Loading...
2022-11-03 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 03, 2022 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT ABSENT Commissioner Stoddard Commissioner Grace Commissioner Lorcher Commissioner Wheeler Commissioner Seal Commissioner Yearsley ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the October 20, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Denial of a Conditional Use Permit for Bridge at The Village at Meridian (H-2022-0069) by Meridian CenterCal, LLC, located at 3210 E. Longwing Ln. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for EICU Ten Mile Branch (H-2022-0068), for a new drive-through for a financial institution located within 300 feet of a residential use on approximately 1.23 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, by Steven Peterson, CLH Architects & Engineers Motion to approve made by Commissioner Yearsley, seconded by Commissioner Lorcher Voting Yea: Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Stoddard, Commissioner Seal ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing for Promenade Cottages Subdivision (H-2022-0013) by Steve Arnold, A-Team Consultants, located at 403 E. Fairview Ave. Motion continue to December 15, 2022 A. Request: Rezone of approximately 0.535 acres of land from the R-8 zone to the C-G zoning district, 0.326 acres of land from the C-G to the R-40 zoning district and 6.284 acres of land from the R-8 zone to the R-40 zoning district (6.61 acres of R-40 total). B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 single-family townhome lots, 5 multi-family lots, 2 commercial lots and 8 common lots on 7.64 acres of land in the requested R-40 and C-G zoning districts. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 90 multi-family units and 30 townhomes on approximately 4.65 acres in the requested R-40 zone and to allow the continuance of the non-conforming use of a mobile home park for an extended period of time in the requested R-40 zone. Motion to approve continuance to December 15, 2022 made by Commissioner Lorcher, seconded by Commissioner Yearsley Voting Aye: Commissioner Stoddard, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Lorcher 5. Public Hearing for Prairiefire 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. Recommend Approval to City Council, scheduled for December 6, 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 to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Yearsley, seconded by Commissioner Lorcher Voting Aye: Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Stoddard 6. Public Hearing for Hadler Neighborhood (H-2022-0064) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at 7200 S. Locust Grove Rd., approximately 1/2 mile south of the Locust Grove and Lake Hazel intersection on the east side of Locust Grove Rd. Recommend Denial to City Council, scheduled for December 6, 2022 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 20.5 acres of land from RUT to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 145 building lots (52 single-family attached lots & 93 detached single-family lots) and 11 common lots on approximately 20 acres of land in the requested R-15 zoning district. Motion to recommend denial to City Council made by Commissioner Yearsley, seconded by Commissioner Stoddard Voting Aye: Commissioner Stoddard, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Lorcher 7. Public Hearing for Alden Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0059) by Dave Yorgason, Tall Timber Consulting, located at 6870 N. Pollard Lane and three (3) parcels to the north and east, directly east of State Highway 16 and south of the Phyllis Canal at the northern edge of the Meridian Area City Impact Recommend Approval to City Council, scheduled for December 6, 2022 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 24.8 acres of land with a request for the R-4 (20.35 acres) and R-8 (4.45 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 65 building lots and 10 common lots on approximately 21.7 acres of land in the requested zoning districts. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Lorcher, seconded by Commissioner Stoddard Voting Aye: Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Stoddard 8. Public Hearing for Turin Plaza (H-2022-0063) by 12.15 Design, located at 3169 W. Belltower Dr. Recommend Approval to City Council, scheduled for December 13, 2022 A. Request: Rezone of 1.80 acres of land from the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to the L-O (Limited Office) zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Lorcher, seconded by Commissioner Yearsley Voting Aye: Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Stoddard 9. Public Hearing for McDermott Village (H-2022-0056) by Boise Hunter Homes, located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd. at the northwest corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. McDermott Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council A & B Approved C, scheduled for December 6, 2022 A. Request: Annexation of 40.05 acres of land with R-15, R-40 and C-G zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots (81 townhome, 1 multi-family, 3 commercial lots) and 8 common lots on 40.05 acres of land in the R-15, R-40 and C-G zoning districts. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family residential development consisting of 250 dwelling units on 12.19 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Motion to approve Conditional Use Permit and recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Yearsley, seconded by Commissioner Seal Voting Aye: Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Seal Voting Nay: Commissioner Stoddard Recuse: Commissioner Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 9:25 pm Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 3, 2022. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 3, 2022, was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chairman Andrew Seal. Members Present: Chairman Andrew Seal, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Maria Lorcher, and Commissioner Mandi Stoddard. Members Absent: Commissioner Nate Wheeler and Commission Patrick Grace. Others Present: Joy Hall, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson, Stacy Hersh, and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher _X Mandi Stoddard (Vacant) _X Steven Yearsley Patrick Grace X Andrew Seal - Chairman Seal: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for November 3rd, 2022. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorney and clerk's offices, as well as the city's 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 that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@ meridiancity.org. They will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access that at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with the roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Seal: Okay. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. File No. H-2022- 0013 for Promenade Cottages Subdivision will be opened for the sole purpose of continuing to a regularly scheduled meeting. Be open for that purpose only. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify for this application we will not be taking testimony on them this evening. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Lorcher: So moved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 2 of 61 Yearsley: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. No opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the October 20, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Denial of a Conditional Use Permit for Bridge at The Village at Meridian (H-2022-0069) by Meridian CenterCal, LLC, located at 3210 E. Longwing Ln. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for EICU Ten Mile Branch (H-2022-0068), for a new drive-through for a financial institution located within 300 feet of a residential use on approximately 1.23 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, by Steven Peterson, CLH Architects & Engineers Seal: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two things on the -- three things on the agenda. First is to approve the minutes of the October 20th, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. We also have Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for the denial of a conditional use permit for the Bridge at Village -- Bridge at the Village at Meridian, file number H-2022-0069, as well as Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for a conditional use permit for the EICU Ten Mile Branch, H-2022-0068. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Yearsley: So moved. Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. No opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Seal: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 3 of 61 is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called on only once during the public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on the website or in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted in Zoom or you can come forward to the microphones in chamber. You need to state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation to the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and you can run the presentation yourself. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, meaning other people are willing to give their time to you, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom press the raise button app -- or raise hand button on the Zoom app. If you are only listening on a phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please, be sure to mute the extra devices so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have any questions for you, you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and you will no longer have the ability to speak. And, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant is finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing for Promenade Cottages Subdivision (H-2022-0013) by Steve Arnold, A-Team Consultants, located at 403 E. Fairview Ave. A. Request: Rezone of approximately 0.535 acres of land from the R-8 zone to the C-G zoning district, 0.326 acres of land from the C-G to the R-40 zoning district and 6.284 acres of land from the R-8 zone to the R-40 zoning district (6.61 acres of R-40 total). B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 single-family townhome lots, 5 multi-family lots, 2 commercial lots and 8 common lots on 7.64 acres of land in the requested R-40 and C-G zoning districts. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 90 multi-family units and 30 townhomes on approximately 4.65 acres in the requested R-40 zone and to allow the continuance of the non-conforming use of a mobile home park for an extended period of time in the requested R-40 zone. Seal: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Promenade Cottages Subdivision, H-2022-0013, for continuation to December 15th. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 4 of 61 Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I move that Promenade Cottage Subdivision, H-2022-0013, be awarded their continuance for the date -- hearing date of December 15th. Yearsley: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to continue file number H-2022-0013 to the date of December 15th, 2022. All in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Prairiefire 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. Recommend 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 Seal: Okay. At this time I would like to open file number H-2022-0053 for Prairiefire Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Hersh: Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. The applicant is here to present the Prairiefire Subdivision. The applications are for annexation, zoning and preliminary plat. The site consists of 3.1 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county, located at 3539 North Locust Grove Road. There is no history on the property. The Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation is medium density residential. The applicant proposes to annex in 3.16 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. The property is designated as medium density residential in the FLUM contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for units at a gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. The preliminary plat was submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with 22 single family residential detached dwelling units at a gross density of 6.96 units per acre, which is within the desired density range of the medium density residential designation. The subject property is an enclave surrounded by existing single family residential detached homes to the north -- is Quenzer Commons, West is Heritage Grove, east is Summerfield and the church to the south and office park to the north. The development is proposed to be an age restricted -- restricted 55 plus community and the applicant's narrative states that they have an agreement in place to merge this development with the Heritage Grove HOA. Access is proposed from the extension of the existing local sub street along West Prairiefire Street on the west. Access is prohibited from North Locust Grove Road. ACHD is requiring the applicant to increase the radius of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 5 of 61 the cul-de-sac from 45 feet to 50 feet per district standards. The project is conditioned to comply with all ACHD's conditions of approval. The -- the only landscaped buffer that's required for this project is a 25 foot wide buffer that's required along the North Locust Grove Road. Because the site is below five acres in size open space and site amenities are not required per UDC 11-3G-3A. However, the applicant is providing 0.37 acres of common area to provide pedestrian access to the commercial -- to the commercial properties located to the north in North Locust Grove Road. This area will be landscaped with trees, shrubs and include a five foot micro path. Staff recommends that the applicant remove Lot 11 , Block 1, along the northern property boundary. The micro path connection on the northern portion of the common lot adjacent to the commercial development is hidden behind Lot 11 , Block 1, creating a potential safety issue for pedestrians. Pedestrian pathways and common lots shall be designated to reduce the incidence of crime and improve the quality of life. The applicant has provided us with six conceptual building elevations to demonstrate the style of homes proposed for this development. A mix of single story and single story with a bonus room homes are proposed. However, staff believes the proposed -- proposed elevations are not consistent with the Heritage Commons Subdivision development. Staff has included a few sample elevations -- actually, there is one sample here -- to demonstrate the style of -- style of homes in the Heritage Grove development. So, staff is recommending that the applicant submit revised elevations that are consistent with the homes in the Heritage Commons Subdivision prior to the Council hearing. The only written testimony that we have is from Doug Sayers and he had concerns pertaining to the excess traffic through the Heritage Grove Subdivision. With that said, staff recommends approval of this project with the requirement of a DA that contains the provisions in the staff report and I stand for any questions that you may have. Seal: Okay. Thank you. And welcome to Planning and Zoning. Hersh: Thanks. Seal: All right. At this time would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening, sir. Just need your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Either one will work. Connor: Thank you very much. My name is Patrick Connor. My address is 701 South Allen Street, Meridian, Idaho. I think Stacy's going to pull up the PDF presentation. Stacy, do I have control of the -- can you make it -- can you make it full size? Starman: Madam Clerk, could you restart the clock, please? Thank you. Connor: Thank you. Good Evening, Commission. And welcome, Stacy, to -- to staff. know we are all happy to have you here. It's been a pleasure working with you so far since meeting you. Tonight representing Prairiefire Subdivision. It is a -- an in-fill property, 3.16 acres, in this heart of Meridian. It currently fronts on North Locust Grove, but it shares a boundary on its western side with the Heritage Grove Subdivision. Tonight we are requesting zoning of R-8 and 22 single family lots and one common lot. As you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 6 of 61 can see it is an in-fill project. There is a lot of projects that are completely built out around it. Like I mentioned, Heritage Grove is a 55 plus community to our west. Heritage Commons is a traditional community to the north. There is commercial uses to the north. There is a pediatric clinic and a preschool day school to our north, an LDS church to the south and the fire station is along the eastern side. In the Comprehensive Plan map, as Stacy mentioned, it is a medium density residential and this map shows the -- the zoning around the property. So, this one shows a little bit clearer, but there is significant R-8 to the north, R-15 at Heritage Grove, and, then, limited office to the south and to the north with -- R-8 is what we are proposing tonight. When we first started talking to the city about, you know, what sort of product would fit best here, we initially came in talking about doing potentially townhomes to fit in with the commercial uses and -- and sort of this in- fill higher density potential property. The more we talked to the city they encouraged us to look more at single family use here and the more that we talked to the communities nearby we settled on single family lots in this particular project. As you see in front of you the preliminary plat we are showing 22 single family lots, with about 11 percent as open space. As Stacy said, it's less than five acres, no open space is required, but we wanted to show and connect to the pathway to the north and the pathways along Locust Grove. So, that's why you see the green as shown. And when we had our neighborhood meeting there was a very strong turn out and there was a lot of real concerns brought forward with the impact of this community. So, we worked a lot over the past summer with the HOA board, which is present here tonight, and -- and I will ask the HOA president to come forward and -- and speak a little bit on this, but from the beginning we were trying to find a win-win partnership between us and the neighboring community. Some of the issues brought forward was that we were creating sort of an island community if we were just to do a standalone HOA and a regular single family neighborhood. Their hope was that potentially we could come into their HOA and join them and be a 55 plus community to help alleviate some of the impact of a single family community there. So, we started talking about how that would work. Some of the concerns that were brought up were increased number of kids and traffic and they were trying to get away from that sort of impact. So, we were able to accommodate that by agreeing to do a 55 plus community in this particular subdivision. There is also some concerns about incongruent architectural details between our project and their project. As part of our annexation to their HOA we will be held to certain architectural restrictions to make sure that we are in line with their current housing product. Most of our architectural restrictions match theirs, but there is just some things here and there that we want to make sure that we can accommodate. Lastly -- and this is kind of getting into the weeds of -- of development -- but our -- our pressurized irrigation system there doesn't exist it. We have a flood irrigation setup with our water -- water right. So, it's a real challenge to have on demand pressurized irrigation. Heritage Grove does have a -- have a pressurized irrigation service and in talking with them they can attach us onto their current system. We can dedicate our water rights to that system and, then, we will pay for any sort of upsizing or pump upgrades that would need to happen to connect to that. So, that was a big thing that we were trying to work with and figure out how we are going to do it. We didn't want to have to connect to the city's domestic water line, so this was a real win for -- for us to provide irrigation water to -- to our future residents. Before I move on to some of the issues in the -- in the staff report that I want to talk about, I do want to invite Michael Ford, he is the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 7 of 61 president of the HOA, to talk a little bit about the conversations that we have had and -- and some of the progress that -- that he had in getting approval for the annexation for us into his HOA. Seal: Do you want to have him come up separately? Because this cuts into your 15 minutes. Connor: I do want to have him come up. Seal: Okay. That's fine. Just wanted to make sure that was clear. Connor: Thank you. Seal: Good evening, sir. I need your name and address for the record as well. And, please, speak right into the microphone. I know you are a taller gentleman, so -- we don't have extenders on them. Rusnack: My name is Michael Rusnack. 3302 North Sheephorn in this fine city. Part of the Heritage Grove Subdivision. I'm representing the board as the board president of our community. Very short statement if I may then. Upon hearing of the Prairiefire development with the Hubble team, our board immediately began just -- began discussions. In fact, it was here we were first introduced to the program. At that time we began discussions with -- with the Hubble team on inclusion of that group into our development. In June the Heritage Grove drafted -- Heritage Grove Board drafted a proposal that was presented to our community and was presented for a vote to our entire community. The balloting of our community resulted in overwhelming support. In fact, greater than 90 percent of our community voted in favor of the terms and conditions laid out by the board for annexation of that portion of the community. With the community mandate the board, then, began further discussion working with the Hubble team and -- the Hubble team to finalize the annexation process and this is expected -- the detail of this will be ironed out. There were some minor terminology things as we learned of -- we called it Hubble in our document -- we called it Heritage Grove in our document and it needed to be labeled Prairiefire. More legal for you folks. As Patrick pointed out, a couple of details that we needed to iron out and cast into our CC&R architectural group of the accommodation for their architectural needs that met more particularly their lots in size. But in this agreement we have laid out to our community again overwhelming support from our community and we anticipate and we expect to have this agreement finalized very shortly. Appreciate the opportunity to give the portion of -- our representation of the Heritage Grove community. Seal: Thank you, sir. Connor: Thank you. There are a couple things I do want to talk about. Conditions two -- two conditions in particular that are in the staff report. We do have a connection going north to the limited office property. It's a pediatric clinic and a -- and a daycare. Part of the problem is the current stub road or stub pathway comes in at kind of an awkward Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 8 of 61 location in the property and so we were forced to kind of jog a lot or -- or kind of come into the lot and it made that pathway not visible from the street. I spoke to the HOA president of the -- of the commercial property to the north and they are open to shifting or allowing us to move that stub -- stub sidewalk to make it accommodate our -- our green spaces there a little bit better, makes it more visible from our cul-de-sac, to alleviate the concerns that Stacy brought up in her staff report about safety. I think it will also kind of make it look a little better, make it more -- make a lot of sense. He did bring up the fact that he doesn't really want the connection between the two sites given they currently have a pediatric clinic and a daycare there at -- for -- in his perspective it does make kind of a conflict point, a potential safety hazard in the future. It is a condition of-- it was a condition of their approval to have that pedestrian connection to the south. I just wanted to bring that forward, that there will be some working with their HOA to ensure that we make that pathway connection. Again, that -- this sort of connection point can be done over time and -- and will be still defined on final plat, as long as it is a -- a condition of approval to have that connection point there. In Stacy's recommendation she said to eliminate that -- that lot completely and, then, add square footage to the remaining lots in the north. I think we can accomplish within that 20 -- 20 feet of green space there to the pathway that runs north and -- and keep the lot count as it is. The next item that I kind of want to discuss was the condition of providing house renderings that match Heritage Grove. I don't have a problem doing that and we are updating our product anyway for this 55 plus community. It's a different sort of market, different sort of buyer. We are entering an architectural agreement with the HOA board to make sure that we match our--our houses appropriately with architectural elements. I just think it can get a little tricky sometimes if we are having them approve certain architecture and, then, you guys are also approving architecture and we are trying to design architecture -- I just personally think that we have a good relationship between us and the architectural committee and the board and I feel like that sort of decision making design can happen between those -- those two parties, rather than the connection between us and the city. I -- I don't -- I don't -- I personally just don't think it's appropriate for extraordinary architectural restrictions to put on this property when we already have it kind of built in with the HOA. So, with that I will conclude it. Thank you for considering this application for annexation and preliminary plat. It is an in- fill project that matches the adjacent land uses, providing much needed pedestrian connections to Locust Grove and we really have tried --worked really hard, we have made a lot of headway and a lot of concessions from our end becoming a 55 plus community. It's a -- we are shrinking our buyer pool in a market where buyers are very hard to find these days -- to a certain 55 plus market. That was an accommodation that I kind of fought for, that Michael and his team really fought for to make a win-win situation. I think this will be a great addition to Heritage Grove and -- in the long -- in the long run it's going to be one seamless community, which I'm -- I'm happy that we were able to get there after a very -- a very heated neighborhood meeting initially. We are following all zoning parameters and city ordinances within the R-8 code. So, I'm happy to work with you all on that. With that I will stand for any questions. Seal: Any questions for staff or the applicant? Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 9 of 61 Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: In regard to your landscaping of the actual home sites -- so a lot of 55 communities have -- the subdivision takes care of that. Is that your plan or is each individual house responsible for their front and back yards? Connor: That is a good question. We will follow how Heritage Grove does it. We will have to touch with Michael how that works. We typically try to do -- or-- or try to do kind of more lower upkeep with the front yard landscaping. I believe these will be traditionally maintained. But, again, I will -- we will fall in with however Heritage Grove does it. I don't know exactly how they -- how they maintain their -- their front yards. I'm sure the folks here can chime in on that. But we will follow the --the -- how they do it at Heritage Grove. Lorcher: The only reason I ask is that -- like you had said, you have flood irrigation and you have to tap into somebody else's pressurized irrigation system. If there is more control from the subdivision, as opposed to individuals, you might have better luck with this -- you know, having the water equally distributed. You know -- I know in my subdivision they say only Tuesdays and Thursdays and Saturdays, but I see a guy watering three times a day. So, there is no control on that. Connor: Yeah. Lorcher: But if you had control -- if you were in charge of the landscaping and mowing the lawns and, you know, making sure that's all taken care of, then, you can control when the water goes on. Connor: Yeah. Again -- again, I'm sure Heritage Grove has certain watering days and they make sure that folks are trying to follow the rules and -- and I'm sure there is a process with saying -- talking about people over watering and -- I mean it's -- water is a precious resource, you got to make sure it's like that. So, we will be connected to the PI system and, then, integrated into the system. So, they will probably have to revise their watering schedule a bit to accommodate for these 22 houses and, then, folks will -- will follow -- follow suit and -- and, again, it will kind of just be another phase in their current community. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Seal: A question more for staff probably. Is this -- this will have to go through a CZC before it goes to City Council; is that correct? Hersh: No. It just gets put on the -- it goes to City Council. Seal: Okay. Hersh: There is no CZC before. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 10 of 61 Seal: Okay. I was just wondering if it was -- there was a -- an opportunity for you to correspond with the HOA and, then, have that submitted as far as the elevations to make sure that they were compatible, but -- Hersh: So, he is going to submit elevations to me. We did condition that prior to City Council. So, I will have those going to City Council. Seal: Okay. Yeah. Thank you for bringing up the fact that the -- the property to the north -- part of their CUP condition is the fact that they do have to have that path open and that's -- that is a requirement, so -- Connor: Stacy pointed it out to me. I didn't actually know that. Seal: Okay. That's -- it's an important distinction in there to make sure that that -- you know, we do have walkability in there. I understand what they are saying, but at the same time that is a condition. So, that's how they operate in there and that's one of the conditions of being able to operate in there for sure. If there is no other questions from the applicant we can move on to public hearing. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Connor: Thank you. Seal: Okay. At this time I will take public testimony. Hall: Ron Dietzler. Dietzler: Okay. I just have -- Seal: Ma'am, we will need your name -- Dietzler: Judie Dietzler. 1318 East Prairiefire Street. Judie Dietzler. I'm right--our house is right next to where it's going to be built and we primarily have just some questions. One is that Hubble is proposed --was proposing a single level housing development, but since, then, I have heard that it could be -- they could have a loft, which is a two-story, and I'm not sure -- I need clarification on that. The problem with that is because it's only three acres, so if you have a loft they are going to look down in the bedrooms, in the living rooms of -- of the Heritage Grove that's surrounding it and the Heritage Commons that surrounds it and so that would be a problem. One level was no -- no problem, but two level becomes a problem. My next one is I'm sure that Hubble has worked really hard with Heritage Grove and we appreciate that. We haven't seen the contract--the residents haven't seen it, so we are not sure exactly what it is that we are obligated to, but -- so, we would at some point like to see that. Also is it true that the contractors that put in the streets and everything around there can come in off of Locust Grove? Because we are in over 55, we have people with walkers, we have people with -- that walk slowly and all of the traffic through there could -- could be detrimental to their health. So, we were told that the workmen could come off of Locust Grove. The residents that -- that buy in there, they will come into our subdivision. But I was just wanting clarification on that. And, then, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 11 of 61 once that it's approved through Planning and Zoning, then, it's in concrete, nothing can be changed, is that correct? I think that covers it. Seal: All right. Thank you very much. So, do we want to address any of those now or keep rocking and rolling? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly there have been projects or instances in the city where we have had the applicant work with ACHD on a temporary construction entrance off of an adjacent roadway until such time as the subdivision is completed and landscaping's put in. So, currently the project is not conditioned that way. But let's see where the public testimony leads us and where your deliberations go. But certainly that's -- it's not really a city issue, it's more of an ACHD issue to allow that to happen. Seal: Okay. Thank you, Bill. Madam Clerk. Hall: Kevin Emery. Emery: Good evening. My name is Kevin Emery. Address is 3530 North Heritage View Avenue in the Heritage Grove Subdivision. I really don't have any questions. I wanted to publicly voice my support of the request by Hubble and also extend my gratitude to them for their willingness to negotiate with our board. In my opinion it's a win-win situation and -- and from a -- a 55 and older community standpoint we couldn't ask for anything better than what's being proposed. I agree that I would like to see, if possible, the current Locust Grove access be used from a construction standpoint, as long as reasonably possible until it's developed to the point where they need to close that for landscaping and such. But that's all I have to say. Seal: Okay. Thank you, sir. Hall: Willie Uhrig. Seal: Good evening, sir. I just need your name and address, please. Uhrig: My name is Willie Uhrig and my address is 1214 East Summerplace Street -- and that's in Heritage Grove. I just have a couple of comments and maybe a question. First I want -- I really do want to say that I think the staff did a great job. When I went in and read their analysis I thought they did a very good job of identifying issues and -- and just looking at the whole situation. One comment I want to make is I don't think that the -- the residents of Heritage Grove were aware that there was a plan to connect this subdivision to our water. Our water situation has been the -- the -- what we have is something different than probably anybody has out there in any of your subdivisions. It's controlled centrally. So, the homeowner has no control at all over the water. It comes on whenever. We don't know when it comes on. And we have no control over how much it waters. So, if you want to plant something that needs a lot of water or something that doesn't need water, yeah, you have difficulty determining what's going to happen with that and the fact Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 12 of 61 that that has been very problematic -- it breaks down every summer. There hasn't been a summer gone by that that system has not broken down. So, that is a concern that that needs to be really looked at closely if phase five is going to be hooked into our water system. The other -- the other issue that I want to comment on is the elevations and that was picked up on by the staff and Judie commented on it. It really appears like it could be that Hubble could build two -- two story homes -- full two story homes if they wanted to. There has got to be some control over that. The elevations in Heritage Grove --there are no two story homes in there. There are no -- there are no -- there are no homes with a loft. They are one story homes. So, if they are planning on building homes -- a number of homes with lofts, they don't fit the character of Heritage Grove and the last comment -- after I viewed the -- the homes that Hubble said that -- some of their models, I question whether two of the -- the models they just showed could be built on the footprint that they have. It really looks like on the footprint that they have to build homes, the only way they are going to build homes on those is you would have a garage with an A-frame over it and you would have to go around them on a path to get to your home, because there is no width there. You don't have the width to build the garage and I don't know how many feet they had on some of those -- okay. Anyway, I have got a concern about that. I don't think they would fit on that -- those -- that kind of a footprint. Seal: Thank you, sir. Hall: I'm not sure how to pronounce this name. I'm going to give it my best shot. Moscelene Sunderland. Sorry. Seal: Ma'am, we will -- we will need your name pronounced correctly and -- and your address, please. Sunderland: My name is Moscelene Sunderland. I live at 3581 North Lilyturf, which is also in Heritage Grove. Seal: Okay. You can pull that microphone right down at you there. Sunderland: All right. Thank you. My number one complaint or at least question at this point is the elevation, too. It's the second story. And I just want to point out to the board that, you know, we have all -- in our neighborhood we have left our single family homes with lots of room and lots of yard and the privacy we had was in the room we had between us and our neighbors. In this neighborhood we had to adjust to losing a great deal of that and the original subdivision is designed to give what little ground we have and I do mean little. As much privacy as possible, even down to where windows are placed in your neighbor's house, so that they are not intrusive into your little piece of paradise such as it is. Second story lofts or second stories in general will rob us of what little privacy that we have left and I just would really ask you to consider that when you are looking at this, that it really is an important issue to people of our age who have already had to change our lifestyles dramatically just because we are getting older and we really don't want to have to give up what little privacy we are left with and I would really appreciate you considering that in your deliberations. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 13 of 61 Seal: Thank you. Hall: Doug Brown. Seal: Good evening, sir. Name and address and the floor is yours. Brown: Doug Brown. 1409 East Legacy View Drive in Heritage Commons. Anyways, I'm here to comment on the proposed house designs and also the recent documents provided by the city that was uploaded into the documents the other night. The recommendation of the applicant to remove Lot 11, Block 1, along the northern property of the lots to be widened for a better transition and to provide more visibility on the pathway connection to the commercial development. Now, my property is -- or is going to be bordering Lots 2 and 3 and the border is actually right in the middle of my lot, almost about a 60/40 of that. I'm -- my comment is I would still love to see Lot 11 be eliminated and to use that--that width to widen several of those homes that are going to be bordering Heritage Commons, because, you know -- you know, I have lived there for eight years, I have had -- you know, I have had open fields. It's been nice, but now with the new properties it's going to be -- I'm going to be losing a lot of visibility, you know, it's -- and I'm certain -- you know -- and everyone else's position, if it was happening to your guys' properties or-- or anyone else's, they would want to make sure that the lots are complete transitional lot for lot as best as possible. So, I would love to see that -- is their recommendation and requirement that the border -- that properties bordering Heritage Commons are matching transitional lot to lot that is as best as possible. Seal: Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Hall: Gerard Gladu. Gladu: Hello. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Gerard Gladu and I live at 1461 East Legacy View Drive and that is in the Heritage Commons Subdivision. So, my -- my comment and concern is -- as of what has already been mentioned is the elevation as well and not having two story, you know, houses built, because my -- my property I'm going to have -- I think Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8. So, I'm going to have four of those houses backed up against my -- my fence line, so -- and it looks like that Hubble has done -- they have listened to a lot of us, so -- as far as like accommodating the 55 and older community that's already there. So, really, obviously, with -- with the two stories it's going to be a big -- for me it's going to be a big issue. I don't want a bunch of houses looking down into my backyard. And, then, the traffic as well that is going to be generated because there is only one way in and one way out of that subdivision that they are proposing. So, they are either going to go out -- and the 55 and older, they are going to come out and go through the -- our Heritage Common Subdivision. So, really, I -- I mean that's -- that's all that I have. So, I appreciate you guys' time. Thank you. Seal: Thank you. Hall- That is all that is signed up. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 14 of 61 Seal: Okay. At this time would anybody else like to testify? If so just raise your hand and we will call you on up here. No? Anybody online? You can hit the raise hand button. All right. Yes, sir. Rusnack: My name is Michael Rusnack. 3302 North Sheephorn, representing the Heritage Grove community and the board as board president. I wanted to address a couple of the points that were raised. In our community we do have a single home with a loft in our community already and it's a trend and, in fact, that was discussed with Hubble and there -- is it -- we don't want -- we want to make sure we refer to it as a single family with a loft. We do have one in Heritage Grove. It looks just like the rest of them. With respect to the water system, the water system we consulted with our landscape management company. We have that water system that is fully managed by the landscape company and they agreed that we have plenty of margin with our water system to manage that. It is fully automated as noted with a computer system and we manage each home to that value. The elevation shown by Commons -- I mean, sorry, by Hubble Homes and the -- the home we do have in our development looks out the front for that elevation. It -- it looks just like the rest of the homes. We would -- you would be hard pressed to tell that it even does have a loft. So, those are my comments. Again, the landscape system is completely accomplished by us. We do all the landscaping, all the landscape maintenance as part of our -- our dues that we charge and that was agreed to. That was a question raised by you folks with the landscaping and the water system. The fact that the system had failed twice -- we had one year where we had a -- the developer had miscalculated and improperly installed an elbow. That was repaired. That was several years ago over 4th of July. Just this year over one of the holidays we had a pump go down. A hundred and fifty dollars to know which button to push to reset the pump. It was accomplished over a holiday weekend, which is a rule we have. It only fails Friday night of a holiday weekend. So, those are my comments from representing the -- our communities. Thank you. Seal: Thanks, sir. Appreciate that. All right. If anybody else wants to testify, please, raise your hand. Going once. Going twice. Okay. Commissioners, do we have any other questions, comments, before we close the public hearing? We should probably have the applicant come back up and address this. True. I was getting in a hurry there. Sorry about that. Connor: Thank you. I just want to address some of the comments brought forward. There is -- there is -- there is kind of three main things here, so some of the comments from Ms. Dietzler and Mocalene and Mr. Brown and Mr. Gladu talked about the effect of two story and losing privacy. I completely understand that. As Michael alluded to, all of our plans that have lofts or these bonus rooms, if there are any -- the windows that do exist face the street, rather than the sides and the rear, which I think is a -- like Michael said, it's hard to even tell if there is a second story loft. A lot of times those second story windows are -- are oftentimes just decorative on some houses. So, that's the way that -- that we build them. They are also built within the roof trusses, so there is not a whole new like eight or nine foot plate. So, the lofts -- the side walls only go up about six feet and, then, they are up at a peak there. So, that's why their -- their lofts are bonus rooms. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 15 of 61 So, the -- the -- the nervousness about privacy and things like that, it's a completely valid concern, but the fact that it faces the front of the street, rather than peering down on neighbors, I think they will be well --they will --they will be good neighbor houses in those situations and we want to be able to provide that -- that second story loft and -- and not be constrained, because it's an opportunity to have a bonus room for a craft room or if grandkids come over or just have some extra storage space. We want to be able to -- to provide that. The PI issues that -- that Mr. Uhrig brought forward is -- as Michael alluded to as well, we deal with PI issues all the time. Always in the summer and it's always on Fridays before a holiday like he said and part of our agreement is that any sort of upgrades or things that need to be changed on the PI agreement -- on -- on the PI system will be upgraded by us when the time comes. So, we will assess the needs of their current pump and the current system and then -- and move forward from there. We work all over the valley in adding different PI systems together and making sure they work well. There is always going to be issues, because you never really know what's in the water, debris, things like that. So, it's just part of the deal. Also I just want to touch on -- I know your point before, it is a fully automated system. It's scheduled times. I think that's -- that works out really well and it-- and it makes for a very uniform landscape community. Some of the questions about the lots lining up one to one. Some of those lots along the north of the property, while they are a little bit wider on Mr. Brown's property, it's half of a house and half of a house, so it's not a true one to one, but might as well be. It's hard not to make -- it's hard to get anything to match up exactly perfectly with two different things and a similar sort situation exists with Heritage Grove and Heritage Commons in that the Heritage Grove lots are slightly smaller than the ones in Heritage Commons and further down the street they have a similar situation where you have multiple houses that back up to a single house. So, there is a little bit of presence there with different size lots and different communities kind of coming together in this kind of in-fill area. Again, the -- the privacy thing, I really understand that and -- and, hopefully, not having the windows out the back will alleviate some of the concerns of privacy. And I appreciate the folks that have come in support of the project and talked about us working with the neighbors. I will say I have never worked so long and hard on a very small 22 lot community and so -- but it's -- it's -- it's been a -- a real pleasure work with Michael and Maureen and -- and Frank and their team to hopefully make this a win-win community and ten years from now you won't be able to tell the difference between the two. So, that's our hope and that's our intent, so -- any other questions you all have let me know. Seal: Just a quick question on the -- it sounds like the -- all the lawn maintenance and everything is included and so that's going to be part of the -- what you do for this community as well? Connor: Correct. It will be the same that they -- that they have. Seal: Okay. Connor: And I understand it's on a -- the watering system is set on a master control and then -- and, then, all the landscaping, like talking about bringing in different plants and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 16 of 61 things like that, they will have to follow the same landscaping requirements that already exist. Seal: Okay. Any questions, concerns, comments? Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing for file number H- 2022 -- whoa. Wait a minute. Yeah. H-2022-0053, Prairiefire Subdivision. Yearsley: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on file number H-2022-0053. Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close public hearing on file number H-2022-0053. All in favor, please, say aye. No opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Okay. Who wants to go first? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go right ahead. Yearsley: I do appreciate the -- the -- the developer to work so closely with the adjacent homeowners association to match the style. I think they have done a great job. I do agree with the staff that -- that I think they ought to lose that one lot. I think it provides many benefits to the subdivision by maybe spreading out some of those other homes to minimize the amount of spacing between the two and provide better access and safer access to the property to the north and I -- I agree, I think we need to have new renderings of the new homes. They can -- I -- I -- I -- I'm surely convinced that they can come up with a homestyle that will match the adjacent homeowners association style, but actually bring it to Council for review and to be included in that. So, I don't see any issues with what staff has recommended. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Lorcher? Lorcher: Staff, do we need to condition anything? Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Lorcher, no. Everything's already included in the agreement for them to bring new elevations -- Lorcher: Okay. Hersh: -- and to lose the lot. Seal: Yeah. Well, I was going to say if they -- the only thing that we would need to provision is if we say to keep the lot and move the path, but if everybody is in agreement Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 17 of 61 that that doesn't need to happen and that's the way the motion goes, then, we don't need to provision that. Yearsley: You have no comments? Seal: I'm done. Yearsley: All right. I will make a motion then. Seal: Commissioner Stoddard, do you have anything to add? Stoddard: Nope. I do not. Seal: Thank you. Parsons: Mr. Chair, before we get to a motion -- Seal: Yes, Bill. Parsons: --just curious on the construction access where the Commission is landing on that. Off of Stoddard. Or excuse me. Off of Locust Grove. Seal: Yeah. Did we -- good questions about that. Yearsley: Do we -- I guess do we need to condition that? I'm -- I'm almost certain that -- that construction access is going to want to come off of Locust Grove. I didn't know if that was something that -- I didn't feel like it was that important, but I can add that to my motion if -- if -- if we think we -- that's necessary. I would be interested in you guys' thoughts. Seal: I -- I would say that's fine, as long as we provision it with a comma, because we don't want to get in a match with ACHD over -- yes, you can, no, you can't. Yearsley: Right. And that's how I would word it is just that they work with them to try to maintain good access for construction. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair? Seal: Go right ahead. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2022-0053 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3rd, 2022, with the following modifications: That the applicant work with ACHD to try and obtain a construction entrance off of Locust Grove for -- during construction. Lorcher: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 18 of 61 Seal: It's been moved and seconded to approve item number H-2022-0053, with the aforementioned modifications. All in favor say aye. None opposed, so the motion carries. Thank you all very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Thank you all for showing up and being polite and good neighbors. I very much appreciate that. Dodson: Before I start mine, Mr. Chair, I will let the room clear out. 6. Public Hearing for Hadler Neighborhood (H-2022-0064) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at 7200 S. Locust Grove Rd., approximately 1/2 mile south of the Locust Grove and Lake Hazel intersection on the east side of Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 20.5 acres of land from RUT to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 145 building lots (52 single- family attached lots & 93 detached single-family lots) and 11 common lots on Seal: Appreciate that. Ready? Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for file number H-2022-0064, for Hadler Neighborhood. We will start with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As noted, the first one for me tonight, one of two, is going to be for Hadler. The site consists of 20 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in the county, located at 7200 South Locust Grove, which is approximately half mile south of the Locust Grove and Lake Hazel intersection. It is designated as medium density residential in the future land use map, which allows residential uses at three to eight dwelling units per acre as a gross density. The request before you tonight is for annexation and zoning of approximately 20 and a half acres, with a request for the R-15 zoning district. It also includes a preliminary -- preliminary plat consisting of 145 building lots and 11 common lots on approximately 20 acres in the requested R-15 zone. Of the 145 building lots, 52 are single family attached and 93 are detached single family. The subject 20 acres currently contains a large home and other outbuildings, with access being from a private driveway to Locust Grove that is in the location of the future Via Roberto land that is proposed along the north boundary. The subject site is abutted by an arterial to the west, which is Locust Grove, and a future collector street along the north Via Roberto Way. Sorry. Via Roberto Lane. Access to the site is proposed via a new local street to Via Roberto in alignment with an approved access on the north side of this street within the Apex Southeast Subdivision. Abutting the property to the east and south are large county parcels that share the same future land use designation of MDR. The city's newest park Discovery Park abuts the property at the northeast corner of the site, offering close proximity to one of the largest parks in Meridian. The applicant is proposing 145 lots on Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 19 of 61 20 acres within the R-15 district, which constitutes a gross density of 7.25 units per acre, which is near the maximum of eight for the MDR designation. The average lot size is approximately 3,600 square feet. Staff finds that the proposed project complies with all UDC dimensional standards and generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan. However, this project does lie just outside of the West Ada School District boundary and is, instead, within the Kuna School District boundary. Unfortunately, there are conflicting reports regarding the capacity at the Kuna schools, specifically the high school. City staff has reached out to Kuna School District and according to these interactions the high school is over capacity and cannot accommodate additional children. Staff will further clarify this point prior to City Council, but notice that the city of Kuna has not stopped approving applications based on the school capacity and the district has accommodated -- accommodated recent growth. The applicant is proposing two housing types within this project. Single family detached and single family attached units. So, the single family attached are two units attached with a common lot, but they are on separate lots, so they are not a duplex. The addition of different sizes and housing types is a plus for the project and the general area as it introduces two different housing types in this area. However, staff has had some concerns with overflow parking, because of the combination of the proposed density, the building lot frontage as being relatively small, 32 to 38 feet wide, when you account for a 20 foot wide driveway and because the applicant is proposing a 27 foot wide street section that allows parking on one side of the street versus both on a typical street section. I will note that the 27 foot wide street section, as well as 33 foot in other street sections, are still considered standard street sections by ACHD. Staff has recommended that the applicant provide a parking exhibit showing where on-street parking would be available and they have provided this here. According to this exhibit there appears to be space for at least 82 additional on-street cars. Staff finds that this exhibit shows that there is adequate on-street parking for the development and appreciates that it is not located in just one area of the project. Staff has discussed within the staff report adding an additional stub street -- well, I will use this old map. Additional stub street and location of Lots 28 and 29, Block 2, for the dual purpose of increasing visibility on Lot 30 and adding an additional pedestrian and vehicular connection in this area. After discussing with the applicant staff is recommending that the condition, which is 8.2A, be modified to reflect adding Lot 29 to the open space area and adding an additional micro pathway for future pedestrian connectivity, removing the requirement for the vehicular connection. The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reflect this change and staff is supportive of this revision. Staff has met with the developer of the adjacent property to the southeast and they do plan to add open space adjacent to this area, which is why staff wanted this area to be opened up and not be tucked behind lots, as well as include an additional pedestrian connection. The proposed project is approximately 20 acres in size and requires a minimum amount of open space based on the zoning. Per the R-15 zone, the project requires a minimum of 15 percent qualified open space. Further calculations. The minimum amount required is three acres. According to the submitted plans the applicant is proposing approximately three and a half acres of qualified open space or 17.45 percent, which exceeds the minimum amount. The qualified open space consists of half of the arterial street buffer to Locust Grove, the full collector street buffer to Via Roberto, the large central open space, as well as the smaller open space at the southeast boundary already noted. However, staff is not sure Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 20 of 61 if the landscape buffers to the adjacent public streets meet the enhanced buffer requirements outlined in 11.3G3B to count towards the open space. Previously these areas qualified towards the minimum open space automatically, but this is no longer the case with the latest open space updates. The -- the newest updates desire for more than the minimum to be included within the buffer in order for the -- this area to count towards the overall qualified open space. The applicant appears to comply with the two required points, but may not comply with the last two, which are enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics and enhanced context with the surroundings. The burden of proof proposed for the proposed common open space two qualify does fall on the applicant and not on staff. Staff does recommend that the applicant provide evidence that these buffers are enhanced beyond the pathway trees and grasses. For example, with additional boulders, additional vegetation, decorative elements, decorative fences and walls, additional pathway connections, et cetera. Those examples are pulled exactly from code. If these buffers do not count, the minimum qualified open space -- they do not count towards the minimum qualified open space, approximately one acre would be -- need to be removed from the calculation, leaving approximately two and a half acres of qualified open space under the minimum requirement. Therefore, the applicant should provide that the proposed street buffers are qualified or apply for alternative compliance to reduce the amount of qualified open space required due to the proximity to Discovery Park, which I guess on the record at this point staff is amenable to that option, but understands if the applicant wants to provide evidence that the existing proposed open space is fully qualifying. The project size of 20 acres also requires four amenity points, one point for every five acres. This is also part of the new open space and amenity code. According to the submitted plans the narrative -- and the narrative, the applicant is proposing the following qualifying amenities. A picnic area, playground, a water feature that's a fountain and two segments of the multi-use pathway equaling approximately a half mile in length. The proposed amenities are worth 11 amenity points, exceeding UDC requirements. Further, staff does note, again, that Discovery Park is easily within walking distance to the northeast and will offer multiple additional recreational opportunities for the project. On the screen here are the two recommended revisions. One being the 8.2A regarding the Lots 28 and 29, which now should be just 29 and, then, the second one -- I forgot to add this, that's my fault, into the staff report regarding the temporary emergency access out to Locust Grove. There was no written testimony on this as of about 3:00 o'clock this afternoon and so I will stand for any questions. Seal: Thank you, Joe. The question I have is on the street that they are going to enter and exit from, does that street go directly into the park or is -- is there any direct access into the park off that street? Dodson: Mr. Chair, at this time there is not and this would be between Brighton, the developer on the north side, and this side. This would be the first segment of this collector -- this east-west collector street being constructed. So, currently they cannot drive there. On the east side of the park, the city, as well as the adjacent developer, are working to create the -- finish the half mile of the north-south collector over there. So, we are getting there, but we are not quite there yet to get there by car. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 21 of 61 Seal: Okay. I was more focused on bikes, but I just wanted to make sure that there was at least future planning in place in order to have that connectivity directly into the park. Dodson: Oh, absolutely. Future plans absolutely have that. There should be a multi-use pathway on the south side all the way along -- all the way out to Eagle and it will connect to the -- be adjacent to the collector streets that's going to go east-west as well. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: Joe, when you discussed with the developer about eliminating Lot 29, is it? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. Lorcher: Even with my glasses I -- I don't know which one that is, but did you consider some of these tiny little driveways to possibly eliminate those instead? You know, can it be there or does it have to be up top or can they adjust that so we can eliminate some of these private drives? Dodson: Commissioner Lorcher, are you referring to putting a stub street in place of a common drive? Is that what you are referring to? Lorcher: Well, I -- I know this particular Commission is not a huge fan of these little private driveways that come off these curves. Dodson: Uh-huh. Lorcher: So, the -- the more opportunities we can eliminate those the better it is for the community and being good neighbors. I don't know if that can be adjusted at all or have you discussed it at any time? Dodson: It was discussed. It was discussed to -- my original recommendation to have the stub street was to replace the common drive in the southeast corner with the stub street, but it doesn't help the pedestrian connectivity or the visibility of the open space on the north part that I was referring to and with the sub street being right here this road -- it's -- it's a private road right now, but likely -- at least some portion of it will be a public road in the future, too, so we didn't see that there was a need to have another stub street there. Having it over here makes a little bit more sense, just because it's further away from this one, as well as where ever this could go to the east, but, again, between the two connections, one to the east, one to the south, we do believe that should be enough connectivity for vehicles in the future, but I do understand your point regarding the common drives. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 22 of 61 Lorcher: So, with these three common driveways, the one at the bottom right-hand comer -- Dodson: Uh-huh. Lorcher: -- are you suggesting that that could be a stub street at some time or is it not wide enough? It would always be a private drive. Dodson: It would always be a private drive. But I'm saying that it was discussed as an option to request that the stub street -- a new stub street be proposed there instead, but -- Lorcher: Would be the next development that would have to do that then? Dodson: No. No. What I'm saying with this development as a discussion point with the applicant I noted that we -- we were going to require it there, we discussed moving it up to 28, 29 instead. We settled on Lot 28, 29. Lorcher: Got you. Dodson: So, if we requested that or Commission recommended that, that would be done at that location. At least stub it to the property line. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: You're welcome. Seal: Anybody else? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Clark: Hello, Commission. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise with the law firm of Clark Wardle representing the applicant and I will just get my stuff settled here. Okay. Well, I appreciated Joe's presentation and I'm going to just jump right in and start by talking about annexation. Oops. Are we going to come back here? There we go. So, let's talk about that first to kind of give everybody a little context about where the city currently located is -- is located around the project and how the services fit. So, we are firmly within areas that the city has already annexed or -- and are important to the city's growth. It's just south of Lake Hazel, just east of Locust Grove and borders Discovery Park, which you can see in the green. You also have Brighton's Pinnacle Subdivision that's just north of us. It's an area where the city is investing with Discovery Park and with the -- the fire station that's within just a half mile, which you can see on this slide here. The fire station is there in yellow. This has been a very active corridor of development. Again with Discovery Park you have the Gem Prep Academy that's gone in recently. Significant residential development with Lavender Heights, as well as Pinnacle and The Keep. And in addition to that I would point out that there is a wall of city annexed property on our west. So, this is certainly not extending beyond any existing resources that are available for the city. I want to talk briefly about the Comprehensive Plan. As we look at Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 23 of 61 the approved planning for this project, the Comprehensive Plan shows it under the medium density residential category, which identifies densities between three to eight units per acre and we are squarely within that proposed density with our site plan, which you can see on the screen now. As Joe mentioned, 20 acres, 144 homes, overall density of 7.2 units per acre. So, within what's permitted under the Comprehensive Plan. As Joe also mentioned, we are above the minimum open space requirements at 17.5 percent and -- and I will talk a little bit about those factors that Joe mentioned about the -- the qualified open space here in just a minute when I have another slide. I -- I do want to point out the large kind of Central Park area and I want to note that the -- the zoning that we have proposed at R-15 is what really makes this possible and I'm going to talk about that here in a moment as well. But before I do I kind of want to place this in context. The -- the Commission -- you know, several of you have been around for a little while, you have seen some of the projects that are very similar to this one, so we have done five of these in Meridian, one in -- in Boise. They have been very successful, because in -- in our view they cater to an underserved portion of the market. These are folks who are looking for low -- small lots with low maintenance, high quality finishes, and we -- as we have done these we study them, we follow up and we know what -- who the typical buyer is and the typical buyer is a young professional who is looking for a -- a lock it and leave kind of a situation. They don't want to do yard maintenance on the weekends. They want to go head to the foothills and go mountain biking. It's also empty nesters who are looking to downsize, don't want to take care of that half acre lot any longer and, then, it's also, you know, like the divorced parent who, you know, no longer has the same resources, wants to keep their kids in the same school district, that's -- that's typically who we see in these projects. It's been in high demand since the applicant started doing it about ten years ago and it's been very successful and satisfies a need in -- in the city. So, how do we get there and -- and primarily it's with that R-15 zone. We use that zone's setbacks and dimensional standards and, then, make the project more inviting by increasing the open space and, then, arriving at the -- at the density that we have identified that's within what the Comprehensive Plan calls for. So, we can deliver the small footprint, low maintenance type product, but still respect the Comprehensive Plan's identified density of no more than eight units per acre. Again, we are at 7.2. And what you see on the screen is -- is a screenshot from the Comprehensive Plan confirming the -- the three to eight dwelling units per acre of measurement. So, that R-15 zone is, again, what allows this product to be available. Without it you don't get the small footprint type that folks want and need and particularly now with the -- you know, unfortunately, a recession looming and interest rates spiking, it's -- it's critical that we have a variety of housing types in Meridian to be able to accommodate that and I wanted to point to a few key Comprehensive Plan policies that support that. You know, we need to have a variety of housing types in Meridian, we want to avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area. We have also taken into account design in light of the area. We have provided the open space in the center of our project that's just a Frisbee throw literally away from Discovery Park. It will connect as we -- as Joe mentioned, as we understand it, to open space that's being proposed to the southeast of us. The design also includes the --the regional pathway system. We got about a half mile of new regional pathway that's -- and it also -- and it does connect into Discovery Park, which we think is going to be a great thing for the city. We also have our internal pathways and sidewalks. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 24 of 61 Our amenities -- we exceed the project amenities requirements with 11 points. We have the two acre central park. This has seating, play areas and structures, shade area and landscaping and, again, those -- those regional pathways are also very important. So, let's talk about the qualified open space. We do have the 17.5 percent and I don't know if you will recall, but when we were looking at the landscape ordinance -- well, when was that, a year ago or so, to make the modifications, one of the concerns that the development community had and -- and I mentioned on the record was with these four standards for qualified open space, that a lot of us just didn't know what they meant. They are -- they are kind of hard to -- to deal with and I -- and I think that's where this comes from. But as Joe mentioned, there is -- there is four things that you have to qualify for to -- to qualify as qualified open space. You have to have enhanced landscaping. You have to have -- you can have multi-use pathways. And, then, the two that were a little more difficult to interpret were enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics, which is a huge mouthful and, then, you have enhanced context with the surroundings. So, those are the two that -- that Joe mentioned that we need to approve of. So, when it comes to our landscape buffer, our landscape buffer includes the regional pathway. The -- the staff report is already confirmed that we have landscaping that goes above and beyond what's required. So, if we -- if we -- but if we focus on the regional pathway and the concept of an enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics, obviously, a regional pathway qualifies for social interaction characteristics. That's where people are going to walk their dogs, they are going to see each other as they head over to Discovery Park, all of that. So, we think that that's pretty clear. And, then, with regard to the enhanced context with the surroundings, again, regional pathway is what does it. It's -- the context of the surroundings is we are right next to Discovery Park. We are in a location where the -- where the regional pathway is contemplated. It -- it satisfies that context planning requirement. So, we think that that 17.5 percent qualified open space should stand. Quickly there is going to be two types of homes in the project, as Joe mentioned. Single story attached against the project to the north and Discovery Park and, then, in the pink internal to the project we have the two-story detached. These are the elevations. And so I -- I just want to wrap up and summarize here real quickly. So, again, we are proposing a product type that's been done before in the city and that's desperately needed. We need more of it. Our density is, again, consistent with what's provided in the Comprehensive Plan. Our annexation is consistent with the growth pattern in the area. There is no issue with public services. They are all already there. The city has invested in the area with the new fire station and the park and, again, we meet the -- the open space standards. And, then, Joe beat me to the punch on this. We are in agreement with the -- the conditions of approval in the staff report. This is the same language that Joe showed on his slide before. We are also in agreement with the additional condition related to the emergency access that he showed on his slide. So, with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Seal: Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: Mr. Chair. How wide is that regional pathway? I didn't see anywhere on that screen how wide that was planning to be. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 25 of 61 Clark: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, it's a ten foot pathway. Yearsley: Okay. That's all I had. Lorcher: I'm good. Seal: I will save mine for later. Clark: Okay. Sounds good. Thank you, everyone. Seal: Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Hall: We have Robbie Reno. Seal: Good evening, sir. Just need your name and address for the record. Reno: Robbie Reno. Kuna School District. 711 East Porter Street, Kuna, Idaho. 83634. We are the school district that staff represent in there and I serve as an agent for our school board that has brought me here because of what has gone on in the city of Kuna where things have been approved and we are at -- we are -- we are over capacity if you go off base on things that are to be -- to be built. The conflicting information about the overcapacity at Kuna High School and the Swan Falls High School is when we -- when we did our capital planning in 2017 to pass a bond we built a CTE high school to take the growth off of Kuna High. Well, those combined schools have a capacity of 1 ,900, 1 ,862 was the confirmed enrollment as I checked this morning, because I also serve as the principal of that high school -- of Swan Falls. But we -- we were late in the submittal of a letter, because I think we submitted one to Miranda Carson, who was on jury duty yesterday and so knowing your process, as we are -- we are learning them as being good -- good neighbors. But we simply state now that we -- we just cannot serve that development and being an annexation, we know that city -- commissioners on Planning and Zoning can reject annexations and so we just simply say that we cannot serve this development, even though it is 145 homes, with the -- with the amount of-- of homes that already -- that are already plotted on there, we just cannot serve. Seal: Okay. Reno: Stand for questions -- stand for any questions. Seal: Any questions? No? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Hall: Mr. Chair, there is no one else signed up to speak. Seal: No one else signed up to speak? Hall: No. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 26 of 61 Seal: Anybody in Chambers want to come up and testify? I see no hands going up in the air. Nobody's raising their hand online. All right. With that would the applicant like to come back up? Clark: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. So, it sounds like school is the only thing for me to talk about. So, we had our -- a member of our development team Laren Bailey had met with the school district about a year ago. We had another follow-up meeting with them in the -- the recent past. There has been a number of e-mails back and forth to try to lock down what is actually going on in terms of the -- the capacity for Kuna School District and -- and what, you know, can be accepted now, what may be acceptable in the next ten years. Joe's point about not stopping development in Kuna is -- I think a good one. But I -- this is what I would say. We have attempted to meet with -- with the -- with the school district. Hadn't gotten to that -- that comment that you heard tonight. What we had heard was that there is current capacity, that over the next ten years if there is no development -- or, excuse me, no bonds passed and no additional capacity created, that they would at that point be running out of capacity. What I would suggest to the Commission is let us go and talk to the school district, see if there is maybe an alternative solution that can be identified that -- here on that point and condition us that way and -- that we have a -- that conversation before we get to Council and, then, that way we can report to Council on that issue, because we understand that it's important. I just don't want to hold up the train at this point given kind of the -- the -- the last minute element of this, so -- Seal: Okay. I will give you one more thing to talk about. Can we pull up the parking graphic? So, I will just walk you through it. So, as stated -- and -- and we know you are -- you are well within code for the shared driveways. My concern with this is we have parking on only one side of the street. We have pretty significant density going on in here and we have shared driveways. So, this looks fine, you know, except for probably, you know, mornings, evenings gets a little crowded, then, you throw a Super Bowl party in here and the next thing you know you have no parking. So, why -- why would we go with a street width that's -- like this that doesn't allow parking on both sides of the street, knowing that we have the shared access driveways? Clark: Yeah. Mr. Chair. So, the shared access driveways, that goes back to a -- a conversation at the same time as the landscape ordinance when the shared driveway ordinance was also updated and we do meet code on the shared driveways. When it comes to parking, the -- another bit of background there is that ACHD is really promoting the use of 27 foot right of way-- or not right--total right of way--the 27 foot paved surface for these roadways. There will be signage on it to confirm the parking on the one side of the street, but, then, to your particular question with regard to the -- the proverbial Super Bowl party, which, you know, is an example that we have talked about in -- in other applications here. You are just not -- this type of product doesn't lend itself to the big bash where you are going to have 40 people there. These are 3,600 square foot lots. So, you are not going to have 40 people showing up for a Super Bowl party at one person's house. You may have a couple people show up, but you are not going to have the -- the massive parties that you are talking about here. Now, we have been doing Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 27 of 61 these for ten years and at prior hearings we have presented studies that we have done with drones where we have gone out at various points of the day and looked at whether there is a -- a parking problem and that has not been our experience on any of these projects -- on any of these projects. So, I -- I would -- I think my response would be that we -- we do meet code and that ten years of experience shows that parking is not an issue, including with the -- the -- the shared driveways, which, in turn, meet code and with the -- the -- the single -- or excuse me -- the parking on a single side of the street. Seal: Okay. I appreciate that opinion. Clark: Well, I think -- I mean to your point, Commissioner Seal, there is a -- a question of opinion and a question of code; right? And we do meet code. Seal: I understand that. It's just the combination of both of these seems to be -- in my mind is a -- is an issue and you have -- you have a smaller street, you have parking available only on one side of that street and you have shared driveways. So, to me that's -- you know, that's a recipe for a lot of contention there and -- and it doesn't have to be a Super Bowl party, it just has to be Halloween. You know, we just went through this. Our streets were packed and we have 30 foot streets. Clark: I hope they would be on Halloween Seal: Yeah. And -- and that's -- and that's what I mean. This -- you know, we are -- we are kind of creating a whole lot more contention here than that needs to be to save, you know, a little bit of roadway, so I -- I can't quite wrap my head around why those two things should coexist. You know, again, if the shared driveways weren't here, then, I get it, but with the shared driveways and the limited parking, I -- I just don't see it. Clark: Can you help me understand the --the shared driveways? I mean the --the shared driveways is nine lots that are affected by the shared driveways. Seal: Sure. Well, you have more than nine lots. I mean there is other lots that are affected by it, because, you know, you are just counting the lots that are right on it, not the ones that -- you know, the other ones that are actually using it. So, there is more than nine that are involved in that and the fact that you have the shared driveways where nobody can park in them, so if anybody comes over to visit them they are going to park out in the -- you know, in the shared parking that's along the street. So, that's going to impact, basically, everybody. So, you know, again, the two -- the two things just in my mind, I -- I would prefer they not coincide. Clark: And I would just remind you that there is two garage spaces, two spaces in front of the house. So, you have got four spaces meets code and, then, you have 82 additional on-street parking spaces for the entirety of the project. I -- it's -- you know, experiences have shown us that that is more than adequate to address the parking. But we will take you to it. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 28 of 61 Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, do you have something? Yearsley: Well, I was just going to laugh, because out of a 3,200 square foot lot the -- the garage is going to be storage. They are not going to park in that garage, I will guarantee you. So, they have two parking spots in the front of their house and nothing else and so I -- I totally agree. I don't -- I don't like the -- the shared driveways or the number of shared driveways in this facility, so I -- I think it's a recipe for disaster in my opinion. Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, anything? Lorcher: Agreed. Seal: Okay. So, thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go right ahead. Yearsley: I move we close public hearing on H-2022-0064. Seal: Do I have a second? Lorcher: Oh, yes. Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on file number H-2022- 0064 for Hadler Neighborhood. All those in favor, please, say aye. None opposed and motion carries to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go right ahead. Yearsley: So, I was involved with the Movado Subdivision and I -- I did approve that subdivision and I still think it's a good subdivision. He had multiple different -- I mean it was a huge subdivision that had multiple different type uses. I -- I don't see the -- the same comparison between Movado and the subdivision. I think this is way -- it's a -- it's a -- in my opinion it's a -- how do I say it? How -- how dense can I put the -- how many homes can I put on a -- on 20 acres is my opinion. If this was actually a little closer to other facilities -- this is out in the middle of nowhere and to have this dense of a product way out there in the middle of nowhere where there is no services, there is nothing, I just -- you know, it's -- there is -- there is not a lot of good connecting streets yet. Traffic's going to be horrible. I -- I could go on and on, but I just -- I think this is a horrible location Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 29 of 61 to put this type of product. If they had more diverse -- you know, some R-8s and R-15s maybe, but 20 acres of R-15 is -- I -- I can't support. Seal: Thank you. Commissioner Lorcher? Lorcher: Mr. Chair -- sorry. I'm conflicted on a couple of things. Mr. Clark said empty nesters, young professionals, possibly divorced families were the target market, but they are living across from the largest park in probably Ada county that supports families. So, a product that would be right next to the biggest park I think would want to be one that supports, you know, families with children that are going to play there, play baseball, soccer, whatever amenities that they have, as well as you had 20 acres to work with and you still put shared driveways in there. And, thirdly, as a -- an executive officer of the Idaho PTA I have high concerns with the school capacity. So, I don't know if we want to have them talk to the school board first and have a continuance or deny it and they can go to City Council and, then, kind of work it out. I'm not really sure what to do with that. But we don't know where the money from the legislature -- from the surplus is going to go for the schools. That's not going to be decided until the beginning of the year. Pretty convinced it's not going to go to build buildings. This subdivision is not proposing to have a school built in their community, so -- and I don't know where the nearest elementary or middle school is for Kuna. I know they have the two high schools and the professional high school with all the proposed communities they already have and the worst thing that we can do for our families is provide overcrowding in our schools. So, to me as soon as that gentleman from the school board from Kuna came up, that's a huge red flag for me. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Stoddard, do you have anything to add? Stoddard: No. I just agree actually with everything that you guys said. I agree that it's a really dense product with a lot of houses crammed into a small area. So, I actually shared a lot of the same concerns. Seal: Okay. Thank you for that. Yeah. I struggled with this one. You know, as I have shared in previous meetings, I have a son that he can't afford to live in Meridian anymore. He lives in Boise. So, I agree, we need product types like this that are less expensive and he kind of fits the bill. He's the guy that, you know, doesn't want a big yard, doesn't want a lot to maintain and is going to go do other things, you know, outside of work -- work time. I do like the fact that you are putting in the regional pathways along there. You are making it walkable, bikeable, more livable. I -- I do like that. You know, obviously, hearing directly from the school, a lot -- most of the time we hear from West Ada they send us a form letter and say, yep, we are overcrowded, but we can't say no, so -- but hearing directly from the school that, you know, we are overcrowded and we can't take anymore, that's a little bit different for sure. And, then, I do have a lot of reservations about parking. I mean I -- I don't feel that it's -- I feel that you should have one or the other, either reduced parking capability or shared driveways, but the two of them combined, I -- I -- I just don't feel that I can support that. So, there is a lot of good things that are happening in this. I mean your, you know, ability to work with staff and remove the lot and everything is good. The pathways. The product. But again, I just have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 30 of 61 reservations about the parking and the schools. And with that if anybody else wants to make a motion or further comment, I'm all ears. Commissioner Yearsley, you want to take a stab at it? Yearsley: Sure. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to City Council of file number H-2022-0064 as presented in the hearing date of November 3rd, 2022, for the following reasons: One, for the city of-- or the Kuna School District's overcrowding. The -- the density of the -- of the subdivision I don't think fits the surrounding areas with lack of access and lack of -- of -- of public services around there, like stores, restaurants, other facility -- you know, facilities. Parking is an issue and -- and just --just over -- overcrowding of the area. Stoddard: Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to recommend -- recommend denial of file number H-2022-0064. All in favor of denial, please, say aye. No opposed. Denial is carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: We will take a five minute bio break and we will be right back. (Recess: 7:37 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.) 7. Public Hearing for Alden Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0059) by Dave Yorgason, Tall Timber Consulting, located at 6870 N. Pollard Lane and three (3) parcels to the north and east, directly east of State Highway 16 and south of the Phyllis Canal at the northern edge of the Meridian Area City Impact A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 24.8 acres of land with a request for the R-4 (20.35 acres) and R-8 (4.45 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 65 building lots and 10 common lots on approximately 21.7 acres of land in the requested zoning district Seal: Okay. At this time I would like to open public hearing for file number H-2022-0059, Alden Ridge Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My second and final one tonight. The site consists of 21.7 acres of land, zoned RUT and R-1, located at the northern edge of Meridian's area of city impacts. So, complete opposite end of the previous one. It is directly south of the Phyllis Canal, which, essentially, is our north boundary of our area of impact and directly east of State Highway 16. It is designated as low density residential on our future land Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 31 of 61 use map. The applications before you tonight are for annexation and zoning of approximately 24.8 acres of land, with a request for the R-4 district and the R-8 district and a preliminary plat consisting of 65 building lots and ten common lots on approximately 21.7 acres. The applicant has also requested alternative compliance to the required landscape buffer adjacent to State Highway 16, which has been approved because it's an administrative application. I will get into more of that later. The subject 22 acres is located at the northern edge of the area of impact as noted and includes four county parcels that contain three rural county homes. The largest home located at the very northeast corner. That is incorrect. At the very northwest corner of the property is proposed to remain, while the other two homes are shown to be removed upon development of the site. As noted, the subject site does abut State Highway 16 on a portion of its west boundary and the Phyllis Canal runs along the entire north boundary, which limits any connectivity to the north or the west. To the east two county residential parcels exist and will remain with their new access being to the south through an approved development Pollard Subdivision. It will be -- their new permanent access will be to the south. The temporary access will be through this subdivision. South of the subject development is the aforementioned Pollard Subdivision, which is zoned R-8 and C-G south of it. This development was approved as a mixed-use development consisting of residential and flex space and commercial uses. The applicant is proposing 65 building lots on approximately 21.7 acres, which constitutes the gross density just under three units to the acre, 2.97, which is near the maximum allowed within the LDR, but overall very low for the City of Meridian. The applicant is proposing two zoning districts within the development to better transition from the existing R-8 to the south. So, they are doing R-8 along the south boundary, just these two blocks of homes, and the remaining area is proposed as R-4. To further help transition to the south, the applicant is also proposing a 30 foot wide buffer with linear open space and a walking path along the entire south boundary. Staff finds that the buffer and the proposed zoning is an adequate transition from the south to the north. Minimum building lot size is proposed as 5,500 square feet, which does exceed the minimum lot size for the R-8 district of 4,000 square feet. Within the R-4 area the minimum building lot size is approximately 8,000 square feet. A number of the perimeter lots are much larger than the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet within the R-8 zoning -- or R-4 zoning district. Staff finds that the proposed development complies with all UDC dimensional standards and is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the applicant is providing excess open space, 3.1 acres versus 2.77 acres required, and providing excess amenities, a picnic area worth two points, pathways worth two points, two dog waste stations worth one point total and a swimming pool with changing facilities worth four amenity points. Access to the site is a main point of discussion and analysis within this project. Sorry. Main point of discussion of analysis within this project, as well as with the timing of the development as it's integral to its success, because there are no public streets currently constructed to the subject development. There is existing right of way from the subject site to Chinden, but no physical road within the right of way. This will persist until Brighton constructs Waverton east-west through their site and connects to Pollard Lane at the west boundary. According to the applicant Alden Ridge will connect to Pollard Lane with Brighton's first phase of development for its required public street access. Because of this ACHD has stated on their staff report that they will not approve any final plat for Alden Ridge until the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 32 of 61 required public street access is constructed. This same issue does persist for city sewer service, as the adjacent developer to the south also needs to extend sewer services and construct a lift station in their northwest corner in order to provide service to this entire area. Public Works has approved the lift station at this time, but construction of Pollard Subdivision No. 1 has not yet commenced. So, to help people understand the exhibit here, the pink area is the right of way. Pollard Lane, as you can tell here, Asphalt Gray is not part of that right of way, at least not all of it. A portion of it is. Because of that ACHD is saying that there is no public road connection. There is a gap here. Pollard Subdivision No. 1 is approved. It will construct West Waverton all along here. Obviously, they will need to dedicate additional right of way here, but they will construct that and because Pollard Lane exists here, it will be reconstructed as a full public street and, then, Alden Ridge will have their public street access. A portion of the west boundary abuts the ITD right of way for State Highway 16 and requires a 35 foot landscape buffer per the UDC for the R-4 zoning district, because it is an entryway corridor. The applicant is showing a common lot along the west boundary that is 20 feet in width, which does not comply with the required width of 35 feet. To the existing location of the home and mature trees, the required easement by the water company along the rear of those building lots and the relative limited number of homes along the highway, the applicant has requested alternative compliance to the location of the buffer and it's required width on the subject property. To be clear, the applicant is not requesting to reduce the actual buffer width, but to shift it over west of the property line, so that 20 feet is on the site and 20 feet is within ITD right of way. According to the applicant ITD has approved the inclusion of this landscaping within the right of way, as they have excess area that will not be used for future road widening. Staff is supportive of this request because the actual buffer width will be five feet wider than the minimum. It will allow for the existing mature vegetation to remain and will also allow for a wider and more dense berm and landscaping to be placed along this frontage. As with the previous project, there was no written testimony. Staff has recommended approval with conditions and I will stand for any questions. Seal: Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening, sir. I need your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Yorgason: Good evening. I think Joe's going to pull my presentation for me. Perfect. Thanks, Joe. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Dave Yorgason. Address 14254 West Battenburg Drive, Boise, and I'm here as part of the development team for Alden Ridge Subdivision. Also in the group is Kyle Enzler with me, which I think I can answer all the questions you may have today, but if not he is also part of our group here. He is also planning on being the builder for all or almost all the homes. His home building company has built quite a few here in the City of Meridian and just great to be part of his team for this development moving forward. In my presentation I will just highlight a few points. I will introduce the site. The staff's done a great job kind of going over several items. Talk over the application details and review the staff report with you. As staff has identified, the site is located at the northeast corner of Highway 16 and Chinden, Highway 20-26. Approximately 22 acres in size and it is the north border of the city's area of impact. In fact, you can see to the northwest of the site city of Star has now annexed property and more or less contiguous to this site, which is interesting how the two are growing Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 33 of 61 together. In our annexation and zoning request we are contiguous to the city limits, as has been stated by staff. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map calls for this site to be low residential -- low density residential and our request for a mix of zoning of R-4 and R-8, still less than the three dwelling units per acre. As staff had mentioned, we really had had a lot of good discussion with the surrounding adjacent neighbors specifically to the south. I have had a lot of discussion in the history of working in the City of Meridian and recognize the importance of transition of lot sizes to future and/or existing developments in the area, of which we are doing this here, too. And so our request is not to really change the density, but to have similar lot sizes adjacent to similar lot sizes and that's where our plan is along the south border only. The rest of which is the R-4 size lots throughout the rest of the development. So, our total density still stays within the range as required or suggested by the future land use map and as I mentioned also we are adjacent to Brighton's development that's soon to be under construction. I will talk about that here in a minute. And staff is supportive of this annexation and zone request. The Alden Ridge Subdivision -- the summary for it is 65 total residential units, all single family detached homes, to be developed in two phases. We will start in the southern area first, south and west and, then, the second phase will be in the northeast area. As I mentioned, we are considering the design for the transitional lot sizes to the south. But also importantly this is not just jam in density, but we also think it's important to have high quality amenities and additional open space, which we are providing in this site. We are providing just over three -- about 3.1 acres of total open space, which is 14.4 percent of the total size qualified, which exceeds the required amount for this development. As noted, only four points is what's required in the amenity table that the city would require. We are actually proposing more than double of that. We have nine total amenity points for this community, including a swimming pool, picnic area, pathway network through and without the development, path -- sorry. The dog waste stations and also the usable park, which I think is an important concept. Sometimes we just have open space and you say it's usable, but this really truly is a spot where you can throw your Frisbee or -- or your -- or your football or whatever in the area just around the -- the community pool. Here is some illustrations of some homes that are planned to be built for this site. Again, all single family detached homes. These are all renderings of homes that have or soon to be built by this builder in -- in the surrounding community and you can see a nice variety of quality custom homes, where they are modern styles -- or some Craftsman style, kind of a mix of-- of a variety of homes for this community. A single story, two story as well. As we go through the process of going through development, we know one thing is important is neighbor feedback. We actually had two on-site neighborhood meetings to meet with our adjacent neighbors and talk about the community. Also had several one-on-one discussions with the neighbors in the area. A lot of comments of support and neutral. A lot of the comments included appreciate the density, the transition that we are proposing, the quality of homes and the amenities for the community. Really only one comment or question was raised of concern -- I will call it a concern, but it's really timing. We are providing a well site to the water company and the developer -- well, the commercial builder--developer, if you will, to our southwest is Franklin Sensors. They need additional water capacity to expand their commercial facilities and they are looking forward to this well site being provided, so they can have that extra fire flow for their community. So, we are really trying to work together with the community to try to meet those needs and that's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 34 of 61 what we are doing here, too. With regard to the staff report, oftentimes they come to the city and say, you know what, I really like these conditions, but can you change one or two? Not today. We are agreeing with all of the conditions as presented by staff. I do want to highlight, as mentioned by Joe, discussed the traffic access, the timing of Brighton's development, as well as the alternative compliance for the buffer. ACHD just, as we all know, provides the conditions of approval for traffic and we agreed to all the conditions of approval, just on the record no -- no change or conditions there also. With regard to Waverton -- in this illustration you see in the bottom right-hand corner of this image, this is actually from Brighton's engineer, KM Engineering. All the areas down at the bottom in the black and white is their first phase and the red lines running east-west would be their future phase two and so we are -- we are collaborating closely with them as to what that will all look like and -- and for the record tonight I have an e-mail statement from Jon Wardle of Brighton if you would like it, but we have worked very closely with them and what they have said is they are starting construction next month in December. They have -- staff has said they already have approval of the lift station for sewer. They are in their second phase of review of construction plans with ACHD. As soon as they have that in the next few weeks they will be under construction. So, the way we see it is their construction will be long complete before we will begin construction with our development. Knowing how long the process takes for not only this phase, but also designing construction plans, construction plan review and approval and, then, before we can finally get there. So, we really don't see a gap in -- in providing access to the development, because all these improvements will be in place. Additionally, secondary access -- if we have more than 30 lots secondary access is required. Brighton's given us permission to build that access. That's the north-south road. I will use -- I don't know if this mouse works. That's right, it doesn't. Anyway, there is -- one of the north-south roads would be where that access is and we have their permission to build that if it's even needed. So, again, closely working with them. Regarding the alternative compliance, appreciate staff's comments and explanation of it. I will just highlight it quickly. There is a nice home on the north -- northwest corner of the development with large trees and some shops and some things and we really recognize the importance of maintaining existing buffer. Likewise, the commercial to the south of us, which is not that much of a gap in between, they really don't have any landscaping or very little and so we are really kind of tight as to what we can do and our goal is not to provide less, but do more with what we have and so we are going to be building a little bit wider landscape buffer. We have worked with ITD for their approval to just have it straddle a little bit right of way and also on our property. ITD is currently in the process of widening Chinden, Highway 16, and -- and the Highway 16 all the way to Ustick to the freeway and so based on those full build out plans, they still have additional right of way on that common border with us and so we have that arrangement with them and so we agree with -- appreciate staff's support and approval of that and we agree with their conditions. So, in conclusion, this is really a quality development, not high density, it's a lower density development. We are -- we are working closely with the neighbors and working together. We are enabling additional water for expansion for Franklin Sensors when it's needed for them. Closely collaborating with Brighton and with Franklin Sensors for the utilities and access. All the required improvements will be in place prior to our start of construction, as conditioned in this development, and we agree with all staff report conditions of approval. With that we Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 35 of 61 request your approval tonight with the staff report conditions as stated and stand for any questions you may have. Seal: Any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Yorgason: You are welcome. Thank you. Seal: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up testify? Hall: We do. We have Dustin Hadfield. Seal: Signifying he would not like to testify. So, no one else? Anybody else want to -- sir, come on up. Good evening. I will need your name and address for the record. Please speak right into the microphone. Peterson: All right. Thank you. My name is John Peterson and my address is 6786 North Pyra Avenue in Meridian, Idaho, and I live in a neighborhood that is adjacent to the proposed, you know, subdivision and I actually really like the way that they have laid it out. I feel like it's very congruent with the lot sizes that are -- you know, that are in that same area. I like how they are all single family lots and it is being built by a builder that builds really nice homes that are congruent with the area. And I think that pretty much everyone that I know would support this development going in because of how nice it is and the nice amenities that they have put in. They are putting in a pool, you know, so they are going above and beyond as far as what they really need to do to build out a neighborhood. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Anybody else would like to testify? All right. Would the applicant like to come back up? So, it -- it sounds like nothing really to address there, but I will -- the -- the -- the only question I have -- I have for you is as I'm looking at the layout of the -- the common open space where Lot 9 and Block 3 kind of juts down into -- seems like that squeezes that open space and reduces the ability to, you know, have that flow and be a little bit more opening -- open without that being constricted in there. Would you be amenable to squeezing -- you know, making Lot 9 a little bit smaller in order to open that up for -- Yorgason- Yes. Mr. Chairman, for the record Dave Yorgason. Got my friend Dean over here, so he knows who is talking. We actually already looked at that. We already did move it open. So, it's -- it's more than what might be sometimes somebody squeezes like ten foot wide and there is barely enough room for a five foot sidewalk and maybe a tree on one side, maybe it's because the open space is a little bit larger proportionally, but, again, these are a little bit larger lots, so we actually think it's okay as is. If you need us to maybe clip the back corner of Lot 9, we would look at that, but we really don't know that it's necessary. I have built personally in miles of pathways throughout the Treasure Valley, feel very confident with what's here, but if you feel like you need us to review it we will, but we have looked at it, we have already looked at it with staff -- actually more than once and we are -- we think it will work, but -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 36 of 61 Seal: Okay. Yorgason: --that would be my response. But if there are other questions --we appreciate the comments tonight. We -- we -- we are excited about this moving forward, but I don't know if that's a direct answer to your question, but we have looked at it and we think it's more than adequate, but if you want us to relook at it, well, we will. Yearsley: Mr. Chair, just to follow up with that. Looking at it, I'm assuming that that pathway in between is a five foot pathway. So, more than likely you are, what, 20, 25 feet between properties back there? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, it's a minimum of 20 feet. It might be closer to 25 at a minimum. Yearsley: Yeah. That's -- that's what I thought. It looked -- looked fairly wide, so -- Yorgason: And you are correct, it's a five foot sidewalk and that is to scale. Seal: Yeah. On the map it's only this -- Yorgason: You are -- you are right, it is only that. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Yorgason: I promise the sidewalk won't be that big, though. Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: For the lots that are on the -- the open space, the backyards are facing it. Are you going to have open fencing or are they private vinyl fencing? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Lorcher, great question. There is actually a conditioning here that requires us to meet the open fencing standard, which is -- sorry, that's solid part way and open part way. We will meet the open space standard requirements for the City of Meridian. Lorcher: Okay. I think it's just the drawing that's kind of throwing you; right? Seal: Yeah. A little bit. Just, you know, to see that space in there just squeezed a little bit where -- you know, I mean as you are saying throw a football, throw a frisbee and things like that, I mean it's a huge area. So, I don't think anybody's going to really have any problems and I mean, to be honest, if you closed it off the other part would have its own function for sure. So, I mean the only other question I have is that Block 1 , Lot 22, that seems out of place, I guess, but I understand it, so -- I mean I don't know if I have a question on that, it just seems out of place in the whole thing. I mean I understand where the residence is going to remain, but -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 37 of 61 Yearsley: I actually think it fits, because you have the two estate lots on either side and I'm guaranteeing you someone will want that. That's a desired lot. Seal: Well, I -- I want that. Yorgason: Maybe we will visit afterwards, Commissioner, but I can't say that on the mic, but -- Seal: I love that lot. Yorgason: We -- we -- we might already know who is headed that direction, but it's nothing official, of course, until -- but we -- we recognize these would be nice premium view lots all the way through there and it's right up on the rim. It's pretty -- pretty nice up there. Seal: Yeah. Yorgason: Thank you. Seal: Absolutely. Yorgason: Appreciate that. Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could just ask Dave maybe another professional opinion on opening that area up a little bit. Just like to give a little commentary on that as well. Are you amenable to maybe just shifting Lots 10, 11 and 12 all the way to the backage of the sidewalk? And it kind of opens that up a little bit more and lose some of that open space along the street there and add it to the other side. Yeah. Shift those lots to the east. Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and staff, I'm not even going to look over here who was going to help make the decision, I'm going to say, actually, I think that would be less desirable, because north facing backyards are more desirable lots and they back up to open space. So, I would say to the design of this plat, I would prefer what we are presenting tonight. But thanks for asking. Seal: Okay. Anymore questions, comments? No? All right. Thank you very much. Yorgason: You are welcome again. Thanks for your comments and your time tonight. Seal: Thank you. Yorgason: You are welcome. Seal: Okay. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing for file number H-2022- 0059? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 38 of 61 Lorcher: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Seal: It's been moved -- excuse me. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for file number H-2022-0059. All in favor, please, say aye. No opposed. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, I guess besides having a --a really good design and layout, timing is always a benefit to you as well, going from an application that's really really dense to one that's really big. Also provides -- you know, this -- this is really nice. Sorry for that. But I -- like it. I -- anytime I can get an R-4 I'm -- I'm happy. I -- I -- I apologize, but I'm tired of seeing subdivisions that can try to pack as many homes in as they can. I understand that this is a desirable area and you want the bigger lots and -- and it makes sense to have -- to meet that -- that criteria and I -- I can't say more that I'm -- I'm in very much support of this project. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go right ahead. Lorcher: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve to City Council file number H-2022-0059 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3rd, 2022, with no modifications. Stoddard: Second. Seal: Thank you. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2022- 0059 with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 8. Public Hearing for Turin Plaza (H-2022-0063) by 12.15 Design, located at 3169 W. Belltower Dr. A. Request: Rezone of 1.80 acres of land from the R-4 (Medium Low- Density Residential) to the L-O (Limited Office) zoning district. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 39 of 61 Seal: Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for file number H-2022- 0063, for Turin Plaza and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is Turin Plaza. The application before you is for a rezone and a short plat. The site consists of 1.62 acres of land, currently zoned R-4 in the city and is located at 3169 West Belltower Drive. This property was annexed in 2001 with the R-4 zoning district. It actually was part of the Bridgetower PUD annexation at that time. It actually had a use exception approved for it, so you see R-4, but it's allowed to develop with office. As part of their recorded development agreement for this property it did require the applicant to go through a rezone process with us before they developed the lot. So, that's kind of the first step of tonight's discussion is rezoning it from R-4 to L-O and, then, the second piece of that is to actually further subdivide the existing lot and block that was created with the subdivision. So, you can see here the applicant has provided a conceptual development plan associated with that rezone to L-O. You can see they are proposing four additional office lots on here. All of the landscaping along Ten Mile Road and the private street along the east boundary has already been constructed, because, again, this is an existing lot in the subdivision already, they are just further subdividing. So, here is the short plat before you. Typically Council acts on the short plat, but because it is concurrent you guys are a recommending body on this particular application. So, as noted in the staff report, because they are further subdividing, we want to make sure that there is adequate parking and cross-access, but between all of these office lots we are -- have recommended a condition of approval that the applicant record a cross-access shared parking agreement for the development. I have looked at the public record, did not see any public testimony. Staff is recommending -- recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and with that I will stand for any questions. Seal: Okay. Thank you, Bill. Would the applicant like to come forward? Parsons: He may be online. Is the applicant online? Seal: Right here. Parsons: I thought Jessica was going to be here. My apologies. Hunter: Well, she -- she's online I think. Parsons: Okay. Perfect. Moorhouse: So, I'm here as a backup. Seal: So, she's -- she's raising her hand it looks like. Moorhouse: I will let her present. Seal: Yep. I think so. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 40 of 61 Hall: Are you there, Jessica? Petty: I am. Can you hear me? Hall: Yes, we can. Petty: Perfect. All right. So, my name is Jessica Petty with 12.15 Design, 1897 South Satellite Way, Boise, Idaho. We are requesting the rezone of the Turin Plaza Subdivision from an R-4 to an L-O zoning district. We feel this would benefit the community and nearby neighborhoods by being able to provide them with new services and new businesses, rather than having the higher density residents built there. We feel it's very consistent with the properties to the north and surrounding it and we think it would, you know, fit in and complement the community really great and we are in full agreement with all the recommendations from the staff to incorporate the --the -- the property line change or shifting the building and for a larger buffer on the side there and, then, to do the shared parking agreement is not a problem for us. So, we are -- we are on board with everything and we appreciate it. Seal: All right. Thank you very much, Jessica. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant or staff? No? All right. With that we will open the public hearing, if anybody has signed up to testify, Madam Clerk. Hall: We have a David Moorhouse. Moorhouse: I'm David Moorhouse. 3536 West Ryder Cup. I'm the owner of the property and I just signed up in -- just in case there was questions in addition to the -- what was presented, so -- Seal: Okay. Moorhouse: I didn't have anything other to add, unless there is questions. Seal: Commissioners? Yearsley: No. Lorcher: No. Seal: All right. Thanks, sir. Appreciate it. All right. Would anybody else like to testify? If so raise your hand. No? All right. Does the applicant have anything else to -- to add before we close the public hearing? Petty: No, I -- I don't have anything. Thank you. Seal: All right. Thanks very much. Commissioners, anything from you? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 41 of 61 Yearsley: No. Seal: No? All right. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on file number H- 2022-0063? Lorcher: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for file number H-2022- 0063. All those in favor, please, say aye. All right. The ayes have it. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Would anybody like to discuss or throw a -- Yearsley: I don't know that -- Seal: -- a motion or -- yeah. Yearsley: It's -- it's a pretty straightforward simple project and I think it fits the area. So, I agree with the zoning. Seal: Okay. I would take -- gladly take a motion. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: After considering all staff and applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to -- are we recommending to City Council? Okay. Recommend to City Council for file number H-2022-0063 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3rd, 2022, with no modification. Yearsley: Second. Stoddard: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2022-0063 with no modifications. All those in favor, please, say aye. Okay. No opposing, so motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 42 of 61 9. Public Hearing for McDermott Village (H-2022-0056) by Boise Hunter Homes, located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd. at the northwest corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. McDermott Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 40.05 acres of land with R-15, R-40 and C- G zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots (81 townhome, 1 multi-family, 3 commercial lots) and 8 common lots on 40.05 acres of land in the R-15, R-40 and C-G zoning districts. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family residential development consisting of 250 dwelling units on 12.19 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Seal: Okay. And last, but not least, we will open the file H-2022-0056 for McDermott Village and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item on the agenda this evening before we adjourn is the McDermott Village project. It's an annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit. You can see here on the future land use map that the subject property is mixed-use regional on the Comprehensive Plan and you can see on the zoning map the current boundary of the city limits. There is no application history per se for this particular project, as they are actually here to talk with you tonight about it. The property is located on the southeast -- or excuse me -- the southwest corner of Ustick and McDermott Road. This -- this project is unique -- if you can imagine. You probably saw in that graphic there that there is actually State Highway 16 that goes through this property and bisects it. In the staff report I think city staff did a great job of explaining the situation of why we are supporting this application this evening, just for the fact of the uniqueness of having a state highway run through this property. I would mention to the Commission that the applicant was in front of City Council and asked for the specific land use designation as part of the Comprehensive Plan update in 2019. The requested zoning with the annexation request includes R-40, which is approximately 15.85 acres of land. We have a C-G piece of property, zoned 7.08 acres and across -- or the east side of the future State Highway 16 the applicant is proposing R-15 of approximately 17.12 acres of land. Here is the conceptual development plan submitted with that application. Again, you can see how the intersect--the state highway intersects the property. So, it's really almost a -- a tale of two projects in -- in a sense with the way this works out and so in our -- in our analysis of the Comprehensive -- Comprehensive Plan for this particular project we couldn't find that it was entirely consistent with all the mixed-use regional standards, but what -- given the circumstances we felt it was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and what I mean by that is Sonya did a great job of laying the foundation that the project on the west did integrate a little bit more with the surrounding developments because of what had been approved and developed on that particular side of the road and, then, as you transition to the other side of the road this provides a buffer to the state highway and transitions on that side of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 43 of 61 the road as well. So, I think overall staff is supporting this project with the two residential -- or the two land use types that are proposed before you. So, we have, essentially, commercial, some office and, then, townhome development and a commercial -- or excuse me -- and a multi-family development. I appreciate the applicant also showing you some of the other developments in the area here on the graphic to the -- to the right. It gives you that overall comprehensive view of what's been approved along this corridor thus far, so I -- I think it -- it kind of tells the tale of what's actually happening and I think this Commission is aware of all the growth that's occurring in this area. You will also note on the concept plan here that access to the west -- western portion of the development is coming off of Ustick Road here. This is -- this will be a public street and constructed with the subdivision and, then, also ties into Aviator Springs development to the north. So, this is the primary spine road adjacent to an arterial or the state highway and it will provide that necessary secondary access that we are looking for in this particular area. The applicant is proposing, again, a preliminary plat consisting of 85 buildable lots. So, one -- one would be a multi-family lot, three commercial lots and, then, 81 townhome lots. Again you can see the west half of this green is the west side of State Highway 16 and, then, the townhome portion is the east side, which has 81 townhome lots. You can also see that the applicant is proposing to phase the project. So, phase one will commence with the multi-family and I'm sure the road that comes into the development to serve it. Phase two is across the other side of the roadway, which is the townhome development and, then, phase three will be the commercial development. I would also note to the Commission that at this current time there are no plans for any commercial development, meaning there is no end user to -- to locate on this site. It's really speculative. The applicant -- we worked with the applicant through numerous meetings to try to get something that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. They felt this was there -- and, again, given the -- the -- the look at this and seeing that there is a highway going through, it's just really challenging to get a regional draw on something that's going to be bisected by the state highway. So, really, if you look at this project approximately 26 acres of this site is on the -- the east side -- or, excuse me, the west side of the roadway and the remainder falls across the east side of the road. So, again, as I mentioned to you it's -- it's a little disjointed, just because of the highway, so we -- we tried to lay the -- lay the foundation for you as best we could. But, again, staff is supporting this project. So, both projects -- can't call them both projects. But this project has to require -- comply with open space requirements. This is their proposed landscape plan. The highlighted areas show the areas that can count towards the required open space. So, then, again, the multi-family portion and commercial portion are highlighted in red here on the west and, then, on the east side you see the additional open space that's proposed. In the staff report staff did make the finding that the project does comply with the open space standards, not only for multi-family standards, but also the single -- single family standards, which is happening or occurring on the east side of the roadway and, then, as part of the mixed-use regional standards, the applicant's required to provide some open space as part of that project -- that portion of the development as well and you can see here there is a central plaza that's built or proposed in between two of those commercial structures. So, staff has made that a recommended DA provision as well for that to occur with the development of the commercial project with phase three. Staff also noted that the amenities proposed for the -- both the multi-family and the single family met city code. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 44 of 61 There was a little back and forth with the applicant as far as the amenities proposed for the multi-family project. There were some misunderstandings about the commercial kitchen component of the conditional use permit. I had a chance to work with the applicant or at lease talk over that condition with them today. So, again, the Commission can either strike the word commercial and just leave the outdoor kitchen as part of an amenity or just strike that amenity altogether, because based on the amenity package that they are proposing for the multi-family, they are in excess of UDC standards. But as you know, once you get over a certain unit count for multi-family developments, it's up to your purview to determine whether or not the applicant is -- is proposing the right number of amenities for the size of the development. In this particular case the conditional use permit is for 250 units. Staff also asked for further clarification on the amenities for the single family portion of the townhome portion and that's what this graphic on the right represents. So, the applicant does meet -- or exceed the -- the amenity points required by the UDC. I will skip over this slide. I think you are aware there is multiple structures, 250 units. Again, the site plan complies with the parking ratios and they meet the open space and amenity requirements per code. And, then, as far as conceptual building elevations, here is what the applicant is proposing for not only the townhomes, but also the multi-family. We believe that it does kind of blend in with the surrounding developments. Any further refinement would occur with administrative design review with a certificate of zoning compliance -- application and design review application I should say. No conceptual elevations were submitted for the commercial portion. So, again, that's fine, they don't have an end user, they don't know what it's actually going to look like yet. They want to keep that portion of the site someone flexible until they have somebody that can locate there. So, looking at the record it looks like we did have somebody that provided testimony. They didn't give a name, so we labeled it Meridian residents. They are concerned with overcrowding at schools and just the continuing growth happening in Meridian. And, then, Todd Tucker, the applicant's representative, did provide a response to the staff report and he's requested that condition A-10K be removed, which is reference to that commercial kitchen as I mentioned and, then, staff is recommending a revision to DA Provision F and that's on your hearing outline. So, basically, we just want to add the name of a street and just clarify in the development agreement that the multi-use pathway required along that roadway can occur on the west side and not directly on the east side adjacent to the state highway. And also after looking at the staff report as well, I would also note that that same condition is condition of approval 3-B as well. So, I will also make sure that that language gets added to that condition as well as we transition to City Council. With that, again, staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you may have. Seal: All right. Thank you, Bill. At this time would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening, gentlemen. We need one of your names and address for the record and -- Hunter: Yeah. Sure thing. My name is Travis Hunter with Boise Hunter Homes, 923 South Bridgeway Place, Eagle, Idaho. So, we are the principal partner in the McDermott Village Subdivision here before you guys tonight and we are grateful for another opportunity for a unique project in the City of Meridian. Having the right team is really the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 45 of 61 key piece to any successful development project and I couldn't be more excited for the team we have put together for this project, as it's so dynamic. So, as this project blends multi-family, commercial, and for sale housing, we have partnered with the Pacific Companies, which are some of the country's best multi-family developers and if you are not familiar with their work, one of their projects is actually right across the street from here, the Old Town Lofts development. Working on the architecture side, we have partnered -- and the -- and the landscape architecture side we have partnered with GGLO and Pivot North and both of them have produced high quality projects, both locally and regionally. The McDermott Village project offers the City of Meridian a timely and low risk development that utilizes the Meridian comp plan to develop a critical 40 acre piece that is adjacent to the existing Owyhee High School and the future Highway 16 extension, which is coming fast. I will now turn over the details of the application to Josh Evarts, the development manager with the Pacific Companies. Evarts: Yeah. Good evening, Commissioners. Josh Evarts, 303 East State Avenue, Old Town, Meridian. 83642. Hey, I appreciate you guys having us here tonight. This one is a labor of love. This is not easy to do. So, this project -- I won't burden you with the order of events. We are going to talk about the property. We are going to talk about what the ask is and, then, we will get into some of the details and -- and challenges of this guy. The property was 40 acres that was bought back in 2006 by the Hunter family, a family that develops single family homes. This property was in the path of growth and saw an opportunity to develop that in the future. In 2017 ITD redefined the final five miles of Highway 16 and we ended up with a property that had some unique characteristics associated with it. So, what we are looking at is we felt that the reason that we went to City Council during that comp plan is that we really felt that Owyhee High School would become that regional draw and we felt like we could wrap a project on this property, even with the highway dividing it, and have a mixed-use regional draw element product that we could put in place for the City of Meridian in this area. So, what we are asking for tonight is, obviously, the annexation of the property. It is designated mixed-use regional and -- which is a mix of employment, retail, residential dwellings, six to 40 units per acre. We are proposing 12 and a half units per. We definitely wanted to keep with kind of an open design that can be kind of a transitional element from -- from some of these open spaces into some of its higher density partners that exist around it. We need a rezoning request. We have the R-40, the R-15 and the commercial that's down below and we will go into some details on that and, then, obviously, the preliminary plat for each of those 250 dwellings multi-family the Pacific Companies will be building 81 townhomes that will be the responsibility of Boise Hunter Homes and, then, the commercial that we are going to do cooperatively. We think that there is some really strategic things that we can go after that really does make this -- even though it feels like separate projects that can really make this a mixed-use project that can be delivered to the region. We do need a conditional use permit for the Unified Development Code for the multi-family, so that's one little add-on that we need there. So, let's talk about the challenge. So, Highway 16, we make the decision, right, or transportation makes the -- department makes the decision to initiate this extension going from State Highway 44 all the way to Highway 84, so -- or Interstate 84. Phase one was completed in 2014. The design for this last five miles was finished in 2020, funded in '21 and is in the process of working through different Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 46 of 61 sections of that right now, even though they haven't gotten to our piece of property in -- in particular. So, our solution was, number one, we kind of had to conduct an assessment. We really had to sit down as a team. I think that the Hunter family in their wisdom started bringing some bright people together, Pivot North, GGLO, Pacific Companies to go, okay, what does this look like? What can we offer. What -- what's something that we can do here? And approach the site comprehensively, not look at this as a divided piece of property, but look at it as a project that we can deliver. Building that team. And, then, we have actually leaned in to try to be a good partner, knowing at the end of the day this road is going through. So, on our own volition and dollars we did put in a north sewer main and south sewer main to support development that would happen on either side of this and get that done and, then, we also granted a water line easement to the City of Meridian along the entire southern border of the project and we just felt like it was important for us to -- to lean into this and be -- be a good partner with the city. So, McDermott Village, what is it? It's a mixed-use regional program development. We are leveraging Owyhee High School as our primary draw here. I did want to make note of the one comment that came in earlier about the impact of West Ada. I know we talked about it with Kuna earlier. The letter was actually submitted from West Ada, the planners on this project. They are estimating that we are going to add about 73 students and they didn't express any concerns. Their only concerns were that we were giving access from the development to Owyhee High School, which we have done in three areas. Just an additional data point. Multi-family lifestyle community, we -- we really leaned into amenities here and what we would be able to offer on this site, especially in such close proximity to the -- the high school. Single family townhomes. This was, as staff reported, the more challenging of the two sides to -- to develop a product. There are some unique things. You will notice that there is a -- a cul-de-sac at the end of McDermott. So, that doesn't exist today, but as soon as the highway goes in that does get cul-de-sac'd at the end of that. So, there are just some unique access challenges, but I think we came up with a great concept to do these single family townhomes, which we think are going to be at a price point that has a -- a great amount of affordability associated with it, which we think fits with this whole transitional model of going from the regional draw, the multi-family, some very affordable townhomes and then -- and, then, leading into the rest of the region as we have laid it out. Retail and office amenities and, then, lots of integrated green space. Just felt that that was very very important. So, the comp plan. This is -- this is what guided a lot of our development. This is the mixed-use regional sample laying out the single family residences, the retail office, hospitality and integrated plazas. So, our take on this as we look at kind of the data overlay and the colors here, is on the east side of the project we have the 81 townhomes. You can see the green space of the pickleball courts in the north, as well as the big open green space that's in the middle of the project. We have the 250 apartments that are in the yellow. You will see all the green space that's in the middle of that. The amenity space. For the entire project we are at 32 percent, which includes plazas, pickleball courts, walking paths -- specifically walking paths that are also connected to Owyhee High School. In the front in the commercial we have 15,000 square feet of office retail space that we think that -- we don't have specifics. We do have some things that we are wanting to target in that space that we think fit with being off of a -- a access point off the Interstate and, then, we just have amenities specific to the multi- family, 9,000 square foot clubhouse that does have a full indoor kitchen, big accordion Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 47 of 61 doors that open up into the public space, outdoor barbecue, pool, lots of fun stuff to do there on site. So -- why didn't that not advance? Oh. Elevations. So, this gives some idea as to what we are looking at. So, this is looking north at the multi-family commercial. You notice we have kind of reflected. We do think one of the natural fits for this, given the fact that it's right off of the state highway or Highway 16, is a fuel convenience store option. We have done a lot of time looking at Rocky Mountain High School and looking at a lot of the successful businesses, the grab and go food. We also think in order to drive more jobs we are looking and -- and just amenities that would be specific to the multi-family, we are looking at dentists, optometrists, things of that nature, that would be things of sports doctors, things that we could see students that are at the high school that are going to be in walking distance, that they would be able to take advantage of. Looking west at the multi-family, again, you can see some of the buffer and -- and -- and landscaping that exists, how we set those buildings back to make sure that those buffers exist and, then, the high school in the background. If we look at this public plaza this is one of the big things that we focused on. I think GGLO and -- and Pivot North did a great job of -- of really creating these kind of environments that are walkable, that are -- that are going to be friendly to kind of the -- the -- the region and, excuse me, finally, the townhome elevations. Again, wanting to fit -- I think like staff reported wanting to fit in with some of the designs and -- and -- and things that were happening in the region and -- and not be developing something that was outside the norm and we know that there are challenges with this, so we wanted to make sure we were being very careful with -- with some of those design things to fit in. So, some staff comments that we wanted to address. So, there was a request -- staff was looking to require a ten foot wide multi-use pathway within the Highway 16 buffer. So, all this pink area, this is the pathways on the property. I will just point out the blue circles on the west side of the property, those directly go into Owyhee High School. That's some pretty neat points right near baseball fields and stuff that's going on. The path to the north of the multi-family ties right into the subdivision, the single family community above us. So, we are providing that multi -- or that ten foot wide path on the multi-family side of the project. Where we run into issues is we are providing that ten foot path on the east side of the townhomes. There just wasn't enough room with the buffers and things that we had to provide to -- to squeeze that ten foot pathway on the east side of the property. So, we moved that to the west side on the -- on the townhome side of the project. Requiring a 25 foot landscape buffer between the commercial lots and the residential lots to the west is the Flowers' property. Flowers' properties -- if you look at this drawing, the easement that we were given by ACHD -- or access that we were given by ACHD, that -- that parking or that -- that driveway that goes in-out, we are only 24 feet off the property line to get to the middle of that. So, it really is impossible for us to do a 25 foot and -- and, ultimately, because that Flowers property is designated mixed-use commercial on the future land use map, it wouldn't be a requirement to have a 25 foot element there. So, it would be asking for a -- a variance to not have to do that. We --we just would lose the southern access to this --to this property. We can't move that--that--that driveway or that access point any further east. Requiring a 35 foot wide buffer along Highway 16 and McDermott Road, code does allow for a ten percent variance option. So, on, again, the multi-family side we are right there. We are currently at 33 feet, so -- so, no issues at all there. On the other side of the project where it squeezes down on the far north, we get down to a 26 foot buffer between the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 48 of 61 westernmost lot on the north of that project. So, even with that ten percent variance where it's -- it's not sufficient to -- to meet that 30 foot -- 30 foot wide buffer, so we are looking for some consideration there. If you look at the on ramp, the 50 foot buffer, there is a retaining wall on the east side of the buffer and the 26 feet that we are providing, we feel that at 76 feet that's -- that's -- that's sufficient and we are really trying not to lose lots in order to make sure that -- that these still maintain, you know, affordability. It really is going to cost us about the same amount whether we have that one extra lot or more and -- and so it really does impact the -- the -- the -- the cost of these properties ultimately to a buyer later on. Requiring the 30 foot wide buffer along McDermott Road, this really isn't -- it -- this won't be a thing. So, this -- as soon as this gets terminated as a cul-de-sac it will no longer be an entryway corridor. So, we won't have a requirement to have that 30 foot wide -- 35 foot wide buffer on that side. So, we are -- we are asking to not have to put that in, since that is going to get ended. And, then, finally, requiring all townhomes to be a minimum 2,000 square feet. So, one of the things that the code does allow for is a variance can be given to relieve an undue hardship because of the characteristics of the site, as long as we are not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Just given the nature of this Highway 16, we also have in the green spaces and that's in the middle, that's the hundred foot wide Sky Pilot drain easement that we can't touch that we have to maintain. We really did try to program as much as we could in this piece of property, so that we could get to a product -- these townhomes that were -- that were the right price point and the -- and the -- and the right product in this area. We are not far off of this, but if we do have to comply and get to that 2,000 square feet, we are going to lose about ten percent of the available units, so we are estimating nine units, which is negating a portion of that whole affordable spirit of the development. So, with that I am open to any questions and thank you for your consideration. And staff. Seal: Commissioners, any questions? No? All right. Thank you very much. Starman: Mr. Chairman, can I take care of some housekeeping real quick? Seal: Absolutely. Starman: And if I missed this I apologize, but Commissioner Lorcher and I had a discussion a little earlier today that she may have a conflict of interest relative to this project. If that's the case -- I'm not sure if you made your decision about that, but if that's so I was just reconfirming you do need to make an announcement on the record and we have already talked about you could not participate in deliberations or voting, but if you have decided that you are going to recuse -- I -- I guess I would recommend now that you, you know, make that comment and explain why and, then, refrain from participation in -- you know, participating in deliberations or voting on the item. Lorcher: So, based on counsel today, because I am a neighbor of this particular project, my farm is just adjacent to it to the east, I am going to recuse myself this evening. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the reminder on that. All right. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 49 of 61 Hall: Ron Hopper. Seal: Good evening, sir. Need your full name and address for the record, please. Hopper: Name is Ron Hopper. My address is 3510 North McDermott Road. I live right across from this proposed project. I only have a couple of concerns. It looks like a good project, but all this traffic is going to dump on McDermott Road and Ustick. Those roads are two lane roads. They weren't designed for an additional 500 cars a day. So, is the developer going to maintain the road? Is he going to put in a turn lane? Is he going to build up the aprons? This is what my concern is. And also the traffic. The kids. I have got two kids -- grandkids that go to Owyhee High School and so now you are going to be dumping all these cars on Ustick. You are creating an accident is what you are creating. So, just think about it. If some kid gets hit by a car, remember that, okay? I mean it's a nice project, but you need to have more access or better control. That's my comments. Thank you. Seal: All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Anybody else signed up? Hall: Rod Green. Seal: Good evening, sir. Name and address for the -- Green: Good evening. Yeah. Excuse me. My name is Rod Green. My wife and I -- my wife Bonnie over there, we live at 3560 North McDermott Road. We are right next and behind Ron who just spoke and right across from the east part of this development. We have the same concern about the traffic. If you do a quick calculation based on a little over two cars per townhouse and maybe three trips per day, you are going to have almost a trip every minute during the nine hours of your working day. Now, the problem with that is traffic isn't evenly distributed throughout the day as you well know. You have a lot of congestion in the mornings, a lot of congestion during the evenings and at other peak times of the day. So, it's going to be really hard to get in and out of our properties is what I'm saying. Our driveway for our property lines up almost directly across from the northern access to -- there is -- there is two access points. Let me try to describe it a little better to this eastern portion of this development for McDermott Village. Okay. The northern entrance to that property lines up almost directly across from our driveway. We think that's going to be a problem. Why? Because I think most of the traffic in and out of this eastern portion of this development is probably going to go through that northern access point. There is not much point for all of those people to turn out of their townhomes and go south and get on McDermott and come back up north to get to the drive around point to get to Ustick on north to McMillan. It just looks like it's going to be a problem situation right there and right across from our driveway. So, we have a lot of concern about that. Otherwise, we have I think a general concern for the total amount of build out that you have got going in this part of the -- of your city. The Aviator Springs -- I think it's Aviator Springs to the north -- looks like there is a lot of apartments there and it doesn't look good. I don't know if you have driven out that way and looked at it. It just looks like a big bunch of stacked multi-story apartments. Is that really what we want? Is that -- is that a good Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 50 of 61 transition to the rural environment that we have had out there? We moved there in 2004, you know, and loved the peace and quiet. That's why we bought there. We are not going to have that anymore. We have got Highway 16. We have got all this other development going on. Have we been compensated in any way for what we have lost? No. Will we even have access to the utilities that you are bringing in to this development, such as natural gas, high speed Internet, water if we should need it at some point or sewer? doubt it. Just because of our location we probably won't have that. So, those are our concerns. Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman, Council Members. Thank you. That's it. Seal: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Hall: Bonnie Green. Seal: All right. Anybody else would like to testify? Sir, come on up. Elam: My name is Paul Elam. I live at 5127 North Assisi Road, Meridian. I have been here before in relation to the Bridgetower complex and -- and as much as I hated that one, this is much worse. I would say this is garbage. Complete garbage. Twelve three story buildings. I don't know if people have really taking that in. Our daughter goes to Owyhee High School and right now it's a freak show in the mornings and I'm sad to hear that Commissioner Lorcher is going to not vote on this, because I actually think she would give the most valuable opinion, because she is nearby and could say exactly what that area is like. In the morning this week they have been putting in a gas line on -- on McMillan, which is right on the opposite side. You have two main streets going in toward McDermott. One is Ustick and one is McMillan. As you continue on down to the Storm Avenue I think it's called, then, they -- that road goes all the way between both of them on Owyhee High School. This is adjacent to it. It's literally--when you go there for games it will block out the sky. I mean it's tragic. I wish I had never bought here to see this kind of thing go in and the only reason they are going to get away with this in some ways is because nobody knows. These fine people over here are nearby and they see it, but the 500 yard -- I think it's 500 yards or something like that where they send out the cards, well, there are a lot of farms in there and, then, they should send out a card to everybody who has a student going to that school, because, frankly, the comprehensive report is completely out of date and the planning team seems to approve almost everything that goes through as far as I can see. It was done in 2019 and in 2019 there was a completely different Meridian. It's nothing like what we live in today and it's tragic in what has happened. All along McMillan from where we live near Walmart all the way down to Owyhee there is buildings going in on all sides, which are homes. Granted they are homes, I can't stop that, but also there is a new school going in there, which means that all the traffic will be going back and forth and if you can believe the estimated 71 students -- I won't even describe what that really is. There is no way -- Marci Horner who does West Ada's form letter that sends out for every application says the same thing, which is basically that these three schools that are -- that these students would funnel into -- one of them is in our community and Bridgetower, is already at capacity. It's max. The parents are fuming every day, because they can't even hire teachers to go in that school. So, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 51 of 61 what I would ask is that closing -- I'm sure my time is running out soon -- is that Kurt read again what they did at the Bridgetower conditional use permit time was all the reasons why you can deny this claim and I will give some examples of them real quick. Some of the examples on how you can deny this claim are in the code of ordinances, findings, which include that -- that the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood. There is no support services anywhere near this area. They will have to drive either to Nampa or into Meridian on either Ustick or on McMillan to get to everything they want to do. Very few people will jump right on 16. Is it -- it's an existing or intended character or the general vicinity that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. This project will adversely change the whole area. There is nothing even remotely like it anywhere near it, except if you go up 16, going towards State Road, you will see there there is three story apartment buildings that also block out the sky. Is that the kind of experience that we want for our students at Owyhee High School is they look up and they can't even see the mountains that their school was built -- was built to view? It's unbelievable to me. Going on. Some other reasons to deny would be that the proposed land, if it complies with the conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. I think we all know that if you build a bunch of apartments right next to the school it will directly adversely impact those other properties in that vicinity. Number five. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police, fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer. I think we can all agree that the information sent over by those different agencies is not adequate and won't fundamentally explain the true nature of that area. I know I'm going over my time. Finally, I will just add that a nearby neighbor applied to be on this Commission in one of the open spots and I would like to go on the record in saying that nobody, either Andrew Seal, nor the Mayor followed up with them for -- it's been over a month now and it seems like having more opinions on the Commission would be a better way to really project what we want to build in Meridian for our families. Thank you very much for your time. Seal: All right. Thank you. Anybody else like to testify? No? All right. Would the applicant like to come back up? Tucker: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Todd Tucker, Boise Hunter Homes. 923 South Bridgeway Place, Eagle, Idaho. I just wanted to address a few of the comments that were made. You know, there is always concerns about traffic with any development that comes in. One of the unique situations that we have here -- and I understand the concerns from the residents on the east side as far as traffic on McDermott. We have to remember McDermott will be cul-de-sac'd. So, the amount of traffic that you see now that travels on McDermott is going to be dramatically reduced when that road is cul-de-sac'd. There just won't be that much traffic traveling up and down McDermott, because you can't get to Ustick, you have to -- you have to go to the east a mile or a half a mile, then, back down a mile or half a mile, I can't remember the distance, to Ustick Road. So, I think the -- the -- the overall traffic is going to be reduced on McDermott Road, just because that road is going to be cul-de-sac'd. As far as the concern of Mr. Green, the alignment of the road that -- the northern access road and the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 52 of 61 townhomes aligning with his driveway, ACHD actually has a policy, they like things to align. It actually makes for safer intersections when -- when roads and driveways align with each other. So, if you look at ACHD's policy manual they actually like things to align or be offset by certain distances, because it makes safer intersections and so that drive -- that -- that street aligning with their driveway is actually what ACHD would -- would prefer. Aviator Springs does not have any multi-family. There are no apartments in -- in Aviator Springs. I believe it's all single family homes that this Commission and Council just recently -- recently approved. As far as the destruction of the rural environment that is there now, the properties to the east side of McDermott Road are in the county, but they are within Meridian's area of impact and Comprehensive Plan and identified as mixed-use interchange, which would have much higher uses than what is there now. Our development -- we really -- as -- as Josh mentioned earlier, we tried to -- to kind of step down or transition that density from being next to the high school with the higher density stuff and the -- the commercial on the -- on the west side of Highway 16 and, then, transitioning down to some single family homes on the east side to kind of transition to that lower density that exists right now on the other side of McDermott Road. As far as the last gentleman that testified, I have a unique situation. My daughter also actually happens to go to Owyhee High School and when I was talking with her the other day I was actually driving her to a practice at -- at school and she said, you know, I thought of something the other day, because we were talking about different businesses. This was out of the blue. I didn't prompt anything. She said I have determined that if a business wants to be really successful they need to be next to a high school and I thought, well, interesting you say that, because the very next week I have a project going forward. So, her and all of her friends are actually very excited about this project. Right now she told me that most of the kids are late to class coming back from lunch, because they actually drive all the way to Walmart. They go to Walmart. They go to the Marco's Pizza that's there. The Panda Express. They -- the -- the gas station that's over there. So, they are leaving Owyhee High School driving three miles to go to eat something at lunchtime, because it's not cool to eat lunch at school, you got to leave, and so we think this is going to be a very positive aspect for the high school. The students that I interact with are actually very excited about this. Insinuating that the comp plan is out of date, it's three years old. That is very new as far as comprehensive plans go. So, I would -- I would say that it is not out of date. Talking about how there is -- it's incongruous with the area, I think our development is very -- actually very -- fits in very well with the existing development and with what has been planned by the City of Meridian with the -- The Fields master planned area that's located directly -- not directly, but located to the west of this, west of Owyhee High School. The city went through an extensive master planning process to plan that area. This -- this area of town is ripe for development. It is going to be more dense in certain areas. I think Meridian is on the right track with the way they have their Comprehensive Plan laid out and identified what the uses should be. Public facilities. We are bringing water, we are bringing sewer, we are handling drainage. The school district, there -- there is a -- directly north of Owyhee High School there is an elementary school that's going to be located there. So, there will be -- it's not there now, but the -- it's five or seven acres, maybe ten acres directly north of Owyhee High School, that big open field, there will be an elementary school there. That's what it's -- that's what it's planned for. So, more school will be in this area to alleviate some of that -- that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 53 of 61 pressure on the schools that are around. But, again, we have a letter from West Ada, they -- they didn't really express any concerns about the -- the amount of students that will be produced. So, I think that -- I think hopefully that answers a lot of the questions or the concerns that were brought up by the residents. We had a neighborhood meeting at Owyhee High School. I thought it went very well. A lot of interaction with the -- the residents, the folks that did show up. We are -- again, just to reiterate, we are very proud of this project. We think it fits in well. We have really tried to do the best that we can with the hand that we have been dealt with -- with a -- a -- a state highway bisecting your property right through the middle at a --we are at an awkward angle. We have got a large drain that runs through the middle of it with a hundred foot wide easement and we have got another canal that runs at an angle across the top of the northern portion of the property. So, again, this is a project we are really proud of. We think it fits in very well with the -- the community. We think it fits in very well with the Comprehensive Plan. We are excited -- we were excited to get a favorable staff report from -- from your staff. We have been working with them for two years on this project, a lot of back and forth and we landed on something that I think we are happy with and we are happy that the staff is happy with it. So, with that I think that we can answer any question -- other questions that you might have, but we are -- we are happy with the -- with the -- the project the way it is. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Yearsley, do you have -- Yearsley: Mr. Mayor. So, do you know when they plan to start construction of that interchange, that -- that area of Ustick for the highway? Tucker: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, the construction of Highway 16 has actually already begun. So, they are actually constructing it in two different kind of segments I guess. They are starting from the north and working south and they are starting from the south and working north and both of those projects have already started and they are meeting somewhere near our property. So, as far as when actually the interchange or the portion of Highway 16 that's constructed on our--through our property, I'm not sure when that will be, but I'm going to say it's within the next year, because they literally have already started the -- the -- that -- that work right now. It started maybe two months ago. Yearsley: When -- when do you -- you have to go through all your entitlement process and stuff like this and, then, get your design plans. I'm just trying to figure out timelines of when Ustick will be improved, you know, because I imagine they will have to improve portions of Ustick with the interchange, how that fits in with your project. You know, are you a year out, two years, what are you -- what's your plan for your phase one? Evarts: Yeah. I will take this one, yeah, because this is the Pacific Company side. Yeah. So, on the multi-family side, yeah, that is phase one and we would be continuing with -- you know, if -- if -- if you guys recommend it, if City Council approves it, we would be pressing on with all of our plans and submissions to the City of Meridian and wanting to break ground as soon as possible. There is not any reason to delay any of this. We have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 54 of 61 the capacity and resources and the need is there, you know, to -- to -- to provide this. Especially with escalating interest rates and stuff like that, we have just seen an evaporation of-- of people, you know, at that starter level, right, teachers that are working at the school, firefighters, law -- that they -- they don't have resources and they need housing options. So, we would be starting very quickly. But I think Highway 16 will beat us in terms of our completion. So, I think those improvements will be done before people would be moving in and -- and we have actually had a lot of conversations about the commercial, even though we have that as like a phase three. Just based on some of the feedback we have been getting I won't be surprised if that ends up being a phase two, because I just think that there is an appetite and -- and -- and there is a gap right now that exists with Owyhee High School as that big regional draw. It's a great option to have there. Yearsley: Well, I agree, because, you know, I -- I have to laugh that -- you talked about what's successful businesses around high schools and at Rocky Mountain it's all the fast food restaurants that are right there. So, I could see that being a good fast food location. I guess follow on. So, with McDermott going to a cul-de-sac there, is there an alternate route that's being proposed to Ustick and -- and is that part of ACHD's construction? I -- I wasn't quite sure. It looked like in your -- your plans that you guys had, it looked like they kind of showed a -- kind of a bypass road back around that. Tucker: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, we don't have an exhibit that actually shows the full breadth of it, but if you look at the --the screen now, on the northern portion of the -- of the screen, that gray, that is actually the road that will head to the -- to the east. It goes approximately a mile and, then, it turns south and -- and -- and intersects with Ustick Road and, then, it also has another mile south from there and, then, a mile to the west to reconnect with McDermott south of Ustick. So -- so, McDermott is going to be cul-de-sac'd on the north side and on the south side of Ustick Road and you have to do a bypass around to get it. So, that is ACHD. I believe they acquired that right of way already. If you look at current maps that has already shown -- that that route is already shown as being under the ownership of ACHD. So, I believe they have acquired that -- that -- that circuitous route already. But, yeah, there will be a connection to Ustick, it's just going to be approximately a mile -- maybe it's a half a mile to the east. Yearsley: Okay. So -- so, with that is the state highway going to -- when -- when Ustick goes through with the state highway through there, will they cul-de-sac that at the same time or is that ACHD cul-de-sac -- Tucker: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, that's going to be more than likely a combo effort. ITD and ACHD are working very close together on this. Because McDermott Road is an ACHD road, not a state highway, my guess is ACHD is going to be the one doing the work, but -- but maybe not. I'm not sure how that works. But that will be part of that interchange that goes in when -- when the interchange at Ustick Road is -- is under construction that's when McDermott will be cul-de-sac'd. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 55 of 61 Yearsley: Right. And so the reason why I'm asking all this is we actually had one of the Commissioners from ACHD come in and talk about State Highway 16 and all the things that Ada County Highway District was supposed to do, but was unfunded, and so my concern is all these proposed improvements on ACHD right of way and stuff are they unfunded or are they being funded by the state? And -- and maybe you don't know, I was just kind of curious, you know, how that's all playing out. Tucker: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, I did -- I did see that -- or I have read the -- the report and the -- the -- the -- the news article about it as well, talking about how some of that funding got left out of the grant money that was supposed to be with this and so maybe it's going to be delayed a year, but for the most part this is all going to be one big -- big package when it's -- when it's -- when it's completed. But to give you a definite answer, we don't know for sure when or how, but the intent is that all of this will be done at the same time. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Seal: When -- when do you think it will -- I mean when -- when do you anticipate having occupancy in the -- the multi-family? Tucker: I will let Josh handle that. When he said like we are -- we are -- we are not planning on slowing down at all. We -- we do have to go through some approval process -- well, I guess I said I would let Josh -- Evarts: Yeah. No. No. No. No. Let me -- let me jump in. I will tell you, because we -- we -- we are six, 18 -- I -- I think we would have it done in two years, to be realistic, because I think we would have our plans in -- I'm giving ourselves six months for all design review and -- and stuff like that and, then, be able to turn dirt and I think 18 months is a reasonable development time for -- for a project of this size. I don't -- I don't see anything keeping us from -- from leaning in on it. So, we -- we have definitely increased our capacity here for a lot of the projects that we are doing already, so there is no disruption on our end. So, in fact, our -- our -- our site for doing the manufacturing of all the units is sitting in Nampa. So, it's -- this is all very proximate to what we do. Seal: Okay. Yeah. And the reason I ask is because I -- I mean my issue isn't necessarily with what you are building out, it's just the -- the -- the lack of road infrastructure when that comes in the from of Ustick and -- and McMillan. I mean they are already -- they are a mess. They are -- they are a nightmare for sure. So, part of Ustick is going to be improved here in the next -- they have got signs up to even start it. Luckily they wanted to build a facility on Ustick Road, so we can hold their feet to the fire on it. But it -- unfortunately, it doesn't go out to this neck of the woods until 2026. So, I mean we have got a state highway that's coming in and, then, we have got, you know, essentially, two lane country, you know, back roads that are there to support all of this stuff, so -- and we are already feeling that. I mean you are right, all the kids go elsewhere for lunch. Well, good luck trying to get on those roads at lunchtime, so -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 56 of 61 Evarts: Yeah. Seal: That's -- that's -- you know, that's an issue for me as far as the timing of this to where it would be nice if all this would kind of congeal at the same time. 2026 is when ACHD is going to attack Ustick, you know, State Highway 16 is going to go in supposedly before that, so, I don't know, it just seems like our agencies are not coordinating very well to make this happen. Tucker: Yeah. Commissioner Yearsley, also along -- along those lines, a lot -- I don't want to say most, but most street improvements actually occur with development. So, we will be improving McDermott Road, Ustick Road, providing a connection to the Aviator Springs Subdivision to the north to provide some of that connectivity through the area. Hopefully when the property to the -- to the -- to the west of us, the Flowers' property, when that begins to redevelop, which I think as more development comes that's going to speed that process up, we are going to get Endeavor Road that -- that is stubbed to the Flowers' property hopefully connected through and connected to this -- this project and so a lot of the development or a lot of the infrastructure actually occurs when development happens. The developers build these --these roads and make these street improvements as they are adjacent to our property. Occasionally we have to do off-site improvements, but usually it's adjacent to our-- our project and so, yeah, some of the bigger projects that ACHD tackles, some of that can be sped up if development happens along that road and so we just view it as, yeah, we understand that their traffic is always an issue and a concern, but as development occurs, although it -- it contributes some to the traffic, it also makes the improvements to the road that we all want to see happen. Evarts: So, Chairman, Commissioners, the people that are much smarter than me said realistically we are going to be at three years for -- for actual move in dates for people. So, if we are not even considering, you know, approval through City Council until December, January, you know, we are really at that 2026 probably for actual move-ins and density for the project. So, we have got construction to do, but I don't think we are very far off from -- from some of these things happening, so -- Seal: Okay. Appreciate that. Evarts: Yeah. Seal: Anything further? Yearsley: No. Seal: Commissioner Stoddard, do you have anything? Stoddard: No. I just share the same concerns about the traffic. Seal: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 57 of 61 Yearsley: So, I guess before we close -- Seal: Go ahead. Yearsley: -- close the public hearing, you have asked for a lot of conditions. Can we walk through those conditions? Evarts: Yeah. Yearsley: Since I more than likely we will have to make this -- this -- this motion. Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, before we get into the -- the variance discussion, I just want to make a point that there is no variance application submitted for even the Council to act on. So, that's one step of the process. If -- if they truly feel they need to go through that variance process there is another application that needs to be a companion application as they transition to City Council. Two. Some of the landscape requirements can be modified through the alternative compliance process, which is not -- it's staff level approval, not necessarily City Council action. As far as the buffer requirement along the west side of the road for the western portion of the development, the road is the buffer. I'm not sure why we required a 25 foot landscape buffer when they are going to dedicate right of way. It's -- historically the code says when you abut a residential district -- well, when you have a road there you are not abutting anything, it's -- you are adjacent. So, it -- it may not be -- it may not be required at this time. So, I just want to be cognizant of that and as far as the -- the entryway corridor, that may not change. That is a comp plan requirement. So, the Comprehensive Plan delineates entryway corridors on it, regardless of the roadway designation. So, the code dictates the -- the width of the buffer and any entryway corridor -- corridor regardless of the road -- road -- roadway classification is going to be 35 feet. So, I don't want to give the applicant the impression that they may not have to lose lots or they may have to potentially pick a different zone to -- to get smaller lot sizes, rather than go through that variance process, but it -- there is a lot of moving parts there that we have to think about as we transition, because it's not as simple as we will go to a variance and get ten percent exception. It -- it's a little more complicated than that. We need to have a discussion to understand that a little bit more with the applicant, so that we can send them down the right avenue. Yearsley: Well -- and -- and to be honest with you, the only thing that I was looking for condition wise is the one access off of Ustick that they are proposing, not to have that buffer there. That was the only one that I was really willing to -- to give, so -- so -- Parsons: Perfect. If it's a public street, it's probably a non-issue. Yearsley: Okay. And, then, I guess for your condition was there a condition that we need to change on your side? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 58 of 61 Parsons: I think that's up for discussion, debate, too, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. As I mentioned -- I know the intent of the applicant is to have the outdoor barbecue area. I mean maybe just have a different terminology than outdoor kitchen. I think that's probably a better way to -- either strike it from the condition or just change what it actually will function as, which I think is an outdoor barbecue. Tucker: Yeah. I think we -- we agree with -- with Bill on that. The -- the -- the word to be struck I think is commercial, because it says it needs to be a commercial outdoor kitchen. We are providing what we think is a very robust outdoor barbecue area. It's not just a -- a barbecue that you would buy at Home Depot and put a propane tank there. They are multi-thousand dollar barbecue grills set into concrete countertops with stainless steel prep area, again, right -- covered adjacent to a full commercial kitchen that's inside that has giant accordion doors that open and that makes it one big area. So, our -- our real concern was just the term commercial outdoor kitchen. We can't provide that, but we can provide a very robust outdoor covered barbecue area that is directly adjacent to -- and, again, I -- I don't know -- I think we meet all of the -- the -- the amenity requirements for a multi-family development anyway. I don't know that that's even -- we are not deficient in that area to make that a requirement. Yearsley: Right. Well, I just -- I just want to make sure I get this correctly, just -- can I just say that we are just going to change the -- the words for the commercial kitchen -- outdoor commercial kitchen to outdoor barbecue or -- okay. Awesome. So, just glad to kind of walk through that before we close the public hearing and I have to fumble through this. So, thank you guys. Evarts: Thank you, guys. Seal: Thank you very much. Yearsley: Mr. Chair, I move we close the -- Seal: Yeah. Yearsley: -- public hearing for file number H-2022-0056. Seal: Nope. Commissioner Stoddard, do I get a second? Stoddard: Yeah. Second. Sorry. Seal: Okay. It's been motioned and seconded to close the public hearing for file number H-2022-0056. All in favor say aye. The public hearing is closed for file number H-2022- 0056. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 59 of 61 Yearsley: So, Mr. Chair, I -- for the residents that came here to testify, I -- I -- I do -- it's -- it's -- it's heartbreaking to see all this farmland to be chopped up into development and -- and the state highway did not do any of you guys any favors and, you know, where -- you know, where there is access you will -- they will -- they will build and so you guys are just kind of getting stuck into this area and I -- I feel for you, I honestly do. I grew up in a rural area of eastern Idaho and -- and watching it get chewed up is -- is really heartbreaking. That being said, this is an area with -- along the state highway where this type of a development is actually adequate or -- or -- you know, it -- it fits and -- and, unfortunately, we have so much rural around it is -- is -- is -- it's a tough situation. So, I -- I do think it's actually a good development. I think it's something that I think fits close to the state highway, close to the school. I think their commercial is going to want to be one of the first things built, to be honest with you, because I think the demand there is -- is there for some sort of fast food or some convenient foods type situation, so -- so, for that I'm -- I am in favor with it -- of the -- of the application. Seal: Yeah. And I have got mixed feelings on it, so -- I mean I -- you know, I mean we have seen enough of these come through that there is -- you know, there -- whether people want to admit it or not, there is -- there is a need for housing types like this out here. So, the fact that it's going to eat up a whole lot of land that's farmland right now, just like people have property rights for their individual properties, people have property rights to sell it and develop it. So, that's the flip side to -- to all of this. So, you know, I mean I grew up in Baker, Oregon, so this is all very foreign to me on a lot of scale for sure. So, you know, that said, it is what's coming and happening here. So, the --the only problem that I have with it and -- and I do agree, because of Highway 16 and the way that that's going to develop, that it does fit when that gets done. So, again, my -- the issue that I have with it right now is, you know, Ustick is already -- it -- it's just very overtaxed. I mean, again, we were able to kind of hold ACHD's feet to the fire when they presented their-- you know, their development that they want to put in in order to provide for ACHD facilities on Ustick Road to expand that. Unfortunately, it only went to Black Cat. So, with the high school coming in that's presented -- it's made things very unique out there. So, it's doing exactly what they want it to do. They put in a high school. It's drawing a lot of -- you know, a lot of development out in that area. So, unfortunately, it's happening faster than I think the roads can put up with at this point. So, I mean if we could really know that this wasn't going to have occupancy until, you know, the roads are improved in 2026, 1 wouldn't have an issue with it, but, you know, again, it's coming, it's going to happen here, but I just -- I question the timing of it, so -- I mean my -- my -- my fear is, you know, that they get in on the -- you know, they are on the -- the leaner side of it in 18 months and all of a sudden we have all of this in here, we have occupancy -- occupancy going on and we still have Ustick Road the way it is today. There is no way, especially with the -- you know, the way you have to come in and out of this, that Ustick Road is going to be able to support that very well. Yearsley: Right. And that's why a lot of the questions I had initially was --was timing and with -- with the -- with the interchange as well. So, I -- I do believe I knew -- I know that this project is funded. They are moving forward with it. It's just which one comes first. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 60 of 61 Seal: Uh-huh. Yearsley: So -- Stoddard: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Stoddard, yeah, go ahead. Stoddard: I just kind of share a lot of the same feelings as you. I have -- I have mixed feelings on the project as well. I think the timing of it might be a little off. I use Ustick Road everyday driving by there and I know how much it gets used and so it's a tough one for me. I -- I agree that I think we need, you know, some options out there for commercial stuff, but -- but my biggest concern, again, is the timing on the traffic. I completely agree with you and share your sentiments on that, just because, like I, said, I use it every single day and I see the traffic on there and I see how taxed it gets, especially with that high school right there, when, you know, they are going in and out of there, it's -- it's a nightmare right now. Seal: Yeah. It's a tough one for sure, so --there is only three of us talking about it tonight. Yearsley: And unfortunately. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2022-0056 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3rd, 2022, with the following modifications: That the term outdoor commercial kitchen be stricken and replaced with outdoor barbecue and that the road buffer off of Ustick Road on the west side of the facility, that buffer be reduced, so they can provide that access. Seal: Okay. Commissioner Stoddard, do you want to second? Stoddard: No. Seal: Okay. So, since the chair can neither make nor second motions, we are stuck here, so -- Starman: Mr. Chairman, you are allowed to second. It's customary the chair person does not do that, but you are allowed to second if you wish to bring the item to a vote. Seal: I will second it. So, it's been moved and seconded to approve item number H- 2022-0056 with the aforementioned modifications. All in favor say aye. Commissioner Stoddard? Stoddard: I'm not giving an aye. Seal: I would say if it's not an aye, it's an nay. Stoddard: Okay. Nay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 3,2022 Page 61 of 61 Seal: Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSTAIN. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Commissioner Seal? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: May I motion to adjourn. Yearsley: I will second that motion. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. We are adjourned. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN 11-17-2022 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 11-17-2022 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the October 20, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 20,2022 Page 75 of 75 tough piece and I like your creativity, though, that you are bringing and trying to match it up. Just continue down that path and maybe someday some way it can. But it's -- it's a -- it's a tough piece of dirt for sure. But with all the things that are a part of it, it's -- it's hard to say yes to this. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend denial to the City Council File No. H-2022-0051 as presented during the hearing of October 20th for the following reasons: High density. High traffic. Public testimony. And staff report. Wheeler: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to recommend denial of File No. H-2022-0051 as presented during the -- as presented, with the -- with the reasons mentioned. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. The file is denied. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I motion we adjourn. Grace: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor say aye. And none opposed to that. We are adjourned. Thank you all. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10.22 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN 11-3-2022 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK - - 2 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Denial of a Conditional Use Permit for Bridge at The Village at Meridian (H-2022-0069) by Meridian CenterCal, LLC, located at 3210 E. Longwing Ln. APPROVED CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, E DECISION,AND AND ORDER I D A H O Date of Order: November 3, 2022 Case No.: H-2022-0069 Applicant: Meridian CenterCal, LLC In the Matter of. Request for a conditional use permit to exceed the maximum building height delineated in Unified Development Code section 11-2B-3A of 65 feet for the C-G zoning district Pursuant to testimony and evidence received regarding this matter at the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian("Commission") on October 20, 2022, as to this matter, the Commission enters the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, decision, and order. A. Findings of Fact. 1. The facts pertaining to the Applicant's property, the Applicant's request, and the process are set forth in the staff report for Case No. H-2022-0069, which is incorporated herein by reference. 2. Pursuant to Unified Development Code ("UDC") section 11-2B-3A and Table 11-2B-3, the maximum building height in the C-G zoning district is 65 feet,but additional height may be approved through the City's alternative compliance procedures,by adding additional open space, or via a conditional use permit. 3. The Applicant proposes to construct a multi-story building ("Project") in the C-G zoning district with an average elevation of 78 feet and a high point of 85 feet. 4. The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to exceed the maximum building height delineated in the UDC. 5. The Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 2022, concerning the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit. 6. The Applicant failed to show that the height of the Project is compatible with the existing character of the general vicinity, including,but not limited to, other residential projects in the general vicinity and other buildings within The Village at Meridian. 7. If granted, the conditional use permit would enable the Applicant to construct more residential units than would otherwise be feasible, which would, in turn, generate additional parking demand; the Applicant failed to show how the additional parking demand would impact existing parking at The Village at Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,DECISION,AND ORDER Case No.H-2022-0069 Page 1 8. Based on the foregoing, the Commission is unable to make a finding that the Project is compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. B. Conclusions of law. 1. The Commission takes judicial notice of the UDC; the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan; and all current zoning maps. 2. The Commission takes judicial notice of the Local Land Use Planning Act("LLUPA"), codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code. 3. When considering a request for a conditional use permit, the Commission shall base its decision on certain factors, including whether"the design, construction, operation and maintenance [of the proposed project] 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."UDC § 11-513- 6(E)(3). C. Order. Pursuant to the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission hereby denies the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit because the Commission is unable to make the finding that the Project is compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. D. Final decision. Upon approval by majority vote,this is a final decision of the Commission. E. Judicial review. Pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code section 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 review by the City Council of the City of Meridian as provided by UDC section 11-5A-7, 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 sections 67-652 1(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. IT IS SO ORDERED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian, Idaho, on this 3rd day of November, 2022. Andrew Seal, Chairperson Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Page 2 FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,DECISION,AND ORDER Case No.H-2022-0069 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for EICU Ten Mile Branch (H-2022-0068), for a new drive-through for a financial institution located within 300 feet of a residential use on approximately 1.23 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, by Steven Peterson, CLH Architects & Engineers APPROVED CITY OF MERIDIAN C� E IDIAN --- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND I D A H O DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for a new drive-through for a financial institution located within 300 feet of a residential use on approximately 1.23 acres of land in the C-G zoning district,by Steven Peterson,CLH Architects&Engineers. Case No(s).H-2022-0068 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 20,2022 (Findings on November 3,2022) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 20,2022,incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 20, 2022, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 20, 2022, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 20,2022, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). (EICU Ten Mile Branch CUP—H-2022-0068) 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 October 20,2022, 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 § I I- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 20, 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 11-5B-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 11-513-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-652 1(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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). (EICU Ten Mile Branch CUP—H-2022-0068) Page 2 G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of October 20,2022. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). (EICU Ten Mile Branch CUP—H-2022-0068) Page 3 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 3rd day of November ,2022. COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER NATE WHEELER VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED COMMISSIONER MANDI STODDARD VOTED Andrew Seal, Chairman 11-3-2022 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 11-3-2022 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: 11-3-2022 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). (EICU Ten Mile Branch CUP—H-2022-0068) Page 4 EXHIBIT A E STAFF N -- STAFF REPORT a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/20/2022 fe'°P .i GROVf 3i_s DATE, �j/ / ` NDITCH 'RFEK SI;' 2 O R IyIE:RE;rUF• TO: Planning&Zoning Commission f-- ---------- - FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner '• � � � ` ` �aa 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0068 East Idaho Credit Union(EICU)Ten Z , r Mile Branch—CUP y W BTIJCt:I ti; tp r � ffE LOCATION: Located at 3087 W. Milano Drive nearthe northeast corner of Ten Mile and E McMillan Roads,in the SW 1/4 of the nor a NA,;N W TdR QR SW 1/4 of Section 26,Township 4N, Range 1 W. - - — ---- : -- ------ b._ Ir .KiW I I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a new drive-through for a financial institution located within 300 feet of a residential use on approximately 1.23 acres of land in the C-G zoning district,by Steven Peterson,CLH Architects&Engineers. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.23 acres Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Financial Institution with drive-through services Current Zoning General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date June 23,2022 History(previous approvals) H-2019-0126(Ten Mile&McMillan MDA);PBA-2021- 0007;H-2022-0011 (Ten Mile&McMillan MDA). Page 1 EXHIBIT A A. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map 111 UprN _S% �y� \ MAVFNN as T 77 Av[Nry �tr. _� - wcafnx x ' ,� _—�I a�"'GxdvEstiz 3 �w oicN e �' � —�fll� i worvioFexnxnno I i I i c L z F =f= N� •N. L l/ v ASS Z Y.LiA9AD.--.-- - _ _ WjARCfr11ELANSR LI ' WMCMIILAN RD z � z S'.p a Icy g � I W BELLTOWEF AR\•�� .. W DELE R III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Steven Peterson, CLH Architects &Engineers—2484 Washington Blvd., Ste. 510, Ogden UT 84401 B. Owner: East Idaho Credit Union—865 S. Woodruff Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83401 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/5/2022 Radius notification mailed to 9/29/2022 properties within 500 feet Site Posting Date 9/23/2022 Next Door posting 9/30/2022 Page 2 EXHIBIT A V. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan: COMMERCIAL LAND USES This designation will provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services,and office uses,as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. Sample zoning include: C-N, C-C, and C-G. The subject site is one of multiple commercial zoned and designated properties that frame the intersection of Ten Mile and McMillan Roads. Therefore, there are a myriad of commercial uses existing and under construction with more to come as this area continues to develop. The proposed use of a financial institution with a drive-through fits within the professional services use designated within the Commercial designation in the Comprehensive Plan, as noted above. The proposed use, in conjunction with the already approved or constructed uses, satisfy the general Commercial future land use designation for this area. Staff finds the proposed project is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. SITE DESIGN AND CODE ANALYSIS The proposed drive-through is for a financial institution that is within 300-feet of a residential use to the east(McMillan Independent Senior Living Facility)currently under construction(H-2020-0004), which requires Conditional Use Permit approval(CUP)per UDC Table 11-2B-2. There are also a number of vehicular dominated uses to the south (a vehicle washing facility and a fuel sales facility) but they did not require CUP approval as they are specific uses that are principally permitted in the C-G zoning district. Nonetheless, the nature of the nearby uses are vehicle dominated similar to that of a drive-through which should be taken into account with the analysis of this project. Specific Use Standards: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11,Drive-Through Establishment.A site plan is required to be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the subject site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: Staffs analysis is in italics. 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways,drive aisles and the public right-of-way by patrons; The proposed drive-through has a one-way drive aisle that circles the proposed building and leads to four(4) covered drive-through lanes for drive-up services for the bank. Therefore, the stacking lane is approximately 185 feet in length from the start of the aisle to the drive-up facilities. Due to the site design and length of available stacking Staff believes the stacking lane has sufficient capacity to serve the use without obstructing driveways and drive aisles by patrons. The Applicant should ensure there is adequate signage to direct patrons through the one-way stacking lane. 2)The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designed employee parking. Per the submitted site plan, the stacking lane is separate from any circulation lanes on the subject site. Staff does not foresee the stacking lanes impeding the circulation lanes, especially due to the proposed design and length of the stacking lane. 3)The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. Page 3 EXHIBIT A 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane is approximately 185 feet in length so an escape lane is required and proposed. According to the submitted plans, a minimum 12 foot wide escape lane is proposed outside of the drive-through lane sphere of influence. Stafffinds the submitted plans depict compliance with this standard. 5)The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. Both the stacking lane and the drive-up windows/kiosks are visible from Ten Mile Road to the west because the lane and services are on the west and south side of the building, respectively. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through to be in compliance with the specific use standards as required. The proposed use of a financial institution is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-17. The proposed site plan appears to show compliance with all of the standards and will be further verified with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application. At the time of CZC review,Meridian Police Department will also assist in verification of compliance to the specific use standards and with UDC 11-3A-16 for self-service uses, specifically in regards to visibility of the drive-up ATM or any walk-up ATM. Staff has analyzed the submitted site and landscape plans against UDC 11-3A-16 and finds the proposed site design to be compliant. Access: Two driveway accesses are proposed to the site via the shared north/south driveway along the east boundary of the site;this access is a shared access for all of the properties within this commercial subdivision that front on the abutting arterial streets(the senior living facility does not access this shared drive aisle). The shared access drive connects to both Ten Mile Road south of the subject site and also to Milano Drive north of the site. Parking: A minimum of one(1)parking space is required to be provided for every 500 square feet of gross floor area for nonresidential uses. The proposed building is shown as 3,375 square feet requiring a minimum of 7 parking spaces—the submitted site plan shows 38 proposed parking spaces exceeding UDC minimums. The recorded Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for this development establish cross-parking and cross-access easements for lots within the development(Inst. 2021- 129579). This lot is proposed to share some drive aisles and parking areas with the lot directly to the north that is currently undeveloped. Due to the existing agreement and easements, staff finds the parking is sufficient for the proposed use. A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A bike rack is labeled on the site plan and its design will be verified with the future CZC application. Page 4 EXHIBIT A Pedestrian Walkways:No pedestrian walkway is depicted on the site plan from the arterial/perimeter sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Rd.to the main building entrance as required by UDC 11-3A-1913.4a. Therefore,the Applicant should revise the site plan to depict this required sidewalk. Specifically, Staff recommends this sidewalk connection be made near the northwest corner of the site to add the sidewalk connection to the proposed sidewalk on the north side of the building. See snip below: \ u rE ,HIM \ r I I W1FLpr CVUB R QifrtEk SE£9HEEE C106. N8956 OVE 297.75' 11$,M' Lp�g�p�q SE \\. \ ,pa /c S SEE SHEEE 0,0 CfTRL SHf£T Cf O .F ciacum o clmtR Ay Cto. . ---- I I h 1 1 ---- -- \\ r 1 1 , ROPOSED BOIL —�-- 3,375 SF 2W \\ I 1 o Zo.Ew' IzsC QIKL RACK I k 6Ni£R cum h SEE WILT 4m SEE SHEET C1G6. �\\\r llii 1 $ 6.eo' Consistent with UDC 11-3A-19B.4b,the pedestrian facility should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks where this pedestrian connection traverses the drive-through lane. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8C. Landscaping is depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.B in planter islands within the parking area as required. In addition, a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer is required to be provided along the perimeter of the parking or other vehicular use areas as set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C.1. The submitted landscape plan shows the required perimeter buffers along the north, east, and south boundaries. However, it is unclear what the reddish/brown hatched design is depicting on the submitted landscape plan for the planting areas. With the CZC submittal,the landscape plan will be reviewed to ensure compliance with the landscape material standards outlined in UDC 11-313-5. Street buffer landscaping, including a sidewalk, along N. Ten Mile Rd. was installed with development of the overall subdivision. The submitted landscape plans show this buffer remaining as it currently exists. Therefore,the submitted plans show compliance with this requirement. Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment and outdoor service equipment should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. If mechanical equipment is proposed to be roof-mount, all equipment should be screened and out of view as noted above. Page 5 EXHIBIT A Building Elevations: The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed financial institution. The building elevations depict three (3)main materials of cement lap siding, brick veneer, and stone/rock veneer. In addition,the site plan depicts appropriate wall modulation along each side of the building. The Applicant did not submit color renderings but based on the conceptual elevations, Staff anticipates the building will comply with all Architectural Standards Manual(ASM) standards. Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Administrative Design Review(DES) applications are required to be submitted for the proposed building prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure consistency with the conditions in Section VIII and UDC standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on October 20, 2022. At the Dublic hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject Conditional Use Permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Steve Peterson,Applicant Architect b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Steve Peterson d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Location of required pedestrian connection from arterial sidewalk to internal sidewalks with a desire for it to be coordinated with staff for adequate pedestrian safety: b. Design of escape lane and when it should or should not start within the drive-through lane. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 6 EXHIBIT A VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(signed: 4/18/2022) IVRCH i4Ci. II III ♦\� u��' eeVe AMAh re P, ry Gw �� u2m- 1 !1 i nxr I I l 1 �\ � ♦♦� i EAST ti Meridian Branch 1, o - r l r � I I I I � �1 � •3.L`7"liMA7""""-` R@AIErwR.'sr rI rn��e r Prc��cd wr�-+r Silc Plan - i'IV3 Page 7 EXHIBIT A oil \. I Ia cea �. I ' r+sa ss nn 2s7.�5 \ \\ I 11520, ET ton—AIE PNnnG SEE —CURB GffrER Eou�sn c,95.\\ a sE sHMr c106. �� �cue pmEr� \\\\. I n or c` \\;♦\\ IE � ' I pi _ SEE SMR�CIO& CLIM --- —==� -- -- i SIQT L1 0 OPOSED eu,� ---- M1 \ \\ 3,375 $F 2.W ECo_ ss.ar o�—t �.�— so,ov —M1 ,00— a.o \`\\- \ n ♦ SEE SHEEFLCIOWEWNT \. \\ ♦ :o.oa \ I \ BIKE RACK22 CUIRIS \ `R xuo axsa M SEE SWEET CIM. \ 1 SEE SHEET CIM L Cn—:RE FA AK SEE \\ \ \ i `` oEruL sHEaE cice,') \ \ \ �I 4I � EEr��os \ I I � n UUMPSRR 1111I. ARE q (5EE NCH PWG) 14 \ \ I 589.56 OC 299,(]7 I M III I Page 8 EXHIBIT A B. Landscape Plan(signed: 4/18/2022) I �'I � I EN GII Mr4 C PLA IL[MT TA � �ceve I -I- � wacrw�e mozz IF kj � III i -- ---�--- -- III t I 40 - EASTDtFD 1 New i I �I I i MeridianBranctl O rwwt.�a " gk ..s e�m 0�."r. w mew • .""'r.�.. �.'L�"'w� "y�r .' � d "• "�'+ ® 1 �i"e�+,.....'a •w'ewe' � 'Wm` r ®mr«e, "Uur Pj- uemuclla TA T1 Plwrng HE FL R —�---w-Two: .. r�r.S r.r...... wr....w.. Page 9 EXHIBIT A i M6x StriQ I iTrp,} I I II � I —I— — oc III I it I 1 Mow Strip(l]tP.) IMor SrP(T►P-) Nw Strip(TYQ-� it9•��y`ti-.�-=r•w-".•v?.'�.+•~•"�?n.Y't+'5#�'fti.r •;y'cT{C-pr ter, _:i,.�.t�:?',-J,' ,5r,-.... r .+��.s Sr. i. �; VSiw t' r S it�"ryrti•-"�F:r Page 10 EXHIBIT A C. Conceptual Building Elevations a .. . e, rasu,wawsa exin— -—j ._,.... -- -_ ---- -- --------- ---- ;DU i H EkiER14R ELEVATION ' ir v iu � n ri a ai . i 7-- =wI - I T. llTqF _ Al EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION {' .....,., Page 11 EXHIBIT A 7. 0106 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 71 . _._-- .- _[ --- _ _____ __! _ n•er���xvc. TM i! niu rus�lxee' kuS viE��w"�rrk tnr w:�' F Fi r % r M EXTERCR ELEVATION Ak ham'"" "�'• " : A.. Page 12 EXHIBIT A VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with all previous approvals: AZ-03-005; PP-07- 022; FP-08-010; A-2019-0290 (PBA,ROS#12081);PBA-2021-0007 (ROS#12991); H-2019- 0126 (MDA); H-2022-0011 (MDA). 2. The site plan submitted with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict the required pedestrian connection from the arterial sidewalk to the main building entrance near the northwest corner of the property as depicted in Section V above,per UDC 11-3A-1913.4a—the pedestrian facility should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks where this pedestrian connection traverses the drive-through lane. b. Include exhibits and locations of signage for the one-way drive through lane along the north and west boundaries. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict the required pedestrian connection as noted above in Section VIII.A.2a. b. Ensure compliance with UDC I I-3B-5 for all landscaped areas and comply with the parking lot landscaping standards in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C. c. Existing landscaping shall be protected during construction in accord with UDC 11-313- 10C.3. 4. Comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 —Drive-Through Establishment is required. 5. Comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-17—Financial Institution. 6. Comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-16 for self-services uses(i.e. automatic teller machines). 7. Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review applications shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. 8. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-513-6F. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Flow is committed 2. No existing sewer service to parcel. 3. If bringing main to parcel, sewer services cannot be connected by cleanout. Cleanout should be replaced with manhole. 4. Manholes must have a 14' wide access road. Page 13 EXHIBIT A 5. Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls, fences,infiltration trenches, light poles, etc.) are built within the utility easement. 6. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 7. There is no existing water meter at the west side of the site. The existing 8" stub to the site ends in a blow-off. Call out removal of the blow-off and tie in water meter to the 8" stub. 8. The existing water meter and water easement do not line up. If the existing water line on the property does not have an easement a 20'easement must be provided. C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.ore/WebLink/DocView.aWx?id=2 74619&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use Findings(UDC 11-513-6): The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. 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. Commission finds the proposed financial institution with drive-through lanes will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design, construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. 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. Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water, and sewer. 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. Page 14 EXHIBIT A 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. 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) Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. Page 15 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda:  Item #4: Promenade Cottages Subdivision (H-2022-0013) – Application requires continuance due to noticing error by Planning Staff. Item #5: Prairiefire Subdivision (H-2022-0053) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.16 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 3539 N. Locust Grove Road. History: None. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to annex 3.16 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. This property is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. A preliminary plat was submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with 22 single-family residential detached dwelling units at a gross density of 6.96 units per acre, which is within the desired density range of the MDR designation. The subject property is an enclave surrounded by existing single-family residential detached homes to the north (Quenzer Commons), west (Heritage Grove), east (Summerfield), church to the south and office park to the north. This development is proposed to be an age-restricted 55+ community and the applicant’s narrative states they have an agreement in place to merge this development with the Heritage Grove HOA. Access is proposed from the extension of existing local stub street (i.e. W. Prairiefire St.) from the west. Access is prohibited from N. Locust Grove Road. A 25-foot wide buffer is required along N. Locust Grove Road. Because this site is below 5 acres in size, open space and site amenities are not required per UDC 11-3G-3A. However, the Applicant is providing 0.37 acres (16,117.20 square feet) of common area to provide pedestrian access to the commercial properties located to the north and N. Locust Grove Road to the east. This area will be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and include a 5-foot micropath. Staff recommends that the applicant remove Lot 11, Block 1 along the northern property boundary. The mircopath connection on the northern portion of the common lot adjacent to the commercial development is hidden behind Lot 11, Block 1 creating a potential safety issue for pedestrians. Pedestrian pathways on common lots shall be designed to reduce the incidence of crime and improve the quality of life. Six (6) conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate the style of homes proposed for this development. A mix of single-story and single-story with a bonus room homes are proposed; however, staff believes the proposed elevations are not consistent with the Heritage Commons Subdivision development. Staff has included a few sample elevations below that demonstrate the style of the homes in the Heritage Grove development. Therefore, Staff recommends the Applicant submit revised elevations that are consistent with the homes within the Heritage Commons Subdivision prior to the Council hearing. Written Testimony: Doug Sayers - Concerns pertaining to excess traffic through the Heritage Grove Subdivision. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/the requirement of a DA that contains the provisions in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2022-0053, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0053, as presented during the hearing on November 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0053 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: Hadler Neighborhood (H-2022-0064) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 20 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at 7200 S. Locust Grove approximately 1/2 mile south of the Locust Grove and Lake Hazel intersection on the east side of Locust Grove. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR, up to 3-8 du/ac) Summary of Request: \[details\] Written Testimony: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\] Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions - Recommend revising condition VIII.2a as follows: Replace Lots 28 & 29, Block 2 with an additional stub street open space and micro-path leading to the southeast property boundary for future vehicular and pedestrian connectivity and to enhance the currently proposed open space on Lot 30, Block 2. - Add condition regarding Lot 23, Block 1 as well – Lot 23, Block 1 shall be a non-buildable lot for the purpose of constructing an emergency secondary access to S. Locust Grove until such time that a secondary public street access is constructed. 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- 2022-0064, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0064, as presented during the hearing on November 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0064 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: Alden Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0059) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 21.7 acres of land, zoned RUT & R1, located at the northern edge of the Meridian area of City impact, directly east of SH 16 and directly south of the Phyllis Canal. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR, up to 3 du/ac) Summary of Request: \[details\] Written Testimony: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\] Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2022-0059, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0059, as presented during the hearing on November 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0059 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #8: Turin Plaza (H-2022-0063) Application(s):  Rezone Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.62 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at 3169 W. Belltower Dr., on the east side of N. Ten Mile Rd., just south of Belltower Dr. History: This property was annexed in 2001 & platted as a lot in Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. A DA was required as a provision of annexation. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Office Summary of Request: The applicant proposes to rezone 1.80 acres of land (including land to the section line of Ten Mile Rd.) from the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to the L-O (Limited Office) zoning district consistent with the FLUM designation of Office and in accord with the DA, which requires the property to be rezoned to L-O prior to issuance of any building permits. A Short Plat consisting of four (4) building lots is also proposed, which will be heard by City Council and does not require Commission action. This property is an undeveloped enclave surrounded by developed properties in the City. An assisted living facility exists directly to the south, office uses exist to the north and SFR properties exist to the east. A conceptual development plan was submitted that depicts (4) 3,550 to 3,600 s.f. office buildings with associated parking. Access is proposed via the existing backage road from W. Belltower Dr. The street buffer, associated landscaping & sidewalk along Ten Mile Rd. was installed with the Bridgetower Crossing subdivision improvements. Written Testimony: Jessica Petty, 1215 Design (Applicant’s Representative) – In agreement w/staff report Staff Recommendation: Approval (Since there is already a DA in effect for this property and the proposed development is in compliance with the terms of the DA, Staff is not recommending any changes to the agreement.) 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- 2022-0063, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0063, as presented during the hearing on November 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0063 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #9: McDermott Village (H-2022-0056) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 40.05 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county, located at the SWC of N. McDermott Rd. & W. Ustick Rd. at 3235 N. McDermott Rd. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) Summary of Request: The annexation request consists of 40.05 acres of land with R-15 (17.12 acres), R-40 (15.85 acres) and C-G zoning (7.08 acres). A conceptual development plan was submitted with the annexation request that depicts how the site is proposed to develop with the extension of State Highway 16 through the site. An interchange is also planned at Ustick Rd. Two (2) land use types are proposed – commercial (a fuel sales facility & convenience store and flex commercial/office uses) & residential (i.e. multi-family & townhomes). No employment or public uses are proposed and it’s unlikely any of the proposed uses will have a regional draw. The site is designed with the commercial uses along Ustick Rd. with an integrated plaza area between the two northern buildings & MFR development to the north along future SH-16. Townhomes are proposed on the east side of future SH-16 along N. McDermott Rd. This is the only property in this area with a MU-R designation – this designation was requested by the Applicant with the 2019 Comp Plan update. That, along with the property being bisected by the SH-16 extension, which reduces the size of the property from 40 acres to 26.5 acres, makes it difficult to develop entirely consistent with the MU-R designation. Because an interchange is planned in this area and access is limited, the Comprehensive Plan states retail and auto-generated services should be minimized and transition rapidly from the interchange to residential uses near the County line, which the plan proposes. For these reasons, Staff is amenable to only two (2) land uses instead of three (3) as typically desired, and the lower intensity of uses (i.e. primarily residential) rather than more intense commercial uses as is typically desired in the MU-R designation. Additionally, interconnectivity and a full integration of uses within the overall site is not possible due to the SH-16 extension as typically desired in mixed use designated areas. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed annexation, zoning & development is generally consistent with the MU-R designation and appropriate for this site. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 85 building lots (81 townhome, 1 multi-family & 3 commercial) & 8 common lots on 40.05 acres of land in the R-15, R-40 & C-G zoning districts. A conceptual phasing plan was submitted that depicts the site developing in (3) nd phases with the MFR development first, townhomes 2 and commercial last. Access is proposed to the portion of the site west of the future SH-16 extension via a public street from Ustick Rd. A stub street is proposed to connect to the future development to the north (Aviator Springs) and a stub street is proposed to the school property to the west for future extension & connection to N. Owyhee Storm Ave., a collector street. Private streets are required within the MFR development for addressing purposes. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should be provided between all C-G zoned commercial lots. Two (2) accesses are proposed via McDermott Rd., a collector street, for the townhome portion of the development east of future SH-16. McDermott Rd. is planned to dead-end in a cul-de-sac just north of Ustick Rd. when the interchange is constructed. An emergency only access is proposed via Ustick Rd. Alleys are proposed for access to some of the townhome units as depicted on the plat. Some of the townhomes lots do not meet the minimum lot size standard of 2,000 s.f. and will need to be revised. A 10’ wide multi-use pathway is proposed along Ustick Rd., consistent with the PMP and another 10’ north/south pathway is proposed along the west side of future SH-16, consistent with the pathway location in the developments to the north. A 35’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along future SH-16 & McDermott Rd., both designated entryway corridors. Noise abatement is required within the buffers along SH-16 that abut residential uses in accord with UDC standards, which require a minimum 10’ tall berm or berm/wall combination that’s a minimum 10’ higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway. An open space exhibit was submitted for the townhome portion of the development that depicts qualified open space in excess of UDC standards – a minimum of 1.58 acres is required, a total of 3.33 acres is proposed, which consists of open grassy areas of at least 5,000 s.f. & linear open space. A minimum of 2 points of site amenities are required per the UDC point value table – the Applicant submitted an exhibit depicting (2) pickleball courts at 4 points each, which exceeds UDC standards. The Sky Pilot Drain crosses the southern portion of this site within a 100’ wide easement; the Eight Mile Lateral crosses the NEC of the site within a 50’ wide easement; and the Noble Lateral runs along the east boundary of the site within a 40’ wide easement (20-feet from centerline each side). All waterways are proposed to be piped. This project is not within the flood plain. A CUP is requested for a MFR development consisting of 250 dwelling units on 12.19 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. The proposed development will have (12) 3-story multi-family structures & a 9,055 square foot amenity building centrally located within the complex. Six (6) different floor plans are proposed with a mix of units consisting of 1- (97), 2- (114) and 3- (39) bedroom units ranging from 712 to 1,278 square feet in size. Private open space is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Qualified common open space is also proposed in accord with UDC standards – a minimum of 2.74 acres is required, a total of 3.35 acres is proposed, which consists of central common/amenity areas & a pedestrian corridor where a multi-use pathway is planned, in excess of UDC standards. Proposed amenities include a clubhouse with a fitness facility, a swimming pool and spa with cabanas and an outdoor lounge area, 10- foot wide multi-use pathways and internal walking trails, a plaza, a pickleball sports court, and a bike repair station. A BBQ area is depicted on the site plan; Staff recommends this area is constructed as a commercial outdoor kitchen. An outdoor seating area is also depicted on the site plan; Staff recommends this area is constructed as a picnic area with tables, benches, landscaping and a shade structure. Staff also recommends a children’s play structure is provided. Staff is of the opinion these upgrades and addition of an amenity (i.e. play structure) is commensurate with the number of units proposed. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structures. The townhomes are proposed to be 2- or 3-stories in height, the MFR structures are proposed to be 3-stories in height, and the clubhouse if proposed to be a single-story in height; building materials consist of a mix of vertical board & batten fiber cement siding and horizontal lap siding with brick veneer siding and wood ridge beam accents, metal awnings and asphalt shingle roofing. No elevations were submitted for the commercial portion of the development. The final design of all buildings on the site are required to be comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony:  “Meridian Resident” – Concern pertaining to overcrowding of area schools and the continued approval of large residential developments and its impact on schools & teachers.  Todd Tucker, Boise Hunter Homes (Applicant) – Requests the requirement for provision of a commercial outdoor kitchen in condition #A.10k be stricken as they believe they’ve provided amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions and the requirement of a DA with the following modification:  DA provision #A.1f: “A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be provided within the street buffers along N. Glassford Ave. adjacent to SH-16 within a 14-foot wide public use easement.” 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- 2022-0056, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0056, as presented during the hearing on November 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0056 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 November 3, 2022 Item #8: Turin Plaza ZONING MAPFUTURE LAND USE MAP Rezone & Short Plat– Rezone ExhibitConceptual Development Plan Short Plat Item #9: McDermott Village PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING MAPFUTURE LAND USE MAP Preliminary Plat & Conditional Use PermitAnnexation & Zoning, – ANNEXATION & ZONING EXHIBIT G-C15-R40-R PRELIMINARY PLAT& CONCEPTUAL PHASING PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN Open Space Exhibit PlanSite Amenity For Townhomes SITE PLAN FOR MULTIDEVELOPMENT (CUP)FAMILY - QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE & SITE AMENITY EXHIBITS Conceptual Building Elevations W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Prairiefire 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. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0053 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. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET ek DATE: November 3, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Prairiefire Subdivision (H-2022-0053) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name E t+a-k F1 e �oA rV1 2 3 ),a r Ao 14 4 D I c-,V K) 7 ELC bip-� �n Y,1 8 9 10 elD'lv 11 I�IF —A 12 C� 13 -1c, 7 14 W ' � hk ?"IX v f LlId Po � 4 rm 1,,C Y1 I L �� G�(! !�'-}i ►"�' .��� k-e 11Y `^S-1�,,, 3 3-Z a N ke �y . STAFF REPORT C�W IDIAN�-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING November 3,2022 Legend , DATE: -- [1 ' Y ` \ I Project Location ' -TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons Current Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Prairiefire H-2022-0053 _ LOCATION: 3539 N. Locust Grove Rd.,near the ®® , northwest corner of E.Ustick Rd. and N. L f Locust Grove Rd., in the SE 1/4 of the SE �m . 1/4 of Section 31,Township 4N, Range IE. (Parcel#S0531449500) ®� 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 3.16 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and preliminary plat consisting of 22 building lots and lcommon lot on 3.16 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district for Prairefire Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details ` Page Acreage i 3.16 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR) Existing Land Use Single-family residential(SFR)/ag Proposed Land Use(s) SFR Current Zoning Rural Urban Transition(RUT)in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-8(Medium Density Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 22 building/l common Phasing plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 22 single-family detached units of units) Density(gross&net) 6.96 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total [%]/ 0.37 acres buffer/qualified) Page 1 Amenities 0.37 acres of common area with a 5' micropathway providing pedestrian access to the commercial property and Locust Grove Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires No ACHD Commission Action es/no • Existing There is(1)existing stub street to this property from the west(i.e.E.Prairiefire Conditions Street). • CIP/IFYWP • Locust Grove Road is listed in the IFYWP and CIP to be widened to 34anes from Ustick Road to McMillan Road with design in 2025 and construction in the future. • McMillan Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 34anes from Meridian Road to Locust Grove Road between 2031 and 2035. • Meridian Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from McMillan Road to Ustick Road between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of Locust Grove Road and Ustick Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,6-lanes east.and 6-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2026 and 20X Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via the extension of existing stub street from the H /Local)(Existin and Proposed) adjacent neighborhood. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service See Section IX.C Police Service No comments received. West Ada School District No comments received. Distance(elem,ms,hs) Capacity of Schools #of Students Enrolled Wastewater ■ • Distance to Sewer Services As per Master Plan,sewer must connect to the east from Locust Grove Road • Sewer Shed JOPPME • Estimated Project Sewer Additional 1224 gpd committed to model. ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance WRRF decline balance is 14.42 MGD. • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works' Site-Specific Conditions in Section IX Water • Distance to Services Connect water to existing main at fire station instead of connecting to North Locust Grove Road. Page 2 • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works' Site-Specific Conditions in Section IX C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map , Legend = - Legend Project Location ?-,..� ;, F Project Location LOW Density J "Residential' Medium-rr `r MU-N - 0. Dens ity Residentid!' 1r t� T� r1i v i J s a fill MU-C USTICK High Denslty� IF Residential 011 J' m � _ . o Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend UT4 C-N RlJT�R4� Legend UT R-g R-8 Project Location ®R EQ - Project Location UT R=1 B Rig L-O R�4 City Limits RUT R-2 Rl Rm8 —Planned Parcels iRUT C N_ RUT R--8 --- �R UT R=15 - . ..-R_1 RUT �. ,. RG NNq o C R=4 _ RR4T®® � ,� R-15 RST�R-15 Rl I ® R-$ ;RUT RA K- R-40� 9M ®� E C G III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Patrick Connor—701 S. Allen St.,#104,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 3 B. Owner: Providence Properties,LLC—701 S. Allen Street,#104,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 9/21/2022 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 500 feet 9/15/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 10/18/2022 on site Nextdoor posting 9/15/2022 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Medium Density Residential(MDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is an enclave surrounded by single-family residential properties to the west and north and a church to the south with limited office to the east,located on land also designated MDR on the FLUM. The Applicant proposes a 22-lot subdivision for single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 6.96 dwelling units per acre,which is within the desired density range of the MDR designation. 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 single-family detached dwellings will contribute to the variety of housing options in this area and within the City as desired. Single-family detached homes currently exist to the north and west, commercial is located to the north, a church is located to the south, and a Meridian Fire Station #3 is located directly to the east. This development is proposed to be an age-restricted 55+ community and the applicant's narrative states they have an agreement in place to merge this development with the Heritage Grove HOA. • "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. • "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) Page 4 The proposed medium-density single-family homes contribute the variety of residential categories within the surrounding area as desired. However, staff finds a better transition could be achieved along the north boundary. Staff recommends that the applicant remove Lot 11,Block I along the northern property boundary so the lots can be widened for a better transition and provide more visibility on the pathway connection to the commercial development. • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities,irrespective of existing development." (2.02.02C) The proposed infill development will likely not impact the existing abutting homeowners to the west and north in this development; although, there could be some incremental impacts associated with lot sizes proposed along the north, the impacts associated with this development are already primarily established and there would be negligible impacts on the single family residential to the west. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) A 5-foot wide sidewalk is required along both sides of E. Prairiefire Street to provide a link between Prairiefire Subdivision and Heritage Grove Subdivisions. Additionally, a 5-foot wide micro- pathway is proposed on the west side of the development providing access to the commercial subdivision to the north and N. Locust Grove Road. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are required to be provided with development of the subdivision. • "Eliminate existing private treatment and septic systems on properties annexed into the City and instead connect users to the City wastewater system; discourage the prolonged use of private treatment septic systems for enclave properties." If annexed, the existing home and other outbuildings will be required to abandon the existing septic system and connect to the City wastewater system. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Development of the subject infill parcel will maximize public services. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION(AZ) The Applicant proposes to annex 3.16 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A preliminary plat was submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with 22 single-family residential detached dwelling units at a gross density of 6.96 units per acre(see Sections VIII.B,E). Page 5 Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The subject property is an enclave surrounded by existing single-family residential detached homes to the north(Quenzer Commons),west(Heritage Grove),east(Summerfield), church to the south and office park to the north. As noted above in Section V,development of infill properties is supported provided it doesn't negatively impact the abutting, existing development. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IX.A. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 22 building lots and 6 common lots on 3.16 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 4,002 to 4,938 square feet(s.£)(or 0.091 to 0.113 acres). The proposed gross density of the subdivision is 6.96 units per acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in a single phase as shown in Section VIII.B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and several outbuildings on the property that are proposed to be removed with the development. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat,all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the district are required to be removed. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I1-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Access: Access is proposed from the extension of existing local stub street(i.e. W.Prairiefire St.) from the west. Access is prohibited from N.Locust Grove Road. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide buffer is required along material roads per UDC Table II- 2A-6. Common open space landscaping is proposed as shown on the landscape plan in Section VIII.C. All micro-pathways shall meet the requirements of UDC 11-313 including landscape strips of at least 5- feet in width on either side and one tree per 100 linear feet per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; the landscape plan should be revised accordingly. A Tree Mitigation Plan shall be submitted with the final plat detailing all existing trees and methods of mitigation outlined by the City Arborist before any trees are to be removed as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Common Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-3): Because this site is below 5 acres in size, open space and site amenities are not required per UDC 11-3G-3A. However,the Applicant is providing 0.37 acres(16,117.20 square feet)of common area to provide pedestrian access to the commercial properties located to the north and N. Locust Grove Road to the east. This area will be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and include a 5-foot micropath. Staff recommends that the applicant remove Lot 11,Block 1 along the northern property boundary.The mircopath connection on the northern portion of the common lot adjacent to the commercial development is hidden behind Lot 11,Block 1 creating a potential safety issue for Page 6 pedestrians. Pedestrian pathways on common lots shall be designed to reduce the incidence of crime and improve the quality of life. Sidewalks(11-3A-17): Five-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along E. Prairiefire Street cul- de-sac and a detached sidewalk along N. Locust Grove Road within the development in accord with UDC standards. Fencing: The landscape plan includes a fencing plan. The plan includes 6-foot-high solid vinyl fencing along the western periphery of the site along the east side of common lot 12 adjacent to the adjoining commercial property; 6-foot tan vinyl fencing with 2-feet of open vision screening is depicted on one side of the common open space along the micro-pathway. The fencing appears to meet the requirements of 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. The applicant intends on connecting to the existing pressurized irrigation system developed with the Heritage Grove Subdivision. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations: Six(6) conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate the style of homes proposed for this development(see Section VIII.F). A mix of single-story and single-story with a bonus room homes are proposed; however,staff believes the proposed elevations are not consistent with the Heritage Commons Subdivision development. Staff has included a few sample elevations below that demonstrate the style of the homes in the Heritage Grove development.Therefore, Staff recommends the Applicant submit revised elevations that are consistent with the homes within the Heritage Commons Subdivision prior to the Council hearing. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement, and preliminary plat per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 7 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map *SC 111A110 -9955 W Emerald R SURVE'r Wse, iD 83704 GROUP "me; 42UM 84 -9570 F8]c (2M1 -5394 Rralrleflre 5„bdlulsion AnneMat`on G44lFKtRr1'1DRS17iptivn A parcel of land siluared in the tautheest auarler of the southeast quarter of Scclian 31, TowhShiil 4 Nar4h, Ftbime 1 Eau, BDiSe Meridian,Ada Cau My.ldeh&more pdrLiCularlY CeScrihed as folbws: Cbmmemcing At the mmheaat mmer aF Section 31, Township 4 hlerlh, RartEe 1 last kkse Meridian whlchlbear&SQIY31'11"W.2fi59.0A Feellrom the east qubrler-secflamCormer; Therve NW31'lVFw 1959AM feet alorq the east'Ine iyf the wutheast quarle+r er the southeast quay itrgfUi;tl4n31 to the Pow or-K-oiwmir4: Thence N89"4+ U-N,G61.34 Met Lo the eam bi uri&rK of hleritege Grove Suhd r&ion ND.4(Boek 111 iyf Plats at Pages 15913 through 15915,records of Ada Counry,Idahral, 1'hCn[C N00'X07"J,374-"flfet along the-Cast bgUrkdarygf-Ht"j Grove$uWluipum INo.4 to the south 6ourrrbry of Qurnzer Commons 5ubdiMisiors No.6 1 Back 431 of Puts•at Pages 10710'Mraup 1071Zr wards of Aila Courirv.Idaho]; Thence%5r 4r7'l7'E.979,33 feet a"the south hme of i]L*nI4r Curn FFG s SUOMNIslon Np.$#nd Brp4tpn$vWia;:ivn(gook 93 gf Plat:pt PWF 11]0]and 11 XQ.rttcor0s of ,+ode Cbuht4,Itlahrbl; ThenceWU'31'11''Wr FZ4."feet; Thence S89 4FD"E,1116.76 Feel in the east line of tl ip wuthreast quarlirr 4 f the wuthleatl Quarter; nle+Ice WU'31'11"stir:54A4 feet akmn the east Ilrre of the smtheast quarter of the muthq;!t quarter to th4 PLOW CIF BWINNING. Thy etwve-desuibedpiml conla;ns 3.16aKres,rnareorlesa. v Peggy 1 of 1 C F r 5- Page 8 Q k • , NM'¥ 2 .2n:� - - L • — f t I — � � 7 n ' � • . , { « o ■ ■ z ? M S | 4k �. D | § LA ■ Nil cn � k | K | � T- ?- • ƒ a 5�21'1� 2214� Ar, M a C ;t i f �# R . E E / m ■ VC / & ) 1.3 i In � r .�-- - CL+lr m 2 :2 e N. Locust Grove Rd. EA - ¥ ® 2 E | ■| ����'§krG� Page B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 6/15/22) PRELIMINARY PLAT SNOWING 4a�` p�Mw o- P1�.p 4RIEF'IRE SUBDIVISION N . R PARCEL OF LAND TEl)BFING LDCA �IN ME IN C SE}C THE BE} SECTION 31,43N_,R IE_,B.M_, i MERIDIAN,ANA CWN§Y,IDANO 2022 G .�.... S orq u. xa..orw $i G �r� - 3 Al • ^•"'• '• '• 'a 'ra :. -° •-NSF.L� ...-,�... .�..d n. 9.7 2.71 Inj �y S 96V.2 ��P1.r7 Page 10 C. Landscape Plan(dated: 6/16/2022) E° y � p• II g gg VICINITY MAP - ``� ,_ EPRNRIE♦IRE 9T.� � � � �� YaappapyYrrre�91Y . LANDSCAPE LEGEND ,� 10 $ yq 0 . PLANT SCHEDULE e LANDSCAPE PLAN —_r °L_� �•.... •••• ��• '••• Zi LANDSCAPE NOTES IRRIGATION NOTES: SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES �..�...................._...,. ��, LANDSCAPING INFORMATION CALLOUT LEGEND - .. . DISCLAIMER Oaf...:«. n..,...y .w...��,m..,...�.roi..r "^'wrwum •••.-•4w••••P SEE SXEET L3.R FOR iAN06GPPE OEf�IL3 L�•a ij �P WJTERm�eEO C�UTEsOGE Will n PERENNIAL&GROUNDCOVER PLANTING ..,,._-. l•.w-.;.....�........, - ___ 77 �}SHRUB PLANTING �OEOI OVOUS YREEPLWJYINGr 8 Page 11 D. Conceptual Building Elevations(NOT APPROVED) Prairiefire Subdivision Home Renderings These plans are subject to change to incorporate front porches and upgraded architectural elevatrans I j ' }Y rt Ada Courty As ses sear Page 12 Ada County Assessor H1 4!� �ii /K 1a�� f�• F4 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property.Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,landscape plan,common open space/site amenity exhibit and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Remove Lot 11,Block 1 to increase the size of all lots along the northern property boundary to provide a better-quality transition with the existing homes in the Quenzer Commons Subdivion and increase visibility on the micropath connection to the commercial development to the north. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Depict landscaping along the micropath in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. b. Remove Lot 11, Block 1 along the northern property boundary so the lots can be widened for a better transition and provide more visibility on the pathway connection to the commercial development. c. Include mitigation calculations on the plan for existing trees that are proposed to be removed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City Arborist(Kyle Yorita kyorita(kmeridiancity.o to determine mitigation requirements prior to removal of existing trees from the site. Page 13 4. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat,all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district shall be removed. 5. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the 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. Direct lot access to N. Locust Grove Road is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. 9. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B. 10. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations that are consistent with the homes within the Heritage Commons Subdivision prior to the Council hearing. 11. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5,UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 13. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 20 obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or Page 14 well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.17 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. 2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed Page 15 in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.19 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. 2.20 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.21 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. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=270452&dbid=0&redo=MeridianCityI%2 0 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT No pathway requirements F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) NMID Comments G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES(ACDS) hyps://weblink.meridiancity.oL-glWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=269136&dbid=0&repo=Meridian Q H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) No comments were received from WASD. I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=269137&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity&cr =1 Page 16 X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the Applicant's request to annex the subject property with R-8 zoning and develop single- family detached dwellings on the site at a gross density of 6.96 units per acre is consistent with the density desired in the MDR designation for this property; the 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 district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to R-8 and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential homes/uses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds City services are available to be provided to this development. Comments were not received from WASD on this application so Staff is unable to determine impacts to the school district. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city if revisions are made to the development plan as recommended. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Page 17 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds there are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity that are in the IFYWP or the CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 18 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation 3F 7F' Ile 4:t Prairief i re AV Subdivision City of Meridian k.N Planning and Zoning J., -;e zp, November 3, 2022 Ay Prairief ire M� I NI- NOR., Subdivision dAWW lift Annexation of 3 . 16 Acres from RUT in Ada County to dPp 47 V 4W4 R-8 Zone Preliminary Plat consisting 4k zp, of 22 single family lots and 1 common lot. 00 J` do' Prairiefire Subdivision - Vicinity Map On EwNve Dr i 1�Fld 0 vt Pf 0 W3 bl E wal Y em,91 n e i -t r 'Dr Is ar EIM& Fld # EmllgbleLfeim St A$' Alt A S B Vj- .4 e Dr E"Va Aakle h JF 4 Ycare.& .01 -X jkP% bon Vd u-nnsline M, A#, E50 Eton E 6 -jb. Jallty D �hufch bf 09 G.hri§t o� Latte w 2 :0 A�&. , I E mme 1-g ta -7; 4 W Me.ridan Cc m f a I 1,14F NS rl ousine e:rvi-e low Bois ini S z . ..... .4 IL E-UstickRd E Ustick Ad 0 ,A E Ringnieck4S+- Prairiefire Subdivision Vicinity Map r EVVi No"s., �Oe 1� IdlDr P at ......... ...... ..... bl Y.4 hIFId'Dr KIVOIAIJ Greim St fS z A4 r . S A� #as- k., ! aWle @VV 12 ire Station #3 car F j T"Ed L J�,: -bonja S jinf�m.nV lim.M.nv Eta@ Heritage V",% E Surnmerfield hurch"ok .2 0a,lity D -ri- Subdivision C,-h st b� Lattqf*" Grove 55+ VALI ights JAL E ljmme ElSumm r -7'�,z, Wridian Cc 19 ' - -, . . Blois m.6us!ne�erVj AA. oil ..... ink. 10. JAI J'O' ' WiA �Wmmmm".. E Ustick Ad . ..... ignkc Mnkq mom- _;,V.E Ringneck�S+— gnkq , Mnkq Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Subject FFTMn Medium Densily LL hesidential Zoning Map —M r.irl Medium-Low Density Residential [R-4] ED ATION Medium Density Residential [R-8] =PUS QIPENUIL,_ Medium-High Density Residential [R-15] XOMMONS' QUENZJ�R. NO 02 1, 1 ER ELD NO 15 / NO 05 COMM NS ' St-JMM ------ UMMERFI" HFLI'RITAGE N 60 2 "t 61 -L-�-LL�--ji ,­- , r--r 14% G R C L=O R-8 Proposed 1JER_ITAGE R F-' GROV HERITAGE1 LCE NO 03 1 1 FIELD I GROVE SUM NDAS I I-ELL IN HERI D 14EADO �FAGJRW�U_N Prairiefire Subdivision - Zoning Map m 1p k 11 -or ik Nour-se LAtefial E%V e Dr E Lei gh Fld Dr _rT Al f, ery 1,'01 CN N6 Ol e r L dt,f _ ,;r7*%w'E'l f)ya4)Si"—m -lien e lr� i L-0 0 SAM 14 . 'f Pal art rD 2 4i lQ_Lk 4. AP.0 'Ask L_ E M , �hl. e Dr e W S� .. .- 0 - -0 4T :�-e& re e ol P mm 11: - I J1 IL E Fa!ilfi ire-st - on 7 G ri in .Mop n �y w WL Z. rE=; ,A 40 4-.Qja.lity D, NO urchbf L-0 iel; i 0-hris-t .6 La-tt f Am E -14 E mme ight8 Z'5"-,, , E Mefidian Cc —A J l._eDL r Is m all 2. Z; A E Omick Rd- NMI tgnkq _,;,C.E Ringnieck!Si V* Prairiefire Subdivision - Evolution of Housing Product L U-1 Prairiefire Subdivision - Evolution of Housing Product MA All Iw Prairiefire Subdivision - Evolution of Housing Product MA All -10 . 7,J Craftsman A 100^- Prairiefire Subdivision - Preliminary Plat IN&?j Ak, 411, IMMENSENESS! 11.7% open space (none is required) girl, Jr 22 Single Family Lots 0 1 Common Lot 0 6.96 units/acre ross) Prairief ire Subdivision - Partnership with Neighbors Finding a Win-Win Problem: Creation of an "Island Community", disconnected from existing subdivision Solution: Upon completion, Prairiefire Subdivision to be annexed as Phase 5 of the Heritage Grove HOA. Problem: Increased kids and traffic adjacent to a 55+ community Solution: Prairiefire to be deed-restricted 55+ community (per Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995) Problem: Potential incongruent architectural styles Solution: Prairiefire homes will have HOA enforced architectural restrictions to ensure the homes meet similar architectural criteria to the existing community. Problem: Prairiefire's water rights (flood irrigation) do not convert well to a PI system Solution: Prairiefire will connect to the Heritage Grove Pressure Irrigation System, cede water rights to the existing system and provide upgrades if needed. Prairiefire Subdivision - Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval Condition: Eliminate a lot on the north side of the street to make the micropath to the commercial property to the north more visible. Use additional width to make lots along the north half of the project wider. Solution #1: Shift the location of the pathway to the Solution #2: Brockton Office Park is strongly opposed to the western side of the property, adjust the sidewalk pathway connection. While a pedestrian connection was a connection point on the Brockton Office Park. Keep the condition of their project, the uses (Pediatric Clinic and lot sizes the same. Daycare/Preschool) were not known at the time. An uncontrolled pathway connection would create an unnecessary safety risk to patrons. WIV I r T I lore 01 Condition: Provide new house renderings that match Heritage Grove's homes. Solution: We are entering an architectural agreement with the Heritage Grove HOA that will support this effort. We do not think is appropriate for the City to enforce extra-ordinary architectural restrictions. CraO F_:J F_j r__I LI LI LI LI 0 LI LI I LI D D-1 OL 0 L L j LI L-1 L-1 LO ED] V Prairief*ire .1 1, N INV , Subdivision 00� Thank you for considering this AV application for Annexation and I%lj Preliminary Plat. JV Infill project matches adjacent . . 'C'. ... r41V land uses, "smart growth" Provides new pedestrian connections to N. Locust Grove and adjacent parcels Alleviates neighbor concerns by joining the adjacent HOA and 55+ age restrictions MOP'. Follows all zoning parameters of Ak 000, the R-8 zone and City ordinances. -N,11� do' Al Pathway Slides L: .16; J I 16�m d FIR 41F It dp A- L: Aii, 16� Fill: 41F 0 dp 16� 41F It IL- Jwi� 16�r Fill: p 41F It Mil PF 7 4L� L: .16; L L 16� p 41F It dp A— w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Hadler Neighborhood (H-2022-0064) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at 7200 S. Locust Grove Rd., approximately 1/2 mile south of the Locust Grove and Lake Hazel intersection on the east side of Locust Grove Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0064 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 20.5 acres of land from RUT to the R-15 zoning district.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 145 building lots (52 single-family attached lots & 93 detached single-family lots) and 11 common lots on approximately 20 acres of land in the requested R-15 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 3, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 PROJECT NAME: Hadler Neighborhood (H-2022-0064) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 11/3/2022 Legend DATE: 0 Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner --- , 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0064 ; ®® ' Hadler Neighborhood 01' - -- LOCATION: Located at 7200 S. Locust Grove Road, approximately 1/2 mile south of the Locust Grove and Lake Hazel intersection on the east side of Locust Grove, in the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of --- e Section 5,Township 2N, Range 1 E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Annexation and Zoning of approximately 20.5 acres of land from RUT to the R-15 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 145 building lots(52 single-family attached lots& 93 detached single-family lots)and 11 common lots on approximately 20 acres of land in the requested R-15 zoning district,by Laren Bailey, Conger Group. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—20.5 acres; PP—20 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (MDR,up to 3-8 du/ac Existing Land Use(s) County residential Proposed Land Use(s) Detached Single-family Residential and Attached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type; 156 total lots— 145 residential building lots and 11 bldg./common)) common lots Phasing Plan(#ofphases) Proposed as two(2)phases Number of Residential Units 145 single-family units 52 attached, 93 detached Density Gross 7.25 du/ac. Open Space (acres,total Approximately 3.5 acres of open space proposed /buffer/ ualified) ((approximately 17.5% Amenities Three(3)qualifying amenities are proposed—picnic area,playground, and a water feature(fountain) Page 1 Description Details Page Neighborhood meeting date July 21,2022 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 new local street connections to E. Via Roberto Lane,a (Arterial/Collectors/State new collector street along the entire north boundary. Via Roberto connects to S. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Locust Grove (arterial street) at the northwest corner of the property. This Proposed) collector street is not yet constructed; the adjacent developer(Brighton)is approved to construct this collector with their project(Apex Southeast)to the north of the subject site. Stub No existing stub streets.Applicant is proposing two stub streets with this Street/Interconnectivity/Cross project; one to the northeast corner and one to the southern boundary. Access Existing Road Network No Capital Improvements Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Plan/Integrated Five Year Road to Eagle Road in 2022. Work Plan Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road and includes a roundabout at the Eagle Road and Taconic Drive intersection in 2024. The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes on the north leg,4-lanes on the south leg,3-lanes on the west leg and 4- lanes on the east leg and signalized in 2023. Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from 5H-69 to Locust Grove Road between 2036 and 2040. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 4.1 miles from Fire Station#4—within 1 mile of Fire Station#7, currently Station under construction. • Fire Response Time The project currently lies outside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. It will be within the response time goal once Station#7 is constructed in summer of 2023. • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths and turnaround dimensions but requires a secondary emergency access to construct more than 30 homes. Water&Wastewater • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions in Section VIII. NOTE: Water is not currently available and must be provided to project by adjacent development to the north,Apex Southeast. Page 2 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Project Location q4 Med-Hig- b E� Diensi iiy MU C. Residential �® CiuiC Jl m Density esidential Low Density Residential ® LAWN�r. .... poi Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend �R-4 Legend �,. Project Location :' R_�'b Project Location . R-40 y; City Limits R-15 4 RUT C C R"8 RUTj_- Planned Parcels o -m� R-8 ---- ®�® 1 R-4 _ _ R-8II®® R-2 ®® kH t RUT ► ___� -- R-47RU RUT UT LRR—R1 RR RR '-------------- B . III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Laren Bailey, Conger Group 4824 W. Fairview Avenue,Boise, ID 83706 B. Property Owner: Blackcatl LLC— 1979 N. Locust Grove,Meridian,ID 83646 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 3 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/19/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 10/13/2022 Site Posting 10/21/2022 Nextdoor posting 10/13/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridianciu.orglcompplan) 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 20 acres currently contains a large home and other outbuildings with access being from a private driveway to Locust Grove in the location of the future Via Roberto Lane. The subject site is abutted by an arterial street to the west, S. Locust Grove, and a future collector street along the north, E. Via Roberto Lane.Access to the site is proposed via a new local street access to Via Roberto in alignment with an approved access on the north side of the street within Apex Southeast Subdivision. Abutting the property to the east and south are large county parcels that share the same future land use designation of MDR. The City's newest park,Discovery Park, abuts the property at the northeast corner of the site offering close proximity to one of the largest parks in Meridian. The Applicant is proposing 145 building lots on 20 acres of land within the R-15 zoning district which constitutes a gross density of 7.25 units per acre, near the maximum density allowed within the MDR designation. For comparison, the adjacent project to the north,Apex Southeast(H- 2020-0057), was approved with half the density as is proposed with Hadler and an average lot size of approximately 7,000 square feet, compared to 3,600 square foot average lot size within this development. Staff notes these development facts of the adjacent project because it shares the same future land use designation of MDR but also includes an area of mixed-use designation while proposing a less dense project. It should be noted that the Applicant for this project is proposing a higher open space percentage for the project than what was proposed with Apex Southeast. The adjacent county parcels to the south and east do not contain a residence and instead are used as pasture for rescued horses. Because of this,Staff does not find it necessary for this Applicant to transition the housing density adjacent to these properties.However,Staff does have concerns with the proposed street layout in regards to the stub street locations. The Applicant is proposing a stub street near the north east corner of the property which is a logical and needed location. The Applicant is also proposing a stub street to the south boundary for future connectivity that Staff does not have concern with. Staff is concerned with the existing property layout of the adjacent county parcels in relation to the proposed stub streets. Specifically,Staff believes an additional stub street should be added along the southeast boundary in place of Lots 28& 29,Block 2.Adding this stub street will provide for two stub streets to properties currently owned by the same entity and will not force future road development to avoid such a long stretch ofproperty line without an intersecting street. Page 4 In addition to vehicular connectivity, the Comprehensive Plan desires safe and adequate pedestrian connectivity through and between developments and to-and-from public spaces, like Discovery Park to the northeast. The proposal to include a micro path from an internal local street to Via Roberto, the collector street along the north boundary, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.In alignment with this, the noted revision to add a stub street in this location would also allow for better pedestrian connectivity in this area of the site from the southeast through this development and up to Discovery Park. Furthermore, it allows for the noted open space lot(Lot 30,Block 2) to be fronted by two public streets to increase its visibility and remove the additional concern of this area being a remnant area tucked away in a corner behind building lots. The Comprehensive Plan has specific policies related to these types of design elements (see 4.11.03) that support Staffs position. This revision would add both a vehicular and a pedestrian connection between future subdivisions when the properties to the east and south redevelop—Staff has met with the owner of the property to the southeast and they have a desire to include connectivity and open space adjacent to the noted open space of this subject project so Staff finds it even more prudent to include this stub street in this area. It is also important to note the Applicant is proposing two housing types within the Hadler Neighborhood project,single-family detached and single-family attached(two units attached but on separate building lots). The addition of different lot sizes and housing types is a plus for this project as it introduces a different housing type in this area of the City. However, because of the proposed density, most of the proposed building lot frontages are relatively small(32-38 feet wide) when a 20 foot wide driveway is presumed for each lot. Coinciding with this issue, the Applicant is not proposing the typical 33 foot wide local street section throughout a majority of the site and is instead proposing a 27 foot wide section that allows parking on only one side of the street and not both. The proposed lot frontages and the reduced street section give Staff concern with the availability of parking throughout the site which can create additional emergency response access issues in the future. The Commission or Council should determine if a solution is needed and if so,Staff recommends the applicant reduce the density by requiring a minimum 40 foot wide lot frontage throughout the site.At a minimum, the Applicant should provide a parking exhibit showing where guest parking could occur for this development. With Staffs recommended revisions,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.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the 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://www.meridiancitE.or /g compplan): In alignment with the discussion above, Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to this project; additional staff analysis to the specific policy may be warranted and is in italics: • "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01G). City water& Page 5 sewer are not currently available to the site,both sewer and water must be made available to this site by the developer of Apex Southeast to the north. Public works has discussed the requirements and outlined the path to receiving services in the Public Works specific conditions in Section VIII.B. Fire Station #7 will be within %mile of the project and the project will be located wholly within the response time goal of the City Station #7 is slated to be completed in later Summer 2023. The subject site lays within the Kuna School District and not the West Ada School District. City Staff reached out to the Kuna School District for the purpose of obtaining a response to this project as they have not opted into our automatic transmittals. According to this interaction, all of their schools are over capacity and they have stated they cannot accommodate additional school-aged children.However,Staff is not aware of development slowing in Kuna due to these school capacity issues. The subject site is within walking distance of Discovery Park to the northeast which provides for a multitude of recreation opportunities. 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. • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D). • "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). • "Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction."(2.02.02F). • "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). • "Elevate and enhance the quality and connectivity of residential site and subdivision planning."(2.02.01). • "Support construction of multi-use facilities that can be used by both schools and the community."(2.03.01B). • "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). • "Ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system." (4.04.01A). The Applicant is proposing regional pathways along its west and north boundaries to total approximately 2,212 linear feet ofpathway (nearly half a mile). • "Provide options for passive recreational opportunities not typically supplied by parks and facilities such as jogging,walking, and bicycling."(4.04.01B).Applicant is proposing micro paths within the large central open space that have efficient access to the proposed regional pathway network around the perimeter of the project creating ample opportunity for these passive recreational elements. • "Work with public and private development and management groups to promote and implement Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CPTED) strategies." (4.11.03).For the most part, Staff finds the project complies with this policy. The exception is the noted area along the southeast boundary (Lot 30, Block 2) that Staff is Page 6 recommending be opened up more and be fronted by two public streets by adding an additional stub street to the southeast boundary. Currently, this area is largely tucked behind buildable lots which decreases its visibility from the public street, an integral point CPTED strategies aim to alleviate.If the Applicant replaces Lots 28&29 with a stub street and slightly increases the green space, this issue is resolved. • "Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties."(6.01.02C). Staff finds the aforementioned analysis and policies in general makes the project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: According to GIS imagery,there is an existing large home and other outbuildings that will be removed upon development of Hadler Neighborhood.No other site improvements are known. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family and attached single-family residential with a minimum lot size of approximately 3,000 square feet and an average lot size of approximately 3,600 square feet,based on the submitted plat(Exhibit VII.B). These residential uses are permitted uses in the requested R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The Applicant has noted the development is expected to develop in two phases with the number of lots in each phase appearing to be similar(Applicant has not provided the actual lot numbers within each phase but the exhibit appears to show slightly more lots in phase 1 than in phase 2). Because the only public road access allowed for this development is from Via Roberto,no more than 30 homes can be constructed. Therefore,the Applicant has proposed a temporary emergency access within phase 1 located on a future building lot,Lot 23,Block 1, along the west boundary. Meridian Fire has approved this temporary emergency access to allow more than 30 homes to be constructed off of one access. 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). All lots are shown to meet the minimum lot size requirement of 2,000 square feet. There is no minimum street frontage requirement for the R-15 zoning district so, as discussed above,the Applicant is proposing lots with either 32 feet or 38 feet of frontage with a few lots having slightly more frontage. The Applicant is also proposing three (3)common drives within the development; two along the west boundary and one at the southeast corner of the project. The three (3)proposed common drives depict 3 lots taking access from each of them and include at least 5 feet of landscaping adjacent to the abutting lot not taking access from the common drive. The proposed common drive design complies with UDC 11-6C-3D requirements. The Applicant is proposing the north east-west local street(shown as W. Vantage Pointe Drive) within the project to be a long, relatively straight roadway. This street is shown with two intersecting streets on it which allows it to comply with UDC 11-6C-3 requirements for block length measurement. However, the overall roadway is still long and straight. For this reason, ACHD is requiring traffic calming along this street with future final plat submittals. Staff agrees with this and is recommending a condition of approval consistent with the ACHD condition. Page 7 F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed homes.Note that detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval but the single-family attached single-family homes do require administrative design review approval prior to building permit submittal. The Applicant is required to submit this Design Review and obtain Planning approval before building permit submittal. The submitted elevations depict varying roof profiles and colors with the same or similar field materials of lap siding and stone accents for the detached homes. All of the attached single-family elevations depict single-story homes with lap siding and stone accents. Overall, Stafffinds the submitted elevations to comply with the minimum standards but hopes future elevations depict more variation in finish materials to help delineate the buildingfacades alongpublic streets. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via a new local street(shown as S.Peak Avenue)connection to E. Via Roberto on the south side of this roadway in alignment with the approved collector street access to the Apex Southeast Subdivision on the north side of Via Roberto.Via Roberto is approved to be constructed with the Apex Southeast development except for the required detached sidewalk on the Hadler side of the street. ACHD has approved the Applicant's proposal to complete Via Roberto with 8-foot parkway and detached 10-foot pathway its south side but notes if Brighton does not complete Via Roberto consistent with their approvals,Hadler is required to construct Via Roberto as half of a 36-foot wide collector street plus an additional 12 feet of pavement. There are no existing stub streets adjacent to the site as Via Roberto is not yet constructed. The Applicant is proposing two stub streets according to the submitted plat; one near the north east corner of the property and one to the south boundary near the southwest area of the project. Staff has no concern with the two proposed stub streets or their locations. However, as noted within the Comprehensive Plan section above, Staff is recommending an additional stub street be added in place of Lots 28&29, Block 2.Adding this stub street will provide for two stub streets to properties currently owned by the same entity to the east and will not force future road development to avoid such a long stretch of property line without an intersecting street(the south/southeast boundary of this project). This revision would likely result in the loss of one building lot and remove one common drive from the project, two points that Staff finds are positive consequences of improving future road connectivity in this area. The Applicant is proposing two different street sections within this development, a 27-foot and a 33-foot street section;both have been approved by ACHD. The 33-foot street section is proposed for the segment of E.Vantage Point Drive east of the access to Via Roberto along the north half of the site and for the stub street to the south boundary. All other streets are proposed with the 27- foot street section that allows parking on only one side of the street where no driveways exist. Staff notes the Applicant is also proposing a permanent cul-de-sac at the terminus of Vantage Pointe Drive at the northeast boundary because this segment of this street segment is greater than 150 feet in length.Staff has concerns with the proposed reduced street section width in conjunction with the relatively skinny lots proposed, as discussed within the Comprehensive Plan section above. 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. Page 8 According to the submitted elevations, each home is proposed with a two-car garage which presumes a 3 or 4-bedroom home and would require a minimum 20 foot wide driveway for each building lot. In addition, as discussed above, some of the streets within this development are proposed as 27 foot wide street sections which only allows parking on one side of the street instead of both sides as allowed on the standard 33 foot section. I. Sidewalks&Pathways (UDC 11-3A-17&UDC 11-3A-8): 5-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along the internal local streets consistent with UDC requirements. The Applicant is proposing a 10-foot wide detached multi-use pathway along E. Via Roberto and an attached 10-foot wide sidewalk/pathway along S. Locust Grove; the pathway widths are consistent with the UDC,the Meridian Master Pathways Plan,and exceeds ACHD requirements but the location of the sidewalk along Locust Grove does not comply with Master Pathways plan as there is a desire to detach these sidewalks/pathways along arterial streets to improve pedestrian safety. The Applicant is required to place the multi-use pathways within public access easements adjacent to the public streets unless they are within ACHD right-of-way. The pathway along Locust Grove appears to be attached to Locust Grove which does not comply with the UDC or Master Pathways Plan. So, the Applicant should revise the plat and landscape plan to depict this 10 foot pathway to be located within the required 25 foot buffer to Locust Grove and at least four(4)feet outside of the ultimate ROW to ensure the pathway remains detached. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer along S. Locust Grove, an arterial street, and a 20-foot wide street buffer along E.Via Roberto, a collector street, are required and should be 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 25 foot wide common lot along Locust Grove that is a 22.5 foot wide common lot along Via Roberto consistent with code requirements. The landscape buffers are depicted with trees in excess of code and include landscape beds with shrubs and other vegetative ground cover, consistent with UDC 11-3B-7. Therefore, Stafffinds the proposed street buffers comply with all UDC requirements. In addition, all open space areas are shown with trees, sod, and other landscaping in excess of minimum code requirements. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted landscape plans, the Applicant is proposing 6-foot vinyl privacy fencing along the perimeter of the property and the rear lot lines and 5-foot tall wrought iron open vision fencing adjacent to any common open space areas. Both fencing types and their proposed locations comply with UDC standards. L. Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The proposed project is approximately 20 acres in size requiring a minimum amount of open space based on the requested zoning. Per UDC Table 11-3G-3,the R-15 area requires a minimum of 15%qualified open space. Per the calculations,the minimum amount of qualified open space required is 3 acres. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is proposing 3.49 acres of qualified open space, exceeding the minimum amount required. The proposed 3.49 acres equates to approximately 17.45% qualified open space. Page 9 The qualified open space proposed a. Enhanced landscaping asset forth in Article 11-313,Landscaping Requirements; consists of% of the arterial street h. Multi-use pathways; buffer to Locust Grove, the full c. Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; collector street buffer to Via Roberto, d. Enhanced context with the surroundings. the large central open space area, and the smaller common open space area along the southeast boundary. However, Staff is not sure if the landscape buffers to the adjacent public streets meet the enhanced buffer requirements outlined in UDC 11-3G-3B.3 to count towards the open space. Previously, these areas automatically qualified towards the minimum open space but this is no longer the case with the latest open space code updates. The Applicant appears to comply with the first two points outlined in code but may not comply with the last two points: enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics;and, enhanced context with the surroundings. Staff recommends the Applicant provide evidence these buffers are enhanced beyond a sidewalk and trees. For example, boulders, additional vegetation, decorative elements, additional micro pathways, etc. The burden of proof for the proposed common open space to qualify falls on the Applicant and not on Staff. If these buffers do not count towards the minimum qualified open space, approximately I acre of land must be removed from the calculation leaving approximately 2.5 acres of qualified open space which does not comply with the minimum qualified open space requirement. Therefore, the Applicant should provide evidence that the proposed street buffers are qualified open space prior to the Commission hearing OR apply for Alternative Compliance to reduce the amount of qualified open space required due to the project's proximity to Discovery Park to the northeast. The centralized open space area is depicted with playground equipment, a gazebo with picnic benches, and multiple seating areas all connected to the surrounding local streets via 5-foot wide micro pathways. Staff supports the design of the central open space area.As discussed within the Comprehensive Plan section above, the other common open space area (Lot 30, Block 2) is approximately 9,300 square feet in size and is tucked behind multiple building lots. Staff does not have concern with the size of this open space lot but is concerned with its location being a remnant piece and tucked away. Because of these concerns, Staff recommends the adjacent Lot 29, Block 2 be removed and added to the open space lot to increase the visibility of this open space area and include an additional micro path connection to the southeast boundary. UDC 11-3G-4 dictates the minimum amenity points required for projects over 5 acres in size. The project size of 20 acres requires a minimum of four(4) amenity points(1 point for every 5 acres). According to the submitted plans and narrative,the Applicant is proposing the following qualifying amenities: picnic area,playground, and a water feature(fountain). According to UDC Table 11-3G-4,the proposed amenities amount to seven(7)amenity points and exceed the minimum amenity point requirements for a project of this size. Staff finds the proposed amenities within this development are sufficient due to the size of the property,their locations,the pedestrian connectivity, and because of the proximity to Discovery Park to the northeast that offers additional recreational opportunities for future residents in this area of the City. M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): According to GIS imagery,there is an open irrigation ditch that runs along the shared north boundary of this site and the Apex Southeast Subdivision to the north. It is not a labeled ditch on the City's GIS and it can be presumed it is being tiled and relocated as part of the construction of Via Roberto Lane by the adjacent developer,Brighton. The Applicant of Alden Ridge is also required to comply with UDC 11-3A-6 and ensure this irrigation facility along the north boundary is tiled or relocated. Page 10 N. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): The Applicant is proposing and is required to extend necessary public utilities for the proposed project. 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. However, it should be noted that both water and sewer services must be provided to this development through the adjacent development to the north(Apex Southeast) and are currently not available. 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 11 VIL EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps IDAHO 9955 W Emerald St SURVEY Boise,ID 83704 GROUP Phone: (208)846-8570 Fax: (208)384-5399 Hadler Subdivision Annexation Description Project Number 21-360 July 13,2022 Lot 1,Block 1 of Rescue Ranch Subdivision(Book 106 of Plats at Pages 14734 through 14736, records of Ada County,Idaho),and a portion of the adjacent public right-of-way of S.Locust Grove Road,situated in the north half of the southwest quarter of Section 5,Township 2 North, Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at southwest corner of Section 5,Township 2 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian; Thence NOD"04'42"W,2655.92 feet to the west quarter-section corner of Section 5,the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence$89"52'50"E,37,00 feet along the east-west centerline of Section 5 to the east line of S.Locust Grove Road and the northwest corner of Lot 1; Thence continuing S89°52'50"E,1618.16 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence S00°04'42"E,335.88 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence 12.01 feet on a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 225.00 feet,a central angle of 03"03'27",a chord bearing of N88"20'52"W,and a chord length of 12.01 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence N89°52'36"W,313.32 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence 143.71 feet on a curve to the left having a radius of 125.00 feet,a central angle of 65"52'19",a chord bearing of S57°11'14"W,and a chord length of 135.93 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence S24°15'05"W,307.54 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence 75.90 feet on a curve to the right having a radius of 50.00 feet,a central angle of 86"51'39",a chord bearing of S67"40'54"W,and a chord length of 68.75 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence N68°53116"w,342.09 feet along the boundary of Lot 1, Thence N89°52'36"W,669,21 feet along the boundary of Lot 1 to the east right-of-way line of S.Locust Grove Road; Thence S89°55'18"W,37.00 feet to the west line of Section 5; Thence N00°04'42"W,593,86 feet along the west line of Section 5 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. ��15 The above-described parcel contains 20.51 acres,more or less. � p 0 13 4 0 11 ygft S• �� Page 12 I Z� y o0 �OO•�iZ _ � m � a 3„Zti,*0.005 o � •t3 0 0 °' ^ yr 0 0 10 (D v co Z w c � m �n u7 Q t m v n C V)m Go Vl V Z N N A �J o m til s<p£ c� o Lo ID m r Z s[4 W O m ZS ? 0 0Lo 0 p N N Lo v N h 00 ^z7 3 rn o r` m Eo J N r U U �A mod, U U U U N ;n o �m co r o o U O O 0 U d J M M 04 o y J N W Fes- a 00 70 O W N m rn M 2 J � co co (o w m N � W S iV o � � a 0 Z J Qo OR 0 J � J Lq 00 L, to W 98'865 ,90•Z90Z M Lo -� o mm •� P21 anoJ0 }snood -S ILv; vi vi �\ o Z6 SS9Z M..Zb.ti0.00N ...... �0�d SbUIJea8 }O SIGDe Pa�7�7dull o Page 13 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 10/18/2022) & ---------- R1 IS M" e't 2 12 F a �a % Nk co CA ENED -7 RZ I-T-u I HADLER SUBDIVISION CIVIL INNOVATIONS,PLLC o Page 14 ��• � � r` IY � iv i� p' i� ,fl�' III� �' e�. s_�,_ � sv :v =v � _, v� __ �� _� _S _i ..i ..i _' `ems i vZ. X. Sal ` �= iv I— i i—i—i i i— — — -- - ---•-- •---- Page 15 C. Landscape Plans(date: 7/29/2022) Aa .......... -Z HADLERS U B D I V I S 1 0 N JULY 29,2D12 JENSfiNO TS MERIDIAN, ID PRELIMINARY FLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 16 I t i s , o m i f w JEN HAD LER SUBDIVISION O"vSENB rENB lLTS fV�T 29,3033 MERIDIAN, ID PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN � , � � Page 17 aEq.� o I I rr. .xu w e eme e m _ e. xn n _ L� .w �� _ - .;n,a � _ �• rwi. w h 4Np 44, r I� III _O y O , Zo J 2 az e W ZW 13 ¢ W - wre sn o-3cruvrrn - y ��.m c erewxen xve.x �. r.,i r. ,. KEY MAP Ll 92. �edsa�w��s s y ZO a PANT PALETTE d x hOTE5 .., '�`�`.,•�•,"` -.•�.�•.•••••° IJ—Li J I- .� 9L11NU90hPE KEY MAP L2 Page 18 D. Open Space Exhibit: I i ^il �. II is .:. .�.,, ...� �. �. �. �. ,�. ■ sL . .. F, y� :yam ,��. I:l7. , R •J i i i i Page 19 E. Phasing Plan: I j I I "--�- -- --- ..E.Mao UD w..-- "---- - ------- -777- 77� I - �j �I Ti" li i I ---------- __ _ ___ _ ____ _____ _ _J _—_—_ f.Y�[POfIF q._ _—_ _ _——_ _ ��- �^�"+V¢•� 4e T —�. ' I I I" 'iN:.--.R-new.w•u-�.rvin.v»-n+.aa-r-.nl+nww•..s.rn..iw..iwv_m-ew.r-•y_.1�-:srrw,�..0 _.......-..._n-....-�rw...-+ce+�ra+.s .c«�+.. N" I sQw i�I i ' �_.. ��p ♦ / � 4 I I PHASE2 d IQ PHASE 1 I J �� A �i.,aeei.s,._-w�c- wrFi.-.�m...iee.�.a...rrt'r�:...w.- +«w�+e• �� 1 1 � xl�'.. �r`.e �';:d I; � y 'a..�s. � rrNnf�^'se•py gy�-1,�pW�.�.<rv+-x-�n.:�w�+erxe�+... ...:y Y•�+. �' Eg U ��•:�;�,13 { 1 i •_I!!J 1 I / I J I _ I Page 20 F. Common Drive Exhibits: FUTURE E.VIA ROBERTO I.N. a l: ZERO SETBACK LOT LINE SETBACK LINE LOT LINE -:� (TYPICAL) (TYPICAL) (TYPICAL) I° 3.00, 3.00' 3.00, 3.00' 3,00' BLOCK 1 }.f: 15 14 13 12 li 11 10 BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING •,•1. ORIENTATION ORIENTA71ON ORIENTATION l DRIVEWAY �I •I" [TYPICAL) . IL ——— ec L BLOCK 1 0 o r• _ _ VJ w C] 01 16 DRIVEWAY / W.VANTAGE POINTE DR. 1z.00'I o 17 ., azo.00 / BUILDING E ORIENTATION 20.00 , BLOCK 4 BLOC18 K 1 I I 14 1 2 3 c 0 0 s M , I , I� _1 NONTH 40 20 0 40 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET PROJECT NO 21-0701-HADL D N DRIVEWAY DES ES IGNED By Br HADLER SUBDIVISION CIVIL INNOVATIONS,PLLC E DRAWN By BT MERIDIAN,IDAHO 1043 E.PARK BLw STE 100 CHECKED BY BT BOISE,ID B3712 ISSUE DATE 07/21/2022 PHONE.(208)864-8181 SCALE ASSHOWN SHARED DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT SHEET 1 OF Page 21 ` 22 I I I I I I I TI BLOCK 4 1 m 14 53 52 51 I r I E26 12.00'1 23 BUILDING 0 II_ s - _ ORIENTATION h I I I I I w I ci ,LOT LINE (TYPICAL) I \\ awe 1200'li \ s 24 o I I 2 0.00's 00 I BLOCK 1 I: 1 BUILDING \, W.ORION GREENS DR. .�' ORIENTATION \ - - ea \ 200 \ y I' 12.00'I _ 1 25 �e,f° a' '2000`$ SETBACK LINE - ---- --------- (TYPICAL) 1 20.00' _ - '4 DRIVEWAY 12.00'li 26 (TYPICAL) a 1 , •.� 3 I zF F zF 1 1T 0 4 1T I I 1T o r 4 I I 1T o� 1T I I ZERO SETBACK 5 1 w z li BUILDING o °' LOT LINE ORIENTATION (TYPICAL) 29 30 31 32 .IT 12.00'I BLOCK 3, I `I 20 00' 28 3' 3' I. L 27 3' 3' - E.CABALLI LN. ® E ,a NORTH 40 20 0 40 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET PROJECT NO, 21-0701-HADL DWG NE BT Dev Br DRIVEV4 AY DESI�NE HADLER SUBDIVISION CIVIL INNOVATIONS,PLLC DRAWN BY BT MERIDIAN,IDAHO 1043 E.PARK BLVD STE 100 CHECKED BY BT BOISE.ID B3712 ISSUE DATE 07/21/2022 PHONE.(208)W-6161 SCALE AS SHOWN SHARED DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT www°�"I--cI°°s SHEET 1 OF Page 22 / BLOCK 4 i 200 33 32 31 30 o� q� ✓r /� 23 �7 / i oQ/ oR�F�1D�ryG / 22 —7 � \RIpN � CgEf \SOR oA�FN4'110 �✓ • ��T/oN 21 o i 20 po 2 g oq/4, � ?T�QV 20 13 14 i 15 DRIVEWAY 16 (TYPICAL) m� / / 17 SETBACK LINE BLOCK 2 �•/7/ ��� J (TYPICAL) LOT LINE \�e (TYPICAL) w CAYQCCI(* i _es ®E ,a NORTH 40 20 0 40 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET PROJECT NO, 21-0701-HADL DW°FILE DRIVEWAY DES IGNEoev Br HADLER SUBDIVISION CIVIL INNOVATIONS,PLLC DRAWN BY BT MERIDIAN,IDAHO 1043 E.PARK BLVD STE 100 CHECKED BY BT BOISE.I°B3712 ISSUE DATE 07/21/2022 PHONE.(208)W-6161 SCALE AS SHOWN SHARED DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT SHEET 1 OF1 Page 23 ConceptualG. Building fj iY � r!! .■ f1 II ■� 1�1 S�F'°-" I�II.1�1�1�I I�-����n�,��1•-I I� I�I�I,� ��'fdi ■■�I 1f� ■■ �� ■� r i�< Ira ►.a fir y, �, air- _ ,•�c - �.,, � ._ ______ �� _ r a `w r: 1+ i� }�it.a �.I�� �'1-'��I�I11�.11 �1'� •� ` 1 i '�.�!�l�,r ''� f'Y !�''� .�...L•yi.� Page 24 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, common drive exhibits,and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The existing home and outbuildings shall be removed upon phase 1 development, as proposed. c. The rear and/or sides of homes visible from S. Locust Grove and E.Via Roberto Lane (Lots 2-27,Block 1 &Lots 2-24,Block 3) 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 October 18,2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Replace Lots 28 &29,Block 2 with an additional stub street to the southeast property boundary for future vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. b. Direct lot access to S. Locust Grove and E.Via Roberto Lane is prohibited except for the emergency access to Locust Grove and the approved access to Via Roberto, in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. c. Add a plat note stating that Lot 23,Block 1 is a non-buildable lot until such time that an additional Fire approved public street connection is provided. d. Consistent with ACHD conditions of approval,provide traffic calming measures along W.Vantage Point Drive to help mitigate its long and straight design. e. Depict the 10-foot pathway along S. Locust Grove to be located within the required 25- foot street buffer and located at least four(4) feet outside of the ultimate ROW to ensure the pathway remains detached, consistent with UDC 11-3B-7C.1a. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated July 29,2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Revise the landscape plan to match the revisions made to the street section of Vantage Pointe Drive on the latest preliminary plat. Page 25 b. Make the necessary revisions to the landscape plans to match the plat revisions noted above in VIII.A2. c. Depict the 10-foot pathway along S. Locust Grove to be located within the required 25- foot street buffer and located at least four(4)feet outside of the ultimate ROW to ensure the pathway remains detached, consistent with UDC 11-313-7C.la. 4. Prior to the Commission hearing,the Applicant shall provide evidence that the proposed street buffers are qualified open space OR apply for Alternative Compliance prior to the City Council hearing to request a reduction to the amount of qualified open space required. 5. Prior to the Commission hearing,the Applicant shall provide a parking exhibit showing available parking within the subject development. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 7. 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. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. The Applicant shall ensure the irrigation ditch along the north boundary is tiled and/or relocated consistent with UDC 11-3A-6 standards. 10. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-313-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 11. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on each final plat, a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded for the multi-use pathways along S. Locust Grove and E. Via Roberto as required by the Park's Department,unless ACHD requires an easement within their right-of-way. 12. Prior to applying for building permits,Administrative Design Review is required to be submitted and approved by the Planning Division for the proposed single-family attached units. 13. 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. 14. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. Must provide sewer to and through to parcel R7406180010. 2. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 3. There currently are no water mains to the site. Water will be coming from the Apex Southeast Development. 4. Water and sewer in parallel require a minimum 30'easement. Easement width may be greater depending on sewer depth. Page 26 5. Where water ties into existing line in E.Via Roberto Ln two vales are required. 6. As part of Apex Southeast, a 12" water main will be brought to the corner of Locust Grove and Via Roberto Ln. Extend 12"water main down Locust Grove to southern property boundary. 7. A second connection to the 12" water main in Locust Grove is required. The City would prefer this connection be made in E. Cavalli Ln with an easement. 8. Must install water blow-off per SD W 13 at eastern boundary along Vantage Pointe Dr. and at the southern boundary at Steeple Ave. See changemarks on sheet PE.200 for additional details. 9. At,the corner of Cadence Ave and Orion Greens Drive,the water mains have multiple odd bends;remove unnecessary bends in said water main. 10. Water and sewer at the corner of Zenith Ave and Vantage Pointe needs to be laid out differently. The current configuration adds an extra sewer manhole that isn't needed,multiple water fittings that are not needed,and a sewer service in a common lot when the house access is not from the common lot. See the uploaded"Water and Sewer Comments"pdf for suggestions of a better configuration. 11. Near the common driveway at the southeast corner of the site there is a water service running across a private property that is not being serviced by the meter. The meter should be located in the landscaping area of the common driveway. See changemarks on sheet PE.200. 12. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Atlas Materials Testing& Inspection,there are shallow cemented soils across the site. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. Applicant should adhere to recommendations including the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences. Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system,nor the trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines. 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 I I-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. Page 27 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 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 11-1-4B. 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 project. Page 28 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. 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 I"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(UDC 11-3B-6). 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 11-3A-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.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=275369&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=276691&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C i &cr--1 Page 29 E. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2 753 70&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https://weblink.meridiancity.oty WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=276388&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C Lty G. MERIDIAN PATHWAYS—CONDITIONS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=275182&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=278590&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and Zoning(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-15 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; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested R-15 zoning district and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare should all conditions of approval be met. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: Page 30 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 general compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, 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 31 STAFF REPORT C:�*%_ W IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 11/3/2022 Legend DATE: 0 Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner --- 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0064 - Hadler Neighborhood r LOCATION: Located at 7200 S. Locust Grove Road, approximately 1/2 mile south of the Locust Grove and Lake Hazel intersection on the east side of Locust ' Grove, in the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of -- -- e Section 5,Township 2N,Range lE. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Annexation and Zoning of approximately 20.5 acres of land from RUT to the R-15 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 145 building lots(52 single-family attached lots &93 detached single-family lots)and 11 common lots on approximately 20 acres of land in the requested R-15 zoning district,by Laren Bailey, Conger Group. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—20.5 acres; PP—20 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential MDR,up to 3-8 du/ac Existing Land Uses County residential Proposed Land Use(s) Detached Single-family Residential and Attached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type; 156 total lots— 145 residential building lots and 11 bldg./common)) common lots Phasing Plan #ofphases) Proposed as two 2phases Number of Residential Units 145 single-family units 52 attached, 93 detached Density Gross—7.25 du/ac. Open Space (acres,total Approximately 3.5 acres of open space proposed [%]/buffer/qualified) (approximately 17.5%) Pagel Description Details Page Amenities Four(4) qualifying amenities are proposed worth 11 amenity points—picnic area,playground, a water feature (fountain), and multi-use pathway segments. Neighborhood meetingdate I July 21, 2022 History(previous approvals) No application history with the City B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District l • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no) Access Access is proposed via new local street connections to E.Via Roberto Lane, a (Arterial/Collectors/State new collector street along the entire north boundary.Via Roberto connects to S. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Locust Grove (arterial street) at the northwest corner of the property. This Proposed) collector street is not yet constructed;the adjacent developer(Brighton) is approved to construct this collector with their project(Apex Southeast)to the north of the subject site. Stub No existing stub streets.Applicant is proposing two stub streets with this Street/Interconnectivity/Cross project; one to the northeast corner and one to the southern boundary. Access Existing Road Network No Capital Improvements Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Plan/Integrated Five Year Road to Eagle Road in 2022. Work Plan Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road and includes a roundabout at the Eagle Road and Taconic Drive intersection in 2024. The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes on the north leg,4-lanes on the south leg,3-lanes on the west leg and 4- lanes on the east leg and signalized in 2023. Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from SH-69 to Locust Grove Road between 2036 and 2040. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 4.1 miles from Fire Station#4—within 1 mile of Fire Station#7, currently Station under construction. • Fire Response Time The project currently lies outside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. It will be within the response time goal once Station#7 is constructed in summer of 2023. • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths and turnaround dimensions including a secondary emergency access to construct more than 30 homes. ■ Water&Wastewater • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions in Section VIII. NOTE: Water and Sewer are currently not available and must be provided to project by adjacent development to the north,Apex Southeast,but the third and final phase of Apex Southeast is approved. Page 2 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legendf` Project Location oFscoueer Med-High MU-C Diensi $ Residential ®® Ciuic m Density esidential Low Density Residential etimi 4101 Zoning Map JPlanned Development Map Legend R-4 Legend ' �� 0 R-40 El Project Location R- Project Location R_ �. R=15 City Limits 4 RUT C-C R-8 RUT Planned Parcels o ® R-8 R-4 ` ------ R=8�® R-�21 ®® RUT ' R-4 RUT f UT L RR—Rl RR RUT '------- ------ III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Laren Bailey, Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Avenue,Boise,ID 83706 B. Property Owner: Blackcatl LLC— 1979 N. Locust Grove,Meridian,ID 83646 Page 3 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/19/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 10/13/2022 Site Posting 10/21/2022 Nextdoor posting 10/13/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(hgps://www.meridiancity.or /�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 20 acres currently contains a large home and other outbuildings with access being from a private driveway to Locust Grove in the location of the future Via Roberto Lane. The subject site is abutted by an arterial street to the west, S. Locust Grove, and a future collector street along the north, E. Via Roberto Lane.Access to the site is proposed via a new local street access to Via Roberto in alignment with an approved access on the north side of the street within Apex Southeast Subdivision. Abutting the property to the east and south are large county parcels that share the same future land use designation of MDR. The City s newest park, Discovery Park, abuts the property at the northeast corner of the site offering close proximity to one of the largest parks in Meridian. The Applicant is proposing 145 building lots on 20 acres of land within the R-15 zoning district which constitutes a gross density of 7.25 units per acre, near the maximum density allowed within the MDR designation. For comparison, the adjacent project to the north, Apex Southeast(H- 2020-0057), was approved with approximately 3.7 du/ac and an average lot size of approximately 7,000 square feet, compared to 3,600 square foot average lot size within this development. Staff notes these development facts of the adjacent project because it shares the same future land use designation of MDR but also includes an area of mixed-use designation while proposing a less dense project. It should be noted that the Applicant is proposing new housing types for this area of this City and is proposing a higher open space percentage for the project than what was proposed with Apex Southeast. The adjacent county parcels to the south and east do not contain a residence and instead are used as pasture for rescued horses. Because of this,Staff does not find it necessary for this Applicant to transition the housing density adjacent to these properties.However,Staff does have concerns with the proposed street layout in regards to the stub street locations. The Applicant is proposing a stub street near the north east corner of the property which is a logical and needed location. The Applicant is also proposing a stub street to the south boundary for future connectivity that Staff does not have concern with. Staff is concerned with the existing property layout of the adjacent county parcels in relation to the proposed stub streets. Specifically,Staff believes an additional stub street should be added along the southeast Page 4 boundary in place of Lots 28& 29,Block 2.Adding this stub street will provide for two stub streets to properties currently owned by the same entity and will not force future road development to avoid such a long stretch ofproperty line without an intersecting street. In addition to vehicular connectivity, the Comprehensive Plan desires safe and adequate pedestrian connectivity through and between developments and to-and-from public spaces, like Discovery Park to the northeast. The proposal to include a micro path from an internal local street to Via Roberto, the collector street along the north boundary, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.In alignment with this, the noted revision to add a stub street in this location would also allow for better pedestrian connectivity in this area of the site from the southeast through this development and up to Discovery Park Furthermore, it allows for the noted open space lot(Lot 30,Block 2) to be fronted by two public streets to increase its visibility and remove the additional concern of this area being a remnant area tucked away in a corner behind building lots. The Comprehensive Plan has specific policies related to these types of design elements (see 4.11.03) that support Staffs position. This revision would add both a vehicular and a pedestrian connection between future subdivisions when the properties to the east and south redevelop—Staff has met with the owner of the property to the southeast and they have a desire to include connectivity and open space adjacent to the noted open space of this subject project so Staff finds it even more prudent to include this stub street in this area. It is also important to note the Applicant is proposing two housing types within the Hadler Neighborhood project,single-family detached and single-family attached(two units attached but on separate building lots). The addition of different lot sizes and housing types is a plus for this project and this general area as it introduces a different housing type in this area of the City.However,Staff has some concerns with parking because of the combination of the proposed density, that most of the proposed building lot frontages are relatively small(32-38 feet wide) when a 20 foot wide driveway is presumed for each lot, and because the Applicant is proposing a 27 foot wide section that allows parking on only one side of the street and not both. The Commission or Council should determine if a solution is needed and if so, one option that could help is to require a wider minimum lot frontage than what is currently being proposed.At a minimum, the Applicant should provide a parking exhibit showing where guest parking could occur for this development and quell any concerns of a street section allowing on-street parking on one side versus both sides. With Staffs recommended revisions,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.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the 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://www.meridiancia.or /�compplan): hi alignment with the discussion above, Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to this project; additional staff analysis to the specific policy maybe warranted and is in italics: Page 5 • "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,police,transportation, schools, fire,and parks"(3.02.01 G). City water& sewer are not currently available to the site;both sewer and water must be made available to this site by the developer of Apex Southeast to the north.Public works has discussed the requirements and outlined the path to receiving services in the Public Works specific conditions in Section VIII.B. Fire Station #7 will be within %mile of the project and the project will be located wholly within the response time goal of the City Station #7 is slated to be completed in later Summer 2023. The subject site lays within the Kuna School District and not the West Ada School District. City Staff reached out to the Kuna School District for the purpose of obtaining a response to this project as they have not opted into our automatic transmittals. According to this interaction between Staff, all of their schools are over capacity and they have stated they cannot accommodate additional school-aged children.However, Kuna School District Staff have not submitted any formal comments and Staff is not aware of development slowing in Kuna due to these school capacity issues. The subject site is within walking distance of Discovery Park to the northeast which provides for a multitude of recreation opportunities. 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. • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D). • "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). • "Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction."(2.02.02F). • "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). • "Elevate and enhance the quality and connectivity of residential site and subdivision planning."(2.02.01). • "Support construction of multi-use facilities that can be used by both schools and the community."(2.03.01B). • "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). • "Ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system." (4.04.01A). The Applicant is proposing regional pathways along its west and north boundaries to total approximately 2,212 linear feet ofpathway(nearly half a mile). • "Provide options for passive recreational opportunities not typically supplied by parks and facilities such as jogging,walking, and bicycling." (4.04.01B).Applicant is proposing micro paths within the large central open space that have efficient access to the proposed regional pathway network around the perimeter of the project creating ample opportunity for these passive recreational elements. Page 6 • "Work with public and private development and management groups to promote and implement Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CPTED) strategies." (4.11.03).For the most part, Staff finds the project complies with this policy. The exception is the noted area along the southeast boundary(Lot 30, Block 2) that Staff is recommending be opened up more and be fronted by two public streets by adding an additional stub street to the southeast boundary. Currently, this area is largely tucked behind buildable lots which decreases its visibility from the public street, an integral point CPTED strategies aim to alleviate. If the Applicant replaces Lots 28&29 with a stub street and slightly increases the green space, this issue is resolved. • "Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties." (6.01.02C). Staff finds the aforementioned analysis and policies in general makes the project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: According to GIS imagery,there is an existing large home and other outbuildings that will be removed upon development of Hadler Neighborhood.No other site improvements are known. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family and attached single-family residential with a minimum lot size of approximately 3,000 square feet and an average lot size of approximately 3,600 square feet,based on the submitted plat(Exhibit VII.B). These residential uses are permitted uses in the requested R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The Applicant has noted the development is expected to develop in two phases with the number of lots in each phase appearing to be similar(Applicant has not provided the actual lot numbers within each phase but the exhibit appears to show slightly more lots in phase 1 than in phase 2). Because the only public road access allowed for this development is from Via Roberto,no more than 30 homes can be constructed. Therefore,the Applicant has proposed a temporary emergency access within phase 1 located on a future building lot,Lot 23,Block 1, along the west boundary. Meridian Fire has approved this temporary emergency access to allow more than 30 homes to be constructed off of one access. 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). All lots are shown to meet the minimum lot size requirement of 2,000 square feet. There is no minimum street frontage requirement for the R-15 zoning district so, as discussed above,the Applicant is proposing lots with either 32 feet or 38 feet of frontage with a few lots having slightly more frontage. The Applicant is also proposing three (3)common drives within the development;two along the west boundary and one at the southeast corner of the project. The three (3)proposed common drives depict 3 lots taking access from each of them and include at least 5 feet of landscaping adjacent to the abutting lot not taking access from the common drive. The proposed common drive design complies with UDC 11-6C-3D requirements. The Applicant is proposing the north east-west local street(shown as W. Vantage Pointe Drive) within the project to be a long, relatively straight roadway. This street is shown with two intersecting streets on it which allows it to comply with UDC 11-6C-3 requirements for block length measurement. However, the overall roadway is still long and straight. For this reason, Page 7 ACHD is requiring traffic calming along this street with future final plat submittals. Staff agrees with this and is recommending a condition of approval consistent with the ACHD condition. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed homes.Note that detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval but the single-family attached single-family homes do require administrative design review approval prior to building permit submittal. The Applicant is required to submit this Design Review and obtain Planning approval before building permit submittal. The submitted elevations depict varying roof profiles and colors with the same or similar field materials of lap siding and stone accents for the detached homes. All of the attached single-family elevations depict single-story homes with lap siding and stone accents. Overall, Stafffinds the submitted elevations to comply with the minimum standards but hopes future elevations depict more variation in finish materials to help delineate the building facades along public streets. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via a new local street(shown as S. Peak Avenue) connection to E. Via Roberto on the south side of this roadway in alignment with the approved collector street access to the Apex Southeast Subdivision on the north side of Via Roberto.Via Roberto is approved to be constructed with the Apex Southeast development except for the required detached sidewalk on the Hadler side of the street. ACHD has approved the Applicant's proposal to complete Via Roberto with 8-foot parkway and detached 10-foot pathway its south side but notes if Brighton does not complete Via Roberto consistent with their approvals,Hadler is required to construct Via Roberto as half of a 36-foot wide collector street plus an additional 12 feet of pavement. There are no existing stub streets adjacent to the site as Via Roberto is not yet constructed. The Applicant is proposing two stub streets according to the submitted plat; one near the north east corner of the property and one to the south boundary near the southwest area of the project. Staff has no concern with the two proposed stub streets or their locations. However, as noted within the Comprehensive Plan section above, Staff is recommending an additional stub street be added in place of Lots 28&29, Block 2.Adding this stub street will provide for two stub streets to properties currently owned by the same entity to the east and will not force future road development to avoid such a long stretch ofproperty line without an intersecting street(the south/southeast boundary of this project). This revision would likely result in the loss of one building lot and remove one common drive from the project, two points that Staff finds are positive consequences of improving future road connectivity in this area. The Applicant is proposing two different street sections within this development, a 27-foot and a 33-foot street section;both have been approved by ACHD as both are considered standard street sections. The 33-foot street section is proposed for the segment of E.Vantage Point Drive east of the access to Via Roberto along the north half of the site and for the stub street to the south boundary. All other streets are proposed with the 27-foot street section that allows parking on only one side of the street where no driveways exist. Staff notes the Applicant is also proposing a permanent cul-de-sac at the terminus of Vantage Pointe Drive at the northeast boundary because this segment of this street segment is greater than 150 feet in length.Staff has requested a parking exhibit due to concerns with the proposed 27 foot street section in conjunction with the proposed lot widths, as discussed within the Comprehensive Plan section above. Staff anticipates the parking exhibit to show adequate parking for the development above the minimum requirements outlined in code. Page 8 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. According to the submitted elevations, each home is proposed with a two-car garage which presumes a 3 or 4-bedroom home and would require a minimum 20 foot wide driveway for each building lot. In addition, as discussed above, some of the streets within this development are proposed as 27 foot wide street sections which only allows parking on one side of the street instead of both sides as allowed on the standard 33 foot section. I. Sidewalks&Pathways (UDC 11-3A-17&UDC 11-3A-8): 5-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along the internal local streets consistent with UDC requirements. The Applicant is proposing a 10-foot wide detached multi-use pathway along E. Via Roberto and an attached 10-foot wide sidewalk/pathway along S. Locust Grove;the pathway widths are consistent with the UDC,the Meridian Master Pathways Plan, and exceeds ACHD requirements but the location of the sidewalk along Locust Grove does not comply with Master Pathways plan as there is a desire to detach these sidewalks/pathways along arterial streets to improve pedestrian safety. The Applicant is required to place the multi-use pathways within public access easements adjacent to the public streets unless they are within ACHD right-of-way. The pathway along Locust Grove appears to be attached to Locust Grove which does not comply with the UDC or Master Pathways Plan. So, the Applicant should revise the plat and landscape plan to depict this 10 foot pathway to be located within the required 25 foot buffer to Locust Grove and at least four(4)feet outside of the ultimate ROW to ensure the pathway remains detached. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer along S. Locust Grove, an arterial street, and a 20-foot wide street buffer along E.Via Roberto, a collector street, are required and should be 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 25 foot wide common lot along Locust Grove that is a 22.S foot wide common lot along Via Roberto consistent with code requirements. The landscape buffers are depicted with trees in excess of code and include landscape beds with shrubs and other vegetative ground cover, consistent with UDC 11-3B-7. Therefore, Stafffinds the proposed street buffers comply with all UDC requirements. In addition, all open space areas are shown with trees, sod, and other landscaping in excess of minimum code requirements. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted landscape plans, the Applicant is proposing 6-foot vinyl privacy fencing along the perimeter of the property and the rear lot lines and 5-foot tall wrought iron open vision fencing adjacent to any common open space areas. Both fencing types and their proposed locations comply with UDC standards. L. Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The proposed project is approximately 20 acres in size requiring a minimum amount of open space based on the requested zoning. Per UDC Table 11-3G-3,the R-15 area requires a minimum Page 9 of 15%qualified open space. Per the calculations,the minimum amount of qualified open space required is 3 acres. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is proposing 3.49 acres of qualified open space, exceeding the minimum amount required. The proposed 3.49 acres equates to approximately 17.45%qualified open space. The qualified open space proposed a. Enhanced landscaping as set forth in Article 11-313,Landscaping Requirements; consists of%2 of the arterial street h. Multi-use pathways; buffer to Locust Grove, the full c. Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; collector street buffer to Via Roberto, d. Enhanced context with the surroundings. the large central open space area, and the smaller common open space area along the southeast boundary. However, Staff is not sure if the landscape buffers to the adjacent public streets meet the enhanced buffer requirements outlined in UDC 11-3G-3B.3 to count towards the open space. Previously, these areas automatically qualified towards the minimum open space but this is no longer the case with the latest open space code updates that desires for more than the minimum to be included within the required buffers in order to count towards the overall qualified open space for a project. The Applicant appears to comply with the first two points outlined in code but may not comply with the last two points: enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; and, enhanced context with the surroundings. Staff recommends the Applicant provide evidence these buffers are enhanced beyond the pathway, trees, and grasses. For example, boulders, additional vegetation, decorative elements, decorative fence/walls, additional micro pathways, etc. The burden of proof for the proposed common open space to qualify falls on the Applicant and not on Staff. If these buffers do not count towards the minimum qualified open space, approximately I acre of land must be removed from the calculation leaving approximately 2.5 acres of qualified open space which does not comply with the minimum qualified open space requirement. Therefore, the Applicant should provide evidence that the proposed street buffers are qualified open space prior to the Commission hearing OR apply for Alternative Compliance to reduce the amount of qualified open space required due to the project's proximity to Discovery Park to the northeast. The centralized open space area is depicted with playground equipment, a gazebo with picnic benches, and multiple seating areas all connected to the surrounding local streets via 5-foot wide micro pathways. Staff supports the design of the central open space area. As discussed within the Comprehensive Plan section above, the other common open space area (Lot 30, Block 2) is approximately 9,300 square feet in size and is tucked behind multiple building lots. Staff does not have concern with the size of this open space lot but is concerned with its location being a remnant piece and tucked away. Because of these concerns, Staff recommends the adjacent Lot 29, Block 2 be removed and added to the open space lot to increase the visibility of this open space area and include an additional micro path connection to the southeast boundary. UDC 11-3G-4 dictates the minimum amenity points required for projects over 5 acres in size. The project size of 20 acres requires a minimum of four(4) amenity points(1 point for every 5 acres). According to the submitted plans and narrative,the Applicant is proposing the following qualifying amenities: picnic area,playground, a water feature(fountain), and two segments of multi-use pathway equaling approximately'/z mile in length. According to UDC Table 11-3G-4, the proposed amenities amount to eleven(11)amenity points and exceed the minimum amenity point requirements for a project of this size. Staff finds the proposed amenities within this development are sufficient due to the size of the property,their proposed locations within the development,the pedestrian connectivity within the project and to and from the nearby regional park, and because of the general proximity to Discovery Park to the northeast that offers Page 10 additional recreational opportunities for fixture residents of this project and in this general area of the City. M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): According to GIS imagery,there is an open irrigation ditch that runs along the shared north boundary of this site and the Apex Southeast Subdivision to the north. It is not a labeled ditch on the City's GIS and it can be presumed it is being tiled and relocated as part of the construction of Via Roberto Lane by the adjacent developer,Brighton. This Applicant is also required to comply with UDC 11-3A-6 and ensure this irrigation facility along the north boundary is tiled or relocated. N. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): The Applicant is proposing and is required to extend necessary public utilities for the proposed project. 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. However, it should be noted that both water and sewer services must be provided to this development through the adjacent development to the north(Apex Southeast) and are currently not available. 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 11 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps i5G IDAHO 9955 W Emerald St SURVEY Boise,ID 83704 GROUP Phone: (208)846-8570 Fax: (208)884-5399 Hadler Subdivision Annexation Description Project Number 21-360 July 13,2022 Lot 1,Block 1 of Rescue Ranch Subdivision(Book 106 of Plats at Pages 14734 through 14736, records of Ada County,Idaho),and a portion of the adjacent public right-of-way of S.Locust Grove Road,situated in the north half of the southwest quarter of Section 5,Township 2 North, Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at southwest corner of Section 5,Township 2 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian; Thence NOD"04'42"W,2655.92 feet to the west quarter-section corner of Section 5,the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence$89"52'50"E,37,00 feet along the east-west centerline of Section 5 to the east line of S.Locust Grove Road and the northwest corner of Lot 1; Thence continuing S89°52'50"E,1618.16 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence S00°04'42"E,335.88 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence 12.01 feet on a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 225.00 feet,a central angle of 03"03'27",a chord bearing of N88"20'52"W,and a chord length of 12.01 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence N89°52'36"W,313.32 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence 143.71 feet on a curve to the left having a radius of 125.00 feet,a central angle of 65"52'19",a chord bearing of S57°11'14"W,and a chord length of 135.93 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence S24°15'05"W,307.54 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence 75.80 feet on a curve to the right having a radius of 50.00 feet,a central angle of 86"51'39",a chord bearing of S67"40'54"W,and a chord length of 68.75 feet along the boundary of Lot 1; Thence N68°53116"w,342.09 feet along the boundary of Lot 1, Thence N89°52'36"W,669,21 feet along the boundary of Lot 1 to the east right-of-way line of S.Locust Grove Road; Thence S89°55'18"W,37.00 feet to the west line of Section 5; Thence N00°04'42"W,593,86 feet along the west line of Section 5 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. ��15 The above-described parcel contains 20.51 acres,more or less. � p 0 13 4 �� re 0 ygft S `3� Page 12 3.6-�>aoos e ) y » 0 c ( 0 \ » ® k r j ® - \ - } § &- G ` ® z ® _ [ ! / / < ! / \ K § ( a a ' ! / 2 � � j $ /s�2 j k iE ! .sZ j § } CD 0 - % { I ! - s § ± 00. \ � \@ a / % % \ 2 ° : \}\ (A ! CD 3 r< n j 2 o ` * « o ) L \ O $ Z) \ � � \ U o ! ❑ m O / 2 \ � - / z k w / 0 � � 5 / gtn ƒ \ ( e = 3 cn - in --- '9 9® (.� m ° 2 - �w $� eeaRmga . _ » ~� / ® ® _ ® vi ^ zegQgz ¥3#*ao y ^ b SbUIJDGq Q msoe \ Page 13 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 10/18/2022) ��• � � r` IY � iv i� p' i� ,fl�' III� �' e�. s_�,_ � sv :v =v � _, v� __ �� _� _S _i ..i ..i _' `ems i vZ. X. Sal ` �= iv I— i i—i—i i i— — — -- - ---•-- •---- Page 15 C. Landscape Plans(date: 7/29/2022) E—H-H. HAD LE R SU BD I V I S I ON wren¢ Lv MERIDIAN, ID PRELIMINARY FLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 Page 16 d . ," i- A, o , w H A D L E R SUBDIVISION fVLT 29,3032 JENS.E NAA BlLTS Assoc qh5 MERIDIAN, ID PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 Page 17 t' -� s - i t O y O �n—icxyosEwaP,��-_�. 7 CO a a C r +I W Q Z W UJ PLANT SALE-TE NOT_F. - wre sn o-3crurnrn - .H yry, I� LANDSCAPE ,,.PLAN KEY MAP L1 I k r IEISSIB�N�I! F a �. } Z W d � U Lu � O PANT PALETTE m I 14) 14. �I Y LANDSCAPE - [ - - KEY MAP L2 Page 18 D. Open Space Exhibit: I j ��•�u .. ... .. ... .E.H6 iH r „ - - ------ - - - ---------- - - 1:: :r - -- --- -- - jil 1 - L JR, �. �X r i i i Page 19 E. Phasing Plan: I I etaac�a-o w. !I q� ._,.: :-sn.-,IDS• ,i I -g r.ylllMF�GfiF q._ _—_ _ _— _— h'Ua:_r I I- d:��-nr�.w•u-�n�,n.v»�s.wsgywi�^�-rw•..s.rn..iw..iwv_ .�e�-.�-.y_,1��srrw,�.w.a«r_.� ,-ti-..._•,--...-�rw...-+ce+�ra+.s . I LLLLL Hil ~�r PHASE 1 PHASE 2 -,z Z it I; � ���..ea, ,'�:,�.•����„_�.�. p�,�,� .:�,-' . � �1,,;::, I: E 1 Page 20 F. Common Drive Exhibits: I FUTURE E.VIA ROBERTO I.N. a l: ZERO SETBACK LOT LINE SETBACK LINE LOT LINE (TYPICAL) (TYPICAL) (TYPICAL) - S -- -- — -----, ---- — I° ,t 3.00, 3.00' 3.00, Psl O 3.00' 3,00' BLOCK 1 15 14 13 12 11 10 BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING •,•1. ORIENTATION ORIENTA71ON ORIENTATION l .Ia DRIVEWAY [TYPICAL) ---- e0 Lcc BLOCK 1 0 o r• _ _ VJ w C] IL 01 16 DRIVEWAY / W.VANTAGE POINTE DR. 1z.00'll 0 17 -. azo.00 / BUILDING E ORIENTATION 20.00 , BLOCK 4 BLOCK 1 I I E 18 14 1 2 3 c 0 0 s M , I , I� _1 NONTH 40 20 0 40 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET PROJECT NO 21-0701-HADL D N DRIVEWAY DES ES IGNED By Br HADLER SUBDIVISION CIVIL INNOVATIONS,PLLC E DRAWN By BT MERIDIAN,IDAHO 1043 E.PARK BLw STE 100 CHECKED BY BT BOISE,ID B3712 ISSUE DATE 07/21/2022 PHONE.(208)864-8181 SCALE ASSHOWN SHARED DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT SHEET 1 OF Page 21 ` 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I �� --r -------- ------- I BLOCK 4 I I I 1 a 14 I 53 I I 52 I I 51 r 12.00'I E26 23BUILDING0 s - _ ORIENTATION 0 L__ - ------------ -- ----------- (TYPICAL) I \\ awe 1200'li \ s 24 o I I 2 0.00's 00 I BLOCK 1 I: 1 BUILDING \, W.ORION GREENS DR. .�' ORIENTATION \ - - ea \ 200 \ y I' 12.00'I _ 25 �e,f. o 0 0 SETBACK LINE---. - - ---- ----- --- N - (TYPICAL) - 'n' DRIVEWAY 12.00'li 26 (TYPICAL) r a I ZERO SE(BACK 5 EEEw z li BUILDING o °'o °'o AA F LOT LINE ORIENTATION (TYPICAL) 29 30 31 32 .IT 12.00'I BLOCK a' `I F2.� ' 28 3' 3' L 27 3' 3' - °3'-- —°3-- --°' --- °3— °3 °3 °3— E.CABALLI LN. E1 NORTH 40 20 0 40 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET PROJECT NO, 21-0701-HADL DW°FILE DRIVEWAY DES IGNEDev Br HADLER SUBDIVISION CIVIL INNOVATIONS,PLLC DRAWN BY BT MERIDIAN,IDAHO 1043 E.PARK BLVD STE 100 CHECKED BY BT BOISE.I°B3712 ISSUE DATE 07/21/2022 PHONE.(208)W-6161 SCALE ASSHOWN SHARED DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT www.°�"I---ti°°s.°°m SHEET 1 OF1 Page 22 BLOCK 4 i 200 33 32 s/ 31 30 o� q� ✓r /� 23 �7 / i oQ/ oR�F�1D�ryG 22 —7 � \RIpN � CgEf \SOR oA�FN4'110 �✓ / • ��T/oN 21 i l o i 20 po 2 g oq/� ���/aV 20 mQ� 13 7 i / 5�¢� 14 i 15 / �� DRIVEWAY / 16 / o O (TYPICAL) / m� / / o g, / BLOCK 2 17 S ETBAL LINE o , 18 � (TYPICAL LINE � �^{ � � � LOT LINE \�e (TYPICAL) w CAYQCCI(� i E® NORTH 40 20 0 40 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET PROJECT NO, 21-0701-HADL DW°FILE DRIVEWAY DES IGNEoev Br HADLER SUBDIVISION CIVIL INNOVATIONS,PLLC DRAWN BY BT MERIDIAN,IDAHO 1043 E.PARK BLVD STE 100 CHECKED BY BT BOISE.I°B3712 ISSUE DATE 07/21/2022 PHONE.(208)W-6161 SCALE AS SHOWN SHARED DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT SHEET 1 OF1 Page 23 BuildingG. Conceptual •.La I�,��. ga aka i.i� III�■. H 111 11'111 i 11+III;is �„ I�{ ■ '®a i�Y�. i�l ICI I I �! ! � ii�i�!>�'i�r'! i�li•II•I�I�! spa i� �i �w ��i'rr V■el ■11 �:.■ref'.I fil r ; itw� iFri;racy 7 C t sue■ � =_ ._... I-i;is>t. ....Ise �3r� +�il�l ;��'�r _ IL i JF"6- 1� Page 24 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, common drive exhibits,and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The existing home and outbuildings shall be removed upon phase 1 development, as proposed. c. The rear and/or sides of homes visible from S. Locust Grove and E. Via Roberto Lane (Lots 2-27,Block 1 &Lots 2-24,Block 3) 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 exemptfrom this requirement. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated October 18, 2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Replace Lots 28 &29,Block 2 with an additional stub street to the southeast property boundary for future vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. b. Direct lot access to S. Locust Grove and E.Via Roberto Lane is prohibited except for the emergency access to Locust Grove and the approved access to Via Roberto,in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. c. Add a plat note stating that Lot 23,Block 1 is a non-buildable lot until such time that an additional Fire approved public street connection is provided. d. Consistent with ACHD conditions of approval,provide traffic calming measures along W. Vantage Point Drive to help mitigate its long and straight design. e. Depict the 10-foot pathway along S. Locust Grove to be located within the required 25- foot street buffer and located at least four(4) feet outside of the ultimate ROW to ensure the pathway remains detached, consistent with UDC 11-313-7C.Ia. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated July 29, 2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Revise the landscape plan to match the revisions made to the street section of Vantage Pointe Drive on the latest preliminary plat. Page 25 — b. Make the necessary revisions to the landscape plans to match the plat revisions noted above in VIII.A2. c. Depict the 10-foot pathway along S. Locust Grove to be located within the required 25- foot street buffer and located at least four(4) feet outside of the ultimate ROW to ensure the pathway remains detached, consistent with UDC 11-3B-7C.la. 4. Prior to the Commission hearing,the Applicant shall provide evidence that the proposed street buffers are qualified open space OR apply for Alternative Compliance prior to the City Council hearing to request a reduction to the amount of qualified open space required. 5. Prior to the Commission hearing,the Applicant shall provide a parking exhibit showing available parking within the subject development. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 7. 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. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. The Applicant shall ensure the irrigation ditch along the north boundary is tiled and/or relocated consistent with UDC 11-3A-6 standards. 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. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on each final plat, a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded for the multi-use pathways along S. Locust Grove and E. Via Roberto as required by the Park's Department,unless ACHD requires an easement within their right-of-way. 12. Prior to applying for building permits,Administrative Design Review is required to be submitted and approved by the Planning Division for the proposed single-family attached units. 13. 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. 14. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. Must provide sewer to and through to parcel R7406180010. 2. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 3. There currently are no water mains to the site.Water will be coming from the Apex Southeast Development. 4. Water and sewer in parallel require a minimum 30'easement. Easement width may be greater depending on sewer depth. Page 26 5. Where water ties into existing line in E.Via Roberto Ln two vales are required. 6. As part of Apex Southeast,a 12"water main will be brought to the corner of Locust Grove and Via Roberto Ln. Extend 12"water main down Locust Grove to southern property boundary. 7. A second connection to the 12" water main in Locust Grove is required. The City would prefer this connection be made in E. Cavalli Ln with an easement. 8. Must install water blow-off per SD W 13 at eastern boundary along Vantage Pointe Dr. and at the southern boundary at Steeple Ave. See changemarks on sheet PE.200 for additional details. 9. At,the corner of Cadence Ave and Orion Greens Drive,the water mains have multiple odd bends;remove unnecessary bends in said water main. 10. Water and sewer at the corner of Zenith Ave and Vantage Pointe needs to be laid out differently. The current configuration adds an extra sewer manhole that isn't needed,multiple water fittings that are not needed, and a sewer service in a common lot when the house access is not from the common lot. See the uploaded"Water and Sewer Comments"pdf for suggestions of a better configuration. 11. Near the common driveway at the southeast corner of the site there is a water service running across a private property that is not being serviced by the meter. The meter should be located in the landscaping area of the common driveway. See changemarks on sheet PE.200. 12. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Atlas Materials Testing& Inspection,there are shallow cemented soils across the site. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. Applicant should adhere to recommendations including the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences. Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system,nor the trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines. 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 11-3B-14A. Page 27 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 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-I 4B. 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 project. Page 28 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. 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 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 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(UDC 11-313-6). 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 11-3A-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.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=275369&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=276691&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC i &Cr=1 Page 29 E. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=275370&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=276388&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity G. MERIDIAN PATHWAYS—CONDITIONS https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=275182&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=278590&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and Zoning(UDC 11-511-3E) 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-15 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-15 zoning district and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare should all conditions of approval be met. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to,school districts; and 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: Page 30 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 general 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 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 31 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation H G20 LLC adler Neighborhood Annexation Route 2016 Annexation AreaAdjacent to City’s Park (Discovery)Adjacent to Regional ServicesAdjacent to City Priority Growth AreaH Progression of Development H Comprehensive Plan 8 Units per Acre -3 Residential Medium Density H Site Plan Area15 Zone –R 17.5% Open Space7.2 U/Ac. 144 Homes20 Ac. H Hadler Neighborhood Characteristics kids in the same schoolDivorced parent, wants to keep Empty NestersYoung ProfessionalsHome Buyer Profile finishes / yardsHigh quality, but low maintenance Smaller, more manageable lotsNeighborhood Characteristics 92 Homes–Edington 212 Homes–Stapleton 102 Homes (Boise)–Moxie Ridge 220 Homes–Verado 189 Homes–Movado 77 Homes–Solterra Similar Developments H Zoning Request Proximity to Discovery ParkComprehensive Plan density7.2 units/acre meets homesfamily -detached singleAllows attached and and dimensional standardside yard setbacks Used for s15 Zone-R H Key Comprehensive Plan Policies The Applicant is proposing regional pathways along its west & north boundaries (2,212 linear feet or nearly ½ mile)•.” (4.04.01A). pathway system“Ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the •screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices.” (3.07.01A). “Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, •and construction.” (2.02.02F). Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design •types throughout the City. (2.01.01G). in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size •present and future residents.” (2.01.02D). that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's variety of housing types “Encourage a •H Pedestrian Connectivity Discovery Park H Project Amenities Adjacent to Discovery ParkRegional Park(1,618 LF)Ave. 10’ regional pathway on Via Roberto (594 LF)Grove Road 10’ regional pathway on Locust PathwaysAttractive landscapingShade structurePlay structuresLarge grass play area Seating benchesEntry water feature(2 Acres)H Qualified Open Space Discovery Park 17.5% Open Space H Home Types H Home Elevations H Summary H exceed City standardsAmenities and open space •services are availablewith growth pattern in area; Annexation is consistent •comprehensive planconsistent with the Proposed density is •in the Meridian marketProduct type that is needed • Condition of Approval H.proposed open spaceenhance the currently and to connectivitypedestrian vehicular and boundary for future southeast property to the a pathway leading open space and stub streetadditional anBlock 2 with 29, s 28 &Replace LotCondition 2.a, as follows:Modify Preliminary Plat •modificationReport with one In agreement with Staff • Thank you H Add your third bullet point here•Add your second bullet point here•Add your first bullet point here• On H street Parking- Utility and Public Services SchoolsCapacityDistrict has Current Kuna School DistrictTransportationGrove 2022.Eagle to Locust –Lanes Lake Hazel widened to 5 October 18, 2022TIS Approved by ACHD, South Fire StationWithin ½ Mile of the New New Fire Station–Time Within the 5 min Response Emergency ServicesAvailablePower and Gas Capacity Capacity AvailableSewer and Water Public UtilitiesH Kuna School District Capacity Kuna School District 10.17.2022 570 Available Student Capacity 409020-971086016607247 H Hadler Student Population H Fewer school age childrenRight sized homes + Older buyer demographic = New Economy–Buyer Demographics Students Per School 151531WASD30.530.561KunaHighMiddle5-K145 Lots Students Per Home 62.43WASD102.7KunaTotalSPH145 Lots W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Alden Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0059) by Dave Yorgason, Tall Timber Consulting, located at 6870 N. Pollard Lane and three (3) parcels to the north and east, directly east of State Highway 16 and south of the Phyllis Canal at the northern edge of the Meridian Area City Impact Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0059 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 24.8 acres of land with a request for the R-4 (20.35 acres) and R-8 (4.45 acres) zoning districts.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 65 building lots and 10 common lots on approximately 21.7 acres of land in the requested zoning districts. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 3, 2022 ITEM # ON A ENDA: 7 PROJECT NAME: Alden Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0059) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name Z-� g c, 2 3 Vd ho-'r f� 4 �x- ...................... 7�, met 6 7 ouh'.0 cot, Awl /> 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 11/3/2022 Legend DATE: 0 Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0059 Alden Ridge Subdivision _ s 1 LOCATION: 6870 N. Pollard Lane and the three(3) parcels to the north and east, directly east of SH 16 and directly south of the Phyllis Canal at the northern edge of the Meridian area of City impact,in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 4N, Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Annexation and Zoning of approximately 24.8 acres of land with a request for the R-4(20.35 acres)and R-8 (4.45 acres)zoning districts and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 65 building lots and 10 common lots on approximately 21.7 acres of land in the requested zoning districts,by Dave Yorgason, Tall Timber Consulting. NOTE: The Applicant has also requested Alternative Compliance to the required landscape buffer requirements adjacent to State Highway 16; the Director has approved this request per the analysis in Section V and the findings in Section IX below. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—24.8 acres; PP—21.7 acres Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR,up to 3 du/ac) Existing Land Uses County residential Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type; 75 total lots—65 residential building lots and 10 bldg./common)) common lots Phasing Plan(#ofphases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units 65 single-family units Density Gross 2.97 du/ac. Pagel Description Details Page Open Space (acres,total Approximately 3.18 acres of open space proposed [%]/buffer/ ualified) ((approximately 14.4% Amenities Four(4) amenities are proposed—swimming pool, picnic area,pathway network, and dog waste stations. Neighborhood meeting date May 26, 2022 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 new local street connections to Pollard Lane,an (Arterial/Collectors/State existing street(partially private and public) at the southwest corner of the Hwy/Local)(Existing and property. Pollard Lane accesses SH 20/26 through a future public road access Proposed) southeast of the site(N. Rustic Oak Way). Access to all proposed homes is shown from new internal local streets. Stub No existing stub streets.Applicant is proposing two stub streets with this Street/Interconnectivity/Cross project; one to the east boundary and one to the southern boundary. Access Existing Road Network No, except Pollard Lane and Old School Lane,private streets. Capital Improvements Meridian North:Bikeway Signage/Community Improvement project is scheduled in the IFYWP Plan/Integrated Five Year to include establishing new bikeway corridors with wayfinding/bikeway signage,from N.Black Cat Road, crossing State Highway 20/26/Chinden Boulevard to N. Long Lake Way Work Plan construction in 2026. Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from McMillan Road to Chinden Boulevard between 2036 and 2040. The intersection of Black Cat Road and Chinden Boulevard/US 20126 is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes on the north leg,5-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2026 and 2030. The intersection of Star Road and Chinden BoulevardIUS 20/26 is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes on the north leg, 5-lanes on the south, 7-lanes east, and 5-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2031 and 2035. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 3.3 miles from Fire Station#5. Station • Fire Response Time The project currently lies outside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. Future development of public roads may assist in reducing response times in this area. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#5 reliability is 85% (above the goal of 80%) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths and turnaround dimensions but requires a secondary emergency access to construct more than 30 homes. Water&Wastewater Page 2 Description Details Page • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions in Section VIII. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 0 Project Location `• �''~_ Low Density ,Yii Residential ?�, s R _ Mixed-Use - interchange - CHIND EN MU-R;G o �,ae ,•,� .O � � YYtlAY Medium'Density - mair I,r Residential � - ECIC _ � � _ f �x W r F r, • _ Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend 0 Project Location 0Project Location RUT R-? ; City Limits R- RU.T R-4 Planned Parcels _ T R-8 .. C-C M1 R-15 C-G C-C R-15 _ s R1 C--C--O �� -- -S ° RUT o RUT -- . Iq R-8 R_4 R 8 } R-4 rn E-2 PR R B R-8 m R-8 R-15 K;R-4. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Dave Yorgason,Tall Timber Consulting— 14254 W. Battenberg Drive, Boise,ID 83713 Page 3 B. Property Owner: Kyle Enzler, Ryenn Holdings,LLC—2610 E. Jasmine Lane,Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/19/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 10/13/2022 Site Posting 10/23/2022 Nextdoor posting 10/13/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancitE.orglcompplan) Low Density Residential(LDR)—This designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. 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 22 acres is located at the northern edge of the Meridian area of city impact(AOCI) and includes four(4) county parcels containing three (3) rural county homes. The largest home located at the northeast corner of the project is proposed to remain while the other two homes are shown to be removed upon development of the site. The subject site abuts SH 16 on its west boundary and the Phyllis Canal along the entire north boundary which limits any connectivity to the north or west. To the east, two county residential parcels exist and will remain with their new access being to the south through an approved development(Pollard Subdivision). South of the subject development is the aforementioned Pollard Subdivision that is zoned R-8 directly abutting the site and C-G south of that; this development was approved as a mixed-use development consisting of residential and flex spacelcommercial uses. The subject property is designated as Low Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with surrounding large lot development to the north and east and is a transition from the mixed-use designations along Chinden/SH2O126 to the south. The Applicant is proposing 65 building lots on approximately 21.7 acres of land which constitutes a gross density of 2.97 units per acre, near the maximum density allowed within the LDR designation. The Applicant is proposing two zoning districts within the development to better transition from the R-8 zoning to the south—R-8 zoning is proposed along only the building lots abutting the south boundary with the remaining area proposed with the R-4 zoning district. The minimum building lot size proposed is approximately 5,500 square feet which exceeds the 4,000 square foot minimum lot size for the R-8 zoning district along the south Page 4 boundary. Within the R-4 area, the minimum building lot size is approximately 8,000 square feet, at the minimum lot size for the zoning district(there are a number of lots along the perimeter of the project that exceed the minimum lot size requirement). To further help transition from the development to the south, the Applicant is proposing a 30 foot wide buffer with a walking path along the entire south boundary; Staff finds this buffer and the proposed zoning designations to be an adequate transition from south to north. The adjacent county parcel to the east is approximately 4.6 acres in size with the home located on the east third of the property, approximately 230 feet from the east property line of this project. In addition, the submitted plat depicts a total of four(4) building lots and a stub street along the east boundary. One of these lots is a large estate lot while the other three comply with the minimum lot sizes of the requested zones. Because of the proposed design and the location of the existing county home, staff finds the proposed site design offers adequate transition to the east. The Phyllis Canal and SH 16 are located wholly outside of the subject project boundary so no direct transition is required as these features are delineations themselves. However, due to the anticipated noise from SH 16, some form of transition and/or buffering should occur along the west boundary.According to the submitted plans, 6 building lots are proposed adjacent to the shared west property boundary with the one remaining home located at the very northeast corner of the site. Code requires a minimum 35'landscape buffer from this project to SH 16 which is shown on the submitted plans. Therefore, the rear lot lines of the proposed homes are no closer than 130 feet to the edge of the pavement for SH 16 and future homes should be even further from the highway after setbacks and building placement are included. Staff finds proposing less lots along this boundary should minimize the number of homes most affected by any noxious effects from the highway. The proposed development is located at the north edge of the City's AOCI with an approved but undeveloped project to its south as its path to annexation and public street access.Access to the site is a main point of discussion and analysis with this project and timing of development is integral to its success because there are currently no public streets constructed to the subject development from existing public roads. There is existing right-of-way(ROW)from the subject OBIIVISIOH ® � YEJHIBIT - — - --- - - ----- — — I ------------- o 0 0 o Page 5 site to Chinden but no physical road within the ROW. This will persist until Brighton constructs Waverton east-west through their site and connects to Pollard Lane at the west boundary.According to the Applicant,Alden Ridge will connect to Pollard Lane with Brighton's first phase of development for its required public street access but full construction (curb,gutter, and sidewalk) of the Brighton owned segment of Pollard will not occur until phase 2;phase 1 of Pollard Subdivision has received final plat approval and does not include the noted segment of Pollard Lane(see blue box below): The roads outlined in black in the exhibit above are part of Pollard phase I and have received final plat approval whereas the roads outlined in red would be part of phase 2 and have not received final plat approval.ACHD has stated within their report that they will not approve any final plat for Alden Ridge until a public road(Waverton Drive) is constructed to the project for access(see Exhibit VULH). Therefore, this development is contingent upon the construction of the adjacent project to the south. Commission and Council should determine if development of this project constitutes orderly growth and satisfies the Comprehensive Plan and City code despite being contingent upon another development for access and sewer infrastructure. Staff recommends a DA provision around the timing of development consistent with ACHD and UDC 11-3A-3 for access to the project. Further analysis is below in subsequent sections. 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.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the 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:Ilwww.meridiancity.orglcompplan): 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). Staff finds the proposed design to develop this site with two large estate lots, a majority R-4 development, and a transitional row ofR-8 lots promotes a diverse set of housing options that should meet the needs,preferences and financial capabilities offuture residents. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01G).All public utilities are not currently available for the project site due to its location being at the north rim of the City's AOCT Specifically,Alden Ridge is dependent upon Pollard Subdivision to the south for sewer and public road access. There are anticipated and approved improvements in this area that will provide City sewer to the property with Brighton constructing a lift station with phase I of Pollard Subdivision; water will be provided to the project from Veolia (Suez) Water and not the City of Meridian. In conjunction with the timing of utility development,ACHD has noted they will not approve a final plat for this project without a public road being constructed to the subject site. This future connection should occur with phase I of the Pollard Subdivision to the south where an existing segment of Pollard Lane resides within public ROW and will connect to the new east- west road, W. Waverton Drive. Staff has concerns regarding the construction timeline for the required public road access to Alden Ridge. Staff finds the existing development does not provide for appropriate levels of service for this project but the planned development of the immediate area should create appropriate conditions Page 6 for levels of service to and for this proposed project. Staff has included provisions regarding the timing of this development with the noted and anticipated hurdles. "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 sidewalks within the entire development and extend public roads to adjacent underdeveloped county parcels for future connectivity. There are no nearby schools but the submitted plans show adequate pedestrian access to the proposed open space and amenities within Alden Ridge. Future public road connectivity will also allow for easy and safe pedestrian and vehicular access to commercial development planned along Chinden Boulevard, SH 20126 to the south. Staff anticipates both customer and employment opportunities to be nearby the subject development. "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 new local streets within this development that stub to underdeveloped properties to the east and provide connectivity through the mixed-use project to the south, Pollard Subdivision. However, as discussed, the timing to establish these street connections is not entirely clear due to the project to the south not currently being complete and no existing public road connection to Chinden exists. The Applicant is coordinating with the adjacent developer to the south but the fact remains Alden Ridge development is directly tied to the development of Pollard Subdivision to the south for public road access. For this reason, Staff supports the internal circulation and the proposed stub street locations but has concerns regarding the overall connectivity to nearby roadways and their timing of construction. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but notes the important access deficiencies that exist at this time. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: According to GIS imagery,there are three(3) existing homes and several outbuildings within the project boundary. Staff understands the home located in the northwest corner of the site, located on the proposed Lot 13, Block 1, is to remain while the other two homes and outbuildings will be removed. In addition,there is a private street(W. Old School Lane)that exists along the entire southern boundary and provides access to the two county parcels to the east, 6854 and 5500 W. Old School Lane. According to City GIS imagery, it does not appear that this private lane is within the subject project boundary but has confirmed with the Applicant that it is in fact within the property lines. Further analysis on this is below in the Access section. Located at the southwest corner of the property,there is currently a cul-de-sac for Pollard Lane that was utilized when it was a private street; this cul-de-sac now has public right-of-way over it as it is intended to provide public street access to this development. However,the cul-de-sac and a large area of the existing right-of-way is not needed anymore as the design of this project has shifted to the east to accommodate a future Veolia(Suez)Water well site(Lot 5,Block 1)where the cul-de-sac is currently located. The remaining area of the right-of-way that is no longer needed will be vacated at a later date with ACHD; the Applicant should provide the City proof that the right-of-way has been vacated with the submittal of the first final plat application. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family residential with a minimum lot size of approximately 5,500 square feet and an average lot size of approximately 6,000 square feet,based on the submitted plat(Exhibit VII.B). This use is a permitted use in the requested R-4 and R-8 zoning Page 7 districts per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The Applicant has noted the development is expected to develop in two phases with a majority of the development occurring within phase 1 (48 lots in phase 1 and 17 in phase 2). Staff supports the proposed phasing plan because it includes a majority of the open space,pedestrian and vehicular connectivity, and both zoning designations. No common driveways or alleys are proposed within this development. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The residential lots are shown to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. All lots are shown to meet the minimum lot size and minimum street frontage requirements for each zone. In fact,nearly all of the lots within the subdivision are proposed to be larger than the minimum lot size and with at least 10 more feet of frontage than code requires for each zone. For example,the R-8 lots are shown with at least 50 feet of frontage (40 feet is required) and the R-4 lots are shown with at least 70 feet of frontage, except one lot that is proposed with 65 feet of frontage (60 feet is required). In addition,the subject development appears to comply with all Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards outlined in UDC 11-6C-3. 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 design variations of both farmhouse and modern style homes. The homes are depicted with varying roof profiles, building materials, and window designs.All of the images depict some form of side-loaded garages which allows the streetscape to include more building fagade instead of being garage dominated. Overall, Staff finds the submitted elevations to show high quality and attractive detached single- family homes. However, there is concern the submitted conceptual elevations depict homes that will not fit on the R-8 lots so Staff is requesting additional elevations that are confirmed to fit on the proposed R-8 lots. Page 8 G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): As discussed within the Comprehensive Plan section above, access to the subject site is concern of Staff due to the required timing component and the fact the subject development is wholly dependent upon development of Pollard Subdivision to the south. Existing ROW exists from Chinden to the southwest corner of Alden Ridge via a small segment of Pollard Lane(a previous private lane)but most of this ROW does not include any road at this time. Pollard Subdivision No. 1 is approved and will include the extension of W.Waverton Drive from the east within Fairbourne Subdivision. The below image depicts the ROW(shown in pink)versus the actual location of the existing roadways (gray asphalt)with the overlay of the planned improvements (burgundy lines): CY- B ofirdk cone l � w nk,HnNU Fay oR `3, 3 Wcarvas ry 1 - WWAVERION NR ® W:CHIHr_R.,FYBLVC----- 'w3 Once Waverton is constructed with Pollard Subdivision No. 1,ACHD will approve the phase 1 final plat for this development, according to their staff report. Beyond the noted access from off-site, access for the development is proposed via a new local street(shown as W. Scoria Court)connection to Pollard Lane at the southwest corner of the property. All building lot access is proposed to internal local streets shown as 33 feet wide within 47 feet of ROW, consistent with ACHD standards. Further,two stub streets are proposed; one to the east property line and one to the south property line. The stub street along the south property line is planned to be extended by Pollard No. 2 in the future but will be constructed as a temporary secondary emergency access from Waverton to the new local street with phase 1 of the subject development. This secondary access is required by the Meridian Fire Department in order to construct more than 30 homes. The stub street to the east property line will be extended in the future should the adjacent underdeveloped county parcels ever redevelop. In addition to access for the properties within the subject application,W. Old School Lane is also the access to the two county properties east of the subject site. The Applicant has shown an alternative access for these properties by maintaining a portion of Old School Lane along the Page 9 south boundary that connects to the proposed stub street to the south boundary;this access is proposed to remain until such time that phase 2 of Pollard Subdivision develops to the south and constructs a public road to the east terminus of Old School Lane as their permanent access, as approved with the Pollard Lane Subdivision preliminary plat. All of these improvements are noted within the access exhibit in Exhibit VII.D below. 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 the internal streets are proposed as a 33-foot wide street sections. Further, due to the relatively low density and wide building lots,there should not be number of driveways placed close together that limit on-street parking typically seen within higher density developments. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): A combination of 5-foot wide attached and detached sidewalks are proposed along the internal local streets consistent with UDC and ACHD requirements.No multi-use regional pathways are required or proposed within the development as the Phyllis canal along the north property line is not located within the project boundary. The Applicant is also proposing micro-paths throughout the site for access to the proposed open spaces and Staff specifically notes their inclusion within linear open space along the south boundary as well as within between the row of homes in Block 2 that runs north-south and adds a pedestrian loop between two local streets. The proposed sidewalks and micro-paths comply with UDC standards; therefore, Staff is supportive of the proposed pedestrian network of Alden Ridge Subdivision. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): There are no collector or arterial streets adjacent to the subject development so no street buffers are required that are typical in most subdivisions. However, a portion of the west project boundary abuts ITD right-of-way for SH 16 and requires a 35-foot landscape buffer per UDC 11- 2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district as it is depicted as an entryway corridor(no portion of the R-8 lots abut this right-of-way). The required buffer should be landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C and UDC 11-3H-4 because it is adjacent to a state highway. In addition,all landscape areas should be landscaped per UDC 11-3B-5,the 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 the west boundary that is 20 feet in width and does not comply with the required width of 35 feet. Due to the existing location of the home and mature trees, a required easement by the water company along the rear of the building lots, and the relative limited number of homes along the highway (6 building lots), the Applicant has requested Alternative Compliance (ALT) to the location of the buffer and its required width on the subject property—the Applicant is not requesting to reduce the actual buffer width but to shift it over the west property line so that 20 feet is on the subject property and 20 feet is within the ITD right-of-way.According to the submitted narrative, the Applicant states that ITD has approved the inclusion of landscaping within their ROW as they have excess area that will not be used for future road widening. In addition, ITD has included additional requirements surrounding the approval of the proposed buffer location;for example, the requirement for ITD to be able to access any SH 16 landscape areas from within the subdivision and not along the highway for safer access. Staff is supportive of this request because the actual buffer width Page 10 proposed is S feet larger than the minimum requirement, it will allow for existing mature vegetation to remain, and allow for a wider berm and more dense landscaping to be placed along this frontage offering more noise and fume mitigation than if the buffer was solely on the subject property. Specific ALT findings can be found in the findings section of this staff report, see Section IX. As discussed above, the required 35 foot landscape buffer is due to the SH 16 frontage being an entryway corridor. Per UDC 11-3B-7C.31 entry way corridors require additional landscape design than typical landscaping. For example, additional vegetative ground cover beyond that of grasses and additional landscape features are required to meet UDC standards. Landscape features may include berms at a three-foot minimum height, decorative landscape walls, decorative open vision fencing, or a dry creek design with river rock, boulders, etc. are acceptable to meet this standard. The Applicant is proposing trees in excess of code with the combination of a berm and wall but there is no exhibit depicting the style of the wall and no other elevated landscape features are proposed. In order to comply with the entryway corridor standards, the Applicant should add additional features as outlined above; Staff has included a condition of approval to comply with this standard. 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 sod throughout; additional vegetative ground cover is required in accord with UDC 11-3B-12. The Applicant should revise the landscape plans to depict the required revisions with the relevant final plat applications. The Applicant is also proposing a relatively short segment of parkways near the north end of the site in front of Lots 14-22, Block 1. According to the submitted landscape plans, the proposed parkway includes one tree per lot and is 8 feet wide, consistent with UDC requirements. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted landscape plans, the Applicant is proposing two types offencing throughout the site, vinyl privacy fencing and vinyl semi privacy fencing, in addition to proposing a masonry wall at the top of the berm along the west boundary adjacent to SH 16. Staff finds the locations of all of the proposed fencing to comply with UDC requirements. However, the type of semi private vinyl fencing shown within the submitted landscape plans do not comply with the exhibits depicted with the UDC that requires the solid portion to be no more than 4 feet in height and the top 2 feet must be at least 80%open-vision. The Applicant is required to revise this type of fencing shown on the submitted plans with future final plat applications. In addition, the Applicant is proposing a berm/wall combination along the SH 16 frontage at the northwest property boundary and notes the wall to be approximately 4 feet in height with a 4-foot to 5-foot tall berm; therefore, the combined height of the berm/wall is approximately 8-9 feet in height. UDC 11-3H-4, development along state highways, is applicable in this area of the project because of the frontage with SH 16. Code requires the berm/wall combination to be a minimum of 10 feet above the centerline of the highway. Therefore, the applicant should revise the height of the proposed berm and wall to comply with the UDC. Page 11 L. Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The proposed project is approximately 21.7 acres in size requiring a minimum amount of open space based on the requested zoning. Per UDC Table 11-3G-3,the R-4 area requires a minimum of 12%qualified open space and the R-8 are requires a minimum of 15%open space. Because both zones are located within the same project, it is anticipated all of the open space is to be shared and the total open space required is based on the calculations of combining the minimum required. Per the calculations,the minimum amount of qualified open space required is 2.77 acres, approximately 120,661 square feet. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is proposing 4.1 acres of common open space with 3.18 acres of this area as qualified open space, exceeding the minimum amount required. The proposed 3.18 acres equates to approximately 14.4%qualified open space for the overall project. There are three main open space areas proposed within Alden Ridge, the centralized common open space area, the linear open space along the southern boundary, and the linear open space in the west half of the site with Block 2. The large central open space area is approximately 52,000 square feet in size and is the largest common area within the project. The Applicant has proposed multiple micro paths throughout this open space for easy pedestrian access. The linear open space along the southern boundary is approximately 30 feet in width and over 1,000 feet in length. This linear open space is shown with trees and a micro path for an added pedestrian element and will also act as a buffer between this project and the project to the south, Pollard Subdivision, that is approved with higher density housing than what is being requested with Alden Ridge. The other areas noted as qualified open space include half of the buffer area to SH 16 and a portion of the future well site lot at the southwest corner of the project that is at least 5,000 square feet in size. Both of these areas are allowed to count towards the qualified open space per the UDC. Because of the pedestrian connectivity and the general locations and uses of the open space, staff supports the proposed qualified open space. UDC 11-3G-4 dictates the minimum amenity points required for projects over 5 acres in size. The project size of 21.7 acres requires a minimum of four(4) amenity points (1 point for every 5 acres). According to the submitted plans and narrative,the Applicant is proposing the following amenities worth 9 amenity points: a picnic area(2),pathways (2),two dog waste stations (1), and a swimming pool(4). According to UDC Table 11-3G-4,the proposed amenities and their point value is correct and exceed UDC requirements for a project of this size. Consistent with the overall design of the open space, the Applicant has proposed to place the swimming pool with changing facilities and a picnic area near each other and within the large centralized open space lot, Lot 13, Block 3. The two dog waste stations are located in separate areas of the site for ease of access to both the east and west half of the project. Lastly, the proposed micro paths are located throughout the development and add multiple pedestrian connections through the project that are not located adjacent to the street. Based on the proposed site design and zoning, Staff supports the proposed amenities. M. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): The Applicant is proposing and is required to extend sanitary sewer services to adjacent parcels to the east for future connectivity.No other connectivity options are available due to the Phyllis Canal located along the entire north property line and a segment of SH 16 along a portion of the west boundary. Water service for this project will be provided by Veolia(Suez)Water and not the City of Meridian. Public Works has reviewed the subject plans 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. Page 12 As discussed throughout this report, sewer service for this development is not yet available and must be provided to this site via construction of the adjacent development to the south, Pollard Subdivision. Further, a lift station is also required to service this area for both Pollard Subdivision and this subject development,Alden Ridge. In short, the subject development is wholly contingent upon the construction and completion of the adjacent project to the south. 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 13 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps: .,ACCURATE SURVEYING I MAPPING sEq y 0 Job No.22-197 Annexation Description A parcel of land lying in the Southwest Quarter of Section 21,Township 4 North,Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the found 2 inch aluminum cap monument in asphalt at quarter corner common to Sections 21 and 28,T 4 N,R 1 W from which the found 2 inch aluminum cap monument in asphalt at the corner common to Sections 20,21,28 and 29,T 4 N,R 1 W,bears N 89'27' 17"W a distance of 2609.48 feet;thence N 89'27' 17"W along the section line for a distance of 1304.74 feet to the west sixteenth comer common to Sections 21 and 28;thence N 00'34'56"E along the sixteenth line for a distance of 1317.29 feet to a found 518"'inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463 at the southwest sixteenth corner of Section 21 and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 89'27' 18"W for a distance of 25.00 feet to the centerline of N.Pollard Lane; Thence N 00'29' t3"E along said centerline for a distance of 365.15 feet; Thence N 89'30'47"W along said centerline for a distance of 33.33 feet; Thence S 83'33'30"W along said centerline for a distance of 55.00 feet; Thence S 85'48'43"W along said centerline for a distance of 36.25 feet to a found aluminum cap monument on the southeasterly right-of-way of State Highway 16; Thence N 68'56'21"W for a distance of 155.65 feet to the centerline of State Highway 16; Thence along said centerline 770.84 feet along a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 10,000.00 feet,a central angle of 4°25'00"and a long chord bearing N 28'30'55"E a distance of 770.65 feet; Thence S 60°34'55"E for a distance of 158.30 feet to a found 4 inch brass cap monument on the southwesterly line of the Phyllis Canal; Thence along said line the following 8 courses and distances: 1.) along a curve to the right 60.81 feet,said curve having a radius of 340.00 feet,a central angle of 10'14'52"and a long chord bearing S 74'09'59"E a distance of 60.73 feet to a found 5/8'inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; 2.) S 670 00'00"E for a distance of 244.90 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; 1 1520 W.Washington St.,Boise,ID 63702•Phone:208-488.4227 www.accu ratesurveyors.com Page 14 Tee 6 ACCURATE SURVEYING & MAPPIN8s �� t s fR Y t 0, Job No.22-197 3.) S 67-00'46"E for a distance of 47.31 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; 4.) S 61°59' 06"E for a distance of 202.70 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 5710; 5.) S 53-06'27"E for a distance of 109.48 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 5710; 6.) S 52°52'46"E for a distance of 107.17 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 5710; 7.) S 66°52'05"E for a distance of t84.95 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 5710; 8.) S 70°40'30"E for a distance of 112.43 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 5710; Thence S 00"31'50"W for a distance of 557.08 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 5710; Thence N 89°27' 18"W along the sixteenth line for a distance of 1164.95 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 24.802 acres,more or less. 11463 w �,,5•l3•T,Z-� ID 2 1520 W.Washington 5t., Boise, ID 83702=Phone:208-488-4227 www.accuratesurveyors.com Page 15 / EXHIBIT MAP ANNEXA TION �s 4y3 LYING WITHIN THE SW 114 OF SECTION 21, T.4N., R.IW., B.M. COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO A'S'r .