind of segue to that one is the importance of getting that turnaround in at the commencement of our construction, because there was question about construction traffic as well. So, those things would merge together. But, yes, we would get that in at the very beginning and it would be no parking. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F13 Page 9 of 50 Seal: Okay. So, you are trying to basically put that in as part of phase one? Wardle: Yes. Seal: Okay. I will ask the question about parking and there seems to be some discrepancy on that and -- I mean the staff has been pretty critical of the parking and, then, not only that, but the ACHD report is critical of basically the City of Meridian for their parking standards, so -- I mean what -- what do you propose, you know, be done about that? I mean I have got a couple of ideas floating through my mind. One of them is to just make the -- the private drive that you have there, make that go more straight, instead of coming down into the private drive and accommodate more parking that way. I mean it would take away from your parking lot, but is that something that's doable? Foreseeable? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, as we had noted before, we have been working on the overall site plan here for the office buildings to the north and to -- to merge that with the multi-family. We feel like we do have that balance for the parking. I do not have a -- an approval from our partners about, you know, moving parking to the north and moving that road to the north. Again, I -- we, too, are aware of the parking issue. I don't think I have come to any meetings thus far on multi-family where it has not been raised. We -- like I said, the deficit that we feel like we have here is related to the amenities and that -- again, that kind of caught us off guard, because it has not been a requirement or it's not been calculated before on our projects and so if it's a hard and fast rule and we can't move that road to the north and the city doesn't accept the guest parking along the road, then, there would -- you know, unfortunately, we would remove some units, which we don't want to do. But that's -- I think that's the only way that we would be able to accommodate that and I don't -- I don't feel like that's our best option. I will tell you that we did talk with staff and it's -- it's kind of -- maybe I can zoom in here a little bit. There -- there are some opportunities on site. If you can see that there is areas against the clubhouse amenity areas. There is some green space. We also have some other green space we could adjust. We did talk with staff about putting parallel parking in here and that would qualify as on site, but the concern -- and so I'm a little, you know, caught off guard by this, because this was a late request. The concern was, well, this is a drive aisle here internally and you have cars backing up and there might be some conflicts internally. So, we landed with staff a few weeks ago about bringing that parking -- the additional parking needed up here. So, we -- we have -- we felt like this was the best option by cleaning up the drive aisles. We could do it. We could shorten up or narrow up some landscaping and make some adjustments and parallel along here and meet the requirement on site, but felt like the flow of traffic through here and around that community center was better if we didn't do that. So, that's an option for us as well. We would have to work through that through the CZC process. Seal: Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate the recognition of the parking issues that we do have and it's going -- probably will continue, so -- I mean more is always better for parking. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F14] Page 10 of 50 Wardle: I do still want to acknowledge that when we looked at this, the parking requirements for the units, I mean we -- we do meet those. The deficit is, in our opinion, related to the amenities and it was even brought up was, well, what happens if somebody is having an event there at the community center and they are bringing guests in? So, I mean that was kind of the feeling of how do we accommodate that. Staff has taken time on this issue. They have -- they have made some modifications as unit types change to how do we accommodate the correct amount of parking. I think that's also a topic that's on the planning staff's upcoming UDC amendments. That was one of the bullet items to look at that again. I think, you know, it's a topic to -- to continue to discuss and -- and address, so that we can all be good neighbors and come up with a provision that does work. Seal: Thank you. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, has there been a thought of doing some -- an easement on --to the parking lot to the north? Because I'm assuming that most of the time when you need more parking it's going to be off hours and, you know, potentially -- residents could potentially park in the evening or -- or on the weekends when they have events and -- and share some parking that way as an option and more than likely that's what's probably going to end up happening anywise if -- if they can't find parking for the subdivision -- or for the apartments. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, we haven't discussed specifically that easement. I do think that you are correct that naturally overflow parking in those off hours -- because when people leave the offices those lots empty and apartments and residents, they come home at night and weekends and there is --there is usually not a conflict there. We can discuss that. I -- I don't know. I don't know that answer. But it's something we can discuss. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Jon, real quick. The 671 that you have here is that including -- was that 20 that's on the private drive? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, it is. I had a previous version that showed the calculation, but my formatting got messed up there, but it is -- we have 651, plus the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F15] Page 11 of 50 20. Grove: I'm just curious, because in the staff report we have a whole bunch of numbers and so I'm just trying to wrap my head around where they are at, so -- Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, staff did -- there were some discrepancies in our report about, you know, how many stalls we actually did have. There was a little bit of confusion on our part as well, but we did go back through and calculate it again. So, 651 on site, plus the additional 20. Grove: All right. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you very much. McCarvel: And, Chris, do we have anybody signed up or -- oh. Johnson: Yeah, Madam Chair, nobody signed up online. You might be receiving a paper right now. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. First on the list that wishes to testify is Alicia Eastman. Pull the mic real close to you. Eastman: Because I'm still short. I live at 1485 Rolling Hill. McCarvel: And, please, state your name as well. Eastman: My name is Alicia Eastman and it -- my house is on Lot 3, Block 2. So, my biggest concern right now is that -- and while I appreciate everything that the developer is trying to do, that if you go with that second option to do the improvement to widen the road there at the end where we are at, we are just --where View Circle is -- between View Circle and Overland. So, if you do that -- take that easement and that 24 feet, it's going to affect not just my well, across the street, three, four, five houses, plus mine, and so what do we do for water and -- if we don't want to annex or, you know, and hook up to city sewer, city water, what happens to our wells? I mean I'm just kind of -- I'm not clear on -- on that and I need water. So, that's really what my big concern is. And, then, I have the neighbor on -- Lori Beth Wilson that lives on View Circle, she doesn't have internet, she doesn't use e-mail, she doesn't do electronic things and so I -- you know, gotten a copy of the ACHD report and took it over to her, but -- and she said, well, are all of the houses going to be gone? What if somebody doesn't want to move in? And I said, well, I don't -- I don't know and so she said, well, do they -- are they just going to do eminent domain or something and I said I don't know, but, here, call -- you know, I -- call Meridian, call the city clerk and, you know, take it up with the City Council. So, thank you very much. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F16 Page 12 of 50 McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. We will have the applicant respond. That's all that has indicated on the sign-up list that they wished to testify. That being said, is there anybody else in the room or online that wishes to testify that did not sign up? Okay. Johnson: Madam Chair, you do have one person. McCarvel: Okay. We have somebody in the room first. Johnson: Oh, good. Okay. McCarvel: Yep. We will get to Zoom in a minute. Thanks. Blowers: My name is Mike Blowers and I live at 1325 Rolling Hill. My question is in regards just to the cul-de-sac option. I didn't really plan on adding questions until that came up, but I guess first question is I'm -- I'm aware of a property that Brighton owns or BVA owns, but I believe what you pointed to on the map would be my next door neighbor, which would leave two homes past the cul-de-sac. So, I'm curious how that would work. The other option, which was purchasing part of the property at the very end of the street, I do know that would be an option for that person, but if that doesn't go through this cul- de-sac would go into the private drive of the plans that were shown above, so I don't -- I guess I'm just looking for clarification. What if neither one of those properties are able to be used for the cul-de-sac, where does that leave us? But since I'm already up here the other question that I was curious about and I haven't been able to get an answer to, was kind of like the last meeting, we were waiting on a report from ACHD. We were told, you know, no concerns around it. Well, the report comes back and it says we need to, you know, remove the homes on Rolling Hill and now we are being told that again. There is a report that's going to come out and it -- it will likely work and I hope it does work, but I'm just curious what if this report comes back and it says, well, you can't run all the traffic down Silverstone or -- or maybe I misunderstood and -- and it will work. So, that was -- I was seeking clarification there. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Chris, I think we are clear in the room. Do we have somebody online? Johnson: We do. And I'm going to unmute you now. It's Chris Maiocca. Apologies if I mispronounced your -- you're able to speak now. Maiocca: Thank you, Madam Chair and City Council. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Please state your full name and address for the record. Maiocca: Yes. My name is Chris Maiocca and I live at 4160 East View Circle. I just wanted to say just a couple of things. We have several members in our neighborhood unable to make it because of COVID, so we haven't lost interest in this project, we are just sick and quarantining. The other thing I did want to mention -- we have had a couple of Zoom meetings with the highway department and they have shown us how they have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F17 Page 13 of 50 gotten some of their numbers for Rolling Hill and I believe it was 6.3 car trips per unit and we did the math and -- and I -- it just seemed like all the parties on the call agreed that their numbers just weren't realistic and they were very low. So, it seems like -- and my notes -- my notes tell me that they -- they were estimating 200 trips a day up Rolling Hill currently, which seems very high and they were -- and we are estimating with the numbers they gave us, trips per cars per day about 2,500. So, our concern is is that if -- just with phase one and two, the numbers of cars would far exceed the -- whatever you want to use -- the legal limit for Rolling Hills and we are just afraid that retroactively there is nothing that we can -- can do about that. Having said that, we are certainly appreciative of Brighton and BVA for whatever their motives are -- it does seem like all parties really want to avoid using Rolling Hill as -- as a thoroughway for this project and I really do appreciate something a Council Member said, I forget who it was at last meeting, something to the effect: We haven't always done right by some of these rural properties and here is our chance to get it right and the one last thing that I remember a Council Member said and I really think they nailed it, this project was really done backwards. The property should have been attempted to have been purchased at Overland and, then, move up the road and, unfortunately, that -- that wasn't what happened, but I do give Brighton and BVA the credit for recognizing that and for whatever the motives are trying to do the right thing now. So, thank you, Council. Appreciate you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody else in the room or online? Come forward. Wattles: My name is Amy Wattles. My address is 1360 Rolling Hill Drive. I just wanted to add -- I was listening via phone at the beginning of the meeting. One part that stood out to me is we have -- you guys are faced with two decisions. You know, Option One, you are using Silverstone. Option Two that's still on the table is Rolling Hill Drive. I don't want to gloss over what ACHD had to say about Option Two with Rolling Hill Drive. What will happen at the intersection of Rolling Hill and Overland is it becomes a right turn in only and right turn out only. So, now the residents -- we are having to backtrack all the way through Silverstone just to be able to get back out to the left. That's a -- it's a concern. You know, it's not something I think any of our neighbors want to lose sight of, is that the Rolling Hills piece is still on the table. Last time we met there were a lot of concerns and we brought them forward and thankfully, you know, you guys were willing to wait for the report. There was discussion about waiting later in January for the ACHD report, but it got pushed to the 6th. Here we are again without the report trying to push it earlier. I'm just asking can we table this again until the report comes out? I know I have reached out to Planning and Zoning and haven't been able to get phone calls returned prior to meetings. We have met with ACHD and they have been wonderful. The last piece I heard from ACHD was there were still parking concerns. So, I just don't -- it just feels -- can we, please, reserve this for when the report is done? Anything at this point is just trusting that whatever figures or whatever stats they are proposing are accurate and I feel like the consequences are too big for the residents there to take that leap of faith. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F18 Page 14 of 50 Seal: Madam Chair, I have a question for the -- McCarvel: Oh. Seal: Ma'am. McCarvel: Amy, he has a question for you. Commissioner Seal. Seal: Do you know if they are going to have a hearing on this? ACHD? Wattles: They said no. I think -- Mike, do you know better? There was a process. McCarvel: We can't have the discussion in the room, because it doesn't show up on record. Wattles: Sorry. McCarvel: Sorry. Seal: I was going to say if the answer is no without a request, I would definitely request one for sure, because -- I mean as the city we are a little bit tied at this point, because we don't own the roads and we are kind of a little bit in the middle here. So, I mean if-- if the concern really lies with the road and what they are going to do with that and the decision that's going to be made, then, definitely request a hearing with ACHD, so your voice can be heard. Waddle: That decision would be predicated on you approving Option B first, though, so we could avoid that whole scenario and just wait for the report. Seal: We don't approve Option B or A. McCarvel: Yeah. Seal: ACHD does. It's completely out of our purview. Wattles: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. Wattles: Because as far as what they are proposing that's the part I'm confused about. McCarvel: Yeah. They are -- the Option A and Option B is -- Option A is what everybody wants to move forward with, but Option B is there in case the traffic study comes back and Silverstone is not adequate. Wattles: Right. But in order for Option B to move forward you all would have to approve Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F19 Page 15 of 50 that -- or whatever you are deciding tonight would decide Option A or B. Either are fair game. McCarvel: Either would be fair game. Wattles: And that's troublesome. That's all. McCarvel: Yeah. It would -- that's why the options were both presented, because the traffic study isn't done right now, so it's -- this is what happens if the traffic study is okay and this is what happens if the traffic study does not support Silverstone only, so -- Wattles: Thank you. Seal: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Chair, you have one more person online. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Pam Haynes and, Pam, you are unmuted now. Or you can unmute yourself. Haynes: Sorry. Can you hear me now? McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Haynes: Hi. My name is Pam Haynes. I live at 1235 Rolling Hill Drive. I just have a comment. It's more for the developer. I realize it's purely speculation at this point. But to me a third option for the cul-de-sac could be that it is placed on the northern line where it would be on their property instead of purchasing land from the landowner to the east. So, I'm just wondering if that is something that could be put on the table as an option and thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else online or in the room that wishes to testify? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back. Wardle: Madam Chair, for the record again Jon Wardle with Brighton. As it relates to the project and to transportation, one thing that was really -- everybody was very clear from our last meeting was how do we not use Rolling Hill. Rolling Hill is a public road. There is no -- there is no disputing that. But Rolling Hills does have -- Rolling Hill does have a unique characteristic at this point in time, given the residences that are there. Can we predict when those changes will happen to that? No, but we feel like we came up -- we heard, we felt like we wanted to go back and check with both the Fire Department and with ACHD on -- on whether we could pursue emergency access only. I understand that, you know, there is still this element that's hanging out there regarding, you know, ACHD being able to review that traffic that would come off of Rolling Hill and move to Silverstone. My expectation is that that is the solution. Do --do we want to be in an adversarial position Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F20 Page 16 of 50 with our neighbors to the south through this project while residents are still there? No. We are really trying to come up with a solution. Regarding the location of those turnarounds, yes, there would be a third option, which would be go to the north. One of the problems about going to the north -- which we could pursue or look at as an option and we won't take it off the table, but there is -- there is circulation that would take all those trips over. So, if we bring that cul-de-sac up that lower road to the south of the property would be cut off. There wouldn't be a way to work around that. So, while not preferable, it's something that we could look at. The project is amenity rich. We have a lot of things here on site. We have an oversized amenity center. I know we are talking about 11 parking stalls. It's 7,000 square feet. That's where the deficit is. We really could reduce the size of that community center to something that would be more -- you see in the market of 3,000 square feet, but we feel like the amenities that are being offered here substantiate, you know, the need for those. Would we cut them out? I don't think we want to, but that's what we are talking about here is the -- the added parking stalls are based on a fitness facility and amenities that we are providing. I -- I hear the comment loud and clear regarding parking. I think one of the benefits here -- one of the things that, you know, I hope that we do discuss in upcoming UDC group is there are different parking loading needs when you get into three bedroom apartments. It -- they -- they often have a number of adults that are living there and so I don't know that it's just -- specifically can be addressed based on the unit's themselves, but I think you also need to look at the mix within an entire project, because that I know comes up quite a bit. With our partners we -- we have worked on this quite a bit. We feel like we have come up with a solution. We feel like there -- there are options and alternatives that Rolling Hill, like we mentioned, which is in the ACHD staff report, Option Two, about using Rolling Hill to the south. While not preferable and as -- as noted there would be some restrictions as well. We originally came in looking at this as a public road and trying to use that public road. I think we need to have additional conversations as those areas will transition on what that means and when they do transition how the connection should be made up to our property. That is a conversation that still needs -- that should be had at some point in the future, because these properties will convert -- you know, they will sell one by one over time and I think that's just something that, you know, ACHD and the City of Meridian need to look at long term. With that said we feel like Option One, which is that turnaround, that would stop the traffic, so that traffic on Rolling Hill is resident traffic of those themselves and their guests and we would limit it to emergency access only. Again, we -- we feel like this -- this does provide a place for -- for housing in a location where there will be offices that residents that potentially work there could also live there and we feel like this is the right place for this given the regional mixed use designation and the uses that are already proposed and will be proposed at Eagle View landing and surrounding. We do ask for your approval of the project. We know that there is still this thing hanging out there, but with that approval we also, like I mentioned earlier, request that the Commission strongly encourage ACHD to accept Option One and Silverstone be the place where the traffic could go. I think that would be a helpful piece of information that they could receive as well and I stand for any questions you might have. Seal: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F21 Page 17 of 50 McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just -- one of the folks that came up had a question about the wells and if we are going to go with Option B and how those would be handled. Wardle: Madam Chair. Appreciate you, Commissioner Seal, bringing that back up. If Option Two is pursued the requirement is that it would be -- we would need to add sidewalk and streetlights to one side of the road. Clearly we would have to look at that. But if there is an impact to a water source that would need to be provided and fixed prior to any of that work happening. Honestly, we haven't -- we haven't pursued any design for Option Two. We don't -- we don't want to pursue that. But if -- if that was where we had to go we would have to make sure that people have their services, including their wells. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: What is the timeline for the study as forthcoming? Wardle: Pardon me. Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, it's in process. Our consultant, who did the overall traffic study -- and I just want to be clear that ACHD has reviewed the overall traffic counts. They have accepted what the volume of traffic will be coming out of the project. So, at this point they are just asking our consultant to make that connection and go over and show what it would be. I would expect that that should be able to be transmitted to ACHD very soon. We are not talking months here, we are talking just a matter of, you know, at most weeks, if not sooner. But, you know, ACHD will still need to review that and work it through their -- their team to look at the numbers. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you very much. McCarvel: At this time could we get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2021- 0075? Seal: So moved. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0075. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F22 Page 18 of 50 Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I actually applaud Brighton for what they have done in looking at to try to help minimize the impact to the homeowners on Rolling Hills. I understand that it's not a done deal, but I think -- realistically I think even ACHD is going to try to push as hard as they can to make Rolling Hills emergency access only, just because I think everyone understands that that makes sense. So, I -- you know, I'm comfortable with -- with that moving forward. With regard to parking, I'm one to always want more parking, but given the location of this and the amount of parking to the -- to the north, I'm okay with the way they have got the parking proposed, because, ultimately, the overflow parking is going to go to the north, even if there isn't an easement, and so there is -- there is -- there is -- there is parking available that's not in the homeowners and especially if -- if Rolling Hills becomes emergency access only. So, to me it makes -- it's one -- one area that I'm not as concerned about, so -- as according to the applicant as well, they -- the -- their traffic engineer has actually done the analysis. My guess is they are just finishing up the report and -- and they are saying that the -- the -- making the access to Rolling Hills emergency only is more of a formality and, again, this has to go to City Council as well, so there is one more gatekeeper before us. So, with that I am comfortable moving this one forward. McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Yeah. There seems to be just two major issues here and the -- the parking, if -- if it's truly about the square footage of the amenities, the clubhouse, that's all going to be used strictly by the tenants of the apartments. So, I don't -- and I agree with Commissioner Yearsley, I think any -- you know, if it's guest parking or whatever will probably flow to the north. So, I'm -- I'm okay with that. It's not -- this isn't a development that's on a --surrounded by residential areas that --where the parking is going to overflow into -- into neighborhoods so much as many others do. So, that's my issue there. I'm not concerned about that, unless somebody sees differently. Personally, I'm looking back at the minutes from December 2nd and we continued this to wait for ACHD's report. We don't have that yet. That was -- I mean that was the whole -- that was one of the big reasons. I -- although Commissioner Yearsley did make the point that it's still got to go to Council, I wish we would have that, you know, for this -- for this meeting and we don't. I would like to know for certain before I would vote to approve, that, really, the only option is Option One. I don't want to send it to Council with -- with -- with both, depending on -- and leaving that in ACHD's hands. So, that's -- that's kind of where -- that's where I'm at right now, so -- Grove: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F23] Page 19 of 50 McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I agree. We did wait for -- we wanted to wait for the ACHD report, but we did get the ACHD report, now we are waiting for a confirmation of the applicant's study and not an applicant -- not a -- not the ACHD report. So, in that regard I feel comfortable moving forward. I would say in any condition of approval, though, that that study needs to be finalized and reviewed by ACHD prior to being heard by City Council as a condition, because that -- that would inform how Council can make a decision or not. I mean if -- if the study does come back and Option Two is the only option, Council is going to have to weigh in on that anyway, because it has an enormous impact. But I would -- I would feel comfortable moving it forward with that condition that the study has to be complete and reviewed by ACHD prior to City Council. Everything else I'm pretty comfortable with. You know, I would always like to see more parking, but I don't have huge concerns with it as presented. Yeah. I think that's pretty much all I have. McCarvel: Yeah. I would tend to agree with the parking. I mean -- and whether we -- the --the numbers and the requirements include the amenity. I mean it's always included. There has always been a calculation in there for the amenity. I'm not on staff, but even I know that. I remember lots of presentations where that--that number-- or that calculation is included, because people naturally bring guests over and it is -- I mean some people live far enough away that they don't want to haul their stuff down there and they drive down there, so -- but, yeah, in this particular location I agree with having that huge parking lot that's going to be just on the north side of that road. It's much different than it butting up against another residential area or something that is already parking stressed and I would hate to see him take away from green open space to fit more in when there is going to be a huge parking lot there. As long as they don't end up putting signs up for towing that says you can't park here. So, I would encourage some cross-access there I guess. And I would agree with Commissioner Grove that before this goes to Council -- I think -- I mean I'm not a traffic engineer, so I'm not sure how long this takes and how accurate and how big of a percentage they feel that what they have -- what they are thinking is going to actually pan out, but from what I'm hearing here tonight I think it's well over 50- 50 that it's going to be a go for Option A. But, on the other hand, I wouldn't want to lock that down not knowing. So, I would -- I would tend to agree and support Commissioner Grove's idea that that all be wrapped up before it's heard by Council, so they know for sure what they are dealing with and, then, if-- you know, if it needs more, then, they can remand it back or have further discussions there, instead of us twiddling our thumbs and wondering. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. I agree. The -- I'm comfortable moving it forward as -- as far as the use or not using Rolling Hill Drive, but I do think that that final report from ACHD does need to be in and finalized, so that the answer to that is -- is known. I mean as far as the applicant, I think they have done everything in their power to go through and make sure that it is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F24] Page 20 of 50 known that Option A is the option that they want to go towards. I think that works well for everybody involved. I do agree that if there is a way for the city to converse with ACHD about this that we should definitely let them know that that is -- that's the option that everybody would like to go towards. As much as I don't like Option B, I'm still okay with moving it forward. I mean, unfortunately, we don't own the roads, so -- ACHD does. Again, I would recommend very highly that you ask for hearing from ACHD so your voice is known there, because, really, the decision is in their hands, not ours. As far as the parking, I do agree that people are going to go into that parking lot. That's where the people are going to end up. So, for this one specifically it's not that big of an issue. However, it does set a precedence and we have been here when the applicant has used precedence in order to tell us what they have been able to do or not do in the past. So, when we are splitting hairs on it, this is a way to me that a precedent has been set that could be taken advantage of. So, I'm not a big fan of that. I think there is other ways to solve the parking issue. They are not inexpensive, but they are solutions, so -- and they will fit into code and, then, it satisfies everything without really taking away anything. So, I'm a little on the fence about that one. Like -- like I said, I would rather it all fit into the code and be by the book and be done the right way, so that there is no precedent set that anybody can take advantage of in the future, because people will do that for sure. That's about all I got on it. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Allen: Madam Chair, may I clarify a couple things? In regard to the parking, the applicant did clarify that their parking calcs were a little bit off, so to my calculations I think we are only five short, somewhere in that number right now. If -- if the Commission is leaning towards allowing -- or they are okay with not -- the applicant not providing the minimum standards of on-site parking, there are alternatives in our city code to off-site parking through a shared use agreement. There are standards for that, that the applicant does have -- do have to comply with. So, it's -- it's not just a given and if that isn't an option, then, if the minimum standards aren't being complied with on the site, alternative compliance is another option, but we do have to go through those processes to approve the change, so -- Yearsley: Madam -- Madam Chair. Just --just for -- for the reference on that if we make a motion, we have to -- they have to meet the requirement or provide alternative compliance for parking. Is that not my understanding? Allen: Yes. There is a condition in the staff report right now that they provide the minimum parking spaces. If they go through the alternative -- parking standard alternatives in 11- 3-C7, they can still comply with that condition. There is no need to amend it necessarily. Yearsley: Okay. Allen: Or they can apply for alternative compliance. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F25] Page 21 of 50 Allen: But you can't -- I guess my point is is you can't just waive the minimum parking standards. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Sonya, on that would in -- in conditioning for a shared use agreement, is that what has kind of been talked about up here, is using the office parking to the north to -- to incorporate that as a shared use agreement? Is that what you are referring to? Allen: Yeah. It is a possibility. I would want to know what the parking calcs are and what's required and what's provided on that site when there is more detail on that. I'm not sure if they are to that point yet. Also as a -- as a provision of approving the parking alternatives, typically you want uses that aren't sharing the parking at the same time. With residential that's -- that's a little more difficult, because the resident -- residents could be there at any time, same time as the office employees. So, I guess before approving an alternative I would want to know exactly how much they are over and what their need is for the future office uses. Having said that, they are only five spaces short, so I don't think it's a big deal, but those are things that we would consider in that. Yearsley: So, I understand that we don't need to make a comment on that, because it's in the staff report that they meet the minimum requirements. We can't waive the minimum requirements and so they just either need to show that they meet those requirements or provide the alternative compliance. So, at that point we don't need to address that in the motion. Okay. McCarvel: Would somebody like -- do we need more discussion or would somebody like to take a stab at a well-crafted motion? Yearsley: Madam Chair, I will take a stab at this. Let me -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2021-0075 as presented in the staff report -- staff report for the hearing date of January 6th, 2022, with the following modifications: To include a new condition requiring traffic -- construction traffic to access the site from West Silverstone -- or from Silverstone rather than from Rolling Hills Drive as committed by the applicant in the last hearing. Modification to condition number A-1.G pertaining to ACHD's required off-site improvements to Rolling Hills Drive to simply require compliance with ACHD's requirements. Then also that prior to City Council that the applicant has worked with ACHD to get the revised staff report back to how Rolling Hills Drive will be improved or will be emergency access and, then, also that staff's -- or planning's recommendation to go with Option One for the emergency access only as -- as a recommendation to ACHD. Grove: Do we also need the easement to the north property? Yearsley: As the applicant stated, he is -- they are in a purchase agreement, so I don't know if they can still provide that easement. McCarvel: It think it needs to be added to the DA. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F26] Page 22 of 50 Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: That the applicant access -- needs to provide access easement to the out- parcel in the DA agreement? McCarvel: No. Yearsley: Or -- McCarvel: Provide the purchase agreement. Yearsley: Provide the purchase agreement -- McCarvel: In the DA. Yearsley: In the DA. Seal: Second. Allen: Madam Chair, may I clarify the motion, please? McCarvel: Certainly. Allen: Was the motion to -- as Commissioner Groves suggested earlier-- for the study to be completed and reviewed by ACHD before this goes to Council? Yearsley: Yes. Allen: Thank you. So, this could be a while, so the Clerk may not want to set it for -- we aren't setting a date for it tonight anyway. McCarvel: Yeah. I think the applicant has suggested it might be for -- not months, but weeks, so I think that's --yeah. It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2021-0075 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay? Cassinelli: Nay. McCarvel: Chris, do you need a roll call or did you get that? Johnson: I just need the nay. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Johnson: Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F27 Page 23 of 50 McCarvel: Okay. Then motion approved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for 1160 W. Ustick Annexation (H-2021-0092) by The Housing Company, Located at 1160 W. Ustick Rd., on the north side of Ustick Rd. Between N. Linder Rd. and N. Venable Ave. