Loading...
2022-03-03 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 03, 2022 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Maria Lorcher Commissioner Steven Yearsley Commissioner Mandi Stoddard ABSENT Commissioner Patrick Grace Commissioner Nathan Wheeler ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the February 17, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing Continued from February 17, 2022 for Meridian U-Haul Moving and Storage (H-2021-0085) by Gurnoor Kaur of Amerco Real Estate Company, Located on Parcel R8257510015 and at 1230 and 1270 E. Overland Rd., Near the Northwest Corner of E. Overland Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage, ancillary retail, and warehousing and vehicle and equipment with outdoor display. - Approved 3. Public Hearing for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (H-2022-0007) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center providing childcare for up to 216 children in the C-C zoning district. - Approved 4. Public Hearing Continued from February 3, 2022 for Verona Live/Work (H-2021- 0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 & 3042 W. Milano Dr., Near the Northeast Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four (4) buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-O zoning district. - Approved 5. Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #S1210417400) A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district. - Continued to April 7, 2022 6. Public Hearing for Aviation Subdivision (H-2021-0096) by Jadon Schneider of Bronze Bow Land, Located at Parcel #S1210325951, near the northeast corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., north of Compass Charter School A. Request: Preliminary Plat or 48 building lots (37 single family attached lots, 2 detached single-family, and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other lot. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi-family units on 9 lots on 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district. - Recommended Approval to City Council ADJOURNMENT - 8:11 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 3, 2022. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 3, 2022, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Andrew Seal. Members Present: Chairman Andrew Seal, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Maria Lorcher, and Commissioner Mandi Stoddard. Members Absent: Commissioner Nate Wheeler and Commissioner Patrick Grace. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Alan, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher X Mandi Stoddard X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley Patrick Grace X Andrew Seal - Chairman Seal: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for March 3rd, 2022. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present this evening are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from city attorney and clerk's office, as well as the city planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please, take note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quick as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming channel on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with a roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Seal: At this time we need to -- or the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. This evening we have Pinedale Sub, H-2022-0001, will be open for the sole purpose of continuing to a regularly scheduled meeting. They will all -- they will open only for that purpose, so if there is anybody here tonight to testify on that particular application we will not be taking testimony on it this evening. We will also move that to the top of the agenda for continuation. So, at this point can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 6 Page 2 of 40 Lorcher: So moved. Grove: Second. Seal: It has moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the February 17, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Seal: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have one item on the agenda, which is to approve the meeting -- the minutes of the February 17th, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Grove: So moved. Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Seal: There are no department reports this week and at this point I would like to explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to the 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 is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called on only once during the public testimony. The clerk will call the -- the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted on Zoom or you can come to the microphones in chambers. Please state your name and address for the record and, then, you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all 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 come Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 7 Page 3 of 40 forward in chambers or on Zoom, press raise hand -- press the raise hand button on the Zoom app. If you are only listening on a phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer or phone, please be sure to mute the extra devices, so we do not experience feedback, so we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have questions for you, you will return to your seat in chambers or be muted on Zoom and you will no longer have the ability to speak and, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant is 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 find -- make a final decision or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #S1210417400) A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district Seal: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Pinedale Subdivision, H- 2022-0001, for continuance. And I think at this point we are looking for a date to continue that to. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, the 17th of March currently has four hearings on it. The 3rd -- or, sorry, the 7th of April currently has three hearings on it and that date is still open for noticing. So, I will default to staff as well for their opinion. Seal: Does that work for staff, the 7th probably? Parsons: The 7th works fine with us. Seal: Okay. I will take a motion. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead. Grove: I move to continue file number H-2022-0001, Pinedale Subdivision, to the hearing date of April 7th. Lorcher: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 $ Page 4 of 40 Seal: It has been moved and seconded to continue the Pinedale Subdivision, H-2022- 0001, to the date of April 7th, 2022. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 2. Public Hearing Continued from February 17, 2022 for Meridian U-Haul Moving and Storage (H-2021-0085) by Gurnoor Kaur of Amerco Real Estate Company, Located on Parcel R8257510015 and at 1230 and 1270 E. Overland Rd., Near the Northwest Corner of E. Overland Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage, ancillary retail, and warehousing and vehicle and equipment with outdoor display. Seal: All right. So, now I would like to open -- or continue the public hearing for Meridian U-Haul Moving and Storage, H-2021-0085, which was continued from February 17th, 2022, and we will begin with staff report. Tiefenbach Greetings, Planning Commission. Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner. Yeah, this was continued due to some sign posting issues. This is a proposal for a conditional use. The site consists of just a little more than six and a half acres. It's zoned C-G. It's located at the northwest corner of East Overland Road and South Locust Grove. So, if you know where the climbing gym is, it's behind the climbing gym next to a church. There is a roofing company there and as well as I believe a daycare. A quick little background on this. Okay. So, this is a request for a conditional use to allow self-storage, vehicle and equipment rentals, with outdoor display and some retail. The property consists of three lots, totaling, again, six and a half acres. It was annexed into the city in 1999 as what was called the Overland Storage Annexation. That development agreement at the time allowed the construction and development of only a mini-storage facility, consisting of eight buildings. It's very specific about that. There was a conditional use permit that was approved for this in 1999. There was a final plat that was recorded, which was called the Pack It Up Subdivision. Although the final plat was recorded, the conditional use for the self storage was never completed. This proposal is also for a conditional use and is to allow self storage, rental, and outdoor display. As I mentioned, the existing development agreement was very specific about what you could do there. Because they wanted to also allow the outdoor equipment rental, they had to do an amendment to the development agreement. Council did approve that development agreement, so that's been done now. This is the next step in that process. So, this is the site plan. I know it's a little tough to -- to make it out, but what they are doing here is eight buildings, ranging in size between a hundred thousand square feet to fourteen thousand square foot. So, if you -- see if I can see my printer here -- or, sorry, my pointer. So, there is building one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And, then, the outdoor equipment storage would be in this area. There are -- one of the things I want to mention, just go through the site plan real quick, there is a couple of buildings that don't meet the minimum spacing requirements. There is specific use standards for self storage and one Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 191 Page 5 of 40 of these say that all the buildings have to be at least 25 feet in separation. That's not met right here and there is another part right here where it's not met and that's not met here. So, the applicant will have to revise this site plan accordingly to meet those requirements. One -- one concern that staff has is on the south side of Overland, directly across the street, is mature existing residential properties. Because of the high visibility of this site and, again, because of those residential uses, staff did have concerns regarding the equipment being scattered abroad on that site. We didn't have issues with the actual U- Haul trucks, but we do know that sometimes these self-storage facilities, the equipment has a tendency to grow and end up all over the place, so one of our conditions of approval is that they would be allowed to have the -- the operable moving -- operable -- operable moving trucks along the front. Obviously, that's where -- where U-Haul wants to be able to see them, but all the trailers and the miscellaneous equipment would have to be screened and there is some specific requirements about how that has to be screened. Also because of the -- the visibility of the site and to -- to screen headlights and to soften down this -- this facility for the -- both people traveling down Overland, as well as a residence to the south, staff recommended that there be a combination of landscaped four foot high undulating berm, meaning kind of changing in height, decorative walls and evergreen shrubs along the entire front of the property. So, it would be a combination of all three of those things. Also we know that they generally like to have that kind of equipment that's being rented lit up. Staff had concerns about the lights being too bright for the people across the street. So, we also recommended that the lights be limited to 12 foot height, so that people aren't looking way up at the top of a bulb and we are recommending that they would be directed away from the residents -- from the existing residences. From my understanding, after talking to the applicant, I do not think that they have any concerns with these conditions of approval. Just a quick brief look at the elevations. The applicant has submitted elevations for a few of the buildings. Not all of the buildings. But these include materials such as cement board, stucco, brick and metal paneling for accents. Overall staff believes as far as self-storage facilities go they did a pretty good job designing the architecture on this. There are some elements that probably need a little bit more tweaking at the time of design review and site -- and CZC. There is some fenestration that may or may not be met. There might be -- they may not have made all their modulation, but, again, this is something that -- that staff will work out with the applicant at the time of CZC and design review. There is a couple of -- a couple of things, though, we did have comments about. Again, we are concerned about the visibility of this development. It's very visible coming down Overland. One of the -- one of our comments was -- I don't know if you can see it here, but they show exposed stairs sticking -- sticking along the side of the building in a couple of different places. It was -- for a few different reasons. First of all for maintenance, because outdoor -- outdoor stairs have to be maintained and if they are exposed to the elements it can end up being more of a problem for maintenance. Besides that, just because of the look of them, staff recommended that these either be removed or they would be screened within stairwells or something like that. My understanding is that the applicant would just do a stairwell or something, so you are not looking at the exposed stairs. The other thing is is that we didn't think that there was a very -- we -- we think there could be some better integration with the orange garage doors, the ones that are visible from Overland. We are not so concerned about the other -- so concerned about the other ones, but we do, again, think Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 Flo] Page 6 of 40 that maybe there could be a little more work to incorporate those garage doors into the rest of the architecture. So, we also made that recommendation. Again, I have -- I have spoke to the applicant yesterday and I believe they are okay with all these conditions of approval. With that staff does recommend approval of this with conditions. Seal: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward. Good evening. If you could state your name and address for the record. Jones: My name is Casey Jones. I live at 11701 West Cross Slope Way in Nampa. I would rather live in Meridian, but that's where I live. I just want to say first my gratitude to Alan. It's a -- the length of job. But he put a lot of work into it and I appreciate the staff report. The only things I would say is, you know, on the orange doors, we can definitely do something there. Those aren't operational doors. I don't know if you knew. They are just -- they are -- they are fake doors for display purposes. But, you know, we are screening anyway, so it makes sense for us to modify those. I would say that, you know, typically when -- when you guys think U-Haul you can definitely think the equipment's littered everywhere, but at our corporate stores we do have a lot better structure than like the typical U-Haul dealer that doesn't care and parks it where ever they can. So, we will conform to that. I would ask -- I don't know if it's too late to review the -- the language on only having motor vehicles on the front line. Is that something we can maybe discuss? I don't know. But just having a few trailers just for display purposes would help -- help us just to kind of display our product out there. Otherwise, I'm okay with, you know, screening everything. Tiefenbach: That would be up to the Planning Commission to make that decision, Mr. Jones. Jones: Aside from that, did a great, Alan. Thank you. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody have any questions for the applicant or staff? No? Not a one? All right. At this time we will take public testimony. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not. Seal: Would anybody in chambers or on Zoom like to testify? Sir, if you would like to come on up. We will need your name and address for the record. Konzelman: Yes. My name is Brian Konzelman. I live at 1186 East Shepherd Street. From my front office and sitting room I look directly across at the roofing company there. My concern is lighting that comes from the building. Right now there is -- there is a few lights that in the darker hours of winter they do blaze in that room. But what I'm afraid of is -- I don't want any signage that requires me to put up blackout shades on my own. I want to -- right now I look out at the facility where they do the climbing -- climbing wall. It's a pretty building, but it's -- it's not offensive and what I'm afraid of -- in a recent trip to Salt Lake City there is a quite a large U-Haul storage facility on the interstate there and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 Fill Page 7 of 40 there is an endless row of these traveling billboards, which I don't fault U-Haul for advertising, but -- and very -- very brightly lit. So, okay, on the interstate that's quite an acceptable thing; right? But in a residential area it doesn't fit in. So, our concern is that to maintain our quality of life and keep our property values good, that these are -- well, I don't know -- well blended into the neighborhood. So, you know, two or three trailers for their advertising I guess you could say that would be okay, but what they end up -- really, these storage facilities, especially U-Haul, they end up -- it does fill up everywhere and so the concern is that they -- they blend in the neighborhood, preserve our property values, and they are aesthetically pleasing. Seal: Thank you very much. Konzelman: Thank you. Seal: Okay. Is there anybody else in chambers that would like to come up and testify? Anybody online? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I don't see anybody. Seal: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come back up and address anything? Jones: Yeah. Just as a response, you know, I think everything said is valid. A lot of the properties we have acquired over the last few years they will come with wall packs. We have bought a lot of K-Marts and when we bought them the wall packs were shining onto residential areas behind us and we have replaced them without--without complaints,just knowing, you know, you don't want to be blasting light in people's property and so I think screening it and making sure that we are not ugly out there and disorganized. I think he has valid concerns and I'm pretty excited that we can actually do all of that. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Sir, can you come back? Seal: Sir, if you want to come back up. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. So, you had asked -- I just want to clarify. You wanted to be able to allow some trailers up front as well -- to be displayed as well. I'm just trying to figure out what your request is. Jones: Sure. Yeah. So, typically, on our business plan it's to have 30 percent of our frontline display to be trailers. You know, we --we can survive without it, but we are going to go forward either way. But just -- just so we can showcase what the customers can and can't get at this facility it would be nice to be able to have that out there. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F12 Page 8 of 40 Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Seal: Alan, quick -- a quick question on the -- the lights. I mean as far as the mitigation that you are recommending in there, is that, essentially, going to address the concern of the gentleman that testified, in your opinion? Tiefenbach: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think it does. This is actually pretty far above and beyond what we require for lighting. Seal: Okay. Tiefenbach: We had exactly the same concerns, which is why we added these. There is a few things. First of all, again, they are -- they are only -- the ones in front can only be 12 feet high if they do any lights in front, which, hopefully, that clears their trucks if they put them there. They would have to be downcast. They would have to be cast away from the residences. So, pointing towards. The other thing is that when they do the certificate of zoning compliance they will also have to give us a photometric plan and when you look at those photometric plans it shows like what the foot candles are and I think it's -- you can't have more than .01 foot candles and you can -- so, there can't be any light spill. I'm pretty -- they are -- they are going to see that there is lights there, but they are not going to be glaring lights and, again, the reason why we asked for them to be low is so that the people aren't looking up. Even if you have lights that are downcast, if they are high enough you are still looking up at these bare bulbs. That's the reason why we asked for them to be low. Seal: Okay. As far as the --just listening to the applicant on the -- the trailer portion of it, I mean would you be okay with something like allowing the trailers there if they were covered trailers, you know, something along those lines? Because a lot of those are going to be covered, they are going to have, you know, their logo on them and things like that. I mean to me they are kind of like having the trucks out there with no windshield. Tiefenbach: Again, it's not a deal killer for us. Our biggest concern is just to see the -- you know, I can't speak to this particular applicant. U-Haul, equipment stores, those kinds of things, tend to have a tendency to get away from you and stuff scattered. It's going to be tough for us to enforce; right? Like 30 percent or five parking spaces, just know that if the Planning Commission does -- is inclined to approve that, which, again, isn't a deal killer, it's going to be hard, if not impossible, for us to actually get out there and enforce it. Seal: Okay. Understood. Do we have any other questions? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is Bill. Just a clarification. The code doesn't prohibit it from doing that, as long as it's outside of the landscape buffer. So, if the applicant wants to allow trailers there -- or you want to allow that that's certainly within your purview and allowed under code. We just want to make sure trailers aren't being parked in the landscape buffer along Overland Road. Historically, though, from -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F13] Page 9 of 40 from my experience with equipment rentals, we have -- we try to have those things stay behind fencing and screens, because we don't want -- because to Alan's point, typically -- I have experienced a U-Haul business up in Moscow, because my daughter is going to school there and I can tell you they have trailers all over the place on their facility. So, I know how many trailers these -- they could end up with on any given site. So, really, the code requires that it just be screened, so you don't-- don't see it or-- it's not as noticeable. But the -- the reason why Alan brought up the trucks in the staff report is because that's -- that's vehicle rental. That's a -- a trailer is not a vehicle -- defined as a vehicle in the code, so it's really two different standards here that we are looking at. One is equipment rental versus vehicle rentals and that's why I -- I believe Alan will lean towards, yes, vehicles can be displayed there, because it's like a car lot; right? Everyone has their cars visible and he was trying to manage the amount of clutter that could occur on the property. So, if the applicant's good with making sure that he doesn't have a bunch of trailers stored blocking drive aisles, that there is fire access for fire department and -- I think from our perspective we should be pretty good with it. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have questions? Concerns? No? All right. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0085 Meridian U-Haul Moving and Storage. Grove: So moved. Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close public hearing for Item No. H-2021-0085. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Who would like to start us off -- or motions are always welcome. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: I have worked with U-Haul before, not the corporate store, but a neighborhood store, and having the trailers and some of their dollies exposed in front is important, because they do get a fair amount of walk-in business. But as long as they have one or two you don't necessarily need 30 of them to display whether or not that they have those in stock or not. So, I would support having the 30 percent displayed and it seems that the corporate stores want to be good neighbors and so, obviously, word of mouth and, believe it or not, some people go to specific U-Haul dealerships because of the owners and who they are, not necessarily because it just says U-Haul on it. I used to work with the one over on Cole Road and we had people coming from all over different towns, because they knew that they were a reputable dealer. So, as long -- and the corporate Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F14 Page 10 of 40 stores usually hold them to a little higher standard than some of the neighborhood stores. So, I would support displaying some of their other products out in front as well. Seal: Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: Commissioner Chair. I'm kind of torn. I understand wanting to be able to display what you have, but-- but I think it comes back to the city comment of enforcement, you know, and -- and -- and getting too much stuff out front, you know. So, I -- I -- I kind of-- based on that I'm going to lean to leave it the way it is. Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: I was just going to say I don't have very strong opinions on -- one way or the other, so I could go either way. But I -- when I get to that point I rely on staff's expertise and so I'm -- I'm good with going with staff's expertise on this one and keeping it how it is. Seal: Okay. Commissioner Stoddard, anything to add? Stoddard: Mr. Chair, I agree that -- because I feel either way as well. I agree with what the staff said. Seal: Okay. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0085 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 3rd, 2022, with no modifications. Grove: Second. Seal: It has been moved and seconded to approve item number H-2020 -- H-2021-0085. For clarity you did say approve; correct? Yearsley: I did. Approve. Seal: Since it's a CUP, so -- with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (H-2022-0007) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F15 Page 11 of 40 A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center providing childcare for up to 216 children in the C-C zoning district. Seal: Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for item number H-2022- 0007, Eagle Road Daycare Facility. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 1.15 acres of land. It's zoned C-C, community commercial district, and it's located at 3060 South Eagle Road on the east side of South Eagle Road, just north of East Victory Road. A little history on this property. A modification to the existing development agreement was recently approved by City Council to update the conceptual development plan approved for the site to allow for development of the proposed use and the site layout, but has not yet been recorded. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. A conditional use permit is proposed for a 13,660 square foot day care center in the C-C zoning district to accommodate a maximum of 216 children and 24 staff members. Child care and early education is proposed to be provided for children ages six weeks to six years with after-school programs for children up to age 12. The proposed site plan is consistent with the updated conceptual development plan and uses approved with the recent development agreement modification. The amended development agreement and final plat for Inglewood Subdivision No. 2, within which this site is located, must be recorded prior to submittal of a certificate of zoning compliance application for the proposed use. Daycares are required to comply with the specific use standards listed in the UDC. Access is proposed via a right-in, right-out driveway from South Eagle Road and by an access easement through the adjacent properties to the south and east from Titanium Way from Victory Road. A minimum of 27 parking spaces are required for the size of building proposed. A total of 29 spaces are proposed. Although the proposed parking exceeds the minimum standards by two and the number of staff members on site at any one time will likely fluctuate, staff is concerned that if the facility is at full capacity and up to 24 staff members are on site at any one time, there may not be adequate parking or pick up and drop off area for the proposed use. Therefore, staff recommends a shared use agreement for parking is required with the property to the south. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for a single story building that incorporates a mix of materials consisting of hardie panels, board and batten siding with stone veneer accents and metal roofing. Final design is required to incorporate some of the same or similar design elements and materials as those of the residential portion of the development per the development agreement and shall comply with the design standards listed in the architectural standards manual. Written -- written testimony was received from Samantha Kozlowski, the applicant's representative. They are in agreement with the staff report, except for a few items that I will run through. They can't comply with a few of these conditions due to site constraints associated with the proposed building size. Condition number 4-D, requirement for a minimum five foot wide pedestrian walkway to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk along Eagle Road to the main building entrance, this standard is eligible for a request for alternative compliance through our code. It's not a given that it will be approved, but it is something that the applicant can request should the director be able to make the findings to approve that. Conditions 4-E and 4-F, the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F16 Page 12 of 40 requirement for a 25 foot wide landscaped buffer to be provided adjacent to residential uses and that applies to the north and east boundaries of the site. This standard may be reduced by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. The mechanism to do that would be for the applicant to request City Council review of the Commission's decision, which would enable them to get before Council for that request should they decide to do that. Then, lastly, they had noted that the outdoor-- excuse me. Condition number nine, requirement for the outdoor play equipment over six feet in height basically can't be located in a front yard or a required -- any required yard. They do have some play equipment that is over six feet in height proposed in the play area between the structure and the street buffer along Eagle Road. How that -- however, that is not considered a required yard area. Required yards are defined as the setback area and in the C-C district there are no required front setbacks. So, they would be okay with having play equipment over six feet in height in the area between the buffer and the building. So, I don't think there is an issue there. Staff is recommending approval of this application with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Seal: Thanks, Sonya. Allen: And the applicant is here tonight to present their project. Seal: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Kozlowski: Hi. My name is Samantha Kozlowski with 814 Development. I'm the development manager working on this project and, Sonya, thank you for your review and the staff report. It was very comprehensive. I think gave a lot of details and great discussion on our project. I know we were able to speak before the meeting. I actually was able to speak with the tenant regarding Item 4-D. So, we will be able to meet that requirement or that condition of approval regarding the five foot wide sidewalk. So, we will be able to extend the sidewalk from Eagle Road connecting to the future business to the south and the business to the east as well. So, just wanted to let you guys know that that would be one condition that we would be able to meet, but we would like to request a potential variance through City Council for the setback along the northern border of our site, just due to the existing parcel size. It's a little bit constricted, so we don't think with our building site we would be able to meet that buffer, but we do think that we would be able to meet the buffer to the east, which is the 12.5, 1 believe, is what's proposed. We currently have a ten. So, we should be able to meet that, but we would potentially need to seek City Council approval for a variance on the north buffer. Seal: Thank you. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: I have a couple of questions. So, the site plan you would -- the -- I'm a little concerned with over 200 children dropping off. I'm -- the plan doesn't show how well Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F17 Page 13 of 40 circulation is going to be to -- for people to come in and out of here. Is there a way that we have a better site plan to show the overall site and -- and how we are going to get cars in and out of here without causing a traffic jam or can you speak to circulation, if you would. Kozlowski: Absolutely. So, just kind of some background on the enrollment numbers for this one in general. This floor plan here -- or this building footprint is based off of a prototype floor plan that we use for this tenant all across the nation. So this is just kind of based on maximum enrollment numbers. It's not based on Idaho State Code just yet. So, once we get to the CZC submittal we will have the correct numbers for the state ratio for Idaho. So, that number may be reduced from the 216 students and the 24 staff members. That will just kind of be determined once we get to the CZC submittal. But just kind of -- to speak to our operation of the facility, all of the parents or guardians are required to actually park their car and walk the kids in. So, it's not like they have a drop- off lane or anything of that nature. So, you shouldn't have a lot of cars that are just coming in, dropping off, and zooming out. So, they do actually -- they are actually required to park. So, that kind of helps with the flow of the parking lot a little bit. Yearsley: So, that speaks to the other question. If we have got 24 staff members and three extra spaces, I mean that's three parking spaces for how many ever parents to get in and out of here. I still see it becoming a big issue of access to this site getting in and out of here. So, can you speak to that. I mean how do you -- how do you park that many kids coming in and out of here? Kozlowski: Absolutely. So, the way that we like to think of it is it kind of operates like a restaurant. When it opens up in the morning it opens with a couple of staff members on site. The max -- the average -- or the highest drop-off time is usually in the morning. So, the kids will come and get dropped off and as more kids are getting dropped off that's when the staff members kind of -- kind of fluctuate in. And, then, we see the opposite pattern in the afternoon. So, as a lot of the kids are leaving the staff will start to leave as well. So, the numbers do end up kind of balancing each other out. But we will be able to provide the final numbers again with that CZC submittal once we have everything updated per the Idaho state ratios. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Kozlowski: Uh-huh. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: I have a few questions. Mostly similar to Commissioner Yearsley. We had -- believe you -- you had spoken to us a few months back -- or this was one that we had similar in north Meridian; is that correct? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F18 Page 14 of 40 Kozlowski: Yes, it is. Grove: And we had parking and other concerns related to that one as well. So, I -- I'm guessing this is not going to be a surprise that it's an issue here as well with the site constraints. So, do we have a shared parking agreement in place with your neighbors? Kozlowski: It's currently being drafted at this point, so it's not in place or recorded at this point, but we are working with the seller or the master developer for the Inglewood Subdivision to get the shared parking agreement in place. Both shared parking and, then, cross-access as well. Grove: Okay. And does this facility have a set of vehicles for the facility for transportation of the -- the children to schools or activities that it would have parked on site? Kozlowski: They do not. Nope. They don't have any kind of bus or anything like that for the school. Grove: Okay. All right. I think that's my questions for right now. Seal: I got a couple questions. So, Sonya, for condition nine, essentially, that can stay in there, but it really has no effect; is that correct? Or does that need to be stricken? Allen: Mr. Chair, that--that is correct. I will provide a clarification in the findings document to avoid future issues. Seal: And, then, as far as the site constraints, it sounds like they will be able to comply with 4-D, possibly with 4-F and, then, not at all with 4-E; is that correct? Kozlowski: That's correct. Seal: The 4-E is the -- is that the northern site boundary? Kozlowski: Yes, it is. Seal: Okay. Yearsley: Can I ask one more beyond that, Commissioner? So -- so, with the way the condition's written we don't need to change anything with that, because we won't act upon that, that will be a City Council decision to waive that, so -- okay. Seal: That -- yeah. Good question, Sonya and Bill. So, if we feel strongly on the site constraint pieces of it, I mean in order to get a review at City Council, does that have to be a recommended denial for us or -- I mean because if we approve, but they -- I mean I guess I'm asking logistical questions here -- process questions to figure this part of it out. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 Fig] Page 15 of 40 Allen: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the applicant is able to request City Council review of the Commission's decision in any matter, whether it's a recommendation -- or, excuse me, a decision of denial or whether it's a certain condition or conditions that are included in the approval. If Commission feels those should be conditions then -- and the applicant has the ability to request Council review of any of those things. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? No? Okay. Thank you very much. Kozlowski: Thank you. Seal: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony. Do we have anybody signed up? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not. Seal: Do not? Anybody online raising a hand at all or -- Weatherly: I don't see anybody. Seal: Anybody in the chambers want to come up? All right. Last chance. Unless the applicant has anything else to add -- nothing else? Okay. So, at this time I would like to get a motion to close public testimony for H-2022-0007. Grove: So moved. Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's been motioned and seconded to close the public hearing for item number H- 2022-0007. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Who would like to go first? Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: It seems like we have had a couple of these over in the past. I think I would feel more comfortable with it -- that we had an official shared parking agreement and cross- access. In order for daycares I think to work in communities such as this, it's important to have that. I do know that when I worked for a tow company -- there is a daycare by the water tower and they did not have any shared parking and if anybody parked in their lot, you know, we ended up towing them. So, being a good neighbor is going to be I think important for not only this location, but for the P&Z. So, I am in support of just seeing possibly an official agreement before we say yes or no. Seal: Okay. So -- and I was going to say, Sonya, that's -- that is one of the conditions of approval. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F20 Page 16 of 40 Allen: It is, Mr. Chair. So, they cannot move forward without submitting proof of a recorded cross-parking agreement. Seal: Okay. Commissioner Lorcher, does that solve that for you? Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: I was just going to go ahead with a motion, if -- Yearsley: Can I speak really quick? Seal: You can, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, I struggle with this one, because we have got two facilities that are high capacity uses in the morning. We have got the Starbucks to the south of this property that's -- that just got approved and, then, we are trying to approve this one as well and I'm trying to resolve, me personally, you know, at 27 spaces, you know, even at a hundred kids, assuming you have two people coming in, you are looking at 50 vehicles in the morning trying to get in and out of here at some point during the day--during the morning. My -- and, then, you have got Starbucks with people through drive-throughs on this -- I am just -- I -- I can't get around the -- for better words -- the disaster that might could happen and I -- I just -- I don't have a good feeling that we have enough parking here,just because of the use and, you know, with the two uses together we are cramming that spot in the mornings really bad is my concern and I don't know anybody else's thoughts on that or not. