Loading...
2022-10-06 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 06, 2022 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT ABSENT Commissioner Wheeler Commissioner Seal Commissioner Grace Commissioner Stoddard Commissioner Lorcher Commissioner Yearlsey ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the September 15, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Brightstar Overland (H-2022-0061) by Hatch Design Architecture, located at 2940 E. Overland Rd. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Yearsley. Voting Aye: Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Prariefire Subdivision (H-2022-0053) by Patrick Connor, located at 3539 N Locust Grove Rd., near the northwest corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N Locust Grove Rd. Recommended Continuance. Tentatively scheduled for November 3, 2022. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.16 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 22 building lots and 1 common lot. Motion for continuance to November 3, 2022 by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Yearlsey Voting Aye: Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley 4. Public Hearing for Creek View Park (H-2022-0022) by HLE Engineering, Inc., located at 942 S. Wells Street and 2920 E. Freeway Drive, approximately a quarter mile west of Eagle Rd. directly north of the I84 Interstate on-ramp from Eagle Rd. Recommend Approval for Withdrawal of Application. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 10.35 acres of land from RUT to the requested C-G zoning district. B. Request: Rezone of approximately 6 acres from the L-O zoning district to the C-G zoning district. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family project consisting of 28 units on approximately 2.85 acres of land within the 6-acre parcel in the existing L-O zoning districts. Motion to approve withdrawal of application by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Wheeler. Voting Aye: Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley 5. Public Hearing for Slatestone Subdivision (H-2022-0039) by T-O Engineers, located at 2707 S. Stoddard Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.04 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family building lots and 4 common lots on 4.85 acres in the requested R-8 zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Wheeler Voting Aye: Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley 6. Public Hearing for AMI Tower at Well 29 (H-2022-0052) by City of Meridian, located at 6355 W. Quintale Dr., directly west of Oaks West Subdivision No. 1 Approved A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 100-foot lattice designed communication tower for the City of Meridian Water Department on an existing City of Meridian Well site on approximately 0.45 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Wheeler Voting Aye: Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley 7. Public Hearing for Allure Subdivision (H-2022-0050) by Schultz Development, LLC., located at 5385 S. Meridian Rd., directly north of the half-mile mark on the west side of Meridian Rd. between E. Amity and E. Lake Hazel Rds. Recommend Approval to City Council. A. Request: Rezone 39.39 acres of land from the R-4 to the TN-R zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 226 single-family building lots and 36 common lots on 37.34 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing agreement (Inst. #2016-007091) for the purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the proposed project and plat. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Wheeler. Voting Aye: Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley 8. Public Hearing for Sessions Parkway (H-2022-0046) by KM Engineering, LLP. located at 2700 N. Eagle Rd. Recommend Continuance, tentatively scheduled for November 17, 2022. A. Request: Development Agreement Modification on the existing Development Agreement (Inst.#104129529) to remove the subject property from the agreement in order to enter into a new Development Agreement for the proposed project. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 5 building lots on 5.32 acres of land in the C-G zoning district with a request for City Council approval of an access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. Motion to approve continuance to November 17, 2022 made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Wheeler. Voting Aye: Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley ADJOURNMENT 8:03 pm Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 6, 2022. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 6, 2022, was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Grace, Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Nate Wheeler. Members Absent: Chairman Andrew Seal and Commissioner Mandi Stoddard. Others Present: Joy Hall, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson, and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher Mandi Stoddard (Vacant) _X Steven Yearsley X Patrick Grace Andrew Seal - Chairman Lorcher: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for October 6th, 2022. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this meeting are in City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorney, the city clerk's office, and the City Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note we cannot take questions until the public testimony -- testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@ meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch this stream on the city's YouTube channel. You can access -- access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The next step of the meeting is the adoption of the agenda. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Items No. 3, Prariefire Subdivision, file number 2022-0053, and Item No. 8, Sessions Parkway, Item No. H-2022-0046, will be open for the sole purpose so they will be -- for a continuance. Item No. 4, Creek View Park, file number H-2022-0022, will be open for the sole purpose of withdrawing the application. So, if there is anybody here tonight specifically for Prariefire Subdivision, Sessions Parkway or Creek View Park, we will not be taking testimony on those items this evening. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 2 of 39 Grace: Madam Chair, so moved. Wheeler: Second. Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the September 15, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Brightstar Overland (H-2022- 0061) by Hatch Design Architecture, located at 2940 E. Overland Rd. Lorcher: Next is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the Consent Agenda, to approve the minutes of September 15th of 2022 and Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law of Brightstar on Overland, file number H-2022-0061. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Grave: So moved. Wheeler: Second. Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: I would like to take a moment 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 items adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff's comments and they will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually for those who signed up on our website or in advance to testify. If you are on Zoom you will be unmuted and, then, you can have your testimony or you can come to the kiosk here at the microphones in Chambers. Please state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will run the presentation. If you have an -- if you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from your group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 3 of 39 up in advance have spoken, we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or if in Zoom, please, press the raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are 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 and a phone, please, make sure to mute those extra devices so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you have finished, if the Commission does not have any other questions, you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all the testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, make a final decision or recommendation to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Prariefire Subdivision (H-2022-0053) by Patrick Connor, located at 3539 N Locust Grove Rd., near the northwest corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.16 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 22 building lots and 1 common lot. Lorcher: So, with that in mind I would like to open the public hearing for the following item. Item No. 3, Prariefire Subdivision, file number H-2022-0053, for a continuance for November 3rd. Is that correct? Dodson: Madam Chair, that is correct per our outline, yeah. Apparently there was a noticing error, so the applicant's requesting continuance to November 3rd. Lorcher: So may I have a motion to a continuance for Prariefire Subdivision? Grace: Madam Chair, I would move that we continue file H-2022-0053 to our next scheduled meeting on November 3rd. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Yearsley: Second. Hall: May I ask whose voice that was? Yearsley: That was Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 4 of 39 Hall: Thank you. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item No. 3, H-2022-0053, to November 3rd. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Creek View Park (H-2022-0022) by HLE Engineering, Inc., located at 942 S. Wells Street and 2920 E. Freeway Drive, approximately a quarter mile west of Eagle Rd. directly north of the 184 Interstate on-ramp from Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 10.35 acres of land from RUT to the requested C-G zoning district. B. Request: Rezone of approximately 6 acres from the L-O zoning district to the C-G zoning district. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family project consisting of 28 units on approximately 2.85 acres of land within the 6-acre parcel in the existing L-O zoning districts. Lorcher: Item No. 4, Creek View Park. This is a motion to -- or opening to move to accept the withdrawal of the application. Do I have a motion to approve the withdrawal? Grace: Madam Chair, I move to approve the withdrawal of the application for Item No. H- 2022-0022. Wheeler: Second. Lorcher: All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 8. Public Hearing for Sessions Parkway (H-2022-0046) by KM Engineering, LLP. located at 2700 N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Development Agreement Modification on the existing Development Agreement (Inst.#104129529) to remove the subject property from the agreement in order to enter into a new Development Agreement for the proposed project. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 5 building lots on 5.32 acres of land in the C-G zoning district with a request for City Council approval of an access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 5 of 39 Lorcher: Item No. 8, Sessions Parkway. Opening the public hearing to offer that for a continuance to November 17th. Is there a motion to -- to be able to offer a continuance? Grace: Madam Chair, I move that the Commission continue file number H-2022-0046 to our -- would that be our November 3rd meeting? No? Lorcher: 17th. Grace: 17th. I'm sorry. You said that. I make that motion to continue that file to our November 17th meeting. Lorcher: All those in favor? Oh, excuse me. Second? Wheeler: Second. Lorcher: And, then, all those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Slatestone Subdivision (H-2022-0039) by T-O Engineers, located at 2707 S. Stoddard Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.04 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family building lots and 4 common lots on 4.85 acres in the requested R-8 zoning district. Lorcher: All right. We will continue forward with Item No. 5, Slatestone -- Slatestone Subdivision for an annexation, zoning and preliminary plat. We will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Good evening. I will be your guide tonight for all three projects that we are hearing tonight. So, the first one is Slatestone Subdivision. It consists of 4.85 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in the county. It's located at 2707 South Stoddard, near the mid-mile mark on Stoddard between Victory and Overland. It is located in the medium density residential future land use designation, which allows residential uses at a gross density of three to eight dwelling units per acre. The request for annexation tonight is for 5.04 acres, with the request for the R-8 zoning district. Also includes the preliminary plat consisting of 15 single family building lots and four common lots on the noted 4.85 acres within the requested R-8 zoning. The subject site is abutted on the east side by Stoddard Road, which is a public collector street. Abutting to the north and west as an existing R-8 development, Fall Creek Subdivision, and to the south is a county residential -- two county residential lots that are not yet annexed into the city. The subject property, again, is designated as MDR, medium density residential. The proposal for 15 lots on the 4.85 acres constitutes a gross density Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 6 of 39 just over three units to the acre, so near the very bottom of the allowable density. I would like to note the plat and landscape plan in my -- in my presentation are not the latest. I was at a conference today, so I did not get to re-upload those plans that the applicant sent recently, but I'm sure that they will have those revised plans for us tonight. The -- the lots shown in the new one -- I did take a look prior to the hearing tonight -- and they still comply with all UDC dimensional standards, which include lot size, their overall dimensions, as well as their required street frontage for the R-8 zoning district. The minimum building lot size proposed, excluding the one lot remaining for the existing home, is approximately 6,100 square feet, which exceeds the 4,000 square foot minimum for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed use of detached single family is permitted in the R-8 zone. The applicant has noted that development is expected to develop in two phases, with an intent to keep the existing home and an outbuilding and some pasture within phase two. Phase one is proposed with 12 lots and both common driveways, whereas phase two is proposed with the remaining three building lots. So, the remaining three, if you can see my cursor, is these three right here. There is one at -- are the remaining lots, as well as the new local street. Access is proposed via this new local street, West Scoria Court, and it will connect directly to South Stoddard Road, an existing collector along the east boundary. Access to all of the homes are proposed through this local street that ends in a cul-de-sac per ACHD standards and has two common driveways off of it. Lot 14 common drive, which is this one on the southeast corner, originally did not meet -- I should say it met I think the intent of our common driveway standards, but it did not -- as you can tell it creates a sidewalk gap here. So, I -- staff had some concerns there and it also did not extend 20 feet into the property at the very end of the cut -- common driveway, sorry, for Lot 16. Therefore, staff did include a condition of approval that the applicant continue the curb, gutter, and five foot sidewalk along the public road across the common driveway, as well as extend the common drive further to the south at least 20 feet consistent with UDC standards. Staff also has concerns with the proposed micro path and sidewalk connections shown on this plan, but the applicant did remove those in their latest plan, so I will just skip over that. The size of the property is just below the five acre minimum that would require qualified open space per code. With R-8 zoning that would have been 15 percent minimum qualified open space. I did not find that prudent to require that as Bear Creek Park is approximately a quarter mile to the northeast. However, I did voice concerns with the originally proposed open space for this development, which was just this micro path area along the west of this lot and the along the perimeter here and that was the original open space proposed. I had a desire to create an area where people can congregate and/or kids can play within the development. In response the applicant did include additional open space and two park benches along the northern micro path that they included here. So, this area here. I do find that the latest revision creates more active open space as the walking paths are repeatedly noted as a -- as a use amenity within subdivisions. However, much of this area would not qualify as linear open space per our new open space code, because they are not 20 feet wide. However -- well, because of that staff did recommend all of the proposed linear open space be at least 20 feet wide to comply with those standards, despite us not requiring the minimum qualified open space. The plat and landscape plan that I did see that was revised I do not believe addresses that issue. But the applicant can clarify that. An alternative to this open space that staff proposed was to replace one of the lots within the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 7 of 39 subdivision entirely and -- and basically get rid of the micro path lots and just replace the building lot with a common open space lot for more active recreation and use. Should Commission or Council prefer that over the linear open space, staff recommends that it be one of the central lots, so that there is equitable access. So, Lots 2, 4 or 10. And -- and as well include an amenity within it. Staff prefers this option over the micro paths, but did not specifically recommend it as a condition of approval. As of this morning when I wrote the outline there was not public testimony for this and staff does recommend approval per my conditions in my staff report and I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Do any of the Commissioners have questions for staff? Wheeler: No, Madam Chair. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Yzaguirre: Becky Yzaguirre. 2471 South Titanium Place, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Does it show on -- Hall: It's on the big screen over there. Yzaguirre: All right. Oh, I pushed some buttons. There we go. Good. All right. So, good evening. I'm here to present to you a wonderful housing development called Slatestone Subdivision. Slatestone Subdivision -- it's conveniently -- is located directly off Stoddard Road between Overland and Victory. It's conveniently located .3 miles or 1,600 feet from Bear Creek Park, Victory Middle School, and Roaring Springs Park, Wahooz, a family fun zone, and many other commercial and retail businesses are just a mile away, making Slatestone a desirable housing location. This 4.85 acre property is currently located in Ada county with an existing zoning designation of RUT. We are requesting to annex this parcel into the City of Meridian with a desired zoning designation of R-8. We are proposing 15 residential lots, two common lots and two shared driveway lots. The minimum lot size will be 6,998 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,583 square feet. This project will be developed into two phases. The first phase having 12 residential lots, two common drives and two common lots. The second phase will include the existing single family home and two new buildable lots. As stated in the staff report, as a part of phase one we will connect the existing home to city water and sewer and in phase two we will demo the stables in Lot 7. As you can see this project is currently located in Ada county with a zoning designation of RUT. The project is just outside the city limits surrounded by R-8 and R-4 in the county just to the south. This is more or less an in-fill project that will help add connectivity, extend city infrastructure and help expand EMS services. This area has a future land use map designation of R-8, medium density residential, and is surrounded by R-8 to the north, south and west. The proposed development plans to match the existing R-8 developments to the north and west. The proposed R-8 lot sizes would provide a nice balance and mix between the larger lots to the south and the smaller lots to the east. This development will comply with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to grow the city as a premier place to work, live, and play. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 8 of 39 location of this development allows this concept to become a reality as it is so close to everything, schools, parks and businesses. This development will also enhance the quality and character of the surrounding community by incorporating articulation and visual -- visual interest in the exterior of the home via porches, pop outs and building material types. There is a letter in your staff report from Ada county fully supporting the annexation of this property into the City of Meridian. The letter cites goal number 2.21F in the Ada county comp plan stating that it encourages residential development to occur at urban densities within areas of the city impact where public facilities are available. The application also is compatible with the future land map -- land use map of Meridian Comprehensive Plan as adopted by Ada county, which designates the site as medium density residential, which is primarily intended for single family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. ACHD is also supportive of this project and has written that this proposal meets the district's policies and should be approved as proposed. So, Stoddard Road is expected to see significant improvements in the coming years that include the widening of the roadway to accommodate three traffic lanes, a bike lane and the continuation of a five foot wide attached sidewalk to match the existing on Stoddard. According to ACHD this construction is expected to occur after 2023. We are hoping that we can time our construction with that of ACHD, that way we aren't causing more inconveniences to the neighbors. In the staff report there is a condition requiring that the development have a ten foot wide multi-path fronting Stoddard. This slide highlights the existing five foot wide sidewalks that are surround -- that surround the development to the north, east and south and west. Nowhere in this area is there a ten foot wide pathway, including the park and school. So, there would be 332 feet of a ten foot wide pathway that would, then, connect to an existing five foot pathway. It doesn't make sense. It would make more sense to have the pathway on the east side of Stoddard where there is already an existing pathway from Victory on up to Overland. We ask that the condition get revised to match the existing pathway widths on Stoddard, so that the development can blend in nicely with the existing developments. Now on to landscaping. This development is designed to be visually pleasing and purposeful. With Bear Creek Park and Victory Middle School being so close, we decided to create a nice walking loop around the development that would provide a variety of recreating options for folks living in the development. We are planning to have a five foot walking path around the perimeter of the development. Then located on the north side of the cul-de-sac will be a 3,000 square foot grassy area with two park benches and shade trees throughout. This plan was a result of back and forth conversations and iterations with planning staff and the design team. We also kept neighbors in mind by adding additional buffers to the north and south, as that was brought up in the neighborhood meeting. This strategically planned open space meets the request from both the city and the neighbors. The landscaping we have proposed will consist of water wise plants using the selected trees and shrubs that are more suited for the Idaho weather, thus requiring less water to maintain. Here are the major types of shrubs that we have proposed. As you can see we are going for a soft, yet sophisticated feel. There will be a total of 20 -- 20 trees with a mix of three tree species, the Norway Maple, Spring Snow Crabapple and the American Linden. There will be four types of fencing products in this development. The perimeter fencing will consist of -- of a six foot wide -- a six foot tall white vinyl fence. Then we will have open vision fencing mainly located around the back of lots bordering the pathway. There will Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 9 of 39 be three railed fencing along the south perimeter and a six foot tall driftwood color vinyl fence that will face Stoddard and the entry. Slatestone Subdivision will be a positive addition to the City of Meridian and the residents currently living in the area. This subdivision will enhance connectivity, provide quality and character to the community by using high end building materials, advanced landscape design and techniques and collaboration with staff and the surrounding neighbors. This development will also help -- help add economic stability for businesses in the area. We believe this development will create a more livable community that promotes health, happiness and prosperity. All right. I'm going to turn it over to Grant, who is on our design team, and he's going to address comment number four in the staff report, which states prior to the Commission hearing the applicant shall verify the location of the irrigation ditch along the south boundary to determine if its on -- if it's on the subject property. If said ditch is proven to be on the subject property the applicant shall revise relevant plans to depict the ditch as piped or prior to -- prior to the City Council. So, I'm going to turn it over to Grant. He is going to talk about irrigation. Brookover: Grant Brookover. 332 North Broadmoor Way, Nampa, Idaho. Lorcher: Thank you. Brookover: I would like to first address the location of the -- of the existing drainage ditch. That ditch exists along the south boundary -- just trying to find the pointer real quick. It exists along the south boundary of the property. It -- oh, there we are. It exists along the south boundary of the property to collect drainage from the flood irrigation of the neighbors to the south. That drainage flows towards the -- the project's boundary and, then, is conveyed by that irrigation ditch right along -- right along the -- the property boundary to an eight inch PVC pipe that, then, takes the drainage to the borrow ditch along Stoddard Road. Our proposed solution is to take the -- the drainage from the neighbors into our irrigation waste ditch or waste pipe, rather, and, then, convey it that way and, then, exit the property along Stoddard Road. Yzaguirre: Thanks, Grant. All right. So, as you can see we have been thoughtful with its design and have made it a point to work with staff and the neighbors to come up with a design that would work for the city and the community. We thank you so much for your time and we hope we can make this development a part of the Meridian community. And I will stand for questions. Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Grace: Madam Chair, a question. Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: So, thank you for coming, Becky. Can you just comment on -- do you think that the -- I guess the proposed linear space is adequate open space? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 10 of 39 Yzaguirre: Yes. So, we did fix the linear open space and we made it 20 foot wide on the landscape plan to -- to comply to code. Grace: Yeah. I think I probably know the answer, but as it relates to staff's alternative recommendation do you have an opinion on which one you would prefer? Yzaguirre: As to -- Grace: Well, staff had proposed possibly as an alternative that one of the lots be replaced with -- Yzaguirre: Uh-huh. Grace: -- so I was just wondering -- Yzaguirre: Yeah. Yeah. Grace: I think I probably know how you feel, but -- Yzaguirre: Yeah. Yeah. Obviously we don't want to get rid of a lot and so what we had done is we just had made that linear open space match code. We made it 20 feet wide. And I believe that's what you were asking for, Joe. Yeah. Cool. So -- so, yeah. Grace: Madam Chair, a follow up, but unrelated question if I could. Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: Can you -- and also can you clarify -- are you recommending, then, that the pathway on the east side of Stoddard be widened to ten feet and to keep the pathway on the west side that would connect to the school area at five feet? Yzaguirre: Right. Let me go back to that slide if I may. I'm -- I'm sure you are referring to this? Grace: I am. Thanks. Yzaguirre: That mouse is kind of hard to find, huh. Oh, there we are. It was there. Well --yeah. So, we are wanting to just connect up--so, as you can see on the North Stoddard Road diagram there, the subject property is to the south on that diagram right there and so to the north of that it's just -- it's all five foot sidewalk and so what -- what the city -- or staff is requesting is that we -- thank you -- put a ten foot wide multi-path there and it doesn't make sense to put a ten foot wide multi-path there when the existing to the north is a five foot wide path -- sidewalk and so it would just -- it would have this massive ten foot wide and, then, funnel back into a -- a five foot pathway. We would only -- I mean the length of the property is only 332 feet and -- and to -- to second the point on the west side of Stoddard -- so, on that south side diagram of Stoddard, there -- there -- there isn't Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 11 of 39 a sidewalk and it's all county owned. All of those properties are in the county. And -- and so there -- there isn't a sidewalk there. It makes more sense if you were to put a ten foot wide multi-path to put it on the east side of Stoddard, because it does connect from Victory on up to Overland. So, that -- that's our reasoning. It just doesn't -- our development would look a little wonky with a ten foot wide pathway and, then, it funneling back to an existing five foot sidewalk. Grace: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: Madam Chair, to further that point, I don't disagree with the applicant's thought process there. It's a condition of approval per our pathways coordinator, because the west side of Stoddard is shown as an alternative location for the ten foot pathway because the east side, all the way from Victory to Overland, is only constructed as a five foot, even though it's noted as the preferred location for the pathway. Most of the time -- very rarely have I seen -- and -- and they have confirmed this -- that we will repurpose a five foot sidewalk and make it ten feet, because my understanding is they can't just build next to it, they would have to tear the entire thing up and pour it as a ten foot pathway and so that typically just doesn't happen because of cost associated with that. Frankly, a bit of an oversight by the city at some point as those developments came in, right, that we didn't get that ten foot pathway that we want as a safe path -- pathway to schools, but I do understand the applicant's perspective there. It was a condition from pathways, so I included it. Commission and Council can strike that condition or -- basically just strike it, because they are proposing five foot and that would still comply with code to have a five foot detached sidewalk along a collector street, so you don't necessarily have to modify the condition, you could strike it all together if you would like. Lorcher: Is it in there already? As far as approval for the five foot pathway or are you asking us to note that -- that -- to take that to City Council? Dodson: As a -- as the Commission you can recommend that that be stricken and, then, I will note that as being striked out in the staff report if you would like that. If you want to keep my condition in there and we will have the same conversation at Council. That's Commission's choice. I'm just saying as you guys make your motions. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair, this is Steven Yearsley. Lorcher: Commissioner -- Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, help me understand why the two phases. It just doesn't seem to make sense this small of a subdivision to do two phases. It sounds like the property owner wants to keep his pasture and -- and the question I have is how long is that second phase going to happen? Is that going to be ten, 15 years down the road? I -- I'm -- I'm struggling with those two phases, to be honest with you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 12 of 39 Yzaguirre: Yeah. Yeah. So, we are going to build that first phase -- build that first phase out. The -- the two lots, Lot 7 and, then, the one just --just next to it, those two lots are basically going to be reserved right now because we want to -- we want to keep -- the owner has some horses and they are old and so they are probably not going to last much longer, so without putting the horses down prematurely they want to keep them as -- as long as they can. So, they wanted to keep those horse stables there for their horses -- for their -- their elderly horses and, then, as far as it being 15 or so years down the road, we would just comply with code, because I don't -- we -- you have to develop within a certain time frame for the phasing. I'm not sure what that time frame is off the top of my head. Dodson: That is correct, Madam Chair. It would be two years. The preliminary plat is good for two years. You have to submit a final plat within that time frame. But because it was only two phases, this second this would have to be at least submitted to us for final plat signature within that two year time frame. Madam Chair? Yearsley: Thank you. Lorcher: Thanks. Go ahead. Dodson: To further that point -- I mean not agreeing or disagreeing with the phasing at all, but that stable would be located on a lot not associated with the principal structure. So, if they did this all -- and I understand the thought of just --just why not build it all now or subdivide it -- that stable couldn't resume -- or couldn't remain because you can't have an accessory structure with no primary structure on the lot. So, that stable would be located on Lot 7 by itself, so it couldn't remain, which defeats the purpose of what the applicant is trying to do, so I -- previous conversations with them that is why they phased it is -- is to keep that stable there, not necessarily to delay development. Lorcher: So, the -- the remaining house -- and, obviously, the stable belongs to them. Do they plan to sell the house to you for redevelopment or are they going to -- Yzaguirre: No. Lorcher: -- plan to stay there? Yzaguirre: No. Actually, the plan is they eventually want to develop that for their daughter. Their daughter I understand is 18 and nowhere -- she's not in a place of her own and so they are kind of waiting for her to get a little more mature. A little older. Lorcher: Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you very much. At this time we will take public testimony. Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to testify? Hall: There is no one online signed up, but we do have a Leona Raines signed up to speak. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 13 of 39 Lorcher: Hi. Please state your name and address for the record. Raines: Leona Raines. 2833 South Stoddard. I live right next door to the -- the project. Our driveway, as it stands now -- not -- I hate not having a way to show people what I'm talking about, but it doesn't matter. Where we --where our home stands, where the south part -- where we will have now five homes going up our driveway. Lorcher: So, you are at the bottom of this -- of the North Stoddard Road picture, you are that driveway there? Raines: Yes. So, we are going to have five roads -- five homes coming up our driveway. And I just had a couple quick questions. You addressed one of them, which was the -- sorry. Sorry. The -- I'm sorry, I'm having -- I'm nervous. Hall: Ma'am, could you, please, speak into the microphone? Raines: Sure. He addressed one of the issues already, which was our concern about the irrigation ditch. So, that -- from what I understand it's going to be on the property going down the property line; correct? Lorcher: I believe that's what they said, yes. Raines: Okay. And, then, I appreciate the fact that they are happy that it's a good thing for Victory school, but at this point the people on the other side of me, which you can't see, their kid was transferred to another school, because there is no room in that school for him and they live on the street. So, I guess they will find room for these people maybe. I don't know. We are sad, because there is R-4 across the street. We would like to see R-4, but that's, obviously, not to the benefit of the contractor. But it was -- in the community meeting it was mentioned about the two story and the one stories and our concern, because we are going to have someone right by our house here, this -- I can't see what that lot number is right here. Can we just make sure we don't have a two story looking right down in our backyard and it -- maybe this should be at the city meeting. This is just transfer -- maybe I'm at the wrong meeting. Is this just the proposition of turning this to city from county? Lorcher: So, our obligation is to approve the rezoning of it. Raines: Okay. So, this is just a zoning thing at this point, so the contractor is back behind us; is that correct? Okay. So, then, I can ask them questions regarding all this. Okay. That's all. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Starman: Madam Chair, I just want to clarify for the audience member, particularly the person that just spoke. So, just for clarity, there are several items before the Commission tonight and, then, this will be a recommendation to the City Council, but it's more than just Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 14 of 39 zoning. So, the Commission tonight is looking at multiple topics. One is the annexation and zoning of the property and the second is a preliminary plat, which is the -- the map that's up on the screen now. So, all those issues are before the Commission this evening, but the Commission is a recommending body and they will make a recommendation to the City Council, which will hear this topic at a subsequent date. Lorcher: Madam Clerk? Would the applicant like to come back and make any comments? Yzaguirre: All right. So, yes, we are -- we -- to answer two of your -- one of two of your questions, yes, we are taking all the irrigation and putting it on our -- on our property and, then, the second one we have provided enough landscape buffer to -- to help buffer that. We can also add additional landscaping if need be and we can definitely work with the homeowner to figure that out. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? Grace: Madam Chair, I was curious prior to the public testimony, so I might as well just ask the question. Sometimes I see in these proposals an estimated effect on the schools. Do you have that information at all? Yzaguirre: I don't. I don't -- I don't have that, but I assume that we only -- we are not proposing a large development, so the effect is going to be rather minimal. Grace: Thank you. Dodson: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Joe. Dodson: To Becky's point, West Ada did not provide a letter, because of the size of the property -- or the size of the -- the number of units proposed. So, they did not propose a letter. But, typically, they -- they do adjust their ratio -- their student generation rate, but typically it's about .7. So, 70 percent of 15, you know, you are going to get approximately ten kids is what they are going to -- I did that math on the fly, so excuse me, but roughly ten, 11 kids is what they would have proposed or assumed. I'm sorry. It's been a long week. Lorcher: I do have a question about the shared driveway. So, we -- we see these -- I don't want to say often, but on occasion. The challenge is is that the way these shared driveways are when it comes to utilities for, you know, garbage or snow removal or just being good neighbors, having this shared driveway and you are proposing one, two, three units and I assume that the driveway for the existing house is also on that shared driveway; is that correct? Yzaguirre: That is correct. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 15 of 39 Lorcher: So, have -- did you discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this shared driveway and how it's going to impact the -- the people who choose to purchase these lots? Dodson: Madam Chair, yeah, we -- we always have those discussions with applicants and -- and note that Commission tends not to like common drives and for those noted reasons, trash collection being one of them, thankfully on this the -- the one on the southeast is only two lots and, then, also, thankfully, for the one on the west, Lot 8, this one here, there is an area here with no driveways where everybody could potentially put all their trash carts in any of the cul-de-sacs, which is typically better than some of the other ones that we see for sure. But the concerns are noted. Absolutely. Again, the Commission -- their tools for all of that is going to be to limit the number of units off of that further if you would like. Or just say none extra and just require, you know, the pyramid type lots -- the triangle lots at the end. Lorcher: So, I know we don't do like a -- the way it's -- the housing is done, but each one of these has a driveway where the residents can park? Yzaguirre: That's correct. Lorcher: And is it large enough for how many cars? Yzaguirre: So, I -- I believe it's going to be a two -- two car garage and, then, the RV bay most of them will have. Yes. Thank you. Lorcher: And, then, is there space between the houses where they will have public parking as well, meaning that this house and the next lot, is there enough room -- so, say -- I have three daughters and so we have six cars at our house at any given time. So, we can put two in the driveway and two in front and, then, two have to park someplace else. Yzaguirre: Yeah. So, you could put -- you could put two -- two in the garage. You could put one -- or two, depending on the length of the garage bay, and then -- or the RV bay. Excuse me. And, then, you could have, you know, multiple in the driveway. Lorcher: And are you going to have some kind of homeowners association talking about what's allowed? Like can I have a boat in my driveway? Can I have anything exposed — Yzaguirre: Yeah. Lorcher: -- that type of thing? Yzaguirre: Yes. That's -- yes. We are -- this is -- development will definitely be under an HOA. Yes. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 16 of 39 Dodson: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Joe. Dodson: I do want to comment on that point in the -- the separate driveways, et cetera. One, it's a 33 foot wide local street, which ACHD allows on-street parking where are no driveways as noted. But they are approximately 60 foot wide lots, so they should accommodate -- you know, if it's 30 -- 30 foot wide driveway, they are going to have 30 feet between and I hope that the applicant helps stagger those where you might have two close together and, then, two far apart, so that way you get a little bit more area between the driveways and it's not just the same drive --the same drive -- sorry -- the same garage on the same side of the house all along the street. Yzaguirre: Right. That is correct. Our -- our-- our widths are wider than the standard R- 8 lot widths. Lorcher: Yeah. We would definitely encourage that, because to be good neighbors and if somebody has a -- you know, a Super Bowl party or something else and starts blocking everybody in, then, all of a sudden neighbors don't get along anymore, so -- all right. Commissioners, are there any other questions? So, Kurt, as a procedure, I close the public hearing for this -- for this file; correct? Starman: Madam Chair, not yet. So, you will want to -- have you taken all -- I guess we have taken all public testimony. So, yes, you may entertain a motion to close the public hearing from your fellow Commissioners. Dodson: Madam Chair? Sorry. Lorcher: Joe. Dodson: Before that I wanted to gain some more information from my wonderful boss regarding the ten foot pathway along Stoddard. The reason why the pathways coordinator required that, as well as why we probably should continue to require that, is that's -- Stoddard from Victory up to Overland is supposed to be a level three service according to ACHD, which means nothing to anybody here probably, but it's supposed to be protected bike lanes, pathways on both sides of the road, as well as widening the road. So, it's not just five foot sidewalks as they -- they had a really good diagram in here, but the sidewalks that they are showing are actually ten feet per ACHD's notes and, then, on top of that they note that new development will install the ten foot sidewalk and so the applicant wants to coordinate with the location of that so it doesn't get ripped up during construction and, then, as the ACHD comes in and widens the road eventually, starting after 2023, then, they will replace the existing sidewalk that I noted is very expensive to do, but that's why we pay taxes to ACHD. Lorcher: Okay. So, one final question. So, it's -- you say after 2023. Does that mean like 2024 or 2035? Do we know? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 17 of 39 Dodson: Madam Chair, it's not yet known. My understanding is they have it all designed and ready to go, which -- they do not have funding yet. Lorcher: Okay. So, to clarify, if we are asking this applicant to put in a ten foot 322 foot sidewalk, the existing five foot sidewalks are going to be removed by ACHD and align with the ten foot sidewalk we are asking them to put in; is that correct? Dodson: Yes, ma'am, that would be ACHD's intent and the intent of the noted plan that they have adopted. Lorcher: Okay. And that's a decision for City Council as well? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. Are you guys -- again, Commission can recommend what you prefer to do based upon the information that you have been given and, then, City Council will make that final determination to either let them do the five foot and, then, have ACHD come in and replace that five foot or construct the ten foot and they will have to coordinate that location with ACHD to make sure it is in the proper location, so it doesn't have to get ripped up and redone. Lorcher: Got you. Okay. All right. Madam Clerk, to confirm, there is no other testimony? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing for this file? Grace: Madam Chair, so moved. Wheeler: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close application H-2022-0039. All those in favor aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Discussion? Wheeler: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Yearsley. Wheeler: This would be -- this would be Commissioner Wheeler. Lorcher: Oh. Excuse me. You sound just like Commissioner Yearsley. Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: We are long lost brothers, so it's -- I understand. I -- I'm a fan of in-fill projects and I like it. I like that it's close to a school. I like it that it's going to fit in nicely. It works with the zoning on it. Just a couple of my thoughts on it is I -- I'm not -- I can see it from the developer standpoint of-- it seems a little out of order to put in a ten foot long sidewalk Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 18 of 39 when everything else around it is a five footer. I can see why they wouldn't want to spend the extra cash on that, but--and I --and --and, Commissioner Yearsley, thanks for asking the question about the -- the two phasing and I'm comfortable with the two phases, especially since there is a -- a -- a timeline or a time frame in which they have to finish out that second phase and get the signature to -- to move forward with that and so those are just kind of my thoughts on it. I kind of side with the applicant on just allowing only a five foot long sidewalk along Stoddard Road, because who knows how long it's going to be for ACHD to be there and I -- it seems more out of ordinary -- I mean if it was on the hard corner or if it was at the end of a subdivision and it started up, but it's just -- it's like midblock, three quarters, it -- it seems really out of place on my side. So, those are my thoughts. Lorcher: Thank you. Grace: Madam Chair, my comments are that I was -- the issues that I had seemed to be addressed and -- and that -- those were the -- the open space, the impact on the schools. With regard to the pathway, I guess I might take a different view than my colleague. I feel if that's the way Stoddard is heading toward a ten foot pathway, that's the recommendation of staff, I -- my recommendation would be -- to City Council would be to --to keep that ten foot pathway. It looks like it winds, it's not a straight, you know, sidewalk type looking thing, so -- and it looks like the property to the south, when and if it ever becomes developed, is heading in that direction, too. So, I guess that's where I stand on that. Yearsley: Madam Chair, this is Steven Yearsley. Lorcher: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I -- I agree. I think this is a fairly decent in-fill project. I do think that it should keep the ten foot wide pathway and if -- if what staff is saying that ACHD has already designed this roadway, they are just waiting for funding, I'm sure ACHD could tell them where and what elevation to build that sidewalk, so they can build it and not have to redo it when they come back through and widen the street. So, it only makes sense to do it now instead of having to do it twice. Lorcher: All right. Thank you. I mean bottom line somebody is going to pay for the sidewalk; right? So, if ACHD comes through, they are just going to rip out your five foot sidewalk anyway and, then, they are going to end up paying for it. But if you put in the ten foot sidewalk now, then, that's less disruption to your subdivision as well, because we don't know when that funding might come. So, therefore, you would have that -- at least that accessibility for your -- the people who live in your subdivision. Do I have a motion for this application? Grace: Madam Chair, I would make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2022- 0039 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6th, 2022. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 19 of 39 Lorcher: Do I have a second? Wheeler: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2022-0039 on the hearing date of October 6th. All those in favor say aye. And all those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for AMI Tower at Well 29 (H-2022-0052) by City of Meridian, located at 6355 W. Quintale Dr., directly west of Oaks West Subdivision No. 1 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 100-foot lattice designed communication tower for the City of Meridian Water Department on an existing City of Meridian Well site on approximately 0.45 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Lorcher: Okay. The next application that we have is Item No. 6, the AMI Tower at Well 29, for a conditional use permit. Ready for the staff report when you are. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Again next item is going to be for a conditional use permit for a hundred foot lattice designed communication tower for the City of Meridian Water Department on an existing City of Meridian well site. It's located on approximately half an acre of land, zoned R-8. It is located directly west of phase one of the Oaks West Subdivision. It's at the corner of Quintale and McDermott Road. There is some history on the site. Again, it was originally annexed in 2008. Rezoned in 2017 and, then, subdivided in 2017 as well and there is administrative approvals on the site for the pump house lot and landscaping and fencing for the pump house for the well. This -- again, subject site is currently developed with that well site as seen here. The site plan depicts the location of the proposed tower to be on the west side of the existing pumphouse building, in closer proximity to McDermott Road than to the existing residence to the east and north within the Oaks West Subdivision. Therefore, the base of the tower will be screened from view from any nearby residences due to the existing structures on the subject property. Additionally, the tower will be located approximately 95 feet from the closest residential building to the east and approximately 150 feet from the closest residential building to the north. The proposed facility is listed as an accessory or a conditional use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2-A2. In addition, all wireless communication facilities are subject to the specific use standards in 11-43-43. The applicant states that the steel lattice design is proposed in order to keep costs down for the ratepayers, as this design is cheaper than slim line and monopole towers. The proposed towers plan to have a radio antenna used for communication with water meter readers and the existing tower at the City of Meridian Water Department. Again, not 5G, not wireless cell phone, anything like that, just radio antenna. The applicant does not anticipate adding any other wireless communication equipment to this tower, which is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 20 of 39 required by code and, in fact, as part of this application the applicant has requested, through the CUP process, which is allowed and noted in the code, to waive that requirement to allow additional users to co-locate on this tower. Staff supports this, because the tower is strictly for a single purpose and not a typical wireless communication facility. The specific use standards do not specifically state that a lattice design tower has a setback, but through the applicability section of that, as well as the setbacks required for the preferred communication tower design, which is sim line and monopole, staff hasn't applied the noted setback within this code section, which says that the tower must be set back a distance equal to the height of the tower from adjacent right of way and/or an abutting residential lot, which as noted it's approximately 95 feet to the nearest residence and definitely closer than that to the right of way of Quintale to the north. Therefore, this hundred foot tower does not meet this setback and must have the proposed location approved through the CUP process. Per this analysis I have -- as I have discussed, the screening, the location of it, as well as what is proposed to be on the tower, staff does support the proposed location that is approximately 95 feet from the closest residence. As of this morning there was no testimony on this -- written testimony. Staff does recommend approval of the subject conditional use permit, as it complies with all UDC requirements, except for those noted and supported by staff and I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Wheeler: I'm sorry. Madam Chair? Lorcher: Oh. Yes. Wheeler: I'm sorry. This is Commissioner Wheeler here. The only question -- staff, the only question that I have is how high is this screening? Dodson: Commissioner Wheeler, so the base of the tower is screened by the pumphouse building, which is directly on the east side here and as well as some fencing here. The fencing along the west boundary is open vision lattice fencing. But, again, it's McDermott Road here and, then, nothing to the west except dirt and, then, future State Highway 16 extension. I don't know exactly how tall the pump house building is, but it's a typical pump building, so it's probably at least 15 feet tall and it covers quite a bit of that -- the generator and fencing that is located here is at -- at least a four foot high fence, if not a six foot fence with the -- to screen the generator that was required. Wheeler: Okay. All right. That was my only question. Thank you. Dodson: Thank you. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 21 of 39 Teller: Yes. It's Dennis Teller. The water superintendent for the City of Meridian. It's Northwest 8th Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Lorcher: Thank you. Teller: So, Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you for your time tonight. As you heard with -- from the staff report that this is a request to install an AMI tower for our automated meter reading infrastructure system that we are installing throughout the city. This is tower two of -- of a three tower plan. We have one existing antenna on the -- the water tower in the center of town. This -- this -- the actual location would cover the northwest side of town. The reason being for this request and these tower installs is our current meter reading infrastructure on how we collect our 43,000 reads every month and growing is an automated system that's drive by. So, we basically have a read collector within a vehicle with antennas on that vehicle and we have to drive up and down pretty much every street within the city to capture these reads, which is becoming a very time consuming and difficult thing with -- with traffic and -- and everything that we are starting to see with the -- the growth that is coming. So, what these towers do is they basically take this -- this reading system that we have and the antennas on the vehicles and relocate them up and above the geography and --and rooftops that will allow us to capture these reads without the use of a vehicle. That would reduce our staff time and -- and enable us to continue to grow into the future with the growth of the city and capture the reads timely for the billing. With that I would stand for any questions you may have. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Grace: Madam Chair, just a quick one. Does the -- do these towers put off any -- any sound or any lights? I see there is some residential areas close by. I was just curious. Teller: That's an excellent question and, no, they do not. It's just a radio antenna and it's basically the same thing that we have on our vehicles now and it is -- it's about as unobtrusive as we can possibly have it. It's a single pole that makes no noise. No -- no nothing other than it's just there. Grace: Thank you. Lorcher: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Madam Clerk, do we have any -- thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody to testify? Hall: We have nobody signed up online, but we do have two people in house, but they haven't marked whether they wanted to come up and testify. First one is a Dale Allenger. No? Okay. And Mark Nera. Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? Were there any other questions from the Commissioners for the applicant? May I ask one? So, I get the fencing part. So, how tall is this tower? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 22 of 39 Teller: Okay. So, the tower is -- is one hundred feet tall. Lorcher: Okay. Teller: And the building is approximately-- like -- like staff stated, anywhere from probably 16 to 19 feet tall. That would be the -- Lorcher: So, it's just a skinny pole? Teller: It's a lattice work, kind of a -- it's kind of a small triangle I guess you want to say. The base is a little bit wider than the top and, then, it's kind of got a crisscross pattern of -- of support to -- to make it rigid I guess. Lorcher: Okay. Teller: But it's -- it's -- you can see through it. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Teller: Okay. Dodson: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Joe. Dodson: An example. If you drive down -- I can't remember now. I think it's Franklin and Locust Grove there is a lattice design tower, my very first project here at the city, for Day Wireless. It's a lattice design structure. This should be very similar to that, but this -- this proposed is actually being smaller. That was 125 feet and the base of that was pretty large. This, according to the elevations, is -- looks like it's less than ten feet wide at the base. So, this would be a smaller version of that, if you have driven by that and noticed it. Lorcher: No. I mean I'm sure it's there, but -- Dodson: There you go. Grace: Just to clarify, Madam Chair. But the building exists already; correct? Dodson: Yeah. Grace: Okay. Yeah. Dodson: The building for the well, yeah. That's existing, but somewhat separate. Nothing to do with the CUP. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 23 of 39 Lorcher: Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Grace: Madam Chair, so moved. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Wheeler: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on application H- 2022-0050. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any discussion on this? Or maybe a motion? Dodson: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Joe. Dodson: I did want to note, because it's a conditional use permit, Commission is the deciding body on this, that as noted there are a couple of items through the CUP process that you should include. I would at least -- I would hope -- and Kirk can correct me if I'm wrong -- that I would want you to state specifically in your motion to allow, as they are requesting through the CUP process, for a couple waivers. One being the -- the location being within -- less than a hundred feet of the required setback, as well as waiving the requirement to co-locate two -- sorry. To allow co-location of other equipment on the tower. Because that is a Commission decision I could not put that in my recommendation of approval necessarily, so that--that verbiage I would want to hear from the Commission. Lorcher: So, just to clarify, when you say co-location, if I'm a cell phone I could pay to be on that tower? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. Correct. Which is -- the City of Meridian Water Department would prefer not to allow that, because they want it just for their radio antenna. One -- but guess main reason they don't want to have to deal with those license agreements and et cetera. Plus that was a major concern from the neighborhood as well. So, let's not poke the bear. Lorcher: So, not allow. Dodson: Correct. Grace: Madam Chair, I took some notes, but that doesn't mean I will make a proper motion. Lorcher: Give it ago. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 24 of 39 Grace: I will give it a try though. After considering -- Madam Chair, I move that after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony to approve file number H-2022-0052 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6th, 2022, specifically allowing the location of the tower within the setback as proposed and specifically allowing a waiver of the requirement of co-locating any other -- Lorcher: Utilities. Grace: -- utilities. Lorcher: Will that take care of it? Dodson: Perfect. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Wheeler: Second. Lorcher: I have a motion and a second for file number H-2022-0052. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing for Allure Subdivision (H-2022-0050) by Schultz Development, LLC., located at 5385 S. Meridian Rd., directly north of the half-mile mark on the west side of Meridian Rd. between E. Amity and E. Lake Hazel Rds. A. Request: Rezone 39.39 acres of land from the R-4 to the TN-R zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 226 single-family building lots and 36 common lots on 37.34 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing agreement (Inst. #2016-007091) for the purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the proposed project and plat. Lorcher: All right. We have one more application in front of us tonight for the Allure Subdivision for a rezone, preliminary plat, and a development agreement modification and we are ready for the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, ma'am. This is the last one scheduled for tonight after the continuances. As noted, this is for a rezone, development agreement modification and preliminary plat. The site consists of two properties, actually, that are approximately 37.3 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 25 of 39 acres of land currently zoned R-4, located at 5385 South Meridian Road, which is directly north of the half mile mark on the west side of Meridian Road between Amity and Lake Hazel. The only history on this site is that it was annexed in 2015 as part of a much larger south Meridian annexation, which you can kind of tell here is this little angled here. There is lots of R-4, as well as the C-G, R-15, R-8 that seems somewhat random. That's what the south Meridian annexation did, a lot of different parcels -- property owners. The request before you tonight are to rezone approximately 39.4 acres of land from R-4 to the TN-R zoning district, which is the traditional neighborhood residential zoning district. Request for a preliminary plat consisting of 226 single family lots and 36 common lots on 37.34 acres of land in the requested zoning district, as well as a modification to the existing development agreement as required by the existing development agreement for the purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the proposed project and plat. It gets a little wordy there. I apologize. The Allure Subdivision is proposed at 226 building lots on 37.34 acres of land, which constitutes a gross density just over six units per acre, which falls within the middle of the allowable density in the MDR, medium density residential, designation of three to eight units per acre. It is also slightly more than the Briar Ridge project that was approved directly to the south, which you can see here, and TN-R and their site design. So, again, theirs was 5.8. This one is 6.05. In addition, the requested TN-R zoning district requires a minimum net density of six units per acre and according to the plat the net density of Allure is approximately seven and a half units per acre, which makes it compliant with that zoning district. Quick education. Net density removes right of way and common area is the two big ones that you remove out of that to get your net density calculation. Through the pre-planning process -- the pre-application -- application meetings as well through this project was originally with Matt Schultz, the developer that we unfortunately lost in the community. He and I worked diligently to create this project and mirror a lot of the neighborhood identities that we tried to get with the project to the south, Briar Ridge, which would be the traditional neighborhood design. They -- we worked to propose different housing types within the project, to both match, as well as diversify the housing types proposed in Briar Ridge to the south. The grid like street layout and different housing types led the applicant to request the TN-R zoning district, as those are requirements of that zoning district, the same as Briar Ridge did. Staff supports that request for the zoning, as well as the overall proposed layout as it continues the design and the transition from the properties further to the south. Staff finds that the development is consistent -- is generally consistent with the comp plan. However, as I had noted this with Briar Ridge at the time, despite it meeting a majority of the comp plan policies and being proposed with an insightful site design and carefully considered design, staff always has concerns with the timing of development for this project on the -- on the edge of development related to urban services. Not water and sewer, but urban services. So, that would be commercial services, like schools, et cetera. Thankfully the property does abut an area of mixed-use community designated property to the north, which is anticipated to contain commercial uses in the future. The proposed site design, which includes a stub street and a pedestrian facility on the north boundary, helps set up an appropriate connectivity between this project and the anticipated commercial uses to the north. Specifically, again, this micro path connection here and this public road stub street here, the property that is designated mixed-use, the property line is roughly here, give or take. So, this public road Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 26 of 39 will be required to be continued out to Amity Road. Access to the site is via a new local street connection at the southeast corner, which will be down here, to West Quartz Creek Street, which is a collector street along the entire south boundary. The proposed project is proposed to complete West Quartz Creek Street and for their shared access to Meridian Road, because Briar Ridge, which was approved to the south, is constructing a majority of that, at least half plus 12 of the required pavement. In addition, this project is proposing three stub streets. Two to the west boundary to one property and, then, again, one along the north boundary for future connectivity. The project does not meet secondary access requirements as currently shown, as there is only one way in and out, which would be the access to Quartz Creek Street out to Meridian Road. Approved secondary access is required by Meridian Fire. Staff did recommend and has included conditions of approval, requiring construction of emergency access out to Meridian Road with phase one, which would be roughly here is what staff has recommended and has been shown with the applicant noted exhibits as Option B on their emergency access exhibit. Staff has not received additional information regarding their Option A, which is the public road connection along the north boundary, because it involves an additional property owner that's not part of this application. But should that connection occur prior to development or as development occurs through the public road system proposed, then, this condition of approval will become void as the public street access would be constructed and much safer and much better than an emergency only access. ACHD is also requiring the secondary public street access prior to signing any plat containing the 101st home within the subdivision. Because the additional vehicle trips from this development will push the Quartz Creek access -- so the collector road access -- one point of access to the state highway system over their threshold for a singular access of 3,000 daily trips -- specifically Briar Ridge to the south was approved and they first went in, so they account for 2,000 of those, approximately, this is allowed to add an additional one thousand. So, the overall subdivision is proposed with about 2,100. So, a little less than half of their lots are going to be allowed to be constructed before ACHD will not sign any further plats. The remaining roads proposed within the development, all the local streets internal, are proposed as 33 foot wide with five foot detached sidewalk and eight foot parkways, creating a beautiful streetscape and identity for the entire project, which continues the traditional neighborhood design that Briar Ridge was approved with to the south. However, a number of the local streets, as you can tell on the design, are pretty long, straight roads. They do have intersecting roads, but they do not comply with ACHD's traffic calming and street length measurements. So, prior to construction and final approval by ACHD they will have to revise the plat to include traffic calming along pretty much the -- pretty much the perimeter roads. So, Caldera -- I can't read them from here. This one, this one, and I believe this street as well. Staff also did include a condition of approval consistent with that to help support that approval. Staff would like to note that Meridian Road, State Highway 69, is currently being studied by ITD -- by the Idaho Trans -- Department of Transportation for corridor improvements from Overland all the way south to Orchard Avenue within Kuna under their Idaho 69 corridor study. The mid mile intersection located here at Quartz Creek and the -- and State Highway 69, located at the southeast corner of the property, is part of this study and is proposed to be designed with a reduced conflict U-turn and RCUT intersection. Which is complicated, unless you see it. We did not put an image of that in there, which is okay, but, essentially, eliminates Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 27 of 39 U-turns at the light at the intersection where you have to go to another area, turn around and, then, you can make your right-hand turn and also eliminate some left-hand turn movements to again help increase the safety of those -- I can't remember what police quantifies them, but the sideswiping basically. It helps minimize those. At least that's what studies show. The TSI impact study, because, again, it's over one hundred units, they are required to do a traffic impact study. ITD is requiring an additional 12 feet of right of way along Meridian Road for the purpose of constructing a future southbound right turn lane from the highway onto West Quartz Creek Street. This is somewhat contrary -- or I should say it lacks a previous approval for Briar Ridge as that applicant was required to enter into a cost share agreement for improvements to the Amity and Highway 69 intersection. Thus ITD did not require that with this application. Within the internal of the project there is an existing home and an outbuilding approximately one acre along Meridian Road, but no other sites -- site improvements are known. The historical use for the subject site is agricultural in nature. Because of that the property owner intends on continuing to farm the property as the project develops over time. So, the remaining areas that are not being developed would like to continue farming. Idaho is a -- I can't remember the term. Idaho allows that to -- to occur with state statute, but in order to help the applicant and the owner feel more confident in that, I did include a provision within the development agreement to allow that as well. The proposed uses within the project are all residential. Detached single family, detached alley loaded single family, attached single family and alley loaded townhomes. All uses proposed are permitted residential uses within the requested zoning district. The project is proposed to be constructed in five phases as seen on the phasing plan here. The submitted plat shows a minimum lot size of approximately 2,300 square feet and an overall average lot size of just over 4,300. The residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards. Five foot wide detached sidewalks and eight foot parkways are proposed along all of the internal streets as noted. This is consistent with the requirement of the traditional neighborhood residential district. The applicant is also proposing detached sidewalk on the north side of the collector street, which complies with code, as well as the multi-use pathway along Meridian Road, which also is compliant with code. The applicant is showing the required pathway segment within a landscape common lot per code requirements. Allure Subdivision is proposed with a preliminary plat area of approximately 37 acres, which requires a minimum 15 percent qualified open space or approximately 5.6 acres and a minimum of eight amenity points. So, amenities worth eight amenity points per UDC 11- 3G-3 and 11-3G-4. The applicant is continuing the multi-use pathway along Meridian Road as noted. That's approximately a quarter mile long, which equates to two amenity points. In addition to the pathway the applicant is proposing a swimming pool with changing facilities and restrooms, which qualifies for six amenity points, and is including a playground area, which qualifies for two amenity points, all within the central open space lot for equitable access. Therefore, the applicant is proposing amenities worth a total of ten points and exceed the minimum of eight required by code. The applicant's open space exhibit shows approximately 6.96 acres of qualified open space, which is approximately 18 and a half percent and exceeded the 5.6 that's required. However, some of these areas noted on the exhibit as qualifying do not qualify as they are not at least 20 feet wide. However, staff does not recommend that they would be revised and -- and widened, because they are already remnant pieces along the end caps of these Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 28 of 39 lots. So, there is -- like, for example, like some of these end caps here. I think there is a couple more in other places that -- like here that just -- they are not the 20 foot wide minimum. However because they are remnants staff does not wish to remove land area from the buildable lots. Instead the -- no. I'm sorry. Hold on. Oh. With the removal of these areas when they do revise the common open space exhibit, they should be very nominal as these are very small areas comparative to acres of land. It is also important to note that the applicants open space exhibit does not include any of the parkways, which are allowable to be counted for qualified open space and when you have detached sidewalk and alley loaded projects you end up with a large area of qualified open space for parkways and, again, adds to the streetscape, which staff very much appreciates. Therefore, the actual proposed qualified open space should vastly exceed the minimum and should be even higher than the noted 18.6 percent. As of this morning there was only one piece of public testimony. It was from Mr. David Palumbo. It really didn't speak to this project specifically. Specifically. He noted issues with a lot of projects in south Meridian altogether and noted concerns with traffic, school capacity, and as well as noted an opinion that there has been a lack of planning in south Meridian. Staff does recommend approval for the noted reasons about the project and per the conditions in my staff report and I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Dodson: Madam Chair, really quickly. I did want to note -- in my staff report I noted that they did not submit elevations for the single family homes. Apparently I'm blind, because they did. So, I did want to note that in your motion you can recommend to strike that condition or I will do it myself either way, because that was my mistake. Lorcher: Okay. Please state your name and address for the record. Breckon: Jon Breckon. Breckon Land Design. 