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.54 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district for the future purpose of constructing an affordable housing, multi-family residential project. McCarvel: Okay. Next on the agenda is H-2021-0092, 1160 West Ustick Annexation, and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will let anybody who is leaving just clear out for a couple of seconds. Okay. Thank you. As noted, the application -- the next application before you tonight is for 1160 West Ustick. The site consists of 3.81 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in the county and per the application name is located at 1160 West Ustick. It's near the quarter mile, but -- you know, the quarter mile and a half mile mark of -- on Ustick -- on the north side of Ustick, west of Venable, east of Linder. The applications before you tonight our annexation and zoning only. You are a recommending body on that of 4.54 acres of land, with a request for the R-15 zoning district for the future purpose of constructing an affordable housing multi-family residential project by The Housing Company. So, the discrepancy in the property size of 3.8 and 4.5 is to do -- is because of the right of way. Right of way has to go to the centerline of the road, so you have that extra area. So, again, the property is 3.8 acres. West Ustick Road abuts the site along the entire southern boundary and it is a relatively odd shaped parcel. It is widest at its west boundary and smallest at its east -- east boundary, approximately 390 feet for the west and 90 feet on the east. There are no public streets currently abutting the site, except for approximately 11 feet of right of way at the very northwest corner of the site. At the northeast corner of the site there is a relatively large residential lot -- I will go back to the maps. You can -- that's a lot and, then, you have just a corner of right of way there. The residential lot in the northeast is 3335 North Cooper Lane, that was annexed and zoned as part of the Woodburn Subdivision. That is directly north. That contains -- or sorry. That does not take access through that subdivision, but does have a stub road to their north property boundary. Instead, this property takes access via a private road easement through the subject site out to Ustick. Between this parcel and the Woodburn Subdivision and runs along the -- almost the entire northern property boundary is a common lot owned by the Woodburn HOA and contains an irrigation facility, the Lemp Canal, and is piped. It does not appear that this area is currently fenced off from this parcel. The majority of the adjacent parcels are single family residential, with the exception of the C-C property directly to the east, which, again, only share about 90 feet of frontage with shared boundary. That property, Settlers Square, recently received development agreement modification approval to include multi-family townhomes on the north half of their site, while keeping commercial pad sites along Ustick. Cross-access Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F28 Page 24 of 50 was required of Settlers Square and staff is requiring this cross-access be reciprocated and the applicant does agree with this. In general, the property is a relatively odd shaped parcel with its own set of challenges derived from previous planning decisions, its dimensions and its general location. As noted -- well, I guess I didn't know note it, but the subject site does contain two future land use designations, mixed use community and medium density residential. Mixed use community is the brown. The yellow is the medium density. Staff finds the proposed use to be in alignment with the anticipated uses in both designations. Furthermore, future land use designations are not always parcel specific when more than one exist on the same project area. In short, the city has allowed applicants to utilize one or both of the designations for their project. However, in order for the proposed 52 affordable multi-family units to meet the gross density requirements, the project must be analyzed against the mixed use community designation, because it allows dwellings at a gross density of six to 15 units per acre. To note, the proposed use for this is multi-family, so it will require a future conditional use permit in the requested R- 15 zoning district and will be subject to specific use standards in the UDC. The subject mixed use community area is located around a mid mile corridor and has minimal commercial uses currently developed. Previous applications in the area have allowed a reduction in commercial area due to the viability of commercial being -- or sorry. Lost my place. Due to the viability of commercial being lower in these mid mile locations than on the arterial intersections, like Linder and Ustick or Meridian and Ustick. Staff does anticipate that most of the remaining unannexed land to the east that is part of this mixed use community bubble will be commercial, because they directly abut Ustick Road, which the unannexed parcels are these ones here and I believe one right here. In addition, as seen on the future land use map, the area to the north of the subject parcel was specifically carved out of the MUC bubble to allow for more traditional residential uses. This choice, coupled with the existing stub street locations and the larger annexed, but not redeveloped parcels, one to the west and one to the northeast, they have created a site that cannot viably meet the fundamental goals and policies outlined in the comp plan for the previously envisioned mixed use designation. Minimal opportunities exist for shared spaces with other MUC parcels to the east and even cross-access to the C-C parcel is only attainable through 90 feet of shared property line. Because of these constraints to the site and nearby area, staff does not find it feasible for the applicant to meet all of the mixed use policies, provide additional commercial area, and should, instead, be an affordable multi-family housing project. Again, the proposed use is multi- family residential, but affordable housing. The applicant is proposing this project with a couple of notable differences from traditional multi-family seen elsewhere in the City of Meridian. First, the submitted concept plan and elevations show six-plexes and eight- plexes that are no more than two stories in height. They are accessed from one side of the building and look similar to a townhome, instead of a garden style apartment. Secondly, the applicant proposes this multi-family product to be affordable housing in the form of deed restriction rents -- deed restricted rents for the entire site. Staff finds that the specific use of affordable housing, no matter the type, is a greatly needed use within the city and is in itself its own residential use. Staff has worked with the city attorney's office to propose adequate development agreement provisions to ensure that the proposed use of affordable housing is maintained on site. Outside of the proposed use the concept plan itself should be analyzed against the Comprehensive Plan. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F29 Page 25 of 50 submitted concept plan depicts six six-plex units and two eight-plex units. The eight-plex units are along Ustick, the rest of the buildings are six-plex buildings. They, again, are all two story in height. The site is shown with a looping drive aisle due to its relative odd shape of being wider at the west end and the drive aisle has parking on both sides, with the clubhouse and playground area in the center of the project for pretty equal access by all future residents. At least three of the homes closest to the subject site in the Woodburn Subdivision on the north are two story in height. I believe there is five properties that abut it. Three of those five are two stories, the other two are single story, but they do have the common lot of the Lemp Canal between them, so there is a pretty far physical separation between their back fence and the proposed project. In addition, the applicant is showing open space directly adjacent to the single family home in the northeast that takes access via the private drive. Along the west boundary the applicant is showing a 15 foot buffer that would be adjacent to a future road extension Northwest 11th for a majority of this shared property line. The existing single family home on this adjacent property, the one to the west, is located on the west side of their lot and is approximately one hundred feet from the shared property line. So, that's overall 115 from the proposed buildings. Therefore, staff finds that the applicant has provided appropriate building massing, open space locations, and buffer widths and appropriate transition of the residential use and density to the adjacent residential uses. I would like to go --jump forward a little bit just to see the future right of way. As noted there is a small area of existing right-of-way in the northwest corner of the site -- or -- yes. Northwest corner of the site and it is for Northwest 11 th Avenue. As you can tell there is a very small area that abuts the property. Obviously, extending it into this site would make the most sense, because of the existing right of way and a potential issues with the adjacent property owner. It is anticipated that this road would be extended wholly on the property to the west, except for this sliver of right-of-way, which is this exhibit that ACHD provided and the applicant has been -- is -- has agreed to with ACHD as well. The property to the west has an additional public street stub to their west boundary from Tetherow Crossing that is currently under development. Code does call for cross-access between parcels, but because of the proposed development and the site constraints staff does not find it necessary to require a stub to the west boundary for future connectivity. Further, staff finds if a connection were to be required it would promote cross-access through the drive aisle that is meant to serve future residents of this site and would, essentially, create a thoroughfare for residential traffic through the drive aisle, rather than through a public road. Commission and Council should determine if cross-access to the west is, in fact, needed in spite of these factors. There is one existing structure on the property that appears to be some kind of concrete structure -- I don't have any pictures of it, but it will be removed upon the project development. In addition, there is existing five foot wide detached sidewalk along Ustick Road that will be protected and maintained during construction and any driveway curb cuts will also be closed in lieu of the proposed access. Initial review of the conceptual elevations depicts a six-plex building with varying group profiles and varying -- and varying materials, including stone, fiber cement lap siding, and board and batten in different layouts. The elevations also depict the tallest portion of the buildings to face inwards towards the site and helps with building massing facing both Ustick, as well as the adjacent residential properties. Access is proposed to West Ustick, which is an arterial road, via construction of a new local street segment and this is a very short Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F30 Page 26 of 50 segment. It aligns with North Blairmore on the south side of West Ustick Road, which is why ACHD wants it here. It extends from Ustick and, then, terminates at the north boundary for a total length of only about a hundred linear feet. Access to the multi-family is clearly off of this local road in the form of a driveway connection for the drive aisle. All parking and access to the proposed units are off of this drive aisle that loops through the site. As with other projects when there is a private easement that is shared on a property, that is a point of discussion and in my staff report I went into more detail, but in general the actual location does not depict it here, which is where it is. It actually is along these boundaries. So, all they are going to do is just maintain the existing easement, shift a portion of it, you know, on a private matter and, actually, pave a portion -- a portion of the dirt driveway for the existing residents. It's my understanding that this applicant and that resident have had multiple discussions and they are perfectly fine with the proposed layout for their private drive. In addition, there is a five foot wide detached sidewalk along Ustick as noted. The applicant is proposing attached sidewalks, another micro path throughout the site as seen on here with the light gray, both to the northwest, southwest and, then, along the east boundary to the future cross-access to the Settlers Square parcel for access to the future commercial uses. The -- sorry. Skipping around. In addition to the proposed sidewalks and micropaths shown on the concert plan, staff did recommend an additional pathway behind the buildings and along the north boundary to help activate the already existing open space from the Woodburn Subdivision that is the area of the piped Lemp Canal that is behind six -- or five or six existing homes over there. That area is not improved, but it is open and so staff does believe that a gravel pathway suitable for at least walking should be entered through this area on this site, so that this open space area is not walled off anymore than it already has been from the Woodburn Subdivision. The applicant has not agreed with this provision. Staff does feel like it would be an added amenity for this area, not both -- not just for this area -- this project, but also the Woodburn Subdivision that would allow them to have easier access from their subdivision down to Ustick and/or to the east. The applicant is in agreement with all other DA provisions, except -- so, again, the pathway is A-1 .1 and A-1 .13 is regarding the affordable housing component and there are some legalese type of information in that -- that DA provision and there is no need to go into too much detail at the hearing in that, but staff anticipates continuing to work with the applicant to make sure we have a shared language that we are all in agreement with as we move forward, but still allows the city to maintain that the future use will be affordable and not market rate apartments. With that staff does recommend approval of the subject annexation for an affordable housing project and after that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Dodson: I believe she's online. McCarvel: Oh. Anderson: Yes. Hi. Let me get put up here. Hello. Greetings. I'm Erin Anderson. I live at 2238 North Astaire Way in Meridian and I am with The Housing Company and the applicant. We have a presentation that -- I'm not sure if it's automatically going to be Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F31 Page 27 of 50 loaded or if I should load it. Dodson: You can share your screen, Erin, if you would like. Anderson: Okay. Again, I would thank you for your time, Madam Chair and Commissioners. This is a really exciting opportunity for us. As I mentioned, I do live in Meridian, but I -- I don't think that the City of Meridian is familiar with The Housing Company and since Mr. Dodson did such a thorough job of describing the nuts and bolts, really, from a planning and design standpoint of our project, I'm going to do a little bit of background on our company and also a little bit more information about affordable housing, because there seems to be a lot of interest in learning more about what we mean by that. So, The Housing Company is a nonprofit organization that started in 1990 with the mission to address the concern of inadequate supply of affordable decent rental housing within the state of Idaho and recently we are also developing in adjacent states. We play an active role in bringing affordable housing resources to the areas of the states that are not being adequately served. Through local public and private partnerships we have been able to bring creative housing solutions to areas struggling with insufficient housing. Our role is to partner with local government and other interested parties to solve local housing needs. We have developed more than 800 units in 2,000 affordable rental communities. The Housing Company provides professional on-site property management services for our affordable apartment communities serving low income families, seniors, and the disabled. We own our properties in the long term and take pride in building an asset for the community that will stand the test of time. We are able to put together complex financing in order to make these housing communities a reality. Our newest developments to the subject property are Moon Valley Apartments in Star, Nampa Duplexes and Hazel Park in Caldwell. We also have Canyon Terrace in Nampa and Sunset Landing in Caldwell currently under construction. A common question that I receive is what is affordable housing? What do you mean by that? There are a number of affordable housing programs. The most common one is utilized to pay for new construction, which is a surprise to many people is actually an IRS program, not a HUD program, and it's called Section 42 of the Housing Tax Credit. It's not the same as what people think of as subsidized housing or Section 8. With this program a private investor, such as a bank or insurance company, will actually become a partner in the project and provide equity to the project in return for ten years worth of federal tax credits and with -- with that equity we are able to keep the rents lower in perpetuity. Residents must be income and program eligible. The rent that a Section 42 resident pays is based on a fixed rental fee for the unit size that is lower than the average market rent in the area. So, it doesn't adjust with their income as their income goes up or down, they initially qualify and, then, once -- once they initially qualify they are set with that fixed rate. It is difficult to identify which rental properties participate in the Section 42 programs, because they look like just any other apartment building. We require income verifications, criminal background checks, credit checks, student verification and household composition verification. A common myth is that people who live in affordable housing won't fit in my neighborhood. But the fact is that people who need affordable housing already live and work in your community. In Meridian the average two bedroom rent costs 1 ,842 dollars, according to rent -- rent.com. This is a staggering 43 percent increase from last year. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F32 Page 28 of 50 The rent affordable at the median renter income, however, is around a thousand dollars. So, there is a very significant gap. Access to safe affordable homes builds a strong foundation for families and even hardworking Idahoans often lack good housing options. This is a chart that kind of just shows a potential resident profile, a few different scenarios, ranging from a single person in a customer service job who needs a one bedroom apartment at 741 dollars, to a single mother with two children that's a cashier that needs a two bedroom of 946 dollars, to a four person household that needs a three bedroom at 1,089 that might work in the food -- food service industry. These are a couple images of the quality level that I'm talking about when I say that people are surprised that it's affordable housing. This is The Springs Apartments in McCall, Idaho, and, then, this is a collage of photos of Moon Valley Apartments in Star and this is the elevations that were provided and the overall design concept is -- is based on this design and we are working with the same architect on this project that we did with Moon Valley. Mr. Dodson did a great job of going over a lot of the details as to the flow of the site and connectivity, but I think I just want to make it clear that with our neighborhood meeting and the comments that were received I think it was -- I would just want to stress the importance that we wanted this to really be a moderate -- moderate -- not a high density development. We wanted to keep it to two story buildings for two reasons. One, to fit in with the neighborhood and as well as really for fire access reasons two stories is much preferred. We provided the pedestrian connections along all corners of the site and we worked with -- in initially looking at this site, meaning that one of the most unique challenges of this site is that there is a single family residence with access through the site. The good news is that their existing easement does run where our proposed Cooper Lane is. In reviewing our title work we were pleasantly surprised to find that out, so -- so, essentially, we are just moving it to where it wasn't -- it was recorded ten years ago and so the site really -- you know, it does have -- it's an in-fill development. There are so many positive things about in-fill development, because the connectivity to the neighborhood, the access to Settlers Park, the fact that it's a walkable community, but, of course, you know, it's not ideal in terms of-- there is -- people who can't get -- it's in-fill, so we don't have the option to do everything on all sides of the property that -- that would be in an ideal planning situation and so what we have done is the very best we can with all the comments between ACHD and the fire department and city staff that we can do to make this a functional and comfortable housing community of 52 units that fits in with the neighborhood context and I think Mr. Dodson also went over kind of the importance of the exterior design appeal or the building height with various heights and fenestrations for interest and quality finishes. Our overall timeline involves this first step of zoning and annexation, which is required before we can even apply for any funding for the project. We also are going to be required to submit a CUP and a certificate of zoning appropriateness and I would anticipate that would run us through February and March and, then, we will have a variety of funding applications between January and August, depending on the final determination of sources available for this project. We plan on submitting a building permit application sometime this summer and, then, closing on financing and construction start between July and October of this year hopefully. If not then it might move into spring of next year, depending on funding availability. This really is the first step in the entitlement process. I think we have this -- these details about the affordable housing and the rent structuring typically don't come up this early, but we are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F33 Page 29 of 50 really excited to be able to share what we do. Very passionate about it personally and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks. McCarvel: Do we have any questions for the applicant or staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Erin, thank you for all that and kind of interesting to -- to learn. You mentioned that there is on-site management. Is that -- can you -- Anderson: Yeah. Cassinelli: Is that 24 hours? Anderson: It would not be 24 hours necessarily. Sometimes we are able to have a resident manager, but I'm not sure if we will have that in this case. If it's not 24 hours as a resident manager there would be set office hours. The clubhouse has an office space for that manager and, then, there will also be on-call emergency maintenance phone number for people to call for situations that are after hours. Cassinelli: So, they are there to kind of make sure that the property is maintained and -- Anderson: Exactly. Cassinelli: Okay. Anderson: Exactly. We would typically have about two part-time jobs with this size of project -- a part-time property manager and a part-time maintenance person. Seal: Madam Chair? Excuse me. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Quick question on the -- it looks -- looking at your website it looks like two of the three local developments that you have are age restricted. Would this fit into that as well or is there going to be no age restrictions on this as far as a senior living community? Anderson: Currently I'm envisioning this not having age restrictions, mostly because I feel like there is a huge need -- a huge need in all ages and I think that we would really benefit by having an opportunity for both seniors and younger people alike to live in this housing community. I think there is -- there is a demand for both, frankly. It's just that I feel like there is a higher demand for non-age restricted affordable housing. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F34] Page 30 of 50 McCarvel: Thank you. Anderson: Yep. McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Madam Chair. Thanks. Erin, could you speak to the condition that Joe mentioned with the gravel pathway and your feelings towards that? Anderson: Sure. I can pull up this site plan, but the main concern we have is how close that path is going to be to the building, to the -- you know, the residential building. It's I think seven feet away or -- or something is what we estimated. It's very close. So, it's going to feel -- especially since it's public pathway it's going to feel really really close to those residential buildings. That was the first issue. The other was a cost-related item. I -- I got an estimate of about 8,000 dollars for that gravel pathway, which isn't terrible, but everything that we are doing, you know, is trying to whittle down gaps, instead of the other direction, and so that's --that's why we are asking for your consideration. But I think the main issue that I have with it primarily above cost is the proximity to the building. McCarvel: Thank you. Any other questions? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have got one -- a couple here for -- for staff. Joe, can you -- it sounds like that you are making some -- or wanting to make some adjustments for the fact that this would -- for the proposed land use and that -- that being the affordable housing component there. So, what -- can you maybe give us an idea of what differences that that you are approving this under that -- under that observation versus if this were just a standard 52 unit in-fill project? And, then, also a couple other questions I have. What's -- can you go in a little bit more detail about Cooper Lane and is that going to go all the way-- all the way into the existing subdivision? And, then, also -- I don't know if we talked about parking in this. Dodson: Great questions, Commissioner Cassinelli. I will hit the parking one first just because it's easier and you said it last. I believe it is -- let me share my screen, actually. What am I doing? Here we go. They actually do have it on their site plan, which I do appreciate. It would require one hundred spaces based on the unit count and the number of one bed, two bed, three bedrooms. They are proposing 115. So, that also -- they did this without doing the amended code that says one space for every ten units for guests. So, again, that would be 105.2. But 105. So, they are exceeding that. They are meeting their minimum covered parking. I imagined some of the parking issues would come up. I do see a couple spaces where they have some landscaping specifically here that they would probably fit two more spaces in there and maybe one more here that would still be able to meet there -- our code doesn't allow more than 12 in a row without a planter island. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F35] Page 31 of 50 So, they have some space to include a couple more if they need to. Again, maybe even another one or two here. Not overly concerned with the parking there, but they are --that would be handled more specifically with the future CUP, which you guys would hear. But tentatively I think they are going to be fine. Cooper Lane is -- there is -- again, there is a stub street on the north side of that property. You can kind of see it here and this road would line up with -- their property boundary -- this house eventually -- or this road is going to have to meander around the house or the house is going to have to get demolished eventually, but, yeah, the reason why ACHD -- instead of just having a curb cut for a drive aisle for the multi-family is wanting this as a local road is so that the future extension would just go straight up to the north and there would be another avenue for those in Woodburn to exit out to Ustick, other than just Venable. So, that is, you know, future planning for the roads there. Back to your original question. To be clear, I'm -- the proposed project I did not analyze down to the tee about the amount of open space and the parking counts and all that, again, because we are just at annexation, but my preliminary stuff is that they meet all of their dimensional standards -- they are going to meet all their dimensional standards, so any discussion that I have had about affordable housing versus market rate, the two things that I kind of -- I don't want to say relaxed on or anything, but the two things that I am saying that affordable housing is better than requiring them would be probably cross-access along the west, you know, and extending a public road to the site. Even if it was market rate I don't necessarily know if I see a public benefit to that. It would just eat up so much of the site and is it necessary when that road is also going to connect up to the west when they have an access to Ustick there and the other people -- and, again, the only people that would be using it would be Woodburn Subdivision. They are going to have another one in the future to the east. Secondly would be the overall discussion of the Comprehensive Plan and that mixed use community area. Again not a major difference between looking at it affordable versus market, but I would probably be more inclined to -- to say there needs to be some kind of commercial component if it was market rate apartments. Again, I can definitely make the case either way. I think that there is a massive need for affordable housing and so that -- that outweighs the need for commercial space along Ustick. So, it's a give and take with that. It's not that I am in no way waving anything or saying they don't have to comply with anything, they are complying with everything in my opinion, it's just apples and oranges when it comes to meeting the comp plan in those terms. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I have got a follow-up question for him on that. Can you also address -- 11 th Avenue to the west there, so in lieu of cross-access is that --that will feed -- do you have a -- is there a larger map of -- similar where you could see -- is that -- is 11 th going to be internal or is there -- is that going to open up to Ustick at all? Dodson: There is a connection to Ustick Tetherow Crossing -- or will be once it's fully constructed. They have a stub street to their east boundary, which is this property boundary -- the west boundary of this site. So, the -- this is showing that they are going to dedicate right of way. This would continue down the shared property line here. Probably head west and have a nice L of sorts in the -- in that property. You can build homes on both sides and, then, that would connect out to Ustick, yes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F36 Page 32 of 50 Cassinelli: Okay. So, from that standpoint there is -- there is access through the subdivision of the north and what's going in on the west to -- Dodson: Yes, sir. Cassinelli: -- to Ustick. Ustick -- this isn't going to -- and this won't be landlocked or anything? Dodson: Correct. No. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Question for staff. So, the applicant said that if they put in a ten foot gravel path that would make it to where it's about seven feet away from the backside of the complex there. Is that a true statement? Dodson: It would be a five foot pathway, not a multi-use. So, just be a regular five foot pathway. Theoretically if they put it right up against --yes, because they only are showing a 12 foot buffer. They technically have some physical room to shift everything south and create more space along the north boundary. I do under that that would be in lieu of losing some of that open space and I don't -- I haven't seen a rear elevation of these, but I'm assuming there is probably some back patio space that might be technically reduced from the green space perspective if we shifted those units to the south, but, again, I -- I don't want to fight to the death over that pathway, but I do think it would be an overall good amenity, not just for this project, but also the Woodburn Subdivision on the -- in the north to be able to have another avenue of accessing Ustick that they currently don't have because of the existing development and future connectivity to the commercial to the east. Again, they do have some physical space to make some of that work and increase that separation of seven feet if they did it right along the north property boundary, but if Commission and -- and future Council it doesn't seem that that's a good idea in lieu of losing some of that green space along Ustick, then, I -- I understand that finding as well. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: You're welcome. I hope that wasn't too much of a political answer. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? We will open up to public testimony and I understand the sign-up sheet is not in the back, so if there is anybody in Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F37 Page 33 of 50 the room or online that wishes to testify on this application, please, raise your hand. Okay. All right. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Dodson: Sorry. Real quick. I did want to note. I didn't put it in my -- my staff report -- my presentation. It's been a long year already. The -- there was no written testimony as of about 6:00 p.m. So, I just wanted to note that. There is no for or against the project. McCarvel: Does the applicant have any further comment? Anderson: No, other than just to point out that we did contact the parks and rec department regarding that path and they felt that the pathways that we have internally through this site provided adequate pedestrian access across the site, But -- and, again, in the grand scheme of things that's probably a pretty minor -- minor issue. Just wanted to point that out and just wanted to thank Mr. Dodson for his help in this and the presentation and I wish I could be there in person. Just wrapping up the end of a COVID quarantine. McCarvel: We appreciate you staying on Zoom then. Anderson: Yeah. McCarvel: Any other questions before we close the public hearing for H-2021-0092? Could I get a motion to closed the public hearing for H-2021-0092? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2021-0092. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I like everything about this, so I agree that there is a -- there is a need for this, so I like where it's at. I mean it's kind of a little off the beaten path. I would like to see the path go in. There is a piece of land that's on Linder that abuts the school and when they went in we did have them do a ten foot paved path that goes along the northern boundary of these properties, so in anticipation of connecting two properties all the way to follow Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F38 Page 34 of 50 that canal down into Ustick Road, so in the grand scheme of things it would cost money to put it in, but it also costs less money to maintain it, since it's, essentially, gravel. It doesn't have to be mowed. And it would provide for, you know, better access I think for anybody that's on a bike or walking up to those schools. So, I would like to see that go in. I do agree with the staff report on that one. Everything else about it I really like. I like that they limited it to two stories, not three stories. I mean there is a -- there is a need. I mean if we are going to go through the three story or four story and almost be in a place like this, I would like to see it. That said I'm appreciative that they did go with the two story just to blend in a little bit better. It looks like parking is adequate. Amenities are adequate. And, you know, they -- they met everything that we were asking them to do here. McCarvel: Yeah. I -- I like this project. I think going three and four stories, then, you start into parking issues and I think anytime you can have this where it feels and blends in more with the community and its surroundings, the better it is. I applaud the architecture and the surroundings on that. I'm -- I'm on the fence about the paths. I will give -- just because it does come so close to the back of those buildings and I hate to see them scrunch that in, because I think a little -- that little bit of openness in this community will be nice. But I can -- I can see the need. I will be with Joe and give the most political answer I can give and see both sides, but, yeah, I think being seven to ten feet away from the back of the buildings is a little tight, but other than that I like it. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I will -- I will go ahead and make a motion, unless other people wanted to weigh in, but I would just say I like that we are -- we have this product coming in. I think that it balances out some of the other things that have been going in. We definitely have a need. I personally don't -- don't think the pathway is needed, but if it stays I -- I wouldn't fight for it either way, I guess. But I -- I personally don't see a need for it as much. There is plenty of other options, either going through or around this, so I'm going to make a motion to remove that. But I did have a question before this. With the one that you said we didn't really need to talk about, but they brought up was the A-1.1 Is there anything that we need to condition in regards to that condition? Dodson: Commissioner Grove, A-1.1 is the pathway one, but A-1.13 is the affordable housing component. But, no, there is no need to make anything. Mr. Starman and I will continue working with the applicant to massage that language to make sure, you know, by the time we get to Council and after Council we have it all buttoned up and in agreement for everybody. McCarvel: Yeah. I would agree that -- I mean I think it's the position of this Commission that we do like to see this stay classified as affordable housing, because this seems to be done right. Yeah. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F39 Page 35 of 50 Dodson: Agree. Yeah. There is just I think a few hiccups on some of the language in it and the way that they will do the -- the rents versus what we put in the original provision and, again, it's just a wording thing. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Before a motion is made I got another question for staff. Is -- is the path -- is that something that could be -- that they can work with the -- the HOA that -- was it Wood -- Wood something there to the north and -- and put that on the -- can it be even put on that -- the easement -- over the piped lateral there? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, I called that out in my staff report is I would love for them to work with that HOA and try to get that open space area more activated. So, yes, I mean you could modify the condition and say, you know, work with the adjacent HOA and, if not, keep it along the north boundary. Sure. Absolutely. Cassinelli: Okay. Grove: Making notes. You all good? McCarvel: We are good, unless Mr. Yearsley raises his hand. Yearsley: I have no comment. Grove: All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend to the City Council file number H-2021-0092 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 6th, 2022, with the following modification: That condition A-1.1 is modified to have the applicant work with the HOA to the north on relocating the pathway as listed to the lateral. Johnson: Madam Chair, my apologies. Commissioner Grove, I think you left out the word approve or deny. We didn't get a verb there. Grove: Oh. Approve. Do we have that in where ever I said it? Do you want me to do it again? McCarvel: No. We can put it in there. Grove: Thank you. Johnson: That's perfect. Thank you. Seal: I will second that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F40 Page 36 of 50 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval for H-2021-0092 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Would the Commissioners like a five minute break? (Recess: 7:58 p.m. to 8:06 p.m.) 6. Public Hearing for Friendship Subdivision (H-2021-0083) by Mike Homan, Located Near the Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Rd. and E. Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.058 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 7 common lots. McCarvel: All right. We will resume with H-2021-0083 and we will begin -- Friendship Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This is Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner, City of Meridian. Okay. This is an application for an annexation and zoning to R-8 and preliminary plat for 41 lots. The property is located south of Chinden and west of Locust Grove. The Brookdale Estates Subdivision is to the west, which is here. The High -- and that's zoned R-2. The Hightower Subdivision is to the east. That's here. That's zoned R-8. The Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, which is down here, is zoned R-4. There is an existing church that is located here. This property was proposed for annexation and zoning to R-8 in a plat for 48 lots. That was the Bull Ranch Subdivision. That was proposed in 2015. That was subsequently denied by the Council with density being cited as the primary concern. This property is recommended for medium dense -- or excuse me -- designated for medium density residential, which is eight to 12 dwelling units per acre. This application is for annexation of just a little over ten acres of land with the R-8 zone district and a preliminary plat, like I said, to allow 41 building lots and seven common lots. North Elk Ranch Road, if you can see my pointer, if I'm not doing it too quickly, this is a private road and it presently provides access from the subject property, which right now is a house, which is here, to Chinden Boulevard. This subdivision proposes to connect to three existing local streets, which already stub at the property. So, one of them will be East Lockhart Street to the west. That would be here and you can see it down here, but I will show you on the plat here. East Lockhart to the west, East Tallinn to the east. This is from here. And North Senita to the south, which is down here. They are also providing a stub to the church to the north, just in case that property develops in the future. The Uniform -- Uniform Development Code states that when a property has an existing access from a state highway and an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise require Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F41 Page 37 of 50 access to a street other than the state highway. In this case they already are showing three existing accesses and one stub. As a condition of approval staff recommends the applicant vacate all the interest in North Elk Ranch Lane, which, again, would mean they could no longer use it for access, again, because the property already has three existing points of access and will have a fourth. The plat shows the North Slough is bisecting the property at approximately a 45 degree angle. That's what you see here. There were some discussions about how it was going to be rearranged, but we have worked it out and the owner will reconfigured this toward the northwest corner of the property. This will be coordinated with the irrigation district. The applicant has submitted elevations of the single family home for this project. These homes appear to meet design requirements for single family and they are consistent in general with the architecture of the existing surrounding residences. Staff has expressed several concerns in the staff report. Two of these included -- well, first one was including removing a lot at the south to be more consistent with the lots in the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision No. 2 to the south. The other concern was for the applicant to reconfigurable Lots 1 through 10, Block 1 , along the eastern perimeter, so that the property lines will align with the lots in the subdivision to the east. The applicant submitted plans today which show a lot has been removed from the south and that's when I showed you the arrows, if this makes sense. So, this is what was -- this is what you saw on the staff report. There were four lots down here. This is what you see today. So, they have taken away one of those lots and they have moved that lot up to here, which was previously open space. When I go to here you will be able to see the difference with the open space exhibit. So, the one on the left where you see Block 3, that was the open space before. What you are seeing there on the right is now the second open space, because this new lot has been moved here. So, they did increase the lot sizes on the south to be more consistent with the adjacent subdivision, but it also decreases the open space from almost 15 percent to a little more than 12 percent. Now, the -- under the current code that's in effect now they would be required to provide 15 percent open space, but this came in at the time when only ten percent was required. So, they are still slightly over what they would have been required had they -- when they submitted under the previous code, but they are under what would be required under today's code. As of this morning staff has received one letter in opposition and this was from the property owner-- or from one of the developers of the property to the west. This was concern in regard to the amount of properties that are being zoned R-8. They were proposing that it would be more appropriate to be zoned to R-2. About the lots to the east. And I will back up so you can see these. One of our concerns were all of these lots onto the east, the way that they line up with the property here, they are slightly offset. It's not a deal killer, but staff's concern with that is that, first of all, the fence lines would be really kind of weird and it would also make the ownership kind of funky, because it wouldn't -- you wouldn't be able to just logically figure out where your property ownership is, so they are slightly offset. Staff has mentioned that was a concern to the applicant. The applicant is moving forward with the configuration as is. I will leave it to the Planning Commission to decide if that is an issue to them or not. But with that this plat does meet all the requirements of the UDC. It is consistent with the designation of the Comprehensive Plan. They have met the minimum requirements for the open space and the amenities. With that, then, staff recommends approval with the conditions that are in the staff report. We would support the site plan that they submitted today. But, again, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F42 Page 38 of 50 we think that the lots to the east should be configured with the lots next to them. With that I'm done and would stand for any questions or comments. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like come forward. Tiefenbach: Oh, sorry. I was just -- I was just corrected and sorry about that. I did make a typo. The density there is three to eight dwelling units per acre, not eight to 12. That was my bad. I just missed that in my presentation. So, they are still within their designation. It's a little on the high side, but three to eight is what they are allowed, not eight to 12. So, I stand corrected. McCarvel: Thank you. Canning: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Joe Canning and I'm with Centurion Engineers in Boise, Idaho. 5505 West Franklin Road. And I am here tonight with the applicant Mike Homan and we may share part of this presentation if he thinks I missed something. So, we will see how that goes. So, Mike is here. I just wanted to briefly note the staff report. Thank Alan for his efforts on this. I must admit that in an effort to react to the staff's suggestions in the original staff report we have been pushing stuff around here the last couple of weeks and with the holidays it's been a little bit tough, but he did get the correct or current layout in the presentation tonight, so we appreciate that. And we have to apologize, it's been a little hectic here lately, so my apologies on that. And Alan did mention -- I think the two things that were in the staff report that were particular issues for us. Number one was delete the lot along that sound boundary in that southeast corner. However, we agree with that. The other issue was the lot lines along that east boundary, getting them to align with the lot lines to the project to the east and I will discuss that a little more later. I did want to comment on the comp plan designation. The comp plan designation is for medium density residential, which is three to eight -- eight units per acre. We are proposing 41 units at about 4.1 units per acre. So, we are actually at the low end of the comp plan designation for that medium density residential and I think it's worth a moment just to talk about the property to the north. The Friendship Celebration Lutheran Church is there. The comp plan has that designated as an MUC. It's currently in the county. If annexed and further developed the project will probably come forward as a mixed use of maybe R-15, R-40, and commercial. I think that's kind of key to the use in this project that we are proposing tonight and how we try to transition from the existing neighborhoods up to what could happen to the north and even if it doesn't develop there are some significant open areas to the north of this project that are the church's, of course, but certainly be a benefit to the Friendship Subdivision occupants. And the other important thing I think I need to note here is that there is a Settlers Irrigation District lateral through here. That slough. That has a notable impact to the site design. Actually, it's a quite large impact to the site design. There is approximately 1,200 feet of pipe necessary to relocate that lateral. That's 36 inch pipe. It's reinforced concrete. It's a considerable expense to the project. And it did lay out some of the goals of what we tried to do when we did the layout for the subdivision, such as -- some of those -- we wanted to place those in a minimum of 30 foot common areas, because Settlers has told us they want a minimum 30 foot easement for that pipeline. So, all of our goals -- we tried Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F43 Page 39 of 50 to put that pipe in at least a 30 foot common area. We wanted to place it near the street. We have had issues in the past where laterals had to be torn up in backyards and neighborhoods. Rather large pipe. It's a heck of a mess. A war zone. If this pipe would ever have to be replaced its access from the public streets is, in my opinion, huge. It really helps the future use of that lateral maintenance by the crews of the Settlers Irrigation folks. It's a real asset to the operation of that lateral. And the goal was to minimize utility crossings. That's part of why we picked the common areas as we did. There is only one sewer crossing -- a private sewer service that has to go to that existing house that will cross that lateral. The main lines will cross under it and all the services are going to avoid it. That was a huge -- a huge part of the impact we had on the design to the project. The staff report issues, transitions of lots size, this is where I get back to the two comments in the staff report that we did -- we were concerned about. One was to remove one lot at the southeast corner of the project. We agree with that. We did that and that's the layout that Alan showed you tonight. However, we did move that lot to the interior of the project by that cul-de-sac at the southwest corner. The other issue was aligning the lot lines along the east side of the project with existing lot lines to the east. We were a little puzzled by that comment. The structures that are east of us are rather large. They take up almost all the width of the lots. Our first thought was, actually, an offset property line may be better, because at least the occupants of Friendship would have a little corridor that they can see down on the buildings from the east. However, the main driving factor was the Settlers Irrigation lateral. If we didn't line up those lot lines to the east, the common area that's to the east of us along that south road -- it's only -- it's less than 20 feet wide. One of our goals was to maintain a 30 foot easement minimum for the Settlers. That's why we have that large -- rather large common area on the south side of that road along the side of the project was to make for sure that that irrigation lateral relocation and would not interfere with any of the homes that could be built within Friendship. So, I think the real issue with the comp plan is compatibility of -- of neighborhoods and they have 9.5 lots adjoining our property. We have nine building lots. So, I think it -- I think it's quite compatible and I just wanted to mention that this is a little bit of a difficult site to develop. The cost of that irrigation lateral is signified and not that cost is a matter or an issue for approval of the subdivision, but it certainly is to make it possible to develop. That's one of the main reasons we opted just to move that one lot from that southeast corner back into that open space. There is more than adequate open space for the project to meet the code when it was submitted, so we are really trying to maintain those 41 building lots. It's quite important to the success of this -- of this project. Construction costs are through the roof. I can't even imagine right now what it's going to cost to put that 1,200 lineal feet of 36 inch pipe in, but it's going to be quite significant. A few other things. There is an existing pathway on the west boundary near the southwest corner. It comes over from the subdivision from the west. Of course, we are going to connect to that, bring it into where our cul-de-sac is. We are posing a new pathway to the church property at our northwest corner. To be honest, part of that is to cover the irrigation lateral --the irrigation lateral runs in that area, but, once again, the goal is to make sure it was in a common area. Friendship Subdivision is surrounded by development. It's, essentially, an island in the city that could provide much needed housing to the area. We believe we have proposed a quality style of project that will help fill the need for housing. We respectfully hope that the Commission supports the annexation and zoning and preliminary plat and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F44 Page 40 of 50 with that I will end. I don't know if Mike wants to add anything. Apparently he is okay. So, I would stand for any questions of the Commission. McCarvel: Any questions for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Seal? Seal: Madam Chair, yeah. Just -- what are the amenities that are being provided with this? Canning: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, I hadn't looked at the landscape plan for a while, but there are some -- I believe there is some picnic areas proposed. There are, of course, some pathways proposed that will be going in. Those are the primary amenities. Tiefenbach: Mr. Seal, I believe that there is a -- there is a playground or like a tot lot, a picnic table, and a bench. That was my understanding. Canning: Yeah. I think you are right, Alan. There is a tot lot with the -- with the -- with the picnic area. Correct. Seal: Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Canning: Thank you. McCarvel: Do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Chris, we have Caleb running to the back of the room, but do you have anybody online? Johnson: Madam Chair, we had nobody sign up in advance. There are some people in Zoom that if they want to raise their hand if they wish to speak. McCarvel: Okay. We have one person on the list here that's indicated a need to testify. It's Mike Homan. Okay. That being said -- so, we -- do you have some on Zoom that have raised their hand? Johnson: Madam Chair, nobody's raised their hand, but there are people watching, so just wanted to tell them if they do wish to speak they can raise their hand. McCarvel: And is there anybody in the room that wishes to testify on this application? Okay. Come forward. DeGrazia: Hi. I'm Karen DeGrazia. I live at 6297 North Rosa Springs Avenue in the Hightower development. I have a question. Why are they rezoning it from an R-4 to an R-8? That's my question. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions -- any other -- anyone else wishing to testify online or in Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F45] Page 41 of 50 the room? Okay. With that would the applicant like to come forward? Oh, Alan. Tiefenbach: I was assuming that the Commission was quite versed to be able to answer that, but just to clarify, this is being annexed. The property is not in the city at present, so it's not being rezoned from R-4 to R-8, it's being annexed into the city from county zoned property and being zoned to R-8. McCarvel: Okay. Does the applicant have anything to add or do we have questions for the applicant? Canning: Madam Chair, I don't really have anything to add. I would be more than happy to answer any other questions. McCarvel: Any other questions or do we have a motion to close the public hearing? Seal: Madam Chair, just one question. I know you made the -- you're meeting the minimums for what used to be, but you are not there for what is now, so -- you know. And I'm not looking at anything extraordinary that I would give you a pass on for today's standards, so would you be willing to get rid of that -- that house that you moved in order to increase the common area and -- Canning: I think I would have to direct that to the applicant, rather than myself. Mike. McCarvel: Yeah. I would pile on, since we are chatting about that. I mean at least some significant -- something other than a tot lot. I mean something significant in that open space, since it is minimal, if not removing that lot. Homan: Mike Homan. 6820 West Randolf Drive, Boise, Idaho. 83709. What was your question, sir? I'm sorry. Seal: My question was on the -- the common space and, basically, it meets the requirements of what was, not what is. So, if I was looking at something today that was, you know, essentially, on the requirements of today I wouldn't give this a pass, not meeting the 15 percent, much less we are down to 12 percent. So, instead of adding that lot back in that was moved over to Block 3, Lot 8, there, would you be willing to forego that, so that the common space meets the 15 percent requirement of today? Homan: When we did that, you know, it was at ten percent. That's what we negotiated the property for. Then we got this huge ditch that we got a pipe -- concrete pipe and that. It's been a really challenging site to do for an in-fill and we were thinking we would be about right in the center half of -- you know, to what -- we are at about 12 -- between ten and 15 percent and, then, we were going to do a tot lot and, then, picnic tables and have some features in there and, then, again, to the north is that church. We even named the subdivision -- we had a really good meeting with them and we named our subdivision Friendship and stuff. So, it's a tight project to do and if I didn't have to do that big pipe would just say, yeah, one lot is nothing, you know, to lose, but we are really tight on this. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F46 Page 42 of 50 1 would like to keep it if I could, to answer your question. Seal: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Yeah. Would you have any thoughts on some other significant amenity, instead of just a picnic table or -- Homan: We would look at adding, you know, more to that, if it was something -- McCarvel: To make it substantial. Homan: Yeah. McCarvel: Any other -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: And this is -- this is more for staff. Why -- since this project is -- is still at this stage, why -- first of all, when did it switch from 15 to ten? And why are we looking at the old requirements versus the current requirements when -- when we are not even approved yet? Tiefenbach: Caleb would know the date that it actually was approved, because he's smarter than me and he was here and, secondly, generally when you make an application before the new code goes into effect we have to review it under the old standards, not the new standards. This was submitted before that happened. When the pre-app had started it was before the new -- the new code was in effect. Caleb, do you remember when it was passed? Was it July'ish? Time moves fast here. Hood: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, no, it wasn't that long ago. It was just this fall, so -- but, yeah, as Alan stated, you are vested with the laws that are in effect when you submit the application, not when you get to hearing. So, they have been in the queue and are reviewed against the plans -- laws in effect at the time of submittal. So, that's why the discrepancy there between the ten and 15 percent. I can find the -- the exact date that it went to effect, but, yeah, it was just this fall. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Thank you. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0083? Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F47 Page 43 of 50 McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0083. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I will step up. I understand the applicant's plight of having to install the drain, but I still like the idea of having that 15 percent open space and losing that lot. I don't know, I just -- I -- it's for me it's still fairly dense and having that one lot and having that open space to me makes it more palatable. McCarvel: Yeah. I guess I'm concerned a little bit more about the open space than I am about aligning those lots on the east. I think -- I mean those look fairly tight anyway from what's on the other side of it and I would -- I would hate to see them try to finagle those even tight -- the ones on -- on their side that tight. Yearsley: Madam Chair, I agree. I think you would end up having to lose a lot there to make those line up and -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Yearsley: -- I would prefer to keep -- maximize my open space than to try to have the lots line up. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm more appreciative of them losing the lot on the south side and making that fit in better with what's on the south. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I would like to see a little bit more in terms of how this lays out with where the amenities are going, what's going on, and I'm going to say something that I don't think I have ever said in the two plus years or whatever I have been on here. I -- I -- I think I would almost rather see this be R-4 than R-8 in -- in how it's laid out, just because it's landlocked, but -- McCarvel: All right. That's it. It's not a rally. Grove: -- I don't know. I have some issues with the general layout and I don't know how to describe it quite yet. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F48 Page 44 of 50 Cassinelli: I will go with the easy one. I don't have a problem with the east property lines lining up. I -- in my subdivision -- internally in my subdivision I don't line up and I actually like -- I can see between the houses when I look out my backyard. So, I think that's a -- that's a plus and I don't think it's a -- there is any negative to not lining up, other than if everybody chooses a different fence style it's a little weird, but that's the easy one. I understand that the -- the density wanting to transition into the mixed use community on the -- on the north and to the -- to the east. That entire -- with the exception of the R-2 there that's right next to it, everything else surrounding it is R-4. It almost makes sense to -- to maybe look at it as an R-4 for that reason, just because -- and -- and the other thing is I look at -- if Council -- and, granted, it was a different Council at the time, but if Council didn't like the -- the R-8 before -- I mean we are only -- we are talking seven lots in there, you know, would they -- would they like it at this. So, it's odd to me why maybe they didn't come back as an R-4, as opposed to that. And, then, with regards to the open space, I guess we can -- I guess, you know, it was ten percent, so that's -- that's I guess how we have to look at it. I would, however, want to see more when it comes to the amenities. I don't think a tot lot and a picnic table is -- and in a couple paths are enough, frankly. So, I would want to see more there. I would like to see that -- that one lot -- I -- personally I would like to see some of the lots on -- I'm not looking at the layout of it right now, but I would like to see the -- the -- maybe the lots on the -- on the north -- maybe some open space up there, because those are pretty tight up there. That's how I would look at it. McCarvel: I know that they are trying to get the open space to -- you know, where that pipe is running, but it seems like the open space is real close to all the bigger lots and it would probably be more useful -- Cassinelli: Well, if they kept that one that they have moved over there and, then, opened up something along the -- it looks like it's Block 5 up there. I'm not sure. But one of those -- you know, those lots up there, if they open up one of those for some more common space up there or I would be willing to trade -- trade that -- again, I would like to see a little bit lower density in there, but I would trade off better amenities for the same open space. I just -- I don't -- I don't think the amenities are -- are strong enough. I don't know what that looks like, but I would want to see an improvement there. Oh. And I did have a question for staff. The house -- the existing house that's there -- is Elk Road -- Elk Ranch Road is gone all together? Is that house not going to take access off the -- off Lockhart? Tiefenbach: Correct. Conditional approval of this is that they vacate the entrance, so the house -- the existing house would no longer be able to take access from Chinden. Cassinelli: Okay. Tiefenbach: They would have to -- they would have to vacate their interest in that easement. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F49 Page 45 of 50 Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: This is one of those -- I like to call this a have your cake and eat it, too, because it seems like the house -- the remaining house that there is kind of selling the land around it. I don't know if that's the case here, but it seems that way. So, you know, trying to have your cake and eat it, too, here, so -- the layout is -- to me it looks like they are taking all available land and trying to put everything that they can on it and the open space is just an afterthought. So, I think it's unfair to the people that are going to have to live there. know they put some thought into where the sewers are going to run and I understand there is a huge expanse in -- in piping that ditch, but at the same time it just -- you know, it's unflattering, basically. It just looks like it is done to maximize the return on investment and there is just not a lot going for it after that. I mean it's basically just going to be a place for people to park their cars and, you know, more garage farms. So, I don't know if it's appropriate at this time for where we are at. I know -- you know, I mean compared to 2015 1 know we have a lot higher tolerance for a lot more density, just because the way the city is growing and so I mean it's not multi-family, you know, or we would probably have a fleet of people in here arguing this. So, I just don't think that it's -- you know, it's -- I don't think it's maintaining that kind of premier atmosphere that we are trying to do -- you know, get for Meridian, so -- you know, Meridian in and of itself is landlocked. There is no more land out there that we are going to accommodate. So, what we have we have to do it and we have to do it right and I just don't think this is -- this is it. McCarvel: Comments? Motion? Yearsley: I'm just amazed that my fellow Commissioners -- I'm always up for R-4. Yeah. Over R-8. So, I'm just kind of amazed that my fellow Commissioners have made that comment, so I'm very supportive of an R-4. Cassinelli: So, do we continue this and -- McCarvel: If you are going to -- we have to reopen -- Cassinelli: We would have to reopen -- McCarvel: Yeah. Let's reopen. Need a motion to open H-2021-0083. Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to open H-2021-00083. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F50 Page 46 of 50 McCarvel: Would the applicant like to come forward. Homan: Mike Homan. 6820 West Randolph Drive. Mike Homan. I would -- would agree to lose one lot. You guys could decide where it was best to lose the lot. Your idea to the north was -- you know, kind of had more -- some space over there. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I would prefer not to redesign this here -- McCarvel: On the fly. Yeah. Grove: I would say we either continue or deny, but trying to sit up here and design and figure out which lot to remove doesn't make sense to me. McCarvel: I -- yeah. I would say probably have it come back with a little more -- some thought on making it usable open space and not just open space as a buffer to the existing home. I think that's what we are seeing. And I think that's where the hang up is. If you are going to have the subdivision, you know, built out it needs -- the amenities need to benefit this subdivision, not just be a buffer to the existing house. Yeah. Homan: What about if it was approval subject to -- you know, where I agreed to lose one building lot and leave it up to City Council? McCarvel: Yeah. I just -- I'm guessing -- I don't -- not thinking you're understanding. It's not just about losing one lot, it's about making this open space functional and usable to the subdivision. Am I -- am I saying that -- I don't want to put words in my fellow commissioners' mouths, but -- Seal: I think you have said it eloquently. McCarvel: Okay. Homan: With that extra lot that I would take out, remove, I would be in compliance, believe, with your 15 percent. Yeah. So, what I'm saying is with agreeing to drop another lot for common space, I should be in compliance with your new ordinance, with the 15 percent, and with an in-fill piece --this is a challenging site. It had that ditch going through there. We had an existing house. It's a pretty nice home, it's not a scraper house, or -- and we are just trying to work with what we can work with and I think if we left it up to City Council to -- you know, we will agree to drop a lot and, then, submit to Alan some plans with a -- you would have a chance to review them and so this wouldn't be the final say. City Council would have a chance to review it and Alan would again and -- we are just really tight on time as -- on our purchase agreement. So, we would like to keep it, you know, moving forward, but agree to make a concession and lose another lot if -- it's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F51 Page 47 of 50 financially tight, but as -- anyway, I will agree to that if that helps at all. Seal: Madam Chair, it sounds to me like -- I mean I think we are kind of all on the same page, so if the applicant wants to gamble with City Council I think we can move it forward with a denial and he can take his chances with City Council. Homan: It would be nice to have an approval. There -- you know, a recommendation. would -- maybe can we leave it up to City Council has another say so on it and staff -- Alan's going to be there for the City Council thing saying that we have, you know, worked out it. McCarvel: Yeah. You know, we are -- just we are the recommending body and we are kind of here to have staff and the applicant and the public and everybody's opinions kind of come together and we try to clean it up real nice, so it goes to City Council with everything worked out, but I'm thinking we are kind of not on the same page here about what we are asking for as far as the open space and not just being one less lot. It's about being functional open space and so if -- you know, if you are not wanting a continuance to bring it back to us, we can recommend denial and the reason for our denial and, then, you can take that information and move forward to City Council and, you know, if you have changed a few things that you think meet what our denial reason was, then, City Council may take a look at that and -- and say, okay, yeah, they -- he met the spirit of what Planning and Zoning was thinking or they may have their own -- I mean, yeah, we are just -- it's a recommending and so if we deny it we will give a reason why and so if you fix that reason by the time you get to Council, if you are on a tight time frame, then, that's -- that's kind of where we are at. Otherwise, we can recommend a continuance if you want to bring back a different design, but I think if your thought is you are just going to lose a lot somewhere, I think that's really not what we are asking for. Homan: What would meet your new ordinance, you know, with the 15 percent and we can put some thought to work with Alan where is the best place, because we don't really -- we want to do the best thing for the subdivision and get some input and so we are agreeing to do what you guys want, we would just like the opportunity to work it out with Alan before our City Council thing and not have a denial on our thing and that's -- and try to do the best we can with the circumstances on the property that we are working with and sometimes it's challenging with ditches and other stuff. But I would be willing to really work with you guys if you give me a chance to. McCarvel: Yeah. And a denial doesn't mean that we are not -- you know, that you don't have the chance to work with it. It certainly gives you -- it gives City Council our thoughts and definitely you would have a chance to fix it and move on. Homan: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Do we have any other questions for Alan? Tiefenbach: Hi. Ms. Chair, but not for long, and Members of the Commission, even though she is tenured and she will be here forever. Just a quick note for the applicant, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F52 Page 48 of 50 probably, is if this does get continued we are talking -- and I will have to defer to Chris, but the second -- the next one in January is totally full -- McCarvel: Yeah. Tiefenbach: -- and February I think is filling up. So, we are talking about, you know, at best the first week in February and I will defer to Chris Johnson if we can even make that hearing. McCarvel: Right. I mean -- Tiefenbach: Because it has 15 days in advance to get the plans to you. So, you know, it's not going to be quick. More than a month. McCarvel: Yeah. I think at this point, then, based on the applicant's preference to keep moving forward in his timeline, I would think it would be best to move forward with a denial and recommendations on why we are denying -- why we are recommending denial and that would give him the opportunity to fix it and let City Council go on from there. Seal: Agreed. McCarvel: Okay. So, at this point, if we have no more questions for staff or the applicant, we need to close the public hearing on H-2021-0083. Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close public hearing on H-2021-0083. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of the City Council file H-2021-0083 as presented during -- during the hearing on January 6th, 2022, for the following reasons: So, that they can provide more open space and more functional open space that is integral to the subdivision and, then, is better suited for R-4 and not R-8. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommended denial of H-2021-0083. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F53 Page 49 of 50 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 7. Election of 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson McCarvel: Okay. We have one more item on the agenda. No, we are not done. We will address this one. I would love to nominate Commissioner Seal as president for the 2022 -- Cassinelli: I will second that nomination. McCarvel: -- Chairman. Cassinelli: I will second that. Yearsley: I know-- I think you have done a great job in filling in, Commissioner Seal, and I think you would be a great Commissioner -- Seal: Thank you. Appreciate that. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend Commissioner Seal as our new chair. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: I don't get a vote? McCarvel: Nope. Yearsley: Well, you can, but -- McCarvel: You can, but you have been outvoted. Johnson: Madam Chair, can you repeat who made the motion? I put down Commissioner Seal made the motion and I'm sure that's not correct. I want to get that correct on the record. McCarvel: Former Chair McCarvel made the motion. Johnson: Thanks. McCarvel: Former Chair McCarvel would also like to move that Commissioner Grove be the new vice-chair. Seal: Second. Cassinelli: Third. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 6,2022 F54 Page 50 of 50 McCarvel: And Commissioner Grove does not get a vote. Yearsley: Man, this is awesome. This went very fast. I'm -- I'm -- I'm excited about it. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to vote Commissioner Grove as Vice-Chair for 2022. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move we adjourn. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: And third. It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. Everybody say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:51 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 1-20-2022 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 3 E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the December 16, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 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 Changes to Agenda: th  Item #2: Apex West Subdivision – PP (H-2021-0087) Requires continuance to Jan. 20 due to the proof of public hearing notice sign posting not being submitted to the City within the required time frame prior to the hearing.  Item #3: Ten Mile RV Storage – RZ, MDA (H-2021-0090) – Applicant requests withdrawal of application. Item #4: Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments (H-2021-0075) nd The Commission continued this application from the Dec. 2 hearing in order to get ACHD’s report to understand what’s going to happen with Rolling Hill Dr.; to allow more time to address the issue with the out-parcel at the north boundary of the site which will be an enclave if this property is annexed; and to work on enforcement of no construction traffic on Rolling Hill Dr. The most recent draft report issued by ACHD earlier today states ACHD is supportive of the Applicant’s request for sole access to the site to be provided from the west via Silverstone Way/Overland Rd. with emergency access only via Rolling Hill Dr. if an updated operational analysis is submitted for the intersection of Silverstone/Overland Rd. ACHD will determine if restricting the site’s access to Rolling Hill Dr. to emergency only will be acceptable based on the updated analysis & District Policy. If determined acceptable, no additional off-site improvements will be required to Rolling Hill Dr., including traffic calming measures; a cul-de-sac will be required to be constructed at the terminus of Rolling Hill Dr. If determined not to be acceptable or if the Applicant chooses not to restrict access to Rolling Hill, the Applicant shall be required to restrict Rolling Hill Dr. on Overland Rd. to right-in/right-out only, construct passive traffic calming measures on Rolling Hill Dr., improve Rolling Hill with 24’ of pavement, 3’ wide gravel shoulders & a 6’ wide concrete sidewalk on one side of the road within existing ROW, construct a min roundabout at the terminus of Rolling Hill Dr. & enter into a CDA to replace the crossing over the Five Mile Creek. The Applicant would be restricted to Phases 1 & 2 (residential) of the development & may not proceed with Phase 3 until the existing residential properties on Rolling Hill Dr. are purchased and annexed into the City with commercial zoning. When there are no remaining residential homes on Rolling Hill Dr., ACHD may reclassify this roadway as a collector or commercial road & require additional improvements at that time. Since the last hearing, an updated concept plan was submitted for the MFR development that depicts 20 extra parking spaces along the driveway at the northern boundary of the site. These spaces could serve as guest parking but don’t meet the requirement for off- street parking as they are “on-street”. The ACHD report also expresses concern pertaining to adequacy of available parking proposed in the MFR portion of the development & the potential for overcrowded on-street parking on Rolling Hill Dr. as ACHD Traffic Services has received several complaints about overcrowded on-street parking in the City with new apartment complexes. The report states it appears there are more tenants per apartment unit causing parking issues on adjacent public streets near apartment complexes due to lack of affordable housing. For these reasons, Staff recommends the minimum amount of parking required for the use is provided internal to the development (a minimum of 11 additional spaces are needed). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the following changes to the staff report:  Include a new condition requiring sidewalks to be widened to 7’ where parking abuts sidewalks to allow for vehicle overhang if wheel stops aren’t provided in accord with UDC 11-3C-5B.4;  Include a new condition requiring construction traffic to access the site from the west via Silverstone Way rather than from S. Rolling Hill Dr. as committed to by the Applicant at the last hearing.  Modification to condition #A1.g pertaining to ACHD required off-site improvements to Rolling Hill Dr. to simply require compliance with ACHD’s requirements. Application(s):  Annexation, Preliminary Plat & CUP Location: This site is located on the south side of I-84, ¼ mile east of S. Eagle Rd., north of E. Overland Rd. History: A small portion of this southwest portion of this site was previously annexed with the development to the west and zoned C-G. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: Annexation of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district; Preliminary Plat (PP) consisting of 2 MFR building lots & 6 commercial building lots on 29.7 acres of land; and CUP for a MFR development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. There is a 14’ wide sliver of land that exists to the north of the eastern portion the site adjacent to I-84 that is not included in the proposed subdivision, which appears to previously have been part of ITD ROW for I-84 that was sold off as surplus ROW. Staff has determined it to be an original parcel of record, which deems this property eligible for development without that parcel. The Applicant is attempting to obtain the parcel and include it in this development. However, if this doesn’t happen, there will be an undeveloped enclave with County zoning surrounded by City annexed land with no access and likely no maintenance of the property if this property is annexed. Access exists to the site via S. Rolling Hill Dr., an existing local street that serves the rural residential properties to the south; and via 2 driveway accesses from the west which provide access to Silverstone Way, a collector street, & the signalized intersection at Overland Rd. Rolling Hill Dr. is not improved to urban standards (it’s narrow, lacks street lights & doesn’t have curb, gutter and sidewalk). ACHD may require off-site improvements to Rolling Hill Dr. which may include widening of the street in certain areas, traffic calming, and pedestrian facilities; City Staff is recommending street lights are installed. The Ridenbaugh Canal exists along the east boundary of the site; the Applicant is requesting a Council waiver to allow the canal to remain open & not be piped. No connectivity to this property exists from the SFR development to the east. The MFR development contains a mix of studio, 1- and 2-bedroom units on 16 acres of land. Staff is recommending this property is annexed with R-40 rather than C-G zoning as proposed – the Applicant is in agreement. The gross density of the development is 24.8 units/acre, which is consistent with that desired in the MU-R designation. Common open space & site amenities are proposed in excess of the minimum UDC standards. The Applicant has requested alternative compliance to the private usable open space standards as noted in the staff report – the Director has approved a 20% reduction to the minimum standard. Off-street parking does not meet the minimum UDC standards – 660 standard parking spaces are required, including 348 covered spaces & 14 spaces for the clubhouse; 649 spaces are proposed with 391 of those being covered in garages/carports, which includes compact spaces (compact spaces are discouraged but may be used for parking above the minimum required). Additional parking is required to meet the minimum standards. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for the (2) 5-story office buildings, (4) 4-story MFR buildings and the fitness and leasing buildings for the MFR development. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: Pam Haynes, adjacent property owner in Rolling Hill Sub. – concern pertaining to the volume of traffic this project will generate on Rolling Hill Dr. – requests the terminus of Rolling Hill Dr. at the southern boundary of this site have bollards to block off traffic but that would provide emergency access to the site. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the addition of a new condition requiring sidewalks to be widened to 7’ where parking abuts sidewalks to allow for vehicle overhang if wheel stops aren’t provided in accord with UDC 11-3C-5B.4; and a condition requiring construction traffic to access the site from the west via Silverstone Way rather than from S. Rolling Hill Dr. as committed to by the Applicant at the last hearing. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0075, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 6, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021- 0075, as presented during the hearing on January 6, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0075 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #5: 1160 W. Ustick Annexation (H-2021-0092) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.81 acres of land, zoned RUT in the County, located at 1160 W. Ustick Road (north side of Ustick, between the ¼ and ½ mile marks). History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Community and Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.54 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district for the future purpose of constructing an affordable housing, multi-family residential project, by The Housing Company. The project site includes two future land use designations: Mixed-use Community is shown on a majority of the site with Medium Density Residential being shown on the west quarter of the site. W. Ustick Road abuts the site along its entire southern boundary and it is a relatively odd shaped parcel— The property is widest at the west boundary and smallest at the east boundary, approximately 390 feet versus 90 feet, respectively.  There are no public streets abutting the site except for approximately 11 feet of right-of-way at the very northwest corner of the site for NW 11th Avenue.  At the northeast corner of the site a relatively large residential lot exists (3335 N. Cooper Lane) that was annexed and zoned as part of the adjacent Woodburn West Subdivision to the north but does not take access through that subdivision. Instead, this property takes access via a private road easement through this subject site to Ustick.  Between this parcel and the Woodburn subdivision and running along the entire northern boundary is a common lot owned by the Woodburn HOA which contains the piped Lemp Canal (not currently fenced off from this parcel).  the majority of adjacent parcels are single-family residential with the exception of the C-C property to the east that shares approximately 90 feet of property boundary. This property, Settlers Square, recently received Development Agreement modification to include multi-family townhomes on the north half of their site while keeping commercial pad sites along the Ustick frontage. Cross-access was required of Settlers Square and Staff is requiring this cross-access be reciprocated (Applicant agrees).  In general, the property is a relatively odd-shaped parcel with its own set of challenges derived from previous planning decisions, its dimensions, and its general location. The proposed use for the subject site is multi-family residential which is a conditional use in the requested R-15 zoning district and is subject to specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-27). However, the Applicant is proposing this project with a couple notable differences to traditional multi-family residential seen elsewhere in the City of Meridian. First, the submitted concept plan and conceptual elevations show 6-plexes and 8-plexes, no more than two-story in height, that are accessed from one side of the building and look similar to a townhome instead of a garden style apartment. Secondly, the Applicant proposes this multi-family project to be affordable housing in the form of deed restricted rents for the entire site. Staff finds the specific use of affordable housing, no matter the type, is greatly needed within the City and is essentially its own residential use. Staff has worked with the City Attorney’s office to propose adequate Development Agreement (DA) provisions to ensure the proposed use of deed restricted housing units is maintained. As noted, the subject site contains two future land use designations, Mixed Use Community (MU-C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). Staff finds the proposed use to be in alignment with the anticipated uses in both designations. Furthermore, future land use designations are not always parcel specific when more than one exists on the same project area. In short, the City has allowed Applicants to utilize one or both of the designations for their project site. However, in order for the proposed 52 affordable multi-family units to meet the gross density requirements, the project must be analyzed against the MU-C designation which allows dwellings at a gross density of 6-15 du/ac. The subject MU-C area is located around a mid-mile corridor and has minimal commercial uses currently developed. Previous applications in the area have allowed a reduction in commercial areas due to the viability of commercial being lower in these mid-mile locations than on the arterial intersections. However, Staff anticipates most of the remaining unannexed land to the east that is part of this MU-C bubble will be commercial because they directly abut Ustick Road which drastically increases the visibility of future businesses. In addition, as seen on the future land use map, the area to the north of subject parcel was specifically carved out of the MU-C area to allow for more traditional residential uses. This choice, coupled with the existing stub street locations and large annexed outparcels adjacent to the site, has created a site that cannot viably meet the fundamental goals and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan for the previously envisioned mixed use future land use. Minimal opportunities exist for shared spaces with other MU-C parcels to the east and even cross-access to the C-C parcel to the east is only attainable through 90 feet of shared property line. Because of these constraints to the site and nearby area, Staff does not find it feasible for the Applicant to meet all of the mixed-use policies, provide additional commercial area, and should instead be an affordable multi-family housing Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0092, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 6, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021- 0092, as presented during the hearing on January 6, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0092 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #6: Friendship Subdivision (H-2021-0083) Application(s):  Annexation, Zoning to R-8 and Preliminary Plat for 41 lots. Location: This site is located south of Chinden and west of Locust Grove. The Birkdale Estates Subdivision is to the west (R-2), the Hightower Subdivision is to the east (R-8) and the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision (R-4) is to south. There is an existing church on RUT zoned property in the County directly north History: This property was proposed for annexation, zoning to R-8 and plat for 48 lots as the Bull Ranch Subdivision in 2015 (AZ 15- 013, PP 15-017). This was subsequently denied by the Council with density being cited as a primary concern. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential 8-12 du/acre Summary of Request: Annexation of 10.06 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat to allow 41 building lots and 7 common lots. N. Elk Ranch Ln., a private road, presently provides access from the subject property to E. Chinden Blvd. This subdivision proposes to connect to three existing local streets which already stub at the property – E. Lockhard St. to the west, E. Tallin St. to the east, and N. Sanita St. to the south. The plat also provides a stub street to the church property at the north in case some or all of this property redevelops in the future. UDC 11-H-4 states when a property has an existing access from a State Highway and an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the approach shall be abandoned and removed. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant vacate all interest in the N. Elk Ranch Ln. private street, as the property already has three existing access points from local roads. The plat shows the North Slough is bisecting the property at a 45-degree angle north to south being relocated and piped in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6. According to an exhibit provided by the applicant (this ditch is being reconfigured toward the northwest corner of the property. This reconfiguration effort should be coordinated with the irrigation district. The Applicant has submitted elevations of the single-family homes for this project. The single-family homes appear to meet design requirements for single-family homes and are consistent with the architecture of existing surrounding residences. Staff expressed several concerns in the staff report. Two of these included removing a lot at the south to be move consistent with the lots in the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision No 3 to the south. The other was for the applicant to reconfigure Lots 1-10, Block 1 along the eastern perimeter so the property lines align the lots in the Hightower Subdivision to the east. The applicant submitted plans today which show a lot removed from the south and moved over adjacent to the open space in Block 3. This increases the lots sizes for the lots abutting Saguaro Canyon to the south, but also decreases the open space from 14.6% to 12.8%. The applicant has not agreed to reconfigure the eastern lots to better align with the Hightower Subdivision. Written Testimony: As of this morning, staff has received one letter in opposition. Concern expressed is the amount of R-8 zoning that is occurring, and this property would be more appropriate to be zoned for R-2 as is the Birkdale Estates to the west. Staff Recommendation: As the plat meets all requirements of the UDC and is consistent with the density designation of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff development. Outside of the proposed use, the concept plan should also be analyzed against the Comprehensive Plan. The submitted concept plan depicts six (6) 6-plex building and two (2) 8-plex buildings, all two-story in height and the 8-plex buildings only proposed along Ustick. The site is shown with a looping drive aisle due to the odd shape of the parcel that has parking on both sides and the clubhouse and playground area in the center of the project. At least three of the homes closest to the subject site are two-story in height. The Applicant is also showing open space adjacent to the single-family home to the northeast taking access via a private drive. Along the west boundary, the Applicant is showing a 15-foot buffer that would be adjacent to a future road extension (NW 11th Avenue) for a majority of this shared property line—the existing single-family home on this adjacent property is located on the west side of its lot, approximately 100 feet from the shared property line. Therefore, Staff finds the Applicant has provided appropriate building massing, open space locations and buffer widths, and appropriate transition of residential use and density to adjacent residential uses.  There is one existing structure on the property that appears to be a large concrete structure. This structure will be removed upon project development. In addition, there is existing 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along Ustick Road that will be protected and maintained during construction.  Initial review of the conceptual elevations depicts a 6-plex building with varying roof profiles and materials including stone, fiber-cement lap siding, and board & batten in different layouts. The elevations also depict the tallest portion of the buildings to face in towards the site which appears to minimize the building massing facing adjacent properties.  Access is proposed to W. Ustick Road (arterial) via construction of a new local street connection at the very southeast corner of the site in alignment with N. Blairmore Way on the south side of W. Ustick Road. o The submitted plans show this new road to extend from Ustick and then terminate at the north property boundary to be a total of approximately 100 feet in length. o Access to the multi-family residential buildings is proposed off of this new local street segment in the form of a driveway connection on its west side. o All parking and access to the proposed units are off of this drive aisle that loops through the site.  As noted, there is a small area of existing right-of-way for NW 11th Avenue abutting the subject site at the very northwest corner. It is anticipated this public road would be extended wholly on the property to the west except for the sliver of right-of- way aforementioned (see exhibit to the right). The property to the west has an additional public street stub to their west boundary from Tetherow Crossing Subdivision currently under development. Code calls for cross-access between parcels but because of the proposed development and site constraints, Staff does not find it necessary to require a stub to the west boundary for future connectivity. Further, Staff finds if a connection were to be required, it would promote cross-access through parking drive aisles meant to serve the future residents of this site; this would create more of a thoroughfare for residential traffic through this drive aisle that is intended for parking and access to the multi-family units. Commission and Council should determine if cross-access to the west is needed for this property in spite of these factors.  A 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is existing along W. Ustick Road. The Applicant is also proposing attached sidewalks and other micro-paths throughout the entire site. The proposed sidewalks and micro-paths will be analyzed against UDC dimensional requirements with the future CUP application. o In addition to the proposed sidewalks and micro-paths shown on the concept plan, Staff is recommending an additional pathway along the north boundary to help activate the approved open space from the Woodburn Subdivision that is the area of the piped Lemp Canal directly behind six (6) existing homes. Staff believes a gravel pathway suitable for at least walking should meander through this area of the site so this open space area is not walled off any more than it has been by the Woodburn Subdivision. Applicant does not agree with this provision.  Applicant is in agreement with all DA Provisions except VIII.A1.b and VIII.A1.i Written Testimony: None as of 3pm today. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject Annexation IF the project is developed as an affordable housing project. Notes: recommends approval of the requested annexation, zoning and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in the staff report, which still include lining up the lots on the east. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0083, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 6, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021- 0083, as presented during the hearing on January 6, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0075 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 6, 2022 Item #4: Rackham East AERIALZONINGFLUM Conditional Use Permit–Eagle View Apartments Annexation & Preliminary Plat; – Annexation Boundary Preliminary PlatLandscape Plan Conceptual Development Plan for Overall Site Site/Landscape Plan Phasing PlanConditional Use Permit (Updated)– Open Space Exhibit Site Amenities Pedestrian Circulation Plan Conceptual Building Family -Multi–Elevations Fitness buildingFamily Development -MultiLeasing building Office Buildings Conceptual Building Elevations Item #6: Friendship Subdivision AERIALZONINGFLUM 8 and Preliminary Plat-Annexation, Zoning to R BeforeAfter BeforeAfter E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Item 2. 32 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from December 2, 2021 for Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments (H-2021-0075) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the south side of I- 84, % mile east of S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2) multi-family residential building lots (i.e. Lots 1-2, Block 1) and six (6) commercial building lots (i.e. Lots 3-8, Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. Item 2. F33 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: January 6, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from December 2, 2021 for Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments (H-2021-0075) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the south side of I-84, 1/4 mile east of S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2) multi-family residential building lots (i.e. Lots 1-2, Block 1) and six (6) commercial building lots (i.e. Lots 3-8, Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : January 6 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4 PROJECT NAME : Rackham East/ Eagle View Apartments ( W2021 - 0075 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name G - 2 3 _ / � �s s /Zvll , n Hill Al 4 5TT 7 - ; � �a � 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 2. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING January 6,2022 Legend DATE: Continued from:December 2, 2021 p,a t Lccfl Dior 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner f{ 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0075 - Rackham East—AZ,PP Eagle View Apartments—CUP,ALT LOCATION: South side of 1-84, 1/4 mile east of S. Eagle Rd.,in the south 1/2 of Section 16, T.3N.,R.IE. 1 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation(AZ)of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning district; Preliminary Plat(PP)consisting of two(2)multi-family residential building lots(i.e. Lots 1-2,Block 1)and six(6) commercial building lots(i.e. Lots 3-8,Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land; and Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. Alternative Compliance is requested to the following UDC standards with the CUP application: • UDC 11-3A-19B.3,which requires no more than 50%of the total off-street parking area for the site to be located between building facades and abutting streets,to be allowed due the site design which enhances usable site amenities by placing them internal to the development with parking mostly on the periphery of the site; • UDC Table 11-3C-6,which doesn't include off-street parking standards for studio unit apartments,to allow the parking standards for vertically integrated residential to apply; • UDC 11-4-3-27B.3,which requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space to be provided for each unit,to allow zero(0) for studio units(0% of the standard), 54- 60 square feet(s.£) for 1-bedroom units(67.5%-75%of the standard) and 58-85 s.£ for 2- bedroom units (68%-106%of the standard). II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 25.76-acres(AZ);29.7-acres(PP); 15.94-acres(CUP) Page 1 Item 2. 35 Description Details Page Existing/Proposed Zoning R1 and RUT in Ada County(existing)/C-G(proposed) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Uses) Vacant land(formerly single-family homes) Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial(mixed use)and multi-family apartments Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 8 buildable lots(2 multi-family&6 commercial)/O common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase(plat);2 phases(CUP) Number of Residential Units(type 396 multi-family apartment units of units) Physical Features(waterways, The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the east boundary of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) site. m Neighborhood meeting date;#of 3/3/21 —6 attendees;and 9/1/21 —7 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) None _ B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was submitted. es/no Access One access is proposed via S.Rolling Hill Dr. from E. Overland (Arterial/Collectors/State Rd.to the south;and two driveways will provide access from the Hwy/Local)(Existing and commercial development to the west via S. Silverstone Way from Proposed) E. Overland Rd. (a signalized intersection exists at Silver stone/Overland) Traffic Level Of Service All road segments are projected to meet ACHD's acceptable level of service(LOS)thresholds for a 5-lanes principal arterial road under all conditions,except for during the PM peak hour for the segment of Overland Road between Eagle Road and Silverstone Way and Rolling Hill Drive under the 2023 total traffic conditions. Stub Two(2)driveways will be extended into the site from the west Street/Interconnectivity/Cros boundary. S.Rolling Hill Dr.will stub at the southern boundary s Access of the site. Existing Road Network S.Rolling Hill Dr.,a local street,extends from the south from Overland Rd.to the north boundary of the site. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are no existing arterial streets on or abutting this site. Buffers Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(Cli Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Improvements The intersection of Overland Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the CIP to be widened to 1� 7-lanes on the north and south legs, and 8-lanes on the east and west legs, and reconstructed/signalized in the future.The design year is listed as 2025 in the IFYWP and the is listed to be improved between 2031 and 2035, • Overland Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes from Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road between 2036 and 2040 and is listed as unfunded. • The intersection of Cloverdale Road and Overland Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes on the north and south legs and 9 lanes on the east and west legs and signalized between 2026 and 2030. West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) • Capacity of Schools Page 2 Item 2. F36 Description Details Pg _ • #of Students Enrolled Approved prelim Approved MF plat parcels per units per Miles Enrollment Ca aci attendance area attendance area �oa.wsawon Pepper Ridge Elementary S42 675 313 360 1.6 Lewis S Clark Middle School 896 1000 774 1331 IS Centennial High School 1946 1900 443 1358 4.9 School of Choice Options Christine Donnell-Arts 499 S00 N/A N/A 5.3 Spalding Elementary-STEM 657 750 N/A N/A 1.5 • Predicted#of students 40+/- generated from proposed development Police Service • Distance to Police 2.7 miles Station • Police Response Time Meets response time goals • Calls for Service 3,400(in RD `M752')—between 10/16/19 and 10/15/21) • %of calls for service %of P3 CFS 2.9% split by priority %of P2 CFS 76.0% %of P1 CFS 19.9% %of PO CFS 1.39/. • Accessibility • Specialty/resource needs • Crimes 185 (RD—M752—between 10/16/19 and 10/15/21) • Crashes 224(RD—M752—between 10/16/19 and 10/15/21) • Other MPD can service this area if approved.For more info,see: https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLinkIDocView.awx?id=241 580&dbid=0&re o=MeridianCi &cr-1 Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.25 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • Do not have a sewer stub to the south on Rolling Hill Dr. These properties will be serviced from Overland Rd. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan Page 3 Item 2. F37 Description Details P • Impacts/Concerns The development needs a second connection to water. There are two options to do so;either connect to Overland Rd via S Rolling Hills Dr or connect to the northwest existing 16"water main. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 0 Legend Prc.�ect Lacai�on � F•o-SC- Loco�ar. IN :.L84 MU-R IR C iv.io ilaa, ' -jo!. e a Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend Legend Prc}eot LacafKi r Prcject Lcca=ar _ x + i City Linlh LSO — Planned Parcels .AN I� CPR. --1 IG R � a RU TL A. Applicant: Brighton Development,Inc. 2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owners: BVA Rolling Hills No. 1,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 4 Item 2. ■ C. Representative: Josh Beach,Brighton Development,Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian, ID 83642 III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 11/16/2021 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 11/12/2021 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 11/22/2021 Nextdoor posting 11/12/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) Land Use: The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R). The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3D (pg. 3- 17). The Applicant proposes to develop the site with office(and possibly some secondary retail uses) and multi-family residential uses. The site is located near S.Eagle Rd. and E. Overland Rd., a major arterial intersection, and the Eagle Rd./I-84 interchange. The proposed offices will provide nearby employment opportunities and services for residents in the vicinity. Other commercial uses(offices, entertainment,multi-tenant retail,hotel, etc.)exist to the west in the larger MU-R designated area for a larger mix of uses as desired in MU-R designated areas. Pedestrian walkways are proposed for interconnectivity within the overall area. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed-Use areas, per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-13): (Staffs analysis in italics) • "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone." The proposed development includes office and multi family residential(i.e. apartments) which will add to the variety of uses planned in the larger MU-R designated area to the west consisting of office, retail, entertainment and hotel uses. • "Where appropriate,higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69." The proposed multi family high density development should provide housing options in close proximity to nearby employment uses located along SH-SS and I-84. Page 5 Item 2. 39 • "Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed-Use designation." A conceptual development plan was submitted with the proposed annexation application for the subject property that's located within the MU-R designation. A Development Agreement that ties future development to this plan and the general guidelines for mixed use developments and specifically the MU-R designation is recommended as a provision of annexation. • "In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space." The conceptual development plan depicts a common area between the two office buildings that appears to meet this guideline; more details should be submitted on a site plan submitted for development of these buildings that comply with this guideline. • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." Multi family residential uses are proposed on the southern portion of the site adjacent to existing rural residential properties as a transition and buffer to commercial office uses on the northern portion of the site.A 25 foot wide landscaped buffer with dense landscaping is also required in the C-G zoning district along the southern boundary of the site to residential uses. Staff also recommends a 6-foot tall sight obscuring fence is constructed along the southern boundary of the site as an added buffer to adjacent rural residential properties. • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools,parks,daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." No such uses are specifically proposed in this development—the tenants of the office buildings are unknown at this time; however, St. Luke's hospital and medical offices are less than a mile away to the northwest of this site. • "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries,and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count." An outdoor gathering area is depicted on the conceptual development plan between the two office buildings on the northern portion of the site. Details should be submitted with development of these buildings that demonstrate compliance with this guideline. • "Mixed use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi- public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered." The proposed conceptual development plan depicts a plaza/gathering area between the two office buildings on the northern portion of the site.A pedestrian circulation network, which will connect to the larger 90-acre Eagle View/Rackham development to the west, is proposed around the perimeter of the overall development as well as throughout the site that provide pedestrian connections to the multi family development, office, retail, restaurant and hospitality uses within the development. Page 6 Item 2. 40 • "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." The proposed development is directly accessible to residents in Rolling Hill Subdivision to the south by vehicle via S. Rolling Hill Dr. There are no pedestrian pathway stubs to this site from the adjacent residential development. S. Rolling Hill Dr. is currently a substandard street and lacks pedestrian facilities;ACHD is-r-erpuiritg may require off-site improvements with this application consisting of a sidewalk along one side of Rolling Hill and possibly pavement widening if access via Rolling Hills isn't restricted to emergency access only. The Ridenbaugh Canal provides a barrier between the subject property and the residential development to the east; no vehicular or pedestrian connections exist across the canal to this site. Staff recommends pathway stubs are provided at the southern boundary of the site near the west and east boundaries of the site for future extension upon redevelopment of the properties to the south for pedestrian connectivity with adjacent developments. • "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types." A 25 foot wide densely landscaped buffer and a driveway is proposed along the southern boundary of the site as a transition and buffer between existing rural residential properties and the proposed high-density multi family residential development. • "Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town,development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein." The subject property is not located in Old Town; therefore, this item is not applicable. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-R areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pgs.3-16 thru 3-17): • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas. Staffs analysis on the proposed project's compliance with these guidelines is included above. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. The total development area consists of 29.7 acres; the multi family residential portion consists of 15.94 acres, which is 53%of the site in accord with this guideline. Multi family apartments are proposed at a gross density of 24.8 units/acre, which falls within the desired density range. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area. A mix of non-residential commercial uses will be provided on 47%of the development area in accord with this guideline. Retail uses are expected to comprise only a small portion of the development. Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development,the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development(beyond the allowed 50%), Page 7 Item 2. 41 based on the ratios below: • For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say,if there is a one-acre library site planned and dedicated,the project would be eligible for two additional acres of retail development. • For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park,tot-lot, or playfield,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area,the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. • For plazas that are integrated into a retail project,the developer would be eligible for a 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point(such as a fountain, statue, and water feature), seating areas, and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half-acre plaza,the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. This guideline is not applicable as no public/quasi-public uses are proposed in the MU-R designated area on this site. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services." (3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Urban services are available to be provided upon development. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed commercial uses should be compatible with existing and future commercial uses to the west and the proposed residential apartments should be compatible with existing residential uses to the south. • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The proposed mix of residential and office uses will provide opportunities to live and work in close proximity. The existing and planned office, retail and entertainment uses to the west will provide nearby shopping, work and play opportunities to enhance livability and sustainability. • "Encourage the development of supportive commercial near employment areas."(3.06.02C) Ancillary retail uses may be provided in the proposed office buildings; no stand-along retail uses are proposed on the site. However, retail/restaurant uses are anticipated in the multi- tenant building(s) within the development to the west. • "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A) The conceptual development plan depicts a pathway within the street buffer along I-84. The pedestrian plan included in Section VITH depicts internal pedestrian walkways throughout Page 8 Item 2. ■ the site for safe and convenient access. • `Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available to this site and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response times for Police Dept. and Fire Dept. meets the established goals. • "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.)."(3.07.01C) A 50 foot wide landscaped street buffer is required to be provided along the northern boundary of the site on land that abuts I-84; noise mitigation is not required per UDC II- 3H-4D. • "Evaluate the feasibility of annexing existing county enclaves and discourage the creation of additional enclaves."(3.03.03I) Excluding the outparcel(#51 11642 7890)along the northern boundary of the east portion of the site from the subject annexation and development plan will create a County enclave surrounded by City annexed land, which is not desired. Note: The Applicant is attempting to acquire this parcel. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban infrastructure is required to be provided with development in accord with UDC standards. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area per the analysis above. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Annexation: The proposed annexation is for 25.76-acres of land with a C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)zoning district. The proposed use of the property will include multi-family residential apartments and office uses. A multi-family development requires approval of a CUP in the C-G zoning district and is subject to the specific use standards for such listed in UDC 11-4-3- 27; office uses are principally permitted in the C-G zoning district as are retail uses. Staff recommended in the pre-application meeting to the Applicant that they request R-40 zoning for the multi-family portion of the development—they did not do so. The proposed use still requires approval of a CUP in the R-40 district; however,the R-40 zoning would more accurately reflect the land uses developed on the site when looking at the City's zoning map.For this reason, Staff recommends the multi-family portion of the site is zoned R-40 instead of C-G; the remainder of the site should be zoned C-G as requested.With this Page 9 Item 2. ■ change,new legal descriptions and exhibit maps should be submitted prior to the City Council hearing.Because the R-40 district is less intense than the C-G district, the project does not need to be re-noticed. The proposed C-G zoning and recommended R-40 zoning is consistent with the associated MU-R FLUM designation as are the proposed uses. The property is contiguous to City annexed land and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Because this site is part of a larger 90-acre overall development that includes the property to the west, Staff recommends that DA(Inst. #2019-037825— Rackham)is amended to include this property and the provisions noted in Section VIII.A., To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the development plan proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA is required with this application, containing the provisions noted in Section VIII.A, as discussed herein. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lots 18 and 19,Block 1,Rackham Subdivision No. 1 and Lots 8-12,Block 2 and Lots 13-16,Block 1,Rolling Hill Subdivision. The proposed plat consists of two(2)multi-family residential building lots(i.e. Lots 1-2,Block 1)and six(6) commercial building lots(i.e. Lots 3-8,Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land and is proposed to be developed in one phase.Note: The Applicant anticipates that many of the commercial lots will be consolidated or realigned at the time of final plat as users determine precise site area requirements. Staff recommends the property is subdivided prior to application for any building permits for the site; or,the existing PUDI easements and right-of-way for S.Rolling Hill Dr.may be vacated and a Property boundary adjustment application approved to consolidate the existing lots into one(1)parcel. Either method should be done prior to submittal of applications for building permits. Note: There is a 14-foot wide sliver of land(Parcel#51116427890)that exists to the north of the eastern portion of Lot 6 and Lots 7 and 8 that is not included in the proposed subdivision(see preliminary plat exhibit in Section VII.B).It appears to previously have been part of the right-of-way(ROW)for I-84 that was sold off as surplus ROW.It was not included as part of the adjacent building lots in the Rolling Hill Subdivision plat in 1968; therefore, Staff determines it to be an original parcel of record as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. As such,the subject property is deemed to be eligible for development without that parcel. However, Staff strongly urges the Applicant pursue obtaining the parcel and include it in this development; otherwise,there will be an undeveloped enclave with County zoning surrounded by City annexed land with no access and likely no maintenance of the property. Ideally,it would be included in the subject annexation and preliminary plat application, which would require re-noticing and a continuance of the hearing—Staff has suggested this to the Applicant but they wish to proceed without it as they continue trying to acquire the property. Since it is not included with this application,the applicant will have to submit a subsequent AZ application to the City for review and approval. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site;the previous homes and accessory structures have been removed. Page 10 Item 2. F44] Dimensional Standards: Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C- G and R-40 zoning districts in UDC Tables 11-2B-3 and 11-2A-8. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access to the site exists via S. Rolling Hill Dr., a local public street that currently extends from E. Overland Rd.to the south and runs through this site to the north boundary;this street will ultimately stub at the south boundary and may be restricted to emergency access on1X. The portion of Rolling Hill north of the southern boundary of the site is required to be vacated prior to signature on the final plat. Rolling Hills Dr. is not improved to urban standards(i.e. it's narrow, lacks street lights and doesn't have curb, gutter or sidewalk). Two(2) driveway accesses are proposed to be extended from the commercial property to the west for access via S. Silverstone Way from E. Overland Rd. ACHD has requested the Applicant submit an updated analysis to Staff for the intersection of Silverstone Way/Overland Rd. to see if the intersection can handle all of the traffic for this development if Rolling Hill Dr. is restricted to emergency access only. If so,ACHD will not require additional off-site improvements to Rolling Hill Dr. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should be provided between all lots in the subdivision as well as to the properties to the west(Parcel#R7319432000&R7319431900)via a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Road Improvements: The intersection of Overland Rd. &Eagle Rd. is scheduled in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes on the north and south legs, and 8-lanes on the east&west legs, and reconstructed/signalized in the future. The design year is listed as 2025 in the IFYWP and is listed to be improved between 2031 and 2035. Overland Rd. is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes from Eagle Rd. to Cloverdale Rd.between 2036 and 2040 and is listed as unfunded. The intersection of Cloverdale Rd. &Overland Rd. is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes on the north&south legs and 8-lan3s on the east&west legs and signalized between 2026 and 2030. If Rolling Hill Dr. isn't restricted to emergency access only,ACHD is qu}rin will likely require the following improvements for Rolling Hill Dr.: restriction to right-in/right-out only; construction of passive traffic calming measures; improvement with 24-feet of pavement, 3-foot wide gravel shoulders and a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of the street within existing right-of-way; and construction of a mini roundabout at the terminus. The segment of Rolling Hill Dr. within the site is required to be vacated. See ACHD's staff report in Section VIII.I for more information. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There are no pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this site. Staff recommends internal pedestrian walkways are provided throughout the site for interconnectivity;where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular use areas they should be distinguished through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 n: There are no public streets proposed within this site; therefore, sidewalks are not required. Sidewalks are not required along I-84; however, a pathway is proposed within the buffer. ACHD is requiring a sidewalk to be constructed off-site along one side of S.Rolling Hill Dr.with development of this site. Page 11 Item 2. 45 Landscaping(UDC 11-3B1: A 50-foot wide street buffer is required on Lots 3-6 along the north boundary of the site adjacent to I-84 per UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The buffer depicted on the landscape plan complies with this standard. The street buffer is required to be maintained by the property owner or business owners' association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2b and should be depicted on the plat in a common lot or permanent dedicated buffer. Landscaping is required adjacent to the pathway proposed along the northern boundary of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A 5-foot wide landscape strip is required on both sides of the pathway planted with a mix of trees,shrubs,lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineeringeport for the subdivision. Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11 C. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-151: Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. This property lies within the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District boundary. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Staff recommends street lights are installed along S.Rolling Hill Dr. in accord with the City's adopted standards,specifications and ordinances in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Ridenbaugh Canal is a large open waterway that lies within a 100-foot wide NMID easement (50 feet on each side)along the east boundary of the site. The Applicant requests approval from City Council of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B,which requires canals to be piped when not used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11-1A-1,to leave the canal open due to its large capacity. Council may grant a waiver if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved.In order to ensure public safety can be preserved if the canal is approved to be left open,the Applicant proposes to construct a 6-foot tall open vision(wrought iron) fence along the eastern boundary of the site at the edge of the irrigation easement. This project is not within the flood plain. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is not depicted on the landscape plan; however, a 6-foot tall open vision wrought iron fence is proposed along the Ridenbaugh Canal to preserve public safety if Council approves a waiver to allow it to remain open and not be piped. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the future 5-story office buildings,4-story multi-family residential buildings,leasing and fitness buildings as shown in Section VII.I. Final design must comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Page 12 Item 2. ■ C. Conditional Use Permit(CUP): A CUP is requested for a multi-family development consisting of 396-units in four(4)4-story buildings on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district.Unit types consist of 48 studio, 196 1-bedroom and 152 2-bedroom units. The proposed gross density of the development is 24.8 units per acre,which is consistent with that desired in MU-R designated areas.Note:Staff is recommending R-40 zoning, instead of C-G, for the multi-family residential portion of the development. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-27): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff's analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent properties.Staff is unable to determine if the buildings depicted on the concept plan meet the minimum setback standard. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should clearly depict the property lines in order to determine compliance with this standard. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage,disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should demonstrate compliance with this standard. 3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios,decks,and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-513-5 of this title. Alternative Compliance is requested to this standard to allow zero(0) for studio units (0%of the standard), 54-60 square feet(s.f.)for 1-bedroom units (67.5%-75%of the standard)and 58-85 s.f. for 2-bedroom units(68%-106%of the standard). The Applicant's justification for the request is that the extraordinary site amenities proposed coupled with innovative,new urban design with an emphasis on integrated, internal open space, facilities,form the basis of the request in lieu of the standard. The Director is of the opinion that the requested reduction is too much for this site.As an alternative,the Director approves a 20%reduction(i.e. 64 square feet)for the reasons offered by the Applicant as justification for the reduction. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate,designated and screened area. The Applicant should comply with this requirement. Page 13 Item 2. ■ 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. The proposed parking meets and exceeds UDC standards (see parking analysis below). 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) These items should be depicted on the site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. C. Common Open Space Design Requirements: 1. A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area.All units contain more than 500 square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.All 396 units contain between 500 and 1,200 square feet of living area. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.None of the units exceed 1,200 square feet of living area. At a minimum, a total of 99,000 sf. (or 2.27 acres) of outdoor common open space is required to be provided in the proposed development.A total of 3.49 acres is proposed consisting ofstreet/driveway buffers, area around leasing building, landscaped areas in parking lot and amenity areas, in excess of the minimum requirement as shown on the exhibit in Section VII.G. 2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area,and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20').All of the common open space areas depicted on the open space exhibit in Section VII.G meet this requirement. 3. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. This project is proposed to develop in two phases. The first phase will consist of the west two buildings along with their associated garages and carports, the west courtyard amenities, the leasing office and the fitness building. The second phase will consist of the east two residential buildings along with their associated garages and carports, and the east courtyard amenities (see phasing plan in Section VII.E). 4. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4)in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, ef£retroactive to 2-4- Page 14 Item 2. ■ 2009)None of the common open space areas are located adjacent to a collector or arterial street. D. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. b. Open space: (1) Open grassy area of at least fifty by one hundred feet(50 x 100)in size. (2) Community garden. (3) Ponds or water features. (4) Plaza. c. Recreation: (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two(2)amenities shall be provided from two(2)separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20) and seventy-five(75)units,three (3)amenities shall be provided,with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy-five(75)units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision- making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Based on 396-units, a minimum of 5 amenities are required but the decision-making body is authorized to consider additional similar amenities if they believe the proposed amenities aren't adequate for the size of the development. Amenities are proposed from each of the three categories in excess of the minimum standards (see list and exhibit in Section VII.G).Amenities include several outdoor sport Page 15 Item 2. ■ courts/games (snook ball, cornhole boards, bocce ball,ping pong table, volleyball), open grassy areas at least 50'x 100'in size, walking trails, a swimming pool, a clubhouse with a fitness facility, kitchen and lounge, shade structures with seating and outdoor seating around afire table. E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(Y)wide. b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches(24") shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict landscaping on all elevations facing the private drives in accord with these standards. F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided with the subdivision improvements as noted above in Section V.B. Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C.A mix of trees,shrubs,lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover with a minimum of one(1)tree per 100 linear feet of pathway. A minimum 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses is required with development along the southern boundary of the site per UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11- 3B-9C,which requires a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs,lawn,or other vegetative ground cover. The buffer depicted on the landscape plan needs to be widened and additional landscaping depicted in accord with these standards. Parking: Off-street vehicle parking is required for the proposed multi-family dwellings as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. The UDC standards applicable to this application do not include minimum parking standards for studio units; the code has since been updated(on 10/5/21)to require one(1)space per studio unit. The Applicant has requested alternative compliance to allow the parking standards for vertically integrated residential to apply. Because one(1) space is required for vertically integrated residential uses,which is the same as the current code for studio units,the Director finds this request acceptable and grants the request. Based on 48 studio, 196 1-bedroom units and 152 2-bedroom units, a minimum of-55-70 646 off- street spaces are required with 3%348 of those being in a covered carport or garage. Off-street parking is required for the clubhouse as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6B.1 for non-residential uses. Page 16 Item 2. 50 Based on 6,952 square feet, a minimum of 14 spaces are required to be provided. Overall, a minimum of 3,84 660 standard parking spaces are required. A total of 6-554 649 spaces are proposed with 391 of those being covered in garages ,88,/carports (303),which includes compact spaces; compact stalls are discouraged but may be used for parking above the number of required parking spaces.Additional parking should be provided to meet the minimum standards; the site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should be revised to reflect compliance.Note: The calculations on the landscape plan state 651 spaces are proposed, which dif ers from that on the site plan. Bicycle parking is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6G and should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Based on 651 spaces,a minimum of 26 spaces are required.Bike racks should be provided in central locations for each building. Alternative Compliance(ALT)is also requested to UDC 11-3A-19B.3,which requires no more than 50%of the total off-street parking area for the site to be located between building facades and abutting streets,to be allowed due the site design which enhances usable site amenities by placing them internal to the development with parking mostly on the periphery of the site. Because the parking areas on the east and west sides of the site are screened by garages and there is only one drive aisle with parking on each side on the north and south sides of the site and internal parking between the structures, leaving less than 50%of the off-street parkin vg i from the abutting street/driveway, Staff is of the opinion the site design complies with UDC standards without approval of ALT. Fencing:No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan for this development.A 6-foot tall open vision wrought iron fence is proposed along the Ridenbaugh canal to preserve public safety if Council approves a waiver to allow the canal to remain open and not be piped. As an added buffer to the two adjacent rural residential properties to the south in Rolling Hill Subdivision, Staff recommends a 6-foot tall sight obscuring fence or wall is constructed along the southern boundary of the site. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed 4-story multi-family residential buildings, leasing and fitness buildings as shown in Section VILI. Final design must comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the site and building design prior to submittal of building permit applications. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation with the requirement of a development agreement,preliminary plat and conditional use permit with the provisions noted in Section VIII, per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on December 2, 2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ, PP and CUP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jon Wardle,Brighton Corp. (Applicant's Representative); Geoffrey Wardle b. In opposition:None Page 17 Item 2. F 1 C. Commenting: Alicia Eastman,Mike Blowers,Amy Wattles, Chris Majorca, Lynette Adsitt and Matt Adsitt. d. Written testimony: Pam Ham e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Concern pertainingto o high volume of traffic this project will generate on S. Rolling Hill Dr. (commercial traffic through a residential neighborhood)—requests bollards are installed at the terminus of Rolling Hill Dr. at the southern boundary of this site that would block off traffic but that would provide emergency access to the site; b. Concern pertaining to construction traffic using S. Rolling Hill Dr. to access the site; c. Against proposed development due to loss of current lifestyle (livestock and effects to them from noise and traffic); d. The Applicant committed to limiting construction traffic via S. Rolling Hill Dr. and making Silverstone Way the primary access. 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. Concern pertaining to generation of traffic from this development on S. Rolling Hill Dr. and lack of urban improvements on Rolling Hill Dr.;possibility of restricting public access for the site via S. Rolling Hill Dr. for the development; b. Desire to have ACHD's staff report prior to making a recommendation to Council on this application; c. Desire for the sliver of land along the northern boundary of the site (Parcel #S 1116427890)to be included in the annexation and preliminga plat boundaa so as not to create an enclave surrounded by City annexed land; at a minimum, an access easement should be provided to it. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Staff recommends a condition is included for construction traffic for the proposed development to access the site from the west via Silverstone Way rather than from S. Rolling Hill Dr. as committed to b, t�pplicant. Page 18 Item 2. 52 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map NOT APPROVED lam E N G I N E E R I N G June 2,2021 Project No.20-219 Exhibit A Lega I Description for Annexation and Rezone to C-G Rackharo Subdivision No.2 A parcel of land being lots 13 through 16,Block 1, Lots 8 through 12,Block 2 of Rolling Hill Subdivision (Book 18 of Plats at Page 1,202,records of Ada County,Idaho)and unplatted land situated in a portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16,Township 3 North,flange 1 East,B.M.,Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16,which bears N00°05'15"W a distance of 2,653.59 feet from a brass cap marking the South 1/4 corner of said Section 16,thence following the westerly line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4,500.05'15"E a distance of 227.22 feet try a 5/8-inch rebar on the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate 84 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said southerly right-of-way line,S89'34'32"E a distance of 672.76 feet; Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line,S00°00'07"E a distance of 14.37 feet; Thence S89°15'23"E a distance of 478.72 feet to the westerly boundary of Ironwood Subdivision No.3 (Book 77 at Page U98,records of Ada County,Idaho)and the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal; Thence following said westerly boundary and said centerline the following two(2)courses: 1. S12°52'54"W a distance of 489.5fl feet; 2. S14°05'22"W a distance of 627.49 feet to a 5/9-inch rebar on the southerly line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 114; Thence leaving said westerly line and said centerline and following said southerly fine,N89'14'19"W a distance of 987.95 feet to the Southwest corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 114(Center- 54U6 1/16 corner); Thence leaving said southerly line and following the westerly line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4,N00°45'15"W a distance of 1099.57 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 25.76 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. cati� l LA11'b a 12459 5725 North Discovery Way• Boise,Idaho 83713• 208.639.693h• kmengflp.com Page 19 Item 2. F53] POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FOUND ALUMINUM CAP CENTER 1/4 CORNER SECTION 16 S00'05 15"E 227 222' (TIE} Interstate$4 S00'00'07'"E POINT OF BEGINNING 1 .37' S$9'34'32"E 672.76' S89`15'23"E 478.72' Parcel v Parcel S R7555000280 1116427950 40 Parcel Nt R7555000160 = I LParcel R755500027D Annexatlan Area:25.76t AC. ;n o Proposed Zoning:C-G � I � Parcel Un fatted ,�; a► R7555000261 Parcel I� P a LO o R7555000151I� crate r °0lun Parcel Ea Parcel •r .5 S1116428010 o R75-SS000265 ;n�Ln—, in Parcel Centerline of e5` Parcel R7555000155 Ridenbaugh o L, Canal 3 o R7555000251 U0 Parcel Parcel I R7555000255 R7555000140 rti I � E .o_ i To 3� Parcel '^ R7555000240 Parcel I G A755S000130 yF - I � N89'14'19"W 887.95' S00'05'15"E 1326.80' (TIE) Rolling Hill Jewel Subdivision Subdivision FOUND BRASS CAP SOUTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 16 ❑ 200 400 600 to" (k Plan Scale: 1"_200' EN01NEEItIN0 5725 NORTM015COVERY WAY BOIs E,IpANQ 93711 1..11E amo 6395939 Exhibit B-Annexation and Rezone to C-G kmengRp.com Rackham Subdivision No. 2 OVE- !vn@ 2921 P ROIE CT: 111-219 SHEET: Lots 13-15, Block 1, Lots 8-12, Block 2 and unplatted land in a portion of the 1 OF 1 NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 16,T31N., R1E., B.M.,Ada County, Idaho Page 20 Item 2. F54] B. Preliminary Plat(date: 10/25/2021) PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWING VI1-MAP 1'=2, ' RACKHAM EAST SUBDIVISION A RE-SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 13-16,BLOCK I,LOTS R-12,BLOCK 2OF ROLLING II ILL SLo[7NISION, L— d LOTS 18-19,BLOCK 1 OF RACKHAM SUBDIVISION AND uN I=1 A 1 11 1 I AN is ALL SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 AND THE NW 1/4 OF THESE 1/4 OF SECTION 16,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,BOISE MERIDIAN, N _ CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO :? IU NE 2021 y �• - uo..ccamir.wxe.n�xo o�rw �PSExo xw 7C., —G C-iC-G C-G C-G ' PRENMINARY PLAT DATA xK i� S t 4 E mnnrt - 1� C-G • _'� PRENMINAP-NOTES -.-.-m[u•m� �-�-ierur,v yr smn mx I,.I o q,,�ao.r-nrnu a�wu�mn¢'rrwox�wP�um[rn w]MEL III • •-•R'•Y I3 w,.�.W.+a I rrll TM1.,: "'®�" [ RACKHAM EAST Sl1BDIYISIDN I I �.. �,m.m®.m,�,v.....,,..,,a.LL��.o.s„a ma MERIDI0.14 ID �II I� wennxex ---�- I I PRfIIMINAPY PUT owl k-m -'-I'I' `.IRTIONw.® I �v.nes mraa 70821 �QQj�� ,yqn R� m.n. o�lulM�Nw.Y� ,,.[...,..,....,.., `....r.� PP1.0 Page 21 Item 2. [55 C. Landscape Plan—Preliminary Plat(date: 10/15/2021) 77 ---- --- _ �-- -= L] ^�� E X � V �„nn.,ea•c w mW nbs�e.rw • lid ! ``I�I; � •a•..ean.e .x_ nm ewm= C-G C-G C-G C-G C� �dAr�l rA—AAA j C-G 1 - ,a�n��A 9••^� a --- ��+®• A o ��� —�-—�— `--! r b - .rs Nn RACKHAMMEAST SUBDIVISION g•+ � �a °'"E^ S �� N MERI DIAN ID s� PPfDMINMERI T WND PIAN PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN 'sagg �.�._e s Wff TREEULCUlAM1 11TREEl3s IF) ;p GG' � '+, �� �" TOTAL STREET TREES F km S w, ` � MMI TIQN REQUIREMENTS �Ae. r<om TOTAL TREES REQUIRED/PROVIDED RPLI.0 Page 22 Item 2. 56 D. Conceptual Development Plan 010 � I °a to J++aa a .-...� - - - it L r m m• h ai •i• - ae I �I ae. ae — ,• Q a w !! N s m m j i� eE •va ! KM w Rra Q w 1. F I a EVL-2 Page 23 Item 2. [57 E. Site Plan—Conditional Use Permit(dated: 6/3/21) &Phasing Plan -a.a..r.w ,�,... mmI I'll 1 11111 FPTMT s �I I 0 - f o o ly� •—® 34 R , kmi �, y ---- - - - ------------------ CUP SITE PLAN �•� �•� ;ITnTI, -: — �'"` •-o O m: Lo Page 24 Item 2. F58 - Phase it � 4 I i Phase 1 Page 25 Item 2. 59 F. Landscape Plan—Conditional Use Permit(dated: 6/3/21) FA WEI NK WE IT Iw kk tht - �� - I e mm.n.w,m i.«.x mn�sro ss cvmmmxmv 1/ 1 ak I A P I 1 Ip/ Il ~ufe,c mE uvr� Z Z Fa a nx....�..E o....�..am. CUP LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 BUFFER WIDN AND TREE CADCU IAAON5(1TREE/n IF) yyIDTN0—RNKINGLOTPERIMETERIAND—E—P F1PF 6:_:,=u x�m axr ws, a NEEPM6��� cam a.a naw,xx ss PARKINGCAL[ULATIONS iµr.a.�-�x,nomn .a., r�W em �. n rx,00wa[sr,eun,r ,e s.m n� ..®�,•x >s ..m __ __ �/ .«uxr.�s,�¢.uM s�sxo.nsww,mr xu�m aw wa. s i ��� „m PARKING ISLANDTREESea �u « .. :gym mw wa. as ® ix�xur.aw;mriararanxs - ..mss r TREESPEOESMIX MITIGATION REUUIREMENIS Qm,xrc.x¢mr """°"' FEW ¢a. �. ss ® �x,s - ss•ass. a+, m=�=...mMom=•m TOTALTREESR XLID Page 26 Item 2. F60] G. Open Space Exhibit for Multi-Family Development(dated: 6/3/21) &Amenities 141 i ' I k I 3 I ' I 1 r I J I I Eia I I I LAJi" I, I 5 Z H 0 1 a° c -------------------------- �1CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT C PRfLIMINA-Tf Ct LCV QNS k 1 Exi.o Page 27 Item 2. F61 • Amenities o Central Core Amenities ■ 24-hour resident lounge ■ Warming kitchen ■ Entertainment area ■ Game area ■ 24-hour fitness center featuring Rogue equipment ■ Locker Rooms with showers ■ Zoom conference room(s) ■ Wi-fi throughout all amenity areas ■ Resort style pool & year-round spa ■ Pool-side patio and grilling area ■ Outdoor pool lounge ■ Amazon parcel system ■ Dwelo Smart Home Technology o West Courtyard (seepage 10 for exhibit) ■ Shade structure ■ Outdoor Kitchen with BBQ Grill ■ Benches ■ Outdoor seating surrounding a Fire Table ■ Festoon lighting ■ Cornhole ■ Outdoor Ping Pong Table ■ Sand Volleyball o East Courtyard (seepage 10 for exhibit) ■ Shade Structure ■ Outdoor Kitchen with BBQ Grill ■ Benches ■ Outdoor seating surrounding a Fire Table ■ String Lights ■ Cornhole ■ Outdoor Ping Pong Table ■ Snook Ball Court ■ Bocce Ball Court Page 28 Item 2. F62 AMENITY FEATURES --HORNEOAY DESIGN ASPELT WOW RITLHEN WITH- SERIES PLANTER POTS. '.LT-Ik MU /J DAYRS COEDR EOM DARN DaAY. 517t5 VARIES. O I ASP-tl,ASP-21 G CORNa+DI[YDAR➢S-- � 144 ti / l , _Ca�.rt�.`.` " �� Ourpodr HNG POIiG TAEI L. k- SkwcuT cokcanr. a 4 PREE SIAR?1 DE YE STS q 1 PD W ST Lmw RiHD uc1RT w ATTkLHYEM. 2 YENCN--__-_ � I -OYERHIAD CITED" � SAwo YOuf TBAIE--'-�_ -- '1------0•__ \ r 9T1EHD LWHF3. y� IL MAT wM eo' '' ,'— ,f// ��-Flat tABLE. UTr EY 7ONE _—OUTDOOR SEATRRL. v a•i E•PRECAST- COMCKR STEPP STORE RE I .S O I P rr i Z __- -OVERNEAD SsOM SIROCTUaE. PCECOIA OR WOE SAPS. N y yj WEST APARTMENT COMPLEX Page 29 Item 2. [63 AMENITY FEATURES CUTOOOR R1rCNLx - bNFT-r LA»x ,: -- F � #i - — FRFL M xc 9EGORArmw rows f.. + FOR ST*I1e1kG LM:kT aTlACxxrxl- S refs s—, wN OLCowrn rusts - FOP TRW:VONT ArE.E".W. �mAwOAY OTsrn ASML[r SCR�Cs 2 PL.Nir!POTS OAYIS COLOR Bou C OAPs GRAY. WrRHCAD CYTERrOP Greom L4WS.--, /� `� SIZES VAIV. R L a Ail KOWEGAY OCSWk ASPLCT SEWS �y .I - a ►LANrLR TOTS OAKS COLOR BGsa �� —Sxrypc p/,{L SIXIPr, BAeR LRAY- 9r($ CORAMOyT-ARM Y AD-rT,ASP-II T yT J CMS TABU. 44 VENC now ru . a --__�_�. , _ r a•Ra•COPCRf TF SAweLrr. may. cokCKTc Sc W, W.I'.PONG I.I.L. V� �UCARB IFOOOLSQ PAYERS.— y pr, 1 ' Jtt��LTICC,,��-,,, ,,, / � d` 4 1 "Tat--� � �•' r , I � OUMN SLATING. oXrRrrw savor srBrrcLrFRE.Y--I' PERGOLA OR SOME SANS. d } �.•, I � r I l µ _ EAST APARTMENT COMPLEX ¢ ° Page 30 Item 2. F64 H. Pedestrian Circulation Plan � �- = � I tz I Z = z LU LLI r e d a —__ _--_- Page 31 Item 2. F65] I. Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 5/31/2021) fit►i�, ze 0 g= o go oU 0 3 OD 99_ __--- j OF ..mm aVw—w�,.NDm,N MmvfL�l..G®•.........a w.savm�r�..«m. v .r _ uy =' �.4GLE VIEW IAN�ING-BINL61NG fih Page 32 Item 2. F66 ou a ,� 00 it ou �Q �■ ���a��i� HHndNs.,.suiEoi_�m.p�g��de®�.,�..e....m.. �a as aa_ 96 B� �n LE,oIE��N Page 33 ■I ili III I� !!! 111 1��1 Ill ■I - ,� �� u I ■ IIII IIII n, I ' ,1 ii 1� �■ 4 11 IL.�a���!�• s T� - r Y� Item 2. F69 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Staff recommends the multi-family portion of the site is zoned R-40 instead of C-G; the remainder of the site should be zoned C-G as requested.With this change,updated legal descriptions and exhibit maps shall be submitted prior to the City Council hearing. A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. An amendment to the existing Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #2019-037825 H-2019- 0005) for the Rackham development is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, an amended DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption. An application for such shall be submitted to the City,preferably so that it can go to Council concurrently with the subject applications; a development plan for the overall area should be submitted with the application that is consistent with the MU-R FLUM designation. The amended DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The specific provisions for the amended DA pertaining to this site will be determined at the time of submittal of the application; the following provisions may be included: a. Development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan,phasing plan, conceptual development plan,pedestrian circulation plan and conceptual building elevations submitted with the application contained herein. b. The two(2)office buildings proposed on the northern portion of the site shall be arranged to create some form of common,usable gathering area, such as a plaza or green space in accord with the mixed-use guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan (see pg. 3-13). c. Provide a pedestrian pathway within the street buffer along 1-84 as depicted on the conceptual development plan with landscaping along the pathway as set forth in UDC I I- 3B-12C. Also provide internal pedestrian walkways throughout the site for interconnectivity; where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular use areas they shall be distinguished through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. d. All future structures constructed on this site shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. e. The final plat shall be recorded prior-to issuanee of building peffnits for-any stfuetw this side; or,the existing PUDI easements and right-of-way for S. Rolling Hill Dr. shall be vacated and a property boundary adjustment application approved to consolidate the existing lots into one(1)parcel prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the site. f. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi-Family Development, is required. g. Provide off-site improvements for S. Rolling Hill Dr. consistent with Ada County Highway District's requirements,including but not limited to,pavement widening to 24- feet where needed, 3-foot wide gravel shoulders and 6-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the street. Streetlights shall also be installed along S. Rolling Hill Dr. in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Page 36 Item 2. 