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: I -- I can see Commissioner Yearsley's point. Having to go to a daycare almost every day that has a large number of students and is in a busy parking lot, the -- the drop- off times and the drop-off congestion is -- in the even the pick up times is not as much of a concern for me, just because unlike -- at like an elementary school they are not all getting there at the same time. It's very staggered over the course of four hours typically. So, that congestion from the parental side is not as high. I think getting the cross -- or the shared use agreement for parking is really going to be beneficial from the staff side and as long as they can offset some of their staff parking needs with the shared use agreement I'm less concerned about it from that perspective. I think overall that -- that area is going to be highly traveled, but I don't see the congestion of the -- of the -- the parents dropping off as -- as -- as big of an issue. I would say that this is a very tight fit. It would make me a lot more comfortable if this lot size was -- was bigger or the building was smaller. I know with this one when we had it at Meridian and McMillan they were unable to change the building size at all. I don't know if rotating the building would change this for this parcel. Overall I'm going to be in favor of it, because we absolutely need more childcare facilities in Meridian. We are running at a very, very, very low number for families and so whatever we can do to bring those in right now is -- is very important to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F21 Page 17 of 40 me and so while I have some less than stellar feelings about how tight it is, I do -- I do feel okay overall moving forward with it. Yearsley: Thank you. Seal: Yeah. And I have also concern -- the business to the -- directly to the south of there doing the parking agreement, what is that business? Because Starbucks is on the corner and so is there something in between? Allen: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there is -- there is no business currently in between the -- the coffee shop and the -- and this business. Seal: Okay. Allen: It's a building pad. Seal: A building pad? Got you. So, something -- something is on -- on its way. There -- there is an owner involved in that, so -- yeah. And I have had some similar concerns. The traffic coming through here is a concern, but I'm -- I'm kind of with Commissioner Grove on that, I'm a little less concerned with that. I mean we are -- we are all battling traffic where ever we go. The streets that are involved here are able to kind of help accommodate this and -- I mean if this were on the other side of the street I can see where it would be a bigger problem, but just where people are coming out of subdivisions and this is going to be a little bit more accessible as far as that goes and, then, dumping onto Eagle Road, I would hope that it would be less of a problem. The biggest issue that I have with it in general is this is the second time that the applicant's come forward with a building of this size that doesn't really fit the lot. So, I think we are starting to see, you know, something repeatable happen here. So, we have kind of got a 13,000 square foot building trying to be squeezed onto something that would be more appropriate for, you know, a 10,000 square foot, for instance. So, I mean if the building size was able to be smaller in this instance, as well as the last time that the applicant was here, there generally wouldn't be any problems. But the inability to change the building size seems -- I -- I think a request to change the building size to fit the lot is -- is in line with what is best for the city. So, the inability to change that building size seems like it's -- that -- that seems unreasonable to me in order to make it fit to the size and standards that are there for--for Meridian. So, my opinion is that, you know, if-- if they want to have that reviewed by City Council, then, I would personally leave all -- all the stipulations in there that Sonya has in the staff report if we did approve it. And with that does anybody else have anything to add or would like to make a motion? Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Making sure -- this is a CUP, so we are approving and not -- or denying and not recommending; correct? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F22 Page 18 of 40 Seal: That's correct. Grove: Okay. Just wanted to double check. All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2022-007 -- did I get all the zeros? As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 3rd, 2022, with no modifications. Seal: Do I have a second? Lorcher: Second. Seal: Okay. It's moved and seconded to -- moved and seconded to approve Eagle Road Daycare Facility, H-2022-0007, with no modifications. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Yearsley: Nay. Seal: Did you get that, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Commissioner Yearsley, for the record that is a nay from you; correct? Yearsley: It's a nay for me, yes. Weatherly: Thank you, sir. Seal: Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing Continued from February 3, 2022 for Verona Live/Work (H-2021-0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 & 3042 W. Milano Dr., Near the Northeast Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four (4) buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-O zoning district Seal: All right. At this time I would like to reopen the public hearing for Verona Live-Work, H-2021-0080, and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is -- I guess this is officially the second time we have heard this, but it's been continued multiple times. I'm not going to go through the whole project again, but just briefly it is for a conditional use permit for 14 vertically integrated residential units within the L-O zoning district. The 14 units are in three buildings on 1.75 acres. This would be the latest site plan. However, just to be clear again, the lot line is right here. This is shown for reference only. It's a future office building in the L-O zone, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F23 Page 19 of 40 but it's common ownership, so the applicant wanted to show that this is their intent with the remaining area, but it is not part of the application. At the last Commission hearing there was a lot of discussion regarding the proposed use, specifically the integration of the commercial and residential component, as well as parking, marketability, and as well as whether or not they should be for rent or for sale product. The applicant responded by writing a memo, which I hope everybody read, that has some of the specifics regarding all of those discussion points. They did revise the floor plans as well. That's the only change to the plans. The most noticeable change is that they removed any interior access between the commercial and the residential component and, then, for the larger units, which would be for the four on the north end of the site, there used to be a wall here that had a -- essentially two commercial suites and they removed that wall to have one larger suite for each of those four units. So, really, that's -- that's all I have as my presentation tonight. If you have any questions I will be free -- feel free to ask them. Seal: At this point would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Just need your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Shrief: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Wendy Shrief, I'm a planner with JUB Engineers and my business address is 2760 Excursion Way in Meridian, Idaho. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to come back here and address some of your concerns. I'm going to go through some of the changes that we have made and I want to answer some of the questions that had come up last week, but we definitely are here for -- to answer any questions and if you -- and we were hoping for approval this evening. We had some questions at the last hearing about parking and this is included in our memo. We are required to have a total of 28 parking stalls on the site. We are including 52 inside that parking lot. There is additional on-street parking. We are not including that in our totals. But, again, we --we are required to have 28. We will have 52 spots. One of the big issues that came up in the last hearing was how do we ensure that these commercial areas stay commercial areas and that they don't become sort of a bonus room for these live-work spaces. We have removed that door that connects the commercial space to the residential space. So, it is now the insular commercial space and we think it's -- it was a good idea. Thank you. We think it's much less likely that it would become, you know, a teenager's -- but, actually, my -- my kids would love it -- then it would become a spot for a teenager or a den or a bonus room with storage. We think it's much more likely with this being no longer connected physically through that doorway to the living unit, that this retains itself as a commercial space. So, those are really -- those are -- are significant changes -- that is the most significant change, but we are we are here for any -- any other questions. We think we have addressed everything in the letter that we put forward for you guys and I want to thank Joe for running through everything with us again and for putting together his -- his memo and his staff report for us this evening. We are here for questions. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Shrief: Oh. And I wanted to -- I wanted to actually remind you -- when you go through and, hopefully, you are making your motion for approval this evening, because we had Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F24 Page 20 of 40 lost two units from our original rendition we were coming in with 16 proposed units, we lost two units, we are now 14. There are several conditions of approval that -- that have changed. So, Joe has gone through in his memo and included language and how these conditions are going to change or when we lost those two units we have added additional open space, a community gathering area, and his conditions address those -- those changes that will need to be made to -- to those initial conditions in the staff report and a lot of this has to do with the two units that we did lose to make some changes. We also have Dave Yorgason here, who is the developer, if you have any questions for him. Seal: Okay. And I was going to say -- the first question is you are in agreement with the -- with Joe's addendum and the staff report that he has provided? Okay. Shrief: Chair, Commissioners, yes, we are. Thank you. Seal: Thank you. Okay. Anybody have questions for staff or the applicant? Lorcher: I have one question. Seal: Commissioner, go right ahead. Lorcher: For the interior door space -- so, if I'm -- own one of these or rent one of these live-work units, if I have the commercial space and I live upstairs, I have to go around the outside of the building to come into my commercial, I can't access it from the inside; is that correct? Shrief: Chair, Commissioners, correct. We made that modification. That was a suggestion of the Commission to make that more of a separate commercial space and make it less likely to become an extension of the living area. So, we have room -- so, yes, you -- you would go outside -- you would go outside the front -- to the front or the commercial, go around the building to go into the interior to the living unit. Lorcher: Would there ever be a circumstance where you would rent out the commercial separately from the apartment or living space above? Shrief: Potentially that could happen. Yes. Lorcher: Thank you. Shrief: And we think that that could possibly be a good thing, depending on market conditions. Seal: Anyone else? Shrief: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F25] Page 21 of 40 Seal: All right. At this time we will take public testimony. Do we have anybody signed up? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not. Seal: Nobody signed up, nobody waving their hand on Zoom. Anybody in chambers like to come up and testify? Sir, come right on up. Just need your name and address for the record again and it's all yours. Yorgason: You are welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Dave Yorgason, the developer of the application and online Zoom, I think he might still be on, is Craig Hammett, he is the builder. He and I are together building this -- this development and -- and I just want to say thank you for giving us a chance to come back and make some changes and some clarifications with regard to the application. I happened to run into a few others in the marketplace and ask the questions -- because I appreciate some of the questions about is this marketable. I don't want it to fail. That's the last thing I want to have is a failure project and so we have done a lot of additional research and market research and we feel very confident that there is an absolute market need and a market demand for this spot. We are grateful, which is not typical, to see no opposition in the room. A lot of times you have opposition to something that might be unique or -- or anything that's residential in my backyard. We worked very closely with the residents in -- in through the process and they were very supportive of -- of the architecture and the design as well and so with that we just asked for approval tonight and to reconfirm what Wendy had said, we agree with Joe's memo of the revised conditions in this recommendation of approval and stand for any questions. Seal: Thank you, sir. Anybody have questions, anything they would to pose? All right. Thank you very much. Yorgason: Thank you again. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove. Yorgason: Oh, sure. Grove: So, you said you did market research on this and when I -- I'm just curious with the ones that -- because like we said at the -- at the last hearing, this is a different style of live/work than what we traditionally see and where we traditionally see it. Were the other ones that you found -- are they in this neighborhood environment versus a more traditional mixed-use environment? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Grove, all Commissioners, I will point to local market research. I could talk about Utah and other places. But I think what's more important is local. I happened to have a conversation today with Eagle's economic Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F26 Page 22 of 40 development director and -- Robin. And when I talked to her about a different project, I said, oh, by the way, what's going on in Eagle with live/work and she shared with me two specific examples where there were some remodels of some -- of some buildings and they were adjacent to residential, near office, so a very similar-- not downtown Eagle, but kind of on the semi-fringe of Eagle and they actually are full. They need more -- if there is a demand for them -- there is more of a demand if you will. So, those two examples. And there is a third one that's soon to be under construction that's a little closer to downtown, but it's that kind of a concept. So, there is that -- they are all leased up is the short answer. Boise --there is one on Hill Road near 36th Street, so that's not downtown, that's maybe far north -- north end, if you will. Here we are on Ten Mile. This is walking distance to restaurants and to Walmart across the street across Ten Mile. So, we actually find this to be actually closer to some of the shopping, some of the others that -- that I have found in the -- in the close proximity of the Treasure Valley. So, I'm very confident that there is -- there is -- not only those are successful, but this is a better fit for where the market need is. Hope that helps. Grove: Thank you. Yorgason: You are welcome. You are welcome. Seal: Anybody else? No? All right. Thank you, sir. Yorgason: You are welcome. Thanks again. Seal: Okay. I would ask if the applicant would like to come back up, but the applicant spoke, so -- we are good, so -- can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Verona Live/Work, H-2021-0080? Lorcher: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close H-2021-0080. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Oh. Hearing is closed. Public hearing -- public hearing is closed. Sorry about that. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: So, who would like to jump in? Make a motion? Talk at length? Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F27 Page 23 of 40 Grove: I appreciate the -- the work that the applicant's done. I -- I'm still not a huge fan of losing true commercial space and losing some of the -- what I would like to see there. But I don't have any code reason to deny. Seal: Okay. I will throw my opinion in here. So, I mean at first I was a little leery of this, mainly because the commercial space was really small, the fact that it was rent, instead of own, kind of the idea -- the perception behind it as far as trying to, you know, kind of seeing somebody that was going to -- getting ready to retire and maybe they just needed a place to, you know, age their business out and -- and move into retirement gracefully and things. So, the modifications that have been done, increasing the size of the commercial space, closing it off from the residential -- residential portion of it, to me it makes it -- I mean I have shared this earlier, but to me I think it's -- this is a good place for somebody that's probably more young and up and coming. They are trying to make their side hustle their hustle. They can't afford to purchase in Meridian, so they are looking to rent and get their business started. You know, move down that path. That's -- that's where I see something like this being successful. That said, that's also my biggest concern. So, I think its biggest strength is its biggest weakness, which is true for a lot of things in life, where if you have somebody that's up and coming, they are trying to make their side hustle their hustle and they fail miserably and, then, the next thing you know they are -- you know, they are going to try to take advantage of the situation in order to improve their own situation. So, that's my concern with it. I think the applicant's probably done as much as they can with this application in order to make sure that that's not going to happen. You know, I do agree with Commissioner Grove, there is some other things that we have seen with live/work where the emphasis is really on the work portion of it. The live is more of a convenience where it's reversed on this application, so --the parking seems -- you know, with the loss of the units, the addition of the parking, the confirmation that we have on-street parking, you know, things like that, I think that the parking situation will probably be handled in its own -- in its own way, you know, and within -- within the specs that we need it to. So, I'm a little less concerned with at this point. I mean it's still not quite my cup of tea, but I understand it and I would be willing to give it a chance in Meridian to see what the outcome is. Anybody else? Yearsley: I have no comments. Seal: None? Okay. So, at this point we are looking for motions. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Sorry. All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0080 as presented at the hearing date of March 3rd, 2022, with no modifications. Yearsley: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F28 Page 24 of 40 Seal: It has been moved and seconded to approve item number H-2021-0080 with no modifications. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: Mr. Chair, do you mind if we take a quick break? Seal: Absolutely. We will take a five minute bio break and, then, we will be back. (Recess: 7:15 p.m. to 7:20 p.m.) 6. Public Hearing for Aviation Subdivision (H-2021-0096) by Jadon Schneider of Bronze Bow Land, Located at Parcel #S1210325951, near the northeast corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., north of Compass Charter School A. Request: Preliminary Plat or 48 building lots (37 single family attached lots, 2 detached single-family, and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other lot. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi-family units on 9 lots on 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district. Seal: All right. We will go ahead and get things going here again and it looks like we are down to the Aviation Subdivision, H-2021-0096 and if we are ready we can go ahead and start with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This one will be a bit of a lengthy presentation, but -- mean I apologize, but it's a small site, complex site, but complex project, so I apologize. The applications before you tonight for Aviation Subdivision are a preliminary plan and a conditional use permit. The site consists of 9.8 acres, currently zoned R-15, located near the northeast corner of Black Cat and Franklin and directly -- well north -- northeast of the Compass Charter School. The map shows ME for the zoning. And I apologize, it's not an old map, it's the -- there was an issue internally that we didn't send out the zoning ordinance to the county when we approved it, so it just hasn't been updated on the maps, but it is R-15 zoning. The site does have history with the city, starting in 2018 where it was actually annexed with the Compass Charter School and they changed the comp plan and the zoning, then, to ME and mixed employment in general. Still wrapping my mind around why, but they did that. 2020 we came in and rezoned it, DA modification, and a comp plan map amendment, again, to change it back to what it was, which was medium high density residential. So, currently, the future land use designation on the site is medium high density residential, which expects residential densities at eight to 12 dwelling units per acre. The plat before you tonight is for 48 building lots, eight common lots and one other lot and a conditional use permit for 36 multi-family units within the R- 15 zoning district. The other lot is an irrigation pump house lot, I believe for Nampa- Meridian, which is this little random square in the corner. That's the other lot. The building Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F29 Page 25 of 40 lots are delineated as follow: There is six single family attached lots, 31 townhome lots, two detached single-family lots and nine multi-family lots. So, there is an array of residential uses. The total residential unit count, therefore, is 73 currently. The subject 9.8 acres were annexed into the city in 2018 as noted. Well, I will just skip all that. In addition to the medium-high density residential future land use designation that is on the site, it is also within the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan or as planning likes to call it just the Ten Mile plan. It recommends a mix of housing types within this MHDR designation. It specifically notes row houses, townhouses, condominiums, alley loaded homes and apartments. Within this designation and noted within the existing DA residential gross densities should range from eight to 12 units per acre. With the applicant's proposal of 73 units on the subject 9.8 acres the gross density is 7.44, which does not currently meet the minimum density required. This density needs to be increased and can -- as long as it's over 7.5, which would only be one additional unit, we can use the Comprehensive Plan and we can round up to eight and, then, they meet the plan. Staff has a condition of approval that the applicant should revise the plat to include at least one more dwelling unit to meet the minimum density requirement. In general this site is part of a larger area of medium-high density residential that is slowly redeveloping from both the west and the east and development of the subject site is a logical direction for development to occur in terms of both density and the road improvements. However, the transportation element of this area of the Ten Mile plan is important and there are known traffic issues within this area caused by the Compass Charter School, most notably at pick up and drop off times. The congestion associated with the school and this area creates traffic along the entire Black Cat corridor between Franklin and Cherry and significantly impedes the intersections of Aviator and Black Cat and Black Cat and Franklin during the peak times noted. Staff notes that applications for the site to the east are likely forthcoming. Granted they have not been submitted yet, but they are forthcoming or expected to be forthcoming, which would connect Aviator from Black Cat to North San Marco Way within the Entrada Farm Subdivision to the southeast and I will get into that more later. This east-west connection would create the needed secondary access for the --for fire, as well as provide a different connection to Franklin Road for this entire area. To help mitigate the issue associated with the future expansion of the road network, staff is recommending conditions of approval around the phasing of the project in relation to the extension of West Aviator Street. In addition to the general comp plan, the applicant is expected to meet certain design criteria found within the Ten Mile plan as well. The applicant is in compliance with these criteria, except for the street oriented design outlined on Page 3-33 was in the Ten Mile plan. This criteria discusses that front loaded units should be located no less -- I should say the garages should be located no less than 20 feet behind the primary facade of the residential structure. As noted in the staff report, the existing site constraints of extending the collector street along the south boundary, as well as the hundred foot easement of the Purdam Drain on the site make full compliance with the standard unlikely. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant explore alternate design options to be more consistent with this requirement, while maintaining a gross density of at least eight units per acre or 7.5 to roundup and consistent with an alternate floor plan -- or sorry. An alternate floor plan should be submitted, as well as revised elevations that show compliance with the recorded DA. Because in the DA there is existing floor plans -- conceptual floor plans that are vastly Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F30 Page 26 of 40 different than what is proposed. The proposed plat complies with all UDC dimensional standards, road widths, and the proposed single family uses are principally permitted -- permitted within the R-15 zoning district. The applicant is proposing detached sidewalks and parkways throughout the single family portion of the project to help activate the street and provide more compliance with the Ten Mile plan and the street oriented design. The proposed plat meets all the landscape requirements, except for the required 20 foot buffer along the south side of Aviator extension, which would be here. Sorry. However, staff does recommend that the applicant coordinate with the irrigation district to see if trees can be added within the easement area of the Purdam Drain, specifically on the interior side of it. Due to the proposal of two types of residential uses in the same project, meaning single-family and multi-family, the open space requirements vary for each. The single-family area is approximately five acres and the multi-family area is approximately 4.8. Total property size 9.8. So, one of them has to be less; right? Therefore, the minimum amount of qualified open space required to meet our general open space standards, 11-3G-3, for the single family portion of the site is three quarters of an acre or approximately 32,700 square feet. The minimum amount of qualified open space that is needed for the multi-family standards, which are in the specific use standards, 11-4-3-27, is an amount per unit based on the size of the units. This provision -- the -- there is a section in that -- in the specific use standards that requires a minimum ten percent, but the area of multi-family is not over five acres, so that's not required. With the 36 units proposed the minimum amount of qualified open space for the multi-family development is 12,600 square feet. So, in total, the total amount of open space for the project should be at least 45,300 square feet or just over an acre. According to the submitted plans the applicant is proposing three and a half acres of common open space within common lots, of which approximately two and a half acres is qualified open space. Therefore, they are vastly exceeding the minimum amount of open space required. However, this area is actually still not fully accurate, as the Purdam Drain easement area is located on buildable lots and not in the common lot, so there is additional area that could be qualified and it does -- the open space does not include the parkways, which are also a qualifying open space where no driveways exist. So, this shows that the actual open space is even greater than what is currently listed as the two and a half acres. Again, the proposed open space vastly exceeds the minimum requirements. The applicant is required to provide a qualifying amenity worth at least one amenity point for the single-family portion of the site. The submitted plans do not show compliance with this requirement, but staff has included a recommendation of approval -- or sorry -- a condition of approval and a recommendation of approval. I will spoil the ending there. But a condition of approval to include an amenity that counts as one point for the single-family portion of the site. Specific to the multi-family portion of the site the applicant complies with all the requirements, except as follows: There is no property management office or maintenance storage area shown on the plans, which is required for all multi-family developments with 20 units or more. They are required to propose three amenities and they are only showing one, which is the children's play structures, which I appreciate that it's not just one playground, they actually have multiple things. I definitely appreciate that. Lastly, they do not comply with the number of off-street parking spaces required. They meet the minimum for the per unit, but they do not meet the minimum per unit plus the required guest spaces. So, they need to add, I believe it was four spaces total. In response to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F31 Page 27 of 40 that I have included conditions of approval to reduce the bedroom count of some of the units, because they are all two or three bedroom, which requires the same amount, but if they go to one bedroom reduces the requirement. I also am proposing that they revise the plans to add the required spaces in some of the areas noted. So, they have some areas here -- like they can add at least one more here. I believe they can fit a few here as well. In addition to what's within the site, I did not put this in the staff report as a condition, but code allows alternative compliance to allow other areas of parking to count and, in general, all of this north side and the east side of this street where there isn't these drive aisles on-street parking is going to be available, because there is no driveways. So, in short, I do not anticipate parking be a major issue in this development. Now, to the meats and potatoes here. The applicant is required and proposing to extend West Aviator Street along the southern boundary. It is a collector street that currently exists -- I believe it ends right about here with a temporary cul-de-sac here and connects out to West Aviator. That is the only access for the site currently. According to the plat the applicant is showing a small portion of this road extension on a property to the south, which would be right here. I will go to the next -- this is a property that they do not own and they are showing a portion of the extension on that site. That -- that site is not annexed into the City of Meridian. It is not typical of road extensions to utilize area not on the subject property, but it allows the applicant to have more usable land area that is significantly reduced already to the existence of the Purdam Gulch Drain easement. The placement of Aviator extension requires a formal agreement with the adjacent property owner. If the applicant cannot reach an agreement with that property owner, the submitted plat will have to be revised to show Aviator wholly on the subject site. To ensure this occurs prior to development, staff has included a condition of approval that a final plat for this project will not be accepted until an agreement has been formalized and the right-of-way has been dedicated to ACHD for this portion of Aviator Street. Vehicular access for the single family, which I will go back to this, is via construction of a new local street that loops through this site. In addition, access to the multi-family is via two 25 foot wide drive aisle connections to that eastern local street. ACHD has noted Aviator will need to be one foot wider than currently shown, which the applicant has agreed to. There is no secondary access to the site, because Aviator will be a dead-end street after-- dead-end street after its extension with this project. As noted above, the fire department requires a secondary access for each access that has more than 30 units taking access from it. The development to the west, Hensley Station, already has more than that and they have two accesses. So, that's why if they are not sprinklered that would be why. Therefore, as currently designed and proposed, if it was all to be built at the same time every unit would need to be sprinklered. Single-family and multi-family in this. Thus, the construction phasing of the project plays a key role in how staff must address this issue, as all the structures would need to be sprinklered again. Multi-family is already going to be sprinklered because of the International Building Code that they will have to fall under for that. The applicant has stated that their plan is to extend Aviator into the site to the point of no more than 150 feet past the eastern local street. So, instead of all the way to the east boundary, stop it about here so that there is no need for a temporary turnaround. This does comply with the technical requirements of the UDC and fire code, but it is not consistent with our general practice of requiring public streets to be extended to and through sites with the first phase of development or prior to and in timing with the first Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F32 Page 28 of 40 buildings being constructed. However, the applicant is continuing to work with ACHD on a plan to construct Aviator as noted, again, with a short -- not all the way to the east, but with the temporary --with 150 feet of pavement here. This plan to do this has been noted and they would road trust for the remaining portion of Aviator, so it can be extended with any future road project that occurs on the parcel to the east. Staff is supportive of this option, as the road would be a dead-end street and constructing a temporary turnaround would be both wasteful of space and would need to be located on top of the Purdam Drain, which could significantly -- I can't read. Sorry. Which could further hinder the applicant's ability to develop the site due to complications with the irrigation district. In conversations with ACHD they have noted an openness to this option, because they have done it previously. However, they did not include it in their staff report as a specific condition. So, staff has included a condition of approval to include -- or to encompass both potential outcomes for Aviator Street. I will go to my last thing here. So, as noted with the future extension of Aviator, this is the -- the plan for the master street map, which is the colored line here. This is the North San Marco Way and Entrada Farms. Obviously, Aviator stops right about here with the expansion of Compass Charter School. They are proposing to come here. The plan that I have seen as a preliminary plan for the site to the east shows Aviator continuing on and extending along their south boundary and connecting here and that would allow another access to Franklin for both entry and exit for the school, as well as any future residences out here. So, really, this extension of Aviator is very integral to getting it. It's a timing issue as discussed. There was some written testimony on the project, but all of it was concerning piping the Purdam Drain. There was a desire by -- I assume neighbors to keep the drain open and use it as a water amenity. Staff does recommend approval of the project if all the conditions of approval are met and after that I will stand for any questions. Seal: Thank you very much. At this time would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Schneider: Jadon Schneider. 412 South 3rd Street, Boise, Idaho. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I just want to thank you for your time tonight and, first off, I just want to thank Joseph so much for all his work on this. We have -- we have gone to four pre- application meetings and Joseph's been diligent to sit through all of them and answer all our questions and help us with all that. So, I -- just as Joseph said, it might be a little longer about my chatting about this project, but I think it's important that you hear a little bit more of the backstory and a little bit of where we have come from and -- and where we are at now with it. Just to start off here, I would like to show you the -- sorry. So, the preliminary platform, basically, just as Joseph was saying, 9.8 acres. One comment that I had from Joseph's report -- or his comments earlier was he had said 73 units. The -- the total units that we have proposed are 75 units on there, which matches the report and the numbers that you said. I added it up really quick. It's 75 units on 9.8 acres, which is -- 75 by 9.8 is about 7.6 units per acre. So, just a point of clarification and Joseph can chat with that later. I just wanted to bring that one up just from that conversation right away. Just to look at the site as it is right now, I wanted to point out the Purdam Gulch Drain and you can see what's going on here. So, the Purdam Gulch Drain runs east- west through the site and it's a -- it's a pretty sizable drain through there. So, two of the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F33 Page 29 of 40 key components that I wanted to bring up for this site specifically -- sorry about this -- is the westerly boundary has an existing stormwater facility that was put in place by Compass Charter School. So, the stormwater facility services the Compass Charter School's current needs and because of this existing stormwater facility the site is further constrained. So, I just have some pictures of the site as it looks at the moment. This would be the area that is currently used by the stormwater facility. Just a shallow swale. They didn't do anything underground for what's going on through here. And, then, you can see that this is the northern end of it, it kind of bulbs out here at the side. I just wanted to point out, again, the Purdam Gulch Drain easement that runs through here. It's a hundred foot wide easement and it's owned and maintained by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, as well as here in the southeast corner of the site there is the Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District pump house lot. So, the pump house lot was created as a part of the Compass Charter School portion. The portion of our subdivision requires that we include it in our subdivision in order to bring it up to code and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District has -- has been forthcoming with us and has signed an affidavit of legal interest and -- and they are -- they are happy to -- to be a part of this subdivision and work with us on this. So, the irrigation district drain that runs through the site right now -- you can see it's a pretty sizable drain. Again, it's a hundred feet wide. There is a pretty sizable berm on the north side and the south side of it and it's -- it's fairly deep right now. So, it's -- it's not just a -- a lateral that's a user lateral, it's -- it's a full drain and it's a full main vein for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and it is important for them to have. So, one of the components of it that Joseph touched on here is the rerouting of the irrigation district drain. So, we have got the approval from the irrigation district and the developer is fronting all the costs that are involved with this and, like I said, it's a sizable drain and it's a 48 inch diameter RCP pipe, which is a reinforced concrete pipe, so it's -- it's not -- it's not just somebody getting out there with their backhoe and doing it, this is a sizeable project that is underway with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and there is a -- there is a large financial investment that's being made by the developer at this time just to get the site up to a point where it can work for this project and the main point that this has come up with is the fact that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District has been very clear with us that they will not allow us to cross their drain more than one time on this site. Like I had mentioned earlier, Joseph and I had gone through a number of pre-application meetings. We had come to agreement on one specific site that we both quite liked. We sent it to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. We were ready to make our pre-application district and the response back was we won't approve or we will not allow you to cross over our easement twice and -- and that is what we had been previously approving. So, it was disappointing and meant that now we had to reroute this drain, go through a vacation of an easement and everything involved with it, but that is how we came to this site, which is now reduced basically to a rectangle with the easterly and northerly boundary as Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District easements. So, just wanted to look at the site and talk about the specifics of a couple of the lots. There are front loaded attached product involved at this site and an eight foot wide landscape buffer that is in front of a detached sidewalk. So, the local road right here has that eight foot wide landscape buffer and detached sidewalk. Some of the elevations that we had sent to Joseph, but further require some modifications just to come up with the Ten Mile specific plan would look something like this. This is an idea where it's a -- it's involving pitched roofs, it's involving Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F34 Page 30 of 40 setbacks, and -- and at different sizes and we will continue to work with staff to try to find some elevations that are really appropriate for this site. The standard for this would be a livable space on the ground floor or the first level, with bedroom and bathroom -- or, sorry, a bathroom -- half bath on the first floor, with two bedroom and two -- and a bath on the second story of these units. And, then, just to kind of talk again. So, the street section for the local right -- or the local road has the back of curb and eight foot landscape buffer and, then, the detached sidewalk and, basically, just to give some examples of what we are thinking it would be -- it would -- it can be tastefully done and this is what we would like to be doing. We would like to have lots of greenery and a landscape plan that looks really well for this. And just some ideas of having that detached sidewalk and something that we really like in this type of area. And, then, further to that we have the -- we will call it the alley loaded garage. However, this isn't alley load -- an alley between here. It's a -- it's an ACHD street section. It's just a reduced width -- width section. So, it's not 20 feet wide, I believe it's 28 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. So, it's not a small tight alleyway back there, it is a full street section. Now, there is no parking specifically on the street section through here, but it is still foreseen to be rear loaded and have front doors opening to this usable open space. So, there is some in Block 2, Lot 8, which is that corridor that connects the loop road and, then, usable open space in that 20 foot landscape buffer along the north side of Aviator there. Just some elevations of things that we -- we have seen, other products and the developer has -- has proven to us that -- that they really like. This is some of that attached product with the front doors opening onto usable open space. Again, the layouts for this would involve a livable first floor and two stories with bedrooms upstairs. So, this one was a three bedroom unit upstairs with two baths upstairs and a half bath downstairs. So, three and a half bath. So, this is a project in Garden City, which we have drawn a lot of ideas from. I have fallen on the word. Sorry there. But, basically, you can see how this attached product here in the middle would look with that common space in the middle. So, what I would refer to here would be the Lot 8 of Block 2, where you have two -- the homes fronting onto an open space and you have a usable area out in the middle that can also be utilized for things like storm water management. This is what it can look like when it's in -- even a tight spot, so it can take -- it can be done very tastefully and not look, you know, like a -- like as if it's a small corridor or walled in on either side, it can -- it can look like a nice thoroughfare for the --for the pedestrian pathways. The last part of the site here that we want a dimension on was the CUP portion of the site, which is the multi-family here. There is a number of conditions that Joseph mentioned in his staff report that generally we are -- we are all in favor of and -- and the small updates to the -- to the site plan here in order to receive approval for the cup should not be any problem for the developer moving forward. These are proposed right now as four-plexes. As Joseph mentioned we had proposed them all as two bedroom, two bathroom four-plexes. They would follow the two story idea where, basically, you would have your first story entryway with a livable space and, again, a second story bedrooms in order to allow access for each individual unit and instead of having a four-plex stacked with two units on the bottom, two units on the top, and -- and this is just a general idea of what we would be proposing for this site. Lastly, there was a condition -- and I -- Joseph and I chatted about it and I just wanted to bring it up anyways. Basically a condition involved with Aviator that had mentioned that there was going to be the requirement of a detached sidewalk on the south side of Aviator and due Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F35] Page 31 of 40 to the site constraints involved with that, the condition was going to -- or I fear will push the unit density even lower. I -- I don't want to talk at nauseam about it. Joseph's made it clear to me that it was a condition that was put in place, because it's written in code, it cannot be variance requested out of it. I would just like to still bring that up that this is something that we struggle with. Everything else in the staff report we can approve and everything else in the staff report we are very happy with. There was just that condition of adding in the detached sidewalk. Compass Charter School, as it stands right now, has a seven foot wide detached sidewalk with a bike lane. So, it is in here as a seven foot wide attached sidewalk and that's what we had proposed. ACHD is okay with it. Again, Joseph's made it clear to us that it was a code issue and it wasn't something along there. The only reason, like I said, that I bring this up specifically is as you can see we are constrained by the fact that they are -- we are currently trying to work with the neighbors here to take some of this portion of their property and the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District pump house lot. So, our fear is that by extending this seven foot attached sidewalk into a five foot detached sidewalk with a landscape buffer attached to it, would mean that we would have to push the right-of-way -- the northern portion of Aviator to the north, which, would, then, further constrains any of these lots here in Block 3, or the lots here in Block 1 and since we already are very close to being below the -- the minimum density allowed, that was our main concern with it. So, that -- that's all I will say about it here. And, then, with that, just to touch on, again, with what Joseph said about the neighboring parcel, the reason that we went ahead and are including this portion of the neighboring parcel was originally the developer to the south had a proposal in place and he had connection issues and so we had worked out an agreement with them that we would work with them to try to connect Aviator through their parcel, to allow them a future connection, due to the fact that if we came north on our portion of the property it would allow a non -- or it would create a non-conforming connection intersection by ACHD standards. So, the idea was, hey, we will come in with you, we will work together, we will take some portion of your lot. That project has since been removed, the portion to the south. Our project was put into motion when they were put onto the agenda, at which point they had been taken off. Anyways, to the point now there is a new developer that is currently in their due diligence period and is purchasing the land and we have been working with them to get that and Joseph's condition about anything to do with getting -- getting an approval from the developer to the south or the landowner to the south, we feel that is totally justified and -- and we are on our way to -- to getting that and that is our plan. And with that I will stand for any questions. Seal: Thank you. Anybody have any questions for the applicant or staff? No? Okay. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, has anybody signed up to testify? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have two people signed up, but neither one indicating a wish to testify. So, Chad Palmer, did you want to speak? Okay. And, Larry, do you want to speak or no? Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. No worries. Thank you. Seal: Nobody online? Weatherly: Not raising their hand, sir. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F36 Page 32 of 40 Seal: Okay. Is there anybody else in chambers that would like to testify, now is your chance or forever hold your peace. No? Was going to say, you get an opportunity to come back up and speak again, but if you have nothing to -- nothing to add, we will go ahead and move on. Do we have any questions to -- Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead. Grove: I do have a question. Question for you if you could -- with -- in regards to the Ten Mile area specific plan -- I think I got those letters in the right order. Will the revisions to the --to the west side of--will that change the layout? Will those --will the design aspects of the Ten Mile area specific plan in any way alter just the layout, the concept or anything else with regards to how you have it now? Schneider: Are you speaking specifically to the lot layout or to individual unit -- Grove: Either way. Just in terms of-- I mean I know that there is certain design aspects. Will -- will that -- will those design aspects change what -- what the product looks like I guess? Schneider: Sure. I -- I believe that if we are specifically talking about the lot layout themselves, I -- I believe that we have worked with staff and we have found a plan that fits the Ten Mile specific plan as best we can at this time. Again, the plan is strong guidelines. It's not written in code. It's something that we are trying to follow as best we can and so I believe -- maybe it's a question Joseph can follow up with, but I believe a lot layout wise in -- in regards to where individual parcels are located, I do not believe that we will need to make any revisions specifically to meet -- or further meet the Ten Mile specific plan. However, Joseph's made it clear to us about the elevations of individual units and trying to find something that can fit well and that's something that we are fine to work with. Seal: Any other questions? No? Dodson: Mr. Chair, I just had a couple comments. To -- to that -- to Mr. Grove's point, agree with the applicant. I don't anticipate it changing any of the lot lines and I just recounted again and, apparently, I don't know, two months ago I couldn't count at all, because I swear I counted like six or seven times, but they have the 75. So, we are good on the density. Seal: Eighth time is a charm. Dodson: Yeah. I -- yeah. I -- yeah. The other comment I wanted to make was regarding the -- the sidewalk issue along Aviator. I completely understand the applicant's perspective. I get it. There is a couple things going on. One, what is currently constructed on the south side of Aviator does not currently meet our code and should not have been Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F37 Page 33 of 40 approved. So, doing it again does not make it better and because of that there is -- there is no alternative compliance and it doesn't meet our variance applicability standards to use either of those avenues in order to change what code is saying that it has to be five foot detached. ACHD in their policies allows for seven foot attached, but our code for collector streets does not. Further, I think once we dive into the site plan a little bit more with the applicant, I -- I noted in my staff report the buffer on the north side of Aviator is actually 30 feet wide to the lot lines, not 20, so they have ten feet of room that they could move the road up and that will be the four feet of landscaping from the edge of the back of curb and the five foot detached sidewalk on the south side and that's -- they got their space for that right there. At least doing preliminary math. Granted my track record's not good right now with that, but that I believe will work just fine and that way it avoids them having to go into the -- the pump house lot, because we do not want to deal with that. So, I -- I think we can make that work. I don't see any issues with that. Those are my main comments as of now. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Dodson: Yep. Seal: I was going to say, does the applicant -- do they want to come back up? Is there anymore questions or are we ready to close the public hearing? Lorcher: I have a question for staff. Seal: Oh. Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: So, in regards to the sidewalk, Joe, where there is seven foot along Compass on Aviator and, then, you are requesting -- or requiring the applicant to change it to five foot detached, so if I'm a kid going to -- from school to home or even aesthetically is that going to be weird, where it's kind of connected and all of a sudden the juggernauts to a different whole thing or -- Dodson: I -- I -- I -- Commissioner Lorcher, I understand your point there. This does happen, unfortunately, when certain things get approved or, frankly, it happens most often when ACHD comes back and widens the road and tears things out and, then, all of a sudden you have a segment of attached sidewalk, when it is detached everywhere else along the corridor. They have -- they have to meet certain ADA standards for the curvature of it. They can't just 90 it and go. Lorcher: Right. Dodson: So, it will look better than just that. But it is a requirement of code, so I -- there is -- I can't do anything. There is no avenue in order to say, oh, you do that. The only caveat would be, as bossman just reiterated to me, if it's less than 300 feet I believe -- I don't know what the length is there, but if it's less than 300 feet the director can waive the requirement of the detached portion. However, it's not something staff necessarily wants, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F38 Page 34 of 40 because the whole segment is going to be -- all the rest of it is going to be five foot detached. That's what we are going to require with the project to the east. That's what it is on the Entrada Farms, all that. So, to do it here doesn't make a lot of sense if they have the space, because it shouldn't have been done to begin with. So, it's just kind of like where do you draw the line of the -- the non-conformity. Lorcher: Thank you. Dodson: You're welcome. Seal: Anybody else? Okay. Can I get a -- Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Grove. Grove: Just thinking ahead on this. My personal preference on what -- where this might end up going would be to continue this to allow some of those changes to be made to make sure that it lines up. If we were going to do that could we check with the applicant first -- Seal: Sure. Grove: -- before closing the public hearing, so that we don't have to yo-yo? Seal: Got you. Yeah. Is there anybody else want to weigh in on that, continuance versus pass tonight? Okay. Sir, come back up. And I -- yeah, I think there is -- there is enough in here -- and I understand that, too, as -- as I read through it to me it was kind of -- there was a lot of things in here that kind of spoke to not quite ready to go through and I mean we have -- we have got to do our due diligence in order to make sure whatever gets passed on to City Council is something that they don't have to throw back our way and -- cause you more time and effort to be spent, so -- and outside of Joe's math, everything is still --just lines up with that, so -- Schneider: Just to -- just to comment on that, we -- Joseph's comment about the -- the extra space to the north, if-- we can make that five foot detached work and -- and we will be more than willing to work with Joseph before then to continue this application along, as opposed to deferring it to a later date. But that -- that's just our comment at this time. Seal: Okay. So, I -- I mean I -- I just think there is some things that can be done, especially with the roadway. The property to the -- to the south, that's one of my bigger concerns. I have a child that goes to Compass Charter, so traffic there is a nightmare, so -- it really is. It has significant issues and there is -- even though it's marked no parking, people park along there and everything. So, anytime they have a cakewalk it's pandemonium. So, definitely want to make sure that we get that portion of the road right, you know, for now and into the future. So, just think there is some things that could probably be worked Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F39 Page 35 of 40 on and determined to -- you know, at a later date that will kind of firm this whole thing up and, you know, make the application a little bit more firm. Schneider: As Joseph's staff report mentions, we are required to have that approval of the agreement with the neighboring parcel to the south prior to the City Council meeting and if that is a concern it -- I would -- I would argue that it's been met with the fact that we can't actually take it to Council until we have in writing an agreement that is -- that is agreed upon by both parties. Is there -- is there any other condition or any other worries that I could speak to at this time? Seal: Commissioner Grove? Grove: I think for me the road aspect, making sure that that agreement is in place and ready to go, the sidewalk is able to be integrated the way that it's required to be integrated and that, you know, the -- the piece coming in was the numbers piece and making sure that worked out and my concern was that there might be some -- if there was any change to meet the ten area -- Ten Mile area specific plan, if it had any changes, I wanted to make sure that that was in place prior to approval or denial -- or recommended approval or denial, so that it was a complete -- completed project that was fully recommended or fully denied to move forward and so that's -- that's why I was wanting to know if you were -- if we get to a point where we can't make that decision tonight, if -- if we cannot do that, if-- if you would be open to continuing or if you are asking us to -- if it gets to that point to deny, rather than continue, or where -- where you are at with that. So, it's more about where you are at in terms of that process. Schneider: Obviously we -- we would much rather continue, as opposed to getting a denial -- or a recommendation of denial. So, we would be open to continuing in that regard and, like I said, I think that Joseph's made it clear that it seems like we can make something work, especially about the landscape buffer, but I completely understand, if you need more time we can work with that. Thank you. Seal: Okay. So -- yeah. And I just -- I mean before we move to -- I mean it sounds like a continuance is kind of like where -- where we are moving, but I think -- Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Yeah. Go ahead. Grove: I think we could close the public hearing and have that discussion and, then, if a continuance is needed, then, open it back up for that sole purpose. Seal: Okay. That's fine with me. So, can I get a motion to -- Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F40] Page 36 of 40 Grove: I move to close the public hearing for file number H-2021-0096. Seal: So, a second? Yearsley: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2021-0096. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Joe, if you don't mind, I kind of want to go through -- I have kind of got mixed feelings on this. I mean as I initially read through it it just seemed like there was a lot of loose ends, a lot of things that were going on. It seems like we have tied up some of those loose ends tonight, so I just kind of want to go back through some of the conditions that were written in there, just to see what's --we, obviously, have the -- the road. I mean -- and that's a big one. It would be nice to see that one done up, but if it's -- if there is a condition of approval in there already, it has to be buttoned up before it gets to Council, in my mind -- Dodson: Mr. Chair, yes, there is -- there is actually two different conditions. There is one regarding the dedication of the right-of-way and all that before final plat, but, then, there is also the agreement with the property owner that I did state that should be presented to me or planning staff in general before the Council meeting, yes. Seal: Okay. Dodson: And that's to your point exactly, that it -- that's such a big piece of it, that if that's not done, then, we got to kind of -- we got to go backwards anyways, so I understand your point there, if that's worth a continuance, but I do have that buttoned up and I would agree with you prior to the meeting I think it felt like death by a thousand cuts kind of thing, at least towards a continuance, but now we have cleared some of that up, which is great. I love that. It seems less imperative to me than it did. Seal: Okay. So, I mean we have got the -- essentially the density requirements are good. Does that also reconcile the parking requirements that were in there? Dodson: The parking was only for the multi-family, so it does not reconcile those, no. Seal: Okay. Dodson: Because I assume they are not going to add multi-family units, they just -- the space isn't there. But the single family was where I was looking, but they are good. Seal: Okay. So, essentially, we have got the -- yep. We got hung up on that. So, I forgot to ask the questions about the property management and off -- off-street parking. And, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F41 Page 37 of 40 then, the condition that needs to have sprinklers in it throughout. So, generally speaking, with -- I mean, essentially, unless they want to stick to 30 units, they are going to have to have sprinklers in everything. That-- I mean is what it comes down to and that's generally what the fire department does, so -- Dodson: Right. Not necessarily. So, again, that -- it depends on the phasing. Seal: Okay. Dodson: And this is where they are working with the property owner to the south, as well as the property owner to the east, to try and set this up appropriately, so they don't have to do that. Obviously, development takes time. This isn't a final plat, et cetera. If they build the road 150 feet east of this local street it does not require a cul-de-sac; right? Or a temporary turnaround or anything. This remaining area would be road trusted. ACHD will take care of that. This application would have to get submitted and approved and, then, once that gets extended they--they-- by that time they could have started the multi- family, which has to be sprinklered anyways. They are good to go on all that. They can construct the local road. They can do all of the site work. If that is all done and, then, this road gets extended or is dedicated and under construction, then, fire would not require these to be sprinklered. So, again, they are not phasing the project, there is no need, but the construction phasing will probably end up being that way and that's what the applicant and I have discussed and that's to avoid that. Now, if it comes down to the wire and they need to get these units done, I'm sure that that's just going to be what they do and they sprinkle them and move on. Seal: Okay. Dodson: But there -- I do have a condition about that already. So, that -- and that is something that's, frankly, not entirely pertinent to the public hearing and whether it's done now or later, it -- we got it taken care of. It's going to be a later issue. Seal: Okay. And you do have a -- one of the conditions of approval is the property management office that in order to meet that that they need to have that and the amenities they are going to have to meet in order to move on as well. Dodson: Correct. Yeah. All those things. The property management office and the maintenance area I would like to see before Council, but the amenities stuff and all that, I assume they can fix that really quickly. Seal: Okay. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F42 Page 38 of 40 Lorcher: So, in regard to the Aviation Street and ACHD making those improvements, what kind of attention can we get from ACHD? Is it something that's going to be pushed back, like Black Cat, until 2031 or is that something that they would do sooner than later? Dodson: Commissioner Lorcher, if the applicant road trusts, which is basically just put up the money for it, as soon as it gets constructed or begins construction on the property to the east, ACHD will do it. They will do the work. It's not a CIP project, so there is no waiting around for public funds or anything, it will already be trusted in and ready to go. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Seal: Okay. I feel a lot better about the project. I think there is, you know, a few things that could be done, but I don't think there is anything -- I'm not seeing anything that's making me pause, you know, think that this is going to get to City Council and, then, they are going to, you know, try and remand it back to us to take a look at. So, I -- I sympathize for you on this piece of property. This was going to be the greatest soccer field ever, which is why the drainage goes out -- you know, all the different things about it. So, you know, the way this is having to be built, you know, I -- part of me looks at this as in-fill, just because of where it's at and how it has to be constructed, the way that the --the ditch has to be rerouted and everything. I agree it would be nice to keep that open, but I just don't see that that's a possibility. If you have to reroute it I don't know that there is a way to do that efficiently without piping it, that would make the users of that irrigation water happy long term anyway. So, you know, I do like a lot of-- that you have a lot of different products in here. There is a lot going on. I like the road -- the way that the road comes in and goes around provides, you know, ample circulation for--for this. So, I don't know. I -- I mean at this point I don't see anything that -- I'm not seeing anything that Joe hasn't already taken care of as far as the staff report that I wouldn't be able to support. Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Mr. Chair. I would agree. I had some concerns. They have been largely addressed or at least addressed within the conditional -- conditions of approval. I think the site constraints are going to make this rather difficult to do a whole lot else with it. I think that it fits and, you know, having the Ten Mile area specific plan to help guide some of the design gives it another piece to, you know, integrate with what's there. So, I'm on board. I think there is some work to be done before City Council, but it all seems doable and it's -- it's not something that should really stop or slow down the process at this point. Seal: Okay. Anybody else? Yearsley: I have no concerns. Seal: Okay. At this point I'm looking for a motion. Dodson: Mr. Chair, just real quick. Since I can count tonight, I would say with any motion that I recommend striking condition 12-A, because that's the unit one. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 3,2022 F43] Page 39 of 40 Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Okay. All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2021-0096 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of March 3rd, 2022, with the following modification: That Condition 12-A be stricken. Seal: Okay. Do I have a second? Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of Item No. H-2021-0096 with aforementioned modifications. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion -- motion carries. Gosh, I almost said that wrong. I'm reading -- reading ahead. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Grove: I have a question for staff real quick. Is that okay? Seal: I don't know. Grove: Do we need to do another motion, because there was a CUP also, on that or does that get -- Dodson: No. That's all part of the same deal when it -- when it's all together like that you are good. Grove: Cool. Seal: All right. Thank you very much. At this point I'm looking for one final motion. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move we adjourn. Seal: Do I have a second? Stoddard: I second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item. March 3,2022 F44 Page 40 of 40 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:11 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN Approved 3-17-2022 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 3 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the February 17, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 17,2022 F27 Page 24 of 24 Cassinelli: --just wanted to check. Thank you. Tiefenbach: Yes, sir. Seal: Okay. If anybody would like to float a motion. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Before I do my motion, just want to reiterate. I'm not opposed to the design or the density, but the -- the -- the traffic is -- is the issue. So, with that being said, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number H-2021-0074 as presented during the hearing date of February 17th, 2022, for the reason of traffic impact on the arterial roads abutting this project. Cassinelli: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to recommend denial of Item No. -- I had it in front of me. H-2021-0074. All those in favor of the recommended denial, please, say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Seal: Thank you. Wheeler: Is it your honors tonight, Bill? Seal: Yeah. Can I get one more motion, please. Cassinelli: Final -- final motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn. Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7.19 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 3 I 3 12022 ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: Item #5: Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) – Applicant requests continuance to a later hearing to work with staff on revisions to the plat. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Item #2: Meridian U-Haul Moving and Storage (H-2021-0085) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit  Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 6.86 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at the northwest corner of E. Overland Rd and S. Locust Grove Rd. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request:  Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage, vehicle and equipment rentals with outdoor display, and ancillary retail on 6.86 acres in the C-G zoning district.  The property consists of three lots totaling 6.86 acres.  Annexed into the City in 1999 as the Overland Storage Annexation.  Development agreement allowed the construction, development and use of only a ministorage facility consisting of eight buildings of various sizes and one caretaker unit pursuant a conditional use permit.  A Conditional Use Permit was approved for this use in October of 1999 and a final plat was recorded in 2002, but the approved self-storage facility was never developed.  This proposal is for a conditional use to allow self-storage, rental and outdoor display of vehicles and equipment, and ancillary retail to allow a U-Haul business.  As the existing development agreement is very specific to allowed uses, the applicant has recently received City Council approval on a development agreement modification to allow the outdoor display and ancillary retail. Proposed layout  The project includes 8 buildings ranging in size between 117,000 sq. ft. to 1,400 sq. ft. with an outdoor rental display area directly along E. Overland at the south perimeter of the property.  There are several buildings that do not appear to meet the minimum spacing requirement of 25 ft. This includes between the northeast corner of Building C and southwest corner of Building G, between Buildings G and H, and possibly between the northwest corner of Building A and the southern side of Building C. The site plan will need to be revised accordingly.  Due to the high visibility of the site and the residential uses directly across E. Overland Rd to the south, staff has concerns regarding trailers and other associated moving equipment being littered throughout the site.  Although staff believes display of operable moving vehicles is acceptable along the southern property line, as a condition of approval, staff recommends all trailers and other moving equipment be stored behind a closed vision fence, wall, or screen or within an enclosed structure and not be visible from any street.  Also, to screen headlights and to reflect higher quality design, as a condition of approval, staff recommends a combination of a landscaped 4 ft. high undulating berm, decorative walls and evergreen shrubs along the entire front perimeter of the property.  Staff also recommends all pole lighting along the front of the property be limited to 12 ft. in height and directed to the north, away from adjacent residences. Elevations  The applicant has submitted building elevations for several buildings. The elevations include materials such as cement board, stucco, brick and metal paneling for accents.  Overall, staff does believe the elevations are of good quality. There are some elements, such as fenestration and modulation, that may not meet all the requirements of the ASM, but staff will review in detail at time of design review.  As mentioned above, this project is highly visible from E. Overland Rd. and the existing residences at the south.  Staff believes there should be additional design considerations. o Staff has concerns with the exposed stairs on the south side of Building A both for visual impacts and potential maintenance issues with these stairs being exposed. o Staff recommends either the stairs be removed from southern and eastern locations visible from E. Overland Rd., or screened in a stairwell or similar architectural element comprised of materials consistent with the exterior field materials of the building. o Also, staff recommends the roll up doors on the south and east sides of Building A and south side of Building be better integrated into the building design through use of color, architectural detailing, overhangs, door frame treatments, etc. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with conditions. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0085, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 3, 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- 0085, as presented during the hearing on March 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0085 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #3: Eagle Road Daycare Facility (H-2022-0007) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.15 acres of land, zoned C-C, located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd. on the east side of S. Eagle Rd. just north of E. Victory Rd. History: A modification to the existing Development Agreement (DA) was recently approved by City Council to update the conceptual development plan approved for the site to allow for development of the proposed use and the site layout (H-2021-0095) but has not yet been recorded. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C Summary of Request: A CUP is proposed for a 13,660 square foot daycare center in the C-C zoning district to accommodate a maximum of 216 children & 24 staff members. Childcare and early education is proposed to be provided for children age 6 weeks to 6 years with after-school programs for children up to age 12. The proposed site plan is consistent with the updated conceptual development plan & uses approved with the recent DA modification. The amended DA and final plat for Inglewood Subdivision No. 2, within which this site is located, must be recorded prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the proposed use. Daycares are required to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 for Daycare Facilities. Access is proposed via a right-in/right-out driveway from S. Eagle Rd. & via an access easement through the adjacent properties to the south & east via Titanium Way from Victory Rd. A minimum of 27 parking spaces are required for the size of building proposed; a total of 29 spaces are proposed. Although the proposed parking exceeds the minimum standards by two (2) and the number of staff members on-site at any one time will likely fluctuate, Staff is concerned that if the facility is at full capacity and up to 24 staff members are on-site at any one time there may not be adequate parking or pick-up/drop-off area for the proposed use. Therefore, Staff recommends a shared use agreement for parking is required with the property to the south. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for a single-story building as shown that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of hardie panel board and batten siding with stone veneer accents and metal roofing. Final design is required to incorporate some of the same or similar design elements and materials as those in the residential portion of the development per the DA and shall comply with the design standards listed in the ASM. Written Testimony: Samantha Kozlowski – can’t comply with the following conditions due to site constraints associated with the proposed building size:  #4d: requirement for a minimum 5’ pedestrian walkway to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk along Eagle Rd. to the main building entrance due to site constraints. This standard is eligible for alternative compliance.  #4e & f: requirement for a 25’ buffer adjacent to residential uses to the north & east. This standard may be reduced by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners.  #9: Outdoor play equipment over 6’ in height can’t be located in a front yard or within any required yard – they have some play equipment that is over 6’ in height proposed in the play area between the structure and the street buffer along Eagle. Rd. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/the conditions in the staff report Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2022-0007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 3, 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-2022- 0007, as presented during the hearing on March 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0007 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Verona Live/Work (H-2021-0080) continued from 2/03/2022. Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.75 acres of land, zoned L-O, located at 3020 & 3042 W. Milano Drive, near the northeast corner of Ten Mile and McMillan. History: Verona Subdivision (AZ-03-005); Verona Subdivision No. 3 Rezone (RZ-05-006); Verona Subdivision No. 3 FP (FP-05-046); DA Mod (MI-08-006, DA Inst. #108101152). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Office Summary of Request: Conditional Use Permit for 14 vertically integrated residential units within three (3) buildings on 1.75 acres in the subject L-O zoning district. Office future land use designation is meant to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. These uses would include professional offices, technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses may be considered. Vertically Integrated residential project is listed as a conditional use in the L-O zoning district. West of the subject sites sits one vacant L-O parcel and one medical office building; further to the west and abutting Ten Mile Road are two additional office buildings. Because of common ownership of the land, the Applicant is showing an office building directly to the west on the vacant office lot along the north boundary but this building is not part of the proposal and is shown only for reference. To the east and north of the subject sites are detached single-family residential that are part of the Verona Subdivision. To the south is approximately 10 acres of C-G zoned property that includes a number of commercial properties under development. The existing use is on the hard corner of McMillan and Ten Mile and is a fuel service station and convenience store. Directly to the south and across W. Milano, the largest commercial parcel has approvals for a 164 unit 55 and older multi-family development. Staff anticipates future residents of that site could utilize some of the future services provided within the commercial spaces of the proposed vertically integrated buildings. Because the proposed use is adjacent to a mixture of existing and planned uses (residential, office, commercial, etc.), Staff finds it could be an appropriate use in this Office FLUM designation. Vertically integrated residential projects incorporate commercial spaces and residential uses within one structure and most often include commercial space on the first floor and residential on the floor or floors above. It is defined as :“The use of a multi-story structure for residential and nonresidential uses where the different uses are planned as a unified, complementary whole and functionally integrated to share vehicular and pedestrian access and parking.” In this project, the Applicant is proposing a small commercial space at the front of the building on the first floor with the proposed residential portion of the units being both behind and above the commercial space. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing a two-story concept for these vertically integrated buildings with the vehicular access for each unit proposed to be from the rear via a two-car garage for each unit. Proposal meets almost all defined development regulations in the UDC (a couple of the drive aisles need to be widened to meet code; condition is already included). But, Vertically Integrated is a conditional use in the L-O district so Commission should determine if the proposed project, despite meeting the minimum code requirements, meets the intent of the proposed use, if the design is desired in the City and specifically in this location. Following original publication of the staff report and Staff’s noted concerns, the Applicant requested a continuance of the project hearing in order to meet and work with Staff. Following this meeting, the Applicant submitted revised plans as outlined in the Staff th Memo to the Commission dated January 28, 2022. The revised plans show the following notable changes:  Loss of two unit building in the interior of the site and an addition of green space and more guest parking.  Revised floor plan of the 4-unit building on the north property to include an additional commercial space at the front of the building (other 10 units were not revised).  Additional sidewalk connections from existing sidewalks along public streets to the proposed buildings.  Revised elevations showing changes to the first floor façade as recommended: o First floor façade now includes a dedicated commercial entry door in addition to the internal shared access. o Façade incorporates nonresidential style awnings and shows area that would allow for signage space for future tenants/businesses. o Applicant added taller windows on the first floor façade adjacent to the new commercial entry door to create more of a storefront consistent with nonresidential buildings; Staff finds this is an improvement from the original elevations that largely looked 100% residential. Following the Commission hearing on February 3, 2022, the Applicant submitted a memo and made the following revisions to the floor plans in response to the discussion at the Commission hearing:  Removed any interior access between the commercial and the residential;  Removed the dividing wall within the commercial space of the larger units (noted as the B-units, located at the northeast corner of the site). Written Testimony: Karen Hibbs – Project does not mesh with existing office nor existing residential in the area; concerns over traffic increases, parking, and available green space for tenants. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the noted conditions in the staff report and recommended revisions to the conditions as noted in the Memo to the Commission. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0080, as presented in the staff report and Staff Memo for the hearing date of February 3, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0080, as presented during the hearing on February 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0080 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: Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning, and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.22 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at along the railroad corridor west of Ten Mile and at the terminus of Newland Street at the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Community Summary of Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots. Applicant has revised plat to request 10 lots instead of 12 – Staff report was analyzed against 10 lots. Applicant is proposing to construct detached single-family dwellings at a gross density of 8.19 du/ac, an average lot size of 3,363 square feet and a minimum lot size of 3,099 square feet. Proposed use is a permitted use within the requested R-15 zoning district and all lots appear to meet UDC dimensional standards. Access is proposed via extension of W. Newland Street (an existing residential local street) into the site and is proposed to terminate within the site as a full cul-de-sac. The existing access is from a private access across the Tenmile Creek to a previously private segment of Pine Avenue to the northeast of the site. This access will be terminated upon development. Tenmile Creek runs along the entire east property line and requires a 100’ total easement width (50’ on each side from centerline of creek). Original plat does not contemplate this easement area which gave Staff concern with proposed development. Staff’s other concerns are as follows:  Analyzing project against MU-C designation versus adjacent MDR designation  Amount of buildable area once required cul-de-sac is placed within the site and how that affects the livability of the project  Difference between proposed lot sizes of this project and those within Chesterfield to the west  Number of driveways taking access from cul-de-sac  Can proposed elevations fit on submitted building lot sizes/configuration Written Testimony: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\] Staff Recommendation: \[Approval/Denial\] 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- 2022-0001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of \[date\], 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-2022- 0001, as presented during the hearing on \[date\], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0001 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: Aviation Subdivision (H-2021-0096) Application(s):  Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.8 acres acres of land, zoned R-15, located near the northeast corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., to the north and northeast of Compass Public Charter School. History: H-2018-0048 (Compass Charter School AZ, CPAM; DA Inst. #2018-079763); H-2020-0111 (Aviator Sub. CPAM, MDA, RZ; DA Inst. #2021-067235). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium-High Density Residential (8-12 du/ac) Summary of Request: Preliminary Plat for 48 building lots (6 single family attached lots, 31 townhome lots, 2 detached single-family, and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other lot and a Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi-family units on 9 lots on 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district. Total proposed residential unit count is 73 units. The subject 9.8 acres were annexed into the City of Meridian in 2018 with the Compass Charter School application and also received CPAM approval at that time to change the underlying land use from medium-high density residential to mixed employment. Later, this 9.8 acre parcel was no longer a part of the long-term plan for the school and was subsequently sold. In 2020, a new application for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Development Agreement Modification, and Rezone were requested and approved to allow for residential zoning and uses instead of Mixed Employment or other industrial uses desired in the previous mixed employment designation. With these approvals, the property was returned to its original future land use of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) and included a new concept plan with a residential development and the proposed and preferred location of the Aviator Street extension. Subject site is also within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) which also recommends a mix of housing types in the MHDR designation (row houses, townhouses, condominiums, alley-loaded homes, and apartments). In the MHDR designation and noted within the existing DA, residential gross densities should range from 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. The Applicant is proposing 73 total residential units on the subject 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district which constitutes a gross density of 7.44 du/ac. This density does not comply with the minimum density required within the DA nor the future land use designation which requires a minimum of 8 du/ac. The Applicant should revise the plat to include at least one more dwelling unit to meet the minimum density requirement. This site is part of a large area of MHDR that is slowly redeveloping from both the west and the east and development of the subject site is a logical direction for development to occur in this area in terms of density and road improvements. However, the transportation element of this area of the Ten Mile Plan is important and there are known traffic issues in this area caused by the adjacent Compass Charter School, most notably at typical pick-up and drop-off times in the morning and afternoon. The congestion associated with the school creates traffic along the entire Black Cat corridor between Franklin and Cherry and significantly impedes the intersections of Aviator and Black Cat and Black Cat and Franklin during the peak times noted above. Staff notes that applications for the site to the east are likely forthcoming which would connect Aviator from Black Cat to N. San Marco Way within the Entrata Farms Subdivision to the southeast. This east-west connection would create the needed secondary access for Fire as well as provide a different connection to Franklin Road for this area. To help mitigate this issue as well as the overall phasing element of the site, Staff is recommending conditions of approval around the phasing of the project in relation to the construction of W. Aviator Street. In addition to the general Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant is expected to meet certain design criteria found within the Ten Mile Plan as well. The Applicant is in compliance with these criteria except for the street oriented design outlined on page 3-33. This criteria discuss that front loaded garages must be located no less than 20’ behind the primary façade of the residential structure. As noted in my staff report, the existing site constraints of extending a collector street and the 100’ easement of the Purdam Drain make full compliance with this standard unlikely. Therefore, Staff recommends the Applicant explore alternate design options to be more consistent with this requirement while maintaining a gross density of at least 8 units per acre; an alternate floor plan and revised elevations in compliance with the recorded DA should be submitted in accord with this provision prior to the City Council hearing. Proposed plat complies with all UDC dimensional standards, road widths, and the proposed single-family uses are principally permitted in the R-15 zoning district. Applicant is proposing detached sidewalks and parkways throughout the single-family portion of the project to help activate the street and provide more compliance with the Ten Mile Plan. Proposed plat meets all landscape requirements except for the required 20’ buffer along the south side of the Aviator extension. However, Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate with the irrigation district to see if some trees could be placed strategically in order to provide some areas of shade in the Purdam Drain easement area closest to the buildings. Due to proposal of two types of residential uses in the same project, the open space requirements vary for the single-family and the multi-family portions of the site. The single-family area is approximately 5 acres in size and the multi-family area is approximately 4.8 acres in size (total property size is 9.8 acres). Therefore, the minimum amount of qualified open space required to meet UDC 11-3G-3 for the single-family portion of the site is 0.75 acres, or approximately 32,700 square feet. The minimum amount of qualified open space that is needed to satisfy the multi-family specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-27) is an amount per unit based on the size of the units—the provision in this section of code to require a minimum 10% in addition to the per unit amount is not applicable as the multi- family area of the site is not greater than five (5) acres. With 36 units proposed, the minimum amount of qualified common open space for the multi-family development is 12,600 square feet. So, in total, the amount of open space provided should be at least 45,300 square feet, or 1.04 acres. According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing approximately 155,200 square feet (3.56 acres) of common open space within common lots (of which, approximately 2.5 acres is qualified open space). However, this area is still not fully accurate as some of the Purdam Drain easement area is located on buildable lots and the open space calculation does not include the parkways that are qualifying open space. This shows the actual open space area is even greater. Therefore, the proposed open space vastly exceeds the minimum amount required by code for both the single-family and the multi-family portions of the project. Applicant is required to provide a qualifying amenity worth at least one (1) amenity point for the single-family portion of the site—the submitted plans do not show compliance with this requirement. Specific to the multi-family portion of the site, the Applicant complies with all requirements except as follows:  No property management office or maintenance storage area is shown on the submitted plans;  3 amenities are required, 1 is shown on the plans;  Number of off-street parking spaces – Staff recommends two things to address this: o Reduce the bedroom count of some of the units. o Revise plans to add required spaces in areas noted in staff report. The Applicant is proposing to extend W. Aviator, the collector street, from its current location to the east property boundary. According to the submitted plat, the Applicant is showing a small portion of this road extension on a property to the south that is not part of this application and is not annexed into the City of Meridian. It is not typical of road extensions to utilize area not on the subject property but it allows the Applicant to have more usable land area that is significantly reduced due to the existence of the Purdam Gulch Drain and its 100-foot wide easement. The placement of the Aviator extension requires a formal agreement with the adjacent property owner. If the Applicant cannot reach an agreement with the adjacent property owner, the submitted plat will have to be revised to show Aviator wholly on the subject site. To ensure this occurs prior to development, Staff has included a condition of approval that a final plat for this project will not be accepted until an agreement has been formalized and the right-of way is dedicated to allow the construction of the off-site portion of Aviator Street. Vehicular access for the single-family portion of the project is via construction of a new local street that loops through the site. In addition, access to the multi-family portion of the project is via two 25-foot wide drive aisle connections to the eastern local street. ACHD has noted Aviator will need to be 1-foot wider than currently shown which the Applicant has agreed to. There is no secondary access to the site because Aviator will still be a dead-end street after its extension with this project. As noted above, the Fire Department requires a secondary access for each access that has more than 30 units taking access from it (Hensley Station to the west takes up the 30+ units already). Thus, the construction phasing of the project plays a role in how Staff must address this issue as all of the structures will need to be sprinklered if the single-family is constructed first (the multi-family is required to be sprinklered). The Applicant has stated their plan is to extend Aviator into the site to the point of no more than 150 feet past the eastern local street connection to avoid the need of a temporary turnaround (the local street within the project would be constructed at the same time). This complies with the technical requirements of the UDC and Fire code but is not consistent with general practice of requiring public streets to be extended to-and-through sites with the first phase of development (prior to or in timing with the first buildings being constructed). However, the Applicant is continuing to work with ACHD on a plan to construct Aviator as noted and road trust for the remaining portion so it can be extended with any future road project that occurs on the parcel to the east. Staff is supportive of this option as the road would be a dead-end street and constructing a temporary turnaround would be both wasteful of space and would need to be located on top of the Purdam Drain which could further hinder the Applicant’s ability to develop the site due to complications with the irrigation district. In conversations, ACHD has noted an openness to this option but did not include it in their staff report specifically. So, Staff has included a condition of approval to encompass both potential outcomes of the Aviator Street extension. Written Testimony: Concerns with piping the Purdam Gulch Drain and a desire to keep it open as a water amenity for the project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval if the conditions noted in the Staff Report are completed and adhered to. 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- 2021-0096, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 3, 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- 0096, as presented during the hearing on March 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0096 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 March 3, 2022 Item #2:PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Haul Moving and Storage- •agreement modification to allow the outdoor display and ancillary retail.applicant has recently received City Council approval on a development As the existing development agreement is very specific to allowed uses, the •business.Haul -display of vehicles and equipment, and ancillary retail to allow a Ustorage, rental and outdoor -This proposal is for a conditional use to allow self•never developed.storage facility was -final plat was recorded in 2002, but the approved selfConditional Use Permit was approved for this use in October of 1999 and a •one caretaker unit pursuant a conditional use permit. of only a ministorage facility consisting of eight buildings of various sizes and Development agreement allowed the construction, development and use •Annexed into the City in 1999 as the Overland Storage Annexation.•Property consists of three lots totaling 6.86 acres. •G zoning district.-the Cequipment rentals with outdoor display, and ancillary retail on 6.86 acres in storage, vehicle and -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow self Item #3: Eagle Road Daycare PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Site/Landscape Plan Elevations Item #4: Verona Live/Work CUP AERIALZONING Maps– Revised Floor Plans (Feb. 2022) Revised Site Plan Revised Color- Revised Conceptual Elevations Item #6: Aviation Subdivision PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING Maps– Preliminary Plat LandscapePlan Conceptual Elevations W. Aviator Extension Item 2. 28 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from February 17, 2022 for Meridian U-Haul Moving and Storage (H-2021-0085) by Gurnoor Kaur of Amerco Real Estate Company, Located on Parcel R8257510015 and at 1230 and 1270 E. Overland Rd., Near the Northwest Corner of E. Overland Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage, ancillary retail, and warehousing and vehicle and equipment with outdoor display. Item 2. F29 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: February 17, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from February 17, 2022 for Meridian U-Haul Moving and Storage (H-2021-0085) by Gurnoor Kaur of Amerco Real Estate Company, Located on Parcel R8257510015 and at 1230 and 1270 E. Overland Rd., Near the Northwest Corner of E. Overland Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage, ancillary retail, and warehousing and vehicle and equipment with outdoor display. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 2. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 2/17/2022 Legend w DATE: F• ;eo Lxo:on TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner SUBJECT: H-2021-0085 Meridian U-Haul Moving and Storage ° LOCATION: 1230 and 1270 E. Overland Rd. and RB Parcel#R8257510015, at the northwest corner of E. Overland Rd and S. Locust Grove Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage,vehicle and equipment rentals with outdoor display,and ancillary retail on 6.86 acres in the C-G zoning district,by Gurnoor Kaur,Amerco Real Estate Company. A Development Agreement Modification regarding this development was approved by the City Council on February 3, 2022. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 6.86 Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use(s) Vacant F Proposed Land Use(s) Self-Storage,Equipment and Vehicle Rental with Outdoor Display,Ancillary Retail Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 3 existing lots Physical Features(waterways, Nine Mile Creek is just off the property to the east. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 13,2021;No attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) Annexation AZ-99-018,DA Instr.# 100029704, Preliminary Plat PP-99-015,FP-00-005,CUP 99-033, MDA H-2021-0101 Page 1 Item 2. F31 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No Access(Arterial/Collectors/State There is existing access from E.Overland Dr; site plan Hwy/Local)(Existing and shows an additional access from S. Labrador Wy Proposed) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross A cross access easement exists with the property at 1322 E. Access Overland Rd Existing Road Network E. Overland Rd and S.Labrador Wy Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are existing 5 ft. sidewalks along E. Overland Rd. Buffers and S.Labrador Wy. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service • No comments Police Service • No comments Wastewater Comments • No comments Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 4 ' • 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 no changes to the water infrastructure in this record. • There are existing water stubs along the southern property line that either needs to be used or abandoned. • A utility plan needs to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. Page 2 � m 1 1 1 84 IN m r NONE ■..N■ ■ �_ �� ■I■ NNONE 1 ' *1 1 � fl ; 'p �' - -.I-- tmr, ii 'j MEMO ■ 4 i'11 - {•5 mill ■ 1111111 I!7!mHE—c bit MOORE Ad. 4 ■ �� ■�■ �NHim �a�'x� R ■ �'� �� ■�■ I sin m■■m■ �� �■ ■■■■ on �� ■mill �� ■ ■ ��■■ ■■o mono R ■■■�� rim�lNi■ mono ■i■ �.. son of i Item 2. 33 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 1/18/2022 Notification mailed to property owners within 300' 1/14/2022 Applicant posted public hearing notice sign on site 1/28/2022 Nextdoor posting 1/14/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS This is a proposal for a conditional use to allow self-storage,rental and outdoor display of vehicles and equipment, and ancillary retail to allow a U-Haul business. The project includes 8 buildings ranging in size between 117,000 sq. ft. to 1,400 sq. ft. with an outdoor rental display area directly along E. Overland at the south perimeter of the property. A development agreement modification was approved by City Council on February 8,2022. The property consists of three lots totaling 6.86 acres. It was annexed into the City in 1999 as the Overland Storage Annexation(AZ-99-018,DA Instr. # 100029704,Preliminary Plat PP-99-015). The development agreement allows the construction, development and use of only a ministorage facility consisting of eight buildings of various sizes and one caretaker unit pursuant a conditional use permit. A Conditional Use Permit(CUP-99-033)was approved for this use in October of 1999 and a final plat was recorded in 2002(Pack it Up Subdivision,FP-00-005). The approved self-storage facility was never developed. Staff and the applicant have had numerous discussions regarding the location of a new facility,and due to the location, surrounding uses,and C-G zoning this particular location was selected. However, in addition to self-storage,as is typical for a U-Haul facility,the applicant intends to display U-Haul trucks and equipment for rental. A conditional use permit is required for these uses in the C-G zone district.As the existing development agreement is very specific to allowed uses,the applicant has recently received City Council approval on a development agreement modification to allow the outdoor display and ancillary retail,however the amended DA has not been approved and recorded. A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /g compplan) Commercial—This designation will provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services, and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. 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 daycare to the east, roofing business and contractor's yard to the west, climbing gym, church and industrial business to the north. There is existing single family residential across E. Overland Rd to the south (Sportsman Pointe Subdivision). The description of commercial in the comprehensive plan does not specifically mention storage or equipment rental. However, the property is already zoned C-G which allows self-storage, and vehicle and equipment rental by conditional use subject to specific use standards. The retail component is a principally permitted use and is not subject to any specific use standards. Page 4 Item 2. ■ B. Zoning The property is already zoned C-G,which allows self-storage, and equipment and vehicle rental by conditional use subject to the specific use standards as listed below. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /�compplan): • "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.As mentioned in the specific use standards section below, staff is also recommending additional perimeter treatment along E. Overland Rd. • 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, conditions of approval listed in this staff report, UDC design standards and specific use standards, staff is of the opinion the proposed use should maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. • Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation, low walls,berms, etc.) (3.06.02F). The subject property abuts E. Overland Rd. (arterial) and S. Labrador Wy(local). The UDC requires a minimum 25 ft. landscape buffer along arterial roads and]Oft wide landscape buffer along local roads. The landscape plan reflects a 30 ft. wide buffer along E. Overland Rd. and 40 ft. wide buffer along S. Labrador Wy. The landscape plan also indicates a 40 ft. buffer adjacent to the C-C-zoned properties at the north and]Oft. wide buffer to the L-O zoned properties to the west. • 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 and residential across E. Overland Rd. Self-storage and equipment rental, sales, and service is allowed by conditional use in this location. • Ensure development provides safe routes and access to schools, parks and other community gathering places(3.07.02N). Seven foot wide attached sidewalks currently exist along E. Overland Rd. and S. Labrador Wy. in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The property is presently vacant. E. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed uses are defined as"storage facility, self-service", "equipment rental, sales, and service", and"vehicle rental"in the Unified Development Code (UDC). These uses are allowed by conditional use in the C-G zoning district per UDC Table 11-2C-2. These uses are also governed by the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-15, 11-4-3-38 and 11-4-34. The retail use is principally permitted use and is not subject to any specific use standards. Page 5 Item 2. 35 F. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): UDC 11-4-3 lists the specific use standards for self-service storage facilities,vehicle sales and rental,and equipment rental, sales and service. Standards for self-service facilities include storage units not being used as dwelling units, distance between structures being 25 ft., facility being completed fenced,walled or enclosed and screened from public view, and secondary emergency access. Specific use standards for equipment rental, sales and service require repair activities to occur within an enclosed structure, and outdoor display areas are prohibited in the required landscape buffer. In addition,the standards for vehicle rental states inoperable or dismantled motor vehicles shall be stored behind a closed vision fence,wall,or screen or within an enclosed structure and shall not be visible from any street. Storage units will not be used as dwellings, and secondary access will occur on S.Labrador Wy. All repair of equipment will occur at a different location, or within the office. All storage is enclosed within one of the storage buildings. There are several buildings that do not appear to meet the minimum spacing requirement of 25 ft. This includes between the northeast corner of Building C and southwest corner of Building G,between Buildings G and H,and possibly between the northwest corner of Building A and the southern side of Building C.The site plan will need to be revised accordingly. In addition, due to the high visibility of the site and the residential uses directly across E. Overland Rd to the south, staff has concerns regarding trailers and other associated moving equipment being littered throughout the site.Although staff believes display of operable moving vehicles is acceptable along the southern property line, as a condition of approval, staff recommends all trailers and other moving equipment be stored behind a closed vision fence,wall, or screen or within an enclosed structure and not be visible from any street. Screening fences or walls should be designed to be consistent with building architecture in accord with UDC 11-4-3- 33 and details of these walls, fence or screen shall be submitted at time of CZC. G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The C-G zoning district requires a 25 ft. landscape buffer from arterial roads, 10 ft. buffer from local roads, and allows building heights of up to 65 ft. The landscape plan reflects a 30 ft. wide buffer along E. Overland Rd. and 40 ft. wide buffer along S. Labrador Wy. The landscape plan also indicates a 40 ft. buffer adjacent to the C-C-zoned properties at the north and 10 ft.wide buffer to the L-O zoned properties to the west. The building elevations indicate the highest building is approximately 39 ft. in height. 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. H. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): The Pack It Up Subdivision Plat allows access via a shared drive from E. Overland Rd and there is a second access proposed at the end of a"knuckle"on S. Labrador Wy. The site plan reflects these two accesses. Meridian Fire supports this configuration,and staff has not received comments from ACHD. I. Parking(UDC 11-3C): UDC 11-3C-6 states in all commercial districts self-service storage facilities shall only require parking based on the gross floor area of the office space. With the office and retail area being Page 6 Item 2. 36 shown at 3,000 sq. ft., 6 parking spaces are required,whereas the site plan shows at least 26 parking spaces along the south perimeter and 10 more directly adjacent to the office. J. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): No pathways are shown on the master pathways plan for this site or provided with this development. K. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): There are already 7 ft. wide attached sidewalks along E. Overland Rd. and S. Labrador Wy. L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): As mentioned above,the landscape plan reflects a 30 ft. wide buffer along E. Overland Rd. and 40 ft.wide buffer along S. Labrador Wy. The landscape plan also indicates a 40 ft.buffer adjacent to the C-C-zoned properties at the north and 10 ft.wide buffer to the L-O zoned properties to the west. This exceeds the landscape buffer requirements of UDC-11-313. It does appear that the parking spaces shown along the southern perimeter exceed 12 spaces without a landscape planter of at least 50 sq. ft. and planting area of no less than 5 ft. in dimension per UDC 11-313-8-C-2. The subject property is located directly on E. Overland Rd. in a very visible location with established residential directly across E. Overland Rd to the south(Sportsman Pointe Subdivision).Accordingly, staff believes this development should reflect high quality design. Staff also has concerns regarding the impacts to adjacent residences associated with the headlights from moving trucks during early morning picks-ups as well as security lighting for moving equipment. As a condition of approval,staff recommends a combination of a landscaped 4 ft. high undulating berm,decorative walls and evergreen shrubs along the entire front perimeter of the property. Staff also recommends all pole lighting along the front of the property be limited to 12 ft.in height and directed to the north, away from adjacent residences. The site plan indicates a concrete irrigation structure along the southern property line.Per UDC 11-3B-5-J,if any utility easement precludes required trees,the width of the required buffer shall be increased five feet to accommodate the required trees. M. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): As mentioned in the specific use standards above,UDC 11-4-3-34 requires outdoor storage of equipment(other than operable vehicles)to 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. Such fence and/or wall shall be constructed of complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary structure. N. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): The Pack It Up Subdivision Plat and provided site plan shows a 40 ft.wide sewer easement along the north and east property lines which presently contains a sewer main, as well as irrigation easements. The applicant should coordinate with public works to ensure a service road is maintained within this area. The plat also reflects a 20 ft.wide sewer easement bisecting the property through the middle as well as east—west at the southern portion of the property. The site plan reflects buildings encroaching into these easements. As a condition of approval,the applicant shall vacate or relocate these easements as approved by Public Works. If these easements are not recorded under separate instrument numbers,vacation through a public hearing at City Council is required. Page 7 Item 2. 37 As mentioned in the landscaping section,if the irrigation easement along the southern property line precludes required trees,the width of the required landscape buffer shall be increased 5 feet to accommodate the required trees in accord with UDC 11-3B-7. O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted building elevations for all 7 buildings. The elevations include materials such as cement board, stucco,brick and metal paneling for accents. Overall, staff does believe the combination of materials,colors,canopies, columns and fenestration results in a storage facility that is of higher quality. However, staff believes there could be some elements that do not meet the requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). ASM 3.lB requires buildings to have horizontal modulation every 30 feet or 50 feet, depending on whether the building is greater than or less than 150 feet in length. Based on the site plan, staff is unsure all sides of the buildings visible from a public street meet modulations requirements. Also,ASM 3.2A requires for at least 30%of applicable facades use any 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. Staff is also unable to ascertain if this is satisfied. Complete design review will occur at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Due to the high visibility of this project from E. Overland Rd. and the existing residences at the south, staff believes there should be additional design considerations. Staff has concerns with the exposed stairs on the south side of Building A both for visual impacts and potential maintenance issues with these stairs being exposed. Staff recommends either the stairs be removed from southern and eastern locations visible from E. Overland Rd., or screened in a stairwell or similar architectural element comprised of materials consistent with the exterior field materials of the building. Also, staff recommends the roll up doors on the south and east sides of Building A and south side of Building be better integrated into the building design through use of color, architectural detailing, overhangs, door frame treatments, etc. Also,the applicant has only submitted elevations for Buildings A&B. Full elevations of all four sides of all eight buildings will be required at time of certificate of zoning compliance and design review. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions noted in Section VIII. per the Findings in Section IX. Page 8 Item 2. F38 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 8/12/2021) ✓' IT I R LI LL E - EL E 0 ETE I E rEDE• - ICE V. D E L= l D I E .. ;�,AL a I ' IL.I.. 7 rr Ek I 0 I �I - E R E r Qi 5,iI l'S I .. .... .. ELL I - _ ["'EL 0 ETE I I-TM Page 9 Item 2. F39 B. Landscape Plan(date: 8/12/2021) 'i4iliitiii •k_ +1 TAT" R'EL WYWzzzzzzzzz -4 r - f � I�5 _i q EL III w q I F I r- tI, r I ram'P I y O� TF IT 1=. 'EL I E L- -.. ,:,,,, n. it E.. I E . _. 1j "IP ! .sue-cry�re,� •J - Page 10 Item 2. 40 C. Building Elevations(date: 6/1/2021) w r� ILaal•FL]�AY`Ca�NO RIf MIXWlW,lY new{ T • EAST ELEVATION:HU ILHI NG A p'111�E-W u 6fO1V1U[ �•9:177"IN,:' 11 SOUTH ELEVATION:BUILDING A NORTH ELEVATION:BUILDING A SeeM:V-25' Scapa:�'-25' ® LS—LLI_LJ UTT-M W E%[ELEVATIO N__8 UI L D I N G A _ !A E Page 11 Item 2. 41 DRNE-UP STORAGE BOUTH ELEVATION:BUILDING B EAST ELEVATION:BUILDING B stele:i•=zo' stele:i'=so' DRIVE-Up STORAGE NORTH ELEVATION:BUILDINGS WEST ELEVATION:BUILDING B score:r=zo sce�:r=zo• Page 12 Item 2. 42 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING CONDITIONS 1. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and administrative design review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. The applicant will either meet all architectural requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)or apply for a design exception as part of the CZC submittal. A CZC and DES application shall not be submitted until the amended DA is executed as approved with H-2021-0101. 2. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2)years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2)years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension. 3. The site plan prepared by AMERCO Real Estate, dated August 12 2021, is approved as submitted,with the revision that all buildings shall maintain at least 25 ft. of separation per UDC 11-4-3-34. 4. The landscape plan prepared by Kimley Horn, dated November 12,2021, is approved as submitted,with the revisions that in addition to the required landscape buffer per UDC 11-2B-3, a combination of a landscaped 4 ft. high undulating berm, decorative walls and evergreen shrubs shall be installed along the entire front perimeter of the property. Details of all walls and/or screen fencing shall be submitted at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance/Design Review. 5. 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 properties,the railway corridor, and public streets by a solid fence or wall with a minimum height of six(6) feet. Such fence and/or wall shall be constructed of complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary structure as required by UDC 11-3A-14. 6. Per UDC 11-3B-7,where the required street landscape buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions,the buffer area shall include a minimum five-foot wide area for planting shrubs and trees. 7. The elevations prepared by A&M Associates on December 3, 2021 shall be modified as follows: a. All stairs that are visible from E. Overland Rd. shall be within the building or screened in a stairwell or similar architectural element comprised of materials consistent with the exterior field materials of the building. b. Roll up doors that are visible from E. Overland Rd. shall be integrated into the building design through use of color, architectural detailing, overhangs, door frame treatments,etc. 8. Elevations for all four sides of all buildings shall be required at time of CZC and DES. Elevations should be architecturally consistent with the approved elevations for Buildings A&B. 9. Operable moving vehicles may be displayed along the south perimeter of the site,outside of the required landscape buffer.All trailers and other moving equipment shall be stored behind a closed vision fence,wall, or screen or within an enclosed structure and not be visible from any street. Screening fences or walls must be designed to be consistent with building architecture. Page 13 Item 2. 43 10. All pole lighting along the E. Overland frontage of the property shall be limited to 12 ft. in height and directed to the north, away from adjacent residences. 11. If any structures encroach into platted easements,the applicant shall submit a vacation application for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. The development shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-15 for equipment rental sales and service,UDC 11-4-3-34 for storage facility, self-service and UDC 1I- 4-3-38 vehicle sales or rental and service. 13. The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site (AZ-99-018,Preliminary Plat PP-99-015,FP-00-005, CUP 99- 033,MDA H-2021-0101) B. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. A public utility plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to any construction of utilities. 2. There are existing water service stubs along the southern property boundary that must be utilized or abandoned. 3. A site geotechnical should be provided for review with the first building permit application. 4. No permanent structures can impede on a new or existing utility easement including but not limited to trees, shrubs, fences,buildings, carports,trash enclosures,infiltration trenches,etc. General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code (MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, Page 14 Item 2. 44 the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 10. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 11. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 12. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 13. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation 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. Page 15 Item 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. 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.meridiancity.oMIpublic_works.aspx?id=272. 19. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=250047&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity D. ACHD https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=250801&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=249448&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC fty IX. FINDINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(UDC 11-5B-6) The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The site meets all dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. The site already contains landscape buffers,parking is adequate, and the parking area will be landscaped as required by UDC 11-3B-8. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. As analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan section above, Staff finds this proposed will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis in Section V of this staff report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Page 16 Item 2. 46 The subject site is within an industrial and commercially zoned area. Single family residential exists to the south across E. Overland Rd. If staffs recommendations are followed, stafffinds the proposed use should not change the character nature of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If staffs recommendation regarding additional landscape treatment, screening of rental equipment and additional architectural requirements are followed, staff finds the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The proposed use will be served adequately by all public facilities and services. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Staff finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke,fumes, glare or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site; thus, Staff finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 17 Item 3. 47 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (H-2022-0007) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center providing childcare for up to 216 children in the C-C zoning district. Item 3. F48 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-�- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: March 3, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (H-2022-0007) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center providing childcare for up to 216 children in the C-C zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Item 3. ■ C�, EI IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT .►a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 3/3/2022 IaLlegend rrR �J� DATE: f 0 PrajEat TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner _ - 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0007 Eagle Road Daycare Facility—CUP E-Y I C-Tr -R __ E-1V1 cr -RD LOCATION: 3060 S. Eagle Rd.,in the SW 1/4 of - Section 21,Township 3N.,Range IE. t I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit(CUP)for a daycare center providing childcare for up to 216 children in the C-C zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.15-acres(future Lot 3) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Daycare center Current Zoning Community Business District(C-C) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 12/9/21 attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2019-0090(Inglewood Place Sub.AZ,PP— Development Agreement Inst.#2019-124424);FP-2021- 0037(Inglewood Sub.2);H-2021-0095(DA modification —in process) Page 1 Item 3. F50 A. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend AM IPrnje t Laca�a„ Project Lflco-v :9MR N �48 WL7f 1�'' v u u, U-hl E=11 GTOIY=RD E= I CT' 1 CTQRY RDA .,, E I{TORY E' u LE N 3T �d . .. A0.,-W� Zoning Map Planned Development Map I R Legend I (fLegend Fro ea= L..-�.n —R ' IetProjeot Laeafkm. R- +-i City Lima# iii —R T 1 fe W R-8 EnODN 'W W ' DIPPER- RUT ' RUT R1 ' E-YrI GTORY=RD EVI CTORI--RD E_Vl GrO -RD -- EVI Cr =RD C-d r� RUT t T. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Samantha Kozlowski, 814 Development,LLC— 1695 Twelve Mile Road, Ste. 100,Berkley,MI 48072 B. Owner: James Petersen, SEC 098,LLC— 197 W.4869 S., Salt Lake City,UT 84107 Page 2 Item 3. 51 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/15/2022 Radius notification mailed to 2/14/2022 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 2/21/2022 Next Door posting 2/14/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A 13,660 square foot daycare center is proposed in the C-C zoning district which is designed to accommodate a maximum of 216 children and 24 staff members.A daycare center requires Conditional Use Permit(CUP) in the C-C zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-2 and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9. Childcare and early education is proposed to be provided for children age 6 weeks to 6 years with after-school programs for children up to age 12; see application for more information on the proposed curriculum. A modification to the existing Development Agreement(DA)was recently approved by City Council to update the conceptual development plan approved for the site to allow for development of the proposed use and the site layout(H-2021-0095)but has not yet been recorded. The proposed site plan is consistent with the updated conceptual development plan and uses approved with that application. The amended DA and final plat for Inglewood Subdivision No.2,within which this site is located,must be recorded prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the proposed use. Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC II- 4-3-9—Daycare Facility, as follows: A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare,family; and daycare,group. 1. In determining the type of daycare facility,the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor. The applicant proposes to provide childcare for up to 216 children; because the daycare plans to provide care for more than 12 children, it's classified as a daycare center. 2. On site vehicle pick up,parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. On-site vehicle pick-up,parking and turnaround areas are provided; however, there is a driveway going through the parking area that will serve as a backage road to Eagle Rd. and will provide access to properties to the north and south. For safety,Staff recommends the row of parking on the east side of the Page 3 Item 3. F52 driveway is restricted to Staff members only and signed accordingly. 3. The decision-making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. The maximum number of allowable clients should be limited to those specified in this application (i.e. 216). 4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39,chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The Applicant shall provide this information to the Planning Division as required. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence,the hours of operation shall be between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit.A residential use exists on the abutting property to the north, zoned RUT in Ada County, and residential uses are planned on the abutting property to the east, zoned R-15. However, the proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 6:00 am to 6:30 pm, which will not exceed those hours. 