6661 Glenwood Street, Garden City. Joe, did you get the -- the presentation? Can I give it to you now? Have a short PowerPoint that kind of reiterates a lot of what Joe talked through with some more pretty pictures and a little more definition. But always enjoy working with Joe. This is another nice development. We are excited to move this one forward. Okay. This is just an overview. It shows the project site, but also adjacent properties, which is kind of a key point to this project. There is a few items in the report that I would like to speak to, just to add a little definition. But you can see we are on the west side of Meridian Road just south of Amity and the parcel directly to the north that's at the corner of Amity Road and Meridian Road and also on the north side of Amity Road is owned by Hawkins Development and I spent an afternoon with them coordinating projects. They have plans to develop that as commercial property and they shared some of their plans with me. I think timing wise it will work out very nicely to make sure that we have proper services. They are talking about a new grocery store and other needs that are vital to the -- to the health of the area. Additionally, you can see we are --on the north property there there is--there is a property line that kind of splits about a third of the way over and there is -- that's a different land owner and I have spoken with him briefly, but, essentially, that's where a roadway Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 29 of 39 connection is to extend and provide a secondary access to this project, as well as provide connectivity to Hawkins' property and -- and connect all the way up to Amity Road. They have been working with ACHD and ITD on that roadway connection location, because that's critical for stacking and, then, just safety of the road connection on Amity and it's -- it ties into their property to the north. So, if that all works out, the plan is to have a traffic light there where that connects to Amity and so that will all function properly and so that we will also have a secondary connection in the future as this gets all built out. We have also coordinated with the Briar Ridge folks to the south and working on the details of utility connections and so forth and I guess the other thing I could share -- this depicts as a previous project that we worked on and I will touch on that a little bit later, but right across Meridian Road to the east is Prevail and -- as well as to the south of that those are projects that I have worked on in the past and there is some similarities there as far as emergency vehicle access and phasing that I will -- I will speak to you here in just a minute. This zoning map, just for reference. You can see, you know, what -- follow suit with Briar Ridge, the TN-R designation to the south. And this is -- this is a nice graphic, because it speaks to the phasing which is -- this is really critical to -- to the circulation -- emergency vehicle circulation and -- and the timing of the development as it -- as it moves forward. But here you can see, you know, initially we are planning on main access off of Quartz Creek for phase one and two and, then, once we, you know, get close to that -- that threshold for a number of units I would like to extend our secondary emergency vehicle access to that northeast corner, which would go through phase four and that's almost an identical situation that we experienced on the east side of Meridian Road. We did the same thing. We had a -- we had a secondary access point there and so I think if we look at -- I will go to another slide, but it shows it on -- on the Google Earth image. You can see it in place today. But that's what we would like to move forward with in the event that the Option A -- or the Amity Road connection doesn't happen in time, which, you know, that one -- that -- that is probably going to take a little bit more time just timing wise to make that over. This just shows adjacent schools. Mary McPherson Elementary. Actually, I was fortunate enough to work on expansion to Mary McPherson here just a couple of years ago to provide more classroom space. So, that's always a concern and I know that West Ada is working to move forward with a bond in the near future to build some more schools. Here is emergency services for reference. Existing fire stations, police station, and the new fire station that's going to go in there on -- on Lake Hazel in short order. Here -- here, again, overall site plan and reference -- you can see there the Prevail Subdivision on the other side of Meridian and you can see that emergency vehicle access that we would like to replicate that in some fashion. Of course, accommodate this design, but it would be very similar in that -- in size and functionality providing that access. Something else to note there, that -- that access -- I think it will be helpful, because that's where our sewer stub is, a sewer connection, and so that access could also serve as a maintenance access to the sewer connection, as well as meet the emergency vehicle access requirements that will most likely be required as things are being built out. This is -- you know, we have worked diligently to make this site plan work and I think one of the -- the nice features is the common open space in the middle and that has a clubhouse and a swimming pool and we have got a -- wanting to do a nice berm there that could be used as a sledding hill and, then, just the open green that can be used for a variety of reasons. So, just a really nice little neighborhood park. And this -- this also shows future Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 30 of 39 roadway connections to the -- to the west. That stub to the north and, then, Briar Ridge on the south and it speaks to the open space. I guess already touched on that. Like I said, the thing that this makes me think of-- along the Meridian Road frontage, you know, that -- that is a special designation there as far as entry into the city and we would like to take the same approach that we did on the other side of the road, which is a -- there is a berm and a fence to achieve that ten foot height and so it's -- and, then, it also has a ten foot wide pathway along that frontage. So, it's -- it's -- if you have driven through there you have seen the one on the -- on the east side that's existing and would like to do something very similar to that. This is just a -- a slide here that provides a little clarity on the mix of -- of housing types and you can see the -- the purple color is a four unit townhome design and, then, the orange, yellowish, two -- two unit single family attached. And, then, the remainder -- or I'm sorry. The blue would be a -- a single family home and, then, the green is a carriage home style with alley load. So, with garage in the back. And the townhomes also have a -- have an alley -- alley load. So, really nice street appeal -- street frontage. Here is our proposed phasing plan and you can see coming from the south there with phase one and, then, extending through and this also depicts the unit count -- the type of units that would be within each phase and so, you know, notably we would like to go ahead and provide part of that neighborhood park as part of phase one. This is just a graphic that speaks to the -- some of the amenities. Like to include a -- a nice play structure within that -- within that park, as well as a swimming pool. These are some pools that we have -- my office has designed in the past for reference. Sledding hill potential, assuming we get the snow. And, then, here is, you know, just a graphic. think you probably already saw these, but these are the -- what we would like the houses to look like. Single family detached. Townhomes. Four unit townhomes. Carriage home style. And this is more just the traditional single family homes. All these have parking for a two car garage, whether in the front or the back, you know, depending on the unit style, with a driveway in the front, so -- yeah. Four -- four potential parking areas for each unit. Some of the single family lots would potentially also allow three car garages and so you would get a couple more there. We do have a -- a couple of the shared drives, which I know those are always a little bit of a question, but tried to minimize a number of those, just to -- some of those --those corner areas. Southwest, northwest, southeast and, then, on the east side we got a couple there, too, just a few lots to try to accommodate those -- those tough corners. And I will stand for questions. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Grace: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: Excuse me. Jon, could you go back to that last slide where you talked about -- those --just to confirm, those are -- on the east side there, those are driveways that you talked about, those -- they are not streets; right? They are shared driveways? Breckon: Correct. There is a shared driveway -- maybe Joe can point at them. Yeah. Right there. Those would be shared -- shared driveways for two -- I guess three lots for Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 31 of 39 each one and that's similar. Yeah. We -- we have got one, two, three on that east side and there is two on the west side as well it looks like, so -- Grace: Right. And there is adequate parking and, you know, room for emergency services and those kinds of things in there? Breckon: Correct. Yes. Those are --those meet all the development standards and they are 20 feet wide, so pretty generous as far as driveway widths go. And, then, in front of each of those homes those are the single family homes in all of those cases, so they would have -- in addition to that drive they would have your stand -- your typical 20 foot depth driveway in front of the -- in front of the garage. Grace: And, then, Madam Chair, another question, but unrelated. Can you just go through the timing again, if you know. And maybe that's a question for staff-- of the urban services that are projected to be coming into the area. Breckon: Well, it's -- it's -- I -- I -- I can share what I talked to Hawkins about. You know, of course, that's subject to change based on demand and so forth, but they -- they were very hopeful that our timing would align for that connection to the north. They were talking about moving -- well, they are -- they are working through the design right now. They shared one of their latest concepts with me and said that they are working -- working through revisions right now in order to move their application forward and are hopeful that they could start breaking ground next fall, which would align with our phase one. Grace: Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant? I have a question. So, by going to traditional neighborhood takes the R-4 zoning out, which allows you to put more than one type of housing in this. That's the reason why you did this; is that correct? Breckon: Madam Chair, yes, and -- and Joe might be able to speak to that a little better than I can. But, yes, that was -- that was the reasoning behind it. Just so we could have more variety on the -- on the housing style. Lorcher: So, in regard to the townhouses, the garages are underneath the unit or has a small alley loaded driveway, is that what you said? Breckon: Yes, Madam Chair, there is an alley load and at the -- at the -- they are alley loaded in the back. So, there is -- there is an alley in the back like you would see in a more historic traditional neighborhood and garages would be in the -- in the back and so -- and maybe I can flip back here. You said -- so, here is -- here is the townhome style. This would be the street view, which has a, you know, front porch and more pedestrian access to it and, then, the -- the cars would be in the back with the alley. Lorcher: And, then, guests would be able to park in front of the house? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 32 of 39 Breckon: Yes. Lorcher: So, there is public parking along the -- Breckon: Yes, they would be able to park on -- on the roadside. Yes. Lorcher: So, in this case for this particular townhouse you have got four units, so each family has two cars, and, then, they each have, you know, two or four guests who bring two or four more cars -- and you have got how many of these buildings along the -- I mean is there enough room for life to happen beyond just living here in this subdivision? Breckon: Madam Chair, yes, I -- I believe there is. I -- you know, we have got on-street parking. Essentially it would serve any guests. It's like my most standard traditional neighborhoods and, you know, I -- I really like this product, because you do have -- you know, your personal parking is accounted in the back. Of course you have got a driveway, as well as your two car garage along with that and, then, on-street parking for guests. You could have -- I guess if you were in the garage you could -- you could have your guests park in the back as well. I mean however that works out. Lorcher: There is room in the alley for public parking? Breckon: There -- there would be a driveway, yes, in front of the garages. Lorcher: Oh. So, each townhouse has a -- not only just the alley load and not just going into a shared garage, but they each have a driveway? Breckon: Driveway, as well as garage, yes. Lorcher: Oh. Okay. Dodson: Madam Chair? To touch on those more, yeah, it's going to be determined based upon the number of bedrooms. But, yeah, these would be treated just like the -- all single family. If there is three bedrooms or more they are going to have to have that driveway and -- whether that's along an alley or not. So, there is -- more than likely they would be at least three bedroom units and they would be the 20 foot wide and 20 foot deep driveway, in addition to the car -- the two car garage. Now, in addition, to answer your question, too -- and when I worked with Matt on this originally, as well as when we worked with Briar Ridge, you know, this parkway design with the detached sidewalk is, again, a lot more of what you see in older neighborhoods and it -- it is a lot more of the pedestrian oriented design. It tends to make pedestrians feel safer. They walk more in these kinds of neighborhoods and, then, when you add the alley loaded, all along those areas you get that on-street parking that's uninhibited by driveways the way that typical front loaded are. So, it does tend to increase the amount of on-street parking in a neighborhood. Lorcher: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 33 of 39 Dodson: And -- and that -- that mostly combined with the pedestrian focus was a major reason why we -- we told the applicant, yeah, we would love for you to do the traditional neighborhood residential, like Briar Ridge to the south, to -- more so for the pedestrian element and the parkways than it was the -- oh, yeah, you also have to have two housing types. They were going to propose that anyway. So, we were like, hey, we can get a win-win here, let you guys have your housing types and we get more of that pedestrian focused development. Lorcher: Got you. Yeah. Without seeing the backside I just kind of imagined a long alleyway with driveway is just coming in and, then, you would just park with -- but you are suggesting that each one's having a driveway, so it's a little bit further back. Okay. Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant before we open public testimony? All right. Thank you. We will see what -- Breckon: Thank you. Lorcher: -- everyone says. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Hall: Madam Chair, we do not online, but we have a Chris McClure. Please come up. Oh. Correct. Doug Connolly. I apologize. Yes. Lorcher: Please state your name and your address for the record, please. Connolly: Yeah. My name is Doug Connolly. 3881 South Basilica Way, Meridian. 83642. Again, my name is Doug Connolly. I'm the lead pastor at Stonehill Church. We -- we currently meet at Mountain View High School where church planned six years ago out of Rock Harbor Church in North Meridian and we currently own around 14 acres on Amity Road, which is northwest to this -- this property or the lower subdivision and, first of all, it's a great subdivision. I would like to live in it. That would be sweet. But we think this would also be a great addition to south Meridian and as someone who lives there about a mile from there I think it would be a great addition. We also want to partner with them as we work with them to -- to have access to the sewer on -- on their property that we would tie into eventually and so we have been talking to Warren Stewart and Laurelei McVey of the city and they have been helpful in guiding us and -- and helping us know what sewer shed we are supposed to be in and so we are -- I just want to say we are all in favor of this subdivision. So, that's it. Thank you. Lorcher: All right. Thank you. Madam Clerk, is there anybody else in Chambers or on Zoom? Hall: No, there is not. Lorcher: Does the applicant want to come back and say anything additionally? Oh, did you want to testify? Oh, I'm sorry. I looked at the clerk and I didn't look at the -- the crowd. Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 34 of 39 Percy: My name is Jim Percy. 1250 Stegerman Court in Meridian Idaho. 83642. I'm the owner of the property and I just -- going to make it brief. I want to thank staff for walking through and helping me after the loss of Matt and also Mr. Breckon for picking up the pieces after the loss of Matt. It's been quite a struggle after him. He -- we have been after this for over a year trying to piece it all together and I just want to thank them for helping me understand a lot of things. Have been patient with my lack of understanding, so -- Lorcher: Very good. Thank you very much. Anybody else in Chambers, as I'm looking around? Did the applicant want to come back up and make any other comments? Breckon: Madam Chair, I just wanted to -- I don't know if I mentioned it before, but we are in agreement with all staff comments and conditions of approval. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Grace: Madam Chair, so moved. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Wheeler: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. One more. Did you get all three? Four? Three? Yearsley: Can you hear me now? Lorcher: Yes. Are you in favor of closing the public hearing? Yearsley: Hello? Lorcher: Commissioner Yearsley? Are you in favor -- Yearsley: Can you hear me now? Lorcher: Yes. Are you in favor of closing the public hearing? Yearsley: Aye. Lorcher: All right. All those -- motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: All right. Any discussion? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 35 of 39 Grace: Madam Chair, I don't know that I have a whole lot of discussion. I did maybe have a question, though, for Joe -- for staff. Is there a -- excuse me. Is there a decision point for the Commission with regard to the two options you laid out on the emergency access or is that for the applicant to determine? Dodson: Commissioner Grace, no, there is not really a condition -- there is not really a decision for you to make, because it's already noted in the condition as Option B, because they need the emergency access. But, again, if timing -- if the public road goes through, then, the condition is null and void, so it doesn't really matter. Grace: Okay. That's all I had. I -- I don't have any really -- Lorcher: Commissioner Wheeler or Commissioner Yearsley, do you have any comments? Wheeler: Madam Chair, this is Commissioner Wheeler. Lorcher: Go ahead. Wheeler: Yeah. My -- I -- I did notice that there is a decel lane allowed I believe off of Highway 69 to enter into the subdivision. Staff, can -- do you know if they are planning to actually do that and actually put in a decel lane? Dodson: Commissioner Wheeler, the applicant is nodding his head yes, but also they -- they will have to coordinate with ITD as well -- one through the -- the study that ITD is doing on the corridor, because they are probably going to be widening the -- the highway eventually; right? And, if not, regardless, that location will have to be determined by ITD. But, yes, they are -- the applicant is required per the ITD conditions of approval and the ACHD even because of the number of trips. So, that -- that will be constructed, yes. Wheeler: Perfect. Okay. I know it's one thing to say, hey, it's permitted. It's another thing to actually have it done. So, I -- that was something that was a -- wanted to make sure that that was done just because of the -- I couldn't see it being not done. And this intersection would not be lighted; is that correct? Is that what I'm understanding? Dodson: Commissioner Wheeler, I -- if the corridor study is approved and adopted and they construct it, I do believe there will be a light, but I'm not entirely sure the timing on that. Typically -- and -- and for the foreseeable future it will not be lighted; correct. Wheeler: Okay. I like the -- the subdivision as a whole and I like the -- the fact that the common area is in the center of it and so just allocate it to a corner. Future road expansions out of it to the -- to the west for future development on it My -- my -- I'm still in support of this project for sure, but my-- my only hesitation on coming in just, you know, two thumbs up is that it is a little bit green coming in here, because like was stated earlier about the urban services, but it's a nice project and -- and as those fill in around it I think you will be fine. I mean the same thing could have been said about Tuscany when it first Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 36 of 39 went in. Pretty green comparatively speaking, but, you know, now it's fine with all the services -- urban services coming in around it. So, yeah, I support this project. Lorcher: Thank you, Commissioner Wheeler. Commissioner Yearsley, do you have any comments? So, I guess my only comments would be -- Joe, I think you said that ACHD had not given its full approval to this project; is that correct? Dodson: Madam Chair, no. They -- they have approved it, but the way that they write their condition is that they will not -- it's kind of weird, but they say that they will not -- they won't sign a -- whatever final plat has the 101 st building permit in there and, then, they also say for the traffic calming could -- prior to final platting they have to submit construction drawings for the roads to ACHD and that's their final approval and at that time that's when they will grant that, as long as they meet their conditions of approval for the traffic calming. Lorcher: And would that be -- happen before or after City Council? Does it have to -- have to happen before? Dodson: After. Lorcher: After. But you can't do anything until they say yea; right? Dodson: The applicant would coordinate with them on -- on what kind of traffic calming. Typically it's bulb outs is -- is the most used and the most appropriate in a lot of these, especially with parkways and detached sidewalks. Lorcher: Right. Dodson: The applicant can revise the plan to show that before City Council. I honestly cannot remember how I wrote my condition. I believe I did say with final plat,just because that's something that we will typically see on these longer streets and ACHD would have to, again, approve those locations as well, because they are the ones who are going to determine how far away from the intersections they should be and et cetera. Lorcher: Well, if Commissioner Seal was here he would say that -- he would disagree with your amenity package only in the sense that with 226 homes -- and I can't even count the number of common lots where you have for the townhomes and one pool, you are setting yourself up for water wars among your -- among your people, because if the renderings of their pool -- of what you showed in your pictures, it's -- it's pretty small compared to the number of residents that are going to be living there at any given time and a couple of weeks ago -- maybe a month ago we had a subdivision called the Oaks and the room was filled with people as they expanded their subdivision and they had the one pool amenity and they were about to go to every other day, like all the even numbers would come on one day and all the odd numbers would come on another day, so, you know, that's entirely up to you if you want to continue with that amenity. I would like to see the amenities -- instead of one big park in the middle, to actually maybe take some Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 37 of 39 of those shared lots and put other things, so that people within the subdivision can kind of enjoy it. Not to say that there is not a pool, but I think when you have that one big green space it's beautiful and it's nice, but I mean I counted -- if there is 226 houses and, then, there is two people who live in each house, that's 458 people and they all decide to go to the pool the same day, you are not going to be able to accommodate them. So, you know, I love having a pool in our neighborhoods, but it also can cause some big challenges, especially for a large 37, 38 square -- or acre subdivision that you are proposing. Grace: Madam Chair, I would echo that comment, because I was -- I was thinking something similar. I come from a subdivision with four pools and quite a -- quite a bit more homes, but still the -- we can barely keep up with the -- with the demand for the pools and so I -- I echo that comment as well. Lorcher: So -- but that's not our decision here tonight. Our decision is to do the preliminary plat and the rezone and the development agreement modification. So, that's something you can work out with City Council. Dodson: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Joe. Dodson: Through the rezone and the plat, you -- Commission does have the power to recommend certain things to the Council for sure. So, if you -- if Commission so sees fit to recommend an additional amenity or a larger -- I don't know how we would quantify the size of the pool, but, you know, additional open space or things like that, that is well within your purview, yes. And those would be taken up with City Council at that point. Lorcher: Didn't you say that they exceeded the open space requirement? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. But still the design is something that the Commission is allowed to recommend -- make recommendations on. Lorcher: I think if it was a single family subdivision entirely where it was all single family houses, it would have a different vibe to it for the open space than it does with the townhouses and the cottage houses and our experience here we have seen that as your phases go forward -- especially towards the end and they don't realize that everything's already been approved, you may find yourself with very angry neighbors or people who want to purchase in your area and I have been on this Commission for a year and a half and we -- we are -- we are seeing it more often as the final phases of subdivisions are coming out, because theyjust moved in a year ago, whereas the preliminary plat approval was done ten years ago and now all of a sudden they are like, well, we want a pool on our side of the neighborhood. Well, why can't we have this on our side of the neighborhood and, meanwhile, everything's already been decided. So, if you really want to create a sense of community and good neighbors --you know, as a Commission overall we are not a huge fan of the shared streets, because your garbage can is on my space Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 38 of 39 and your car is on my space -- you know, that -- it just has proven over the years to be possible contention with neighbors and we, obviously, all want to get along and your amenity space is beautiful, it's huge and it looks lovely in the center, but I'm wondering if it might be thoughtful to actually have little options other places as well, so that not everybody is gathering in the same space at the same time. But that's not -- that's my only comment. Can I have a motion to -- where are we at? And we have closed the public hearing; right? Sorry, I lost my thought. Okay. Can I have a motion for this application? Unless -- Commissioner Yearsley, are you there? Yearsley: I'm here. I had to switch computers, so I'm here now and have no comment. Lorcher: Do you have any comments for this application? Yearsley: No, I don't. Lorcher: Can I have a motion for this application, please? Grace: Madam Chair, it seems to be easiest, because I'm the one here, so I -- I don't mind making the motions. I would move, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2022-0050 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6th, 2022. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Wheeler: Second. Lorcher: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2022-0050. All those in favor? All those not in favor? Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: Can you not hear me? Lorcher: Nope. Yearsley: How about now? Lorcher: Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Aye. Sorry. Lorcher: Okay. Do we -- did everybody say aye? Grace: I believe so. Lorcher: All right. Well, all those said aye, so motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 6,2022 Page 39 of 39 Lorcher: Commissioners, can I have one more motion? Grace: Madam Chair, I move to adjourn. Lorcher: Do we have a second? Wheeler: Second. Lorcher: All right. Those all in favor say aye. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:03 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED Andrew Seal, Chairperson 10-20-2022 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the September 15, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 15,2022 Page 21 of 21 I i Lorcher Locust Grove, ACHD, 2036 to 2040 and McMillan 2031 to 2035. So, you are spot on. Seal: I do have a memory. That's good. Okay. With that anymore discussion or I will take a motion if anybody wants to throw one my way. Lorcher: Commissioner Seal? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go right ahead. Lorcher: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I moved to recommend approval to City Council to File No. H-2022-0043 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 15th, 2022, with no modifications. Grace: I will second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2022-0043, Matador Estates Subdivision, with no modifications. All in favor please say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Thank you very much. And with that I will take one more motion. Lorcher: Commissioner Seal? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go right ahead. Lorcher: Motion that we adjourn. Grace: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor, please, say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:55 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED l ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN 10-6-2022 By Maria Lorcher, Vice Chairman ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Brightstar Overland (H-2022-0061) by Hatch Design Architecture, located at 2940 E. Overland Rd. CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;--- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Care Cacility on 0.59 Acre of Land in the C-G Zoning District for Brightstar Overland,Located at 2940 E.Overland Rd., by Hatch Design Architecture. Case No(s).14-2022-0061 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. September 15,2022 (Findings on October 6,2022) A. Findings of Fact I. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 15,2022, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 15,2022, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 15, 2022, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 15,2022,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law I. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2022-0061 Page 1 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of September 15,2022, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of September 15,2022, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1)two(2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d),if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of September 15,2022 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER Page 2 CASE NO(S).H-2022-0061 { r i I By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 6th day of October ,2022. i COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL, CHAIRMAN VOTED 3 3 COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED j i COMMISSIONER NATE WHEELER VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED i i COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED i COMMISSIONER MANDI STODDARD VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED ArArew Seal, Chairman By Maria Lorcher,Vice Chairman Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 10-6-2022 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2022-0061 Page 4 EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f D A H 0 HEARING September 15,2022 Legend DATE: ff IProjec-t Lucaficr. I TO: Planning&Zoning Commission �U FROAM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 L 1- SUBJECT: H-2022-0061 Brightstar Overland R1 a' LOCATION: 2940 E. Overland Rd.,in the SE 1/4 of �L Section 17,T.3N.,R.1E. � R4 �PA �1 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a residential care facility on 0.59 acre of land in the C-G zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.59-acre Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s- Residential care facility Current Zoning General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Physical Features(waterways, NA hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date 6/6/22 History(previous approvals) AZ-05-019 Dorado Subdivision(DA Inst. 105127512);H- 2016-0131 (11 Addendum to DA—Inst.2017-007434);H- 2022-0044(2nd Addendum to DA—not yet recorded) III. APPLICANT/OWNER INFORMATION A. Applicant: Steve Thiessen,Hatch Design Architecture—200 W. 36t' St., Garden City,ID 83714 B. Owner: Devin Morris,Alturas Capital Partners—500 E. Shore Dr., Ste. 120,Eagle,ID 83616 Page 1 EXHIBIT A C. Representative: Jeff Hatch,Hatch Design Architecture—200 W. 36th St., Garden City, ID 83714 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Commission Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 8/31/2022 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 8/25/2022 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 8/31/2022 Nextdoor posting 8/25/2022 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS Land Use: This property is designated Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3D (pg. 3- 17). This site is part of a much larger mixed-use designated area that contains a wide variety and mix of uses as desired in MU-R designated areas. Although the proposed residential care facility use is considered commercial,it is residential in nature as folks reside there. The proposed use provides a good transition between more intense commercial/retail uses and low-density residential uses to the west and north in Overland Way subdivision. Transportation: There are no collector streets designated on the Master Street Map (MSM) for this site. This project will be accessed from the east through the adjacent property via E. Overland Rd.,a mobility corridor; direct lot access is not proposed or allowed via S. Loder Pl. or E. Overland Rd. This site is in close proximity to the Overland/Eagle Rd. intersection, a major arterial intersection,on the south side of the I-84 off-ramp. Transit services are available to serve this site via Route 42. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(hyps:#www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed residential care facility will contribute to the variety of housing types in the City by offering care for the elderly. Page 2 EXHIBIT A • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities,and other best site design practices." (3.07.01A) The entry of the proposed residential care facility is proposed to face east, away from abutting residential properties. Landscaping is proposed within buffers along the west and north boundaries of the site and a 6-foot tall fence is required for screening along the north boundary. The proposed structures is a single-story, which should be compatible with adjacent residential homes and properties. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed residential care facility should be compatible with existing rural residential uses to the north and with the commercial multi-tenant retail/restaurant uses to the east. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) This site and the residential subdivision to the north (Overland Way) is an enclave surrounded by City annexed land. Development of this site will result in a more efficient provision ofpublic services. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS History: The existing Development Agreement(DA)) [AZ-05-019 Dorado Subdivision—Inst. #105127512; Pt amendment H-2016-0131 (Inst. #2017-007434); and 2"amendment H-2022-0044 (yet to be recorded)] was recently approved by City Council to be amended to include residential care facilities as an allowed use on the site(Lot 1,Block 1,Dorado Subdivision). The amended DA must be signed, approved by City Council and recorded prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the proposed use. Existing Use: The property currently consists of vacant,undeveloped land. Request: A Conditional Use Permit(CUP) is requested for a 7,800 square foot single-story residential care facility on 0.59 acre of land in the C-G zoning district as required by UDC Table 11- 2E-2. The facility will provide care for the elderly and features 12 bedrooms for residents and an office for staff. Dining, entertainment, laundry and storage will be provided on-site for residents. An enclosed courtyard is proposed internally and a covered patio is proposed at the entry. Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11- 4-3-29 Nursing or Residential Care Facilities,as follows: A. General standards. 1. If the use results in more than ten(10)persons occupying a dwelling at anyone time,the applicant or owner shall concurrently apply for a change of occupancy as required by the building code in accord with Title 10 of this Code. 2. The owner and/or operator of the facility shall secure and maintain a license from the Page 3 EXHIBIT A State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, facility standards division. B. Additional standards for uses providing care to children and juveniles under the age of eighteen(18)years: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by a minimum six-foot non-scalable fence to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the building code in accord with title 10 of this Code. 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 or uses adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. C. Additional standards for uses providing care to patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease, dementia or other similar disability that may cause disorientation. A barrier with a minimum height of six(6) feet, along the perimeter of any portion of the site that is accessible to these patients shall be provided. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the building code in accord with title 10 of this Code. Access: Access is proposed from the east via an existing driveway on the adjacent property from E. Overland Rd. A perpetual vehicular cross-access easement is dedicated on the plat for Dorado Subdivision to all lots within the subdivision. Direct lot access via S. Loder Pl. &E. Overland Rd. is prohibited. Parking: The UDC(Table 11-3C-6)requires a minimum of 0.5 off-street parking spaces per bed. Based on 12 beds,a minimum of six(6) spaces are required. A total of eight(8) spaces are proposed, including one (1)ADA space. The UDC(11-3C-6G)requires a minimum of one (1)bicycle parking space to be provided;two(2)are proposed. Therefore,the proposed parking meets and exceeds the minimum standards. Pathways/Sidewalks: A 7-foot wide attached sidewalk exists within the right-of-way along E. Overland Rd. adjacent to this site and was constructed with the road widening project for Overland Rd. The UDC (11-3A-17)requires detached sidewalks along arterial streets but because the sidewalk is in good condition and is attached in all locations along this corridor, Staff does not recommend it's reconstructed as a detached walkway. A minimum 5-foot wide walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk along Overland Rd.to the main building entrance per UDC 11-3A-19B.4a. Landscaping: A 35-foot wide landscaped street buffer was constructed on this site along E. Overland Rd.with development of Dorado Subdivision in accord with UDC standards. The DA (provision#5.1.9)requires an additional 5-feet of landscaping to be added to the existing 20- foot wide buffer owned by the Overland Way HOA along S. Loder Pl. along the west boundary of the site. A 10-foot wide buffer is depicted on the plans encompassed by a 10-foot wide public utility easement. The Applicant should verify if trees are allowed within this easement; if not,they should be removed from the plan. The DA (provision#5.1.3)allows a reduced landscape buffer width from 25-feet to 5-feet along the north boundary of the site to the residential uses to the north provided a 6-foot tall fence is provided along with added landscaping within the buffer as alternative compliance. A 15-foot wide buffer is depicted on the plans along the north boundary. An application for Alternative Compliance to the buffer requirements to residential uses in UDC Table 11-2B-3 should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications in accord with the previous Page 4 EXHIBIT A PUD(CUP-05-031) and Development Agreement(Inst.#105127512) approval. Parking lot landscaping is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C, as proposed. Trash Enclosure: Trash bins are depicted on the plans on the south side of the building.A trash enclosure is depicted on the plans on the adjacent property to the east. If the Applicant plans to utilize this dumpster,permission should be obtained from the adjacent property owner and/or business owners. Otherwise,the Applicant should coordinate with Republic Services on trash pick-up. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structures as shown in Section VIII.C. Building materials consist mainly of stucco with cultured stone veneer accents and vinyl railing with decorative arches and wagon wheel trim with asphalt roof shingles. The proposed elevations are not approved;the final building design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions noted above in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on September 15,2022.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearin& a. In favor: Jeff Hatch b. In opposition:None C. Commenting d. Written testimony: Steve Thiessen e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. None 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 5 EXHIBIT A VIII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(July 2022) "GENERAL NOTES SIZE RECAP R EpCdp ................................ ........... .......... ...................... PRO .......................................................... POSED BUILDING - --- ----------- 1: no RM M; KEYNOTES .... 70 ....................X old W EXISTING BUILDING .................. ........... ...... J-':-7 ......................... ............................................. ................................................... : .. ........... ...... .................................................. ................................................. ..... ................................ .......... .............. ......................... ......... ...... ........................................................................ .................. ................ AWUC=RAM11C)N OVERLAND ROAD (97 R.O.W.) Page 6 EXHIBIT A B. Landscape Plan(dated: June 2022) ts� ,yyg`-pi PlMT 5L1®IAE r.mva��- s�'C6[84El E] A45Ci 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 pDt) o O 8 8 88 -_, Dj , _ •-•-_- .dm _._Y... Y 19i a;ri[f;' Efl a 8 8 o e _ _ ,..,. om, j�1i 1grF. PRDPaSEb BU[Lb]NG 8 El o° IQ D e Ell W s O IE x e". ov CD In r - 3E .14 LPAEAPFLE - u "•,- — i 'C9'- IPFLOINFALL ING 2PEARRtIXvEANG.'.:: -14'F10WEWNG y DVERLAND RDA[) /h PRELIMINARY LANVSCAPE PLAN -- L-l:� 44 is 0 !�SHRUB PLANTING T T � TM 7- TREE PLANTING .. a�}GRDUNDCDVER PL4N-PING r�r+as Page 7 EXHIBIT A C. Building Elevations(dated: July 2022)—NOT APPROVED GENERAL NOTES EXTERIOR FINISH SPECS oaR em�o mi. Sf.l:' Iit ff s i !I� III ;IN {i ----------------- �wESi'COU]R ..,�.m......man..... z M � 4 Y 4 > 0 V M L7 B of � S �OIfIH CVII]R -- ra� Epp 4 NOYIH COLON ___ A-4.1 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of the existing Development Agreement and the conditions contained herein [AZ-05- 019 Dorado Subdivision(DA Inst. 105127512);H-2016-0131 (Dorado 1 st Addendum to DA —Inst. 2017-007434); H-2022-0044(Brightstar Overland 2nd Addendum to DA—not yet recorded)]. 2. The amended Development Agreement associated with H-2022-0044 shall be signed, approved by City Council and recorded prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the proposed use. 3. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide walkway from the perimeter sidewalk along Overland Rd. to the main building entrance as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4a. b. If the 10-foot wide public utility easement along the west boundary of the site prohibits trees,they should be removed from the plan. The Applicant should verify what type of Page 8 EXHIBIT A utilities are within this easement and if trees are allowed. The Applicant stated their locate did not show any utilities within the easement. c. Depict a 6-foot tall fence along the northern property boundary and additional trees within the buffer to residential uses along the northern boundary of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C per the development agreement(provision#5.1.3) as alternative compliance for a reduced buffer width. d. Depict 19-foot wide parking stalls as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-5. e. Depict the common lot owned by the Overland Way HOA along the west boundary in between the right-of-way for S. Loder Pl. and the west boundary of the site. 4. Submit an application for Alternative Compliance to UDC Table 11-2B-3 for a reduced buffer width to the residential use to the north with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with the previous PUD (CUP-05-031) and Development Agreement (Inst. #105127512) approval. 5. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-29 — Nursing or Residential Care Facilities is required. 6. Direct access via E. Overland Rd. and S. Loder Pl. is prohibited. 7. The business hours of operation are restricted to 6:00 am to 11:00 pm in the C-G zoning district per UDC 11-2B-3B. 8. 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. 9. 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 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. The existing 8"water main in Loder Place to be extended to north end of the property boundary. 2. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. General Conditions of Approval 3. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. Page 9 EXHIBIT A 4. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 5. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 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. 6. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 7. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 8. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 9. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 10. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 17. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation Page 10 EXHIBIT A district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 18. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 19. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at hllp://www.meridiancily.org_/public_works.aspx?id=272. 20. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianci.y.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=270757&dbid=0&repo=Me ridianCity D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) httgs://weblink.meridianciU.or /WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=271592&dbid=0&repo=Me ridianCity X. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-513-6) 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. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed residential care facility will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IX of this report. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Page 11 EXHIBIT A The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IX 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. The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 12 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: rd Item #3 – Prairiefire Sub. (H-2022-0053) requires continuance due to a noticing error; Applicant Requests November 3. Item #4 – Creek View Park (H-2022-0022) is withdrawing their application due to some ownership changes within the project. Item #8 – Session’s Parkway (H-2022-0046) – Applicant requests continuance to a hearing date in November in order to th address Staff’s recommended changes to the conceptual development plan. Staff recommends continuing to Nov. 17. Item #5: Slatestone Sub. (H-2022-0039) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning, and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.85 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at 2707 S. Stoddard Road. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR, 3-8 du/ac) Summary of Request: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.04 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district and a preliminary plat consisting of 15 single-family building lots and 4 common lots on 4.85 acres in the requested R-8 zoning district. The subject site is abutted by a public road to the east, Stoddard Road. Abutting to the north and west property lines is an existing R-8 development, Fall Creek Subdivision; to the south is County residential not yet annexed into the City of Meridian. The subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with existing development to the west and north. Proposal for 15 building lots on 4.85 acres of land which constitutes a gross density of 3.09 units per acre. The residential lots are shown to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat and the required landscape street buffers are shown according to the submitted landscape plans. The minimum building lot size proposed throughout the project (excluding the lot for the existing home) is approximately 6,150 square feet which exceeds the 4,000 square foot minimum lot size for the requested R-8 zoning district. Proposed use of detached single-family residential is a permitted use in the requested R-8 zone. Applicant has noted the development is expected to develop in two phases with an intent to keep the existing home and outbuilding and some pasture within phase 2. Phase 1 is proposed with 12 lots and both common driveways and Phase 2 is proposed with the remaining three (3) building lots. Access is proposed via a new local street connection to S. Stoddard Road, an existing collector street along the east property boundary. Access to all proposed homes is shown from this new local street that ends in a cul-de-sac and includes two common drives (one in the southeast corner and one near the northwest corner). Lot 14 common drive does not appear to comply as it creates a sidewalk gap on the public street and does not extend 20 feet past the property line for Lot 16. The Applicant should continue the curb, gutter, and 5-foot sidewalk between Lots 13 & 18 consistent with the curve of the public street and mirror the design of the Lot 8 common drive. Staff also has concerns with the proposed micro-paths and sidewalk connection near the common drive at the southeast corner of the site, Lot 14. According to the submitted plans, the micro-path connects to the common drive and utilizes it as a pedestrian pathway. The City does not desire this type of design for pedestrian and vehicles to share the same surface if it can be avoided. Therefore, Staff is recommending 5-foot wide sidewalk be added to the common drive on either side of the common drive for added pedestrian safety. This recommendation will require the 5 feet to be taken from the adjacent lot to the west (Lot 13) or the lots to the east (lots 16-18). Size of the property is just below the 5 acre minimum that would require 15% qualified open space within the requested R-8 zoning district. Staff does not find it prudent to require a minimum 15% qualified open space when Bear Creek park is a quarter mile to the north off of Stoddard. However, Staff voiced concerns with the originally proposed open space for this development and a desire to create an area where people can congregate and/or kids can play within this development. In response, the Applicant has proposed additional linear open space along a portion of the north boundary with a micro-pathway that essentially creates a pedestrian loop within the subdivision between the two linear open space lots along the north and south boundaries. The Applicant has also included two park benches along the widest portion of the new linear open space between building Lots 3 & 4 when no amenity was proposed previously. Staff finds the latest revision creates more active open space as the walking paths are repeatedly noted as a used amenity/open space within subdivisions. However, much of this area would not qualify as linear open space per the open space code section because it is not at least 20 feet wide and is instead 15 feet or less in some areas. Therefore, Staff recommends all of the proposed linear open space be at least 20 feet wide to comply with open space standards (UDC 11-3G-3) and comply with the intent of open space code. An alternative presented by Staff was to replace one of the lots within the subdivision and add a common open space lot for more active recreation and use. Should Commission or Council prefer a larger common open space lot over the proposed linear open space, Staff recommends a centralized location for the development (i.e. Lot 2, 4, or 10) and an amenity be located within it. Staff prefers this option over the proposed micro-paths but is not specifically recommending it at this time. Written Testimony: None as of morning of 10/6. Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2022-0039, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0039, as presented during the hearing on October 6, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0039 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: AMI Tower at Well 29 (H-2022-0052) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.45 acres of land, zoned R-8, located at 6355 W. Quintale Drive, directly west of Oaks West Sub. No. 1 at the corner of Quintale and McDermott. History: AZ-08-004 (Oakcreek); H-2017-0010 (Rezone); H-2017-0170 (Oaks West Sub.); A-2016-0323 (CZC, DES, & ALT for Well #29 site) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR, 3-8 du/ac) Summary of Request: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a 100-foot lattice designed communication tower for the City of Meridian Water Department on an existing City of Meridian Well site on approximately 0.45 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district, by the City of Meridian. The subject site is currently developed with a City well site building and associated fencing and landscaping Site plan depicts the location of the proposed tower to be on the west side of the existing pumphouse building, in closer proximity to McDermott Road than to the existing residences to the east and north within the Oaks West Subdivision. Therefore, the base of the proposed tower will be screened from view from any nearby residences due to the existing structures on the subject property and the tower will be located approximately 95 feet from the closest residential building lot to the east and approximately 150 feet from the closest residential building lot to the north. The proposed wireless communication facility is listed as an accessory or conditional use in the R-8 zoning district, per UDC Table 11- 2A-2. In addition, all wireless communication facilities are subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-43. The applicant states the steel lattice design is proposed in order to keep costs down for the rate payers as this design is cheaper than slimline/monopole towers. The proposed tower is planned to have a radio antenna used for communication with water meter readers and the existing tower at the City of Meridian Water Department—the Applicant does not anticipate adding any other wireless communication equipment to this tower. In fact, the Applicant has requested, through the CUP process, to waive the requirement to allow additional users to collocate on the subject tower. Since the proposed tower is strictly for a single purpose and not your typical wireless communication facility, Staff is supportive of the request. UDC 11-4-3-43 does not specifically state that a lattice design has a setback but through the applicability section of these standards and the setbacks required for preferred communication tower designs, Staff applies the noted setbacks within this code section: the tower must be set back a distance equal to the height of the tower from adjacent right-of-way and/or an abutting residential lot. The subject 100-foot tower does not meet this setback requirement and therefore must have its proposed location approved through the CUP process. Per the analysis above and in subsequent sections throughout this report, Staff supports the proposed tower location that is approximately 95 feet from the residential property line to the east. Written Testimony: None as of morning of 10/6. Staff Recommendation: Approval because tower complies with all UDC requirements except for those requesting to be waived through this process. 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- 2022-0052, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0052, as presented during the hearing on October 6, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0052 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #7: Allure Subdivision (H-2022-0050) Application(s):  Rezone, Development Agreement Modification (MDA), and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 37.34 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at 5385 S. Meridian Road, directly north of the half-mile mark on the west side of Meridian Road between E. Amity and E. Lake Hazel Road. History: H-2015-0019 (South Meridian Annexation) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR, 3-8 du/ac). Summary of Request: Request to Rezone 39.39 acres of land from the R-4 to the TN-R zoning district; Preliminary Plat consisting of 226 single-family building lots and 36 common lots on 37.34 acres in the requested TN-R district; and Modification to the existing development agreement (Inst. #2016-007091), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the proposed project and plat. Allure Subdivision is proposed with 226 building lots on 37.34 acres which constitutes a gross density of 6.05 du/acre which falls in the middle of the allowable density in the MDR designation on the property and is slightly more than Briar Ridge to the south (5.84 du/acre). In addition, the requested TN-R zoning district requires a minimum net density of 6 du/acre and according to the submitted plat, the net density of Allure is nearly 7.5 du/acre making the subject plat compliant with this standard. Through the pre-planning process, the Applicant and Staff worked together to propose different housing types within this project to both match and diversify the housing types proposed with Briar Ridge to the south. The grid-like street layout and the different housing types also led the Applicant to request the TN-R zoning district as Briar Ridge did. Staff supports this request and the overall proposed layout as it continues the design and transition from the properties further to the south. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However (as noted with Briar Ridge), despite this development meeting a majority of the comprehensive plan policies and being proposed with an insightful and carefully considered site design, Staff does have concern on the timing of development for this project in relation to urban services. Thankfully, the property does abut an area of mixed-use community designated property to the north which is anticipated to contain commercial uses in the future; the proposed site design (stub street and pedestrian facility locations) helps set up appropriate connectivity between this project and the anticipated commercial uses to the north. Access is via a new local street connection to W. Quartz Creek Street, a new collector street along entire south property boundary. Project is proposed to complete W. Quartz Creek (collector street) improvements for shared access to Meridian Road/SH 69; the approved Briar Ridge project to the south is constructing at least half of the proposed Quartz Creek street section with a majority of the required pavement. 3 stub streets are proposed to adjacent underdeveloped properties. Project does not meet secondary access requirements as there is only one way in and out currently available; approved secondary access is required by Meridian Fire. Staff has recommended constructing an emergency access to Meridian Road with phase 1 consistent with the noted “option B” in the Applicant’s exhibit. Staff has not received additional information regarding “option A” but should this occur, the condition of approval would become void as a public street access would be constructed. ACHD is requiring this st secondary public street access prior to signing any plat containing the 101 home because the additional vehicle trips from this development will push the Quartz Creek access to SH 69 over the allowed threshold for a singular collector street access, 3,000 daily vehicle trips. Specifically, Briar Ridge to the south accounts for approximately 2,000 of those allowed trips so Allure is allowed to add an additional 1,000 trips. The remaining roads proposed within this development are local streets that are at least 33 feet wide with 5-foot detached sidewalk and 8-foot parkways creating a beautiful streetscape and identity for the entire project and continuing the traditional neighborhood design that Briar Ridge was approved with to the south. However, a number of the internal local streets will require traffic calming prior to ACHD final approval; Staff has included a condition of approval consistent with this requirement by ACHD. Note that Meridian Road/SH 69 is currently being studied by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) for corridor improvements from Overland Road south to Orchard Avenue in Kuna under the Idaho 69 Corridor. The mid-mile intersection at the southeast corner of the subject project is part of this study and is proposed to be designed with a reduced conflict U-turn (RCUT) intersection that eliminates left turns and thru-traffic from lower-volume roads. Through the TIS, ITD is requiring an additional 12 feet of right-of-way along Meridian Road for the purpose of constructing a future southbound right-turn lane from SH 69 onto W. Quartz Creek Street. Contrary to previous requirements for Briar Ridge to the south, this Applicant is not required to enter into a cost share agreement for intersection improvements to the Amity/SH 69 intersection. Internal Project: There is an existing home and outbuilding on approximately 1 acre along Meridian Road but no other site improvements are known. The historical use for the subject site is agricultural in nature—the property owner intends on continuing to farm the property as the project develops over time. Staff has included a DA provision related to this request. The proposed uses within this project are all residential—detached single-family residential, detached alley-loaded single-family, attached single-family, and alley-loaded townhomes. All uses proposed are permitted residential uses within the requested TN-R zoning district. The project is proposed to be constructed in five (5) phases according to the submitted preliminary plat page 1. The submitted preliminary plat shows a minimum lot size proposed of 2,300 square feet and an overall average lot size of 4,343 square feet; the residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards for the TN-R zoning district. 5-foot wide detached sidewalks and 8-foot parkways are proposed along all internal streets consistent with the requirements for the requested TN-R zoning district. The Applicant is also proposing detached sidewalk on the north side of the collector street along the south boundary as required by code for sidewalks adjacent to collector streets. The proposed sidewalks and parkways meet UDC 11- 3A-17 standards and ACHD standards. In addition to the internal sidewalks, the Applicant is required to construct a segment of 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the Meridian Road frontage, per the Master Pathways Plan. The Applicant is showing this required pathway segment within a landscaped common lot, per code requirements. Allure Subdivision is proposed with a preliminary plat area of approximately 37 acres in the TN-R zoning district requiring a minimum of 15% qualified open space (or 5.6 acres) and a minimum of eight (8) amenity points, per UDC 11-3G-3 & 11-3G-4. The Applicant is continuing a segment of multi-use pathway along the Meridian Road that is approximately ¼ mile long which equates to two (2) amenity points. In addition to the pathway, the Applicant is proposing a swimming pool with changing facilities and restrooms which qualifies for six (6) amenity points and a playground area which qualifies for two (2) amenity points, all within the central open space lot. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing amenities worth a total of 10 amenity points and exceed the minimum requirements of UDC 11- 3G-4. The Applicant’s open space exhibit (Section VII.D) shows 6.96 acres of qualified open space (approximately 18.6%), exceeding the minimum required amount of 5.6 acres. However, some of the areas noted on the exhibit as qualifying do not qualify per UDC 11-3G-3 standards because they are not at least 20 feet in width. Staff does not recommend these areas be revised to add an additional few feet as they are already remnant pieces along end-caps of housing blocks that do not entirely meet the intent of the open space code. Further, the removal of these areas is nominal and will not affect the Applicant’s compliance with the minimum open space requirements. It is important to note the Applicant’s qualified open space calculation does not include any of the parkways within the development which is qualifying open space if the correct number of trees are added to the parkways. Therefore, the actual proposed qualified open space vastly exceeds the minimum amount required by code. Written Testimony: David Palumbo – notes concerns with traffic, school capacity, and lack of planning with multiple projects in South Meridian but not this project specifically. Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2022-0050, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0050, as presented during the hearing on October 6, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0050 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 6, 2022 Item #5: Slatestone Subdivision PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING MAP Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Elevations Item #6: AMI Tower at Well 29 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING MAP Site/Landscape Plans and Elevation Item #7: Allure Subdivision PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING MAP Pre& Landscape Planplat (Phasing) - Elevations W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Slatestone Subdivision (H-2022-0039) by T-0 Engineers, located at 2707 S. Stoddard Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0039 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.04 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family building lots and 4 common lots on 4.85 acres in the requested R-8 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 6, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA 5 c� PROJECT NAME: Slatestone Subdivision (H-2022-0039) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) .. If yes, please -. provide HOA name i AJA7,q e VFa i Gm 03�), 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT C:�*%_ W IDIAN --- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/6/2022 Legend DATE: 117 Project Location ® ® ��� TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ®LrT� FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner - 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0039 o a m Slatestone Subdivision H7TI]� LOCATION: Located at 2707 S. Stoddard Road,in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 24, Township 3N,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.04 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district and a preliminary plat consisting of 15 single-family building lots and 4 common lots on 4.85 acres in the requested R-8 zoning district,by T-O Engineers. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—5.04 acres; PP—4.85 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (MDR, 3-8 du/ac) Existing Land Use(s) County residence which will remain on one of the proposed lots Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type; 19 total lots— 15 residential building lots and 4 bldg./common) common lots Phasing Plan #ofphases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units 15 single-family units Density Gross—3.09 du/ac.;Net—4.31 du/ac. Open Space (acres,total Approximately 0.53 acres of open space proposed [%]/buffer/ ualified) (approximately 10.9% Amenities Two(2)benches are proposed—not a qualifying site amenity. Neighborhood meeting date March 10,2022 Pagel 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 a new local street connection to S. Stoddard Road, an (Arterial/Collectors/State existing collector street along the east property boundary. Access to all Hwy/Local)(Existing and proposed homes is shown from this new local street that ends in a cul-de-sac Proposed) and includes two common drives. Stub No existing stub streets;no stub streets proposed. Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Existing Road Network No, except S. Stoddard,the collector street. Proposed Road The Applicant is required to dedicate additional right-of-way for S. Stoddard Improvements Road to total 35 feet from centerline and construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Capital Improvements Stoddard Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 3-lanes from Victory Road to Plan/Integrated Five Year Overland Road to be designed in 2022 and constructed in a future year. Work Plan The intersection of Stoddard Road is scheduled to receive an enhanced pedestrian crossing to be designed in 2022 and constructed in a future year. Bridge#2085 is scheduled in the IFYWP to be replaced as part of the Stoddard Road widening to be designed in 2022 and constructed in a future year. Victory Road is listed in the IFYWP to be widened to 3-lanes from Linder Road to Meridian Road to be designed in 2026 and constructed in a future year. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 1.1 miles from Fire Station#6. Station • Fire Response Time The project lies wholly inside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#6 reliability is 83%(above the goal of 80%) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths, and turnaround dimensions. Water&Wastewater • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions in Section VIII. Page 2 Inn • - • • • � � INS � • - • • • � lal _- h nn 1 • - • �Iy Ir .n1 R1111 �: -� �I ��� -f k.s'rt�,,.� .■1 ��■ IIIII■ ' ME ME Wno zi�.`� ■■ � its �i.i� Z,- �` iC< ..w ��� �'� a . oil I n < ■N� (((1GICTORY noon■+� . __W n n 11 � �� �� �■1 _. ;;F31►� �:i� . p 1+ ■���U ���III.� mn ��.el • r `"11�rla a I ® =nml H HHHHI�IIIII Hills i■■■■� ■■■■■ ■.I �_ I� ti� '- ,y .� HHHH IIIII . mHIHH■■■n MINI■I will �_■� InlMI ■�. �_■�n Inns. �_ ■r ■ Iri •� ni ��i11r �:�111 • • -• •• - �111 1 I Ir •.mum 1 ..noun ■1 �:■I�nnn► r Rlr .■1 �:■I nnn Z� 17- .■ sa. 1 I a■ s�. ■ �.�. iL FAl�i�����n'� Gib. mm :��IIIIII *+� �' ■�� IIIII �+� �.� •" 011llll■L �+ m■1111 � IIII�IDI■� �ii��n=-HIIIl1�1 _ �.��I ��_��H II.a�nm _ ► �.� I �� u1t�u nun _ r 1�i� !, ion Ina `'r ==4- ., ■AA■IIII �� r■ l� �!��.�R��11 �I�liiiil,lllll�� Hnn:nll��.��■+t ' `��I HHHHIIIIII.� IIIIH■■■Il..11l ■ � �1IIII1 IIIII ■ HHHHIHI■■■n■IIIII �ll11111 nlll .■7,HHHHIHH■nn■■■■.■ IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 7/5/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 6/30/2022 Site Posting 9/22/2022 Nextdoor posting 6/30/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancioy.or /g compplan) Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject 4.9 acres currently contains a large home and what appears to be a horse stable and pasture. The subject site is abutted by a public road to the east, Stoddard Road, where the new local street access is proposed. Abutting to the north and west property lines is an existing R-8 development, Fall Creek Subdivision; to the south is County residential not yet annexed into the City of Meridian. The subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with existing development to the west and north. Due to the existing street along the east boundary and no other existing stub streets to the property, the Applicant is proposing to take access from Stoddard in the approximate location of the existing driveway at the northeast corner of the property. No other access to Stoddard is proposed, consistent with City code. The Applicant is proposing 15 building lots on 4.85 acres of land which constitutes a gross density of 3.09 units per acre, nearly the minimum density allowed within the MDR designation. The Applicant is proposing to reserve the existing home on nearly an acre sized lot and one additional large lot along the west boundary for the existing property owners. The minimum building lot size proposed throughout the rest of this project is approximately 6,150 square feet which exceeds the 4,000 square foot minimum lot size for the requested R-8 zoning district. The adjacent developments are of similar density but have building lots that are larger in size directly abutting the site than what are proposed with this project, however, no more than 2 building lots are proposed adjacent to any single existing lot along the north boundary. The same is true of the County parcels to the south that directly abut the Ridenbaugh Canal on their south boundary; the existing home lot and the proposed common lot along the south boundary should offer an adequate buffer to the existing residences to the south. Because the proposed development is consistent with the existing development to the west and north and no access to an arterial street is proposed,Staff believes annexing this land into the City is in the best interest of the City and is a logical expansion of City zoning and development so long as the Applicant adheres to Staff s recommended DA provisions and conditions of approval. However,the size of the property is just below the 5 acre minimum that would require 15% qualified open space within the requested R-8 zoning district. Staff does not find it prudent to require a minimum 15% qualified open space when Bear Creek park is a quarter mile to the north off of Stoddard.However,Staff voiced concerns with the originally proposed open space Page 4 for this development and a desire to create an area where people can congregate and/or kids can play within this development.In response, the Applicant has proposed additional linear open space along a portion of the north boundary with a micro pathway that essentially creates a pedestrian loop within the subdivision between the two linear open space lots along the north and south boundaries. The Applicant has also included two park benches along the widest portion of the new linear open space between building Lots 3& 4 when no amenity was proposed previously. Staff finds the latest revision creates more active open space as the walking paths are repeatedly noted as a used amenity/open space within subdivisions. However, much of this area would not qualify as linear open space per the open space code section because it is not at least 20 feet wide and is instead 1 S feet or less in some areas. Therefore,Staff recommends all of the proposed linear open space be at least 20 feet wide to comply with open space standards(UDC 11-3G-3)and comply with the intent of open space code. An alternative presented by Staff was to replace one of the lots within the subdivision and add a common open space lot for more active recreation and use. Should Commission or Council prefer a larger common open space lot over the proposed linear open space,Staff recommends a centralized location for the development(Le.Lot 2, 4, or 10) and an amenity be located within it. Staff prefers this option over the proposed micro paths but is not specifically recommending it at this time. With Staffs recommended revision,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 DA that encompasses the land proposed to be annexed and zoned with the provisions included in Section VIII.AL The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the rezone and annexation approval.