70 Preliminary Plat: 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note granting cross-access/ingress-egress easements between all lots in the subdivision in accord as well as to the properties to the west(Parcel#R7319432000& R7319431900)via a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. b. Depict the street buffer along I-84 on Lots 3-6 in a common lot or a permanent dedicated buffer,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association per UDC 11- 3B-7C.2b. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a pathway within the street buffer along 1-84 as shown on the CUP landscape plan with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C.A 5-foot wide landscape strip is required on both sides of the pathway planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover. b. Depict a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal outside of the NMID's irrigation easement. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district and 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoningdi . 5. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise waived by City Council. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver from City Council to leave the Ridenbaugh Canal open. 6. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements shall be provided between all lots in the subdivision as well as to the properties to the west(Parcel#R7319432000&R7319431900)via a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. 7. The right-of-way for the portion of S. Rolling Hill Dr.north of the southern boundary of the site shall be vacated prior to signature on the final plat. 8. The pFepeFty shall be subdivided pr-ioF to issuanee of any building peffnits for-the site. Not necessaa to include as a plat condition as it's included as a DA provision above in Section V111.A.1 e. Conditional Use Permit: 9. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi-Family Development is required. 10. The site/landscape plans included in Section VII shall be revised as follows: a. Depiet a minimum 25 feet wide buffer-to r-esidepAial uses along the seu4hefa boundafy e the site as set forth in UDG Table 11 2 �, !a-adseaped pef the standar-ds listed in UDG 11 3B 9GA mi*of ever-green and deeiduous trees, shrubs, laim, ar other vegetafive ground e . . 4 within the bftffi�, whieh shall be ins-tailed at the fime of le Not required with R-40 zoning. b. Depict all property lines in order to demonstrate compliance with the minimum setback requirements listed in UDC Table 11-2-B-3 11-2A-8 and 11-4-3-27B.1. c. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities,and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, Page 37 Item 2. 71 or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3- 27B.2. d. Depict the location of the property management office;maintenance storage area; central mailbox location,including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access; and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3- 2 7B.7. e. Depict a 6-foot tall sight obscuring fence or wall along the southern boundary of the site as an added buffer to the rural residential properties to the south in Rolling Hill Subdivision. f. Depict landscaping along all elevations that face the private drives in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27E. g. Depict landscaping along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.A mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover with a minimum of one (1) tree per 100 linear feet of pathway. h. Depict pathway stubs at the southern boundary of the site near the west and east boundaries of the site for future extension upon redevelopment of the properties to the south for pedestrian connectivity with adjacent developments. i. Depict a minimum of 26 bicycle parking spaces per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C- 6G;bicycle parking facilities shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bike racks shall be provided in central locations for each building. j. Compact parking stalls are discouraged but may be used for parking above the number of required parking spaces per UDC 11-3C-5A.6. Based on the number of bedrooms per unit and square footage of the clubhouse proposed, a minimum of 660 standard off-street parking spaces are required with 348 of those being in a covered carport or garage. these numbers/square foota eg chanparking may be ad iusted accordingly to comply with applicable UDC standards. 11. The Director approved the Applicant's request for Alternative Compliance to the private usable open space standards in UDC 11-4-3-27.B.3 with a modification to the request to allow a maximum reduction of 20%(i.e. 64 square feet)to the standard. 12. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.5. 13. All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F.A recorded copy of the document shall be submitted prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 14. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the site and building design prior to submittal of building permit applications. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval Page 38 Item 2. 72 1.1 Instead of running parallel 6" and 8" water main, change the layout to a single 8" water main,connect the hydrant,then install a jurisdictional valve to the fire service line. 1.2 Do not have a sewer stub to the south on S Rolling Hills Dr. These properties will be served from Overland Rd. 1.3 Ensure no permanent structures are within any City easements including but not limited to buildings, car ports,trash enclosures,trees, shrubs, fences,light poles, infiltration trenches, etc. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are Page 39 Item 2. 73 any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-311. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse Page 40 Item 2. 74 infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=241985&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=241580&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orkIWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=242184&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=243206&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty G. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=244287&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridianciLy.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=244309&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.o.-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240968&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity https:llweblink.meridianciU.orylWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=249342&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC LU DRAFTREPORT Page 41 Item 2. 75 IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: l. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to C-G and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the MU-R FL UM designation. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment will allow for the development of a mix of office and multi family residential uses which will assist in providing for the service needs of area residents consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial districts in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use and transportation. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section IV of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Page 42 Item 2. ■ Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Stafffinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. C. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffinds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the C-G district(see Analysis, Section V for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Stafffinds that the proposed use is consistent with the future land use map designation of MU-R and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2B-2 in the C-G zoning district. 3. That the design,construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission and Council should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. Page 43 Item 2. ■ 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 that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. D. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-5B-5): In order to grant approval of an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR The Director finds UDC Table 11-3C-6 does not include parking requirements for studio units; therefore, this finding does not apply. The Director finds strict adherence or application of the requirements in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 is feasible but to comply, the number of units may need to be reduced or other changes made to the development plan. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the proposed alternative compliance of providing parking for studio units consist with the standards for vertically integrated residential units, which is also consistent with current updated standards for studio units,provides an equal means for meeting the requirement. The Director finds the proposed alternative compliance to the private usable open space standards in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 for each unit unacceptable but does find a reduction of20% acceptable due to the extraordinary site amenities proposed along with the innovative, new urban design with an emphasis on integrated, internal open space and facilities proposed. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. The Director finds that the proposed alternative means of compliance to UDC Table 11-3C-6 and the Director's alternative approval to the Applicant's proposal for alternative compliance to 11-4-3-27B.3 will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended use%haracter of the surrounding properties. Page 44 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Rackham East Eagle Apartments Annexation & Zoning Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit P&Z - January 6, 2 022 AN SUMMARY FROM PRIOR MEETING 44" qw"� pdates from prior meeting : • ACHD Staff Report • Rolling Hill Drive Access . Specifically : ➢ Can Rolling Hill Drive be Emergency Access only ACHD STAFF REPORT ACHD has provided two options related to Rolling Hill Drive ( 1 /6/2022) D . Site Specific Conditions of Approval 'I . If the applicant chooses to request to restrict the site'saccess to Balling Hill Drive to emergency access only, then the applicant should required to submit an updated operational analysisto EMERGENCY staff for the intersection of ilverstone Way/Overland Road with the traffic from Phases 1 and of ACCESS ONLY I development under the 2022 conditions and traffic from the full buildout under the 202 conditions, and the estimated ADT and peak hour trips on Silver stone Way with Phases �1 and under the 2022 conditions and all Phases under the 202 conditions. HD will determine if Cul-de-sac restricting the site's access to Rolling Hill Drive to emergency access only will be acceptable based turnaround on the updated analysis and District Policy. . If the applicant chooses to not use Rolling Hill Drive as emergency access only: or ACHD determines that access to Rolling Hill Drive for the site is necessary based on the updated analysis, the applicant shall be required to restrict Rolling Hill Drive on Overland Road to right-in/right-out only with a -inch raised candles/median with the first phase of the development prior to HD°s final approval on the first final plat and after the private road, Rackham Way, is completed from it erstone Way to Rolling Hill Drive. Provide a public access easement over the private road, F ackham Way. The following is also required if Rolling Hill Drive will be used to access the site: 1 j n ,der II I� Illfl;:•� P • 1 F ...._ Al.. I.. Racl< ` (Original) .118 '. Rackham Ea' 40 I r II IHI IWm - • r R i Q 41 4. O LU ..:�_ OVEI.R-LA - -- _- --- - 4 NEXT STEPS WITH ACHD ACHD has requested an updated analysis of the Silverstone / Overland Road that will calculate the full project buildout using the Silverstone / Overland signalized intersection . This analysis is in process. ACHD will review and then issue a final determination on Emergency Access Only for Rolling Hill Drive . 5 UPDATED SITE PLAN AM Rackham East & Eagle View Apartments 6 CUP PHASE I PHA 2 Project Details S EAGLE VIEW APARTMENTS S� 2 !B-Uhlts i' BRIG HTON 178 Units 15.94 Acres / 24.8 units per acre -�~- CONCEPTUAL,SUBJECTTD CHANGE Living Types -- -- -- -----r-----��------- - -- -- --—- - --- Studio (616 sf): 48 c oa, T- o' 1 Bed (696 sf): 196 2 Bed (977 sf): 152 - 396 units Parking L, �� ,' l • Required: 660 elr ,_ t� Provided: 671 NJ �l'= _,� � - � �,;��' �' � �' Bike: 32 Qualified Open Space b _ R , Q p p I 21.9%/3.49 acres Two Phases - - -— 218 units -77.._ PRIVATE DRIVE ' • 178 units CONCLUSION We concur with Staff recommendation for approval, including the City / Agency comments & conditions . We respectfully request Planning & Zoning Commission's approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Eagle View Apartments . And request that Planning & Zoning Commission support for and transmit to City Council the Rackham East applications for Annexation, Rezone and Preliminary Plat. 8 Rackham East & Eagle View Apartments 10 SITE CIRCULATION Future Sidewal 5 _ ___ -y � .f Lk� v i it i �. • r m rio al)` _ Pot- 0 - Rackham East a + ..... w ■ - -- `..'7� - - 'lli* 111111�= _ ,sllY� I j� iy 1 lop ■ 1 I. .;Wkff All kid 47 LU a- � �r J - A J, Rackham East Eagle Apartments Annexation & Zoning Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit P&Z - December 2 02 1 12 ANNEXATION REZONE / PREmPLAT Rackham East & Eagle View Apartments 13 1+ i y t 1 AR Lip uq 84 84 . ONE � � 1WIN NONE ME m MEN ,a a - I _ ■1110 � � ' ' •• ■111• if E ��A 14 W.�' ' ' � r Rackham East g r r R A ti 1 uj 1d r .. 9 Maxa�r Te noiogi� - � r —.[� Jf jp Rackham _ Rackham (Original) East g r a t � � ti � � .k + .,; }•'� fir. I, v P. 41 W r Fq Mxar Te naiogi�' { � � -- gloWl - i 1 j II I� I` � b • �•. - Iti111!.� 97,111 F Racl<ham - + ' 1 � - Aw Ilk East AL lop — — — ■ ME IN 4v wl- - } uj ' x Fq M xar Te n.dogi�' { �� � � —— - f,, EAGLE VIEW MASTER PLAN _ IW i :- """L"'IU... A iiii win % IIHIIOIHIO �'; _ - §§ 7 o f �, T .�Y - - - ulti-Famly t; it 44 -lpaf, irr, I Ih { Y EAGLE VIEW MASTER PLAN ..IJ 1l^� C. i. tertainment t I II r I. �l� I;. �+ so 43F.4. `T'.'� I. �. .�14..� '� �w� �u.II LI�IL� w� �• I -_� ��} .� Ir 4} T 'i pr - I + L + - COMP PLAN LN 4_ Rackham East is consistent with the City s Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map and Policies. From the Staff - . ep :- . o rt . E ONYX 5T �; ., W 4 `} x i 4 In summary, Staff believes the proposed W E VIEW sn rq CIR development plan is generally consistent p p g Y with the vision of the Comprehensive- - : W OVERLAND RD Plan for this area per the analysis above." H -� - - ✓ "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and u r COMP mixed-use developments." (3.07.02A) PLAN = ✓ "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian ve 4 T as' water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to N - EAR "' and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Rackham East is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of Plan, Future Land Use Map and Policies. From the Staff development." (3.03.03A) Report: ✓ "Permit new development only where it can be ✓ "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services." (3.03.03F) services." (3.03.03F) ✓ "Require appropriate landscaping, buffers, and noise ✓ "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize mitigation with new development along transportation conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." ✓ "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide (3.07.01C) the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine, play, and ✓ "Evaluate the feasibility of annexing existing county work in close proximity, thereby reducing vehicle trips, enclaves and discourage the creation of additional and enhancing overall livability and sustainability." enclaves." (3.03.031) (3.06.02B) ✓ "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new ✓ "Encourage the development of supportive commercial developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, near employment areas." (3.06.02C) water and sewer utilities." (3.03.03G) N 7i _ �Ii11r111Ns11l� - s � - � Alllrll�Illla _ C ;� � IIt11f11� - p 11 10 G11 1 - �1 F �5��/• r 1 1111FIgli1N1 it 1 1 1 + Irr111Ait1t11lllill' �I* r` � 11{IIlllill� � � 1111{IYIIINIFiI il � 1r 1 1 1 � — �flllllerinlltll�8� �i� Ip 1� r �� E � � _� '` • .� • � . 3 �Illrullrllrll>EI il; � 'f -.4 .. .•+ _ HIM roug I. l�l4�p 1�!+rrrrrlrlrra��l �� � � � • � �j. �. Rackham y Rackham (Original) 1 - East r r 22 age O 2021 Max nologi PRE - PLAT I� g I� Y"rEasrnTE q �I 732' 172' 17$' 157, � 50!1S73T 479L72'——— �# 774' 2w .a BMRl � F M W M C_G { m C - c- - L,Ma 23�33 YF , PRELIMINARY PLAT DATA 1 LGT3 - 10T7 -'- _ 10Tc r P.9 AC.3 Xl.1+U]L 9L�933F iF,"' •ItiyJX51 ;a,017 y+ 51TE DATA CLJRRENT ZONING R1 PROPOSED ZONING C—G Corn jnercial area COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION MIXED USE REGIONAL RACOAM �iyx # ` COMMERCIAL AREA (C—G) LOTS 3-8 13.8 ACRES suppN1514H ,�E ; RESIDENTIAL AREA (C—G) LOTS 1,2 15.9 ACRES WW17 O r TOTAL SITE AREA 29.7 ACRES `may— .6s •s for 7Y TOTAL LOTS 8 ca Residential area (modify to R-40) C-G G 195.iti.'k LUT1 � S l:•il I � §Og7979F fi7ALs PRELIMI ... Wf- 15T THE _ 279 aq5 M7,a P, M{F� +�P`1+'111f 13]Y.3C' S�•1i'1 r•._ ,9 . .. — OF IEADYIN. HCyll}4J4YfJu 3, MO411011 M C,Ip CEx1FF.�CM U*^]SEER gEarl11 31 fi7RhBp N-1n9'n I I 1 MMA..Ws ANNEX / REZONE PRE = PLAT We concur with Staff on : Annex / Rezone / Preliminary Plat • Modifying the rezone to R-40 ( instead of C-G ) • Amend the existing DA so that the entire 90-acre development ( Rackham Original + Rackham East) is one complete project 24 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT or Eagle View Apartments 19ppomm"IML CUP i Project Details PHAS I EAGLE VIES APARTMENTS PHAS 2 2 �-Un �tS -t' BRIG HTON 178 Un fits 15.94 Acres / 24.8 units per acre CONCEPTUAL,SUBJECT TO CHANGE Living Types -1 ' --- ------------ - k -- --!`- -- -- — ------------ --- Studio (616 sf): 48 _ t 1 Bed (696 sf): 196 _----------- 2 Bed (977 sf): 152 - • -a Lam_ �, -� �- � + 396 units J ' Lr Parking j- - } Required: 648 h Provided: 651 © .. ... r,+ }__ r • Bike. 32 f Qualified Open Space 21.9%/3.49 acres 1 - +' r Two Phases 218 units PPI'ETEE-RIVE • 178 units CUP EAGLE VIEW APARTMENTS Fitness + $RIGH'TON - CONCUMAL.SUBJFCi M CHANGE 00 77. NorthWest Building Leasing Resident Club. fa d 1 i II AMENITIES CENTER AMENITIES EAGLE VIEW APARTMENTS -.- BRIGHTON i I 24-hour resident lounge CONCEPTUAL,SUBJECT TO CHANGE • Warming kitchen Entertainment area -1� ' --- ------------ -FRIVAT -- --!`- -- -- - ------------- —„--- Game area _ 'i 24-hour fitness center r- ;1 I' � 11 AM J � featuring Rogue equipment 3 17Ml f + Locker Rooms with showers Zoom conference room(s) II LL Wi-fi throughout all amenity areas Resort style pool & year- . L r round spa L 9 Pool-side patio and grilling area Outdoor pool lounge Amazon parcel system OV Dwelo Smart Home PPI'ETEDRIVE f Technology AMENITIES AMENITY FEATURES AMENITY FEATURES NOON EOSV DESIGN ASPECT OUIDDOR KITCXEN In"X SERIES PLANTER POTS, SUILi-IN GRILL. DSVIS C.L.8DSA D— GRAY. F OUTDOOR NITCX[N WITX FREE sTAn0.'xc V 6 3 ZEs VARIES: U RVILT-IN GRILL ECORATVC POs1S ASP-rt,ASP-31 FOR SIR NG LLGXT STiACXNEHT DMNHOLE MARK OUTDOOR PING TONG TABLE. FREE STAND3N0 DED"'TIVE POSES _ FOR SIRING LIGHT ATTACHL[NT. '� "' - RORNEGAY DESIGN ASPECT SERIES 4Lam '%4'SAWCVI CONCRETE. - PLANTER POTS,DSVIS COLOR SO6A t d „_. - '' EPEE STANOIN6 6ECORAINE Q OVEPHGO E%TERIOR SPRING UGHfS, - �� SSA-TT.HASP-21 A C7 POSES FOR STRING LIGHT �� ._. ITTACE.E e'_' %ORXEGAY OFSRa� '.U.sEInFS 4 .......... SNOON BALL CWPT. BENCH - OVERHEAD C%TERIOR PUNIER POTS OAVI COLOR ROBA n, a 3 SAND VOLLEYBALL -- -----� .. ":' —.VARIES CORNXOLE BOARDS COURT VAT In' r\ ASP-Tf.ASP-21 / - _ art FIRE TABLE. SAFLTI ZONE -`� OUIOOOR SEATI— b OCCCL mLL COURT. -„ RE IARLE - � �: A'%B'PRECAST _1 _'- - CONCRETE STEPPING Z fir. -Cam RELGARp uCDuuNE PAv[Rs e- 4q fly, ����. � _ \ :. I OVERHEAD SHADE STRUCTURE. CONCRETE SGWCUT. PERGDIA OR SHADE SAILS. ¢ A NCREYC sAwc I _ - —WTDOOR PING PANG TABLE. - cO Ry - �)• 4 "' RELCARO NO➢UUXE PAVCRS - -14V � � OVT900R SE4TIxG, T3 I L�JI J I 11A11 i J R RGOu CTORE. 1 7 V. E, PE oR s1uuE 311I,S. � I �I I:. ._ - N 0 0 21 21 GO m Aa- r �. .. C i WEST APARTMENT COMPLEX - EAST APARTMENT COMPLEX N Fe structure Shade Structure oor Kitchen with BBQ Grill Outdoor Kitchen with BBQ Grill hes Benches • Outdoor seating surrounding a Fire Table 0Outdoor seating surrounding a Fire Table • Festoon lighting 0Cornhole • Cornhole 0Outdoor Ping Pong Table • Outdoor Ping Pong Table 0Snook Ball Court • Sand Volleyball 0Bocce Ball Court ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUEST few items need additional discussion with the Director related to : • Parking for Studios (VIII .A. 10J ) • Private Open Space (V111 ,A, 11 ) We request the ability to meet with the Director to review these issues and discuss solutions. 30 CONCLUSION We concur with Staff recommendation for approval, including the City / Agency comments & conditions. We respectfully and request Planning & Zoning Commission approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Eagle View Apartments with the caveat that the Applicant will meet with the Director on Alternative Compliance items And request that Planning & Zoning Commission support for and transmit to City Council the Rackham East applications for Annexation, Rezone and Preliminary Plat. 31 Rackham East & Eagle View Apartments 33 SITE CIRCULATION Future Sidewal 5 _ ___ -y � .f Lk� v i it i �. • r m rio al)` _ Pot- 0 - Rackham East a + ..... w ■ - -- `..'7� - - 'lli* 111111�= _ ,sllY� I j� iy 1 lop ■ 1 I. .;Wkff All kid 47 LU a- � �r J OV_F-,JnA - -- _- --- - 34 .. - A A, SITE CIRCULATION Future Sidewalk f rt Rackham • East kid V LV W J - -OVIEI.R-LA - - -- _- --- - 4 35 , R • ACHD will determine if a mini-roundabout needs to be constructed at the terminus of Rolling Hill Drive with the intersection of the private road system. ACHD • A 6-foot wide sidewalk will be required on one side of RECOMMENDATIONS Rolling Hills Drive with a minimum pavement widening to 24-feet with 3-foot wide gravel shoulders for the off-site portion. • ACHD will require passive traffic calming measures be constructed on Rolling Hills Drive. • No additional off-site improvements at any of the ACHD AOL7`1� _ � � � • i � intersections, or the road segments of Overland Road or - _ � ' + - Silverstone Way will be required. Only Overland Road from Silverstone to Eagle Road _ �` exceeds LOS thresholds under the 2023 total conditions, to but there isn't enough ROW to widen it. All other ---- segments meet LOS thresholds. k� m w it er t n way �~ Rollin Hills Drive will be required to be restricted to ac a ay �� .-.. � Fiolfrn� Hills Q�ive : ;� , g q �. .os RIRO only on Overland Road with a 6-inch raised median. Overland Road _ r = An existing culvert on Rolling Hills Drive needs to be z ,• � �-- replaced, as it won't be able to handle the construction "�€"� traffic and additional traffic. The applicant will be .: �. pta7 ea Fh o 1 p p .. AL F °i"p"`¢h° 2 required to replace it, but ACHD will provide pf°R`t Phtse 3 "aLtk compensation for the replacement. Intersections and Roast Segments ;n the Study a v��,rLr+di�aP+�,selPoxu+�aoo. The right-of-way vacation for Rolling Hill Drive within the site will be required to be completed before ACHD's signature on the final plat. Item 3. 98 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single-family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Item 3. F99 (:�N-VE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: January 6, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd.,Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single-family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R- 15 zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 4. 100 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for 1160 W. Ustick Annexation (H-2021-0092) by The Housing Company, Located at 1160 W. Ustick Rd., on the north side of Ustick Rd. Between N. Linder Rd. and N. Venable Ave. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.54 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district for the future purpose of constructing an affordable housing, multi-family residential project. Item 4. 1 o1 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: January 6, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for 1160 W. Ustick Annexation (H-2021-0092) by The Housing Company, Located at 1160 W. Ustick Rd., on the north side of Ustick Rd. Between N. Linder Rd. and N.Venable Ave. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.54 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district for the future purpose of constructing an affordable housing, multi-family residential project. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 4. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r A M O HEARING 1/6/2022 Legend H 0 DATE: INE Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission � M" m��� FROM: Joe Dodson Associate Planner00 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0092 CALAMOU 1160 W.Ustick Annexation [' r` LOCATION: The site is located at 1160 W. Ustick ® �- ® Road,on the north side of Ustick between N. Linder Road and N. Venable , Avenue, in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 36,Township 4N,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and Zoning of 4.54 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district for the future purpose of constructing an affordable housing,multi-family residential project,by The Housing Company. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ-4.54 acres;Project Site-3.81 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)and Medium Density Residential MDR Existing Land Uses Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family Residential,rent restricted Lots #and type;bldg./common) One 1)building lot known at this time. Phasing Plan(#ofphases) Proposed as one phase. Physical Features(waterways, Lemp Canal runs along north boundary and is piped. hazards,flood plain,hillside Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 26,2021 -number of attendees unknown by Staff. attendees: History(previous approvals) N/A - Page 1 Item 4. 103 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed to W.Ustick Road(arterial)via construction of a new local (Arterial/Collectors/State street connection at the very southeast corner of the site in alignment with N. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Blairmore Way on the south side of W.Ustick Road. Proposed) Stub Applicant is proposing to extend a new local street from Ustick to the north Street/Interconnectivity/Cross property boundary(length is approximately 100 feet).No other stub streets or are Access proposed. Existing Road Network Ustick Road is an existing 5-lane arterial street—4 lanes of travel plus a center turn lane. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Ustick Road is constructed with curb,gutter,and 5-foot detached sidewalk. Buffers Proposed Road ACHD staff report notes that no road improvements are required as Ustick Road is Improvements currently built to its ultimate configuration adjacent to the site. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 1.8 miles to Fire Station#2; 1.9 miles to Fire Station#3. Station • Fire Response Time Project lies within 5-minute response time goal. Police Service • Concerns None/no comments Wastewater • Impacts/Concerns • Provide to-and-through to 3335 N Cooper Ln in a way that meets city requirements. • Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement. • Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches Water • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • There are no changes to the water infrastructure shown in this record.A utility plan will need to be reviewed and approved by PW. • There is an existing water stub off of W Ustick Rd that will either need to be used or abandoned. Page 2 ■■■NONE I, •I ■ =_:�pulp n■on ■..: = 111 IIIIIi1N N1111111 a■NE■ ■■■a Iun1 Ix111111 - �� - nm Il:in.. ■ _• e :=III • '' i...�f'� I� -- C � 11�Il1' U._711iieilu� LU �•_ ����Y ■o ll"I � ■■■■■■■.■I `r����...�°'I>mV ��drrrrrgnro. / wI■ ,•i.,. r, ■nulO■ EN■■►�`ram��--.\:� - .0 ■■■■■■■■■7 '• ■N w���� �■IIIIILINA• �i li EIIIII � w > - nnpn . I _ ni111. �lll MIN • _ \•i' is�IlE!■ jME ail Olson % ��.�'II• ■ 1 ON onsion ME IN i 11 �i ii..■ 1■ MENEM -- inllp nn■ ■ ■ -=: inllll nn■ �! mm xlluln nllnl nn■ i i�Al m nnniu nnnl nnE i am i � IINIx n1111111 1111 I allllx exllllll 1111 � 1111 � • -• '• - - 1111111 m :Ilfll lllllh m E•_IIIII IIIIIIfIIi Flux� � ��IIIIIIIIIIII� � —, ''* � ��IIIIIIIIIIII� +.:=11111 111� �� C\CCaC -~IIIIIII== ►tl +.�=IIIII ill rn��.� 1.9-'�J ■ =_ IIIIII�� 11 .4� n� �. r�i►� � �1111111111 '���� .I�� m vSTICK- Ioi E =�1 _imiii ii: tZ — C I��nnaaa Inmml��= ■nuns 1�r,� ���� � `nnm�.MEMO + ■num■ � r������ � nn,y.���+ EEEEEE■■■1 NNN1..fig ��• III11 0'llllll �i mills .EEEEE■■■1 ��NEE n i�� — NIIILAL7 ±� EIIIII aa.a1 as � I.nu 1 1-■� 111 lnal�aa � I.n.■ .E� ,.�� :�111 ��iii ■■. . ■i �.� 111 i�iii ... u ■� .! m■■N11 • fi�111 Y��qoP— :;a'��� i�i1EE1■ ii■■l ni ■r=^��. ���.� i�ilEa � !ii■■■n! :: iiii 11. 1---------- .:�_ Illll ii iiiii ■ IIIIIl11111 ■.. rl`�111111 ��111r I ii■EEE■ ==rr1`I111111 a..lire I.. NEE.■.. 11 1' 1 1 ' 1 •. 1 I CDC, i 1 r 1 1. • � i 1 � i 11 Item 4. Fo5l IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 12/21/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 12/15/2021 Site Posting 12/21/2021 Nextdoor posting 12/16/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(ht(ps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) The subject project site includes two future land use designations: Mixed-use Community is shown on a majority of the site with Medium Density Residential being shown on the west quarter of the site. Mixed Use Community(MU-C)—The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU- R) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject site is approximately 3.8 acres in size and abuts W. Ustick Road along its entire southern boundary. The property is widest at the west boundary and smallest at the east boundary, approximately 390 feet versus 90 feet, respectively. There are no public streets abutting the site except for approximately 11 feet of right-of-way at the very northwest corner of the site for NW 11 th Avenue. The placement of this stub street is not in an ideal location as its extension now relies on two different parcels to extend it or dedicate additional right-of-way. Unfortunately, the placement of this stub street will likely dictate a majority or all of the public road to be on the property to the west, 1250 W. Ustick Road, to connect to a stub street on its west boundary from Tetherow Crossing Subdivision. In addition, at the northeast corner of the site a relatively large residential lot exists (3335 N. Cooper Lane) that was annexed and zoned as part of the adjacent Woodburn West Subdivision to the north but does not take access through that subdivision. Instead, this property takes access via a private road easement through this subject site to Ustick. Between this parcel and the Woodburn subdivision and running along the entire northern boundary is a common lot owned by the Woodburn HOA which contains the piped Lemp Canal. This common lot does not appear to be fenced off from the subject parcel but the submitted concept plans do not contemplate this area either. Staff assumes this area will be fenced off since there are two different property owners; Staff notes that if fencing is proposed in the future, open vision fencing will be required for crime prevention purposes per the Unified Development Code(UDC). Therefore, the property is a relatively odd-shaped parcel with its own Page 4 Item 4. F106 set of challenges derived from previous planning decisions, its dimensions, and its general location. As briefly discussed, the majority of adjacent parcels are single-family residential with the exception of the C-C property to the east that shares approximately 90 feet of property boundary. This property, Settlers Square, recently received Development Agreement modification to include multi family townhomes on the north half of their site.More importantly, that Applicant is required to provide cross-access between their property and this one. In anticipation of this, the submitted concept plan for this site should also depict an area of cross-access in reciprocation. The proposed use for the subject site is multi family residential which is a conditional use in the requested R-15 zoning district and is subject to specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-27). However, the Applicant is proposing this project with a couple notable differences to traditional multi family residential seen elsewhere in the City of Meridian. First, the submitted concept plan and conceptual elevations show 6 plexes and 8 plexes, no more than two-story in height, that are accessed from one side of the building and look similar to a townhome instead of a garden style apartment. Secondly, the Applicant proposes this multi family project to be affordable housing in the form of deed restricted rents for the entire site. Stafffinds the specific use of affordable housing, no matter the type, is greatly needed within the City and is essentially its own residential use. Staff has worked with the City Attorney's office to propose adequate Development Agreement (DA)provisions to ensure the proposed use of deed restricted housing units is maintained. As noted above, the subject site contains two future land use designations, Mixed Use Community (MU-C)and Medium Density Residential(MDR). Staff finds the proposed use to be in alignment with the anticipated uses in both designations. Furthermore,future land use designations are not always parcel specific when more than one exists on the same project area. In short, the City has allowed Applicants to utilize one or both of the designations for their project site. However, in order for the proposed 52 affordable multi family units to meet the gross density requirements, the project must be analyzed against the MU-C designation which allows dwellings at a gross density of 6-15 du/ac. Staff notes that a future Conditional Use Permit(CUP)will be required and the number of units will be more thoroughly analyzed with that application. The subject MU- C area is located around a mid-mile corridor and has minimal commercial uses currently developed. Previous applications in the area have allowed a reduction in commercial areas due to the viability of commercial being lower in these mid-mile locations than on the arterial intersections. However, Staff anticipates most of the remaining unannexed land to the east that is part of this MU-C bubble will be commercial because they directly abut Ustick Road which drastically increases the visibility of future businesses. In addition, as seen on the future land use map, the area to the north of subject parcel was specifically carved out of the MU-C area to allow for more traditional residential uses. This choice, coupled with the existing stub street locations and large annexed outparcels adjacent to the site, has created a site that cannot viably meet the fundamental goals and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan for the previously envisioned mixed use future land use. Minimal opportunities exist for shared spaces with other MU-C parcels to the east and even cross-access to the C-C parcel to the east is only attainable through 90 feet of shared property line. Because of these constraints to the site and nearby area, Staff does not find it feasible for the Applicant to meet all of the mixed-use policies,provide additional commercial area, and should instead be an affordable multi family housing development. Outside of the proposed use, the concept plan should also be analyzed against the Comprehensive Plan. The submitted concept plan depicts six (6) 6 Alex building and two (2) 8 Alex buildings, all two-story in height and the 8 plex buildings only proposed along Ustick. The proposed 6 plex buildings are only two-story in the center of the building with the outer units being shown with an elevated roofline and apparent bonus room or vaulted ceilings; no more than four(4) units are Page 5 Item 4. F107 on the first floor of each building. The site is shown with a looping drive aisle due to the odd shape of the parcel that has parking on both sides and the clubhouse and playground area in the center of the project. Because of the existing common lot between this parcel and the Woodburn Subdivision to the north, the two-story buildings are proposed with a relatively large physical separation. In addition, at least three of the homes closest to the subject site are two-story in height. The Applicant is also showing open space adjacent to the single-family home to the northeast taking access via a private drive. Along the west boundary, the Applicant is showing a 1 S foot buffer that would be adjacent to a future road extension (NW 11 th Avenue)for a majority of this shared property line—the existing single-family home on this adjacent property is located on the west side of its lot, approximately 100 feet from the shared property line. Therefore, Staff finds the Applicant has provided appropriate building massing, open space locations and buffer widths, and appropriate transition of residential use and density to adjacent residential uses. Because of this analysis, Stafffinds the proposed project and use of affordable multi family residential to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed below. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application and phasing plan, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https:llwww.meridiancioy.or /g compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Consider providing incentives to developers that produce affordable housing units as defined by federal and state agencies."(2.01.01I).Although the City does not provide economic or dimensional relief to Applicants for affordable housing, Stafffinds it appropriate to analyze this project outside of the mixed-use future land use vacuum. In addition, because the use of affordable housing units is in great need within the City of Meridian, Staff has proposed DA provisions to ensure the proposed use is maintained for many years to come. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01G).All City services are available for the subject site. West Ada School District(WASD) has submitted a letter noting that approximately 24 school aged children could be housed in the future development and all schools in the applicable attendance areas currently have capacity to accommodate additional children.ACHD has provided a staff report that analyzed the proposed project and has approved the submitted conceptual plan, use, and transportation element. "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). As noted above, the proposed use of affordable multi family housing can be considered a separate residential use and Staff has chosen to view it in this way. Traditional multi family residential exists to the southeast of the site on the south side of Ustick and townhome style multi family is proposed on a portion of the C-C property directly to the east; detached single-family residential exists to the south, west, and north of the subject site and are all zoned R-8. The multi family component of the use would be a new use on the north side of Ustick in this area; the affordable housing component of the use would be a use the City of Meridian has not seen in many years in anyplace in the City. Staff supports the proposed use. Page 6 Item 4. Flo] "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Despite the project being on an odd shaped parcel with many constraints, the submitted concept plan depicts robust pedestrian facilities throughout the site and to adjacent parcels. The Applicant is showing multiple connections to the existing arterial sidewalk as well as a pedestrian connection to the east property line and at the very northwest corner of the site for future connectivity. Due to the requirements of the project to the east, it is anticipated the pedestrian facilities will be continued within the commercial component of that project. In addition, the connection at the northwest corner would connect to the attached sidewalk along the future extension of NW 1Ph Avenue.Additional pedestrian connectivity may be required with the future CUP application. "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D).Proposed use of affordable multi family housing units is encouraged to assist in meeting the needs of present and future residents based on their financial capabilities. In addition to general comprehensive plan policies, Staff finds the following mixed-use policies are also met with the proposed development: • A mixed use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone. • All mixed use projects should be accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian circulation should be convenient and interconnect different land use types. Vehicle connectivity should not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood access. • All mixed use projects should be accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian circulation should be convenient and interconnect different land use types. Vehicle connectivity should not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood access. • All mixed use projects should be accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian circulation should be convenient and interconnect different land use types. Vehicle connectivity should not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood access. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is one existing structure on the property that appears to be a large concrete structure. This structure will be removed upon project development. In addition,there is existing 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along Ustick Road that will be protected and maintained during construction. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use of Multi-Family Residential is a conditional use in the requested R-15 zoning district. Staff has included analysis on the proposed use in relation to adjacent properties and the underlying future land use in the Comprehensive Plan section above.All required specific use standards for the proposed use will be analyzed with the future CUP applications. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The Applicant is proposing to annex the subject property into the City with the R-15 zoning district.As noted above,the proposed use is multi-family so the use is proposed on one lot and will therefore meet the minimum lot size requirement of 2,500 square feet. In addition,multi- family residential specific use standards require at least 10 feet of separation between buildings and to any property line. According to the submitted concept plan,the Applicant is in compliance with this dimensional standard. Page 7 Item 4. Flog] The R-15 zoning district has a minimum landscape buffer requirement of 25 feet to any adjacent arterial street. The submitted concept plan shows this 25-foot landscape buffer to W. Ustick compliant with the required dimensional standards. The R-15 zoning district has a maximum height limit of 40 feet. The submitted conceptual elevations do not depict measurements but all buildings are proposed as two-story in height so Staff is not concerned with the Applicant meeting this standard. With a future CUP application, Staff will confirm conformance with the required dimensional standards of the R-15 zone and the multi-family residential project specific use standards(11-4-3-27). F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the future multi-family 6-plex buildings but not of the noted 8-plex buildings. Multi-family residential projects require Administrative Design Review(DES) approval with future applications so Staff will perform a thorough analysis at that time. The Applicant has the option to submit concurrently for design review with their future CUP application. Initial review of the conceptual elevations depicts a 6 plex building with varying roofprofiles and materials including stone,fiber-cement lap siding, and board&batten in different layouts. The elevations also depict the tallest portion of the buildings to face in towards the site which appears to minimize the building massing facing adjacent properties. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, I1-3H-4): Access is proposed to W. Ustick Road(arterial)via construction of a new local street connection at the very southeast corner of the site in alignment with N. Blairmore Way on the south side of W.Ustick Road. The submitted plans show this new road to extend from Ustick and then terminate at the north property boundary to be a total of approximately 100 feet in length. Access to the multi-family residential buildings is proposed off of this new local street segment in the form of a driveway connection on its west side. All parking and access to the proposed units are off of this drive aisle that loops through the site. There is an existing home at the northeast corner of the subject property that currently takes access to Ustick Road via a private lane easement,N. Cooper Lane.According to the Applicant, the existing location of this private lane and curb cut are not in the correct position per the recorded easement. In fact,the Applicant has stated the easement is located further east and in alignment with the proposed local street extension. Therefore,the Applicant does not have to relocate the easement so long as access is still being provided as proposed. In addition,the Applicant is proposing to construct a new segment of private driveway for this homeowner to have access to the new local street. ACHD has offered their support of the proposed access and driveway connections for the project. Local street access is not currently available to serve this site. Further,the applicant should provide cross access to the eastern parcel to allow access to the planned commercial uses and reciprocate access as was required with the adjacent eastern property. The executed cross access agreement should be submitted with the future CZC application. As noted above, there is a small area of existing right-of-way for NW 11 th Avenue abutting the subject site at the very northwest corner. It is anticipated this public road would be extended wholly on the property to the west except for the sliver of right-of-way aforementioned(see Page 8 Item 4. ■ exhibit to the right). The property to the west has an additional public street stub to their west boundary from Tetherow LU Crossing Subdivision currently under development. Therefore, y the property to the west would be responsible for two public = street extensions within the MDR designation. Code calls for cross-access between parcels but because of the proposed J development and site constraints, Staff does not find it necessary to require a stub to the west boundary for future connectivity. Further, Stafffinds if a connection were to be required, it would promote cross-access through parking drive aisles meant to serve the future residents of this site; this would create more of ,' § b / a thoroughfare for residential traffic through this drive aisle = that is intended for parking and access to the multi family units. Commission and Council should determine if cross-access to the west is needed for this property in spite of these factors. In general, Staff supports the proposed transportation element of the subject project and site. PAM XA& H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table H- 3C-6B for residential uses based on the number of bedrooms per unit and should include guest spaces based on the ratio of one(1) space for every 10 dwelling units. Because this application does not directly analyze unit count, Staff will confirm compliance with these standards with the future CUP submittal for the proposed use. In anticipation of this review,the Applicant did provide conceptual bedroom and parking counts on the conceptual site plan.According to these numbers, a minimum of 105 parking spaces(at least 52 covered spaces)would be required for the conceptual 52 units and includes the required five(5)guest spaces. The conceptual site plan shows a total of 115 parking spaces, of which 52 are proposed to be covered. Initial review of the concept plan does not give Staff concern over the amount of parking due to the anticipated number of spaces being above the requirement and Staff sees a few areas on the site plan to include a few additional spaces. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): A 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is existing along W.Ustick Road. The Applicant is also proposing attached sidewalks and other micro-paths throughout the entire site. The proposed sidewalks and micro-paths will be analyzed against UDC dimensional requirements with the future CUP application. In addition to the proposed sidewalks and micro paths shown on the concept plan, Staff is recommending an additional pathway along the north boundary to help activate the approved open space from the Woodburn Subdivision that is the area of the piped Lemp Canal directly behind six(6) existing homes. Staff believes a gravel pathway suitable for at least walking should meander through this area of the site, behind a few of the proposed buildings, so this open space area is not walled off any more than it has been by the Woodburn Subdivision. Despite this area not being apart of this project or property, this Applicant could work with the Woodburn Subdivision to better utilize and access this space for a public benefit. Staff is not recommending the Lemp Canal area be further improved but is recommending better access is provided from within this project to this area so it could be utilized by both project areas. Staff is recommending a DA provision in line with this discussion. Page 9 Item 4. F-1111 J. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Lemp Canal abuts the subject site along the north property boundary and is already piped. As noted,this area is owned and maintained by the adjacent Woodburn Subdivision HOA but does not appear to be fenced off from this subject site. Should this Applicant decide to fence this area off, Staff will analyze any proposed fencing to ensure compliance with UDC standards for fencing adjacent to irrigation common lots. K. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the development in accord with 11-3A-15.No irrigation plans have been submitted for this use at this time but Staff anticipates this will be handled with future development applications,most likely with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance that is required prior to building permit submittal. Land Development will review these plans in more detail at a later date when specific irrigation plans are submitted. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 10 Item 4. F112 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map ANNEXATION EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Being a portion of the SW114 of the SEI/4 of the SW114 of Section 36, T 4N, R IW, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 36 which bears N88"42'44"W a distance of 2,662.13 feet from the south quarter corner of said Section 36; thence on the south line of said Section 36 S88"42'44"E a distance of 1,331.05 feet to the west sixteenth corner of said Section 36 also being the Point of Beginning; thence continuing on said South line of Section 36 S88"42'44"E a distance of 665.55 feet; thence N00"23'45"E a distance of 141.63 feet; thence N67"09'18"W a distance of 129.84 feet; thence N71"02'O1"W a distance of 75.67 feet; thence N66"36'48"W a distance of 55.79 feet; thence N51"23'44"W a distance of 66.02 feet; thence N47"26'23"W a distance of 78.17 feet; thence N38"28'47"W a distance of 31.20 feet; thence N72"42'37"W a distance of 123.96 feet; thence N71"13'56"W a distance of 117.61 feet; thence N69"15'27"W a distance of 67.37 feet to a point on said sixteenth line of Section 36; thence on said sixteenth line of Section 36 S00"20'32"W a distance of 440.85 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 4.54 Acres more or less \O�p� ZAP ��U, y�GEfVSEQSC� ° 1835a -7Q � O T� 0 G� Page 11 Item 4. 113 N ANNEXATION EXHIBIT B h(--'R I ON OF -A 1/4 0- T IE S- 1 I4 0-- TF- E-N 1 j 4 OF SE"T ON Z6, o R0ISF NFR F,YW, ::ITY 0 2w, AD CJLN I �/MHO. BE RI\CS sv DSrr,NcLS VAY VARY Ftov FR7v-.Ul,=nTs DUF To i iFFSRFv%� TR:;Ds c rws i-n/uv s. AF PLE PINE Z I '•` I Z ---- t OODCHEST w Lu l O - i w. �ml 1 a0 - �V60DPfNE S"r J OSS z J RWIND orn w m o L5 L4 z J - L3� w L10 m L9 z LS w L 7 P.O.B. P.O.C. -S8S'42 44"E--n3-r.0S- - - SW CORNER — -S88'-42'44"E=-665 5`1 - - - SECTION 36 W 1I16 CQR ER S88°42'44"E-2662,13'BJO.B', USTICK ROAD I` PEBBLE STONEST. 6 \ ` \\ EBBLEST N ST. �A S 114 CORNER 1 p SECTION 36 1<1 n w USTICK ROAD am 1-- > 2 d �H Parcel Line Table a STANOP S Line# Length Bearing J i7 iwi L1 440.85' 80"20'32"W C) ¢ d < H F— L2 78,1T N47-25'23'iN � O 00 L3 31 20' N36°28'47'W FOUND MONUMENT B.O.B.BASIS OF BEARING L4 123.96 N72'42'37"W P.O.B.POINT OF BEGINNING L5 117.61' N71°13'56"W P.O.C.POINT OF COMMENCEMENT L6 6737' N69°16'27"W CITY OF MERIDIAN L7 129.84' N67°09'18'W LE 75.67' N71'l)2'01'W AREA TO BE ANNEXED L9 55.79' N66°66'48"W L10 66.02' N51°23 44"W L11 141.63' ND'23'45"E '\=ACKERMAN _ESTVOLD 7681 West Riverside Dfnve,Ste.102,Garden City,ID 83714 J C)R N o: R 71 g a 208 853 6470 v�gg,aokerman-astvola com Min11,No I-gn,No I Wiiftt".kg.gn'Ig Page 12 Item 4. 114 B. Proposed Concept Plan la -------------- ----- pill io z Yu� FF �I 14 CA 7-j— Z I T C3 777. PER LNi---- ------ Page 13 Item 4. F115 C. Conceptual Elevations EL m _ z - a 3i@a@ Co g Page 14 Item 4. F116 D. Preliminary Open Space Exhibit Pa WENT 11NRS 115PMMING SPACES POMP --1 COVEREGPAMINGSPACES V-1 8ERS 51 OOUEW,WAIWR NEG) t _ //��/ 1]39ENS SITE DAEA ip9,259GF. /® / OPEN SPACE MEA GATA COG MFA 113HSF. - - QUALFIEOOPENSPAOE 79iM$F, lOfIILMEA 555143.F. PERCFMAGE OF OPEN SPACE 21% I 1 fpaR �.1_ \� qN w— °° —- --- - -- _ y _ ilk IMI I — n a -- o i - - _— — 1 v HU-rCHISON W USTICK RD WT�/ SM1TH _ J ARCHITECTS Page 15 Item 4. F117 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the approved concept plans and conceptual elevations included in Section V11 and the provisions contained herein. b. Before the multi-family units are placed in service, Owner and/or Developer shall record a low-income housing tax credit regulatory agreement with the Ada County Recorder's Office to restrict the rental rates on the units for a minimum of thirty(30)years to ensure the units are affordable to individuals and families earning no more than sixty percent (60%)of the area median income. City shall be deemed to be a third-party beneficiary of said regulatory agreement. c. With the first phase of development, any existing structures on the property shall be removed and all existing driveway curb-cuts to Ustick Road shall be closed. d. Future structures proposed along the Ustick Road frontage shall provide modulation in building placement as well as architectural elements. e. With the future Conditional Use Permit application,the submitted site plan shall depict the location of cross-access along the east property boundary to ensure cross-access with Parcel SO436347150. f. The Applicant shall record a cross-access agreement to the property to the east(Parcel SO436347150)for easier access to and from the future commercial uses along W.Ustick Road;the recorded agreement shall be submitted with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. g. The Applicant shall deed the required right-of-way for N. Cooper Avenue to ACHD prior to submitting for Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval. h. Prior to submitting for Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval,the Applicant shall deed the required future right-of-way to ACHD for the extension of NW 1 I'Avenue in the northwest corner of the property. i. With the future Conditional Use Permit application, an additional 5-foot wide pathway shall be depicted along the north boundary of the site with connections to the internal sidewalks. Said pathway shall be made of materials that can easily accommodate safe pedestrian activities(i.e. asphalt,gravel, etc.). j. Prior to commencement of the multi-family use on the property,the applicant shall obtain approval of a conditional use permit and meet the specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27. Page 16 Item 4. 118 B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 There are no changes to Public Works infrastructure shown with this application.A utility plan must be submitted and reviewed by Public Works Engineering. 1.2 There is an existing water stub off West Ustick Road that must be utilized or abandoned, per City Design Standards. 1.3 No permanent structures can be built within a City utility easement including but not limited to trees, shrubs,buildings, carports,trash enclosures, fences, infiltration trenches, light poles, etc. 1.4 No sewer services shall cross infiltration trenches. 1.5 A geotechnical report will be required to be submitted with the first building permit application; any recommendations therein should be followed. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20- feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. 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. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. Page 17 Item 4. 119 1 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.10 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.11 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.12 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.13 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.14 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.15 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.16 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.17 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.18 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridianci ty.orglpublic_works.aVx?id=272. 2.19 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. Page 18 Item 4. ■ C. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciN.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=248514&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C Lty D. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aWx?id=248414&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty E. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=248753&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-15 zoning district with the proposed affordable multi family residential use and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment and the requested development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested R-15 zoning district and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, especially if all conditions of approval are met. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the annexation is in the best interest of the City, if the applicant enters into a development agreement with the City and agrees to develop the property as an affordable housing project as proposed. Page 19 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation 1160 W The Housing Company Zoning and AnnexationUstick Section 8 & Tax Credit Vacancy Rate Caldwell under construction. . We also have Canyon Terrace in Nampa and Sunset Landing in Hazel Park in CaldwellMoon Valley Apartments in Star, Nampa Duplexes, and are nearest developments Our in order to make these housing communities a reality.. We are able to put together complex financing community that will stand the test of timeown our properties in the long term and take pride in building an asset for the We income families, seniors, and the disabled.-apartment communities serving lowHousing Company provides professional property management services for affordable communities. The have developed more than 800 units in two dozen affordable rental We and other interested parties to solve local housing needs.areas struggling with insufficient housing. Our goal is to partner with local government public/private partnerships we have been able to bring creative housing solutions to housing resources to areas of the state not being adequately served. Through local Idaho and recently surrounding states. We play an active role in bringing affordable concern of an inadequate supply of affordable, decent rental housing within the state of is a nonprofit organized in 1990 with the mission to address the The Housing Company Our Purpose:The Housing Company, an Idaho nonprofit corporationComparison What is Affordable Housing The Housing Company Household Composition verification• Student Status verification• Credit Check• Criminal Background Check• Income Verification• Application requires:• program.Section 42It is difficult to identify which rental properties participate in the • is lower than the average market rate rent in the area.unit size thatrental fee for the fixedRent that a Section 42 resident pays is based on a• must be income and program eligibleResidents •credits. and provide equity to the project in return for ten years worth of federal tax such as a bank or insurance company will become a partner in the project “subsidized housing” or “Section 8”. With this program, a private investor Housing Tax Credit. It is not the same as what people think of as The –utilized today for new construction is IRS program Section 42 There are a number of affordable housing programs. The most common one ? Myth:.often lack good housing optionsIdahoans Yet even hard working to safe, affordable homes builds a strong foundation for families and communities. Access $1,040.43% increase from last year. The rent affordable at the median renter income, however, is bedroom rent costs $1,814 according to rent.com. This is a -In Meridian, the average twoPeople who need affordable housing already live and work in your community.City of Meridian Housing NeedPeople who live in affordable housing won’t fit in my neighborhood maximum annual amount that can be spent on rent, and then divide by 12 to obtain monthly amount.by 40 (hours per work week) and 52 (weeks per year) to calculate annual income. Multiply by 0.3 to determine based inflation adjustment factor). Multiply mean renter wage -forward to 2021 using Consumer Price Index2019 projected -Source: Rent.com and Median renter income from American Community Survey (2015 Fact: Potential Resident Profile Single Four Mother, Two Three Person Person Single PersonSonsHouseholdHousehold Age(s)SixtiesTwentiesFortiesThirties Student w/ Customer Part Time Job Warehouse JobServiceas CashierlaborerCook Income30,00038,00045,18043,000 Bedrooms Desired1 2 3 3 Rent7419461,0891,089 The Springs Apartments McCall, ID The Springs Apartments McCall, ID Moon Valley, Star ID Site Plan for Subject Property Dog park, open spaceClubhouse, playground,Pedestrian ConnectionsStory buildings -2 Ustick1160 W - Exterior elevations Quality finishesinterestfenestrations for various height Building with Importance of exterior design appeal Timeline funding availability.of 2023, depending on October 2022 or Spring-JulystartClose Financing/Construction sources available for project.on final determination of August, depending –JanuaryFunding ApplicationsMarch 2022–AppropriatenessCUP and Certificate of Zoning February 2022-JanuaryZoning and AnnexationDateMilestone Item 5. Ll 21 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Friendship Subdivision (H-2021-0083) by Mike Homan, Located Near the Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Rd. and E. Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.058 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 7 common lots. Item 5. 122 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: January 6, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Friendship Subdivision (H-2021-0083) by Mike Homan, Located Near the Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Rd. and E. Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.058 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 7 common lots. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : January 6 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 6 PROJECT NAME : Friendship Subdivision ( W2021 - 0083 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes , please provide HOA name 70Q� rn �� rw6vAbl " ) 2 6 o ) 3 /V . g v s4 / C/rcdtaN S3laIk 3 S�sJy �� , Pass cc* 0ai &1' AP4W94W T360 4 5;71 )5, 5 ��, . 6 All , dzZ' g k' ( o CdL1Scf 1b /36441 9 > Sr LuCl: iwT 10 � 11 12 13 14 I i Item 5. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 1/6/2022 Legend DATE: leiProject Lflca i�an TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Tiefenbach --- 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: AZ,PP -H-2021-0083 Friendship Subdivision LOCATION: 6168 N. Elk Ranch Ln,located near the southeast corner of N. Meridian Rd and H:RR E E. Chinden Blvd. �rn nTn-rx I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 10.06 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat to allow 41 building lots and 7 common lots. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 10.06 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential 8-12 du/acre Existing Land Use(s) 1 single family residence Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 41 building lots,7 open space lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units(type 41 of units) Density(gross&net) 4.1 du/ac gross Open Space(acres,total 1.09 ac qualified open space(10.8%) [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities One amenity is required,applicant is proposing tot lot, picnic table and benches. Physical Features(waterways, A Settlers Irrigation canal bisects the property at a 45- hazards,flood plain,hillside) degree angle;this is being relocated and piped. Neighborhood meeting date;#of August 6,2021 —5 attendees attendees: Page 1 Item 5. F124] Description Details History(previous approvals) This property was proposed for annexation,zoning to R-8 and plat for 48 lots as the Bull Ranch Subdivision in 2015 (AZ 15-013,PP 15-017).This was subsequently denied by the Council with density being cited as a primary concern. B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District Report Pending,preliminary comments submitted • Staff report(yes/no) Yes Access(Arterial/Collectors/State N.Elk Ranch Rd is a private road which provides access Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) from W. Chinden Rd to the subject property. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Subdivision will stub to three local streets—E.Lockhart St. Access to the west,E. Tallinn St to the east,and N. Senita Hills to the south.A fourth stub is provided to the church property at the north. Existing Road Network E.Lockhard St.,N. Senita Hills Ave.and E. Tallinn St. N.Elk Ln to E.Chinden is a private road. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ This is an internal subdivision surrounded by local roads so Buffers no buffers are required. There are 5 ft.wide sidewalks shown along all internal streets. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant will be required to construct all local streets to ACHD templates with 33 ft.travel lanes and 47 ft.right of way. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.8 miles to Fire Station 5 • Fire Response Time <5 minutes • Resource Reliability >80% • Risk Identification 2,resources are 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 • Comments • Flow is committed • No sewer services may cross infiltration trenches • Must provide to-and-through to the property to the north. • Sewer to the north must end in a manhole and preferably be in the Right of Way.If it is not in the Right of Way it must have a 14 foot wide access road that is built per City standards. • Sewer mains must at a minimum have 3 foot of cover above the pipe.This is not met with Manhole number 11 and Manhole number 12. Water • Distance to Water Services Directly Adjacent Page 2 1111111 — ■ � ■MON 1111111�—�uu =■ mama ■■o moll HIM 111ii1:: loll■1= • �11111111■■ 11 # 11MUNI11111 11111 ■ -- 1111fdo■N1in ir E; E; — ww 1111111 � _ o alai Z�' ■■1 .��� iiiiii z: —2�uui ■ ■ uuw -2�uw :: 1111111 a-,���� =■ 1111111 a ,���� r ••••�.• ��� ����. �: r ■•yn s� 1111111 111 ��.�� 1: L ■I■I ■■I 1111 111y1 11 — moll ■■o 1111 HIM 11 ■11■■1.: ■1■1■1 ' 11111111■■ 11� moll■1■1 .: ■1■1■1 1 11111111■■ IIn11 .. 1■111 '� " .. 1■111 '� • .r� ■_ ■ ■r� .�11111111NW1� .�.1 ■ �� 11r :�:1 .■ ■'�■ •■r 11N111i • ■ a� ■1 IN 111■11■11! i •���i a� 11 IN 11■11■11■! 11 11■■ ■ 11 11111 11 •• ■1 11■■ ■ 11 ■■ 11111 111 ■ �• � :: ■1111■ ■1111 ■ �■ . 11111 11 11111■ ■1111 ■�'i ■11111 ■1l :-- ■1111■ ■1111 ■�'�5 I11111 ■11 111111111111 11111 ■ 111 ■■1N11111 ■11111111111 11111 r 71■ ■��H1111■ 11 1111111 11111 ■■■ 111 Io1111 11111 ___ '�sss N■-.2■■ ...■ NEW N= .■ urn ON . ■ �� ■11 �N=: IIIN1� ■ Item 5. F126] III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Representative: Kaili Worth, Centurion/B&A Engineers—5505 W. Franklin Rd, Boise, ID, 83705 B. Owner: Thomas Buck Trust—6168 N. Elk Ranch Ln,Meridian,ID 83646 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 12/21/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 12/15/2021 Nextdoor posting 12/16/2021 Sign Posting 12/20/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Annexation: The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation approval. B. Zoning The applicant proposes to annex this property with the R-8 zoning district.As mentioned in the dimensional standards below,the plat meets all requirements of the R-8 zoning district and the lot sizes as proposed are consistent with the density designations of the future land use map,but staff does have concerns with the transition to the south and the alignment of lots to the east and is further explained in the Comprehensive Plan Policy section below. C. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridianeity.org/eompplan) 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. The annexation area is near existing public services and is surrounded on three sides by the City limits. The proposed land use of single family residential is consistent with the recommended uses in the FLUM designation. The proposed project has a gross density of 4.1 du/ac, being on the low end of the allowed density range listed above. 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. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section LK.A. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to Page 4 Item 5. F127] the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. D. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan): • Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. (2.01.02D) The proposed traditional single-family detached homes will contribute to the variety of residential categories in the City; however, there is no variety in housing types proposed within the development. The Birkdale Estates Subdivision is to the west(R-2), the Hightower Subdivision is to the east(R-8) and the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision (R-4) is to south, with an existing church on RUT zoned property in the County directly north. Given the property is completely surrounded by single-family detached, single family detached with comparable lot sizes is appropriate for the subject property. Staff does have concerns regarding whether there is an appropriate transition in lots sizes to the properties in the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision to the south as is discussed below. • 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 S ft. wide attached sidewalks on both sides of roads internal to the subdivision. The pathways master plan does not indicate any pathways crossing the site. There are several micro pathways providing access to the qualified open space as well as connecting to an existing micro pathway at the Birkdale Estates Subdivision to the west. Qualified open space and amenities are discussed below. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) As mentioned above, S ft. wide attached sidewalks are provided along all internal roadways and a pathway connection is provided to the existing pathway at the Birkdale Estates Subdivision at the west. "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 provided from N. Senita Hills Ave., and the applicant will be required to extend services to the north. • Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction. (2.02.02F) As mentioned, the Birkdale Estates Subdivision is to the west(R-2), the Hightower Subdivision is to the east(R-8) and the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision (R-4) is to south, with an existing church zoned RUT to the north. The lots at the southern perimeter of the property are proposed at sizes between 5,000— 7,000 sq.ft. and widths of between 50-70 ft. This is denser than the adjacent lots of approximately 10,000 sq.ft. and 90'feet in width in the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision to the south, and this would result in several of the existing properties abutting more than one lot(and one residence) along the rear property lines. Staff recommends one of the lots shown as Lots 1- Page 5 Item 5. ■ 4 of Block 2 be eliminated and the remaining 3 lots be sized and oriented to be consistent with Lots 1-3,Block 35 of the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision No 3 to the south. The 5,200 sq.ft. +/- lots along the eastern perimeter are very comparable in size to the lots in the Hightower Subdivision to the east, although staff believes the side lot lines could align better with the adjacent properties for more cohesive fence lines and easier differentiation of property ownership.As a condition of approval, staff recommends Lots 1-10,Block I along the eastern perimeter be configured so their property lines align with Lots 4-11,Block 10 in the Hightower Subdivision to the east. This development proposes architecture consisting of one and two-story homes with pitched roofs, stone bases fishscale accents and/or lap siding with gabled roofs and dormers, which is consistent with the architecture in surrounding subdivisions. E. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is one existing single-family residence which will be retained on Lot 9 of Block 3. As a condition of annexation,this house should be required to connect to City water and sewer service and obtain a new address since the access to N. Elk Ranch Ln. will be terminated. F. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-8 zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2A-2. G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and fixture 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. However, it should be noted that this property was proposed for annexation, zoning to R-8 and plat for 48 lots as the Bull Ranch Subdivision in 2015 (AZ 15-013, PP 15-017). It was subsequently denied by the Council with density being cited as a primary concern and that R-4 or R-2 was preferable to more R-8 zoned property. 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. There are no common driveways proposed with this subdivision. H. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): This subdivision proposes to connect to three existing local streets which already stub at the property—E. Lockhard St.to the west,E. Tallin St.to the east, and N. Santa St.to the south. The plat also provides a stub street to the church property at the north in case some or all of this property redevelops in the fixture. The street sections provided with the plat reflect templates of 33 ft. of travel lane(curb to curb), curb, gutter, 5 ft. wide sidewalks,and a 47 ft. right-of-way. N. Elk Ranch Ln., a private road,provides access from the subject property to E. Chinden Blvd. UDC 11-H-4 states when a property has an existing access from a State Highway and an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use,the owner shall develop or otherwise Page 6 Item 5. F129] acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the approach shall be abandoned and removed. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant vacate all interest in the N.Elk Ranch Ln. private street,as the property already has three existing access points from local roads. ACHD has noted a traffic study is not required with this subdivision and has not offered any other comments. 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 detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.Future development should comply with these standards. J. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): The pathways master plan does not indicate any pathway connections across or along the property. The landscape plan reflects micro-pathways comprised of concrete within Common Lots 1 and 17,Block 1,Lot 8,Block 3 and Lot 1 Block 4. There is also a pathway connection to an existing micro-pathway in the Birkdale Estates Subdivision to the west. All internal streets contain 5 ft.wide attached sidewalks which is consistent with the three local streets stubbing to the property. K. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-2A-6 does not require landscape buffers along local streets,which are all the streets bordering and within the subject property. An open space exhibit was submitted as will be discussed below. The landscape plan indicates there are existing trees that are to be removed or relocated,but does not indicate whether they meet the preservations requirements of UDC 11-3B-10 or whether mitigation is required. Staff recommends that prior to City Council,the applicant contact the City Arborist and update the landscape plan accordingly. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): This application was submitted prior to the increased qualified open space requirements of UDC 11-3G-3 and therefore this development is required to provide 10%of qualified open space.An open space exhibit was submitted which reflects 14%of qualified open space is provided. This includes a 40,761 sq. ft. landscaped park with playground and pathway at the western side of the property(Lot 8, Block 3), 18,000 square foot(55' x 350' _/-) greenspace with pathway through the middle of the site(Lots 1,Block 1 and 4),and 6,400 sq. ft.pathway common lots south of E Lockhart St and at the northwest corner of the property(Lot 8, Block 4 and Lot 10,Block 5). N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(10 acres),under the previous regulations one amenity is required. The proposed landscape plan depicts a playground,benches,tables and additional walking paths. Prior to City Council,the applicant shall revise the landscape plan to indicate specific details of the amenities. Page 7 Item 5. F130] O. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The plat shows the North Slough is bisecting the property at a 45-degree angle north to south being relocated and piped in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6. According to an exhibit provided by the applicant(please refer to Section VI.)this ditch is being reconfigured toward the northwest corner of the property. This reconfiguration effort should be coordinated with the irrigation district.Also,per UDC 11-3A-6 requires irrigation easements wider than ten(10)feet to be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty(20)feet wide and outside of a fenced area. P. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The applicant has not provided any details in regard to fencing. Any fencing shall 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 obtained from N. Senita Hills Ave. at the south and developer will be required to extend services to the north. R. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted elevations of the single-family homes for this project(see Section VI.F below). The single-family homes are depicted as one and two-story structures with attached garages, and a variety of architectural elements and finish materials including gabled roofs,fishscale accents, covered porches,dormers, stone wainscoting, and lap siding. The submitted sample elevations appear to meet design requirements for single-family homes and are consistent with the architecture of existing surrounding residences. VI. DECISION A. Staff: As the plat meets all requirements of the UDC and is consistent with the density designation of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation,zoning and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IV. per the Findings in Section VIII. Page 8 Item 5. 131 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Rezoning Exhibit(date: 9/30/2021) I B & A Engineers, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Land Saryey4rs 5505 West Franklin Rd. Boise, r0 93705 Telephone 200.343.33B1 Fausimlle 200 342.S792 @stablished in 1921 Friendship Subdivision Boundary Description 30 September 2021 Lot 2 of Black 1 of Blythe Estates Subdivision, as shown on the of ibal plat thereof on file in the office of the Ada County. Idaho, Recorder, being the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and being more particularly described as follows; Commencing at tha northwest corner of said Section 30; thence N89°45'12"E, 2,420.71 feet along the northerly boundary of said Section 30 to the north quarter comer of said Section 30; thence S00°06'46W, 664.69 feet along the easterly boundary of northwest quarter of said Section 30 to the northeast corner of said Lot 2, which is the Point of Beginning: Thence continuing S00°06'48'W, 664.69 feet along the easterly boundary of said Lot 2 to the southeast corner of said Lot 2; Thence S89°43'32'W, 658.96 feet along the southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to the southwest corner of said Lot 2; Thence Nt}0°05'51"E, 664.155 feet along the westerly boundary of said Lat 2 to the northwest corner cf said Lot 2; Thence N89a44'22AE, 659.14 feet along the northerly boundary of said Lot 2 to the Point of Beginning. Comprising 10.058 Acres, more or less. Subject to all existing easements and r1ghts-0f-way of record or apparent. 411E o r `*��+ 0. CA,N Proud to be Serving Page 9 Item 5. F132] AE Cor V4 Cor Sac 30 Sec .30 ChIj7den Bo£cds vrrd i +'} NkV oI 4 I' S 89°4451 W Sac 30t+.pp 263J97 t,p ' cr} N 69°4422"E 65.914' ~ a 4 �nci' 5� 49"4332"W 656.Z' 41 3 i GOPlion CIgU .'. No- s AArjvzmNm F SwNffvAmm Page 10 Item 5. F133] B. Preliminary Plat(date: 12/17/2021) � I ff-T rl I � 8 a • d - - F k i 31 r III j9 .� e r - r Q- 1 $ v 7 airiY* tiV w i W I C I j 6 GYi58ii YO 1+ - _. _ _ � �T' 'Y•r-�s �— ■—X�s— - - O Q p r 1 � ) Page 11 Item 5. 134 C. Landscape Plan(date: 12/27/2021) u` Q IQ D Q (D i 0 Cl I I � - ROq CHIP IN E@" y �• — N East Lock11ER Street. —. N�5 0 �J I Tl - • — p - a • I � ; a -+ i]' I A • FMK CNP Iry I• Q r � �•� �r - �� i1 d � � I it . , CAT C4) dam; aI 3 y i A lm L 3 K W, Op[P tr T— I East Tlnmstoilt - o ' 0 Page 12 Item 5. 135 D. Canal Relocation Plan(date: December 17,2021) { i W o a D o II� 4 -- f I 001MC�N[ � l i -6 ewa 8 t o I I ` o ° i - f , ar,rS4 muv � tlhSJl'y XISF I 7�IY — — — —•-� — — — Ewl T.L.5 r !! y —iF Y—Y..ra_ _* 'f— l�—r—fY Y— f�a` Yam• I ` I I - 41 41 O III O O O O a � � L RLoWWmScWcn SebmirLaWng TAU LaWUNC41=LAoft4 Page 13 Item 5. ■ E. Common Open Space Exhibit(date: 12/21/2021) QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE (11-3G-3.B.1A) QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE (11-3G-3.B.1.E) Page 14 -- - .sly- �� r•J��w ._ - .s r� r �i TL r �- Item 5. 138 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,landscape plan and conceptual building elevations for the single-family dwellings included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Prior to City Engineer signature on a final plat,the existing home shall be connected to city utilities. c. Prior to signature on the final plat,the existing home will be required to vacate the existing access to N. Chinden Blvd via N. Elk Ranch Ln. and take access through the proposed Friendship Subdivision via the proposed E. Lockhart St. in accord with UDC 11-3H-4. 2. The Preliminary Plat included in Section VII, dated 9/9/21, is approved with the following revisions: a. The existing irrigation easement bisecting the property is to be relinquished and replaced with a new easement as depicted on the submitted plans,prior to signature on the final plat. b. One of the lots shown as Lots 1-4 of Block 2 shall be eliminated and the remaining 3 lots be sized and oriented to be consistent with Lots 1-3,Block 35 of the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision No 3 to the south. c. Lots 1-10,Block 1 along the eastern perimeter shall be configured so the property lines align with Lots 4-11,Block 10 in the Hightower Subdivision to the east. d. The plat notes shall include that Common Lots 1 of Block 1,Lot 1 of Block 4,Lot 8 of Block 3 and Lot 10 of Block 5 are common lots that shall be owned and maintained by the subdivision homeowner's association in accord with UDC 11-3G-5-C 3. Prior to City Council,the Landscape Plan dated September 24,2021 included in Section VII, dated 9/9//21, shall be revised as follows: a. All pathways shall be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-12 OR applicant shall submit a concurrent alternative compliance application if the irrigation district will not allow the required trees to be planted within their easement. b. To be consistent with the preliminary plat in that irrigation easements wider than ten(10) feet be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty(20) feet wide and outside of a fenced area. Page 16 Item 5. ■ c. Details of the proposed amenities shall be included on the landscape plan. d. The plan shall note all existing trees eligible for preservation and/or the City Arborist's recommendations for mitigation as required by UDC 11-3B-10 4. Direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard is prohibited. 5. Prior to final plat,the existing Settlers Irrigation easement shall be vacated. 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 8. 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. 9. All ditches shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 10. 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. 11. Comply with all bulk,use, and development standards of the R-8 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2-A-6. 12. 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. 13. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 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. 16. The address of the existing home on Lot 9,Block 3 will change with the development of the proposed subdivision.The new address will be determined at the time the final records and the City addresses the lots. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. No sewer services may cross infiltration trenches 2. Must provide to-and-through to the property to the north. 3. Sewer to the north must end in a manhole and preferably be in the Right of Way. If it is not in the Right of Way it must have a 14-foot-wide access road that is built per City standards. 4. Sewer mains must at a minimum have 3 foot of cover above the pipe. This is not met with Manhole number 11 and Manhole number 12. Page 17 Item 5. F140] 5. The geotechnical investigative report prepared by B&A Engineers, Inc. indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 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. Page 18 Item 5. 141 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 20. 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 Page 19 Item 5. F142] copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridianciU.or"lublic_works.aspx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=242560&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https://weblink.meridiancily.or /WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243210&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY https://weblink.meridiancily.or /WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243227&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv Page 20 Item 5. ■ IX. FINDINGS A. ANNEXATION AND/OR REZONE (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds annexation 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 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; Commission finds 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 The proposed annexation meets the medium density designation of the Future Land Use Map and the applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code. Therefore, the application 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 11-6B-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 21 Item 5. ■ 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) There are no significant natural, scenic or historic features on the property. Page 22 Item 6. L145 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Ten Mile RV Storage (H-2021-0090) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located on Parcels R5629430106, R5629430090, and R5629430080, Located Near the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Burley Ave./W. Nelis Dr. A. Request: Rezone of 5.65 acres from C-G to I-L. B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to enter into a new development agreement to revise the approved concept plan to allow for a self-storage facility including outdoor RV storage. Item 6. F146] (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: January 6, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Ten Mile RV Storage (H-2021-0090) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located on Parcels R5629430106, R5629430090, and R5629430080, Located Near the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Burley Ave./W. Nelis Dr. A. Request: Rezone of 5.65 acres from C-G to I-L. B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to enter into a new development agreement to revise the approved concept plan to allow for a self-storage facility including outdoor RV storage. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 6. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 1/6/2022 Legend DATE: TO: Planning&Zoning Commission _ FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner ° 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0090 + Ten Mile RV Storage _ LOCATION: 3425 W.Nelis Dr.,3302 N.Burley Ave., M CK'RD and 3386 N. Burley Ave., at the northwest corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Ustick Rd. L PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to rezone 5.65 acres from C-G to I-L, and development agreement modification to enter into a new development agreement to revise approved concept plan to allow self- storage facility including outdoor RV storage, by Hatch Design Architecture. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 5.65 Future Land Use Designation MU-NR(Mixed Use Non-Residential) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) RV and Boat Storage Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 3 existing lots Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of November 9,2021;No attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) Annexation and Preliminary Plat AZ,PP 04-004,FP 05- 047,DA Instr.#104093293,Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment CPAM 10-002,RZ-11-001,and DA Modification Instr.#112054621 Page 1 Item 6. ■ B. Community Metrics Description Details Pa e Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Primary access will occur from N.Burley Rd./W.Nelis Hwy/Local)(Existing and Dr,a local road.There is also secondary access to N.Ten Proposed) Mile Rd via an easement through the adjacent properties at 3325 and 3377 Ten Mile Rd. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross There is secondary access to N.Ten Mile Rd via an Access easement through the adjacent properties at 3325 and 3377 Ten Mile Rd. Existing Road Network N.Burley Re/W.Nelis Dr and N.Ten Mile Rd via an easement. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is presently 6'wide sidewalk along N.Burley Ave/ Buffers W.Nelis Dr.20 ft.wide landscape buffer will be required along N.Burley Re/W.Nelis Dr. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service • No comments Police Service • No comments Wastewater Comments • Existing 8" stub to site.If the stub is not used it needs to be abandoned at the manhole. • Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes, buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences, infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement. • Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. • Flow is committed. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 2 • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • There are no utilities shown in this record.Public Works will need to review and approve the utility plan. • There are nine(9)existing water stubs that will either need to be used or abandoned. Page 2 T ` w.� mill I ■■■ own ON ■■ CIF °�■ ■ I' - -•a. .:-.- �,�. * '�� =�� :riL� 301=1 on ME no googol poll ■ I � I ;�.� ' ■ ■■■� ■ Diu#� : °a� ' 11 i ��� ■ � ■r.�;; �;;� �■ art.' ■ I� ■. =r OII■ '!N rile ti ■h� ■ a,. Item 6. F_15o] IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 12/16/2021 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300' 12/15/2021 Applicant posted public hearing notice sign on site 12/27/2021 Nextdoor posting 12/16/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS This is a proposal to rezone from C-G to I-L to allow outdoor RV,boat and vehicle storage. A development agreement modification is also proposed with this application. The subject property consists of three lots located at 3425 W.Nelis Dr., and 3302 and 3386 N.Burley Ave.,northwest of the W.Ustick Rd. /N. Ten Mile Rd. intersection. The subject property is zoned General Retail and Service Commercial(C-G) and is 5.65 acres in area. The property is bordered on the east by a drive-through coffee shop,pawn shop and associated retail uses. There is a tire shop directly to the south. There is an Idaho Power Sub-Station and industrial uses across W.Nelis Dr. to the north. The property was originally annexed in 2004 as part of the McNelis Subdivision(Inst. #104093293). In 2011,the subject property was part of a larger rezoning,comprehensive plan amendment and DA modification(CPAM-10-002,RZ-11-001,MDA-11-002, Instr. # 112054621). This DA Mod included a conceptual site plan for the entire McNelis Subdivision which included building locations, maximum square footages and parking. There have been several recent pre-applications on this property, including self-storage and vehicle repair. In August of 2021, staff held a pre-application meeting with the applicant to discuss the possibility of constructing a covered RV and boat storage facility. Staff informed the applicant that the C-G zoning district allowed indoor storage by conditional use,but outdoor storage was not allowed as a principally-permitted use; it could only be accessory to the indoor storage. Staff also mentioned the site plan as proposed was significantly different than what is approved under the existing DA. As a result of this meeting,the applicant requests to rezone to I-L to allow outdoor storage as a principally permitted use and for approval of the revised site plan as a DA modification. A. Development Agreement Modification The property is within the McNelis Subdivision,which is governed by DA Instr. #104093293 and DA Modification Instr. #112054621. The DA allows a broad range of commercial and light industrial uses and contains conceptual site plans for the subdivision. The approved concept plan reflects a building layout characteristic of commercial and office buildings,whereas the applicant proposes a RV and boat storage site layout. As the concept plan submitted by the applicant is a significant change from what is approved,the applicant also requests the DA be modified to include the revised concept plan. The concept plan has been updated to reflect the storage facility, how build-out has already occurred within the McNelis Subdivision, and retains the approved building footprints of areas which have yet to build out. Page 4 Item 6. 551 B. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /g compplan) Mixed Use Non-Residential-The purpose of this designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these areas. For example,MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be buffered from residential. Sample uses, appropriate in MU-NR areas would include: employment centers,professional offices, flex buildings,warehousing, industry, storage facilities and retail,and other appropriate non-residential uses. The subject site is zoned General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G). This allows a broad range of commercial uses. The property is bordered by a drive-through coffee shop,pawn shop and associated retail uses to the east. There is a tire shop directly to the south. There is an Idaho Power Sub-Station and associated industrial uses across W. Nelis Dr. to the north. Rezoning to I-L to allow outdoor RV and boat storage would be consistent with the Mixed-Use Non-Residential designation for this area, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11- 4-3-33. C. Zoning The applicant proposes to rezone from C-G to I-L to allow RV and Boat Storage. This is a principally-permitted use in the I-L zoning district in conformance with the FLUM subject to the specific use standards as listed below. D. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.orgIcompplan): • "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (3.01.01F) City services are available and will be extended by the developer to the proposed lots upon development of the site in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (2.01.03B) Landscape buffers and parking lot landscaping is required to be provided with development of this property in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C.As mentioned in the specific use standards section below, staff is also recommending additional perimeter landscaping. • Maintain integrity of neighborhoods to preserve values and ambiance of areas(3.05.02). If the applicant complies with the design guidelines outlined in the ASM, UDC design standards and specific use standards, staff is of the opinion the proposed use should maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. • Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets (3.06.02D). One access is being proposed from W. McNelis Dr. IN Burley Ave. and an emergency access is shown out to N. Ten Mile Rd. via an internal easement across the property to the east. No other access is proposed or approved with the subject application. • Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation, low walls,berms, etc.) (3.06.02F). The subject property abuts W. McNelis Dr. IN. Burley Ave. (local road). The UDC requires a minimum 10 foot landscape buffer along local roads.Although there is a partial buffer existing along this road, the concept plan indicates a 35 ft. wide buffer. This will be reviewed in detail at time of certificate ofzoning compliance in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. Page 5 Item 6. ■ • Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area(3.05.01 J). This is an area of Meridian characterized by industrial and commercial uses.A RV and boat storage facility is appropriate in this location. • Ensure development provides safe routes and access to schools, parks and other community gathering places(3.07.02N). Five-foot wide attached sidewalks currently exist along W. McNelis Dr. /N. Burley Ave. in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. E. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The property is presently vacant. F. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is defined as"Storage Facility, Outside"in the Unified Development Code (UDC) and is a principally permitted use in the I-L zoning district per UDC Table 11-2C-2. Outdoor storage facilities are also governed by specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-33. The proposed development will be approximately 51,483 sq. ft. in area and consist of four three- sided buildings lining the perimeter(part of building 4 will contain a small office)and six canopy structures internal to the development. The perimeter buildings will be constructed first,with the canopies as a second phase. The subject property is internal to the McNelis Subdivision and is bordered by an Idaho Power Substation,fire truck certification building,beverage distribution facility, church, and wastewater treatment plant to the north and northwest(all zoned I-L), a drive through-coffee shop,pawn shop, auto parts dealer and liquor store directly to the east(which are zoned C-G and front onto N. Ten Mile Rd.) and a gas station and automobile repair shop directly to the south(also fronting N. Ten Mile Rd. and zoned C-G),with vacant C-G land directly across N. Burley Ave. As this subject property is internal to the McNelis Subdivision with no direct street frontage with N. Ten Mile Rd.,has limited visibility, and is surrounded by industrial and service-commercial, staff believes this is an appropriate location for adequately-screened outdoor storage verses prime commercial frontage with direct access.All buildings require Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review and Staff will use these additional applications as a chance to ensure the site develops according to the conditions of approval in this staff report. G. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): UDC 11-4-3-33 lists the specific use standards for outside storage facilities. These include maintaining the storage in an orderly manner,not blocking sidewalks or parking areas, and not using the facility for a"junk yard"or for storing flammable materials. For properties that are adjacent to nonindustrial properties and/or public streets,outdoor storage of materials,equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and site landscaping so that the visual impacts of these functions are fully contained and screened from view of adjacent nonindustrial properties and/or public streets by a solid fence and/or wall with a minimum height of six(6) feet. The applicant's narrative states this facility is for the purpose of RV and boat storage. The site plan and architectural elevations indicate all storage is internal to the site,with three-sided buildings serving as the screening. The property abuts adjacent nonindustrial uses to the east, and it appears there is an existing landscape buffer with trees along the W. McNelis Dr. /N. Burley Ave. frontage. Page 6 Item 6. ■ H. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The I-L zone district requires a 35 ft. street setback, 10 ft. landscape buffer along local roads, and allows building heights of up to 50 ft. Based on the site plan, it does appear the 10 ft. wide landscape buffer and 35 ft. setback is satisfied,although a more detailed review will occur at the time of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC). The property is comprised of three different lots, and it appears the proposed buildings straddle internal lot lines. As a condition of approval,the applicant will be required to complete a parcel boundary adjustment to merge all lots into one property. I. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): The site plan indicates one access from W. McNelis Dr. /N. Burley Ave. and a secondary access to N. Ten Mile Rd. at the east via an internal easement. Although staff does support this second point of access, staff recommends it be clarified as a condition that the N. Ten Mile Rd. access be for emergency access. Staff has concerns with RVs and trucks pulling trailers turning onto N. Ten Mile Rd. at this location rather than the controlled intersection at N. Ten Mile Rd. and W Ustick Rd. J. Parking(UDC 11-3C): UDC 11-3C-6 states in all industrial districts self-service storage facilities shall only require parking based on the gross floor area of the office space. With the office being shown at 500 sq. ft., only one parking space would be required whereas at least 5 parking stalls are provided adjacent to the office. Also, all drive aisles are at least 40 ft. in width which allows for parking near individual storage spaces. The site plan indicates bicycle parking adjacent to the office, although the number of spaces is not indicated(only one would be required). K. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): No pathways are shown on the master pathways plan for this site or provided with this development. L. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): There are already 5 ft. wide attached sidewalks along W.Nelis Dr.r/N. Burley Ave. M. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A landscape plan is not required with a rezone. However,the concept plan reflects a 35 ft. wide landscape buffer along W.McNelis Dr./N. Burley Ave. At time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance,the site will be required to meet the provisions for parking lot landscaping which would include a five-foot wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to the drive aisles(entry and exit) at the east and west sides of the property and at either side of the parking lot end-caps. As mentioned above,the subject property is surrounded by a broad range of commercial and industrial uses,with established residential across N. Ten Mile Rd.to the east, and will be highly visible from W.Nelis Dr. /N. Burley Ave. In order to soften the impacts of this storage facility on adjacent existing and future development, Staff is also recommending that in addition to the required landscape buffer along the road frontage and internal parking lot landscaping,there should be a five-foot wide minimum landscape buffer meeting the requirements of UDC 11-3B- 8C along the entire perimeter of the property, and at least two trees planted in the"open area"at the northern tip of the property. Page 7 Item 6. F154 N. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The submitted perspective suggests wrought iron style fencing at the entry gate along the entry gate and front entrance. O. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Water and sewer mains exist in W.Nelis Dr./N. Burley Ave. According to Public Works,there are nine(9) existing water stubs that will either need to be used or abandoned. Given the nature of the use, little water and sewer service is necessary except for within the 500 sq. ft. office. Public Works will require any unused mains not serving the proposed development to be abandoned back to the mains in McNelis Dr. and Burley Ave. Staff believes there may be easements that encumber the property that may need to be vacated, although the one indicated on the McNelis Final Plat is a pressure irrigation easement bisecting the property east to west approximately through the middle.At time of the property boundary adjustment(see the dimensional standards section above), all existing easements shall be identified on the plat and whether they will be retained or vacated. P. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted building elevations. The elevations reflect elongated storage buildings, one of which will be approximately 600 ft. long fronting W. McNelis Dr/N. Burley Dr. and providing screening for the RV/boat storage internal to the development. There are also at least six canopy buildings internal to the development. The west elevations(the ones directly fronting the street)overall do contain a variety of material and colors that are above average in level of design. However,the elevations as proposed probably do not meet the minimum requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). The elevations propose a significant amount of metal paneling,whereas the ASM prohibits metal paneling as a field material unless there are at least two other qualifying materials. There are requirements for fenestration(windows)or fenestration alternatives,whereas this does not appear to be met. There are requirements for at least two pedestrian scale architectural features and a combination of concrete,masonry, stone,or unique variation of color,texture, or material, at least 10-inches in height,around the base of the building. Complete review of the proposed elevations against the ASM will occur at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance,but due to the visibility of the site, and that it will be within an area of both commercial and light industrial uses, as a DA provision, staff recommends architecture meet the commercial requirements of the ASM. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning and development agreement modification with the conditions noted in Section VIII.per the Findings in Section IX. Page 8 Item 6. 155 VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map (date: 10/5/2021) r efl*f- ACCURATE w IIIIE � s � SUH9f:YINQ & tfllNPlfiG �P,t,pViT.Y. Annexation Description An annexation area to the City of Meridian consisting of Lots 8,9, I0, 11, Block 1 and the half- roadway adjacent westerly and northwesterly of said Lots,said a rea 15 located in the Southeast QuI)rt-er of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 4 North,Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the found brass cap monument ar the corner cornmon to Sections 34 and 35, TAN, R1W and Sections 2 and 3,T3N, R1W from whfch the found brass cap monument at the quarter corner cornmor to Sections 34 and 3S,74N,Riw bears N 00"53'05" F a distance of 2643.54 feet;thence N 00'53'05"E fur a distance of 905.83 feet;thence N 89'afi'37' W for a dfstance of 277.99 feet to a found 5f81"inch Iron pin illegibly marked at the northerly projection of the east line of said Lot 21, block 1 and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING, Thence 5 00'53' 16"W along the easterly hoe and its projection of Lots 11 and 9, Black 1 For a distance of W,94 feet to a found 51811 inch iron pin labeled I•�L511463; Thence N 89'07' 15"W along the southerly line of Lots S and 9, Block i and its projection for a distance of 49tj.25 feet to a found 5/W'inr;h iIteglbly market#iron pin on the centerline of N. Burley Ave.; Thence N 00'52'45'E along said centerline tar a distance of 144.94 feet to a tound SYS"inch illegibly marked iron pin: Thence 404.70 feet along the centerline of N. Burley Ave.,tran5Monfng to W. Nelis Dr.on a 400.00 foot radius curve right having a central angle of 57'58' 1.1'and a lung chord Hearing N 29'W 42"E a distance of 397,66 feet to a found 5/$x"inch illegibly marked iron pin; Thence N 58'49'48"E along the centerline of W, Neils far.for a distance of 238,44 feet to a found 5/81"inch 111egibiy marked 4•0r7 pin; Thence 106.25 feet along said cenrerline of a 200.D0 foot radius curve right having a central angle of 30'26'17"and a long chord bearing N 74"02'58"E a distance of 105-00 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. �# Annexation area$s 5.65 acres,more or less. �* 11463 Page 9 Item 6. 156 r-�-+ HXMMI 1 MAR -145J ANNEXA77ON TO ME CITY OF MERIDIAN Ff4 CORNER A PGp?7 W GF NE SE 114 [It Ne $E Ff4 CP&F No. OF SPEC71ON X T4N., R.IW, B.O. 2020-1 62066 COUNTY OF ADA—STATE OF CAM � M � F' ILlrCIBLE 77E- 8�- 11463 •f3•Z� r 11 { I2' y fL+ ra�cl Ii fV r ,o AN J. L iNcA1El t$ + ILA% 't IlsuaviVIS1oN is 4 to ! SURVEY 1�i (4' + �EGiBLE No.129.3o K Vi .. C � e Ln 05PLS i £CI6Ze _ 1 6.3 N89IV9 15 w 47—� — i tiC'r4Lt' I =:'i1i} f 7 !`� Sff'77I7N �UNE TABLE G'P&-F Na. LINE BEARING DISTANCE 112r17163 L1 N 00'52'45" E 1 44.84' L2 N 5T49'48" E 238.44 " '' 3 2 L3 N 89•06'37" w 277.99' W- STICK RD. CURVE TABLE CURVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD SEARING CHORD LENGTH C1 404-70` 1 400.00 5T56'11 N 29'50 42 E 1 387.66 C2 106.25` 200.00' 30'26 17 N 74'02 58 E 1 105.00 t.EGEND ANNEXA77QN -- SouNom Y uNE — -- — SEC77CN LINE Tte� I C TE -- PL4= LOT LINE 0 rwN17 SA' AWW Pv, 4 £UA4E1'INa 6 mAPpJ0G MTH PL4S17C CAP. 14S2 W-Bannock 5t. PLE 11461 OR AS NOTED rA ': Bols-,Idaho 83702 ` ❑ CALCULATED POON7 (206)46B-4227 leg V 1 E1- www_arLOlatl!sutreyot�cani RATE,OC OBER,ZU21 JOB 21-19G Page 10 Item 6. 157 B. Site Plan(date: 12/13/2021) n ! k 1 or e - L.• r _ I s � i +I rnecve —eu 1 ,—_,ems 7 H ; � 7 Page 11 Item 6. 158 C. Approved Development Agreement Concept Plan(date: May 24,2011) I II ll P 0 R"!-4 r (0)I-L ZONE K LIV 4k 4- V NJ x 1 .,l 4 --k W Lj�TIC:R ROAD Page 12 Item 6. Fl-591 D. Proposed Development Agreement Concept Plan(date:November 5, 2021) 1 Il r - _ ~V - vi (C) I-L ZONE 14.67 ACRES —� .V� --�T (P) I-L ZONE 5.65 ACRES - J A f �µ ' L (C)C-G ZONE 14.28 ACRES W. WISTYGK ROAR Page 13 Item 6. F160] E. Building Elevations(date: 6/1/2021) - -_- k Xf a f �.nX sxrEaioa sawrow f..2pd .. �.•.w b PAlnPI! m� Page 14 Item 6. Fl 61 P __-_-_-_-_ 1 - 4PEnIFY3 KFAA- tl WlED 4 EWRt{0F CE]Er4-Q�>s' E.LWTM V;T ° p _ —tME !'IXLY3'hellufi �� Ud PMWh XED S�Y�i EIEVAiIGV PAG Page 15 71te, . ---- --- °,�R°��� — _—=rt=_—_—__= xErrvo 162 lo T. Q Q� -___� --------�------------- ------_I---- ----1---------- -----�:�R TI Page 16 Item 6. F163] CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING CONDITIONS 1. A new Development Agreement(DA)is being requested with the rezone of this property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance,a new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s)at the time of rezone ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the new DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the rezone. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Future structure(s)on the site shall comply with the non-residential design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual for commercial districts (i.e. CD). c. A property boundary adjustment to merge all lots will be required prior to certificate of occupancy. d. At the time of property boundary adjustment, all unused easements shall be vacated and utility mains abandoned. e. In addition to the required landscape buffer along the road frontage,there should be a five- foot wide minimum landscape buffer meeting the requirements of UDC 11-313-8C along the entire perimeter of the property, and at least two trees planted in the"open area"at the northern tip of the property. £ The entire perimeter of the property shall be enclosed with structures or a wall.All structures shall comply with the non-residential design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual for commercial districts(i.e. CD). g. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-33—Self- Service Storage Facility. B. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS Site Specific Conditions 1. There were no utility plans included with this application. Any changes to Public Works infrastructure must be reviewed. 2. There is an existing 8" sewer main stub into the property, if the stub is not used,it must be abandoned back to the manhole that is to remain in service per current City of Meridian standards. 3. Ensure no permanent structures are built within any City easement including but not limited to trees,bushes,buildings, car ports,trash enclosures, fences,infiltration trenches, light poles, etc.. 4. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 5. There are nine existing water stubs that must be utilized or abandoned per current City of Meridian standards. Page 17 Item 6. F164] General Conditions 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I F map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 9. 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. 10. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 11. 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. 12. 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 13. 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 14. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Page 18 Item 6. 165 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 18. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 23. 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 hqq://www.meridianciby.oMlpublic_works.aspx?id=272. 24. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. Page 19 Item 6. 166 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 I-L 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 proposed land use and concept plan for outdoor RV and boat storage is consistent with the regulations as all setbacks, landscaping and use limitations are met. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds 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 As the FL UM designates this area for Mixed Use Non-Residential, which lists warehousing and storage as a sample use, Stafffinds 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. Page 20