6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district,the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-4.B of this title.Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record within one hundred(100) feet of the exterior boundary of the subject property.Not applicable The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title,whichever is more restrictive. B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children. 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six-foot non-scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties.A 4- to 6-foot tall steel fence is proposed, which does not meet this standard; the fence should be non-scalable, a minimum of 6-feet tall and provide screening of the play area. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six(6)feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. Compliance with these standards is required. C. Additional standards for family daycare facilities conducted as home occupation accessory uses. 1. In no way shall the family daycare emit lighting,noise, fumes, smoke,dust, odors, vibrations,or electrical interference that can be observed outside the dwelling. A sign may be displayed for advertising the family daycare facility in accord with the standards set forth in subsection 11-3D-8.B of this title. 2. Off-street parking shall be provided as set forth in section 11-3C-6 of this title, in addition to the required off-street parking for the dwelling. These standards are not applicable. Page 4 Item 3. 53 Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed use to be in compliance with the specific use standards as required if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII.A. Dimensional Standards: Future development should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. Access: A right-in/right-out driveway access is proposed via S. Eagle Rd. at the southwest corner of this site as shown on the site/landscape plans consistent with that approved with the subdivision. Access is also available via an access easement depicted on the plat through the adjacent properties to the south and east via S. Titanium Ave., a local street off E.Victory Rd. An access easement is required to be provided to the property to the north (Parcel No. S1121336276)in alignment with the north/south driveway on this site; a copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the subject property.Alternatively,the easement could be depicted on the Inglewood Subdivision No.2 plat and recorded. Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3C-6 for non-residential uses which requires one(1)space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Based on 13,600 s.f., a minimum of 27 spaces are required; a total of 29 spaces are proposed, including two(2)ADA compliant spaces. Although the proposed parking exceeds the minimum standards by two(2) and the number of staff members on-site at any one time will likely fluctuate, Staff is concerned that if the facility is at full capacity and up to 24 staff members are on-site at any one time there may not be adequate parking or pick-up/drop-off area for the proposed use. Therefore, Staff recommends a shared use agreement for parking is required with the property to the south in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-7.A recorded copy of the agreement should be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the site.Note:If the Commission finds the parking is inadequate or if the Applicant is not in favor of a shared parking agreement, the number of children cared for during the day could be reduced, which would also reduce the number of staff members that would need to be on-site. A minimum one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A bicycle rack capable of holding a minimum of one(1)bicycle should be provided in accord with this requirement and depicted on the site plan.A detail of the bicycle rack should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates compliance with the standards in UDC 11-3C-5C. Pedestrian Walkways: A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of 5-feet wide is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance and should be distinguished from vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard. An internal walkway should also be provided to the residential care facility to the east for interconnectivity with adjacent uses as desired in Mixed Use—Community designated areas.Note: The narrative submitted with the DA modification application (H-2021-0095)states walkways would be provided from the daycare to the senior living facility as part of the plan is for the children to visit (performances, arts, crafts, etc) the seniors. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C as shown. Page 5 Item 3. 54 A 25-foot wide landscape buffer is required to be provided to adjacent residential uses in the C-C zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-3; landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. A residential use exists to the north and a residential care facility has been approved to the east.Per this requirement, a 12.5' wide buffer to total 25 feet should be provided along the eastern boundary of the site measured from the back of the adjacent garages; and a 25-foot wide buffer should be provided along the northern property boundary adjacent to the residential use to the north. For the northern buffer,provide trees and shrubs within the southern 10 feet of the buffer as no plantings other than grass are allowed within the northern 15-feet due to an ingress-egress easement(Inst. #7907119)that runs along the northern boundary of the site that benefits the adjacent property to the north. The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard. A reduction to the buffer width required on C-C zoned property adjacent to residential uses may be approved by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners as set forth in UDC 11-3B-9C.2.A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the district. Street buffer landscaping along S. Eagle Rd. is required to be installed with the Phase 2 subdivision improvements. Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for a single-story building as shown in Section VII.0 that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of hardie panel board and batten siding with stone veneer accents and metal roofing. Final design is required to incorporate some of the same or similar design elements and materials as those in the residential portion of the development per the development agreement and shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure consistency with the conditions in Section VIII,UDC standards, design standards and the development agreement. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 6 Item 3. F55 VII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan a $ fl Zf: _ R All >s S 86e36m-,rv& .M-36'02'E 244.6 EIGHT xlnil�xoE II YCI III T � zm.m' — I � srueRaau� II II I i � I �• I u u II 11 jjj III - PRIMROSE BLDG. IFT 13,660 5F II ± 1 _ — I • J.x`' �iERlDleur(s}ID - I } CHILD CARE CENTER N SITE PLAN CONCEPT Page 7 Item 3. F56 B. Proposed Landscape Plan L I'` 4 gal 1 d --- EIGHT aerms•iEea1 [ 74 wplr`xup—.,.,,ax�.�._ - I...._- � _.. _... I !�cI r•� I I� � �`I`,a I` — PRIMROSE BLDG. } .. 13,660 SF �:_ ,I•' '' CHILG CARE CEMTM j f W �v �( $ •H99'99'35'E 245 DO' ., F:i.. . I 47—` r mule ;• _�_ �,fi- I II�. 'I i U. I a1yE�. CODE REB111REYEKTf .� RJVlLSCH®L1LE N#19p[ ln�aula..ix�oer.v.r.I�uwns YlIXMiNINipF NYHIu ew — o*. av u��m.w.wrt ao1 1au�o1ooelceim�ouueae resAw.:..s rxem�erfl.ivxmxa�w a xim.mu®.X mm.-c..uelwnowm�wo..a�wa n 1 v — zu4 1 •m�{v,gxw¢anumue.m.oxw.�ry PAN.Ni*��O/I�fAx A ! tlWIMlA011mE tpl oan a!°Cis1°"sin i}V•MSFyJanw[i hLla.I iwamenr 1Y.41l0.Vmlfst�! u gammtauo lln111.mYArA¢Ixv.talla A PIN11[0.WA11H P9Y � �.xowwcuwwv�lra nw4n>nmuttrcn.ma-pm�•• WYAIYf\l'RYLLNMWMEFuGW�EwwTWM! wOSa10.4��UN RIX.l8n1R410�IWSIQM�CIIFIf➢1l IiROWJR[uE ��. dM1hhM.wlYBMfYd tlIR{! OT iLf111b.INrIl11YIE E@ it .Wfvs•[�u'v�nct xVc 6Sµ vu rtfoe. mI/c1 11.1E Iw�i ]G4 � 01YlM%JHY Vflww(wtl%-.uMPWii4v.�x!£h..fiVElN6at1WkP116V1Yn'AB ]Y'L {t itJ.ii�Br�xKO[.3H'iV1/ROA']SN4V"8F&M SfTE PLAN I .�[v¢'1YVIuuYslfY lsixc¢�oC1YA1 suAY.aunN4awawux OtllllD.SB VT. fNMlfaiW.411 VFf COMEPT I1. a�xnw*wxeo-�nn.!*mc u1,a r.s�.wuu woi acrmrAawrm,awn®n a m a lV CC YkL 1�¢P RLL, bt74U FI imp b 2iY 61{p Ypg'Tr➢, § FH+.EPPET. i 1f.f nq R4, 11111111 Hill Hill Hill 111111111 .LJ.- y CUTA7t� a,oTm up IBIS H]lE SINE N9EALLiieTAN Y(.'J}f�R Y1P311[S1E:1—K ffEIlIAiFA:RfEI-g1EATPE Rt uTPI4 p—TPi NQ—N.. O'.WIRI:i4H TO Px 8CP O<aN1T MOE FpINSAg1H lRMMFAWAIpy ME HNLYIY M W N1Q1SB]H1ElEpB0 m W/ 9'OR G STEEL FENCE L rna Page 8 Item 3. F57 C. Building Elevations lay -�Wv, / REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION go- �] I E1CT'ERIOR RIGHT 516E ELEVATION ¢3' _ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION g,l Imo' eLtvRnarrs . A4.0 Page 9 Item 3. 58 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of the existing Development Agreement(DA)(Inglewood Place Sub. AZ,PP H-2019- 0090 —DA Inst. #2019-124424);FP-2021-0037(Inglewood Sub. 2);H-2021-0095(amended DA—in process) and the conditions contained herein. 2. The amended development agreement shall be recorded prior to submittal of an application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the proposed use(H-2021-0095). 3. The final plat that includes the subject property shall be recorded prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for this site(FP-2021-0037 Inglewood Subdivision No. 2). 4. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six-foot non-scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties in accord with UDC 11-4-3-913.1; depict fencing accordingly.Note: The proposed wrought iron fence does not meet this standard. b. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. c. Depict the location of the bicycle rack and a detail of the bicycle rack that demonstrates compliance with the design standards in UDC 11-3C-5C. d. Depict a continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum 5-feet in width from the perimeter sidewalk along Eagle Rd.to the main building entrance in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4; and to the residential care facility to the east and to the future commercial uses to the south for interconnectivity with adjacent uses as desired in Mixed Use—Community designated areas. Where the pathway crosses vehicular driving surfaces,it shall be distinguished through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. e. Depict a minimum 12.5-foot wide buffer along the eastern property line to total 25-feet, measured from the back of the garages on the adjacent residential property, in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-3,which requires a 25-foot wide buffer on C-C zoned property adjacent to a residential use and/or district. Depict landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. f. Depict a minimum 25-foot wide buffer along the northern property line adjacent to the residential property as set forth in UDC Table 11-213-3 for the C-C district,unless a reduced width is approved by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. Depict landscaping within the southern 10 feet of the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C; no trees/shrubs or plantings other than grass shall be planted within the northern 15-feet as there's an access easement that runs along the northern boundary of the site that benefits the adjacent property to the north. 5. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9—Daycare Facility is required. 6. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection Page 10 Item 3. F5-9 certificates as required by title 39,chapter 11,Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. 7. The maximum number of allowable clients shall be 216 as proposed with this application. 8. The business hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 am 11:00 pm in accord with UDC 11-213-313. 9. Outdoor play equipment over six(6)feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard in accord with UDC 11-4-3-9B.2. 10. The driveway access via S. Eagle Rd. is restricted to a right-in/right-out access per the Development Agreement. 11. An access easement shall be provided to the property to the north(Parcel No. S1121336276) in alignment with the north/south driveway on this site; a copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the subject property. Alternatively,the easement could be depicted on the subdivision plat and recorded. 12. The row of parking on the east side of the north/south driveway shall be restricted to staff member parking only and signs shall be erected accordingly. 13. A shared use agreement for parking shall be required with the property to the south in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-7. A recorded copy of the agreement shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the site. 14. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19; the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement requires some of the same design elements to be incorporated in the commercial portion of the development as in the residential portion. 15. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-513-6F. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Streetlights for Inglewood Subdivision No 2 must be installed and operational,with approved record drawings submitted,prior to any form of occupancy of this building. 2. No Public Works water or sewer main infrastructure is proposed, if any changes to City utilities is needed,Public Works Engineering must review and approve that work prior to construction. 3. Fire flow was modeled at 1500 gpm, contact Public Works Engineering if more than 1500 gpm is required. Page 11 Item 3. ■ C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=252119&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=253133&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n C ky IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-C zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed daycare center is harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Staff ,finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. Page 12 Item 3. 61 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff ,finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 13 Item 4. 62 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from February 3, 2022 for Verona Live/Work (H- 2021-0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 & 3042 W. Milano Dr., Near the Northeast Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four (4) buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-0 zoning district. Item 4. F63 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: March 3, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from February 3, 2022 for Verona Live/Work (H-2021- 0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 & 3042 W. Milano Dr., Near the Northeast Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four (4) buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-0 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 4. Mayor Robert E. Simison 64 E IDIANCity Council Members: Treg Bernt Brad Hoagiun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault Luke Caverier Liz Strader February 18, 2022 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission CC: Wendy Shrief, JUB Engineers; Dave Yorgason, Primeland Investment Group FROM: Joseph Dodson, Current Associate Planner RE: Verona Live/Work—CUP (H-2021-0080) Dear Commissioners, Verona Live/Work CUP (H-2021-0080)was continued per the request of the Applicant from the December 16, 2021 hearing to the January 20, 2022 hearing in order to meet with Staff and work through some of the concerns brought up within the staff report. Prior to the January 20th hearing, the Applicant requested a continuance in order to provide Staff enough time to receive and analyze any revised plans. At the February 3rd meeting, the Commission continued the application to the March 3, 2022 Commission hearing to give the Applicant a chance to respond to concerns brought up at the meeting. Since the hearing, Staff has received revised floor plans and has analyzed them against code and previous versions of the plans. The revisions made to floor plans include removing any interior access between the commercial and the residential and for the larger units (noted as the B-units), the commercial space has become one larger suite by the removal of a dividing wall. Staff finds the revised floor plans to be in compliance with code, more in line with the intent of Vertically Integrated Residential Projects specific use standards and definition, and consistent with changes discussed by the Commission. The revised floor plans do not constitute any changes to the conditions of approval. Staff has attached the revised floor plans to this memo-for-your convenience and has kept the previously recommended changes to the conditions of approval for transparency. Previously recommended revisions to the conditions of approval: • Modify_A.1 -The Applicant shall substantially comply with the revised and approved site plan, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations min this report as depicted in Section IX and revised per Section X.A. or unity Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 / Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org Item 4. • Modify A.5 —The site plan(s) shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for El Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval the Planning and Zoning Commissien hear-in : • Modify A.5b—For the facades facing W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way, depict additional 5-foot wide sidewalks connecting from these building entrances to the existing sidewalks along the public streets, similar to what is shown in the submitted color site plan image. • Strike A.5c—Remove the ovva units fr-a ing the eemer of W. Milano Drive and N. Geftana a-ad add a shared plaza spaee with outdoor-seating and shade stfueWres. • Strike A.5d—Remove the two units not along the adjacent stFeets in lieu of additional par-king and some usable eommon open spaee for-the development. • Strike A.6d—Depi t the shared plat as noted above with to lands s. • Strike A.7 altogether. • Strike A.8 altogether. • Add Condition to A.5 —Move the northern four(4) units approximately three (3) feet to the north to accommodate an extension of 5-foot wide sidewalk and 5 feet of landscaping aloniz the south side of this buildiniz from Cortona Way_ to the plaza area in the interior of the site. Exhibits: A. Revised Floor Plans (February 2022) 2 irem a. A. Revised Floor Plans (February 2022) 66 4. rR PRELIMINARY h eseacasace LOT BLOCK k v I 1 U — — 0 i H 1 e 1 F 2 � .4. ce a. a,was �. FLOOR PLAN—MAIN LEVEL FA2.0x 3 Item 4. z „ 3 4 a 67 p PRELIMINARY LOT BLOCK Bsu .B �za+ i' r(_y�e Y.. I LA Q LL— W � w p. AIN LEVEL z 3 a „<•,0 0 0 0 A2.0 4 Item 4. Mayor Robert E. Simison 68 E IDIANCity Council Members: Treg Bernt Brad Hoagiun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault Luke Caverier Liz Strader January 28, 2022 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission CC: Wendy Shrief, JUB Engineers; Dave Yorgason, Primeland Investment Group FROM: Joseph Dodson, Current Associate Planner RE: Verona Live/Work—CUP (H-2021-0080) Dear Commissioners, Verona Live/Work CUP (H-2021-0080)was continued per the request of the Applicant from the December 16, 2021 hearing to the January 20, 2022 hearing in order to meet with Staff and work through some of the concerns brought up within the staff report. Prior to the January 20th hearing, the Applicant requested one more continuance in order to provide Staff enough time to receive and analyze any revised plans. Staff received a revised site plan, landscape plan, and revised floor plans and elevations in response to the staff report and following the meeting held with the Applicant team. The revised plans have resulted in a number of recommended changes to the conditions of approval as some of the conditions have been met, some should be modified, and new conditions are now applicable based on the revisions proposed. The revisions made by the Applicant are noticeable and provide for an improved project overall, in Staff s opinion. The revised plans show the following changes made by the applicant: • Reduction in unit count— Staff had voiced concerns within the staff report regarding the livability of the original site plan where no green space was proposed. In response, the Applicant removed two units that were internal to the site and is now proposing - - additional parking and green space with a shared plaza in place of the two (2) internal units. Staff believes this addition alone changes the landscape of this project and would provide more livability within the site. o Staff is recommending a revision to the site plan to further add to the pedestrian -access-of the plaza by adding additionil sidewalk from Cortona Way to the plaza. / • Revision to the north four(4)-units.--Staff voiced concerns about the amount of - commercial area.shown within the proposed live/work floor plans. In conjunction with -the toss-of the.two internal units-and in response to Staff s comments, the Applicant has Oom`munity Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 / Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org item 4. revised the floor plan of the northern 4 units to be extended further west to accommodate El an additional office space on the east side of the units facing Cortona Way. This has doubled the nonresidential area for these 4 units; the nonresidential area on the remaining 10 units has not changed. • Revision to the conceptual elevations for the first floor faVade for the nonresidential portion of the project—Applicant revised the first floor fagade of all of the buildings to include some of Staff s recommended revisions noted in the conditions of approval in the staff report. Staff finds these revisions should add to the visibility and viability of the commercial spaces of the proposed units. Staff fully supports these revisions: o First floor fagade now includes a dedicated commercial entry door in addition to the internal shared access. o Fagade incorporates nonresidential style awnings and shows area that would allow for signage space for future tenants/businesses. o Applicant added taller windows on the first floor fagade adjacent to the new commercial entry door to create more of a storefront consistent with nonresidential buildings; Staff finds this is an improvement from the original elevations that largely looked 100%residential. • Additional sidewalk connections—Although the revised site plan and landscape plan do not show additional sidewalk connections, the Applicant provided a color image of the site plan and confirmed via email that additional sidewalks from the proposed buildings to the existing sidewalk facilities along the public roads are also proposed. Staff has included this image in this memo for reference. After review of the revised plans Staff recommends the following changes be made to the staff report by the Planning and Zoning Commission, noted with strikeout and underline changes below: • Modify A.1 —The Applicant shall substantially comply with the revised and approved site plan, landscape plan, and general! :*h he conceptual building elevations min this report as depicted in Section IX and revised per Section X.A. • Modify A.5 —The site plan(s) shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval the Planning and Zoning r,,m miss: ,r hear-in : • Modify A.5b—For the facades facing W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way, depict additional 5-foot wide sidewalks connecting from these building entrances to the existing sidewalks along the public streets, similar to what is shown in the submitted color site plan image. • Strike A.5c—Remove the twe units 4aming the cemer of W. MilanoDrive and N. Ceftena and add a shared plaza spaee with outdoer-seating and shade stFdetwes. • Strike A.5d—Remove the two tmits not along the adjaeent streets in lieu of additional par-king and some tisable eemmen open spaee for-the development. • Strike A.6d—Depi t the shafed plaz., ., noted above with appropriate !ands elements. • Strike A.7 altogether. • Strike A.8 altogether. • Add Condition to A.5 —Move the northern four(4)units approximately three (3) feet to the north to accommodate an extension of 5-foot wide sidewalk and 5 feet of landscaping along the south side of this building from Cortona Way to the plaza area in the interior of the site. Exhibits: 2 item 4. A. Revised Site Plan B. Revised Landscape Plan El C. Revised Conceptual Elevations and Floor Plans A. Revised Site Plan -T Ng-r4s'07-F so 54.36' 19f,.0 035'17"E --- -- - ----- 00 --FNT —- -----I 190.01' —j 17.7" --------------- 1482*03' --------------.21 73-68, ---- ---- --- 3 ttem 4. B. Revised Landscape Plan F71 FIN,7( o - --- _ - J F BAERo Ph 208859.19M r i oo I C d � LANDSCAPE LEGEND ........... nre v9ou mnrvcLe if�}.J� C KEYNOTES'-0 u�Eirtnu 1 III C QaR ----- Bmle l'=ZO'-0' mnl l•0 4 C. Revised Conceptual Elevations and Floor Plans El 11� in lei � J FRONT ELEVAT10H r Item 4. 73 c PRELIMINARY wnx.0 LOT BLOCK Fj Ue. z �s a o ■ A. 1.. 2 0 '3_. ;_4 ce a. rowe FLOOR PLAN-MAIN LEVEL A2N0 x 6 Item 4. 3 a 74 III aPRELIMINARY I i I =n ills ii i Ill ill i � n x LCT BLOCK ill i it i I 'Ili ii � i r yY a I � I vn Li I e � 2 3 4 1, FLOOR PLAN-UPPER LEVEL A2.1 7 Item 4. 75 z 3 wo .a I - - � PRELIMINARY LOT - BLOCK ,,.{, ... Ll. 7 . w nnl � IL �u 4 IN LEVEL 2 3 4 F. 0 A2.0 8 ' 76 �4�' 6\ PRELIMINARY NOT FOR-STRU-IN LOT IT . � | » . . . . , , -- - V Item 4. F 7 STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING December 16,2021 Legend DATE: IrnI U Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission - ' -- FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner - ®EH 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0080 Verona Live/Work—CUP LOCATION: 3020&3042 W. Milano Drive,near the northeast corner of Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road in the SW 1/4 of the SW U r 1/4 of Section 26,Township 4N,Range 1 W. � �� � I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four(4)buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-O zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.75 acres Future Land Use Designation Office Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Vertically Integrated Residential Project Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 9,2021;at least four(4)attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) Verona Subdivision(AZ-03-005);Verona Subdivision No. 3 Rezone(RZ-05-006);Verona Subdivision No. 3 FP(FP- 05-046);DA Mod(MI-08-006,DA Inst.#108101152). B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Not at time of report publication • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Page 1 m .. • . in ■■■■III ■r -m • • - • • n on III - s son on■IIIII■ � � • - • • • ` �■IIIII■: �. -_ a.■Irrr Illr � W z ' _ - MCM-I�L-L-AN MCM3L-L-AN �-r 111111 � ��Ir1■11■r■q 1 t Nil ■■� IIIN 1 11� .•• ` a �-. NINE ON MEN i 1 it ii mm■iI - . - ■ ■■1 - . - ■■oil Iu■III I■■■III • . — . . . ■!!■■III / • . — . . . �■!!■■!II IIIIIII IIINO■IIIII r111111 IIIP■IIIII■ II� ■IIIII a 11� 111■■IIIIII. . ■_�IIi ■■■■ IN■IIIIII■■1 ■■1■■.r IIIIIIII ■pl■.���� IlIIIIII � IIIII/�i ��IIIIIIII■ �'': III■►�~a��IIIIIII11 ri1� YJ =■■■I► a IIIIIIIII III /■a��� J ■ ��■i Irrr IIIr � W�j11U!� ■��IIII IIIII !I■.■ IIIIIII■ Mill in J ■ �, r■■�■■IIIIIIIII �lIII IIIII in 111LU 1 1 .�+�, ■IIIII► IIIIIIIII pp ■� Z ' ■►1p�Illll Pi• •_ �- �_ eat %IIIIIIIIIII� �1'iii: _■ F I NJ' � Illy 11� I + cm :::L-L-AN ndl 111111 °�IrIII1I 111111 �m_rl 11 � c_.. �I IIIII�r ■C■■ � � 111 „�n aiIII!I!III C. MINI ■IIN IIIII�r �� 111111111lV '� IIII 1 �� INIIIIIIIII ■hi mill I" .0 i .E Ir1111 r - a MC II1� Irj1I1I � p� I11111 ■�� a II1� Ir1II1I 1 ■■11 he eaae� �.ul ■— ■■1 Item 4. 79 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Wendy Shrief,JUB Engineers, Inc.—250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201,Boise,ID 83709 B. Owner: Primeland Investment Group LLC 1140 S. Allante Avenue, Boise, ID 83709 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/30/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 12/2/2021 Site Posting Date 12/2/2021 NextDoor posting 12/6/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Comb. Plan) This property is designated Office on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation is meant to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. These uses would include professional offices,technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses may be considered(particularly within research and development centers or technological parks). Sample zoning include L-O. The property was annexed and zoned in 2003 to the R-8 zoning district. In 2005, a rezone application was approved to change the zoning to the current L-O zoning district. Consistent with this rezone, a final plat was approved for six(6)office lots as part of Verona Subdivision No. 3. In 2008 applications were submitted to allow for the potential of including a church on these lots and was tied to a modified DA(MI-08-006). The DA from 2008 is the relevant agreement for this site but did not have a concept plan for these lots. In lieu of a concept plan,the DA references specific limitations to the allowed commercial area and included a provision that a minimum of three(3) office buildings in this office development. This provision has been satisfied with the existing development of three(3)office buildings. In addition, specific elevations were included as part of the DA that the current proposal generally complies with. Staff notes, despite no Development Agreement Modification being required,the relevant DA contemplates all commercial uses within the subject office lots. Instead of solely commercial uses,the Applicant proposes to develop the site with 16 vertically integrated residential (UDC 11-4-3-41)units across four(4)buildings on two vacant parcels in the L-O zoning district. Two buildings are proposed on each parcel with each parcel also having off- street parking lots in addition to the two-car garages proposed for each unit. Vertically integrated residential projects incorporate commercial spaces and residential uses within one structure and most often include commercial space on the first floor and residential on the floor or floors above. In this project,the Applicant is proposing a small commercial space at the front of the building on the first floor with the proposed residential portion of the units being both behind and above the commercial space. Therefore,the Applicant is proposing a two-story concept for these vertically Page 3 Item 4. 80 integrated buildings with the vehicular access for each unit proposed to be from the rear via a two- car garage for each unit. Vertically integrated residential projects are defined as follows in UDC 11-1A-1: "The use of a multi-story structure for residential and nonresidential uses where the different uses are planned as a unified,complementary whole and functionally integrated to share vehicular and pedestrian access and parking."This use is a conditional use within the L-O zoning district because they incorporate a residential component within a zoning district primarily intended for office uses. However,code allows for this type of use,as noted,through a conditional process with the assumption that appropriate commercial and residential uses can be located within this district and type of development area when appropriately designed. As part of that analysis, adjacent uses should also be taken into account. To the west of the subject sites sit two vacant L-O parcels; further to the west and abutting Ten Mile Road are two office buildings. Because of common ownership of the land,the Applicant is showing an office building directly to the west on the vacant office lot along the north boundary but this building is not part of the proposal and is shown only for reference. To the east and north of the subject sites are detached single-family residential that are part of the Verona Subdivision. To the south is approximately 10 acres of C-G zoned property that includes a number of commercial properties under development. The existing use is on the hard corner of McMillan and Ten Mile and is a fuel service station and convenience store. Directly to the south and across W. Milano,the largest commercial parcel has approvals for a 164 unit 55 and older multi-family development. Staff anticipates future residents of that site could utilize some of the future services provided within the commercial spaces of the proposed vertically integrated buildings. Because the proposed use is adjacent to a mixture of existing and planned uses(residential,office, commercial,etc.), Staff finds it should be an appropriate use in this Office FLUM designation for the reasons noted above. However, Staff does have concerns over the overall viability of the proposed commercial component of these units based on the proposed floor plans and the relatively small area of commercial proposed in each unit.While reviewing this project,Staff recommends Commission determine whether the proposal meets the intent of Vertically Integrated and if the proposed design is desired in the City and in this specific geographic area.Further analysis for the proposed use is below in the Comprehensive Plan policy analysis as well as in Section VII. The following goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are applicable to the proposed development: • "Plan for an appropriate mix of land uses that ensures connectivity, livability, and economic vitality."(3.06.02) The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area and should add to the livability and economic vitality of the community by providing the opportunity for residents to live and work in close proximity to the same physical space. • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The subject site is not part of or directly adjacent to a mixed-use area but is adjacent to a number of commercial and residential uses. Therefore, this area can largely function as a mixed-use area and the inclusion of vertically integrated structures, when properly designed, only furthers that element of this area. The proposed use would allow neighborhood serving commercial uses in close proximity to residential neighbors to the Page 4 Item 4. 81 east and north thereby reducing vehicle trips and enhancing livability of the area. • "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods." (5.01.02D) The proposed vertically integrated residential project is shown with a residential design in order to better blend with the existing neighborhood to the north and east. The Applicant intentionally proposed this building design but Staff finds this design may impede the commercial viability of the commercial spaces for anyone besides the residential tenant. This can work but it is not a guarantee every residential tenant will also want a commercial space. Therefore, with the current design and in these instances, the commercial space may sit empty and never activate the commercial areas as intended with a vertically integrated use. Some of the expected and allowed uses allowed in these structures are as follows: arts, entertainment or recreation facility; artist studio; daycare facility; drinking establishment; education institution;financial institution; healthcare or social assistance; industry, craftsman; laundromat;personal or professional service; restaurant; and retail. With the proposed size of the commercial suites, Staff anticipates a number of these uses would not be viable. Further analysis and recommendations are in subsequent sections below. • "Locate smaller-scale,neighborhood-serving commercial and office use clusters so they complement and provide convenient access from nearby residential areas, limiting access to arterial roadways and multimodal corridors."(3.07.02B) As discussed above, the proposed use and design of these buildings should provide for smaller-scale, neighborhood serving commercial and office uses. Staff finds, if properly designed, the proposed use would provide convenient access from adjacent residential areas and capture some vehicle trips that would otherwise utilize the arterial roadways. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) The proposed vertically integrated residential project would be a new housing type within this area of the City. In fact, Staff is not aware of this type of use within at least a mile of this property in all directions. The addition of a new housing type in this area helps provide for a diversity in housing for different income levels and housing preferences. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE UD The proposed use,vertically integrated residential project, is listed as a conditional use in the L-O (Limited Office)zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-2. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the L-O district is required and are met per the submitted plans except for the drive aisles proposed to access the garages for each unit. The submitted site plan shows the drive aisles adjacent to the garages as 20 feet wide which does not comply with UDC 11-3C-5 standards for two-way drive aisles.A two-way drive aisle, applicable throughout the site, requires a minimum width of 25 feet. The Applicant should revise the plans to show compliance with this standard at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZQ submittal. Page 5 Item 4. 82 VII. STAFF ANALYSIS As discussed above in Section V,the proposed vertically integrated residential project is considered an appropriate use and meets the development guidelines listed for the Office designation if properly designed. Staff has noted concerns with the proposed floor plan and elevations of the building in regards to the use and long-term viability of the commercial component to this project.According to the Applicant, the commercial spaces of the units will be leased with the residential units therefore, removing the potential of a non-resident utilizing the commercial suite and somewhat minimizing some of the concerns of the long-term viability of the space. In consideration of this information, it is logical the Applicant would propose a relatively small commercial space for each unit(approximately 165 square feet). The submitted conceptual floor plans would indicate the commercial suite in each unit being equal to a home office instead of a standalone commercial space—this design is not specifically prohibited or discussed in the specific use standards for this use or its definition. However, the proposed unit design is what creates concern and Staff finds it does not fully meet the noted definition of Vertically Integrated as currently proposed. The submitted floor plan shows a relatively small commercial suite that has minimal storage space for inventory, no separate room for meetings, and no outdoor patio space to help activate the commercial frontage. Staff is concerned this small space could be rented out as a separate residential unit without the City being the wiser OR would become an office for the residence and not serve the nearby neighborhood as intended with the commercial component of vertically integrated residential projects. The proposed size of the commercial spaces in each unit will likely not support many of the allowed uses noted in the specific use standards for this use. This furthers Staffs concern that these units may become standalone residential, which is not an allowed use in the L-O zoning district. In addition to the units facing the adjacent public streets, the Applicant is proposing two units to the interior of the site that has even less visibility and presents more challenges to having a viable commercial component. Because of the location of this building, Staff is recommending these units are removed in lieu of additional parking and some open space for future residents and commercial patrons. An inclusion of open space for this development presents a more livable project and allows further opportunity for a shared space between the commercial and residential components of the project. Staff is aware the subject project is not proposed in an urban environment and a vertically integrated project more consistent with downtown Meridian would not fit with the existing neighborhood character. Commission should determine if the proposed vertically integrated project, despite meeting minimum code requirements, meets the intent of the proposed use. In order to help with some of the concerns noted,Staff is recommending the following revisions to the plans: 1) expand the commercial area of the units to potentially encompass the entire first level,2)remove the first exterior door to help delineate the commercial and residential areas of the units by creating two exterior facing doors;one for the residential, and one for the commercial suite,and 3) remove the two (2) units that frame the hard corner of W.Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way to incorporate a shared plaza space similar to what exists in the commercial area on the south side of McMillan in Bridgetower Crossing. With the addition of outdoor patio space/shared patio space the commercial component of this development would help activate some of the commercial spaces.Additional and more specific recommendations can be found under the elevation analysis below and in the conditions of approval in Section XA. The proposed use is subject to the following Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-41)—Vertically Integrated Residential Project: (Staff analysis in italics) Page 6 Item 4. 83 A. A vertically integrated residential project shall be a structure that contains at least two(2) stories. Submitted plans show compliance by proposing two-story units. B. A minimum of twenty-five(25)percent of the gross floor area of a vertically integrated project shall be residential dwelling units,including outdoor patio space on the same floor as a residential unit. Submitted plans show compliance with this standard by proposing vastly more residential floor area than commercial. In addition, the conceptual floor plans depict private patios on the first floor of each unit complying with the second portion of this standard. C. The minimum building footprint for a detached vertically integrated residential project shall be two thousand four hundred(2,400) square feet. The smallest of the four(4) buildings is proposed as approximately 3,600 square feet. Therefore, all of the proposed buildings comply with this standard. D. The allowed nonresidential uses in a vertically integrated project include: arts, entertainment or recreation facility; artist studio; civic, social or fraternal organizations; daycare facility; drinking establishment; education institution; financial institution;healthcare or social assistance; industry, craftsman; laundromat;nursing or residential care facility; personal or professional service;public or quasi-public use;restaurant;retail; or other uses that may be considered through the conditional use permit process.Noted and the Applicant shall comply with this specific use standard. As noted above, the proposed floor plans depict approximately 165 sq.ft. of commercial space, Staff has concerns that the proposed commercial space may not be large enough to accommodate many of the allowed uses noted above. E. None of the required parking shall be located in the front of the structure.According to the submitted plans, the required parking for each residential unit and the commercial spaces is located behind or adjacent to the structures. Staff finds the proposed design complies with this standard. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): One(1)driveway access is depicted on the overall site plan and connects to N. Cortona Way along the east boundary of the site—the only direct access to a public street for the project. The submitted plans also show the main drive aisle that bisects the project and lies across the shared property line to continue west to connect to an existing drive aisle utilized for the two office buildings along Ten Mile —this drive aisle connects to W. Milano Drive approximately 190 feet west of the subject sites. The additional office building shown on the submitted site plan is not part of this project and would likely only require administrative applications in order to be constructed. The site plan shows multiple drive aisles off of the main east-west drive aisle for access to the proposed vertically integrated units and the two-car garages. Staff anticipates the two access points shown on the site plans would be needed for safest and most efficient flow of traffic for this proposed project despite the future office building to the west not being a part of this project. Because of this, Staff is recommending a condition of approval to construct the northern portion of this drive aisle with this project to ensure adequate traffic flow for the site regardless of the timing of development of the office site shown west of the subject sites. Staff does not have concern with the proposed access for the project with Staff s recommended timing of the east-west drive aisle construction and previous mentioned recommended condition to widen the drive aisles to meet code requirements. Parking(UDC 11-3C): UDC Table 11-3C-6 requires the following off-street parking spaces for the proposed use of vertically integrated residential project: one(1) space per residential unit and the standard parking ratio for Page 7 Item 4. 84 nonresidential uses(1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area). Based on 16 residential units, a minimum of 16 spaces should be provided. As noted,each unit is proposed with a two-car garage that exceeds our dimensional standards and therefore exceeds code requirements. Each commercial space is less than 500 square feet requiring one additional space per unit—according to the submitted plans, 20 additional parking spaces are proposed on the subject site. Based on the submitted plans,the proposed parking exceeds UDC requirements and Staff has no concern with the parking proposed for the site. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 There are existing 5-foot wide attached sidewalks along the adjacent public streets,W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way and meets UDC standards for these areas. Any damaged curb, gutter or sidewalk is required to be replaced if damaged during construction. The submitted plans do not show any additional sidewalk connections from the front of the buildings to the existing sidewalks, as required in UDC 11-3A-19. Stafffinds this to be a missed opportunity to activate the building frontage with the adjacent streets for the commercial suites. Therefore, consistent with Staffs additional recommendations to add a separate commercial door on the front facade of each unit,Staff is recommending additional 5-foot wide sidewalks are constructed from the front of the units facing public streets(14 of the 16 units). Because of the overall design of the units abutting each other in a mirrored format,Staff is acceptable to shared connections to the attached sidewalks so long as each unit entrance has a sidewalk connection to the shared connection. Please see exhibit below for an example: Or - P � r - r I + I i I � I � I Block 1 2 C I I I I I y- -- Vt,4M0 ---- -�_--- Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 10-foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along N. Cortona Way to the east, a local street, and a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Milano Drive, a collector street, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.Parking lot landscaping is required per the Page 8 Item 4. 85 standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. A 20-foot landscape use buffer to the existing single-family residential to the north is also required. All required street buffers are existing and comply with code requirements. The submitted landscape plan depicts the required 20 foot wide use buffer along the north property boundary but does not show the required number of trees. According to the aerial imagery, there appears to be existing and mature trees in this buffer but this is not depicted on the plans. The existing landscape conditions should be added to the plans with the future CZC submittal. The required parking lot landscaping appears to be compliance with UDC requirements except for the area adjacent to the parking lot along the west boundary on the south parcel. D. This should also be revised with the future CZC submittal. Fencing(UDC 11-3A- : According to the submitted landscape plan,it is unclear if any fencing is proposed with this project. Code does not require perimeter fencing but there is existing fencing along the north property boundary that belongs to those homes within the Verona Subdivision. If any additional fencing is proposed in the future, a detail of the proposed fencing should be included on the landscape plans with the CZC application that demonstrates compliance with the standards in UDC 11-3A-7. Building Elevations: The conceptual building elevations submitted with the application depict two-story units with two-car garages that are attached via internal breezeways. Overall,the elevations depict farmhouse style architecture with the addition of lighter stone accents and larger windows along the first floor commercial fagade. Administrative Design Review was not submitted concurrently with this application so one will be required with the future CZC submittal. Furthermore, Staff will analyze the proposed elevations for compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM) at the time of Design Review submittal. Upon initial review of the conceptual elevations, they appear to meet the required standards of the ASM. However, as stated throughout this report, Staff has concerns with how the commercial suite is delineated from the residential portion of the building. Staff finds the proposed building fagade where the main entrance is located makes it difficult to determine where the residential and commercial lay. In the last pre-application meeting, Staff discussed this issue with the Applicant and requested they look into providing different treatment to the first floor fagade in question in order to more clearly delineate the commercial and residential uses of the building in order to help activate the commercial component. In the spirit of this request and consistent with Staffs other recommended revisions to the building design,Staff is also proposing the future Design Review elevations to include a more traditional commercial storefront for each commercial space by providing more window area, if possible, a different field material on the first floor fafades overall,and to include the dedicated commercial entry door noted on the front facing facade, as recommended in previous sections of this report. With these revisions,Staff believes not only the elevations are improved but the overall project is also improved by providing a better avenue to activate the commercial aspect of the proposed project. Certificate of Zoning Compliance(UDC 11-5B-1): A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure compliance with UDC standards and the conditions listed in Section X. Page 9 Item 4. ■ VIII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section X per the Findings in Section XI. IX. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 10/6/2021)(NOT APPROVED) S89'36'11°E ] LL— I I I �E I 1 + !! I .emu. I I 1 r I 1 I !r II 1 ! Y — 1 It Y a + 1 E I I Y ri'+t^iH Ea9�Pl roar r F � 1 � I I I j I iwr r 1 I I I j I � 1 � I 1 Y 1 Y ' 1 1 I ` — — ——---------------------- Page 10 Item 4. F87 - r f I _ J I I 11 I I I I I I I I / I e I + + r • � I I F I r F I I I 1 I _ I I I ' I - I I I I �-I I ` T, Page 11 Gm+ F88 B. Landscape/a(date: 9/30/20 q w � ] �\\w, . ---, —w� e � ■ . ' - K ��. • xQa6.. wz \ r �\ n � , Page 12 Item 4. 89 C. Conceptual Floor Plan Ll- 2 3 4 �4PRELIMINARY s LOT BLOCK IL .R A �s W � I _. 1� 3 77 4 03. x�eae FLOOR PLAN-MAIN LEVEL A2.O X Page 13 Item 4. 90 LIVE— 1 2 3 4 II III I I I I I I o�m°oux 3oe�cv3`u� PRELIMINARY I I I I I I I I I I I i II I � rUr�o3E° ° I I I LOT BLOCK . I I II I I VV II �zeE I I I I Fr er I I I I I OWr E W • J.r S Y �LsnT..... znnn yr wnxnM e PC ti accen su r xa c:i�iwczrrt �"Z ��'� - A A 1 2' 3 4 FLOOR PLAN-UPPER LEVEL ° A2.1 Page 14 Item 4. Fq-1 D. Conceptual Elevations(NOT APPROVED) N N Page 15 Item 4. 92 X. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. The Applicant shall comply with the approved site plan, landscape plan, and generally comply with the conceptual building elevations approved in this report as depicted in Section IX and revised per Section X.A. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-41 for the proposed Vertically Integrated Residential Project. 3. Hours of operation for any future commercial in the commercial suites shall be limited to 6:00 AM to 10:00PM,per UDC 11-213-313 for the L-O zoning district when it abuts a residential use or district. 4. Prior to building permit submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Administrative Design Review(DES) approval from the Planning Department. 5. The site plan(s) shall be revised as follows prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing: a. All drive aisles shall be a minimum of 25 feet wide,per UDC 11-3C-5 standards. b. For the facades facing W.Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way,depict additional 5-foot wide sidewalks connecting from these building entrances to the existing sidewalks along the public streets. c. Remove the two units framing the corner of W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona and add a shared plaza space with outdoor seating and shade structures. d. Remove the two units not along the adjacent streets in lieu of additional parking and some usable common open space for the development. 6. The landscape plan(s) submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall depict the following revisions: a. Depict all existing landscaping on the subject sites to ensure compliance with UDC standards. b. Depict at least 5 feet of landscaping and the required number of trees along the west project boundary and adjacent to the proposed parking lot on the south parcel(3042 W. Milano Drive). c. Depict the additional 5-foot wide sidewalks as noted above. d. Depict the shared plaza as noted above with appropriate landscaping elements. 7. The conceptual building elevations and renderings shall be revised as follows prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing: a. The first floor fagade facing and visible from the adjacent public streets(W.Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way) shall depict a different field material and color than the second floor fagade. b. The first floor fagade facing adjacent public streets shall depict a dedicated commercial entry door made of glass to help delineate the commercial suite of the project—this does not mean the overall size of the window front shown on the conceptual elevations should be reduced. Page 16 Item 4. 93 8. Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing,the conceptual floor plans shall be revised as follows: a. Expand the commercial areas of at least some of the units to help the viability of the commercial component of this project. b. Remove the first exterior door to help delineate the commercial and residential areas of the units by creating two exterior facing doors; one for the residential,and one for the commercial suite. 9. The east-west drive aisle depicted on the site plan(s)that connects from N. Cortona Way,to the existing north-south drive aisle on parcels R9010670065 &R9010670015 shall be constructed with the first phase of this project to ensure adequate traffic flow for the site. 10. Protect the existing landscaping on the site during construction,per UDC 11-3B-10. 11. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements, acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.4. B. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) No staff report has been submitted at this time. A Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was not required for this project. C. West Ada School District(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=244897&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv D. Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244941&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty XI. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. With Staffs recommended revisions, the site meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the L-O zoning district and the proposed use of Vertically Integrated Residential Project. Therefore, Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff ,finds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis and applicable policies noted in Section V of this report. Page 17 Item 4. ■ 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed use with the conditions imposed, should be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity and shouldn't adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If the proposed use complies with the conditions of approval in Section X as required, Stafffinds the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff ,finds the proposed use will be serviced adequately by all of the essential public facilities and services listed. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Staff ,finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use should not involve activities that would be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Page 18 Item 5. 95 E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #51210417400) A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district. Item 5. F96 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: March 3, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #S1210417400) A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 5. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r A M O HEARING 3/3/2022 Legend DATE: - 0 Project Location LLLLLLLEU TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner � � 208-884-5533 � � �r] MW SUBJECT: H-2022-0001 -__ - Pinedale Subdivision _-------- 1 LOCATION: The site is located at 3275 W. Pine - f Avenue (Parcel#S 1210417400), at the . east terminus of W.Newland Street in - the Chesterfield Subdivision, in the NW -- 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 10, ELL- > �� Township 3N,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district,by Pine Project,LLC. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.22 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Community 6-15 du/ac Existing Land Uses County Residential Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type; 12 total lots— 10 residential building lots; 2 common bldg./common)) lots Phasing Plan(#ofphases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units 10 single-family units Density Gross—9.83;Net— 12.1 Open Space (acres,total Approximately 8,000 square feet of open space /buffer/ ualified (approximately 15% Amenity Seating area; micro-path connection to future multi- use pathway at north end of property Neighborhood meeting date; # November 5,2021 — 1 attendee of attendees: Page 1 Item 5. F98 Description Details Page History(previous approvals) No application history with the City B. Community Metrics Description Details Page_ Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via extension of the existing stub street,Newland Street; (Arterial/Collectors/State it is proposed to be extended into the site as a cul-de-sac. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Stub No opportunity for further public street extension;Newland Street will Street/Interconnectivity/Cross terminate within the site. Access Existing Road Network No Proposed Road The Applicant is only required to extend Newland Street into the site.No Improvements other road improvements are proposed or required. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 2.8 miles from Fire Station#2. Station • Fire Response Time The project currently lies outsie of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. Once Pine Avenue is constructed over the Tenmile Creek,the project will lie within the response time goal window. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 85%(above the goal of 80%) • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—Residential with hazards(Tenmile Creek along east boundary) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths, and turnaround dimensions. Cul-de-sac is required to be signed"No Parking,"per Fire Department regulations. Police Service No report—see online record for any comments from MPD. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer 0' Services • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • WRRF Declining 14.26 Balance • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 2 Item 5. Fq—q Description Details Page • Additional 510 gpd flow was committed to model Water • Distance to Services 0' • Pressure Zone 2 • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Water Quality None Concerns MMOM • Impacts/Concerns See site specific conditions in Section VIILB Page 3 ® 11 1 1 1 ' • - • • • _ II1r Win • - • • • "�IU ,�, . __■o J i ! ■ ■� ��■� � �—ter a1, qq ., -:.x 1loss ■n■1■►i r111 11n1 "ty \ `tea r ` ti ■■ions ■■1 H + ■ - - c �. i� IIIIII ■11 - • _ ` ° a. ._5-�_ n .. I �} ■■■■■nnl e - ;1 `P-INE" = � - `PINE IIIIII=_ � • - • ` � �`` � J I:9 111111 S-����i1p1111111 I — IICmIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIs11n11111�_ Z �,.� �' F Inll�lfl 6 - :w e Iuumlm '� !■'�'�'!'F_RANKLIN _� � =FRANKL-I'N 1111111 1 ]Illlllllgl -:;*� _�!1111111I111 �pAlllsll own-111 ■ EWER IN 1I NO Mill, �1 I 1 nn■ w�11� I ss I+ Iloilo .11111..n Il IIIIIIII _ IIIIII III 11��' '® ol�� ' • -• •• - �e_ �� 11L1'� ��,a ;oo■■IIn In11111 � n ■: ■1ll■1■s1ll Ijlnlnis '-� r--- l'N 1: IIIIIII�' 111 �IIIIII - r 1111 IIAICIII n1lnlllnllllp111 ill I11111 =_��=��nnlll �,-!�i��l � �IIIIIIIIII p�:0111AA111111 I r y s Il�nlll 111111111111A1111111111'I��\1•s'.I■1► Z � W F ;W h■ � If In■ �1�1....__ ■■ ■-- ° ZI mi, n uun • W �- ■■ i ii 1° FRANKL-INN ~ -p •■ ..1.■... 1- - '1131lIIIR1 1. 1.1.1.1■ICRAN KLIN A n m nnulil�Inmrlrim 1 1 1 11 •• ' 1" / 1 1" i � ' ' 1 i i1 1" i. � 1 . 1 i •� • 11 Item 5. 1o1 1 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/15/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 2/14/2022 Site Posting 2/21/2022 Nextdoor posting 2/15/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(ht(ps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) 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 (residential dwellings are allowed at a gross density of 6-15 du/ac). The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non- residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. The subject 1.2 acres is designated as mixed-use community but is part of a larger, 30-acre mixed-use designated area to the east that is west of Ten Mile and south of the future Pine Avenue extension (more MU-C acreage exists on the east side of Ten Mile as well). However, this site is physically separated from this MU-C area by the Tenmile Creek that abuts the east boundary of the subject site with only a future pedestrian connection available for any connectivity between this site and the MU-C parcels to the east. Because of the physical separation and the lack of connectivity to the east, Staff believes this project and site is more consistent with the existing subdivision to the west, Chesterfield Subdivision, than it is with any mixed-use project to the east (Foxcroft or Mile High Pines). Chesterfield and all of the residential to the west and northwest of this site is in the Medium Density Residential(MDR)future land use designation and contemplates residential development in the density range of 3-8 du/ac such as the proposed Pinedale Subdivision. Because of these facts, Staff finds it appropriate to analyze the subject project against the MDR designation instead of the MU-C designation by floating that designation to this site, as allowed per the Comprehensive Plan. Since the original project description was published, the Applicant and Staff have worked together to revise the plat and remove two (2) lots so the total building lots proposed with this plat is now ten (10). Ten lots on 1.22 acres of land has a gross density of 8.19 du/ac, at the maximum allowed within the MDR designation. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing a project consistent with both the MU-C and the adjacent MDR future land use designations. Due to the site being at the end of an existing stub street, the only vehicular connection is via extension of the stub street(Newland Street) into the property which is required to terminate within the site as a full cul-de-sac, requiring a large portion of the site to be reserved for right-of-way and reduces the buildable area of the project. Because the buildable area is greatly reduced by the required cul-de-sac, the Applicant is proposing lot sizes smaller than those within Chesterfield to the west which requires the R-I5 zoning district; the adjacent Chesterfield homes are within the R-8 zoning district. Page 5 Item 5. ■ Original discussions with the Applicant contemplated 15 building lots on the subject site but the Applicant submitted the preliminary plat with 12 lots after Staff voiced concerns over the proposed density, lot sizes, and overall livability of the project. Other discussions occurred following submittal of the subject applications and the Applicant reduced the number of building lots to 10. This allows the project to comply with the MDR designation by rounding 8.19 du/ac down to the allowed 8 du/ac. However, due to the requested zoning and proposed density not matching Chesterfield to the west, Commission and Council should determine if a further reduction in density is necessary. If the Commission or Council desires less density, Staff would recommend Lot 1 be removed in lieu of additional usable open space along the west boundary and to allow the lots to shift west around the cul-de-sac and remove a driveway connection to the cul-de-sac, reducing the amount of concrete and asphalt at the end of this street. An additional recommendation made by Staff that the Applicant has shown on the latest preliminary plat is to include some shared driveways in the project. Staff did not recommend multiple common drives as one is already proposed. Instead, Staff is recommending as many lots as possible utilize shared driveways on their shared property line to further eliminate driveway connections to the cul-de-sac. This recommendation would likely require at least some of the homes to have a side-loaded garage instead of a front loaded garage;Staff notes for the benefit of the Applicant that if a parking pad is required to meet minimum off-street parking standards, a minimum 20 foot by 20 foot parking pad may be required and would need to be measured in front of the garage even if it is side-loaded. The Applicant should ensure their desired home design is viable with this recommendation. Specific setback analysis would be analyzed with future building permit applications. Furthermore, the subject site is surrounded by existing City zoning in all directions with existing development to the south, west, and northwest and entitlements on the land to the east and northeast. Therefore,Staff believes annexing this land into the City to remove this small county enclave is in the best interest of the City so long as the Applicant adheres to Staffs recommended DA provisions and conditions of approval. Staff finds the proposed project to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed above. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed below. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation and rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a new DA that encompasses the land proposed to be rezoned and annexed with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owners)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the rezone and annexation approval.A final plat will not be accepted until the new DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. NOTE: Upon application submittal and initial review, there was miscommunication between Staff and the Applicant and the Applicant was required to revise the Annexation boundary to include area that is already annexed into the City(within the railroad right-of-way). There is no need to rezone this area in conjunction with this annexation so Staff is recommending the Applicant submit a revised Annexation and Zoning legal description and exhibit map that encompasses only the area not currently annexed and matches the plat boundary. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. Staff is not analyzing the project against any mixed-use policies but is instead analyzing the project against general policies as the project is being reviewed with the MDR designation. Page 6 Item 5. F103 "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01 G). The proposed project offers a density most consistent with the projects to the east, however the submitted plat does not match the lot size and density of the Chesterfield Subdivision adjacent to the west. The subject site is encumbered by the requirement to construct a cul-de-sac entirely on this relatively small site so matching the lot sizes and the same look of Chesterfield would be difficult to attain. The impediments on this site allow the Applicant to propose a smaller building lot which subsequently allows a smaller home to be constructed than what exists in the surrounding area; this should add to the housing diversity in this area. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing stub street on its west boundary. Road improvements currently under construction (i.e. Pine bridge over the Tenmile Creek)will place this project within the Fire Department response time goal and Fire has approved the accesses for the proposed plat. West Ada School District has not sent a letter regarding this application but with a relative low number of homes a large number of school aged children is not anticipated to be generated by this development. Furthermore, Chaparral Elementary is within walking distance of this development should any elementary aged children live within this site. Stafffinds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create appropriate conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project. "Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation, conservation,and aesthetics" (4.05.01F).Because the property is less than 5 acres, the Applicant is not required to provide any qualified common open space. However, the Applicant is showing a connection to a future multi- use pathway at the north boundary and has chosen to include an open space plaza area near this connection point for future residents to enjoy. This area is tucked away behind the building lots so all adjacent fencing will need to be open vision or semi private fencing. Staff anticipates this area being utilized as a quiet oasis due to its location. Staff is not aware if this site and future building lots will be part of the Chesterfield HOA for residents to access the amenities and open space within that project. However, Fuller Park is approximately % mile to the north of the subject property which offers acres of open space and amenities within walking distance. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Proposed project is extending the attached sidewalks along Newland Street and is proposing a micro path connection to the north boundary to connect to a multi-use pathway segment from the Foxcroft Subdivision on the east side of the Tenmile Creek. Furthermore, the Applicant is preserving a potential connection point to the railroad corridor should the City ever decide to construct a regional pathway south of the site.All of these pedestrian facilities allow this small site as well as the existing development to the west to have multiple links together and promotes neighborhood connectivity. "Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction."(2.02.02F).As discussed, the Applicant is proposing lot sizes smaller than the adjacent Chesterfield Subdivision to the west largely because of the requirement to terminate Newland Street within the site as cul-de-sac. The proposed lots directly abutting the existing homes do not match in lot size but they are abutting 1:1 in terms of lot to lot so the existing residents should not feel as though there is slightly higher density directly to their east. Furthermore, because the property is at the end of an existing street and it will terminate on the subject site, Staff anticipates the project will feel cohesive in its livability despite not matching lot sizes and density of Chesterfield. Should Commission determine a further reduction in lot count is necessary, Staff recommends one of the lots taking access from the cul-de-sac be Page 7 Item 5. ■ removed in lieu of additional usable open space and help remove the number of driveway connections to the cul-de-sac. "Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties."(6.01.02C). The Applicant is required to and is proposing to extend Newland Street into the site by constructing a cul-de-sac wholly on this property, terminating Newland Street. This is the only access point into the site and connects this project directly to the abutting Chesterfield Subdivision that has access up to Pine Avenue, a residential collector street that will be extended from west to east over the Tenmile Creek to Ten Mile Road. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: According to GIS imagery,there appears to be an existing residential structure and an out- building on the subject site.Any and all structures and debris are proposed to be removed upon development of this project. Furthermore,the existing access for this site is via vehicular bridge over the Tenmile Creek at the very north property boundary that connects to a private drive that is essentially Pine Avenue. This access will be closed upon development and the vehicular bridge should provide access for a regional pathway Foxcroft subdivision is constructing to the east. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family residential with an average lot size of 3,363 square feet and a minimum lot size of 3,099 square feet,based on the latest submitted plat(Exhibit VII.B). This use is a permitted use in the requested R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2 and all lots meet the minimum lot size requirement of 2,000 square feet. The Applicant has not noted if this is a phased project,however Staff anticipates it to develop as one phase due to the size of the proposed project. As discussed in the Comprehensive Plan analysis, the proposed use is the same as the existing detached single-family to the west in Chesterfield Subdivision but is proposed with smaller lots and subsequently smaller homes.According to the Applicant, the goal is to construct smaller homes at a lower price point to add more affordable options to the area and market. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. In addition,all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans appear to meet all UDC requirements except for the number of lots taking access from a common drive. Per UDC 11-6C-3D, no more than three(3) lots can take access from the same side of a common drive and the proposed plat depicts four(4) lots taking access (Lots 4-7)from the common drive because of Staffs recommendation to have shared driveways where possible. The Applicant will be required to show Lot 4 taking access from the cul-de-sac instead of showing it shared with Lot 5 and on the common drive. The common drive is shown as 20 feet wide and is less than 1 SD feet in length meeting Fire turnaround and UDC requirements. Furthermore, the Applicant is showing a 6-foot wide sidewalk attached to the common drive from the proposed attached sidewalk around the cul-de- sac to the southern boundary to assist the Parks Department in reserving a pedestrian facility through the site in the event the City constructs a regional pathway system within the railroad corridor to the south of the property. This 6-foot area appears to be shown as a sidewalk on the latest plat but is shown as landscaping on the landscape plan (this landscape plan does not match Page 8 Item 5. ■ the latest plat). The Applicant should clarify what the intended purpose of this area is in order to comply with UDC 11-6C-3D.5 as well as the Parks Department condition of approval. The landscape plans should be revised to comport to the revised preliminary plat prior to the City Council hearing. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed detached single-family homes.Note that detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval therefore Staff does not review these for compliance with any architectural standards. However, the submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles with all of the elevations depicting two-story homes with two-car garages. The elevations depict varying field materials of lap siding, brick,fiber cement board and stucco with differing accent materials, roof profiles, and overall varying home styles. Staff finds the conceptual elevations should be adhered to closely in order to offer an array ofpotential home designs for this small subdivision. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, I1-3H-4): Access is proposed via extension of W.Newland Street(an existing residential local street) into the site and is proposed to terminate within the site as a full cul-de-sac. ACHD has approved the proposed access with the additional condition that the radius be widened to 50 feet instead of 49 feet as currently shown. Further, according to the latest plat, four(4) lots are shown to take access from a 20-foot wide common drive in the southeast corner of the site. As discussed above,the Applicant will be required to revise the plat to show Lot 4 taking access from the cul-de-sac instead of the common drive to comply with code unless Alternative Compliance is requested and approved. The existing access across Tenmile Creek and up to the private segment of Pine Avenue will be closed upon development of the site. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table H- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. In addition, it is important to note that no parking is allowed along the perimeter of the proposed cul-de-sac nor on the proposed common drive. So,there is no opportunity for any on-street parking within this subdivision because it includes a cul-de-sac as its public access. One of the reasons behind Staff's recommendation to reduce the number of lots proposed in this development is based in the lack of available on-street parking within the site due to the only public street access being a cul-de-sac.In response, the Applicant removed two lots, as previously noted. An additional solution to this potential issue would be to require the Applicant to provide an area of off-street parking in lieu of one of the building lots for guest parking. Staff is not specifically recommending this but is calling this out as an option should Commission or Council find it necessary. However, should this be a requirement, additional lot shifting will likely be needed to accommodate for 19 foot deep parking stalls and a 25 foot wide two-way drive aisle for access. Staff also recommends the inclusion of shared driveways in order to promote side-loaded garages and further help with the potential off-street parking issue. This type of design can force longer driveways that go deeper into each site which allows for more off-street parking. This design also creates an opportunity for the living area of each home to be moved closer to the street as the Page 9 Item 5. F106 living setback is 10 feet while the garage setback is 20 feet; this allows for more buildable area than is shown on the submitted plat(i.e. specifically for Lots 3, 4, and 9). Staff is recommending a specific DA provision to require a number of shared driveways and to help mitigate this potential issue. However, Staff notes the building lots may not be wide enough to accommodate the required parking pad for side-loaded garages. The Applicant should work to mitigate these issues and revise the plat accordingly. I. Sidewalks/Pathways (UDC 11-3A-17; UDC 11-3A-8): A 5-foot wide attached sidewalk is proposed along the Newland Street cul-de-sac, consistent with UDC and ACHD requirements. In addition,the Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide micro-path on the north side of the cul-de-sac for the purpose of providing a connection to the future multi- use pathway approved with Foxcroft Subdivision on the east side of the adjacent Tenmile Creek. The proposed sidewalks meet UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards. The micro-path lot does not meet UDC 11-3A-8 standards—this lot is shown as ten(10)feet wide but code requires a minimum of a 15-foot wide common lot for increased visibility and to allow 5-feet of landscaping on both sides of the micro-path. The Applicant should revise the plat to show compliance with this standard and show the required number of trees adjacent to the path in accord with UDC 1I- 3B-12. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The required landscaping regulated by code within the proposed development is the common open space and micro-path areas around the north and eastern perimeters. The submitted landscape plans shows landscaping in these areas as proposed but does not match the latest plat. The Applicant should update the landscape plan prior to the City Council hearing. The Applicant is proposing the micro path lot as 10 feet wide instead of the required 1 S foot minimum but is currently shown with two trees abutting the path, exceeding code due to its length being approximately 100 feet(trees are required at the ratio of 1/100 linear feet,per UDC I I- 3B-12). Furthermore, this micro path lot opens up to a common open space area shown with a seating area,grass, and a few trees for shade. This landscaping shows compliance with code requirements for the number of trees and other vegetative ground cover for common open space. The Applicant may be required to modify the plat and landscape plan to accommodate the required Tenmile Creek easement and satisfy UDC 11-3A-6 to include the irrigation easement within a minimum 20 foot wide common lot. This common lot would be required to be vegetated per UDC standards as well as meet the irrigation districts standards but the creek itself may be left natural because it is listed as a natural waterway within the UDC. K. Qualified Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The proposed preliminary plat area is approximately 1.22 acres in size in size which does not require a minimum amount of open space nor an amenity,per UDC 11-3G-3. The Applicant is proposing a common open space area that is approximately 2,500 square feet in size to include a seating area and a micro-path connection to the north boundary for future connectivity to a regional pathway segment. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and does not meet UDC standards. 6-foot tall wood fencing is proposed through the site despite being adjacent to common open space areas that are tucked away and adjacent to an open waterway, the Tenmile Creek. With the final plat submittal, the Applicant should revise the landscape plan to show open-vision fencing Page 10 Item 5. F107 or semi private open vision fencing along the rear property lines of Lots 1-7 and the side property lines abutting the micro path lot for Lots I &2. In addition, the Applicant should clarify if any fencing is proposed along the Tenmile Creek and coordinate with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District on where they would like any fencing located within their easement. Furthermore, the landscape plan appears to show solid fencing along the east property line of Lot 8, abutting the proposed common drive.According to UDC 11-6C-3D.5, if solid fencing is proposed abutting a common drive, at least 5-feet of landscaping is required between the common drive and the buildable lot. The latest preliminary plat does not appear to comply with this but the landscape plan does show landscaping. So, the Applicant should clarify which plan is accurate AND revise the landscape plan to show the proposed fencing type.According to the document provided by the Parks Department, the required pedestrian easement for a future connection from the south boundary to the north boundary of the subject site can overlap the common drive and essentially utilize the common drive as the pathway. This would allow for the required S feet of landscaping on the west side of the common drive adjacent to Lot 8 to allow for solid fencing. M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6) The subject site directly abuts the Tenmile Creek along its entire eastern boundary. According to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID),the easement width for this facility is 50 feet on either side of the centerline of the"drain."The submitted plat doesn't appear to depict the required 50-foot easement. Staff is concerned that this may severely limit the viability of the buildable lots along the creek(Lots 2-7,Block 1).Furthermore, UDC 11-3A-6 requires a minimum 20-foot wide common lot if more than 10 feet of an irrigation easement encumbers the buildable lots.Under this code section the applicant can ask that the easement be placed on the buildable lot rather than in a common lot.However, the width of the easement may impact buildable area of the lots if the irrigation district will not allow any structures to encroach in the easement.Prior to the Commission hearing,the applicant should graphically depict the easement on the plat and contact NMID to determine if any encroachment would be allowed in the easement.If encroachments are allowed, staff recommends the applicant provide an exhibit that demonstrates how homes on these lots would comply with NMID requirements. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement if the recommended revisions in Section VII of this report are adhered to 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 11 Item 5. ■ VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map(NOT APPROVED) = ACKERMAN E S T V 0 L D WWW.ACKERMAN-ESTVOLD.COM January 10,2022 Pinedale Subdivision Annexation and Rezone Legal Description 3679 West Newland Street Meridian,ID 83642 A parcel of land being a portion of the SE%of Section 10,T.3N,RAW,Boise-Meridian,Ada Couty,Idaho, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 5/8"iron pin marking the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence along a line perpendicular to the Union Pacific Railroad centerline South 01'34'46"West a distance of 100.00 feet to a point on said centerline;thence along said centerline South 88°25'14"East a distance of 311.32 feet; thence leaving said centerline along a line perpendicular to said centerline North 01'34'46"East a distance of 100.00 feet to a point on the westerly edge of Tenmile Creek;thence along said westerly edge of Tenmile Creek North 32"49'09"West a distance of 120.21 feet;thence North 48"06'05"West a distance of 101.97 feet; thence North 43"31'33"West a distance of 144.27 feet;thence leaving said westerly edge of Tenmile Creek North 88`25'56"West a distance of 66.78 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence along said easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4 South 00'52'04"West a distance of 267.