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /�compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with 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 current property owner of the subject site intends to remain in their home while also reserving an additional lot or two for future use for their children. Staff finds this forethought and the subsequent design to develop their remaining acreage with approximate 6-8,000 square foot building lots allows for a variety of housing options based on the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of the existing resident and future residents. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the utilities being available in Stoddard Road.Applicant is required to dedicate additional right-of-way for future Stoddard Road improvements (upgraded from two to three lanes in the future). The newest Fire Station (station#6) is approximately I mile away and so the project is wholly within the response time goal of the City. West Ada School District has not sent a letter regarding this application but with a relative low number of homes (1 S) a large number of school aged children is not anticipated to be generated by this development. In Page 5 addition, Victory Middle School is within walking distance of the subject site so any children in that age group would be able to get to school safely and efficiently. Staff finds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create appropriate conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project. "With new subdivision plats,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."(2.02.01A). The proposed project will construct detached sidewalk along Stoddard Road and extend needed sidewalk along the west side of this street for safer access to Victory Middle School, approximately 1/mile to the north. Further, the Applicant has proposed a looping micro pathway network for the project that easily connects to the required sidewalk along Stoddard adding to the overall pedestrian connectivity and access to the nearby school and park. "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 the subject project with density at the low end of the allowed density(approximately 3.1 units/acre), similar to the density within the adjacent subdivision to the west and north. Further, the Applicant is proposing a I acre lot in the southwest corner for the existing home and linear open space common lots between the subject site and the existing County residential properties to the south and a few of the properties to the north along the north boundary. "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 proposing to construct a new local street within the development that has sole access to the adjacent collector street, Stoddard Road. The Applicant is not proposing to stub a street to the south boundary as both ACHD and the Applicant believe the redevelopment potential of the two lots to the south is minimal due to their existing shapes and the existence of the Ridenbaugh Canal and Stoddard abutting two of their three sides. Therefore, Staff does not find it necessary to provide a stub street to the south and finds the proposed street layout is sufficient in its design for the proposed plat. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: According to GIS imagery,there is an existing home that is to remain at the southwest corner of the property and an outbuilding that appears to be a horse stable and pasture;these structures and pasture are proposed to remain as part of Phase 2 for the project,per the submitted phasing plan (see below). Furthermore,the existing access for this site is via a driveway connection to W. Stoddard Road that will be converted to a public street. Staff has included a DA provision that the existing outbuilding/stable must be removed upon phase 2 development, consistent with accessory and primary structure restrictions. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family residential with a minimum lot size of approximately 6,000 square feet,based on the submitted plat(Exhibit VILB). This use is a permitted use in the requested R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2 and all lots are shown to meet the minimum lot size requirement of 4,000 square feet and the minimum street frontage requirement of 40 feet. In fact,the majority of lots within the subdivision are proposed with at least 60 feet of frontage,more consistent with the R-4 district.The Applicant has noted the development is expected to develop in two phases with an intent to keep the existing home and outbuilding and Page 6 some pasture within phase 2. Phase 1 is proposed with 12 lots and both common driveways and Phase 2 is proposed with the remaining three (3)building lots. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The residential lots are shown 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 Applicant is proposing two (2) common drives within the project; one in the southeast corner of the project for access to Lots 16& 17 and an additional common drive near the northwest corner for access to four lots (Lots 5-7 and Lot 9). Lot 8 common drive appears to comply with all standards outlined in UDC 11-6C-3D. However, the construction of the Lot 14 common drive does not appear to comply as it creates a sidewalk gap on the public street and does not extend 20 feet past the property line for Lot 16. ACHD does not call this out in their staff report but Staff finds that Lot 14 should match Lot 8 in its design and not be a part of the public road network as depicted on the submitted plans. The Applicant should continue the curb, gutter, and 5-foot sidewalk between Lots 13& 18 consistent with the curve of the public street and mirror the design of the Lot 8 common drive. In addition, the Applicant should extend the common drive 6 feet further to the south to ensure at least 20 feet of frontage for Lot 16. The Applicant should make these revisions with the first final plat submittal. 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. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural designs of the modern style home with shed roof designs as well as dormers.In addition, all homes are shown with 3-car garages (some RV garage bays) and a variety of window designs. The field materials shown appear to be of high quality siding and stucco with stone accents and varying garage door materials. Overall, Stafffinds the submitted elevations to show high quality and attractive single- family homes. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via a new local street(shown as W. Scoria Court)connection to S. Stoddard Road approximately 345 feet north of the Grizzly Drive on the east side Stoddard Road. There are no existing stub streets adjacent to the site and Stoddard runs along the entire east boundary which is why the Applicant is proposing an access point to this collector street and proposing W. Scoria to end as a cul-de-sac within the site, as shown on the submitted preliminary plat. Further, according to the proposed plat,W. Scoria is proposed as 33-foot wide local street with 5-foot attached sidewalks and Stoddard is shown to be improved with curb, gutter,and detached sidewalk outside of the additional right-of-way dedication required with this development. The proposed street design complies with all UDC standards and ACHD conditions of approval, according to the ACHD staff report. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for 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.Note that there is opportunity for on-street parking where there are no driveways because W. Scoria is proposed as a 33-foot wide street section. Page 7 I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along the new proposed local street.W. Scoria and 5-foot detached sidewalks along the west side of S. Stoddard Road, consistent with UDC and ACHD requirements. The proposed sidewalk dimensions also meet UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards. However,the Stoddard frontage is shown as an alternative multi-use pathway segment and the Parks Department has requested that 10-foot sidewalk be added along Stoddard in lieu of the 5-foot sidewalk currently shown. Consistent with the Master Pathways Plan, Staff is recommending this revision. According to the submitted plat and landscape plan, the proposed detached sidewalk along Stoddard is shown within ACHD right-of-way but at least 6 feet from the new curbing and added pavement proposed with this project, consistent with the UDC. With the requirement of the multi- use pathway along Stoddard, the Applicant may be required to submit a public access easement; the Applicant should continue working with ACHD to determine who will maintain the pathway based on its location within the ROW. Staff does have concerns with the proposed micro paths and sidewalk connection near the common drive at the southeast corner of the site, Lot 14.According to the submitted plans, the micro path connects to the common drive and utilizes it as a pedestrian pathway. The City does not desire this type of design for pedestrian and vehicles to share the same surface if it can be avoided. Therefore, Staff is recommending 5-foot wide sidewalk be added to the common drive on either side of the common drive for added pedestrian safety. This recommendation will require the 5 feet to be taken from the adjacent lot to the west(Lot 13) or the lots to the east(lots 16-18). J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Stoddard Road, a collector street,landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C. All landscape areas should be landscaped per UDC 11- 3B-5, general landscaping standards. Lastly, according to the submitted plans,the Applicant is proposing micro-paths which should be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-12 standards. The Applicant is showing a common lot along S. Stoddard that is at least 20 feet in width and located wholly outside of the additional right-of-way dedication required by ACHD consistent with code requirements. The Stoddard landscape buffer is depicted with 9 trees, sod, and landscape beds with shrubs, consistent with UDC 11-3B-7. The Applicant is also showing landscape beds on both sides of the new local street connection to Stoddard with two trees on the south side of this entrance adjacent Lot 19. All street landscaping complies with UDC requirements. As discussed, the Applicant has proposed linear open space and micro paths around and through the development. These areas should be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-12 with trees at least every 100 linear feet and include other vegetative ground cover. According to the submitted landscape plans, the Applicant is proposing trees in excess of code requirements with landscape beds, shrubs, and sod throughout. Stafffinds the proposed landscaping meets or exceeds code requirements. Staff notes that with the recommended revisions to widen some areas to at least 20 feet in width, additional trees and vegetative ground cover should also be added to remain compliant with UDC 11-3B-12 OR lose one of the aforementioned buildable lots in order to provide more usable open space for the development. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Page 8 According to the revised landscape plans, the Applicant is proposing to keep the existing 6-foot vinyl privacy fencing along the perimeter of the property compliant with code. The Applicant is also showing 6-foot vinyl privacy fencing along the sides and rear boundaries of the building lots adjacent to the proposed micro paths. This fencing is not code compliant as these linear open space areas are set behind building lots and are not visible from end-to-end. Therefore, the Applicant should revise the landscape plans to depict open vision fencing or semi private open vision fencing consistent with UDC 11-3A-7 adjacent to Lots 2, 3, 10-13, & 16. L. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): The Applicant is proposing and is required to extend necessary public utilities for the proposed detached single-family dwellings within the Slatestone Subdivision. Public Works has reviewed the subject applications for compliance with their standards and finds them to be in general compliance except for specific conditions outlined in Section VIII.B of this report. Staff notes that the Applicant is proposing to place sewer within a common lot and the common drive at the southeast corner of the property. Because the Applicant is placing a sewer main within a common lot, it must have a drivable surface over top for City access. This is shown on the submitted plans but also depicts a hammerhead type turnaround that is not required by the City. Because it is not required, Staff recommends removing the western piece of this turnaround to square up the southeast corner of Lot 13 and provide more area that can be landscaped behind Lot 13 up to the required 20 foot wide sewer main easement. M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): According to satellite imagery,the subject site contains an irrigation ditch along the southern boundary. The submitted plat depicts this irrigation ditch but does not show it on the subject property. In accord with UDC 11-3A-6B.3, if the irrigation ditch is on the subject property,the Applicant is required to pipe the ditch. Prior to the Commission hearing, the Applicant should verify the location of the irrigation ditch and if said ditch is proven to be on the subject property, the Applicant should revise any relevant plans to depict this ditch as being piped prior to the City Council hearing, in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the conditions of approval in Section VIII of this report 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 9 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map 01 T O ENGINEERS Project No:210791 Date:May 26,2022 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the NE1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 24,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at an aluminum cap monument marking the South 1/4 corner of said Section 24, from which an aluminum cap monument marking the West 1/16 Corner between Sections 24 and 25 bears N.89120'37"W.,a distance of 1320.23 feet;thence,along the east boundary of said SW114, A) N.0005127E.,1326.49 feet to the Center South 1/16 Corner of said Section 24 and the POINT OF BEGINNING;thence, 1) N.89°22'47"W.,661.06 feet;thence, 2) N.00048'06"E.,331.46 feet;thence, 3) S.89-25'29"E.,661.35 feet to the east boundary of said SW1/4;thence along said boundary, 4) S.00°51'03"W.,331.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING:5.035 acres,more or less. Lg 13765 sr'6/Z,124, OF I'D 90 0 MA+4 1 332 N.Broadmore way i Nampa.ID 83687 1 P:208.442.6300 1 to-engineers.com Page 10 G EXHIBIT SKETCH -CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXATION LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE114 OF THE SW 114,SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 WEST,BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO 2022 CP&F INST. NO. 110049426 12 Ed C114 COR 4 SEC 24 0' 100, 200' 400' a � G SCALE:1"-200' a U �W M 0 o � r O O S89'25'29"E 661.35' Z 0 NOTES e o 1. ALL BEARINGS SHOWN ARE IDAHO co V' STATE PLANE WEST ZONE (1103) 1 p1 0 GRID BEARINGS. ALL DISTANCES nt 51224314800 M� ARE GROUND DISTANCES IN US w 2707 S.STODDARD RD 00 SURVEY FEET. o MERIDIAN,ID iq � to 1 5.035 Ac. O o- I m Z n CS1/16 EH 6 �N89'22'47"W 661.0V _ "COR POINT OF BEGINNING w 13 6 '" OF r zG�ZZra N1 SOB 0'M A1 U Y 0 `� f7 w Z z w W 1116 24 BEARINGS N89 20'37'1 320.23' 24 1/4 COR 25 VICTORY ROAD 25 COR CP&F INST. NO. CP&F INST. N0. 2019- 2019-115455 z LEGEND -- ANNEXATION BOUNDARY i --- SECTION LINE 0 FOUND BRASS CAP MON. � FOUND ALUMINUM CAP MON, T-O ENGINEERS 4 0 FOUND 5/8" REBAR 332 N.BROADMORE WAY NAMPA, IDAHO 83687 o CALCULATED POINT PHONE:(208)442-6300 WWW.TO.ENGINEERS.COM O EALE 21G791•V-M4Jff wAnnaWm4n DATE'!5=2 JCR 21C791 Page 11 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 9/21/2022) HAAOO NOISVV49nS 3NOlS3i` IS '�w '"•"""",g°"•"•"`3 o=i'� Q60d laid A16VNINFE3 dd a PL ra f E I I s 4 a _; ?� 5.M E BB s ° _ f yea 8 3 :IN -- as aavoaois s , —T � I CD LL> - a H O 5y — �W — a y - e' �y I � I —181—A,AlaiSEl-314l dO%DIESIMAdN3u OIJII23dS—IIM-405 Ell EDw3w,—Ni91-,°I IGORACAg aNO—a°dd M MAEJNUNA01ADAia_OlAli81 _ry�s 1ElliSa33M1°NA01E g Page 12 SEWER AND WATER NOTES 77' LOCAL RDAD M TYPICAL SECTION ' �........... ROAD TYPICAL . .......... '2 sLCCR I I�T z 0 2 LU w z T I a co LLJ Cf) �C2 0 Page 13 C. Landscape Plans(date: 9/22/2022) NVId ONIUNVId NOISIMiens DINOiSEUVIS 75 OJ SNV]d JdVOSCINVI 1V1d),H'eN11NF.Jdd CIVOdCIHVCICIC)4. ijl u, I—T— Y zn -Z T 17. :L I,j T o.1 -L,- I I 'T I-IoL Lo I 91—NIDN—ONOM—d N—JIjIJ3d6lIbNllM 61N31NOJSll tlO1tt3NfItLLSNI siwjow1tlOIi—w35n3H'NO1JlIWYd3d—8-1—---d—A LNE—NI SUEENION—IMt Page 14 MICRO PATHWAY ENTRY MONUMENT I' a I Ir-- II I J2 k �•I _� of � �� N 4_,�j~ eui�oiNc TO REMAIN W. R d 1 SCORIA1 CT � / a a� g o �� / l --� — _ EXISTINGBUILDI No • �1 ` --zrc ` \� ` TO REMAIN h MICRO .--._ z�. �� I� T Ml is PATHWAY II Macao PamwAv hi PLANTING PLAN Page 15 D. Phasing Plan: HOTES 6 COMMON 1 Pf1tig�2 -h�W.9CORLA CF. } O i 7 1 LLI € W g —� a W Page 16 Zmmi 4. -M �I Ai J �t m-j low_ — TTT E � a i eti y., .r^aa� Yb"' 1 Y k Pc tis Page +� � __ — __. ,x •-.:. -- a - — , _, e—�. —� - � � ':. �w> � � e I �� _, ;.� �: - — a�- . - ����� f 'r ��µ_ M r.� T��y, -- -- � "'!"��v f' ��»W}y���ifs y,y„y, ;i. �Z� ���PAY k"sy s� �e���A. _ �;s, �� i ,.h Y R a� - v -- �B� ,,; _ _ .. i A - � �' ,. •. __. .. ; . �, : � .�: ., ._ • I Page 20 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.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the Annexation and Zoning ordinance is approved by City Council. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan,phasing plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The existing outbuilding/stable shall be removed upon phase 2 development,consistent with accessory and primary structure restrictions and the approved phasing plan. c. The existing home shall connect to City water and sewer services with the first phase of development. d. The rear and/or sides of homes visible from S. Stoddard Road(Lots 16-19) shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies, material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street.Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated September 21,2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Show all linear open space to be at least 20 feet wide consistent with UDC 11-3G-3 standards or lose one of the buildable lots in lieu of a larger and centralized open space lot with a commensurate amenity that is code compliant. b. Direct lot access to S. Stoddard Road is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. c. Correct the plat to show curb, gutter, and 5-foot attached sidewalk between Lots 13 & 18 consistent with the curve of the public street d. Show the common drive on Lot 14 to be six(6)feet further to the south to ensure at least 20 feet of frontage for Lot 16. e. Add a 5-foot wide sidewalk to either side of the Lot 14 common drive to connect it to the local street sidewalk and proposed micro-path in Lot 15 common lot. f. Remove the western piece of the turnaround up to the required 20-foot wide sewer main easement shown in Lot 15 to square up the southeast corner of Lot 13 and provide more area that can be landscaped behind Lot 13. Page 21 g. Depict the required 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along S. Stoddard Road and place it at least four(4)feet outside of the ultimate curb and gutter location to allow for landscaping on both sides of the pathway. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for Phase 1,a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded for the multi-use pathway as required by the Park's Department,unless ACHD requires ones. h. Existing home will get a new address upon development of the first phase of this project consistent with the development of the new local street access. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated September 22,2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Show all linear open space to be at least 20 feet wide consistent with UDC 11-3G-3 standards or lose one of the buildable lots in lieu of a larger and centralized open space lot with a commensurate amenity that is code compliant. b. Make the necessary revisions to the landscape plans to match the plat revisions noted above in VIII.A2. c. Add additional trees along micro-path north of Lots 2&3 to remain consistent with UDC 11-3B-12 following the widening of this area to 20 feet. d. Depict open vision fencing or semi-private open vision fencing consistent with UDC 1I- 3A-7 adjacent to Lots 2, 3, 10-13, & 16 (refer to Figure 1 in UDC 11-3A-7 for depictions of fencing types). 4. Prior to the Commission hearing,the Applicant shall verify the location of the irrigation ditch along the south boundary to determine if it is on the subject property; if said ditch is proven to be on the subject property,the Applicant should revise any relevant plans to depict this ditch as being piped prior to the City Council hearing in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 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. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application for the lots accessed by common driveways (Lots 5-7, 9, & 16-18)that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D. Driveways for abutting properties that are not taking access from the common driveway(s) shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. 10. 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. Page 22 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 11-613-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. Install two mainline valves on the tee at the connection to Stoddard Rd. 2. Ensure that any water main is 10'from the edge of right of way. 3. A streetlight plan will be required for the subdivision as well as(2) streetlights along S. Stoddard Rd. 4. Applicant to ensure proper separation between water and sewer mains. 5. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 6. Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls, fences, infiltration trenches, light poles, etc.)are built within the utility easement 7. The geotechnical investigative report prepared by Geo Tek, Inc. indicates specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 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. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. 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. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313-14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing, landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. 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 Page 23 be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 7. 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, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing 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. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non- health improvements,prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 9. 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. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-413. 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 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. 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 proj ect. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting(http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval,which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. Page 24 19. 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 signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. 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. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C.1). 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 development plan approval. 24. 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 I I-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=265657&dbid=0&redo=MeridianC ky D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=266783&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv E. PARKS DEPARTMENT—MERIDIAN PATHWAYS https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=265658&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv F. NAMPA/MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=267285&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv Page 25 G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=267181&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity 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 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. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. 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; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) Page 26 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section 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. 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 27 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Location:Subject PropertyVictory Middle SchoolBear Creek ParkLowe’s Home Walmart Fun ZoneFamily WahoozSprings Roaring Project Area:Project Description:3.09 Lots Per AC. Residential Gross Density: Sq ft.9,583Average Lot Size:6,098 Sq ft.Minimum Lot Size:Space0.61 AC. or 12.6% Open 2Common Lots: 2Sharded Driveways: 2 Existing Structures: 15Lots: Residential8-R4.85 AC. Phasing Plan:Phase 2Phase 1 Comprehensive Plan: •Comprehensive Plan: character and sustainability.quality development that reinforces neighborhood -Support beautiful and high•areas.bicycle access to services like healthcare, daycare, grocery stores, and recreational Plan for and encourage neighborhoods that provide reasonable pedestrian and •Foster a walkable and bikeable community through good site and street design.•being of the community-Encourage the safety, health, and well Victory to Overland Anticipated construction to be after 2023•Bike lanes••3 lanes • SouthSubject Property Subject Property 5ft Pathway5ft Pathway5ft Pathway5ft PathwayStoddard Rd.NorthStoddard Rd. Landscape Plan: 1 Fencing:432 •the overall look and feel of the neighborhood. Enhances•Increase in economic activity for local business owners.•Encourage and promotes safe bicycling and walking.•Match and complement surrounding developments. •Provide quality housing for the City of Meridian.•Increased connectivity. Irrigation V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for AMI Tower at Well 29 (H-2022-0052) by City of Meridian, located at 6355 W. Quintale Dr., directly west of Oaks West Subdivision No. 1 Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0052 A.Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 100-foot lattice designed communication tower for the City of Meridian Water Department on an existing City of Meridian Well site on approximately 0.45 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 6, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 j PROJECT NAME: AMI Tower at Well 29 (H-2022-0052) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please j provide HOA name A h 2 3d5 o 5 . 6Ji—jPL-�, IfLb 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT C:�*%- W IDIAN --- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/6/2022 Legend DATE: 0 Project Location Y, TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 -- SUBJECT: H-2022-0052 ® ER AMI Tower at Well 29 LOCATION: 6355 W. Quintale Drive,directly west of Oaks West Subdivision No. 1 in the NW ' 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 4N, Range 1 W. _ - - ------ -- ------ T I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a 100-foot lattice designed communication tower for the City of Meridian Water Department on an existing City of Meridian Well site on approximately 0.45 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district,by the City of Meridian. II. PROJECT SUMMARY Description Details Page Acreage 0.45 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR) Existing Land Use City well site(Well#29) Proposed Land Use(s) Wireless communication facility(100' tall self- supporting steel tower for radio communication) Current Zoning R-8 Neighborhood meeting date June 14,2022 History(previous approvals) AZ-08-004(Oakcreek); H-2017-0010(Rezone); H-2017- 0170(Oaks West Sub.); A-2016-0323 (CZC,DES,& ALT for Well#29 site). Pagel III. PROJECT AREA MAPS Future Land Use Map Aerial Map — Legend Q W Legend � Project Location Project Location 4t W DAPH11:I1 DR DR _ All I Z W RIVA — -W,MCMI L LA - w pr FLU �► r -Cr W QUINrA�E DR, c co Go (1 I L � w '44 Nq DR _ G W v V L4ZY `�� �' r; _�E 1pM' - M N ¢z��R Medium?D�ensilIirry�� L I z Civic U_ esidentraV Zoning Map Planned Development Map t Legend R- 0 Legend Project Location W DAPHN� Project Location R-75. DR City Limits F- z W RiVA Planned Parcels - ' CMIL`L9A -- - - - - ---� - `i`�. ,W�MCMI LL-q RR C A !Nr DR LL .RUT O ' 44 O '.I R-8� Wl'I W�J 4 AN R 4 C u u y _RUT z z [—R-4 _ � — f III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jared Hale, City of Meridian—33 E. Broadway Avenue,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owners: City of Meridian—33 E. Broadway Avenue,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 2 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 9/21/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 1000 feet 9/15/2022 Nextdoor posting 9/15/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted on property 9/27/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Existing Structure(s)/Site Improvements: The subject 0.45 acre site is currently developed with a City well site building with associated fencing and landscaping. Proposed tower would not require additional structures or site improvements as all of these improvements have already been constructed with previous development of the well site. B. Site Plan: A site plan was submitted with this application that depicts the location of the proposed tower to be on the west side of the existing pumphouse building, in closer proximity to McDermott Road than to the existing residences to the east and north within the Oaks West Subdivision. According to the submitted plans,there is no ground mounted equipment being proposed with this application; should ground mounted equipment be proposed,it is required to be screened per the specific use standards (see V.D below for more analysis). Therefore,the base of the proposed tower will be screened from view from any nearby residences due to the existing structures on the subject property and the tower will be located approximately 95 feet from the closest residential building lot to the east and approximately 150 feet from the closest residential building lot to the north. In addition,the Applicant's narrative specifically states that final tower design and location will be coordinated with the adjacent subdivision HOA. Staff supports working with the adjacent HOA but some level of design and location is required for approval with the subject Conditional Use Permit(CUP)request. C. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed wireless communication facility is listed as an accessory or conditional use in the R-8 zoning district,per UDC Table 11-2A-2. In addition, all wireless communication facilities are subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-43: Wireless Communication Facility (see below analysis). Code encourages slimline or monopole construction but with conditional use permit approval,the tower may be of alternative design(i.e.the proposed tower design of steel lattice). The applicant states the steel lattice design is proposed in order to keep costs down for the rate payers as this design is cheaper than slimline/monopole towers. The proposed tower is planned to have a radio antenna used for communication with water meter readers and the existing tower at the City of Meridian Water Department—the Applicant does not anticipate adding any other wireless communication equipment to this tower.In fact,the Applicant has requested,through the CUP process,to waive the requirement to allow additional users to collocate on the subject tower. Since the proposed Page 3 tower is strictly for a single purpose and not your typical wireless communication facility, Staff is supportive of the request. D. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-43): (Staff's comments in italics) Process(11-4-3-43C): 1. All proposed communication towers shall be designed(structurally and electrically)to accommodate the applicant's antennas as well as collocation for at least one additional user. The proposed tower will accommodate additional users but the Applicant is requesting this requirement be waived through the CUP process. 2. A proposal for a new commercial communication tower shall not be approved unless the decision making body finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved structure and/or tower.Proposed tower is not for commercial use and submitted propagation charts show the need for this tower to increase the coverage area for water meter readers. 3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate the proposed tower or antenna cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or structure. One or more of the following documentation shall be provided as proof that the new tower is necessary: a. Unwillingness of other tower or facility owners to entertain shared use. b. The proposed collocation of an existing tower or facility would be in violation of any state or federal law. c. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of existing towers,as documented by a qualified and licensed structural engineer. d. The planned equipment would cause interference,materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment on the tower as documented by a qualified and licensed engineer. e. Existing or approved towers cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified radio frequency engineer. The Applicant has stated there are no existing communication towers in the area to collocate on. Staff confirms this is accurate. Required Documentation: 1. For all wireless communication facilities, a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his,her or its successors to allow the shared use of the tower,as required by this section,if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use.As noted, the Applicant is requesting to waive this requirement so this document was not submitted. 2. Propagation charts showing existing and proposed transmission coverage at the subject site and within an area large enough to provide an understanding of why the facility needs to be in the chosen location.Propagation maps were submitted and demonstrate the need for the subject facility to locate in this area. 3. A statement regarding compliance with regulations administered and enforced by the federal communications commission(FCC)and/or the federal aviation administration(FAA).A statement was submitted with this application as required and is included in the project folder. Page 4 Design Standards(11-4-3-43E). All new communication towers shall meet the following minimum design standards: 1. All towers shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the surrounding buildings and land uses in the zoning district,or otherwise integrated to blend in with existing characteristics of the site.Staff believes the existing landscape buffers on the property(to the north and west), the existence of the pumphouse, and its general location and design make it architecturally compatible with the adjacent development. 2. The facility shall be painted a neutral,non-reflective color that will blend with the surrounding landscape. Recommended shades are gray,beige, sand,taupe,or light brown.All metal shall be corrosive resistant or treated to prevent corrosion. The proposed tower will be neutral in color and all metal but hot-dipped galvanized steel to prevent corrosion. This will be verified with the CZC submittal. 3. All new communication tower facilities shall be of stealth or monopole design,unless the decision making body determines that an alternative design would be appropriate because of location or necessity.Part of the subject CUP request is for the proposed wireless facility to be of a steel lattice design rather than a stealth monopole design due to cost reasons, as noted by the Applicant's narrative. 4. No part of any antenna,disk, array or other such item attached to a communications tower shall be permitted to overhang any part of the right of way or property line.No part of any antenna, disk, array or other equipment attached to the communications tower is proposed to overhang any part of the property line. 5. The facility shall not be allowed within any required street landscape buffer. The facility is proposed outside of any required street buffers. 