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 1.93 acres,more or less. ate" 6s9 i . 1/10/2 vat 2"OF 10 M HEADQUARTERS 4161 311TH AVE S 3210 27TH ST W 7161 W RIVERSIDE DR 190717TH ST SE SUITE 100 SUITE 200 SUITE 102 MINOT,ND 59701 FARGO,ND 58104 WILLISTON,ND 58801 GARDEN CITY,ID 83714 701.937.8737 701.551.1250 701.577.4127 208,853.6470 Page 12 Item 5. Fl-og N ANNEXATION EXHIBIT B =01R I ION 0 11 IL SL 1/4 Cl `=LC L N 10, 3C`�_ Ivl_�ICIAN, C I C, 8�/&f-$ P�1- ICI �N, ADly COLN—, DA 0. o sco• � =_ARNC�,0.kr]I:,'-Ah:=.S NAY YAF,"=zSVI -TVIUl15 ri ITS DU-M,:=-r7FK-h!f-io,5 CF uEASIR-14-vTs. W PINEAL _ — - — - — — — — — II '•� WIVE AD DINE ST \._W FARLAM DRIVE_ ` tJ—W NLWLAN❑S7_ P.O.B. A -- -- — ONION PACIFIC RAILROAD s e �• � ------------ ----� j; STOR-IT SELF STORAGE FOUNDMONUMENT B.O.B.BASIS OF BEARING P.O.B.POINT OF BEGINNING P.O.C.POINT OF COMMENCEMENT CCITY OF MERIDIAN L. AREA TO BE ANNEXED ACKERMAN �ESTVOLD 7661We9Rarsitleurw,Ste,102 Garden City,1083714 208.853&770..—ackermaa- told.I. MInN Na I Far o,Na WIIl"t,ND 8ol5e,le Page 13 Item 5. 1 10 wwW.ACKERMgiV-ESTVOLD,COM 1\7,,ACKERMAN ESTVOLD January 10,2022 Pinedale Subdivision Legal Description 3679 West Newland Street Meridian,ID 83642 A parcel of land being a portion of the SE%of Section 10,T.3N,RAW,Boise-Meridian,Ada Couty,Idaho, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 5/8"iron pin marking the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence along the northerly right-of-way line of Union Pacific Railroad South 88°25'14"East a distance of 311.32 feet to a point on the westerly edge of Tenmile Creek;thence leaving said northerly right-of-way line of Union Pacific Railroad on the westerly edge of said Tenmile Creek North 32`49'09"West a distance of 120.21 feet; thence North 48"06'05"West a distance of 101.97 feet;thence North 43°31'33"West a distance of 144.27 feet;thence leaving said westerly edge of Tenmile Creek North 88"25'56"West a distance of 66.78 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence along said easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4 South 00°52'04"West a distance of 267.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 1.22 acres,more or less. 5C ISTEIyf�� 5 6�fi9 r .�1/10/2 OF ONTO M c' HEADQUARTERS 4165 30TH AVE 5 3210 27TH 5T W 7661 W RIVERSIDE DR 1907 17TH ST SE SUITE 100 SUITE 200 SUITE 102 MINOT,ND 58701 FARGO,ND 58104 WILLISTON,ND 58801 GARDEN CITY,ID 83714 701.837.8737 701.551.1250 701.577.4127 208.853.6470 Page 14 Item 5. ■ B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 2/21/2022) \ \ _ � � � PP.FJJMINARY FIAT FOK Q� a PINEDALE SUBDIVISION �� � nPornoN OTm�eoumensr ua or-srrnoN lo,r_sN.,z,w-.aolse �w_�= l\ f M!}JDL4N.ADA CONNiY.fDA110. 4 �-.' - ��. 0 a s I J.n.sc i air EF ^G \ ^��" \: PREIJMINARY union raem.a.ar...e plp11 1.0 Page 15 Item 5. 112 C. Landscape Plans(date: 8/3/2021) CL w 7H M ®R AN H� H NONE eg Page 16 Item 5. 113 Planting Ledgen BTRalogancBu[NIaB ■ 1LLRF ovEanwRO LEo iocsot�vRatnoE SEEd ai q�'6 c'", sw ES ANo sao Ai ALL oaTHER Re{� ■ NnTIVE901L Yp'4� ■ oNCRE0.iE cuR9 euTTERPNo a� a 3 3 Lot 3 oti ot2 t Newlantl C1. Pervious Concrete U Lot H. of 16 Lak 6 Lot 1 Lat 7 a-Lo['11 of 13 Lola of 1n of 6 Lana Scapa plan 1"-2P-0" Y!t4"Top and Bottom RTllfp sewn t I'll P "F Pmp 1'k4'PT Post 7 _ — IuSends¢, :-2o1- 6lalnbyaT.etTalePalpta. ' NAii<a.tia a oinaoi sec rveutxc sue;sprnTe. 5.,Fence Detail Page 17 n 0 r *+fir_ ��►• , a .•3 ',fie F _ r�a� I' 4r iA 1 M f i .•�F it iM�t I Item 5. ■ r'� l �� •r L fr• - ct i ■■ ■a■ IBM : ■■■ 5 Page 20 Item 5. ■ 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)/developer 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; Applicant shall provide a revised Annexation and Zoning legal description and Exhibit Map to exclude the railroad right-of-way area.The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein and shall be obligated to install and maintain the open space and amenity as proposed on the approved plans. b. The Applicant shall include shared driveways to help remove the number of driveways proposed, especially for those lots taking direct access from the cul-de-sac,W.Newland Court. 2. Prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall provide revised Annexation and Zoning legal description and Exhibit Map to exclude the railroad right-of-way area. 3. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated February 21, 2022, shall be revised as follows prior to the City Council hearing, except as noted: a. Show the entrance to the open space lot(Lot 12)containing the micro-path lot to be at least 15 feet wide,per UDC 11-3A-8 standards. b. Lot 4 shall take access from the cul-de-sac and not from the common drive in accord with UDC 11-6C-3. c. Prior to the Commission hearing,the applicant should graphically depict the Tenmile Creek easement on the plat and contact NMID to determine if any encroachment would be allowed in the easement. IF encroachments are allowed, staff recommends the applicant provide an exhibit that demonstrates how homes on these lots would comply with NMID requirements. 4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated August 3, 2021, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Revise the plan to match the latest preliminary plat. b. Lot 12,Block 1 shall be a minimum of 15-feet wide and landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-12. c. If solid fencing is proposed on the east property line of Lot 8, show the required 5 feet of landscaping between the property line and the common drive (Lot 11)in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D. Page 21 Item 5. F-1181 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 7. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 8. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 9. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-313-14. 10. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Water main alignment may need to be adjusted to enable perpendicular service lines to appropriate locations-specifically at the edge of right-of-way at the entrance to the private drive. 2. No sewer utilities provided in Record. Public sewer infrastructure must be reviewed and approved by public works. 3. Sewer main shall not run-down private driveways that serve 4 or fewer lots. For lots 6, 7, and 8, run sewer service in the driveway only. 4. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 5. A portion of this development is in the Floodplain Overlay District and floodplain development permit is required for land development. This property is in a FEMA "A" Zone without Base Flood Elevations. A hydraulic analysis has been completed for Foxcroft Subdivision.Applicant will need to compare base flood elevations for existing conditions in this analysis to the existing conditions survey on 3725 W Pine. This should form the basis for a Letter of Map Amendment(LOMA) application to remove the entire property from the floodplain. The quicker LOMA process is started the better, otherwise we will need floodplain permits and elevation certificates for any development in the current flood zone. If fill this property is not eligible for a LOMA, fill may be added for a FEMA LOMR-F application. In this case, floodplain permits and elevation certificates will be required for each structure in this zone. 6. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Atlas Materials Testing & Inspection, there are shallow cemented soils across the site. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. This may include the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences. Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system, nor the trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines. Page 22 Item 5. 119 1 General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment 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. Page 23 Item 5. ■ 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 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridianciiy.orgZpublic 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 Page 24 Item 5. 121 Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=251084&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C ky D. PARKS DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251081&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC E. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251841&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=251854&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv G. NAMPA/MERMIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=252550&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=252743&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and Zoning(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-8 zoning district and Rezone a portion of the project from R-4 to the R-8 zoning district with the proposed preliminary plat and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested R-8 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; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Page 25 Item 5. F122] 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. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Stafffinds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, 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 VII for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACED considers road safety issues in their analysis and has offered their support of the proposed development with the proposed road layout in mind. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 26 Item 6. L123 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Aviation Subdivision (H-2021-0096) by Jadon Schneider of Bronze Bow Land, Located at Parcel #51210325951, near the northeast corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., north of Compass Charter School A. Request: Preliminary Plat or 48 building lots (37 single family attached lots, 2 detached single- family, and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other lot. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi-family units on 9 lots on 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district. Item 6. 124 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: March 3, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Aviation Subdivision (H-2021-0096) by Jadon Schneider of Bronze Bow Land, Located at Parcel #S1210325951, near the northeast corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., north of Compass Charter School A. Request: Preliminary Plat or 48 building lots (37 single family attached lots, 2 detached single-family, and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other lot. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi-family units on 9 lots on 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 6. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING March 3,2022 Legend 1 DATE: laProject Location m TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner _ 208-884-5533 - all SUBJECT: H-2021-0096 Aviation Subdivision h LOCATION: The site is located near the northeast �® corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd.,to the north and northeast ----of Compass Public Charter School,in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 3N.,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary Plat for 48 building lots (6 single family attached lots, 31 townhome lots,2 detached single- family,and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other lot and a Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi- family units on 9 lots on 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 9.8 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium-High Density Residential(8-12 du/ac) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Attached Single-Family Residential(SFR),Detached SFR, Townhomes,and Multi-family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 48 building lots(37 single-family attached,2 detached single-family,9 multi-family); 8 common lots; 1 other lot (irrigation pump house) Physical Features(waterways, Purdam Gulch Drain runs diagonal through site from the hazards,flood plain,hillside) southeast corner to the northwest corner.Applicant proposes to tile this drain and realign it along the east and north boundaries to make better utilization of the property. Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 16,2021,no attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2018-0048(Compass Charter School AZ,CPAM;DA Inst.#2018-079763);H-2020-0111 (Aviator Sub. CPAM, MDA,RZ;DA Inst.#2021-067235). Page 1 Item 6. F126] B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via extension of W.Aviator Street, Hwy/Local)(Existing and designated as a towncenter collector street on the Master Proposed) Street Map(MSM)and within the TMISAP(two travel lanes and on-street bike lanes). Access to the lots within the subdivision are proposed via a new local street that loops through the site and connects to Aviator in two places;multi-family drive aisles are proposed to connect to this local street for access to those units. Traffic Level of Service Black Cat Road(0' of frontage)—Better than"E" (474/575 VPH) W.Aviator Street—no known traffic counts were given by ACHD. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing to extend W.Aviator Street and Access bring it through the subject site and stub it to the eastern property boundary north of the irrigation district pump station in the southeast corner of the site. Existing Road Network W.Aviator ends in a temporary turnaround approximately 200 feet along the property's southern boundary.Next closest street is N.Black Cat Road,an arterial,and is in the ACHD CIP for widening in 2031-2035. Proposed Road Improvements W.Aviator extension through the site to the east property boundary. ACHD—CIP Black Cat is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from Franklin to Cherry between 2031-2035. Black Cat is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from Overland to Franklin between 2036-2040. Franklin Road is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from McDermott Road to Black Cat between 2026-2030. Distance to nearest City Park(+ Fuller Park(21.96 acres)— 1.3 miles by foot; size) approximately 1.7 miles by vehicle. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.5 miles from Station 42 • Fire Response Time Falls outside of the 5-minute response time goal • Resource Reliability 85%(above the goal of 80%) • Accessibility As submitted,plat does not meet all requirements—Site needs secondary emergency access. • Additional • Because project is at a dead-end road with no Comments/Concerns secondary access,ALL single family units constructed will be required to be built with fire sprinklers. • Aviator Street is currently shown without a turnaround at its terminus;Applicant will be required to terminate Aviator with a Fire and ACHD approved turnaround. Page 2 Item 6. 127 Description Details Page Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 4.2 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 4 minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 12/l/2019- 11/30/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 2,591 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 234. Between 12/l/2019- 11/30/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 52 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. • Additional Concerns Traffic congestion at the intersection of Black Cat and W. Aviator during peak times at the nearby charter school. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • WRRF Declining 14.26 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • Additional 7,500 GPD of flow committed to model • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 1 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 3 1 1 1 Iool■■r1n: :� I�• 5 '1 Innunn: �G'f� fry - • - • ° °`, _uumsssa um■ is in.Man n.�Nq —Y� •L • - • • • Ali nu■ii:::::� ��. 1 ,I ��� • - • • • � '� �. �di ■.. . �;'.' : .1111 i Ildl■n:�-�11111[[ [[[Ill�:■111 IAe ■ ■■.�11.111[■ [[[[1111x-Ri y v, r�lr: PiI11111 111111[III�NY_�_ �- -- ... •r.i�,-. _, -,.� - 1 ■� ,I11 1■I■l■IEy 111 111111111. '-�" _ .�. ,,I1 ■ iiiii 1= --s � �. � I �-In [I � -- • 'IIEIF _ dxlllllll■ � i y- 3 III., -- _a. u 01 '--. - nnnnmglleml FRANKL�IN—' _ 1[LL Illlllll-= 11 --_ n■W WI • • - i111111111 = as xru+ ■nnr Man: rn - . - ono c' r S�f - . - I ■nnrrum: ■ Mason �h I�snunm■ moo ■� Ili� Man ■ moo■ [+■■■• ■�n■q■■.-n ■ • • - • • • mn:::�:�■■5 .• % • - • • • :a■Man::���.�■: -` �::i �::i: �■■ ��� 1 11..- III or■-:IIu1s i ii:O� I •h --------- n11n��-°1 o n■p nnnss nunni:�� �I�` ��L �1rrr:y111llllr s�I• • -• '• - l� ■lax:--I�■IIIIQIr 1111111111 AIC.♦ "�■ 11 isxu`S I L �Ix1 1aYY1u! - x �� 11111 1111 K���'�-� ♦ 11111=_3--.. fla Y 111111=_ �■`L IIIIIII=_ ` I:I:� �Ir -- --xxFl�l �' [11i\\\\IlCplllr�111111111{I{II Ma111W111-I:YII�Nxllu■xFl■ rlilim�i =I^ in rah €=■�, as n 1■. € • 11 , MaMa: L - 111�IIIll 11 I•I■I■ aLq FRANKL--INS .� FRANKLTNr � ~ 1 nil nnw11■n lh; � � mm�I,;, nlunlnnglnlnm ':`11111� 1111■= -milli! ,� ■11111in ■ I I si'uilin 1�i' 0 �iiiiiiiin�� ♦+iiii=I'=o CG E 1 , ■ , it • ." 1 i i Item 6. F129] IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/15/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 2/14/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 2/17/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 2/14/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The subject 9.8 acres were annexed into the City of Meridian in 2018 with the Compass Charter School application and also received CPAM approval at that time to change the underlying land use from medium-high density residential to mixed employment. Later,this 9.8 acre parcel was no longer a part of the long-term plan for the school and was subsequently sold. In 2020, a new application for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment,Development Agreement Modification,and Rezone were requested and approved to allow for residential zoning and uses instead of Mixed Employment or other industrial uses desired in the previous mixed employment designation. With these approvals,the property was returned to its original future land use of Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR)and included a new concept plan with a residential development and the proposed and preferred location of the Aviator Street extension. The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. Per the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP),MHDR designated areas should include a mix of housing types such as row houses,townhouses, condominiums, alley-loaded homes, and apartments with higher densities near MU-C and Employment designated areas transitioning to smaller-scale and lower density buildings as the distance increases from higher intensity uses. The Applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit to construct a mix of single- family and multi-family residential units. The Applicant is proposing 73 total residential units on the subject 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district which constitutes a gross density of 7.44 du/ac. This density does not comply with the minimum density required within the DA nor the future land use designation which requires a minimum of 8 du/ac. The Applicant should revise the plat to include at least one more dwelling unit to meet the minimum density requirement. Furthermore,the existing DA includes conceptual floor plans that depict front loaded single-family homes with recessed garages to create a more porch and pedestrian dominated front fagade on the public local streets. The submitted conceptual elevations with this application do not comply with the elevations and floor plans included in the DA. Therefore,the Applicant should submit a DA Modification to revise the existing elevations and floor plans in the DA OR revise their proposed building design to be more consistent with the existing DA. Staff believes the floor plans within the DA should be maintained and would not be supportive of a DA Modification to remove them from the DA because they are more consistent with the Ten Mile Plan. Page 5 Item 6. F130] In addition to the subject parcel, surrounding development should be taken into account, directly west of this site,Hensley Station is currently under construction as a medium-high density residential subdivision and less than a half mile to the east of the subject site additional high-density residential projects are currently underway. In addition, south of Franklin Road is a larger area of the Ten Mile Plan with a mix of residential, commercial, employment, and industrial zoning. This site is part of a large area of MHDR that is slowly redeveloping from both the west and the east and development of the subject is a logical direction of development in this area in terms of density and road improvements. However,the transportation element of this area of the Ten Mile Plan is important and there are known traffic issues in this area caused by the adjacent Compass Charter School,most notably at typical pick-up and drop-off times in the morning and afternoon. The congestion associated with the school creates traffic along the entire Black Cat corridor between Franklin and Cherry and significantly impedes the intersections of Aviator and Black Cat and Black Cat and Franklin during the peak times noted above. Staff notes that applications for the site to the east are likely forthcoming which would connect Aviator from Black Cat to N. San Marco Way within the Entrata Farms Subdivision to the southeast. This east-west connection would create the needed secondary access for Fire as well as provide a different connection to Franklin Road for this area. To help mitigate this issue as well as the overall phasing element of the site, Staff is recommending conditions of approval around the phasing of the project in relation to the construction of W. Aviator Street. If the project is revised per Staffs recommended conditions of approval,Staff finds the project to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific general comprehensive plan policies are analyzed below. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use and development of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed development contains multiple types of housing units (multi family, attached single- family, townhouse, and detached single-family) that will contribute to the variety of residential categories in the Ten Mile area as desired. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) Four(4) housing types are proposed in this development, as noted above, which contributes to the variety of housing types in this area. The Applicant is proposing 16 units to front on green space and provide for an alley loaded product while the remaining 23 units are front-loaded. In addition, the Applicant is proposing 9 multi family buildings that contain 4-units each. The proposed development provides a number of housing types within one concentrated area and within the Ten Mile area as a whole. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) Page 6 Item 6. 131 The proposed residential dwellings and site design should be compatible with existing and planned development on adjacent properties that are also designated for MHDR uses. • "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 a large amount of usable common open space along the entire north and east property boundaries due to the requirement to reserve a 100 foot wide irrigation easement for the rerouted Purdam Gulch Drain. Because of irrigation district standards, no amenities are proposed in this area but it should provide for a large open area for residents to utilize for recreation and activity. The Applicant is also proposing other open space within the site that contains children play equipment and pathways.All of the sidewalks proposed within the site are detached from the roadways, which provides for safer pedestrian connectivity throughout the site. There is ample connectivity from the site to the detached sidewalk along the extension of Aviator Street. • "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 proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. In addition to the general Comprehensive Plan,the following sections of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) should also be used to analyze the project(Staff analysis is in italics): Street Network(3-17): The Transportation System Map included in the TMISAP depicts a towncenter collector street planned on this site that continues to the east through an adjacent site. The Applicant is proposing to extend W. Aviator, the collector street,from its current location to the east property boundary.According to the submitted plat, the Applicant is showing a small portion of this road extension on a property to the south that is not part of this application and is not annexed into the City of Meridian. It is not typical of road extensions to utilize area not on the subject property but it allows the Applicant to have more usable land area that is significantly reduced due to the existence of the Purdam Gulch Drain and its 100 foot wide easement. To ensure the proposed road layout is adhered to, Staff is recommending the Applicant provide a copy of a formal agreement between land owners that allows this Applicant to utilize a portion of the adjacent property for the Aviator extension; this agreement should be presented to staffprior to the City Council meeting. If the Applicant cannot reach an agreement with the adjacent property owner, the submitted plat will have to be revised in order for the Applicant to make those revisions with the requirement of extending Aviator wholly on the subject site. Further analysis of the Aviator extension is below in the Access section, including analysis on the ACHD staff report. A final plat for this project will not be accepted until an agreement has been formalized and the right-of way is dedicated to allow the construction of the off-site portion of Aviator Street. Connectivity(3-17): Connectivity to adjacent parcels is proposed by extending W.Aviator through the site. Because of the railroad corridor along the north boundary and the requirement to cross the Purdam Drain at least once, there is limited opportunity for other points of vehicular connectivity. Furthermore, there is also no stub street or pedestrian connection along the west boundary to Hensley Station. Page 7 Item 6. F132] Therefore,Aviator Street and the proposed detached sidewalks throughout the site provide the needed connectivity between existing and planned sites. Access Control(3-17): In order to move traffic efficiently through the Ten Mile area, direct access via arterial streets is prohibited except for collector street connections. The subject site has no arterial access except via W.Aviator Street, a collector street. The project complies with this policy. Complete Streets(3-19): The TMISAP incorporates the concept of"complete streets,"meaning all streets should be designed to serve all users, including bicycles and pedestrians unless prohibited by law or where the costs are excessive or where there's clearly no need. The proposed development includes detached sidewalks and parkways throughout the entire site for pedestrian use and on-street parking along the new local street. W.Aviator, the collector street, is required to be constructed with two lanes of travel and on-street bicycle lanes which helps create a network of complete streets. Streetscape(3-25): All streets should include street trees within the right-of-way. The proposed development incorporates tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks throughout the site. DESIGN: Street-Oriented Design—Residential Buildings(3-33): Usable porches should be a dominant element of these building types. Porches should be located along at least 30%of the front fagade of the buildings (the fagade facing the primary street) although a higher percentage is recommended as is porches on one or more facades as well. When possible, garages should be loaded from a rear alleyway. Where garages must be accessed from the front,the garages must be located no less than 20' behind the primary fagade of the residential structure. The proposed alley-loaded units (taking access from a public, minor urban-local street) have porches along the street frontage or face green space entirely(i.e. Lots 7-13, Block 2); all of the remaining front- loaded townhomes have a garage dominated fagade facing the internal local street. As discussed above, the front-loaded garages are not located 20'behind the primary faVade of the structure and do not comply with the approved conceptual elevations and floor plans in the DA. However, with the noted site constraints and the current lot configuration,full compliance with the garage setback requirement may not be possible—the lots would need to be widened and the number of units would need to be reduced to comply. The Applicant is required to increase the number of units to comply with the minimum density requirements in the DA and the MHDR designation so losing additional lots is not viable under the terms of the approved DA unless the DA is amended. Therefore,Staff recommends the Applicant explore alternate design options to be more consistent with this requirement while maintaining a gross density of at least 8 units per acre,an alternate floor plan and revised elevations in compliance with the recorded DA should be submitted in accord with this provision prior to the City Council hearing. NOTE: The proposed 4 plex multi family buildings are not required to comply with this provision as they are not proposed with any garages. Buildings to Scale(3-34): The key elements to consider are the continuity of building sizes,how the street-level and upper-level architectural detailing is treated, elements that anchor and emphasize pedestrian scale,roof forms,rhythm of windows and doors, and general relationship of buildings to public spaces such as streets,plazas, other open space and public parking. Human-scale design is critical to the success of built places for pedestrians. Staff believes the proposed 2-story homes demonstrate continuity of building sizes within the development. However, the street level and upper level architectural detailing does not appear to correspond with each other to unify the design and do not provide for enough modulation in wall plan nor roof height. Further, the Applicant could add decks to the second level that are closer to the street to help comply with the street-oriented design provision. Page 8 Item 6. E The use of stone along the first story facades closest to the tree-lined streets help anchor and emphasize the pedestrian scale of the development as desired. Neighborhood Design(3-36): In the Ten Mile area, all residential neighborhoods should be developed in consideration of traditional neighborhood design principles and concepts,which include mixed housing stock,architecture and design, streetscapes and streets.A mix of housing stock is proposed consisting of single family attached, townhomes, two single-family detached dwellings, and multi family 4 plexes which contribute to the diversity of housing stock desired in this area. The public street proposed within this development loops through the site and has a minor urban local street connecting the two streets that will function as an alley. Therefore, the proposed block lengths are relatively short and provide for ample pedestrian connectivity. The proposed parkways add to the project's consistency with the neighborhood design element of the Ten Mile Plan. As noted above,if the project is revised per Staffs recommendations,Staff finds the project to be generally consistent with the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan.In general,Staff finds the project to be generally consistent with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan,per Staffs recommended revisions. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP) The proposed preliminary plat consists of 48 building lots(6 single family attached lots, 31 townhome lots, 2 detached single-family, and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other lot on 9.8 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. The minimum lot size proposed is 2,050 square feet and the plat is currently proposed to develop in one phase. However,the phasing of building construction will likely occur east to west,per the Applicant, in order to allow the development of properties to the east that would further extend Aviator Street and allow the Applicant to construct the single-family portion of the project without fire sprinklers. Staff has included a condition of approval surrounding the timing of development in coordination with Meridian Fire Department. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site,the site is vacant/undeveloped. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed subdivision and subsequent development are required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and it complies with these standards. Zero lot lines should be depicted on the plat where single-family attached and townhome structures are proposed. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access for the project is from two new local street connections to W.Aviator Street, a collector street the Applicant is required to extend into the site and stub to the east boundary;Aviator is the projects only connection to an arterial(Black Cat). Vehicular access for the single-family portion of the project is via construction of a new local street that loops through the site. In addition, access to the multi-family portion of the project is via two 25-foot wide drive aisle connections to the eastern local street. ACHD has approved all of the ingress and egress points and their offsets. ACHD has noted the proposed design of Aviator Street does not meet district policy and should be revised the Applicant will need to revise the street section to be 1-foot wider and include detached sidewalk on both sides of the street. Access to the"alley-loaded"units that front on the collector street buffer and internal green space of the site are via a 28-foot wide minor urban local street, according to the latest plat submitted. It appears that ACHD reviewed this street section on a previous version of the plan where the street was 24 feet wide instead; Staff and the Applicant will verify with ACHD the proposed road width still complies with ACHD standards. Page 9 Item 6. E There is no secondary access to the site because Aviator will still be a dead-end street after its extension with this project. As noted above, the Fire Department requires a secondary access for each access that has more than 30 units taking access from it(Hensley Station to the west takes up the 30+ units already). Thus, the construction phasing of the project plays a role in how Staff must address this issue as all of the structures will need to be sprinklered if the single-family is constructed first(the multi family is required to be sprinklered). There is an anticipation of a project being constructed on the property to the east that would extend Aviator to their east boundary and connect to an existing stub street in Entrata Farms and provide for the required means of secondary access in the future. To date, the City has not received an official application for that property. Therefore, this project must comply with all Fire Department requirements. The Applicant has stated theirplan is to extend Aviator into the site to the point of no more than 150 feet past the eastern local street connection to avoid the need of a temporary turnaround(the local street within the project would be constructed at the same time). This complies with the technical requirements of the UDC and Fire code but is not consistent with general practice of requiring public streets to be extended to-and-through sites with the first phase of development(prior to or in timing with the first buildings being constructed). However, the Applicant is continuing to work with ACHD on a plan to construct Aviator as noted and road trust for the remaining portion so it can be extended with any future road project that occurs on the parcel to the east. Staff is supportive of this option as the road would be a dead-end street and constructing a temporary turnaround would be both wasteful of space and would need to be located on top of the Purdam Drain which could further hinder the Applicant's ability to develop the site due to complications with the irrigation district. In conversations,ACHD has noted an openness to this option but did not include it in their staff report specifically. So, Staff has included a condition of approval to encompass both potential outcomes of the Aviator Street extension. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There are no pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this property. However, Staff believes the Applicant should work with the irrigation district to install a micro-path through the large open space lot containing the Purdam Drain. The addition of a meandering 5-foot wide pathway in this open space lot could connect in multiple places throughout the site and allow for a pedestrian connection near the northeast corner of the property for future pedestrian connectivity to that parcel. The exact location of this connection should not be set in stone and should instead be coordinated with the adjacent land owner once a more solid plan is known for that parcel. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 7): Detached sidewalks are proposed along the internal local street that loops through the site(shown as N. Duplicate Avenue,W. Topeka Street, and N. Stronghold Avenue)with 8-foot parkways throughout. In addition,the Applicant is showing a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on the north side and a 5-foot wide attached sidewalk on the south side of the W. Aviator Street extension. This does not meet ACHD nor UDC standards for sidewalks along collector streets. Therefore,the Applicant is required to construct 5- foot wide detached sidewalks along both sides of the Aviator Street extension. The Applicant is proposing 5-foot wide sidewalks within the multi-family portion of the project that connect to the local street sidewalks. Overall, the proposed sidewalk network for this development meets and exceeds UDC requirements except for those noted along Aviator. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): 8-foot wide parkways with street trees are shown along both sides of the proposed local street that loops through the site. All parkways within the site adjacent to detached sidewalks shall be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C.With the future final plat application,the Applicant should add data to the plan to demonstrate compliance with these standards. Page 10 Item 6. F135] Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along the extension of W. Aviator Street(measured from back of curb), landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C. A 20-foot wide common lot is shown on the north side of Aviator on the submitted plat in accord with UDC standards. The common lot along the south side of Aviator that is on the property is wider than 20 feet but is shown with an attached sidewalk instead of a detached sidewalk. Further,there are no trees shown on the south side of Aviator as required by the UDC. Per the plat condition noted, the Applicant should revise the landscape plan to show the required buffer trees on the south side of the Aviator extension. Note,the alignment of Aviator street along the southern boundary allows for a buffer area that is wider than code requirements as a segment of the street does not lay within the subject site. Therefore,the submitted landscape plan shows a buffer on the north side of Aviator as approximately 30 feet wide, measured from the back of curb to the building lot lines with the required trees at the edge of the property. According to the submitted landscape plan, some trees are included in the common open space areas due to the parkway trees along the local street. Staff is recommending an additional tree be placed in the center of the open space lot within the single-family portion of the project(Lot 6,Block 2)to add an area of shade in the center of this open space lot. Staff has excluded the open space area that has the Purdam Drain irrigation easement within this calculation as the irrigation district does not generally allow trees within their easement. However,Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate with the irrigation district to see if some trees could be placed strategically in order to provide some areas of shade in this area closest to the buildings, so this area could count towards qualified open space. In addition to the proposed open space areas,the Applicant is platting a common lot along the west boundary that contains a private drainage lot developed for the charter school across the street,the previous land owner. This drainage area has been in place for years coinciding with the development of the school. The plat should address who is responsible for maintaining this drainage and open space area; Staff has included a condition of approval regarding this. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The area of the preliminary plat is 9.8 acres within the R-15 zoning district.According to the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3, a minimum of 15%qualified open space should be provided. However,the applicability section of this code would only apply to the single-family portion of the project and not the entire site overall because a portion of the project is proposed with multi-family residential and is subject to specific use standards(UDC 11-4-3-27).NOTE: The Applicant has stated that all of the open space within the development will be shared and Staff finds the amount of open space is more than sufficient for the project. However,for the purpose of calculating the minimum amount of open space required, Staff has split the project into two areas, one for the single-family and one for multi-family. The single-family area is approximately 5 acres in size and the multi family area is approximately 4.8 acres in size (total property size is 9.8 acres). Therefore, the minimum amount of qualified open space required to meet UDC 11-3G-3 for the single-family portion of the site is 0.75 acres, or approximately 3Z 700 square feet. The minimum amount of qualified open space that is needed to satisfy the multi- family specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-27) is an amount per unit based on the size of the units—the provision in this section of code to require a minimum 10%in addition to the per unit amount is not applicable as the multi family area of the site is not greater than five (5) acres. According to the Applicant, each unit will be approximately 1,500 square feet requiring 350 square feet per unit of qualified common open space. Therefore, with 36 units proposed, the minimum amount of qualified common open space for the multi family development is 1 Z 600 square feet. So, in total, the amount of open space provided should be at least 45,300 square feet, or 1.04 acres. Page 11 Item 6. F136] According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing approximately 155,200 square feet(3.56 acres) of common open space within common lots (not all of this is qualified). However, this area is still not fully accurate as some of the Purdam Drain easement area is located on buildable lots and the open space calculation does not include the parkways that are qualifying open space. This shows the actual open space area is even greater.If only the two central open space lots, the Purdam Drain common lot (excluding the area on the buildable lots), and the common lot in the southeast corner of the site is taken into account, the amount of qualified open space is approximately 2.5 acres. Therefore, the proposed open space vastly exceeds the minimum amount required by code for both the single-family and the multi family portions of the project. Based on the size of the single-family area of the plat, one(1)point of site amenity is required to meet UDC 11-3G-3 standards. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant has not provided an amenity to satisfy these requirements. The Applicant should revise the landscape plans to include an amenity worth at least one amenity point within the single-family area of the project(i.e. a picnic area). The amenity analysis for the multi-family portion of the development is provided below. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. It is unclear if any fencing is proposed for this project. Staff will verify compliance with UDC standards with the future Final Plat application. Parking: On-site parking for each unit is required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Two car garages with two (2)parking pads per unit are shown on the proposed plans in accord with UDC standards for up to 4-bedroom homes. A number of on-street parking spaces are also available due to the design of the project. Parking for the multi-family residential component is required at specific ratios according to UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. According to the Applicant, each unit contains 2 bedrooms which requires which requires 72 off-street parking spaces for 36 units(at least 36 must be covered or garage parking)per UDC Table 11-3C-6. In addition, code requires 1 guest space for every 10 units so an additional 4 spaces (rounded up from 3.6)are required bringing the total to 76 off-street parking spaces.According to the submitted plan,the Applicant is proposing 72 parking stalls,2 per unit, and it is not clear if any are covered spaces as required. Therefore,the Applicant is not complying with the minimum off-street parking standards. Based on the submitted site plan and number of units, Staff recommends some of the units contain 1- bedroom units to help reduce the amount of parking required(1.5 spaces per unit instead of 2 spaces). Furthermore,the site plan shows a few areas where additional off-street parking spaces may be added. Lastly,as noted above,the local street within the site will allow on-street parking along the entire north and east side of the street except for the areas of the multi-family drive aisle. If the Applicant cannot find the space within the multi-family area to provide the required number of off-street parking spaces,the Applicant could apply for Alternative Compliance to propose alternative parking solutions(i.e. on-street parking in vast excess of minimum requirements) but Staff notes that this is not guaranteed for approval by the Director. Waterways: The Purdam Gulch Drain,an NMID facility,bisects the property from the southeast corner to the northwest corner of the site and requires a 100-foot wide easement,wholly on this property. The drain is proposed to be piped and rerouted with this development in a common lot that runs along the entire east and north property boundaries. According to the submitted plat, at least half of the easement area is on some of the multi-family building lots which does not comply with code. Per UDC 11-3A-6, no more than 10 feet of the irrigation easement shall be located on a buildable lot. So,the Applicant should revise the plat to reduce the multi-family building lots so that no more than 10 feet of the Purdam easement is located on those lots(Lots 1-7,Block 4).Any encroachment within this easement will require a License Agreement with NMID. An exclusive NMID access easement will be required and the Page 12 Item 6. F137] HOA will be responsible for maintenance of this lot. The common lot appears to show grass to help prevent weeds; the Applicant should verify if this is allowed by NMID.If it is not allowed, the Applicant should obtain a letter to that affect from NMID;should this area not be allowed to contain grasses, it may not qualify towards the open space calculation. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5): An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for the development as set forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual) (TMISAP Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed 2-story townhome structures and the multi-family 4-plex buildings as shown in Section VII.F; conceptual elevations for the single-family attached units and the two detached units were not submitted. See additional analysis in the Comprehensive Plan section above(Section V.A). The conceptual building elevations for the townhomes do not list specific materials but appear to show a combination of stone and stucco field materials. The conceptual elevations for the 4-plex units depict varying designs of board&batten siding with stone accents. As noted above in Section V.A, Staff is recommending changes to the front-loaded townhome units in order to better comply with the Ten Mile Plan. In addition to those recommendations, Staff is also recommending the Applicant provide modulation in the building placement for the townhome buildings, especially those along the west boundary,to ensure the building wall-plane is not a monotonous wall of garages. Final design is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design guidelines in the TMISAP as stated herein. Submittal and approval of an Administrative Design Review application is required prior to submittal of building permit application(s). C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP)— 11-4-3-27.-Multi-family development. A. Purpose. 1. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. b. Require the design and construction of pathways connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks,safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities as part of new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments. 2. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. a. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. b. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well- integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. c. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community, provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe, interesting outdoor spaces for residents. Page 13 Item 6. ■ B. Site design. 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten (10) feet 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. Based on the submitted CUP Site Plan, it is unclear if this requirement is met because Staff cannot tell if what is being shown on the site plan are the exact building footprints or merely the potential buildable area.Staff is recommending a condition of approval the Applicant provide a clearer site plan for the multi- family residential part of the site prior to the City Council hearing to ensure 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 Applicant shall comply 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 accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section, the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. The submitted elevations do not clearly depict compliance with this standard and no floor plans were submitted as an additional means of verification. Staff will verify compliance with this requirement with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application; the Applicant is required to comply with this requirement or obtain Alternative Compliance as noted. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. None of these areas were used towards the common open space calculation. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall adhere to this standard. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3,"regulations applying to all districts", of this title. See the parking section in the general analysis above. 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. The Applicant is proposing more than 20 units (36 units) so the Applicant is required to comply with these standards. The submitted CUP Site Plan does not appear to show a property management office or a maintenance storage area. Staff is less concerned with the mailbox and directory map location as these items can be easily verified with the future CZC application. However, the Applicant should revise the site plan to show the management office and maintenance storage area prior to the City Council hearing. C. Common open space design requirements. Page 14 Item 6. F139] 1. The total baseline land area of all qualified common open space shall equal or exceed ten (10) percent of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five (5) acres or more. The multi- family area is less than 5 acres in size so this portion of the code is not applicable on this project. In general, the Applicant is proposing open space for the entire development well in excess of code requirements due to the open space area that is the Purdam Gulch Drain easement area. See the open space section above for more specific analysis. 2. All common open space shall meet the following standards: a. The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space has been integrated into the development as a priority and not for the use of land after all other elements of the development have been designed. Open space areas that has been given priority in the development design have: (1) Direct pedestrian access; (2) High visibility; (3) Comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CTED) standards; and (4) Support a range of leisure and play activities and uses. b. Open space shall be accessible and well connected throughout the development. This quality can be shown with open spaces that are centrally located within the development,accessible by pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street. c. The open space promotes the health and well-being of its residents. Open space shall support active and passive uses for recreation, social gathering and relaxation to serve the development. Staff finds the proposed open space complies with these standards by providing open space that is well connected, highly visible, and promotes health and well-being by supporting a range of leisure and play activities. 3. All multi-family projects over twenty(20)units shall provide at least one (1) common grassy area integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. This area may be included in the minimum required open space total.Projects that provide safe access to adjacent public parks or parks under a common HOA,without crossing an arterial roadway,are exempt from this standard. a. Minimum size of common grassy area shall be at least five thousand (5,000) square feet in area. This area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the multi-family development as determined by the decision- making body. Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included elsewhere in the development. b. Alternative compliance is available for these standards, if a project has a unique targeted demographic; utilizes other place-making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. The submitted plans depict compliance with this standard in multiple places throughout the site. 4. In addition to the baseline open space requirement, a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty (250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. Page 15 Item 6. F140] C. Three hundred fifty (350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. See the common open space analysis above in V.B. 5. 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(20) feet.Applicant complies. 6. 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. N/A 7. 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(4)feet in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The Purdam Drain open space lot has access to W.Aviator Street, a collector street, because the street must cross the drain in order to stub to the east property boundary.Due to the large area of this lot, its excellent accessibility, and the proposed landscaping along Aviator, Staff finds it applicable to allow this common open space area to count without constructing a berm along the street. Commission and Council may require this if they see fit. D. Site development amenities. 1. All multifamily 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. (5) Dog park with waste station. (6) Commercial outdoor kitchen. (7) Fitness course. (8) Enclosed storage b. Open space. (1) Community garden. (2) Ponds or water features. (3) Plaza. (4) Picnic area including tables,benches, landscaping and a structure for shade. c. Recreation. (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. d. Multi-modal amenity standards. Page 16 Item 6. 141 (1) Bicycle repair station. (2) Park and ride lot. (3) Sheltered transit stop. (4) Charging stations for electric vehicles. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multifamily development as follows: a. For multifamily developments with less than twenty (20) units, two (2) amenities shall be provided from two (2) separate categories. b. For multifamily development between twenty (20) and seventy-five (75) units, three (3) amenities shall be provided,with one(1)from each category. c. For multifamily development with seventy-five (75)units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one(1)from each category. d. For multifamily 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. For the 36 multi family units proposed, a minimum of three(3) amenities should be provided to satisfy the specific use standards.According to the submitted plans,one(1)qualifying amenity is proposed, children play equipment. Therefore, the Applicant does not comply with this standard. Prior to the City Council hearing, the Applicant should revise applicable plans to show compliance with this requirement and ensure one amenity from each of the first three categories above is included in the development. E. Landscaping requirements. 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "regulations applying to all districts",of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three(3)feet wide. b. For every three (3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four(24) inches shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. Applicant shall show compliance with this standard for the buildings facing any public street with the future CZC application. F. Maintenance and ownership responsibilities. All multifamily developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features.Applicant shall comply. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, ef£ 9-15-2005; Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, ef£ retroactive to 2-4-2009; Ord. 16-1672, 2- 16-2016; Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018; Ord. 19-1833, 7-9-2019, Ord. No. 21-1950, § 19, 10-10-2021). Page 17 Item 6. F142] VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit per the provisions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. Page 18 Item 6. F143] VIL EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat Legal Description Description for Aviation Subdivision January 12,2022 A portion of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10,Township 3 North,Range 1 West of the Boise-Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Section corner common to Sections 9, 10, 15,and 16,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise-Meridian,from which the 1/4 corner common to said Sections 9 and 10 bears North 0°38'55"East,2653.02 feet;thence on the west boundary line of said Section 10,North 0°38'55" East, 1621.66 feet to the south boundary line of the railroad right-cf- way;thence on said south boundary line,South 88'26'12"East,495.23 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing South 88'26'12"East,824.15 feet to the east boundary line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 10; thence on said east boundary line,South 0°36'35"West,514.83 feet; thence leaving said east boundary line,North 89'15'50"West,824.04 feet to the Southeast corner of Hensley Station Subdivision No. 1 as filed Book 120 of Plats at Pages 18786 through 18789,records of Ada County,Idaho; thence on the east boundary line of said Hensley Station Subdivision No. 1 and Hensley Station Subdivision No.2 as filed in Book 121 of Plats at Pages 19058 through 19060,records of Ada County,Idaho,North 0°36'35"East,526.73 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 9.852 acres,more or less. End of Description. \Q;4�pL LAND ENsF sG� a 11779 NCI 12�p-y1_O �OQ TF D F\�P p2 Mccp, Page 1 of 1 Page 19 Item 6. F144] 9 10 N SCALE: 1"=1 so' 0 75 150 300 rT I o I� .I I UNION PACIFIC REAL POINT RAILROAD OF BEGINNING S88-2612"E 58826'12"E 824.15' 495.23' I HENSLEY ; a STATION j In CD z CN SUBDIVISION, w t9.852 ACRES q w r K' Lo N�1 1n � m I c�I O IDi) L� W I cp Z a O �I to � m O HENSLEY STATION Z SUBDIVISION No. 1 I W. AVIATOR ST. N89'15'50"W 824,04' 0 � I L) U I I U I J m I Z I � I oNpL LA ENSof F SG 11779 7u �I�z/zozZ�° 9 10 cTOO�TF OF 16 15 MccN JOB NO. IDAHO EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR 2o-347 SURVEY WISE,I IDAHO ST AVIATION SUBDIVISION SHEET NO. WISE,IDAHD 83T04 GROUP, LLC A PORTION OF THE WI/2 OF THE SWI/4 OF SECTION 10. DWG.DATE T.M.,R.M.B.M.,CITY OF MERIDAIN,ABA COUNTY.IDAHO 1/12/2022 Page 20 Item 6. F145] B. Preliminary Plat a.� PRELIMINARY PLATY FOR °� " ��• AVIATION SUBDIVISION .,. LOCATED IN THE W 12 OF THE SW%OF SECTION 10 T.3N.,RAW.,B.M., ADA COUNW,IDAHO s ° mii° 5p DECEMBER 2021 FFF exams Q a...,mmw.w,a"wve.cw a�xore +3� 9i u • i _ _ ,.„> i...;..:�1 ��i is - �,.. ll� Y w�..wm....•x,��rAw m...o.e,�oa.,,�..� �� . .•xswa xo rrtw me•.wrn"c.',new �"�°;".o ,u.z���.se.co.°.w miowc^o •c ••ma}. .xnwl., �m"kN N.m-x••• bNp Page 21 Item 6. F146] I I PFrno7 9 11`r UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY I I "e Is I 1 `�L i. n �' •q t ».L6t6 ZI �I FEH"aEw P17�AEkT1E5 WC p �, E6 H r � -w tiY wo-rmre I 3 siw 1"'j_ 5 - y I 1 I � f prrriory olrner- PiiMtry�rnlrl ZIONoV TURF FMIJ 1LYs,[I 210H wEHT11RE5 LLC COYPA55 P1,UC CHWTR 5CHG,7L INC Page 22 Item 6. F147] C. Landscape Plan(date: 8/03/2020) 51TE NQTE5 -5CAPINQ INFQRM-QN -Ell O O IRRI-TIC-7-01-TES ------------ co .. ............... 7T. IMU. zg Page 23 Item 6. F148] wpm r aa� I_• r r n r Lp Page 24 Item 6. F149] D. Open Space Exhibit _ o W ! ;: / / o //� Page 25 Item 6. F-15o] E. Conceptual Building Elevations(NOT APPROVED) ❑® LE ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ JACOBSON MINOR SUBDIVISION FRONT ELEVATION Hill Ill I I - ------------------- ------ ------------------- ------------------- ---- 00 0000 00 0000 00 0000 00 0000 00 0000 00 0000 00 0000 00 0000 -- o0 000 000MEE000 JACOBSON MINOR SUBDIVISION FRONT ELEVATION Page 26 Item 6. Fl 5-1 eLe n N Mr -8 ff _ I RE-11 FE II n�I �• - UNTT"B"I UNIT"A"I - "• UNIT"A"1 UNIT"B"2 Page 27 Item 6. F152 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Preliminary Plat(PP): 1. The Applicant shall adhere to all previous conditions of approval associated with this site (H-2020- 0111,Aviator Sub. CPAM,MDA,RZ;DA Inst. #2021-067235). 2. In accord with Fire Code,the Applicant shall construct all dwellings within this site with fire sprinklers unless a means of Fire Department approved secondary access can be obtained through adjacent sites. 3. Prior to the acceptance of any Final Plat application by the Planning Division,the Applicant shall provide proof that the required right-of-way for the extension of W. Aviator Street has been deeded to ACHD as proof the shown location has been accepted by all parties (including the adjacent property owner,Parcel# S1210336450). 4. Applicant shall continue working with ACHD on the extension of W. Aviator Street—the Applicant shall extend W.Aviator to the east property boundary OR construct it to terminate no greater than 150 feet east of the proposed local street(shown as N. Stronghold Avenue) and provide a road trust to ACHD for the remaining portion of Aviator. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district and those listed in the specific use standards for multi- family development,UDC 11-4-3-27. 6. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 7. Future development shall comply with UDC 11-3A-7 and UDC 11-3A-6 for any future fencing constructed within the development. 8. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review approval for the single-family attached units and townhome units prior to building permit submittal. 9. The Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review approval for the multi-family development prior to building permit submittal. 10. The Applicant shall record a maintenance agreement for the multi-family development that states the maintenance and the ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features, in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27. 11. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1)obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 12. The submitted preliminary plat, dated February 14,2022, shall be revised as follows at least 15 days prior to the City Council hearing noted: a. Revise the plat to include at least one (1) additional dwelling unit to meet the minimum density requirements of the Development Agreement and underlying future land use designation (MHDR). b. Depict zero lot lines on the plat where single-family attached and townhome structures are proposed. c. Show 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along both sides of the W. Aviator Street extension. Page 28 Item 6. F153 d. Revise the plat to show a reduction in the multi-family building lot sizes(Lots 1-7, Block 4) so that no more than 10 feet of the Purdam Gulch Drain easement is located on those lots,per UDC 11-3A-6, OR request a City Council waiver to allow more of the easement to encroach on the building lots if NMID allows it. e. Add a plat note stating who is responsible for the maintenance of the Compass Charter School drain field located on Lot 1,Block 6. 13. The submitted landscape plan, dated December 2021, shall be revised prior to the first final plat submittal,unless otherwise noted: a. Work with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID)to install a 5-foot wide pathway along the south and west side of the relocated Purdam Gulch Drain to further comply with open space and amenity standards;new pathway should provide a pathway stub to the east boundary and connect to the detached sidewalk along W. Aviator and the detached sidewalk along the internal local street near the north end of the site to create a looped walking path. b. Add data to the landscape plans showing compliance with UDC 11-3B-7C for the proposed parkways. c. Show the required street buffer trees within the required 20-foot buffer on the south side of the W.Aviator extension. d. Add an additional tree in the center of the open space lot within the single-family portion of the project(Lot 6, Block 2)to add an area of shade in the center of this open space lot. e. Add a picnic area or other amenity worth at least one(1)amenity point in the single-family portion of the project(Lot 6,Block 2)to comply with UDC 11-3G-3 amenity standards. f. Provide verification from NMID the common lot containing the piped and rerouted Purdam Drain can be vegetated with grasses; if it is not allowed,the Applicant should obtain a letter to that affect from NMID (should this area not be allowed to contain grasses, it may not qualify towards the open space calculation). g. Depict the required minimum of 3-feet of landscaping along the base of the multi-family building facades facing all public streets in accord with the multi-family specific use standards. 14. The submitted conceptual elevations for the townhome and single-family attached units shall be revised as follows at least ten(10) days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Applicant shall comply with the design guidelines within the TMISAP. b. Explore alternate design options to be more consistent with the street oriented design standards within the Ten Mile Plan while maintaining a gross density of at least 8 units per acre; an alternate floor plan and revised elevations should be submitted in accord with this provision. c. Revise the elevations to correspond the street level and upper level architectural detailing to unify the design. d. Provide additional modulation in wall plan and roof height variation. e. Depict varying build-to lines for all of the front-loaded townhomes to ensure modulation in the building massing between and along sets of the townhome buildings. Conditional Use Permit(CUP): 15. The submitted CUP Site Plan, dated December 15,2021 shall be revised at least 15 days prior to the City Council hearing as follows: Page 29 Item 6. F154 a. Revise the site plan to show the management office and maintenance storage area as required by the multi-family development specific use standards. b. Clearly depict the building footprint of each 4-plex multi-family building and show the required 10-foot setback between buildings. c. Add at least two(2) additional amenities for the multi-family project and clearly depict their locations on the site plan. d. Depict which off-street parking stalls will be covered carports—ensure compliance with any Public Works easement standards. 16. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 17. A minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each dwelling unit; this requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks and enclosed yards as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27. 18. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 19. The Applicant shall adhere to and maintain all standards as set forth in the Multi-family Development specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27. 20. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements, acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.4. Page 30 Item 6. 155 B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. The water main in West Aviator Street needs to end in a fire hydrant. 2. The water main in West Santa Fe Lane needs to be located on the North side of the centerline. 3. The water main connection to the South needs to be made for a future second connection. 4. Parcel numbers S 1210336521 and S 1210336450 will need a connection and easement to the water main in West Aviator Street. Coordinate with those parcel owners and/or the future street connection to make these connections as part of this application. 5. Do not locate manholes in sidewalks,because they can become a tripping hazard. Manhole SSMH A.1 does not meet this requirement. 6. Angles of pipes into and out of manholes need to be a 90 degree minimum in the direction of flow. 7. Ensure manholes are not located in gutters to avoid excess water/drainage into the wastewater system. Manholes SSMH C1 and SSMH D1 do not meet this requirement. 8. Manhole SSMH A5 has two outlet pipes,which is not allowed. Each manhole should only have one outlet. SSMH C1 should not connect to this manhole,reconfigure this to remove this connection. 9. Minimum slope for a 10" diameter main is 0.28%, adjust your 10" main accordingly so it meets this minimum. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code (MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I F map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 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. Page 31 Item 6. F156 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development,and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment 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. Page 32 Item 6. F157 20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancioy.oMIpublic_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. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254129&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=249991&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.orQ/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=251525&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancitE.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=254120&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=254121&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.o.-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=254197&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX IX. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat Findings In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat, with Staff's recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the specific area plan (Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan) in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information.) Page 33 Item 6. Fl-581 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, 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; Stafffinds 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 V and 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 and has approved the proposed road layout and connections to adjacent parcels. 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. B. Conditional Use Permit Findings The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffinds that the submitted site plan shows compliance with all dimensional and development regulations in the R-15 zoning district in which it resides except for those noted and required to be revised. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds theproposed use of multi family residential, in conjunction with the other residential housing types proposed, is in accord with the comprehensive plan designation of Medium-High Density Residential within the Ten Mile Plan and the requirements of this title. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character of the same area, if all conditions of approval are met. Page 34 Item 6. 159 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services if all conditions of approval are met. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so Staff finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke,fumes, glare or odors. Although traffic will slightly increase in the vicinity with the proposed use, the proposed layout offers the best opportunity for safe circulation andprovides opportunity to extend a needed east-west collector street for future connectivity. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property, or the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural,scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord.05-1170,8-30-2005,eff. 9-15- 2005) Staff is not aware of any such features; the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 35 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation SIGHT TRIANGLE SIGHT TRIANGLESIGHT T R I A N G L E SIGHT TRIANGLEPRELIMINARY DRAWING SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEETOF RONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPE PLAN COLOR VERSIONL3 5W AVIATOR STREETW AV IATOR STREETW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE) N STRONGHOLD AVE N STRONGHOLD AVE 56342781121181716515414321011310291981714613512410121511456781923910111213687LEGEND25402539SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION COVER1 5LOT SUMMARYTOTAL849.80PRELIMINARY PLATFORAVIATION SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE W 12 OF THE SW 14 OF SECTION 10 T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,ADA COUNTY, IDAHODECEMBER 2021IDAHO SURVEY GROUP9955 EMERALD ST,BOISE, ID 83704PHONE: (208) 846-8570SANDROCK DEVELOPMENT.1468 JAMES RDGARDNERVILLE, NV 89460CONTACT:LARRY JACOBSONEMAIL: LARRY@SANDROCKDEVELOPMENT.COMVicinity MapSITEN BLACK CAT ROAD W FRANKLIN RDW AVIATOR STW PINE AVEDRAINPURDAM GULCH KEITH SCHNEIDEREMAIL: STRONGWAY54@GMAIL.COMW AVIATOR STREETNOTESBLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 4BLOCK 5BLOCK 5Sheet List TableW AVIATOR STREETBLOCK 4BLOCK 4BLOCK 6BLOCK 4SITE NOTESPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING NOTESW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE) N STRONGHOLD AVE N STRONGHOLD AVEBLOCK 53BLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 1 3/2/2022Map Scale: Legend 0.05 Miles 2,705.61 Railroad Roads (2,000 - 4,000 scale) <all other values> Interstate Ramp Principal Arterial Collector Minor Arterial Local Parks Alley Driveway Parks Water Condos Parcels Ada County Assessor This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION OR LEGAL PURPOSES. 56342781121181716515414321011310291981714613512410121511456781923910111213687LEGEND25402539SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION COVER1 5LOT SUMMARYTOTAL849.80PRELIMINARY PLATFORAVIATION SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE W 12 OF THE SW 14 OF SECTION 10 T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,ADA COUNTY, IDAHODECEMBER 2021IDAHO SURVEY GROUP9955 EMERALD ST,BOISE, ID 83704PHONE: (208) 846-8570SANDROCK DEVELOPMENT.1468 JAMES RDGARDNERVILLE, NV 89460CONTACT:LARRY JACOBSONEMAIL: LARRY@SANDROCKDEVELOPMENT.COMVicinity MapSITEN BLACK CAT ROAD W FRANKLIN RDW AVIATOR STW PINE AVEDRAINPURDAM GULCH KEITH SCHNEIDEREMAIL: STRONGWAY54@GMAIL.COMW AVIATOR STREETNOTESBLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 4BLOCK 5BLOCK 5Sheet List TableW AVIATOR STREETBLOCK 4BLOCK 4BLOCK 6BLOCK 4SITE NOTESPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING NOTESW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE) N STRONGHOLD AVE N STRONGHOLD AVEBLOCK 53BLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 1 56342781121181716515414321011310291981714613512410121511456781923910111213687LEGEND25402539SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION COVER1 5LOT SUMMARYTOTAL849.80PRELIMINARY PLATFORAVIATION SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE W 12 OF THE SW 14 OF SECTION 10 T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,ADA COUNTY, IDAHODECEMBER 2021IDAHO SURVEY GROUP9955 EMERALD ST,BOISE, ID 83704PHONE: (208) 846-8570SANDROCK DEVELOPMENT.1468 JAMES RDGARDNERVILLE, NV 89460CONTACT:LARRY JACOBSONEMAIL: LARRY@SANDROCKDEVELOPMENT.COMVicinity MapSITEN BLACK CAT ROAD W FRANKLIN RDW AVIATOR STW PINE AVEDRAINPURDAM GULCH KEITH SCHNEIDEREMAIL: STRONGWAY54@GMAIL.COMW AVIATOR STREETNOTESBLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 4BLOCK 5BLOCK 5Sheet List TableW AVIATOR STREETBLOCK 4BLOCK 4BLOCK 6BLOCK 4SITE NOTESPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING NOTESW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE) N STRONGHOLD AVE N STRONGHOLD AVEBLOCK 53BLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 1 6723411110563412798346.3'370.7'153.3'73.0'76.3'114.5'95.0'69.2'70.0'81.8'63.7'52.7'34.6'26.7'8.6'102.0'129.0'5 8 . 7 '97.0'48 . 6 ' 90.3' 114.0' 114.0' 97.6'57.1 ' 39.9'69.5'30.8'167.7'168.1'30.8'69.5'39.9'99.1'25.0'66.0'41.1'25.0'48.1'C1C2 C3C4C5C 6 C 7 C8C90.25-AC10909-SF0.21-AC9197-SF0.19-AC8239-SF0.18-AC8016-SF19837 SFCOMMON11303 SFCOMMON0.20-AC8849-SF0.20-AC8861-SF0.20-AC8687-SF0.27-AC11582-SF0.19-AC8322-SF197.37'R=44'L=67.61'R= 44' L =6 2.19'69.54'R=30'L=14.18'69.42' 30.79'CURVE TABLECURVEC1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9LENGTH102.57'43.84'124.68'8.17'20.19'46.74'44.32'36.28'48.19'RADIUS66.00'70.50'530.00'17.00'42.00'56.00'31.00'56.00'31.00'DELTA89°02'47"35°37'48"13°28'42"27°32'56"27°32'56"47°49'28"81°54'25"37°07'04"89°03'30"BEARINGN43°54'49"WN17°12'20"WN76°43'07"ES68°45'14"WS68°45'14"WS58°36'58"WS41°34'30"WS20°43'35"ES43°54'28"ECHORD92.56'43.14'124.39'8.10'20.00'45.40'40.64'35.65'43.48'LEGEND25402539SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION CUP SITE PLAN1 5IDAHO SURVEY GROUP9955 EMERALD ST,BOISE, ID 83704PHONE: (208) 846-8570SANDROCK DEVELOPMENT.1468 JAMES RDGARDNERVILLE, NV 89460CONTACT:LARRY JACOBSONEMAIL: LARRY@SANDROCKDEVELOPMENT.COMKEITH SCHNEIDEREMAIL: STRONGWAY54@GMAIL.COMW AVIATOR STREETW SANTA FE DRIVE W SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE)N STRONGHOLD AVEN STRONGHOLD AVE NOTESSITE NOTESSITE OBSCURINGDUMPSTER ENCLOSUREBICYCLEPARKINGBLOCK 3BLOCK 5BLOCK 6BLOCK 6BLOCK 4PURDAM GULCHDRAIN EASEMENTPURDAM GULCHDRAIN EASEMENTSUBDIVISIONBOUNDARYSITE OBSCURINGDUMPSTER ENCLOSUREPARKING ANDSIDEWALK CROSSACCESS EASEMENTPARKING ANDSIDEWALK CROSSACCESS EASEMENTPARKING ANDSIDEWALK CROSSACCESS EASEMENTPARKING ANDSIDEWALK CROSSACCESS EASEMENT20' LANDSCAPEBUFFER ANDBACK OF LOT20' LANDSCAPEBUFFER ANDBACK OF LOT AVIATION SUBDIVISION March 2, 2022 WAIVER REQUEST LETTER On behalf of The developer, we are requesng the following waiver to the staff report item; City/Agency Comments & Condions A. Planning Division. 12. C. “ Show 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along both sides of the W. Aviator Street extension ” 1. Pursuant to our correspondence with staff on the W Aviator Street sidewalk, we would like to formally request a waiver to the sidewalk condion language in item 12 C. Our raonale is as follows: The proposed Aviaon Subdivision development provides a strong pedestrian network of sidewalks and pathways and open space connecvity. This is intenonal and was a focus of our collaboraon with the planning staff to achieve a walkable community on the lands, while also facilitang connecvity to the adjacent communies, both exisng and proposed. We acknowledge that staff is recommending compliance with its regular City standards for the provision of a detached sidewalk along collector roads, in this case, W Aviator Street. However, in this specific case, the developer is already providing a pathway in an adjacent open space seng to offset the sidewalk requirement on the north side and to provided support for the variance request that would otherwise require an unnecessary and redundant sidewalk within the right of way. We also respecully note that the poron of W Aviator Street constructed recently for Compass Charter School, has a single 7‘ wide aached sidewalk on the south side, which we also intend to match and provide connecon to. If a specific separate walk were to be required on the south side of W Aviator Street, the proposed sidewalk would not align and could also create an undue burden for addional right of way that is already constrained in this locaon. We would agree to provide either the aached 7‘ sidewalk on the south side of W Aviator Street as is already constructed and is ACHD compliant or if desired, provide a separate 5’ sidewalk without expanding the right of way requirement in this locaon. Our request would be that the condion allows the developer latude to work with ACHD and the City of Meridian on the requirements for the sidewalk along the south side of W Aviator Street. Jadon Schneider, P.E. Project Engineer 56342781121181716515414321011310291981714613512410121511456781923910111213687LEGEND25402539SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION COVER1 5LOT SUMMARYTOTAL849.80PRELIMINARY PLATFORAVIATION SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE W 12 OF THE SW 14 OF SECTION 10 T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,ADA COUNTY, IDAHODECEMBER 2021IDAHO SURVEY GROUP9955 EMERALD ST,BOISE, ID 83704PHONE: (208) 846-8570SANDROCK DEVELOPMENT.1468 JAMES RDGARDNERVILLE, NV 89460CONTACT:LARRY JACOBSONEMAIL: LARRY@SANDROCKDEVELOPMENT.COMVicinity MapSITEN BLACK CAT ROAD W FRANKLIN RDW AVIATOR STW PINE AVEDRAINPURDAM GULCH KEITH SCHNEIDEREMAIL: STRONGWAY54@GMAIL.COMW AVIATOR STREETNOTESBLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 4BLOCK 5BLOCK 5Sheet List TableW AVIATOR STREETBLOCK 4BLOCK 4BLOCK 6BLOCK 4SITE NOTESPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING NOTESW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE) N STRONGHOLD AVE N STRONGHOLD AVEBLOCK 53BLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 1 SIGHT TRIANGLE SIGHT TRIANGLESIGHT T R I A N G L E SIGHT TRIANGLEPRELIMINARY DRAWING SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEETOF RONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPE PLAN COLOR VERSIONL3 5W AVIATOR STREETW AV IATOR STREETW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE) N STRONGHOLD AVE N STRONGHOLD AVE SIGHT TRIANGLE SIGHT TRIANGLESIGHT T R I A N G L E SIGHT TRIANGLEPRELIMINARY DRAWING SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEETOF RONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPE PLAN COLOR VERSIONL3 5W AVIATOR STREETW AV IATOR STREETW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE) N STRONGHOLD AVE N STRONGHOLD AVE S7470434445363738272829313233343547484950515354555657696867666562616059581612111091719208765212223244321141364714630186339404142262552157372777675807978828183848685888789909291959493979698SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATOR SUBDIVISION - CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT LAYOUT 11 1NOTES········W AVIATOR STREETW AVIATOR STREETALLEY A ALLEY BALLEY C LOOP ROAD A LOOP ROAD BLOOP ROAD CALLEY DSTREET (TO FRANKLIN) S61592829303132333415161718192726252442414039545352515049484746454443838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626014131211109SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATOR SUBDIVISION - CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT LAYOUT 4 (4-PLEX OPTION A)1 1NOTES··W AVIATOR STREETW AVIATOR STREETALLEY ALOOP ROAD A LOOP ROAD BLOOP ROAD CCUL-DE-SAC1-45-820-2355-5835-38 RONZE BOW AVIATION SUBDIVISION March 2, 2022 WAIVER REQUEST LETTER On behalf of The developer,we are requesting the following waiver to the staff report item; City/Agency Comments&Conditions A. Planning Division. 12. C. "Show 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along both sides of the W. Aviator Street extension" 1. Pursuant to our correspondence with staff on the W Aviator Street sidewalk, we would like to formally request a waiver to the sidewalk condition language in item 12 C. Our rationale is as follows: The proposed Aviation Subdivision development provides a strong pedestrian network of sidewalks and pathways and open space connectivity.This is intentional and was a focus of our collaboration with the planning staff to achieve a walkable community on the lands,while also facilitating connectivity to the adjacent communities, both existing and proposed. We acknowledge that staff is recommending compliance with its regular City standards for the provision of a detached sidewalk along collector roads, in this case, W Aviator Street. However, in this specific case, the developer is already providing a pathway in an adjacent open space setting to offset the sidewalk requirement on the north side and to provided support for the variance request that would otherwise require an unnecessary and redundant sidewalk within the right of way. We also respectfully note that the portion of W Aviator Street constructed recently for Compass Charter School, has a single 7'wide attached sidewalk on the south side, which we also intend to match and provide connection to. If a specific separate walk were to be required on the south side of W Aviator Street, the proposed sidewalk would not align and could also create an undue burden for additional right of way that is already constrained in this location. We would agree to provide either the attached 7'sidewalk on the south side of W Aviator Street as is already constructed and is ACHD compliant or if desired, provide a separate 5' sidewalk without expanding the right of way requirement in this location. Our request would be that the condition allows the developer latitude to work with ACHD and the City of Meridian on the requirements for the sidewalk along the south side of W Aviator Street. Jadon Schneider, P.E. Project Engineer