6. All new communication tower facility structures require administrative design review approval,in addition to any other necessary permits. Structures contained within an underground vault are exempt from this standard. The Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)application for approval of the facility prior to application for a building permit. Stafffinds administrative design review (DES) is not necessary nor applicable for only a lattice communication tower because there are no design standards specific to tower design. 7. Any equipment at ground level shall be screened by a sight obscuring fence or structure. According to the submitted plans, no ground level equipment is shown—should any be proposed, it must be screened with a new fencing material as the perimeter fencing is wrought iron fencing that does not screen the base of the tower. 8. All tower facilities shall include a landscape buffer. The buffer shall consist of a landscape strip of at least five feet(5)wide outside the perimeter of the compound. A minimum of fifty percent(50%) of the plant material shall be of an evergreen variety. In locations where the visual impact of the tower is minimal,the applicant may request a reduction to these standards through the alternative compliance process in accord with chapter 5, "Administration", of this title. There are existing landscape buffers to the north (20 feet wide) and west(35 feet wide) of the proposed tower location exceeding this code requirement. Further, according to street view imagery and the submitted landscape plan, it appears at least half of the plant material in the existing buffers is of an evergreen variety. These buffers are owned and maintained by the Oaks HOA and not the City so if any additional landscaping is deemed necessary, the City will have to coordinate with the HOA in order install additional landscaping. Page 5 9. All climbing pegs within the bottom twenty feet(20')of the tower shall be removed except when the tower is being serviced. The Applicant shall comply. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC Table 11-2A-6): Development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed below for the R-8 district and the specific use standards for the propsoed use of a wireless communicaiton facility (UDC 114-3-43).Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan and deems it in compliance with the required dimensional standards for the R-8 zoning district. The specific use standards separate the different types of communication towers and their required setbacks (i.e. monopole design, stealth tower design, or lattice design)when in different districts and/or adjacent to residential districts. UDC 11-4-3-43 does not specifically state that a lattice design has a setback but through the applicability section of these standards and the setbacks required for preferred communication tower designs, Staff applies the noted setbacks within this code section: the tower must be set back a distance equal to the height of the tower from adjacent right-of-way and/or an abutting residential lot. The subject 100 foot tower does not meet this setback requirement and therfore must have its proposed location approved through the CUP process. Per the analysis above and in subsequent sections throughout this report, Staff supports the proposed tower location that is approximately 95 feet from the residential property line to the east. F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via the existing curb cut and driveway from W. Quintale Drive. G. Parking(UDC Table 11-3C-6): The proposed use does not require parking;there is available parking areas on the existing site. H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks were approved and installed at the project site with previous approvals;therefore,no additional sidewalk is required. I. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7): Any new fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. An 8-foot tall wrought iron fence is existing around the perimeter of the subject property. No other fencing is required as part of this application unless ground mounted equipment is proposed. Staff will verify if any ground equipment is proposed with the future CZC submittal. J. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Building elevations were submitted for the proposed steel lattice tower as shown in Section VILB. The subject tower is not a traditional structure and the City does not have design review standards specific to lattice style towers with no additional equipment or structures associated with it. Therefore, Staff does not find it necessary or applicable to require administrative design review(DES). However,adherence to the submitted and approved design with this application will be verified with the fixture CZC application. K. Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC): An application for CZC is required to be submitted for review and approval of the site design and structure to ensure consistency and provisions in this report prior to submittal of building permit applications for the development. Page 6 VI. DECISION A. Staff- Staff finds the proposed use complies with the applicable UDC standards; therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit. VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan �y ?p Q1� Q� N.MCDERMOTT ROAD tl a E g 9 8 OAKS WEST BCOMMONLOT ION1 u\ �rv�io wx[x[rz vwam�v � cnv aF MERIDIAN ® Il�, xll F NTIIRF SFWFR LIFE STATION GIN OF MERIDIAN '. . �� LOT WELL 029 LOT ]ry o V m� 0 e LM z C W 7 C 0 o m w W W O O V VI V Q ryW i! J W SHEET 2 OF 2 Page 7 N. MCDERMOTT ROAD rM1 rM1 rM1 r/ PM1 vM1 aM1 vM1 vM1 OAKS WEST ISION 7 COMMONON LOT IT IEW O COMMUNN TOWER LJ� M!D CONCRETEE FO FOUNMTgN EABRNC PERMEABLE PAVEPS t E a —EXISRNO ABPNPLT— K t PAVEMENT W CITY OF MERIDIAN ® cENERAraR FUTURE SEWER LIFT STATION CITY OF MERIDIAN LOT WELL#29 LOT t o MWPHOUSE t ♦ �E%ISTND A9PWU� PAVEMENT a IXISIINp PERMEABLE_ A RS W W W W W N N Page 8 B. Landscape Plan N w� 3p (FuiuReRer [Rsl 6RAUEL ROW �++ ACCESS DRIVE FENCE Il�/ LEL"E, THE S Sw � Cn 1� NQRTH ERs RE y j LLI w 11y1 I O z� a p rervce w S MULTI ULT FUTURE W �Y P cn/V NTL FAMILY _ RlvAor owls �— -- unllrs U Proposed\ ° S /�. II Tower / TERSTE`sarFuruREE t 'wITI •S....II The red mark-ups were made by0011-11-11-M the City of Meridian,not theengineer of record. I I e I • i. I I I I I I I I - I - I I - I I I ERIFv/SCALE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN - oEslcnlEo: �r/o143 oRawN: oe C-6 Page 9 C. Elevation I -a" 18}0 A4�� ASTM o x According to ANSI/EIA-222—F 1996 90 mph/78 mph + 1/2' radial ice w/ (3 second gust) per OHC AND IBC CaAa Flat Plate Area I Weight Elevation ray x 1810---F4G No Ice 34.0 aq ft 18.09 aq ft 000 Ibs 100 It ° 9\ 1/2' tee 42.0 aq It 23.33 eq ft 1100 Ib 100 ft x x3 I No Ice 59.0 sq f 32.78 sq ft 75D Ibs 100 ft to 70 ft �a�v n =V 1/2' Ice 71.5 aq ft 39.72 aq ft 1300 lb!100 ft to 70 ft '3 v: (1)-7/8" coax Elevation 0 ft to 100 ft Climbing Ladder Elevation 0 ft to 80 ft m m SECTION I3 Z 70 mph/61 mph + 1/2'radial ice (Fastest MPH) per EIA-222-F x x CaAa Flat Plate Area Weight Elevation d No Ice 35.5 aq ft 19.72 aq Ill. 800 lb- 100 ft 1/2' Ice 43.0 aq f 23.89 sq ft 1100 Ib 100 ft b N No Ice 62.0 sq f 34.44 sq ft 750 Ibs 100 ft to 70 ft I 1/2' Ice 74.5 sq 41.39 sq ft 1300 Ib 100 it to 70 ft (1)-7/e" coax Elevation 0 ft to 100 ft Climbing Ladder Elevation 0 ft to 80 ft SECTION 7—""' ci x ro so, r7 g ci 1\n e\n 1 x x V va m M n PIPF LEGS 42 KSI MIN YIELD 10 GA TUBE LEGS 30 KSI WN YIELD � J J x o VI SECTION 5 n c4 g N m I a 3 q1 "r INFERIOR BRACING N NOT REQUIRED - c V x N N FOUNDATION REACTIONS in x x TOTAL MOMENT: 226 FT-KIPS N cJ. SECTION 5 TOTAL SHEAR: 4 KIPS 20'-C^ TOTAL DOWNLOAD: G KIPS J p O m m N O rW� U S Q J iJ `�` Ac�mrana AMERICAN TOWER COMPANY ISO 9001-2000 P.D.Bm 0 SWby.Obb 41e75 �w hRoft—boll- 4i.%'7r1Im ease NO f4127 w-1e54 100' STANDARD sr.DW MIE 12/21/a2 DWG NO. 1061 Page 10 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Conditional Use Permit Conditions: 1. Future development shall be consistent with previous approvals of the subject site including but not limited to: AZ-08-004(Oakcreek); H-2017-0010 (Rezone); H-2017-0170(Oaks West Sub.);A-2016-0323 (CZC, DES, &ALT for Well#29 site). 2. The site plan included in VII.A is approved as submitted. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.B is approved as submitted. However, should additional landscaping be required,it will be verified at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) submittal and the City may have to work with the Oaks HOA to add more landscaping. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-43: Wireless Communication Facility. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 6. The Applicant shall allow shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use as required by UDC 11-4-3-43D.1, unless otherwise waived through the Conditional Use Permit process. 7. The conditional use permit shall be 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. 8. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application is required to be submitted prior to submittal of a building permit application for review and approval of the proposed site design and structure to ensure consistency with Unified Development Code standards,and provisions in this report. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. No changes in public sewer infrastructure shown in record. Any changes must be approved by public works. 2. Record is for a communication tower.No conflicts or impact to the public water infrastructure. C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=272860&dbid=0&redo=Meridian C ity Page 11 IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-511-6): Required 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 subject property will be large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional&development regulations of the R-8 zoning district and those listed in the specific use standards for 11-4-3-43 (see Analysis Section Vfor more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds that the proposed use will be consistent and harmonious with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan if the Applicant develops the site consistent with code requirements. 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 that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. Further, the existing landscape buffers and nearby structures offer adequate concealment of the base of the tower. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 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 subject site will continue to be serviced and maintained by essential public facilities so Stafffinds the proposed will be served adequately by 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. Stafffinds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare due to the Applicant's desire to construct a more affordable lattice design structure. 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 be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare of the area. Page 12 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 that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Page 13 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Allure Subdivision (H-2022-0050) by Schultz Development, LLC., located at 5385 S. Meridian Rd., directly north of the half-mile mark on the west side of Meridian Rd. between E. Amity and E. Lake Hazel Rds. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0050 A. Request: Rezone 39.39 acres of land from the R-4 to the TN-R zoning district.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 226 single-family building lots and 36 common lots on 37.34 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district.C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing agreement (Inst. #2016-007091) for the purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the proposed project and plat. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 6, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA. 70 PROJECT NAME: Allure Subdivision (H-2022-0050) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name Mtrid 2 �r-a e4 3 zt ow, o 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/6/2022 Legend DATE: 0 Project Location +TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner -- - - 208-884-5533 ; SUBJECT: H-2022-0050 ; ®® Allure Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located at 5385 S. Meridian Road, directly north of the half-mile mark on the west side of Meridian Road between E. Amity and E. Lake Hazel Roads, in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of ---- Section 36,Township 3N,Range 1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Request to Rezone 39.39 acres of land from the R-4 to the TN-R zoning district; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 226 single-family building lots and 36 common lots on 37.34 acres in the requested TN-R district; and • Modification to the existing development agreement(Inst. #2016-007091), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the proposed project and plat,by Breckon Land Design. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage RZ—39.39;Plat—37.34 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential 3-8 du/ac Existing Land Uses Vacant land Proposed Land Use(s) Detached and Attached Single-family Residential, front- loaded and alley-loaded; single-family townhomes. Lots #and type;bldg./common) 226 single-family residential building lots; 36 common lots Phasing Plan #ofphases) Proposed as five 5phases Number of Residential Units 226 single-family units(123 detached; 104 attached townhomes Density Gross—6.05 du/ac;Net—7.49 du/ac Open Space(acres,total 7.49 acres total;6.96 acres of qualified open space [%]/buffer/qualified) (approximately 18.6%)per submitted open space exhibit. Pagel Description Details Page Amenity At least three(3)site amenities—pool,children's play structures,and open s ace in excess of code requirements. Neighborhood meeting date June 6,2022 Distance to nearest City Park(+ 1.9 miles to Discovery Park to the southeast of the project size) (76.88 acres in size;phase 1 constructed with phase 2 under construction). History(previous approvals) H-2015-0019 South Meridian Annexation B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • Traffic Impact Study Yes es/no Access Access is via a new local street connection to W. Quartz Creek Street,a new (Arterial/Collectors/State collector street along entire south property boundary. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) . Stub Yes;3 stub streets are proposed to adjacent underdeveloped properties. Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Project is proposed to complete W. Quartz Creek(collector street) Access improvements for shared access to Meridian Road/SH 69 Existing Road Network L Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No.Buffer and detached multi-use pathway are required and proposed. Buffers Proposed Road Applicant is required to complete the required improvements within the Improvements remaining right-of-way on the north side of the the new collector street alon the southern project boundary,W.Quartz Creek Street. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 3.4 miles from Fire Station#6(Approximately 2 miles from proposed fire Station station#7 on Lake Hazel;response time will fall within the 5-minute ' response time area for Station#7. • Fire Response Time Project currently does not currently reside within the Meridian Fire 5-minute response time goal area. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#6 reliability is 83%(above the goal of 80%) • Risk Identification Risk Factor 1 —Residential • Accessibility • Proposed project meets all required road widths,and turnaround dimensions. • Project does not meet secondary access requirements as there is only one way in and out currently available; approved secondary access is required. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 4.2 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 4:37 response time to an emergency(Priority 3 call) Water&Wastewater See Public Works Site Specific Conditions(Section VIII.B) COMPASS—Communities in Motion 2050 Review Page 2 Description Details Page Letter depicts a positive fiscal impact for the City and the School District but a net negative fiscal impact to the County and ACHD. Letter also notes a lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in this area. West Ada School District Estimated Additional School 99 estimated school-aged children at full build out. Aged Children Approved MF Projected Approved lots per units per Students from Enrollment Capacity attendance area attendance area Approved Dev. Mary McPherson Elementary 460 675 3443 26 760 Victory Middle School 1048 1000 4496 502 600 Meridian High School 1824 2075 3555 3464 601 School of Choice Options Christine Donnell School-Arts 474 500 N/A N/A Spalding Elementary-STEM 680 750 N/A N/A Page 3 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend q� Project Location 0 FE) Project Location Civic -r Metlium Del Residenti Low Density r R idential .v High Densi MU-R,G Residential Med-High Density r Residential I Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R-15 R 0 Legend Project Location Project Location L RUT y! R1 City Limits R1 Planned Parcels R-4 �; f• ' -(J R-4 T�R48 RI - ---- _ �A RUT R VT R-8 RlARURUT R-4 m +, R-4 R-2 � ® R06 R 8Q —R-12 R-1i5 _ -� ----- [rR- R-68' R-15 R-4 RUT RUT R-4 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Mary Wall,Breckon Land Design— 181 E. 50`h Street,Garden City, ID 83714 B. Owner: Jim Percy,Percy Farms LLC— 1250 Stegerman Court,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 4 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 9/21/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 9/15/2022 Site Posting 9/23/2022 Nextdoor posting 9/15/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancioy.or /g compplan) Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. The subject site consists of two properties totaling approximately 37 acres and was annexed into the City of Meridian in 2015 along with many other parcels in this area under the "South Meridian Annexation."It is located on the north side of the mid-mile mark on the west side of Meridian Road between Lake Hazel and Amity Roads; it is directly west of the Prevail Subdivision (Percy Subdivision) located on the east side of Meridian Road and directly north of the recently approved Briar Ridge Subdivision annexation and preliminary plat(H-2021-0036). Allure Subdivision is proposed with 226 building lots on 37.34 acres which constitutes a gross density of 6.05 du/acre which falls in the middle of the allowable density in the MDR designation on the property and is slightly more than Briar Ridge to the south (5.84 du/acre). In addition, the requested TN-R zoning district requires a minimum net density of 6 du/acre and according to the submitted plat, the net density of Allure is nearly 7.5 du/acre making the subject plat compliant with this standard. Through the pre planning process, the Applicant and Staff worked together to propose different housing types within this project to both match and diverse the housing types proposed with Briar Ridge to the south. The grid-like street layout and the different housing types also led the Applicant to request the TN-R zoning district as Briar Ridge did. Staff supports this request and the overall proposed layout as it continues the design and transition from the properties further to the south. Rezone: When the subject property was annexed into the City of Meridian in 2015 it was zoned R-4 to help delineate that this property would be developed as residential. The Development Agreement that was created as part of this original annexation dictated that the City would have services available as soon as possible and the first Rezone application would be free of charge. This stipulation regarding a Rezone application was made because the annexation was City initiated and the property had no concept plan or specific development planned at the time of annexation; the City understood future development may not match the existing zoning and gave future applicants the opportunity to propose a different zoning with a new development plan. The Applicant's request to rezone to the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN-R)zoning district is, in itself, consistent with the future land use designations because it is a residential district. More importantly, the overall site design proposed by the Applicant is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use designation because of the density proposed, the Page 5 multiple housing types proposed, the inclusion of parkways throughout the entire development, the completion of the collector street along the south boundary for future connectivity, and a stub street proposed along the north boundary for future public road connectivity to Amity Road. Staff believes the request for a traditional neighborhood zoning district in this area of the City continues the framework of neighborhood/street oriented design for future development to the north and west to be more pedestrian focused and walkable. Development Agreement Modification: The same stipulation regarding the Rezone application applies to the first Development Agreement Modification (MDA)for this property. In fact, the existing DA requires that with any future redevelopment an MDA is required to be submitted. Therefore, the Applicant has submitted an MDA to satisfy this requirement and update the development plan, in order to develop the property with the proposed subdivision. The DA will be tied to the submitted preliminary plat and be required to develop the property per the submitted plans and proposed housing types. Staff ,finds the proposed project and the requested applications to be generally consistent with the future land use designations within this project site. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed in the next section. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /g compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01 G). The subject project is proposed with a site design that closely resembles traditional neighborhood design with short block lengths, street trees,pedestrian facilities throughout, and three distinct housing types within this one project. Thus, the Applicant is requesting a rezone from the R-4 district to the TN-R zoning district to have zoning that fits the proposed housing types of detached single-family, alley loaded single- family(attached and townhome), and single-family townhomes with parkways throughout the project. In addition, the proposed housing types will vary greatly from the Shafer View Estates' larger lots to the southeast and even the detached single-family homes in Prevail Subdivision to the east. Thus, Stafffinds the proposed development offers more housing diversity in this area of the city for future residents. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site,per Public Works comments. This project does not currently reside within the Fire Department response time goal of 5-minutes but will upon completion of Fire Station#7 (anticipated completion date of Summer 2023). However, the singular public road access is through Quartz Creek Street along the southern boundary; a majority of Quartz Creek is being constructed by Briar Ridge Subdivision to the south. Fire code only allows 30 homes off of one access so the Applicant will need to provide an additional emergency access. West Ada School District has provided comments on this application and estimates an additional 99 school aged children will be generated by this development at full build-out. Further, the submitted letter notes that with current school boundaries and school capacities, the approved residential units in this area of the City will create overcrowding at each designated school. West Ada notes that it will always work to accommodate the children being served and specifically lists some of those methods in their letter(see Section VIII.I). ACHD has analyzed the subject application for compliance with their standards and finds the proposed project to be in compliance and notes the nearby public roads and intersections can accommodate the increase in traffic. ACHD has also added conditions that additional traffic calming is provided throughout the internal streets of the project due to some of the proposed Page 6 block lengths exceeding allowable distances without a turn or bisecting street. ITD has also reviewed the subject project due to all of the traffic required to utilize the adjacent Meridian Road/SH 69 transportation network via the collector street connection at the south boundary, Quartz Creek. Overall, the adjacent public roads have been deemed to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic and ITD is requiring a southbound right-turn lane from SH 69 onto W. Quartz Creek Street for added safety. Staff finds, with appropriate conditions of approval, that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project that meet code requirements. "Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation,conservation,and aesthetics" (4.05.01F). The Applicant is proposing open space in excess of code requirements with a large open space lot centralized within the development and other areas of linear open space connecting different areas of the site. In addition, the project is proposed with parkways and street trees throughout the entire site offering more open space that would be used for pedestrian activity and should add aesthetic value to the development. Further analysis on the proposed open space is below in Section V.L. "Promote area beautification and community identity through context sensitive building and site design principles,appropriate signage, and attractive landscaping."(5.01.02C). The requested TN-R zoning district requires more than one housing type and streets that include parkways and street trees. With parkways, sidewalks are further removed from the public street making for safer pedestrian facilities and encouraging more pedestrian activity. Because of the desired project aesthetic by the Applicant and the requirements of the traditional neighborhood zoning district, the proposed project is creating its own identity through site design and thoughtful landscaping and pedestrian elements. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Proposed project is not directly adjacent to any other constructed development at this time. However, the Applicant is proposing parkways with detached sidewalks throughout the entire site, some micro pathways, and constructing a multi- use pathway segment along the entire Meridian Road frontage; these design elements should offer ample pedestrian connectivity within the site and to future development, specifically to the approved Briar Ridge property to the south. Furthermore, the Applicant is proposing two stub streets to the property to the west and one stub street along the north boundary with detached sidewalks. These stub streets and sidewalks will be required to be extended when the adjacent properties develop making the proposed pedestrian network a positive example of linking subdivisions together. "Require proposed development within areas further away from urban services, existing utilities or requiring significant City utility upgrades,to demonstrate fiscal benefits, strategic fit with the Comprehensive Plan,contiguity with existing development,and appropriate mitigation for any impacts to existing City service users." (3.03.02F).Because the extension of utility services will be fully financed by the Applicant, the specific concern of the City expending funds for utilities is minimal. However, there is evidence that developing this parcel does not constitute orderly development because urban services are not nearby. Urban services include adjacent transportation facilities, employment opportunities, and commercial services like grocery stores, gas stations, and even general retail, office, and restaurant uses. Staff finds with the adjacent development constructed and approved(Briar Ridge, Prevail Subdivision, Shafer View Estates, and self-service storage use), many of these concerns may be mitigated. However, Staff finds the Applicant has not demonstrated a strategic fit with this policy and the community benefit may not be known until commercial development is proposed for the Page 7 mixed-use designated properties at the intersections of Amity/Meridian and Lake Hazel/Meridian Roads. "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).All of the essential urban services are relatively far removed from the project site despite other residential development being completed across Meridian Road to the east and approved to the south. For example, the closest gas station is more than 1.5 miles to the north with the next closest being nearly 3 miles away; the closest grocery store is approximately 2.5 miles away with the completion of the Albertson's at the Eagle and Amity intersection. There is no existing commercial within 1.5 miles of this development which automatically requires that future residents would have to utilize their car to get to essential services. Approximately 1.5 miles to the east, at the intersection of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove, commercial zoning is approved but any actual construction timeline is unknown as this area has only been platted and no administrative applications have been submitted. However; C-G zoning is existing directly south of the Briar Ridge project site which does allow for future commercial uses to be located nearby these proposed residences. Despite this development meeting a majority of the comprehensive plan policies and being proposed with an insightful and carefully considered site design,Staff does have concern on the timing of development for this project in relation to urban services. The property does abut an area of mixed-use community designated property to the north which is anticipated to contain commercial uses in the future;the proposed site design (stub street and pedestrian facility locations) helps set up appropriate connectivity between this project and the anticipated commercial uses to the north. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed throughout the above sections and comprehensive plan policies. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and outbuilding on approximately 1 acre along Meridian Road but no other site improvements are noted.The historical use for the subject site is agricultural in nature—the property owner intends on continuing to farm the property as the project develops over time. Staff has included a DA provision related to this request in Section VIII.A. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed uses within this project are all residential—detached single-family residential, detached alley-loaded single-family, attached single-family,and alley-loaded townhomes. All uses proposed are permitted residential uses within the requested TN-R zoning district per UDC Table 11-2D-2. The TN-R zoning district requires a minimum of two (2)housing types—the proposed housing types offer four(4)distinct housing types,which complies with this zoning requirement. The project is proposed to be constructed in five (5)phases according to the submitted preliminary plat page 1. Phase 1 and phase 2 are located along the southern boundary and will finish the construction of the adjacent collector street,W. Quartz Creek. Phase 1 is also depicted with the full Meridian Road street buffer, approximately half of the large open space lot in the center of the development, and contains the children's play structures and the swimming pool amenity. Three of the four proposed housing types are proposed within the first two phases of the development. Phase 3 includes an area that is central-west for the project and hold the remaining area of the large central open space lot.Phase 4 is depicted along the remaining Meridian Road frontage and contains the last housing type, detached alley-loaded product. Phase 5 completes the project with the remaining area along the north boundary and generally in the northwest corner of Page 8 the site. Per the submitted phasing plan reviewed by Meridian Fire, secondary emergency access is needed as the only public road access is to Quartz Creek along the southern boundary. The Applicant has submitted an emergency access exhibit with two options noted(see Exhibit VII.G). Staff recommends utilizing option "B"as depicted on the exhibit because that access is controlled by this applicant whereas the noted option `A"requires an adjacent property owner to the north to provide access through their site. Staff would prefer option A because it follows the overall planned public street layout but Staff has not received any confirmation from this Applicant or the adjacent property owner that the proposed local street will be extended with phase I development of this project as a public street through their site or if they would allow the access to be constructed as a temporary emergency access only. Because of these unknowns, Staff finds it most prudent to recommend the noted option B. Furthermore, this emergency access must be constructed prior to the 31'building permit is submitted in order to comply with Fire code. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The requested zoning district of TN-R does not have a minimum lot size requirement but does require a minimum net density of six(6) du/acre. The submitted preliminary plat shows a minimum lot size proposed of 2,300 square feet and an overall average lot size of 4,343 square feet. Because home placement on the building lot is not yet known at the time of preliminary plat submittal, setbacks are not reviewed at this time. However,per the submitted plat,the residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards for the TN-R zoning district;this includes compliance with the net density requirement. 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 but the plat should depict the proposed lots that have zero lot-lines (proposed attached and townhome products) to ensure compliance with setback requirements with the future building permit submittals. Therefore, the Applicant should revise the plat to depict the applicable zero lot-lines with each applicable final plat submittal. Note: The proposed common driveways within the project(S total) comply with UDC requirements as no more than three (3) lots are shown off of each. However, the City has experienced some issues at the ends of common drives where one property owner does not have adequate space on the common drive to back out of their garage and then head towards the public road. To ensure this type of conflict does not occur, at the time of final plat submittals, the Applicant should submit common drive exhibits showing adequate area for residents to back out of garages without trespassing on the building lot at the end of the common drives. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed residential dwellings. Note that detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval therefore Staff does not review these for compliance with any standards. However,townhomes (an attached housing product)and single-family attached dwellings do require administrative design review (DES) approval prior to building permit submittal.With that future application submittal Staff will analyze the elevations for the townhomes and single-family attached dwellings against the Architectural Standards Manual; the DES application should be submitted with the first final plat application for all required housing types. The submitted elevations depict single and two-story homes with two-car garages and varying home styles. Specifically, the Applicant shows the single-family attached, townhomes, and the alley-loaded detached single-family homes (noted as the Carriage Home product). The elevations Page 9 depict differingfield materials and designs utilizing lap siding with stone accents, awnings of different materials, and varying roof profiles offering an overall array of potential homes. The Applicant has not submitted conceptual elevations for the traditional front-loaded detached single-family product; the Applicant should submit these prior to the City Council meeting to be compliant with checklist submittal standards and allow Staff to ensure these homes along the collector and Meridian Road have adequate modulation and varying roof profiles. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Main access to Allure Subdivision is proposed via construction/completion of a new collector street(W. Quartz Creek Street) along the entire south property boundary that connects from the west boundary of the site to Meridian Road/SH 69 at the mid-mile point consistent with the construction of E. Quartz Creek Street on the east side of Meridian Road. The approved Briar Ridge project to the south is constructing at least half of the proposed Quartz Creek street section with a majority of the required pavement. According to ACHD,Allure should complete the remaining six(6)feet of pavement and construct the remaining curb, gutter,and detached sidewalk within 27.5 feet of additional right-of-way on the north side of this collector street. The submitted preliminary plat shows compliance with these requirements except that the Applicant is required to dedicate additional right-of-way,per ACHD. The remaining roads proposed within this development are local streets that are at least 33 feet wide with 5-foot detached sidewalk and 8-foot parkways creating a beautiful streetscape and identity for the entire project and continuing the traditional neighborhood design that Briar Ridge was approved with to the south. As discussed in previous sections, secondary emergency access to Meridian Road is required by the Meridian Fire Department after 30 homes are constructed. Staff recommends this emergency access is constructed at the northeast corner of the property as depicted as option`B"on their emergency access exhibit(Section VILG)and is constructed with phase I development— additional trip generation and access analysis is below in the Traffic Impact Study analysis sub-section.The Applicant is proposing to stub a local street to the north boundary near the midpoint of the north property line for future connectivity to Amity Road. This connection will be needed for additional phases of development per ACHD(discussed below). In addition to the stub street along the north boundary,the submitted preliminary plat also shows two stubs to the western boundary for future connectivity. ACHD has approved the proposed stub street locations and road network but notes multiple streets require traffic calming within the site because they exceed 750 feet per ACHD standards. The specific streets that require traffic calming for ACHD are listed within their staff report(Section VIII.K). Staff supports the proposed street layout and stub street locations so long as the proposed stub to the north boundary is aligned so that only one property owner can construct the full local street section or at least half-plus-12 feet of the required pavement on their property for safe access to Amity Road. Despite the fact the UDC measures street length differently than ACHD, Staff agrees that multiple streets within the subdivision should include traffic calming. The Applicant should work with ACHD on the best options for qualifying traffic calming and revise the preliminary plat to show the proposed traffic calming along S.Ametrine Avenue, W.Allure Street, W. Cusick Street, S. Solaris Avenue, and W. Caldera Street with the applicable final plat submittals. NOTE: Meridian Road/SH 69 is currently being studied by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) for corridor improvements from Overland Road south to Orchard Avenue in Kuna under the Idaho 69 Corridor(Story Map—Idaho Highway 69 Corridor Plan). The mid-mile intersection at the southeast corner of the subject project is part of this study and is proposed to be designed with a reduced conflict U-turn (RCUT)intersection that eliminates Page 10 left turns and thru-traffic from lower-volume roads. See exhibit below for an example of what the Quartz Creek/SH 69 intersection could look like. Proposed Allure Subdivision —40 acre parcel A G K m 4 � IL D � 4! LOCAL ROAD 1 I y 1 1 1 � 1 } 1 R 1 Y Y 1 � 1 1 � Y yD 7 M 1 Reduced Cron fliet U-Tura Cro.v.ving Page 11 Despite proposing to construct a collector street that connects to SH 69,ITD does not find this as direct access because no buildable lot is proposed with direct lot access to the state highway. The approved Briar Ridge project to the south was required to enter into a cost share agreement for the road and intersection improvements along SH 69 in lieu of constructing any road improvements with their development. According to the submitted memo from ITD dated September 29,2022,this Applicant is not required to enter into a cost share agreement but is instead required to dedicate an additional 12 feet of right-of-way along Meridian Road for the purpose of constructing a future southbound right-turn lane from SH 69 onto W. Quartz Creek Street. The specific condition notes a"future"turn lane but then goes onto state specific plans are required by the Applicant inferring that they are required to construct this turn lane with this development. The Applicant should work with ITD to verify the timing of this required improvement. Staff would recommend constructing this southbound right-turn lane with phase I development in a location that will not require it to be reconstructed at a future date. This would create a safer entrance onto Quartz Creek Street for both projects proposed to take access from it. The subject project is proposed with over 100 units(226 units) so a Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was required. Due to the property requiring access to Meridian Road/SH 69,the Applicant was required to submit the TIS to both ACHD and ITD. Staff s summary and analysis of this report and the conditions of approval is below. Traffic Impact Study Analysis: According to the submitted Traffic Impact Study(TIS),the proposed Allure Subdivision will generate approximately 2,154 additional vehicle trips per day with 216 of those trips occurring per hour in the PM peak hour. The Applicant's traffic impact study has been analyzed by ACHD and ITD and specific conditions of approval are outlined in their staff reports (see exhibits in Section VIII). Despite ACHD analyzing and discussing the TIS in their own report, Staff finds it necessary to highlight the main points of discussion and road improvement requirements, specifically those related to the overall access points for the project. Per the ACHD staff report, the additional vehicle trips from this development will push the Quartz Creek access to SH 69 over the allowed threshold for a singular collector street access, 3,000 daily vehicle trips. Specifically, Briar Ridge to the south accounts for approximately 2,000 of those allowed trips so Allure is allowed to add an additional 1,000 trips.As noted, this development is proposed to generate over 2,100 daily trips so less than half of the proposed building lots can be constructed prior to an additional public street access to a different public road is constructed. ACHD has included a condition of approval that prior to ACHD signature on the final plat containing 101"building lot, secondary public street access is required. The proposed secondary connection has been discussed and is along the north property line, shown as S. Hermatite Avenue. This connection should and would connect north to W. Amity Road, an arterial street and is stubbed to a property that is not annexed into the City and does not have any active projects. Staff has had preliminary discussions with the potential developer of that mixed- use designated site but nothing has been submitted to the City. Therefore, the timing of this secondary public street access is unknown at this time and thus a concern. Because of the timing issue and the potential of this local street not being extended for some time, Staff is including a condition of approval that no more than 100 residential building permits are issued for this site until secondary public road access is constructed consistent with the ACHD condition of approval. Should the Applicant obtain a private agreement with the adjacent property owner/developer for that parcel(S1236110060, 4975 S. Meridian Road) to extend the public road to Amity, the proposed condition will become void. Page 12 H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II- 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. However, all of the local streets are proposed as at least 33-foot wide street sections which accommodate on-street parking where no driveways exist. Furthermore,because of the proposed alley-loaded homes and inclusion of parkways,the entire length of streets adjacent to the alley- loaded products can be utilized for on-street parking as no driveways will be present. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17) &Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks and 8-foot parkways are proposed along all internal streets consistent with the requirements for the requested TN-R zoning district. The Applicant is also proposing detached sidewalk on the north side of the collector street along the south boundary as required by code for sidewalks adjacent to collector streets. The proposed sidewalks and parkways meet UDC 11-3A-17 standards and ACHD standards. In addition to the internal sidewalks,the Applicant is required to construct a segment of 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the Meridian Road frontage,per the Master Pathways Plan. The Applicant is showing this required pathway segment within a landscaped common lot,per code requirements. J. Development Along State Highways (UDC 11-3H): The full east boundary of the proposed project has frontage along Meridian Road/SH 69 which requires noise abatement per UDC 11-3H-4. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 5-foot berm with a 6-foot wall on top of it to total at least 11 feet above SH 69 centerline height, a foot above the code requirement. This wall,berm, landscaping, and required multi-use pathway is located within the required 35-foot wide common lot along the entire frontage and outside of the ITD right-of-way. The required wall should modulate along the highway frontage;the submitted landscape plans show compliance with this requirement.At the northeast corner of the property, there appear to be two breaks in the wall which will minimize its effectiveness at noise abatement as required. The southern portion that is missing appears to be due to the location of a sewer main which does not allow permanent structures to be constructed over them. However, the northern piece that is missing does not appear to have a justification and so the berm/wall should be extended as close to the north property line as possible. UDC 11-3H-4B.3 also requires construction of a"street, generally paralleling the state highway, to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway..."The Applicant has shown compliance with this requirement by proposing to finish constructing a portion of the mid-mile collector along the south boundary,a series of local streets connecting north-south through the site, and proposing to stub a local street to the north boundary for future access to Amity and for that future mixed-use development. Other analysis regarding other access standards of this code section are analyzed above in Section F. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The required landscaping regulated by code within the proposed development are the following areas: that area within the proposed parkways(UDC 11-3A-17 and UDC 11-313); the common open space lots, and;the required landscape street buffers to Meridian Road and W. Quartz Creek. The submitted landscape plans show landscaping in these areas as proposed. 8-foot wide parkways are proposed throughout the site to comply with the zoning requirements of Page 13 the TN-R zoning district.Parkways are required to be vegetated with an average of I tree per every 35 linear feet to be compliant. The submitted landscape plan appears to show compliance with this requirement but the calculations table does not note the linear feet of parkways along the interior local streets and the required number of trees; the Applicant should correct this with the Final Plat submittals to ensure compliance with this requirement. In addition, common open space is required to be landscaped with one (1) tree for every 5,000 square feet of open space. The submitted landscape plans show trees and vegetation in the large central open space lot that meets the minimum number of trees (124,000 square feet divided by 5,000 equals 25 trees). According to the submitted landscape plans, 26 trees are proposed in this open space area and this does not include the perimeter trees that are required for the parkways and would not count towards this requirement. The landscape buffer along Meridian Road is required to be 35'wide and contain the required multi-use pathway within it. The submitted landscape plans show compliance with these UDC requirements for the buffer width, number of trees, tree spacing/grouping, and additional vegetative ground cover; the submitted plat is consistent with the landscape plan and also shows at least a 35 foot wide common lot along Meridian Road. Staff finds the required collector street buffer along Quartz Creek to also be compliant with these standards by providing trees in excess of code and a wider buffer than required(35 feet total versus 20 foot minimum). The Applicant is also proposing a number of micro pathways within common lots that create linear open space and additional breaks in the streetscape for added pedestrian connectivity through the project. UDC 11-3B-12 requires that trees be placed on both sides of these pathways and the submitted landscape plan shows compliance. L. Qualified Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3G): Allure Subdivision is proposed with a preliminary plat area of approximately 37 acres in the TN- R zoning district requiring a minimum of 15%qualified open space (or 5.6 acres)and a minimum of eight(8) amenity points,per UDC 11-3G-3 & 11-3G-4. The Applicant is continuing a segment of multi-use pathway along the Meridian Road that is approximately'/4 mile long which equates to two(2) amenity points. In addition to the pathway, the Applicant is proposing a swimming pool with changing facilities and restrooms which qualifies for six(6)amenity points and a playground area which qualifies for two (2)amenity points, all within the central open space lot. Therefore,the Applicant is proposing amenities worth a total of 10 amenity points and exceed the minimum requirements of UDC 11-3G-4. The Applicant's open space exhibit(Section VII.D) shows 6.96 acres of qualified open space (approximately 18.6%), exceeding the minimum required amount of 5.6 acres. However, some of the areas noted on the exhibit as qualifying do not qualify per UDC 11-3G-3 standards because they are not at least 20 feet in width. Staff does not recommend these areas be revised to add an additional few feet as they are already remnant pieces along end-caps of housing blocks that do not entirely meet the intent of the open space code. Further,the removal of these areas is nominal and will not affect the Applicant's compliance with the minimum open space requirements. It is important to note the Applicant's qualified open space calculation does not include any of the parkways within the development which is qualifying open space if the correct number of trees are added to the parkways. Therefore,the actual proposed qualified open space vastly exceeds the minimum amount required by code. The Applicant does not need to use this area as qualified open space to meet the minimum 15% amount and parkways are already required as part of the site design for the requested TN-R zoning district. So, Staff is not concerned the open space exhibit does not show this area but would recommend this area is added to the exhibit to ensure a fully accurate open space calculation is depicted in the record. This revision should occur prior Page 14 to the City Council hearing. Overall,Staff supports the proposed open space and the proposed amenities and their locations being centralized within the development for fairly equitable access by all future residents. M. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and appears to meet UDC standards as proposed except for the lack of fencing noted adjacent to the common drives and the 6-foot open vision fencing proposed adjacent to three micro-path lots(Lot 21,Block 2,Lot 16, Block 3, &Lot 8 Block 10). Per UDC 11-3A-7A.7b, when an open space lot is not greater than 250 feet in length and is fully visible from a public street, open vision is not required and 6-foot tall closed vision fencing is allowed. In order to help with future privacy concerns by residents, Staff recommends the fencing shown and installed along these areas is closed vision fencing and not open vision. The Applicant should revise the landscape plan at the time of the applicable final plat applications. The submitted landscape plans do not depict any fencing adjacent to the common drives as required by code for properties that do not take access from the common drive. Therefore, with the future final plat applications, the Applicant should revise the landscape plans to depict the proposed fencing on the required common drive exhibit. N. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the development in accord with 11-3A-15. Land Development will review pressurized irrigation plans in more detail when specific plans are submitted with future Final Plat applications. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested Rezone,Development Agreement Modification,and approval of the requested Preliminary Plat application 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 15 VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map DESCRIPTION FOR TN-R ZONE ALLURE SUBDIVISION A parcel of land located in the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36, T.3N, RAW., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 36 from which the East 114 corner of said Section 36 bears South 00°37'38"West,2641.53 feet;thence South 00°37'38"West, 1320.76 feet along the east line of Section 36 to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said east line,South 00o37'38"West, 1300.77 feet; thence leaving said east line on a line parallel with and 20.00 feet north from the South boundary line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 36, North 89°21'32"West, 1,316.52 feet to the west boundary line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 36; thence along said west boundary line,North 00°34'27"East, 1,304.39 feet to the Northeast 1/16 corner of said Section 36; thence along the north boundary line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 36,South 89'12'04"East, 1,317.74 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 39.39 acres, more or less. End of Description. Nt LA 11779 G>Op9TF OF \ 13 YM Mock Page 1 of 1 Page 16 S.25 S.30 E. Amity Rd. S.36 'S.31 io l ^I d N r7 NE1/16 - S_89'12'04"E 1317.74' fLeginning Real Point Of M! ;co 0 N O C m '�i r rCO TN—R Zone n N 39.39 Acres` o v qt M L/5m:0 O O Z I � I .7/4\ N89'21'32"W 1316.52' \5.36 S.31 1 \See Detail/ \�Npt LAND o LEGEND rEN 4 Section Corner 1 779 1N89'21'32"W 1316.52' 0 Property Corner NAZZ1Le2?�0 20.00' ,1 4 Property Boundary Line �0 p OF \,;A pZ S.36 S 31 Section Line M. MocPM� 1V Scale: 1'=300' Detail Scale: 1" = 50' 0 75 150 3D0 80D P:\Prevail W—43—21-024\d,,\21-024 Rezo—.9 5/2�/-2,a:5e 3a vu Exhibit Drawing For Job No. I DAHO ---985 21-024 SURVEY 5W.EMEHALaST. TN—R Zone Sheet No. e0I5E,IDAHO 53704 aosla4sasa Allure Subdivision GROUP, LLC Located In The SET/4 Of The NE1/4 Of Section 36, Dwg. Date 73N., R.1W., B.M., Ado County, Idaho. 6/22/2022 Page 17 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 6/15/2022) NOT FOR ONSTRUCTIC ALLURE SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF Ip -_ SECTION 36,T.3N.,R,1W.,BM,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO ... �� DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION BENCHMARK g I &DATUM F7T) _ F CONTACTS T¶l�T E N. C1 �.. �I IT' TJT' y Z M o SITE PLAN In Q L i w G�RAWING INDEX U O 01. e wveA W Lu Lu(� VICINITY MAP — J ❑ PHASE 5T r TL muwaesno unury Pux-acne a 11�I L —PHASE 4 usno .� TYPICAL 38'R.O.W ROAD SECTION — 1 Lu NOTES PHASE 2 PHASE 1 ❑ a (PHASING MAP �^ 2 NPI AL 60'R.O.W.ROAD SECTION PP1.0 ❑ Page 18 NEi,lww 1 .7e &ol I 7-1�--T----�-- - -- - - pi4 5 I 9 I 10 I 11 I12I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I IIIII IIIIII IIIII I"aJ IIIIIIII IIIIII IIIII m II IIIIII IIIIII IIIII II IIIIII IIIIII Illll I L—_(� Y — — — — IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII' w CNILOM 1,lr IIIIIlilPll�11J Ji I S O 1 9 1®I O I Bo I Og I O I I OB Ito I Q I t©I 1s '�I Q l�l I O fl I ®ii'lilliilululn IIIII I wills• I 17 I -- I 8B �Jj ll�lllllllll IIIIII IllpnIlll IUI ® Illllplll 1111 I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 _ I IIIIIIII IIII IIII I �mr I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- -- Illlnnll IIII I 1 i a�m l © O I 87 IIIIIII II III, I ® I — Iluuul IIIII __ IIIIIIII IIII I I wAFMo arce ® Iuun uu nnnl IIu ' lJ L 1 �� ,� Ilnn Iln IIIII IIII ® ;IIII IIII , _ Iluli lu JJJ g� ® p � l IIIIII IIII 11 ——— X b— � w PeM.Y eT RI � / I — 'lull III IIu I OB tB tB � lun I a I[O,if a I IIII �—— ,3 1e 1 8B luiill W I Irl 1 I I I �� � I tB IIIIII IIII \� O IIII lull � I 1\ IIIII IIII �LL,92�u `�k,] \ 1 —— illilllli IIIIII S —444 III 0�-- IIIIII IIII '� aava7� w,71111p[or I ,d IIIIII IIII n — Jlllll IIII rr _ _ __ IIIII JII T� IIIIII IIII Q I gaP' I I I I I I I I I I t8 ©p)p O II OB ifli®i O i,B IQlt+�i,B ,a t I,e ie I^l O l o l l I O I B 1 9 1 10 I t I iluili IIJJI ,e O o o o -- g I IIIIII IIII Q IIIIII IIII IIIIII IIII w oow1EY K � I I I I I I I I I I I I null IIII I I 17B I I 1 I 1 -- IIII I IIIIII IIII IIIIII IIII IIIIII IIII I I I I I I lO�IOIO��© e 4 Q ,B ,4 t� 117 18 I 79 ® ® ® I Illlll IIII O Ifl 0 O Q 0 ,B ,5,5 t , IIII . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I p Illlll IIII •I I I I I I I I I I anbr 1 I 10 IIIII IIII IIIII Ill• ® _—+«IIIII IIII' O 0 — —wguulear — I ululi liilili I -- uu --� I 8Q IIIIIII Jill ll Q I © �-- illilli Illlll• I I IIIII IIII � � IJJJ� ll1�� I L_1 na,f�--L_� �����: w glwlrc�m Page 19 C. Landscape Plans(date: 6/15/2022): w I . �_ .��� �� � .ice�� � iC��. C._ � `f' � �• #Cry �IT i c I In - ..t . 1 J • _- a 17rFT , --- LT'L1111-LU LuJJ +-��-r+1 T7T1 TI �T1 r_ �a� � �..►.. ALLURE SUBDIVISION . x ` T! 5385 S. MERIDIAN ROAD - MERIDIAN,IDAHO 83642 AW Page 20 PLANT SCHEDULE KEd YPI ---a,I.-,--•• . ,.''1__i-in'__-1liIlI,a11.i•1P1III uI".•'I1Ili1,'aI1i_-rIlI II-i_-1a—FT 11 aI"I 11i a•"11i la I-."� IIII II'•aPI IIII 1lI"••.I1 1,I1I ". "rI Ill i a•'-,lI•�-a•ITI I li'•II1"a�Il'-'"--11 I_I —__-_""_--_.. ICf'fArBI LTx"J(C�Yj�u'nNP`TM II�fl�OF�EOB Le^MERIDIAN LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS oJ i j!axwiWAMT ww U<`JJgtltl1 00 to- 11N m I ¢ O SHRUB PLANTING2iw Ir 4YZo Q 3 __ i j. I.1,I.I.1.I l a l a l I I I I �__ raao•m°•mnv. 11 I I I l a l I 1 " I - P1dtl�0ElEf mw Fiji VERALL LAND PE PLAN .>r "o.Es NY n r'1BOULDER INSTALLATION IN SHRUB/PERENNIAL BED L1A Page 21 D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 6/15/2022): CITY OF MERIDIAN ALLURE SUBDIVISION OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE OPEN 5PALE i 'a11f�v =AI 511F ARP&, (611ALIMM OPEN SPAC.0 1426,64�4•T]SF 348 °J03,9 (61 AW (fif- ACa PJ% IBb% LANDSCAPE LEGEND A+1ALIFI®OPEN SPALE AREA=2,084 SQ.FT. AR EA=17,453 SQ.FT. I T T AREA=2.974 SQ.FT. AREA=2 975 l 1.FT. I AREA=3,158 SQ.FT. LL ~ AREA=2,675 SQ.FT. d u AREA=2,895 SQ.FT. a a � � I AREA-2,375 SQ.FT. w ¢ o (AREA-2.949 SQ,FT, I I AREA=4A48 SQ_FT- AREA=4,023 SQ,FT. AREA=3,151 SQ.FT_ AREA=1MI.SQ_FT_ LLLL - � 6 G 4 G IAREA-1,694 SQ_FT. AREA=1,613 SQ FT24 AREA=1633 SQ_FT. AREA=2,074 SQ.FT. AREA=1,534 SQ,FT. r 00 w w L L Iii] I ML w d 4 4 I AREA=31,8&2 SQ.FT. AREA=17,706 SQ.FT. W.QUARTZ CREEK ST Scale:1'=200' ALLURE SUBDIVISION °62114122 °, MERIDIAN, ID 83642 117 _ _ 7IM up w OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT X1.0 Page 22 — E. Phasing Plan(dated: 9/28/2022): � I 111117 - M PHASE 5 7T77" 14 single family attached 17 single family L LA PHASE 4 41 townhome lots (18 alley loaded) PHASE 3 32 townhome lots 16 single family lots 14 single family attached I � I I L PHASE 1 �PHASE Fots 20 single family attached lo32 townhomel 24 single family lots 18 single family lots Scale:1"=200' /2812022 ALLURE SUBDIVISION 9 21141141 MERIDIAN, IDAHO wnr��aea9 om� �5153 PHASING EXHIBIT PH1.0 fififiYgMr1M1 Glenr�I51�t � nf!Iry,NnM1n PA]16 Page 23 — F. Unit Type Site Plan: 4 rJ F7-1 77----j---- NOTFOR �4 N, 'ONGTRUITIO� I --Y IT J C,TIr 41- (n) PLAT LEGEND T7 < al z- RESIDENTIAL UNIT SUMMARY 77 7ul J-1 I V -i WO Lu u Lm- 'Ircr, u n- 7: cr ILE < LL fa, � : = j I I -T- FFFFFF-- r,vz,�3l �_,, i � �,� ��h I �a;1�� EI I � �i1 I I �'���s�€i CL <z LA LJ --i -i- Lr�s T2 PRELIMINARY_VER LL PLAT Page 24 G. Emergency Access Options Exhibit: I I PHAS 71= PHAS 4 ullI I IT U QI PHASE 3 iuiiE I I I I PHASE 2 PHASE 1 I LO I I TPHASING MAP 200 0 200 400 b00 Page 25 H. Conceptual Building Elevations DUPLEX HOMES ALLURE 'jjkNNjjW—mERIDIAN, ID ■ -■■ ..— ■■ �i �� ■■ ■ n f i i TOWNHOMES Cmm Page 26 r>, 1" I Ij � f CARRIAGE HOMES ALLURE Page 27 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Within six(6)months of the City Council granting the subject modification,the owner shall sign and obtain Council approval of the amended development agreement that includes an updated development plan per the submitted preliminary plat,as shown in Section VII.B; the amended DA shall include the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan,phasing plan, open space exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The Applicant and/or assigns shall not obtain more than 30 residential building permits prior to the emergency access being reviewed and approved by the Meridian Fire Department. c. The Applicant and/or assigns shall not obtain more than 100 residential building permits prior to a secondary public road access being constructed and approved by ACHD. d. The remaining width of W. Quartz Creek Street(the new collector street along the south boundary),the required multi-use pathway, and the required collector and arterial landscape buffers adjacent to W. Quartz Creek and S.Meridian Road/SH 69 shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development. e. Applicant and/or assigns shall dedicate additional right-of-way for SH 69/Meridian Road per the ITD Memo and construct a southbound right-turn lane from SH 69 onto W. Quartz Creek Street with the first phase of development. f. Until the such time the entire property develops,the current agricultural uses of the property shall be allowed to continue for those phases of the project not yet platted;this does not allow the existing home to remain on the property and said structure shall be removed with the first phase of development. g. The elevations/facades of 2-story structures that face S. Meridian Road, an entryway corridor, and W. Quartz Creek Street,a collector street, shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated June 15,2022, shall be revised as follows with the applicable final plat submittals: a. Revise the plat to show ACHD approved traffic calming along W. Quartz Creek Street, S.Ametrine Avenue,W.Allure Street,W. Cusick Street, S. Solaris Avenue, and W. Caldera Street, coordinate with Meridian Fire and ACHD as necessary. b. Depict the required emergency access to Meridian Road/SH 69, as approved by the Meridian Fire Department. c. With each applicable final plat submittal,revise the plat to depict any proposed zero lot-lines for the single-family attached and single-family townhome dwellings. Page 28 d. Add a plat note stating that direct lot access to S. Meridian Road/SH 69 and W. Quartz Creek Street is prohibited. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated June 15, 2022, shall be revised as follows prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise the landscape plan to match the plat revision noted in VIII.A2 above. b. Depict the required berm/wall combination along Meridian Road to extend to the north property line to minimize the breaks in the wall. c. In the landscape calculations table, show the linear feet of parkways and include the required number of trees and proposed number of trees in accord with UDC 11-3B- 7C. d. Revise the fencing adjacent to three micro-path lots(Lot 21,Block 2,Lot 16,Block 3, &Lot 8 Block 10)to be 6-foot privacy fencing. e. With the future final plat applications, depict the proposed fencing adjacent to the proposed common drives. f. Any landscaping within the ITD right-of-way shall be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.5. 4. Prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall submit conceptual elevations for the proposed detached single-family dwellings. 5. Prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall submit a revised Open Space Exhibit depicting the qualifying parkways throughout the development. 6. At the time of relevant final plat submittals,the Applicant shall submit common drive exhibits showing adequate area for residents to back out of garages without trespassing on the building lot at the end of the common drives—said exhibits shall depict, at a minimum: building envelope, fencing, common landscaping, and anticipated driveway locations. 7. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2D-3 and UDC 11-2D-6 for the TN-R zoning district. 8. 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. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 10. 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. 11. Applicant shall comply with the noise abatement standards as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4D. 12. Applicant shall comply with all fencing standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6&UDC 11- 3A-7. 13. Prior to the first Final Plat submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review(DES) approval for the townhomes and single-family attached dwellings within this development. 14. Prior to signature on a final plat,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along Meridian Road to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation.The easement shall be a minimum of 14' in width (10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side). Page 29 15. 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. 16. 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 11-613-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Each phase of the development will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is maintained. 2. If a well is located on the site,it must be abandoned per regulatory requirements. 3. Seepage bed must be 25'from waterlines unless additional protection is provided. There are at least two spots where this requirement is not met. 4. Dead-ends that will be extended require a blow-off. 5. Before full build out,two connections to the existing water system will be required;the second connection can be made to the north or back out to Meridian Rd. 6. Additional 15,800 gpd committed to model. WRRF decline balance is 14.37 MGD. 7. Master Plan line needs to be 12"with a slope of 0.28%. To and through slopes for all lines including 8" should be minimum slopes(where min slope for the 12" line is 0.28%). 8. Applicant required to abandon 12"main in Meridian Rd being installed as part of Briar Ridge development to the south so that Briar Ridge development sewers through this property. Applicant MUST work with Briar Ridge to determine location where 12"main is to connect to south. 9. Provide to-and-through to S1236110060 and S1236121090. Provide sewer connection in ROW instead of common lot. 10. Provide 14'wide access path for existing manhole located at eastern boundary. Due to distance from road provide a hammer head turn around for a 40'x 9' service vehicle. 11. Provide 20'easement for sewer outside of ROW. 12. Angle into/out of manhole needs to be 90 degrees minimum in the direction of flow. Multiple manholes do not appear to meet this requirement. 13. Ensure that manhole at W. Cusick St. and S. Blue Quartz Ave. is not located in the curb/gutter. 14. For common driveways with 3 or less lots,do not have mains located in common driveways. Run services from main in ROW. 15. See exhibit in public record titled"WW comments—Allure;" arrows showing direction of sewage flow should be corrected. 16. Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls, fences,infiltration trenches,light poles, etc.)are built within the utility easement. 17. Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches. General Conditions of Approval Page 30 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 31 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 ACED. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at htlp://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 32 Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=269062&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC i &cr=1 D. SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=275920&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky E. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=269876&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=270088&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty G. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=269061&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv H. PARKS DEPARTMENT-PATHWAYS https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=266529&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=276143&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Ry J. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) Conditions Memo- https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=276629&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=275993&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive Page 33 plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to Rezone the property from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R 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 TN-R zoning district and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone and traditional neighborhood zoning districts in general. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Subject site is already annexed so Staff finds this finding nonapplicable. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information) Page 34 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 offered their support of the proposed development with the proposed road layout in mind and with specific conditions of approval. 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 35 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Sessions Parkway (H-2022-0046) by KM Engineering, LLP. located at 2700 N. Eagle Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0046Sessions A. Request: Development Agreement Modification on the existing Development Agreement (Inst.#104129529) to remove the subject property from the agreement in order to enter into a new Development Agreement for the proposed project.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 5 building lots on 5.32 acres of land in the C-G zoning district with a request for City Council approval of an access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING October 6, 2022 Legend DATE: PFnjet Lorca i�or f TO: Planning&Zoning Commission i Iffl FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner _ - 208-884-5533 - -' SUBJECT: H-2022-0046 Sessions Parkway—MDA,PP LOCATION: 2700 N. Eagle Rd.,in the NW 1/4 of EB [ Section 4,T.3N.,R.IE. -- Parcel#S1104233650 ±. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the existing Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #2017-0121321,re-recorded as Inst. #2022-065403)to remove the commercial portion of the property from the agreement and enter into a new DA for the proposed project with an updated conceptual development plan; and Preliminary Plat consisting of five(5)building lots on 5.32 acres of land in the C-G zoning district with a request for City Council approval of a right-in/right-out driveway access via N. Eagle Rd./SH- 55. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 5.32 Existing/Proposed Zoning C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial pads with a fuel sales facility Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 5 building/0 common Phasing Plan(#of phases) None(to be constructed in one phase) Number of Residential Units(type 0 of units) Physical Features(waterways, The Finch Lateral runs along the southern boundary of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) site within an 80'wide easement(40' from centerline each side)as depicted on the plat. Neighborhood meeting date: 3/23/22 Pagel Description Details Page History(previous approvals) AZ-03-021;AZ-15-012;MDA-15-011;DA Inst.#2022- 065403;A-2020-0115 (PBA ROS#12423) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no West Ada School District No comment have been received. Police Department No comment have been received. Fire Department No comments have been received. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map � F Legend 7lq 0 Legend 13.=ro.e 11+kliaCtT9-. ff ' - _ Co ial , NuGffi�e Hal ILULLU { lu Page 2 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend '1 R-3 0 Legend _-- Project Luca?--- + Prcjent Luca-ron WL C-1 City Limit — P1onnL-d ParoeB 11 17 R. =R- 6—R _ - R-: R1 C-G R-8 R1 ¢ _ R'1-�15 RUTR , R% _ RUT R1 R, 9.. Rl R � I R1 R-4 i-O R-44 EB RUT _ RU7 C- 01 A. Applicant: Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering, LLP—5725 N. Discovery Way, Boise, ID 83713 B. Owners: Meridian Investments, LLC—74 E 500 S, Ste. 200,Bountiful,UT 84010-0000 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 9/21/2022 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 9/15/2022 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 9/21/2022 Nextdoor posting 9/15/2022 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) Land Use: The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property, and many of the surrounding properties in this vicinity along the Eagle Road corridor, as Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R). The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses.For example, an employment center should have supporting retail uses; a retail center should Page 3 have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-R designation provide an incentive for larger public and quasi-public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the development. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3D of the Comprehensive Plan as shown below. FIGURE 3D= 11 TXED UrsE REGI{ANAL C[IIVC"EPT DimmR.l►m 5�gk fantNy fdPsldlnti�l OftiW r I I � �� ! r•� ! 1 � I 1 � � i H04my \ Rptall or 12 LOGId lu Ini m � , � k�'ssldtntlal orMce DMIMJ LW_ � - ; Head Mrs _ }}. 6 O a, # 9 J� , . .p ° _ 1n[egrate�l v y } J PwraArfa �� �r � � � � 11 - � �. .a- �• �le[ail Arlerlal f'"d The proposed conceptual development plan for the subject 5.32-acre property depicts five(5) commercial building pads,including one for a fuel sales facility and one for a drive-through establishment,totaling 32,625 square feet(s.f.) of building area.Additional uses may develop on the site as allowed by UDC Table 11-2B-2 in the C-G district. Multi-family residential uses (i.e. Village Apartments A-2021-0231)by the same developer have been approved and are in the development process on the parcel directly to the east. Vehicle interconnectivity is proposed between the commercial and residential uses to the east at the north and south boundaries of the site. Safe pedestrian access should also be provided between the commercial uses within the site and to the future residential uses. The proposed development should provide a variety of commercial and retail uses in close proximity to residential uses. Kleiner City Park exists within a 1/4 mile of this site to the southeast,which is considered a Civic use. The site is located along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 within 1/4 of a mile of a major arterial intersection at E. Fairview Ave. and N. Eagle Rd.Although not anchored by uses that have a regional draw,the existing and proposed uses contribute to the variety of uses within this overall MU- R designated area as desired and should provide services to nearby residents. The proposed commercial development is not integrated with the future residential development to the east,nor is there a common usable gathering area with a plaza or green space as desired in mixed use designated areas.The rear of the fuel facility/convenience store faces the backage road and the rear of Buildings C,D and E face the residential development which creates a wall effect. Staff recommends the site plan is revised to more closely align with Page 4 the purpose statement and Figure 3D above, and the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Use and MU-R designated areas as noted below. Staff suggests rotating the fuel facility/convenience store pad so the rear of the building isn't facing east to better integrate with the other commercial pads and residential development. Similarly,some or all of the buildings along the eastern boundary should be rotated and/or relocated and a shared plaza area/green space added for better integration of uses and consistency with the mixed-use guidelines. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed-Use areas: (Staff's comments in italics) • A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone. The larger overall mixed-use designated area includes a mix of residential, commercial, office and civic uses. This project may only include commercial(i.e. retail, restaurant, etc) and residential uses (Village Apartments) as proposed, which may be adequate because it's a smaller site. • Where appropriate,higher density and/or multifamily residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69. Multi family residential uses (i.e. Village Apartments) were approved on the parcel directly to the east, which provide housing options for the commercial and employment uses along the Eagle Road/SH-55 corridor. • Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed-Use designation. A new conceptual development plan is proposed to replace the existing plan in the development agreement approved with the annexation. • In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space. The proposed conceptual development plan does not include any common usable area as desired. Staff recommends the concept plan is revised to include shared common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space within the commercial portion of the development or between the residential and commercial uses. • The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development. No low-or medium-density residential uses abut this site; however, a minimum 25 foot wide buffer, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-9C, is required along the eastern boundary of the site in the C-G district adjacent to future residential uses. • Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments. No community-servingfacilities are proposed with this development; however, these uses do exist within a fairly close proximity to the site and this is a smaller development. Page 5 • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas,open space, libraries,and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count. No such uses are proposed in this development. At a minimum,Staff recommends a plaza/outdoor gathering open space area is provided within the commercial development or between the commercial and residential development to the east. • Mixed use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi-public centers of activity.Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play.These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered. The proposed development plan doesn't incorporate any of these design elements or amenities;the concept plan should be revised accordingly. • All mixed-use projects should be accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian circulation should be convenient and interconnect different land use types. Vehicle connectivity should not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood access. The proposed development is accessible to the adjacent future residential development to the east(i.e. Village Apartments) by vehicle via two (2)driveways, one at north end and one at the south end of the site. Separate pedestrian walkways should also be provided for pedestrian safety that provide a connection to the multi-use pathway along Eagle Rd. and between buildings within the commercial development. • A mixed-use project should serve as a public transit location for future park-and-ride lots,bus stops, shuttle bus stops and/or other innovative or alternative modes of transportation. Public transit isn't available in this vicinity. • Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types. The three (3) eastern building pads back up to a drive aisle with a row ofparking on either side associated with the multi family development. • Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town,development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein. This guideline is not applicable as the property is not in Old Town. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-R areas: • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas. See analysis above. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. Between this site and the adjacent site to the east being developed by the same developer, residential uses exceed 10%of the development area at a gross overall density of 20.12 units/acre. Page 6 • There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. The Applicant is unsure at this point what commercial uses will develop on this site other than a fuel sales facility and convenience store and a drive-through establishment. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area. To ensure retail commercial uses don't exceed 50% of the development area and for a transition in uses,Staff recommends the concept plan is revised to depict non-retail commercial, office and/or civic uses for a minimum of 50% of the development area between the residential and retail commercial uses. Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development,the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development(beyond the allowed 50%), based on the ratios below: • For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if there is a one-acre library site planned and dedicated,the project would be eligible for two additional acres of retail development. • For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park,tot-lot, or playfield,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area,the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. • For plazas that are integrated into a retail project,the developer would be eligible for a 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point(such as a fountain, statue, and water feature), seating areas, and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half-acre plaza,the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. No public or quasi public uses are proposed with this development. If the concept plan is revised to include such uses, the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development(beyond the allowed 50%). Sample uses,appropriate in MU-R areas,include: All MU-N and MU-C categories, entertainment uses,major employment centers, clean industry, and other appropriate regional-serving most uses. Sample zoning include: R-15,R-40,TN-C, C-G, and M-E. The proposed commercial/retail/restaurant and fuel sales facility uses are allowed uses in the existing C-G zone, although they are not "regional serving"uses. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are also applicable to this development: (Staff's analysis in italics) • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Urban services are available to be provided upon development. Page 7 • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed commercial uses should be compatible with adjacent commercial uses to the north and south; and with the future multi family residential uses to the east if non-retail, office and/or civic uses are provided as a buffer and transition in uses as recommended. • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The proposed commercial uses and fuel sales facility should provide nearby services and employment options to the residents of the adjacent multi family developments, reducing vehicle trips on area roadways. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS(UD0 A. Development Agreement Modification(MDA): The Applicant proposes a modification to the existing Development Agreement(DA) for Village Apartments(AZ-15-012;MDA-15-011—DA Inst. #2022-065403)to remove the commercial portion of the property, consisting of 5.32 acres of land, from the agreement and enter into a new DA for the proposed project with an updated conceptual development plan. The existing conceptual development plan depicts three(3)retail/commercial building pads along the frontage of N. Eagle Road,two(2)of which are drive-through establishments,and one(1) larger retail building east of the building pads fronting on Eagle Rd. totaling 28,500 square feet (s.f.). A driveway is depicted at the northeast corner of the site for vehicular connectivity with the residential development to the east. A driveway is not depicted to the property to the south (fka Great Wall)because when that property developed, access was not required to be provided to this property because of the Finch Lateral, a large irrigation facility that separates the two properties. The properties to the south of the Finch Lateral were to have a backage road along their east boundaries for access via E. River Valley St. Since that time,this developer and the property owner to the south have been working together to construct a backage road between the two properties along Eagle Rd. and the Finch Lateral has been piped. A new access via Eagle Rd./SH-55 is proposed with this application,which will replace the existing temporary access on the Great Wall/Copper Canary property,if approved by the City and ITD. The temporary access was allowed to remain until such time as access became available from the south via E. River Valley St. If non-residential uses develop on the property to the south of the Copper Canary(fka Great Wall)property at 3280 E. River Valley St. as currently entitled,the backage road will extend to E. River Valley St.; however, if residential uses develop on that property, only an emergency access will be provided from the north to that property per the development agreement(Copper Canary Inst. #2022-048293). The proposed development plan depicts five(5)building pads totaling 32,625 s.f.A fuel sales facility with a convenience store is proposed on the northwest pad,a drive-through is proposed on the pad directly to the south, and three(3)other pads are proposed along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the future multi-family residential development to the east. As noted above in Section IV, Staff recommends changes to the concept plan for better integration between uses in accord with the mixed use and MU-R guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. Two driveway accesses are proposed at the north boundary—one via the existing curb cut,which will serve as a backage road along Eagle Rd. and will connect to the property to the south, and one new curb cut closer to Eagle Rd.,which would provide direct access to the fuel sales Page 8 facility/convenience store. Staff is concerned the access driveway nearest Eagle Rd.will create conflicts due to its proximity to the intersection and to the backage road; therefore, Staff recommends the access driveway is removed and access is provided solely via the backage road.Two(2)driveways to the east are proposed for interconnectivity with the future residential development. Staff recommends the driveway connection to the access driveway from Eagle Rd. at the southern boundary along the east side of Building B is removed to reduce conflicts with two access points so close together and vehicles backing out from parking stalls on either side. Typically, Staff would prefer the alignment of the backage road to be more linear and direct but the access points to the north and south are not in alignment. The "jog"in the roadway will result in traffic calming and reduced speeds,which is desired, especially if the access via Eagle Rd. is approved which will intersect the backage road. A cross-access easement(Inst. #2016-003980)exists with the property to the north for access via Eagle Road for this property.A reciprocal cross-access easement should also be recorded granting cross-access between the subject property and the abutting property to the south (Parcel#S1104233802); and the abutting property to the east(Parcel#S1104233730). Copies of the recorded agreements should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Staff has reviewed the provisions of the existing DA and finds provisions#5.1 f,which requires a buffer to residential uses; #5.1g,which requires pedestrian connections to be provided between the residential portion of the site and future commercial development; and#5.1h,which requires traffic calming to be provided between the residential and commercial development, still apply to development of the subject property. Therefore, Staff recommends these provisions are carried over to the new DA along with new provisions as noted herein and in Section VIII.A. B. Preliminary Plat(PP): A Preliminary Plat is proposed consisting of five (5)building lots on 5.32 acres of land in the C- G zoning district.As part of the plat,the Applicant requests City Council approval of an access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, located on the abutting property to the south(Parcel#S1104233802). Consent has been granted from the abutting property owner for this request as part of this application. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site;the previous structures have been removed. Dimensional Standards: Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C- G zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) There are two(2)existing accesses on this site associated with the previous residential use(s) and one(1)temporary access on the abutting property to the south via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 that are proposed to be removed and replaced with one (1)new right-in/right-out driveway access on the abutting property to the south as depicted on the plans and as shown below. Per UDC 11-3H-4,the use of existing approaches via the state highway are not allowed to continue if the intensity of the use increases. With the change in use to commercial,the intensity of the use will increase;therefore,the existing approaches are not allowed to remain and must be abandoned and removed as proposed.New approaches directly accessing a state highway are only Page 9 allowed at the section line road and the half mile mark between section line roads,which does not apply in this case. City Council may consider and approve modifications to the standards in UDC 11-311-4 upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) or if strict adherence is not feasible, as determined by City Council. ITD issued a letter of acceptance of the revised traffic striping conceptual drawings, dated November 13,2019, for SH-55/Eagle Rd. from River Valley St.to approximately 1,500 feet north for the proposed right-in/right-out access via Eagle Rd. The letter states the drawings address all of ITD's safety concerns but only acknowledges the acceptance of the conceptual plan —final approval of the proposed access and associated improvements is determined once all documentation has been provided and the permit is signed. Final approval of the access has not yet been granted been ITD. A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was submitted for the Village Apartments and Sessions Parkway developments,prepared by Kittelson&Associates in 2021. The study finds a northbound right- turn lane on Eagle Road into the site as proposed is warranted and should be constructed as proposed. A curb cut exists at the northern boundary of the site for access via Eagle Rd./SH-55 through an existing vehicular&pedestrian cross-access easement(Inst. #2016-003980).A cross- access/ingress-egress easement should be provided to the properties to the south and east for interconnectivity and access.A recorded copy of said agreements should be submitted prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. PROPOSED VEHICLE ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL ]RIVE AISLE - PRIVA I_L?RIVE I O III EXISTING APPROACHES n TO BE ABANDONED _ 4 a I CD I PROPOSED ' 1 BLOCK i CONS0u0ATE0 I+ ACCESS POINT TO EAGLE ROAD . - o I ARIVA;' BACKAGE - ROAO TO SO LITH a w i FORMER E%ISNNG GREAT WALL VEHICLE RESTAURANTACCESS TO EAGLE ROAD BE CLOSED Page 10 Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): A multi-use pathway is depicted on the Pathways Master Plan and required by UDC 11-3H-4C.3 along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. The pathway should be detached from the curb and constructed per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. If the pathway is located outside of the right-of-way,a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement should be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.Pedestrian lighting and landscaping shall be installed along the pathway consistent with the Eagle Road Corridor Study and comply with the specifications listed in UDC 11-3H-4C.3. Staff recommends a pedestrian plan is submitted that depicts pedestrian walkways between the building pads in the proposed commercial development and the future residential development to the east,and to the commercial properties to the north and south,for safe pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Connectivity should also be provided to the multi- use pathway along Eagle Rd.Pedestrian walkways should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): In lieu of a detached sidewalk, a detached multi-use pathway is required to be constructed along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and the Pathways Master Plan. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A minimum 35-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, an entryway corridor, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The final plat should depict the buffer in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,or business owner's association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2a. A minimum 25-foot wide buffer is required by UDC Table 11-2B-3 in the C-G district along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to future residential uses, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-9C. This buffer may be installed at the time of lot development. Landscape buffers are required to facilitate safe pedestrian access between residential and commercial development as set forth in UDC 11-3B-9C.3; the plan should be revised accordingly. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for the proposed subdivision that was prepared in 2015 with the Village Apartments application. Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11 C. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-157: Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6611: The Finch Lateral runs along the project's south boundary and has been piped in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. The lateral lies within an 80-foot wide easement—40' from centerline on each side—structures should not encroach within this easement and trees should be placed outside of the easement. This project is not within the flood plain. Page 11 Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were not submitted for the proposed commercial development. All structures should comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII,per the Findings in Section IX; and approval of the development agreement modification contingent upon revisions to the concept plan as discussed above and noted in Section VIII, consistent with the development guidelines for the mixed use and specifically the MU-R designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the Commission continue this project to a subsequent date in order for the Applicant to amend the concept plan as recommended. Page 12 VII. EXHIBITS A. Existing Development Agreement Provisions and Conceptual Development Plan 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1 Owrrer/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: a. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed irorn their domestic service prior to development. b. Development of this site shall be generally consistent with the overall site plan,landscape plan and buildingelevations included in Exhibit A of the Staff Report attached to the Findings of Fact attached hereto as Hxhibit "C" and the conditions of approval included in Exhibit B of the Staff Report attached to the Findings of Fact attached hereto as Exhibit"C" c. The Milk Lateral which cusses the noiKlxmq corner of this site shall be piped in accord with TJDC 11-3A-6A. d. A 35-foot wide street buffer, is required to he constructed along N. Eagle Road,an entryway corridor,with the second phase(commercial portion)of development; and a 20-foot wide street buffer is.equired to be constructed along N. Records Avenue,a collector street,with the firsf phase(residential portion) of development and prior to issuance of the fi"l Certificate of Occupancy for each phase.Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. e, A 10-foot wide multiuse pathway is required to he constructed within the street buffer along N. Eagle Road within a public use easement; pedestrian lighting and landscaping is alsorequired to be installed as set forthinUDC 1I- 3hI-4C. These improvements are required to be constructed with the second phase(commercial portion)of development and prior to issuance of the fir v Certificate of Occupancy for that portion of the site. f. Upon development of the retaillcornmercial portion of the property, a 25-foot wide h►ffer is mouimd to he installed adiacent to the residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C,unless otherwise modified by City Council. g. Pedestrian connections am required to be provided between the residential portion of the site and die future commercial. development on the western portion of this site and the residential developments to the north and south. h. Traffic calming shall be provided within the site between the residential and couvnercial development and in N. Records Avenue (as allowed by ACI-1D). Page 13 TA 0---- 1HEu�e�cna�� S 89'53'18" E 50.3.78 [ s �--Pad 1��-� .1111-i ~I, ?�rl - ---- I' VILLAGE P's _ _»-_=�� APARTMENTS 74 - �I r Pad 2 s = 14,000sf 11J f wm►_ J — — :. Retail [ -- W.•r: I 4 �IC. - ------------ 4 34 --i31.91F1° `_ _ 5� IL IV, Y+7_e•-ae- j `� -. �•9 p5�_` e4 �'�h. _-"-i.s•ypc r—. .zr.., :_ r� - yr' 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN EXHIBIT �A1.0 MMY-LWEEMBR Page 14 B. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan(NOT APPROVED) C-G _ _ _ C-G ...� y iaa �x.• I L'IgHRY MAP �E T ia4 .�+vc I so e I � w SESSI DNS PARKWAY S U BDIMSIDN-OD N CE PTUAL SffE PLAN �L war..r m IXLfI Page 15 C. Proposed Preliminary Plat(date: June 2022) PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWING PNEOMIMART UTQETA SESSIONS PARKWAY SUBDIVISION i SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWEST114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SEMON 4,TOWNSH I P 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,R.M.,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO. 2022 J I — LINA BIA5910__—__--_ �•c•y ��:�w x e..e.e.•.a:...� LG31 eLacx 1 +�1eE.anc 1 eoort IG3 PAGE IlBl1l®E SOIfR1fAT 81ARRfTP1ACE 8418. I SWilEAST AIAREEIPIACE SOB. BGGE 101 PAG f 13353-13255 800E IOl PACE 13353L'255 �__ -- I �� EESEHG L I tl�v1 H$° •� o.�,r =� CEI-EAEA�NN IN4ETAIElRS LLC � � � �� i— � � RSP:51106133]1E ' o,m w E �i� I I Et✓S1 RR['L9PQ5 AVE I �� f� >xw �fx t AIIII I L Y A LOT L68L0[✓K 69 i�u ���', LOOHBA FALLS B418.HO.12 I — � ` 900N 42 PAGE 1W58-103G0 � qg �� 1 SESSIONS AW 1116 M MERAN,,IDAH0 � LLtt 2&38LOOf1 � � R191PRYAYPNTLV�ER LOTI6LO[L 1 BACH SOB. B0.CH5418. BOON 1]3 PGGf IfifiO&]fiE1l 800E 113 PAGE 16508-IEfif1 PP]A Page 16 D. Landscape Plan(date: June 2022) T�­ _E�­ 0 .—r— I Tn1 IT 1— j T T T. Emil T I CD T T.5E J: PDTAL • M­REQUIR—E— iQU'../P­DED SESSIOMS PARKWAY SUB MEE ICIAN.IDAHO LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 17 E. Access Exhibit PROPOSED VEHICLE ACCESS TO COWESCIAL pRNE AISLE —}� PRIVATE URNE i— m 11 O z !!1J Q C 2 w E XISTING r I G APPROACHES TO BE 2 Ay-NDONEI) w N 7 PROPOSED ' BLOCK1 (;BNSOL➢ATE) ACCES$ mll TO EAGLE ROAD P.fVAQ DR1Vf' Ir lkmBA•CHAOE ROAD TO K I S011hi : E N G!N E E R�1 N G � is mel�vs xv FORMER s' r��PPE�XIO EAISTIrv6 GREAT WALL VEHICLE AESTAIIRA L I ACCESS TO 1 EAGLE ROAD BE CLOSED KTN\VEHICLE ACCESS EXHIBIT 90 ISO 270 PN n Scale_T'=go, Page 18 F. Legal Description&Exhibit Map for Property Subject to New Development Agreement Im May 14r 2020 Project No.17-169 Legal 0"trlptlon l''ar�el 6 A parcel of land situated in the Southwest 114 of the Northwest 114 of S"66n 4,TpwrrshIII 3 Ndrlh. Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Me6dian,Ada County,Idaho,and being mare particularly described d5 follows_ Cornmenelrng at a found brass tap marking the Northwest corner of said Section 4,wh-icb bears NW36'00"E a d ista me of Z f 11.39 feet from d found brass ea p marking the Vilest 11 4 corner of sald Section 4; Thence fsfllowlrig the westerly Ilne afsald Northwest 114,S0Q'3600'W a dlstanoe of 1385,13 feet; Thence leaving skid wetterly line,%0'51'36"E a dlstanrL%of 70-01 feet to a found 5{8dnch rebar marking the southwest corner of Southeast Corner Marketplace Subdivision No,1 errd[*in the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence fallowing the southerly boundary line of said Southeast Corner Marketplace 5ubdivi5;i4n mg-T, S89'-116"1=a distance of 4n.48 feet to a set 519•inch rebar, Thence leaving said southerly Subdivision%boundary line,SW27'57'W a distance of 565.51)feet to a set 5f8-inch rebar on the northerly subdivision boundary line of Each 5ubdivi5ion; Thence fallowing the northerly subdivislon boundary line the following two(2)courses, 1. N GVJZ'S2"w a distance of 251-�7 Feet to a found alumJnum cap; 2, 584.26'08"W a&Stairite of 17-13 feet to a fecund 518aeieh rebar marking the northwest inarner of said Bach Subdivision, Thence leaving saW"rtherlyf 5-vW�w tan bqurrdery lie7er S$4'26'i)rVV a distance of 114-63 feet to a found 5/9-inch rebar; TherlCe Nn'04'OTW a dlstanee of 144-05 feet to a found 5/8 0 rebar on the easterly right-of-way Hire of N.Eagle Road; Thence foliowing said easterly right-of-way line,NW39WE a distance of 391.77 feet to the POINT OF BEGINPOW Said parcel contains 231,902 Sq.Ft.15324 acres.},more or less,and is 5ubjierttuall existing easements a nd f qr fthts-of-way of record- All subdivislons,deedsr record of surveysr&nd other instruments of record referenced herein are recorded documents of the cx3urrty in whlthe these described lands are situated in. AL L A # A 662 u5 -o 4233 West State Weel 8alse,Ida 3 4 * 106,639,69#9 • krna.�gllp-{ern Page 19 RECORD OF SURVEY PROPERTY BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT FOR ROS No. G -Meridian Investments, C. A PARCEL OF LAND 9l3uATE01N il* 7TI 3WWf5T 114 pF'fHE NpRTH'NESEST 1/d OF 5ECHON4, TDWN5HIP 3NORTH.RANGES FAST.E.".MY OF MERIDIAN,ADA LiII CY.IpAHp• �oDo o Faa 3P6 3m PT»+r aF Ftrr M[n7de:F'•141' Pn�ueRulsP qP�AECmII r 32 33 IxsT.ra Itrnre[o If6EH0 F6.w rLylY6.M cw.as HUM 5 A � caw Pxw�cw,wH xoTm I I [1N >b HIY!fqR 1 I O F0.M SAY R®Yi A5 neh➢ I I I &otl41 I I o Faxa Vx-razln.rs Holm RC6n I1661x �'� I I $ c�ucTnena raxr I� t SRu1Mxt Conmr . .L mor,:att eouxnar yxP �' ,� 566rS4'S8"E Sf14 T' _ � -_ ewwE Lm uxE ALVR OyF/�B•¢GnxC PaAC£i B .-3 �p°�T� i y 4� - FnwAwewnw m„aue k aln,cm urm c..wvlxR r mEA T AL 1PF6r 5119.5I'36'E 479 4Z O.47' '•�•-"•'�^^IAN{EHr PRLFA,RY uYc [ia per.Z= wun nP:RK}_µ I f -----------F DT UNE 69 WU I"'—lir�i�n��h]�n Rnr aF eEcrnHu ntRcn r M woo.�„ea u u1FrbL[F3A'.W NE 5]' I ! I PrFERERCE5 � a+.ism r.wa swam'uxe li'.oa Prorr�F-rr.r usoluF I R1 �49PP SF R.PtEf No PRN.PEWF.4G ff rAi Ate'.IRY/d PER E9F.Xa'IIQ20L61'mm� Ir....15'Rnv un[umorr RL PaT OF B1CN SUA]IF13r11 BRox I,a a PWS lI PtlCi R II Fm xPr.tlx.ctltiwc I I leeoe-,ee,q RE[OPa3 d,�n.murTr,lore MNFIIL RIL'A 60HHYRI u E ��A A � II-=-_--� Ps'rtl e � 113T�ffinM I � „i�Y R' o,o�Purs tiT r+toci,i�°�,i a rEeaan'�die'ff eu',cwmw6i` C3 S.S2c.c IM.—qF[7 h A 6ww. au.PL�SgFy RA PLU OF Bo06 IW CF Pu94 AT PA4C � uRfi3NE9,ltF.ERiF61ni bw-t]3ob,RE60X9 a 3W�Ilr,iUUFR x�9;1 X I KJd6 Let.rn AnxxeS n I R> weaawrc cusp nerv,�xr xd m,e-0mma leaonvs v xr x � I ;y ue*A11PYI I 3 onnrtr.avrp d i V LSP[P Y� l>F 'PER nsT.w. `"E 'E'A1° gR1"s kd �0' .9. 9eoaKee L.�'.� r7asx I,aoe'4[CFrWF6S ]Y rIRE§.Mm N6 � Lt iiPat'mt Ina[ I I CER'TIFIUTr 9F ppVIlTT REgpRCER 1 d7\��~ --. xr1TE.[SPSn 1 SATE OP�Ulif] I �rtTT ra*,nx,wwerlP n uo•xmz aa.2r I �� ,�Z� ee.cc r[Kn u tl3a•tesrr az.FR I ,a,ao-,elr .]�.[ �E I �4 ti����� IAIFRLL dSFFEHF 1 I Ixataw,r x[ReeR�ib� '-�"1 -PEA MIST.rb.NP], N HIR16'�6'M R.cr sk LS i,143PIPP'6' ,32m I '3MuF P.sr Z pLSA' ��tr I -���i"� [a wa*a.m•r ,.wu I ..a.n xr LFtE wn r our o ����L 4 ftiy_��� Li YYIY4[4 lLAP I _ Tail RriGtr I d35d4nr ur F �~� � ��ti x�tnaa I I ! 2!84FP FATIe Rd. QR � IQ +�'} \eed�4thdHYlm ` I �l tl�[ `���• 'fir I IERTRICFTE IIF SR1fNEYOR L r 10Wt W HERFHr 4SIRFf ix.E N!.REgPTERpp PRCiC=90HLL lML SAMYS+.lIC£H-iD Fr THE iTxTE pF pµp.!M TntT T,e4 lYP N6 fEp Pptppm FNH N aiC1LUL 9.ellE/MILE W 4 mo�xe uuW Ffl 1rPE1NWOx.rnx llwi iM FVP P AH M111A1E 53ob'Lft R[TnCmR.TIa,o vo'lAniY. KSr 5¢nox. •13C fh9 TPIY Fou.o� a arr c-x 1l1P—HM cPllsta y pw u�.na tINATaRP Sg �2 SLIPYEI RAIIFATIYE HTMiER.49 1nTd Mi: a M 1H -Fosv+y+F+s air rs 4. xF E H C I H E E itI N C uFd[TrC ummorrtr PF IYOnIP CF 911M1EY Mo PAN N4,F4 PVRS 1 6C WrrtY SArF STF4F, ex[M amRlw,LauRf�fl llf%M MNRTF4ACE•!.[afATEgIa AW fE Oral dA[R 4x'urE i>J��•iau wm risen IWIWEA„+W Hp4[9+n"M gFPNFa[R. Inulr]m e[H 9.�TINRt WHraFM41.'E NFx WE REL17,P� we.ne.3,1-�-�-3-0-HabO n]nM. 1npA PReiO1 Page 20 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Prior to action by the Commission on this application,Staff recommends revisions to the conceptual development plan consistent with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the Mixed Use and specifically the Mixed Use—Regional FLUM designation,as follows: • Submit a pedestrian plan that depicts pedestrian walkways between the building pads in the proposed commercial development and the future residential development to the east,and to the commercial properties to the north and south, for safe pedestrian access. Connectivity should also be provided to the multi-use pathway along Eagle Rd.Pedestrian walkways should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4. • Depict common,usable area such as a plaza or green space for an outdoor gathering area either centrally within the commercial portion of the development or between the residential and commercial uses in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. • Mixed use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi- public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered. • Depict a minimum 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses along the eastern boundary of the site in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G district. • Depict non-retail commercial, office or civic uses for a minimum of 50%of the development area between the residential and commercial retail uses to provide a transition in uses and to ensure retail commercial uses do not exceed 50% of the development area in accord with the Comprehensive Plan for MU-R designated areas. Where the development proposes public and quasi public uses to the support the development, the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development based on the ratios noted on pg. 3-17 of the Comprehensive Plan. • The driveway connection to the access driveway from Eagle Rd. at the southern boundary of the site along the east side of Building B should be removed to reduce conflicts with two access points so close together and vehicles backing out from parking stalls on either side of the driveway. • Remove the access driveway nearest Eagle Rd. at the northern boundary of the site; sole access to fuel sales facility/convenience store should be provided via the backage road. • Rotate the fuel facility/convenience store so that the rear of the building isn't facing east to better integrate with the other commercial uses and residential development to the east. • Rotate and/or relocate Buildings C,D and E to better integrate with the adjacent residential uses. A shared plaza/gathering area/green space will aid in integration of uses for consistency with the mixed-use guidelines. • The site plan should be revised to more closely align with Figure 3D in the Comprehensive Plan for MU-R designated areas(pg. 3-17). • Make any revisions necessary to the plat and landscape plan based on changes to the conceptual development plan. Page 21 A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. #2022-065403,MDA-15-012)for Village Apartments and shall instead be subject to a new agreement. The new DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting approval of the amendment. The specific provisions for the new DA are as follows: a. Development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan approved by City Council and the conditions of approval included in Section VIII.A. b. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the site. c. A 25-foot wide buffer shall be installed along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the future residential uses, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C,unless otherwise modified by City Council. Construction of the buffer may take place with lot development. d. Pedestrian connections shall be provided between the subject property and the future residential development to the east,the commercial properties to the north and south and to the multi-use pathway along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accord with the approved pedestrian plan. e. Traffic calming shall be provided within the site between the subject property and the residential development to the east. f. Provide trash enclosures within the development capable of housing containers for both solid waste and recyclable materials in accord with MCC 4-1-4. 2. The final plat shall include the following: a. Include the recorded instrument of the existing 30-foot wide City of Meridian sewer and water main easement graphically depicted on the plat. b. Depict the street buffer along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner, or business owner's association per UDC 11-313-7C.2a. c. Include a note stating direct lot access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 is prohibited except for the access approved with the plat.Note: The proposed access via Eagle Rd. is required to be approved by City Council and ITD. d. Include a note stating all lots in the subdivision are subject to a cross-access/ingress- egress easement as graphically depicted on the plat. e. Depict a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 if the pathway is located outside of the right-of-way; include the recorded instrument number of the easement. 3. The landscape plan depicted in Section VII.D shall be revised with submittal of the final plat, as follows: a. Depict landscaping within the 25-foot wide buffer along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.1; and safe pedestrian connections between commercial and residential uses as set forth in UDC 11-3B-9C.3. Construction of the buffer may take place with lot development. Page 22 b. Depict landscaping within the 35-foot wide street buffer along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accord with the updated standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.3; and pedestrian lighting and landscaping consistent with the Eagle Road Corridor study per UDC 11-3H-4C.3. 4. A reciprocal cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be recorded between the subject property and the abutting property to the south(Parcel# S1104233802) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. A recorded copy of the agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 5. A reciprocal cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be recorded between the subject property and the abutting property to the east(Parcel#51104233730)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. A recorded copy of the agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 6. Submit details for the pedestrian lighting required along the multi-use pathway adjacent to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 that demonstrate compliance with the specifications set forth in UDC 11- 3H-4C.3. 7. If the multi-use pathway along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 is located outside of the right-of-way, submit a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement to the Planning Division for City Council approval and recordation prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat. 8. Future development shall be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Terminate water main with hydrant 2. Provide easement from end of water main to north property line for potential future connection. 3. Additional 271 gpd flow committed to model. WRRF declining balance is 14.35 MGD. 4. Max Slope of 8" line is 8%. 5. Adjust manhole#1 so it is not located in the curb/gutter. 6. Ensure that the existing manhole is not located in a curb/gutter. 7. For sewer and water in parallel,if sewer depth is greater than 15 feet, locate the water main 5 feet from the edge of easement and center the sewer main between the water main and other edge of easement. 8. Pedestrian decorative lighting will be required for sidewalk frontage along Eagle Road. General Conditions of Approval 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 Page 23 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 I I-5C-3B. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 23. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 24. 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. Page 24 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridianciU.oM1publ ic_works.aspx?id=272. 29. 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. 30. 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. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=272579&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr--1 D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=273745&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iu E. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciby.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=272564&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity IX. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat and subsequent development will be in substantial compliance Page 25 with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use and transportation if the Applicant complies with the provisions in the staff report. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section IV of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, ITD, etc.). (See Section VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health,safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD and ITD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 26