`0 y1� /244.90'E y1 ae3 3\C 9 Pis Pis tltae �`A< LEGEND O 1� �� S6159'O6"E S 6652'05" E ANNEX BOUNDARY SCALE: 1"=300' 4P 202.70' 184.95' —— SECTION LINE / _ — PARCEL LINE S53 E'0$27 ---e/w---R/ry— RIGHT—OF—WAY 109148' ` — CENTERLINE S5252'4fi E FOUND 4' BRASS CAP 1 707.17' 1 TD R/W MONUMENT S70'40'30"E ro 0 FOUND 2" ALUM, CAP MONUMENT L 112.43' STAMPED PLS 6961 3 N 365915 E • FOUND 518"IRON PIN, 3 LABELED PLS 5710, / 24.8211 AC. e OR AS NOTED �� N 892T18" W L CALCULATED POINT / 25.00' I o P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING 0 cv P.O.B.— N 892T18" W 1164.95' y 1 AND 4 SW 1/16 CORNER . PLS 11463 oCTiO 2 N 00'3456"E 1317.29' o� Q FO RNE20 21 1.304.7_4' a 130474'_ 21 11463 29 28 W 1116 — N 8927 17 W 2W09.48' LINE TABLE CORNER HASPS O RLARINc 28 tyC�•13.27- STATE HWY 20126 114 CORNER OF LINE SEARING DISTANCE L1 N 89'30'47" W 33.33' q�AN J.DP�G L2 S 83'33'30" W 55.00' 0 r E * ACCURATE S 85'48'43" W 36.25' ~, � C L4 N 68'56'21" W 155.65' L5 s 60'34'55" E 158.30' w jr SURVEYING & MAPPING ". lny . L6 S 67'00'46' E 47,31' 'r' ''"� 1520 W,Washington St. CURVE TABLE < Boise,Idaho 8 (208)488-4227227 CURVE I ARC LENGTH I RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD SEARING CHORD LENGTH www.accuratesurveyors.com Cl 770.64' 10000.00' 4'25'00" N 28'30'55" E 770.65' DER Y 10E C2 1 60.81' 1 340.00' 1 10'14'52" S 74-09'59" E 60.73 DATE:JUNE,2022 JOB 22-197 mmmma Page 16 A CURATE SURVEYING I MAPPING t sf g y i cE Job No.22-197 Rezone R4 Description A parcel of lying in the Southwest Quarter of Section 21,Township 4 North,Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the found 2 inch aluminum cap monument in asphalt at quarter comer common to Sections 21 and 28,T 4 N,R 1 W from which the found 2 inch aluminum cap monument in asphalt at the corner common to Sections 20,21,28 and 29,T 4 N,R 1 W,bears N 89'27' 17"W a distance of 2609.48 feet;thence N 89'27' 17"W along the section line for a distance of 1304.74 feet to the west sixteenth corner common to Sections 21 and 28;thence N 00'34' 56"E along the sixteenth line for a distance of 1317.29 feet to a found 5/8'inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463 at the southwest sixteenth corner of Section 21;thence N 89'27' 18"W for a distance of 25.00 feet to the centerline of N.Pollard Lane;thence N 00'29' 13"E along said centerline for a distance of 163.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGEVNING; Thence N 00'29' 13"E along said centerline for a distance of 202.15 feet; Thence N 89'30'47"W along said centerline for a distance of 33.33 feet; Thence S 83'33' 30"W along said centerline for a distance of 55.00 feet; Thence S 85'48'43"W along said centerline for a distance of 36.25 feet to a found aluminum cap monument on the southeasterly right-of-way of State Highway 16; Thence N 68'56'21"W for a distance of 155.65 feet to the centerline of State Highway 16; Thence along said centerline 770.84 feet along a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 10,000.00 feet,a central angle of 4°25'00"and a long chord bearing N 28'30' 55"E a distance of 770.65 feet; Thence S 600 34' 55"E for a distance of 158.30 feet to a found 4 inch brass cap monument on the southwesterly line of the Phyllis Canal; Thence along said line the following 8 courses and distances: 1.) along a curve to the right 60.81 feet,said curve having a radius of 340.00 feet,a central angle of 10' 14' 52"and a long chord bearing S 74'09' 59"E a distance of 60.73 feet to a found 5/8'inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; 2.) S 67°00'00"E for a distance of 24490 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; 1520 W.Washington St., Boise, ID 83702 Phone:208-488-4227 www.accuratesurveyors.com Ott Fee .,ACCURATE SURVEY€NG & MAPPING t S f R V 4 C E Job No.22-197 3.) S 67°00'46"E for a distance of 47.31 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; 4.) S 61°59' 06"E for a distance of 202.70 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 5710; 5.) S 53°06'27"E for a distance of 109,48 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 5710; 6.) S 52°52'46"E for a distance of 107.17 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 5710; T) S 66°52'05"E for a distance of 184.95 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 5710; 8.) S 70°40' 30"E for a distance of 112.43 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 5710; Thence S 00'31' 50"W for a distance of 394.08 feet; Thence N 89'27' 18"W for a distance of 1190.07 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 20.349 acres,more or less. 4 S 11463 8.23.27�c, ygr�OFtdg C1 2 1520 W.Washington St.,Boise, ID 83702 n Phone:208-488-4227■ www.accuratesurveyors.com EXHIBIT MAR REZONE — R4 <S 463 LYING WI THIN THE SW 114 OF SECTION 21, T.4N., R.1 W., B.M. 5't COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO S6700'00"E /244,90' P45 tiPL53i11p63 LEGEND V k, r� S6159'06 E 5 66 52'05" E REZONE 9OUNDARY SCALE: 1"W300' �P 202.70' 184.95' -- SECTION LINE I _ PARCEL LINE/,I( S5306 27"E � —R/w A/w— R1GNT-OF-WAY 109.48 ` — CENTERLINE L2 S5752'46 E FOUND 4" BRASS CAP 1 107.17' I 3 17D R/W MONUMENT 570'40'30 E _ ® FOUND 2" ALUM, CAP MONUMENT, N0079'13"E 20.3491 AC. E 112.43' 202.15' .qq o STAMPED PLS 8961 or o • FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN, N. POLLARD LN. LABELED PLS 5710, OR 897T A CAL r8"E 1190.07' y C NOTED CULATED POINT P.O.R. POINT OF BEGINNING N 0029'13" E N 89J25r00' W I I 163.00' SW 1/16 CORNER W. OLD SCHOOL LN. PLS 11463 \ G� CORNER N 003456"E 1317.29' L 20 21 1304.74 _ 1304.74' 21 0- 11463 x 29 28 - W 1/1s -—--N 89'27 17 W 2609.48 28 fq-I LLo CORNER BASIS OF SEARING }/4 CORNERS P'� UNE TABLE STATE HWY 20/26 LINE BEARING DISTANCE N VD L1 N 89'30'47" W 33.33' L2 S 83'33'30" W 55.00' L L4 N 68756'21" W 155.65'3 S 85'48'43" W 36.25' Q�`� a Ec�y ACCURATEm L5 S 6Y34'55" E 158.30' .� r SURVEYING & MAPPING L6 S 67'00'46" E 47.31' ' ' '7" 1520 W.Washington St. a Boise,Idaho83702 CURVE TABLE (208)488-42274227 CURVE ARC LENGTH I RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH wwW.accuratesurveyors.com C1 770,84' 10000.00' 4'25'00" N 28'3W55" E 770.55' f fB V I C2 60.81' 340.00' 10'14'52" S 74'09'59" E 60.73' DATE:JUNE,2022 JOB 22-197 Page 19 r ACCURATE SURVEYING $� SURVEYING & MAPPING SFR Y 1 C� Job No.22-197 Rezone R8 Description A parcel of land lying in the Southwest Quarter of Section 21,Township 4 North,Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the found 2 inch aluminum cap monument in asphalt at quarter corner common to Sections 21 and 28,T 4 N,R 1 W from which the found 2 inch aluminum cap monument in asphalt at the corner common to Sections 20,21,28 and 29,T 4 N,R 1 W,bears N 89'27' 17"W a distance of 2609.48 feet;thence N 89'27' 17"W along the section line for a distance of 1304.74 feet to the west sixteenth comer common.to Sections 21 and 28;thence N 00'34' 56"E along the sixteenth line for a distance of 1317.29 feet to a found 5/8 h inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463 at the southwest sixteenth comer of Section 21 and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 89'27' 18"W for a distance of 25.00 feet to the centerline of N.Pollard Lane; Thence N 00'29' 13"E along said centerline for a distance of 163.00 feet; Thence S 89'27' 18"E for a distance of 1190.07 feet; Thence S 00'3 F 50"W for a distance of 163.00 feet to a found 5/8a'inch iron pin with a cap labeled PLS 5710; Thence N 89'27' 18"W along the sixteenth line for a distance of 1164.95 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 4.453 acres,more or less. IS �S 11463 ,nAB•23.2Z� �b ATf OF 4�AIV J.DAB i 1520 W.Washington St., Boise,ID 83702-Phone:208-488-4227■ www.accuratesurveyors.com EXHIBIT MAP REZONE — R8 L YING WI THIN THE SW 114 OF SECTION 21, T.4N., R.1 W., B.M. COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO / -k LEGEND REZONE BOUNDARY SCALE: 1"=300' Q \�\ —— SECTION LINE PARCEL LINE —R/w R/w— RIGHT—OF—WAY CENTERLINE FOUND 4" BRASS CAP ITD R/W MONUMENT FOUND 2"ALUM, CAP MONUMENT, STAMPED PLS 8961 7 �� • FOUNDPBS710,I5 , LABELED OR AS NOTED / / I S 897T18" E 1190.07' CALCULATED POINT L 1 I 4 45s* AC, M F.0.8. POINT OF BEGINNING N 89 2T18' W 1164.95' N. POLLARD LN. Sw/1/16 CORNER NO PLS 11463SECDON \ CORNER N 003456"E 13f7.29' � fic 20 Z 1304.7_4 ___ _ 4.�4' �eI�21 a 11 463 � 29 28 — iv 1/ts — N 89'27 17 W 2609.48'—— —— V 80 (o 1 y•2 CORNER RASIS OF BEARING 1/4 CORNER STATE HWY 20126 OF 9�AN J.D��� LINE TABLE ��, ' rf��� ACCURATE m o LINE BEARING DISTANCE r SURVEYING & MAPPING L1 N 89'27'18" W 25.00' _ m 1520 W.Washington St. L2 N 00'29'13" E 163,00' Boise,Idaho(20 8)488-422 4227 7 L3 S 00'31'50" W 163.00' s fR V 1 GE www.accuratesurveyors.com DATE:JUNE,2022 JOB 22-197 Page 21 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 7/18/2022) T7.1 91 p Ls [N 4 110 7:7 81 J 7 L (=T A—T) NJ H RN 0. NME; ifiWNR 7 1 49M . . . IZ 8 M TO 10 0-11 "'Fi. M �E-11'91'..'Gi�-�"'N; " - -Ii�P '�j . ' ', o z--I XE M z Z P z --I > H VIM, > Z KH —'0' M E- p- M 4 0 0 RUN --i - - - - - - - - - - - ALDEN R11GE Kimley*Horn ARY PLAT MERIDIAN, IDAHO MIN PRELI Page 22 r f � x JAI % nl •I�xf 71. JS 41 ~�r 4. /r u� f Y Imo• r •F�} � � y� � y t F r} ! f+ ��1� v r' q' 110' 114' _ tiF } 3 ti 44 I I,o' _ „8_ _I9 11d' 1 FFFF 146 JI 1 � f �I hd Sy 80• EO' !d Tf Sd' 56 I -ml I �'V ' id-6 7 y I? o I I I I' I I I4� Imo. I a1 u1 I Iq 21 4q �1 �'I •r.1 ''xl Ia•§qma i Lud J w I AO[.LARl7 SilSUNfSfOH F4 iNOTA PAP]) k � Page 23 C. Landscape Plans (date: 7/18/2022) A 6 C 0 E F G H J K L HEFT L1 .1 ' ,y o po, _� SHEET L1 .2 1 17 rr r H, C111 yr 1 1 1 I I � 1 a �. W dL g ❑ I I I � I I I � I T I � I I � I ! I 1 Q I• 1 J � 1 J -- --$-� -- r -- - --� - --�4- -- . ic z SHEET L1 .3 1 SHEET L1 .4 =NJ=======mm m mmmmm mm m mmmmmm m==ram VERALL LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACE PLAN Vo LANDSCAPE SET SHEET INDEX DISCLAIMER: OPEN SPACE LEGEND SEE SHEETS L1.1-L1.4 FOR DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLANS, ` � SEE SHEET L2.0 FOR LANDSCAPE DETAILS. ��vOEAREA �� 12 SEE SHEET L2.1 FOR NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS. ASARES—SO—BECKANCEAR°."—0—U-11—ANY 's''FORfu"T1ON SEE SHEET L3 0 FOR TREE MITIGATION PLAN Page 24 D. Alden Ridge Access Exhibit: 11 f I I ALDEN RIDGE SUBDIVISION - ____� W.WATERTON DRIVE z ;1 4 _ Z U N POLLARD SUBDIVISION s POLLARD SUBDIVISION I I - - - - - - - - - 7 '-v— CHINPEN BOULEVARD =- --- - - f - Kimley)))Horn ALDEN RIDGE SUBDIVISIONSECONDARY Page 25 BuildingE. Conceptual • LM -F ■ y r Page .s {�r ■� ■" EE :EEE �i EI EE VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DiviSION I 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, access exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section V11 and the provisions contained herein. b. Any existing structures shall be removed upon project development, except for those specifically noted within the preliminary plat to remain. c. The existing home shown to remain on Lot 13,Block 1 shall connect to City sewer services with the first phase of development. d. Due to access and sewer availability,phase I development shall not commence until a public road access is available to the site and the required sanitary sewer lift station is constructed by the adjacent development to the south(Pollard Subdivision). e. The Applicant shall relinquish their rights to access W. Old School Lane and provide the Planning Division with written proof of this relinquishment with phase I development and maintain access for 6854 N. Pollard Lane &5500 N. Pollard Lane as depicted on the access exhibit(Exhibit VII.E)until such time their permanent access through Pollard Subdivision is constructed. f. The rear and/or sides of homes visible from SH 16 (Lots 8-12,Block 1) 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 exemptfrom this requirement. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 2. The preliminary plat included in Section Vll.B, dated July 18, 2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. With the first final plat submittal,provide the City written proof that the right-of-way for Pollard Lane has been vacated with ACHD (Lots 5 &6,Block 1). b. 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. Page 29 3. The landscape plan included in Section Vll.C, dated July 18,2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Depict additional vegetative ground cover in all linear open space consistent with UDC 11-3B-12. b. Revise the design of the semi-private open vision fencing proposed to be consistent with Figure 1 in UDC 11-3A-7. c. Per UDC 11-3H-4,revise the height of the berm/wall combination to be at least 10 feet above the centerline of SH 16 and depict this height within the exhibit on the Landscape Plans. 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 I I-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 11-3 C-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 I I- 3A-15,LTDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 9. The Director has approved the Alternative Compliance Request to the landscape street buffer requirements(UDC 11-3B-7). 10. Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review for the pool changing facilities located on Lot 13,Block 3 prior to building permit submittal for this facility. 11. 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. 12. 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 I I-6B-7. 13. Prior to the City Council hearing, submit conceptual building elevations for the R-8 building lots. 14. The submitted R-4&R-8 zoning legal descriptions and exhibit maps are mislabeled as Rezone exhibits;prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall provide revised legal descriptions and exhibit maps noting these to be"Zoning"instead of"Rezone." B. PUBLIC WORKS SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. Subject to the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer reimbursement agreement. 2. Area requires Pollard Lift Station and force main before area can be serviced. Page 30 3. Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls, fences,infiltration trenches, light poles, etc.)are built within the utility easement. 4. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 5. Water serviced by Suez and not the City. 6. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Atlas Materials Testing& Inspection. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. This includes,the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences. In addition,rain gutters should be placed around all sides of residences, and backfill around stem walls, should be placed and compacted in a controlled manner. 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 I I-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 LTDC I 1-313-14A. 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 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 Page 31 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 I I-5C-3 C. 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 I I-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 project. 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. 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 I"map with bearings and distances Page 32 (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(UDC 11-3 B-6). 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 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT ht(ps:11weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinklDoc View.as x?id=273989&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianC p Lty D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES hqps:11weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinklDoc View.ay x?id=274704&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianC p Lty E. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridiancio�.ofglWebLinkIDocView.g,y x?id=274066&dbid=O&roo=MeridianC ,_p ity F. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridiancio�.ofglWebLinkIDocView.g,,Ypx?id=274280&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianC Lty G. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinklDoc View.g,,ypx?id=2 75949&dbid=0&Cpo=MeridianC Lty Page33 H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) h t�gs:llweb lin k.m eridia n c i V.o Ly_lWe U in klDo c View.y�px?id=2 782 4 7&db id=0&ro o=Meridian C Lty 1. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancity.ory_lWebLinklDoc View.y,�px?id=2 77898&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC Lty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and Zoning(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-4&R-8 zoning districts with the proposedpreliminary 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; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment and the requestfor the development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested R-4&R-8 zoning districts and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds theproposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to thepublic health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery ofservices by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the annexation is in the best interest of the City, if all conditions of approval are met. 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 theproposedplat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Page 34 Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this reportfor more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds thatpublic services will beprovided to the subjectproperty with development. (See Section VIII of the StaffReportfor more detailsfrom public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Stafffinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon commentsfrom thepublic serviceproviders(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VIIIfor more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware ofany health, safety, or environmentalproblems associated with the platting of this property. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware ofany significant natural,scenic or historicfeatures that exist on this site that require preserving. C. Alternative Compliance findings(Landscape buffers along streets UDC 11-313-7): The Director has approved your request for alternative compliance to Unified Development Code (UDQ 11-3B-7 for the subject property,based on the required Findings listed in UDC 11-5B-5E, as follows: I. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The Directorfinds it is feasible to meet the UDC requirementfor the location of the required street buffer but Stafffinds it may not be the ideal situation when allparameters are considered (location of the existing home and mature trees that are to remain, a required easement by the water company along the rear of the building lots, and the relative limited number of homes along the highway, 6 building lots). 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and Per the analysis above in section V, the Directorfinds the proposed alternative will be equal or superior to the code requirement because the actual buffer width proposed is 5feet larger than the minimum requirement, it will allowfor existing mature vegetation to remain, and the proposed buffer location allows for a wider berm and more dense landscaping to be placed along thisf-ontage offering more noise andfume mitigation than ifthe buffer was solely on the subject property. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. Page 35 The Directorfinds that the alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public weffiare or impair the intended use andlor character ofsurrounding residential properties if the proposed conditions ofapproval are maintained. Page 36 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Meridian Planning & Zoning CommissionNovember 3, 2022 •Staff Report•Application Details•Introduce Site •20/26ChindenLocated NE of HWY 16 & •Approx. 22 acres •Staff is supportive•Adjacent to recently approved development•Total density within the range allowed in Low Density Residential •Transition to the south•8 with 2.97 du per acre 4 & RRequesting mix zoning R•Comp Plan is Low Density Residential •Contiguous to Meridian City limits •Quality amenitiesGreater amounts of open space & •Transition to the south•Developed in 2 phases•family detached homes Single•65 total residential units 1.Usable open park7.Dog waste stations6.Pathway network5.Picnic area4.Swimming Pool3.9 amenity points (vs. 4 required)2.exceeds required (2.77 A)3.18 acres of open space = 14.4 % •amenities and quality architectureVariety, Quality homes with nice •Single family detached homes •timing for new well siteWater •Questions / Concerns:•Comments: Appreciate the density, transition, quality homes and amenities•Discussions of Support and Neutral•one)onSeveral meetings with neighbors (2 large group and several one•Neighborhood Meetings: Alternative Compliance to HWY 16 bufferto the southDiscuss traffic and access and timing of Brighton’s development Agree with staff report conditions of approval •(needed if more than 30 lots)Waverton2nd access for fire to connect to They agreed to allow us to construct •Coordinated with Brighton to the south•Secondary access for Fire:•: construction to start in December(statement from Brighton)street Waverton•Agree with ACHD’s staff report •We agree with staff’s conditions•Staff supports request•vision buffer will exceed minimum requirement (40 feet)W so actual Agree to provide additional landscaping in ITD R•Commercial use to the south, very limited area for buffer•Preserve mature existing trees and structures for home on north•Landscape buffer required along HWY 16 Request approval as presentedconditions of approvalAgree with the staff report and constructioncomplete prior to us starting All required improvements will be (utilities, access)& Franklin Sensors to the south Closely collaborating with Brighton expansion at Franklin SensorsEnabling additional water for with neighbors working together This is a quality development Thank You Roadway Exhibit C E IDIAN*,----, �vl 11Q. - 11 AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Turin Plaza (H-2022-0063) by 12.15 Design, located at 3169 W. Belltower Dr. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0063 A. Request: Rezone of 1.80 acres of land from the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to the L-O (Limited Office) zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 3, 2022 ITEM # ON AGE�DA: 8 PROJECT NAME: Turin Plaza (H-2022-0063) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) if yes, please provide HOA name 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E C�W, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1,H HEARING November 3,2022 Legend DATE: 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Prciect Luca tor. FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Turin Plaza—RZ, SHP H-2022-0063; SHP-2022-0013 LOCATION: 3169 W. Belltower Dr., in the NW 1/4 of Section 3 5,TAN.,R.1 W. (Parcel #RI079860290) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 1.80 acres of land from the R-4(Medium Low-Density Residential)to the L-O(Limited Office) zoning district; and Short Plat consisting of four(4)building lots on 1.62 acres of land in the proposed L-O zoning district for Turin Plaza Subdivision. 11. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 1.62 acres(Short Plat)& 1.80 acres(Rezone) Future Land Use Designation Office Existing Land Use _ Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Office Current Zoning R-4(Medium Low-Density Residential) Proposed Zoning L-O(Limited Office) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 4 building lots PM Phasing plan(#of phases) NA(not proposed to be phased) Number of Residential Units(type 0 of units) Density(gross&net) NA Open Space(acres,total[%] NA buffer/qualified) Amenities NA Physical Features(waterways, NA hazards,flood plain,hillside) Page 1 Neighborhood meeting 7/11/22 date History(previous Lot 2,Block 6,Bridgetower Crossing Sub.2;AZ-0 1-003 (Ord.#0 1-93 0),DA Inst. approvals) #101117652. B. Community Metric Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires No ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) • Existing N. Ten Mile Rd.,an arterial street runs along the street buffer on the west side of this property. Conditions • CIP/IFYWP Access(Arterial/Collectors/State A backage road exists along the east boundary of the site for access via W. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Belltower Dr., a residential collector street. Proposed Road Improvements None proposed,none required. Fire Service No comments received. Police Service ATo comments received. West Ada School District No comments received. Distance(elem,ms,hs) Capacity of Schools #of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Sewer is available to the east. • Sewer Shed • Estimated Project Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance • Project Consistent with WW Ycs Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concems Water • Distance to Services Water is stubbed to the site. • Pressure Zone • Estimated Project Water ERU's • Water Quality Concerns • Project Consistent with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concems Page 2 ft r MCMILLA 1.4 Cm I�L' 41 rail RZ r Y mill in mill PI 71q LU IF _d loom MI loll A Lu I F -�4 NINE , NINO loll mill.immummul 01 r T.. zz rail III mill mw Olin all all mono .r IIIINI I In" IN W mill MEN IN I IMI: "'m...moms IIIIIIIIIN I . 1 11 1 in,1111 i.1. I son no No on "No IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification 10/19/2022 published in newspaper Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 10/13/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 10/20/2022 on site Nextdoor posting 10/13/2022 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Office on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation will provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. These uses would include professional offices,technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses may be considered(particularly within research and development centers or technological parks). Sample zoning include L-0. The subject property is an enclave in the City surrounded by office and residentially developed properties. The Applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from the R-4(Medium Low-Density Residential)to the L-O(Limited Office)zoning district and re-subdivide the property into four(4)building lots for the development of four(4) 3,550 to 3,600 square foot office buildings, consistent with the Office FLUM designation for this property. TRANSPORTATION: The Master Street Map(MSM)does not depict any collector streets across this property. A collector street,W. Belltower Dr., exists to the north for access via N. Ten Mile Rd.; a backage road from Belltower provides access to the subject property. Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "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 has been stubbed to this lot and is available to be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The site design for the proposed development should be compatible with the adjacent office uses to the north and the senior living center to the south.A backage road exists along the east boundary of the site and a 50-foot wide landscape buffer exists on the east side of the backage road with sight- obscuringfencing which provides screeningfor adjacent single-family residential uses to the east, which should reduce conflicts. • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities, irrespective of existing development." (2.02.02C) The proposed infill development should be consistent with existing adjacent uses and shouldn't Page 4 negatively impact adjacent properties. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.0 1 D) With lot development, a pedestrian connection should be providedfrom the sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Rd. to the main building entrances in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4. • "Locate smaller-scale,neighborhood-serving commercial and office use clusters so they complement and provide convenient access from nearby residential areas, limiting access to arterial roadways and multi-modal corridors."(3.07.02B) The proposed office uses are smaller-scale and will have convenient accessfrom nearby residential areas. No access is proposed or approved to N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Development of the subject infillparcel will maximizepublic services. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. REZONE(RZ) The Applicant proposes to rezone 1.80 acres of land from the R-4(Medium Low-Density Residential)to the L-O(Limited Office)zoning district. A legal description and exhibit map for the rezone area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. There is an existing Development Agreement(DA) for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision recorded in 2001 as Instrument No. 1011]7652,that governs future development of this property. It requires the subject property to be rezoned to L-O prior to issuance of any building permits. The Applicant proposes to develop the property with four(4) 3,550 to 3,600 square foot office buildings, consistent with the Office FLUM designation for this property. Professional services,which include,but are not limited to, architects,landscape architects and other design services; graphic designers, consultants,lawyers,media advisors,photography studios, and general offices, are listed as a principal permitted use in the L-O zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the L-O zoning district. This property is an undeveloped enclave that was previously annexed into the City surrounded by developed properties. As noted above in Section V,the proposed development and use of the property should be compatible with the scale and use of adjacent properties. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.Because there is already an existing DA in effect for this property and the proposed development is in compliance with the DA, Staff does not recommend a new DA or changes to the DA with this application.If the Commission and/or City Council would like to tie future development to the conceptual development plan submitted with this application included in Section VIII.B below,an amendment to the DA should be required to do so. B. SHORT PLAT(SHP): The proposed short plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 2,Block 6,Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2, consisting of four(4)building lots on 1.62 acres of land in the proposed L-O zoning district. Each of the four(4)lots are 17,686 square feet in area. Page 5 The existing plat for Bridgetower Crossing No. 2 depicts the following easements applicable to this property: a 35-foot wide landscape easement along N. Ten Mile Rd. with a note prohibiting vehicle access across the easement; a 33-foot wide Idaho Power easement also Long N. Ten Mile Rd.; and a 25- foot wide cross-access and City of Meridian sewer easement along the east boundary of the site where the backage road is located. These easement have been carried over to the proposed plat. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site. There is an existing landscaped street buffer with a detached sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Rd.that was constructed with the subdivision improvements for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2.A backage road exists along the east boundary of this site and adjacent lots to the north and south for access via W. Belltower Dr., a collector street to the north. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the L-0 zoning district,which require a minimum 10-foot interior side setback—the front and rear setbacks are zero (0). Buildings may not encroach within the street buffer along Ten Mile Rd. Changes may be needed to the building placement shown on the conceptual development plan to comply with the side setback standard or lot lines may need to be adjusted accordingly. Access: Access is proposed via an existing backage road along the east boundary of the site from W. Belltower Dr., a collector street to the north, from N. Ten Mile Rd.,an arterial street along the west boundary of the site. Direct access via Ten Mile Rd. is prohibited. A cross-access/cross-parking easement should be granted between all of the proposed lots for internal access from the backage road and because some of the parking for each building appears to be located on adjacent lots; this may be done via a note on the plat. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer exists along N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street,in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-3, as depicted on the plat.No landscaping is proposed with this application. With future development of each lot,parking lot landscaping will be required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Sidewalks(I 1-3A-1 7): A 5-foot wide detached sidewalk exists within the street buffer along N. Ten Mile Rd.,an arterial street. Waterways:No waterways cross this site. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC I I-3A-2 1. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC I I-3A-15. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. A Storm Drainage Master was submitted with this subdivision. Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review: No conceptual building elevations were submitted with this application. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be approved for each of the structures and associated site improvements prior to submittal of building permit applications.All structures shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual.Note: One CZCIDR application could be submittedfor the entire development. Page 6 VII. DECISION A. Staff- Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezone and short plat with the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 7 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map Masc>n ProfessionM Engineers,Land Surveym and Planners 1 924 3-St.&. Nampa 10 83651 AS,5CD�Cla AC,5 lr;r- Ph PS)454-W56 Fax(208)467-4130 c-mal dhoWicya4 riftn4Lg� FOR: McCarter-Moorhousc JOB NO.�MR0622 DATE: August 23,2021 REZONE DESCRIPTION A parcel Df land b6ng all of Lot 2,Block 6,Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No.2 in the Ada County Rmorder's Office in Book86 at Pages 9,641-9643 situaW in the SWV4 NW 1/4 of Section 3 5,Tovmship 4 North,Range I West,Boise Meridian, Meridian,Ada County Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Commencing at(he northwest corner of Secfion 35-. 11hence S 00'52' 50"W.,2630.% feet along the west boundary of the NW114 to the southwest corner of the NW 1/4; 'Mence N 00*52'50"E_218.84 fcct along the west boundary of the NWI/4 the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 00'52' 50"E., 197.62 feet along the west boundary-of the NWIA; I-hence S 81�'07' 10"E.,40.00 feet of Lot 2 to the northwest comer of Lot 2; Thence S 89'07' 10"E_35&Q0 fect along the north boundury of Lot 2 to the northeast comer of Lot 2� Thcricc S OOr'52'5 0"W., 197.62 fed along the cast boundary of Lot 2 to The southeast corner of Lot 2� Thence N 89'07' IV'W.,3 5 8.00 feelt 810TIg the south boundary of Lot 2 to the southwest comer of Lot 2; Thence N 8 9,0 07' 10"W.,40.00 feet to ihc POI NT OF BEG IN NING. This rezone description conWns 1.80 acres more or less� 9? 6 42 ,05 of:%0'� Paw I-of I Page 8 LOT2 BLOCK 6 OFBRIDGETOVVER CROSSiNG Su9DIVISION NO.2 IN THE S W114 NW114 OF SEC TION 35 TO VVNSHIP 4 IVORTH A"COMER RANGE I WEST OF THE SUSE MERUAN ADA COUN TY IDA HO SEC.35 2022 4c I w, C3 m 50'07 WE z 358.00 REZONE f.80AC-p- mw or low 40.W moo wily SEC.m LOr 2 BLOCK 6 8MCCETOWIER ORD&BING SLWDIWWON NO 2 —LEGEND mm, MRM22 wuAQ AWONE Mason Page 9 B. Conceptual Development Plan Tr ---------- -'ffi U _ 11111T I 71 t I ------------------- -------------------- ------------------------4�----7-- ---- M K MM III I I E AdOf III HIT', --IE 0 ii- "a LLI I zu;, 1 002 Page 10 C. Short Plat(dated: 8/11/22) 'rUFVIM F-L_A�Z_A allE3E)1V1a1C)M ff.0. LOT Z BLOCK 6,BRIDOETOVER CROSSM SUMVISON NO.Z A PART cr THE sw 1/4 Nw'A sECTION T.% T 4 N,,R� I W,BJw., MERIDIAN,ADA COUN7Y.IDAHO 2022 7,� LWEND 2 IA­ ALI— :b RL'SET W/Z/8'WN pw 0 5/8-P�F& SET 112-X 24-1�M M"N�R ­W­RY LOT OW 17, NE L%M­ PWT OF ARRR4TWE ows=Rb �k Mason '71211=2 SHEET f 3 Page 11 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The short plat shall include the following revisions: a. Note#4: "Lots shall not be reduced in size without prior approval from the health authority-gnd the Ci1y of Meridian." b. Include a note stating all lots within the proposed subdivision are subject to a cross-access/cross- parking easement. c. Include a note prohibiting access via N. Ten Mile Road. 2. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be approved for each of the structures and associated site improvements prior to submittal of building permit applications. All structures shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual.Note: One CZCIDR application may be submittedfor the entire development if desired. 3. Approval of the short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the short plat, as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7A.Upon written request prior to the expiration of the final plat,the Applicant may request an extension of time to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7C. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 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 Page 12 connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.17 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 I-foot above. 2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed Page 13 in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.19 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. 2.20 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public—works.aspx?id=272. 2.21 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. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) hqps:11weblink.meridianciLv.orglWebLinklDoc View.ay x?id=278191&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCiiy p D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancity.oEgjKebLinkIDocView.g,v x?id=278762&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCiiy p- E. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinklDoc View.g,,Ypx?id=2 75948&dbid=0&rgpo=MeridianCitE X. 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. hi order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: I. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the Applicant's request to rezone the subjectpropertyfrom the R-4 to the L-0 zoning district and develop the site with office uses is consistent with the Office FL UM designationfor this property. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Page 14 Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to L-0 and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the commercial districts in that it will providefor the service needs of the community in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed office uses should be compatible with adjacent office, residential care facility and single-family residential homesluses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds City services are available to this property and will be provided with development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Thisfinding not applicable as the request isfor a rezone, not annexation. Stafffinds the proposed rezone is in the best interest of the city. B. Short Plat(UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Stafffinds the proposedplat is generally in conformance with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services are available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the plat is in conformance with scheduledpublic improvementsfor this area in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is publicfinancial capability ofsupporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historicfeatures that need to be preserved with this development. Page 15 C E IDIAN*,----, �W, 11Q. - 11 AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for McDermott Village (H-2022-0056) by Boise Hunter Homes, located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd. at the northwest corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. McDermott Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0056 A. Request: Annexation of 40.05 acres of land with R-15, R-40 and C-G zoning districts.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots (81 townhome, 1 multi-family, 3 commercial lots) and 8 common lots on 40.05 acres of land in the R-15, R-40 and C-G zoning districts.C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family residential development consisting of 250 dwelling units on 12.19 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET ITEM # 01�� DATE: November 3, 2022 DA- 9 PROJECT NAME: McDermott Village (H-2022-0056) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify 3 51 (.D k;, �"v -- I (Please Print) I " DOMICti-10A? (mark X if yes) I I P o' N if yes, please provide HOA name 2 Sr 3 4 <A L4 5 3r,,C.,0 Al. j:�J� U 0 7 414�1/ Li 8 -!;-12-'7 N, 14-fffC71�vt- 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT El� C�Iwl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING November 3,2022 Legend DATE: lei Pi��pc_I Lm a to n TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0056 McDermott Village—A-Z, CUP,PP LOCATION: 3235 N. McDermott Rd. at the northwest IJ comer of W. Ustick Rd. &N. McDermott Rd., in the SE 1/4 of Secti n 32,TAN.,R.lW. (Parcel#S0432429360 &#S0432429355) 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 40.05 acres of land with R-15 (17.12 acres),R-40(15.85 acres) and C-G zoning(7.08 acres); Preliminary plat consisting of 85 building lots(81 townhome, 1 multi-family and 3 commercial)& 8 common lots on 40.05 acres of land in the R-15,R-40&C-G zoning districts; and Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family residential development consisting of 250 dwelling units on 12.19 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. 11. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 40.05-acres(A.Z);40.05-acres(PP); 12.19-acres(CUP) Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County(existing);R-15,R-40&C-G(proposed) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land used for agricultural purposes Proposed Land Use(s) Mix of commercial(fuel sales facility&convenience store and flex commercial/office);and residential(i.e.multi-family apartments and townhomes) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 85 buildable lots(81 townhome lots, I multi-family lot&3 commercial lots)and 8 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 3 phases Number of Residential Units(type 250 multi-family apartment units&81 townhome units of units) Physical Features(waterways, The Eight Mile Lateral runs across the northeast comer of this site and the hazards,flood plain,hillside) Sky Pilot Drain runs across the southern portion of the site. Neighborhood meeting date 5/25/22 Pagel Description Details History(previous approvals) None B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was prepared by Kittleson&Associates,Inc. (yes/no) Access One access is proposed via S.Rolling Hill Dr.from E.Overland Rd.to the south; (Arterial/Collectors/State and two driveways will provide access from the commercial development to the Hwy/Local)(Existing and west via S. Silverstone Way from E.Overland Rd.(a signalized intersection Proposed) exists at Silverstone/Overland) Traffic Level of Service Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Roadway Frontage Classification Traffic Count Levelof Service Ustick Road 1,304-feet Principal Arterial 321 Better than"E" McDermott Road I 1,304-feet—L Collector* 100 Better than"D" Stub A public stub street is planned to the north boundary of this property with the Street/Interconnectivity/Cros Aviator Springs development(H-2021-0065).W.Endeavor St.to the west is s Access planned to stub/connect to the west boundary of this property when the abutting Flower property(#S0432438850)re-develops. Existing Road Network N.McDermott Rd.,a residential collector street&entryway corridor;and W. Ustick Rd.,a residential arterial street&entryway corridor,abut this site along the south and east property boundaries. Existing Arterial Sidewalks None Buffers Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)l Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • The intersection of Ustick Road and McDermott Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be Improvements widened and reconstructed with design in 2026 and construction in the future. • Ustick Road is listed in the IFYWP and CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Star Road to McDermott Road with design in 2026 and construction in the future. • Star Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Uslick Road to McMillan Road between 2031 and 2035. • The intersection of Ustick Road and Star Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 4-lanes on the north leg, 4-lanes on the south, 5-lanes east, and 5-lanes on the west �eg, and signalized between 2031 and 2035. SH-16 is planned to extend north/south through this property and an interchange I is proposed at Ustick Rd. Approved IVIF units --P—RL—cleff— EgL __ West Ada School District Approved lots Pe per attendance Studentsfrom Enrollment Capacit attendance area area Approved Dev. Pleasant View Elementary 614 650 3322 100 970 Star Middle School 893 1000 9667 321 ago Owyhee HiCh School 1785 1800 6229 137 829 School of Choice ODtions ChiefJoseph Elementary—Arts 524 700 N/A NIA Barbara Morgan STEM Academy 421 Soo N/A N/A • Distance (elem,ms,Its) • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled Page 2 Description Details Predicted#of students 73+/- generated from proposed development Police Service • Distance to Police 7.5 miles Station • Police Response Time 6:59 minutes-doesn't currently meet response time goal of 3-5 minutes; however,response times will drastically decline when the MPD precinct opens in the Fall. • Calls for Service 313 within a mile of the site between 6/l/20 and 5/31/22 • Accessibility PD requests police access into each building's entry point using a multi- technology keypad • Specialty/resource needs None—MPD can service this development&already serves this area. • Crimes 54 within a mile of the site between 6/l/20 and 5/31/22 • Crashes 8 within a mile of the site between 6/l/20 and 5/31/22 • Other For more info, see Section VIILD Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services • Sewer Shed • Estimated Project Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.42 MGD Balance 0� • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns Additional 11,691 gpd committed to model. Water • Distance to Water Services • Pressure Zone • Estimated Project Water ERU's • Water Quality Concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns Page 3 A4 IN 111. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 10/19/2022 newspaper Notification mailed to property 10/13/2022 owners within 300 feet Applicant posted public hearing 10/24/2022 notice on site Nextdoor posting 10/13/2022 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) Land Use: The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R). Note: The Applicant requested this designation as part of the update to the Comprehensive Plan in 2019. 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). Sample uses, appropriate in MU-R areas would 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 Transportation: State Highway(SH) 16 is planned to extend through this site and an interchange is planned at Ustick Rd. ACHD's Master Street Map doesn't depict any collector streets planned across this site. The segment of Ustick Rd.that this site fronts on is designated on the MSM as a residential arterial with 5-lanes and on-street bike lanes within I 00-feet of right-of-way. The segment of McDermott Rd.that the townhome portion of the development fronts on is designated on the MSM as a residential collector with 3-lane roadway, a 46-foot street section within 74-feet of ROW. Due to the extension of SH-16, sidewalk is required on only the east side of the roadway. Transit services are not available to this site. Proposed Development: The Applicant proposes to develop the site with two(2)land use types— commercial(includes retail,restaurants, etc.) and residential(i.e. multi-family and townhome).No employment or public uses are proposed and it's unlikely any of the proposed uses will have a regional draw. The site is designed with the commercial uses along Ustick Rd., an arterial street,with an integrated plaza area between the two northern buildings and multi-family development to the north along future SH-16. Townhomes are proposed on the east side of future SH-16 along N. McDermott Rd., a collector street. The proposed development is generally consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan in the Comprehensive Plan. This is the only property in this area with a MU-R designation; that along with the property being bisected by SH-16 in the future,which reduces the size of the property from 40 acres to 26.5 acres, makes it difficult to develop the property entirely consistent with the MU-R designation. Additionally,because an interchange is planned in this area and access is limited,the Comprehensive Page 5 Plan states retail and auto-generated services should be minimized and transition rapidly from the interchange to residential uses near the County line,which the plan proposes. For these reasons, Staff is amenable to only two(2)land uses and the lower intensity of uses(i.e.primarily residential) proposed rather than more intense commercial uses as is typically desired in the MU-R designation. Additionally,because of the bifurcation of this property with the SH-16 extension, interconnectivity and a full integration of uses within the overall site is not possible as typically desired in mixed use designated areas. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed-Use areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-13): (Staff's analysis in italics) • "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone." The proposed 26.5-acre development(after right-of-way is taken outfor SH-16) includes two types of land uses—commercial and residential. Because this is the only MU-R designated property in this area and the site is not very large and will be divided by a state highway, Staff is of the opinion the proposed number of land use types is sufficient. • "Where appropriate,higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adj acent to US 20/26, SH-5 5, SH-16 or SH-69." The proposed development includes 250 multi-family units at a gross density of 20.5 units per acre. The multi-family portion of the project is located along the west side offuture SH-16 and at the northwest corner of thefuture interchange at Ustick Rd. An employment destination center is not proposed but Owyhee High School exists directly to the west. High-density development is desired near schools so that students can walk to school, reducing bussing needs and traffic in the area. • "Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed-Use designation." A conceptual developmentplan was submitted with the annexation request, included in Section VII.B.A Development Agreement that tiesfuture development to this plan and the general guidelinesfor mixed use developments and specifically the MU-R designation is recommended as a provision of annexation. • "In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some forrn of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space." The conceptual developmentplan depicts a common plaza area between the northern two commercial buildings with a pedestrian walkway to the area from the southern lot(fuel Jacility/convenience store). • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." There is an existing low-density residential property along the west boundary of the site south of the Sky Pilot Drain adjacent to the proposed commercial uses.A public street(N. Glassford Ave) is proposed between the commercial buildings and the residential property but a buffer is notproposed to the residential property.A landscaped street buffer is proposed on the east side of the street. Per UDC Table 11-2B-3 a minimum 25-foot wide landscaped buffer is Page 6 required on C-G zonedproperties to residential uses, unless such width is otherwise modified by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools,parks,daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." No such uses are specifically proposed in this development—the tenants of the commercial buildings are unknown at this time. Owyhee High School is located directly to the northwest of this site and an LDS seminary and Boys & Girls Club has been conceptually approved to develop on the adjacent property to the north next to the school in close proximity to this site. Although these uses are not within the MU-R designation, they are stillprovided nearby. • "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." A plazalgathering area is depicted on the conceptual development plan between the two northern commercial buildings; there are no otherpublic andlor quasi-public spaces or places proposed. As noted above, a high school exists to the northwest and an LDS seminary and a Boys & Girls Club are planned to develop in the Aviator Springs development directly to the north. • "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 placernaking opportunities considered." No such spaces are proposed on the conceptual development plan. Although a "mix"of uses (i.e. commercial&residential) are proposed, Staff wouldn't consider this a true mixed-use development due to the lack of integration and connectivity within the overall site, which isn't possible due to the extension of SH-1 6 through the property. A plazalcommon open space area is depicted between the two (2) northern commercial buildings, which Stafffeels is appropriate given the development limitationsfor this site. "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." The proposed commercial portion of the development is directly accessible to the multi- family residential portion of the development to the north and the single-family development further to the north (Aviator Springs) by both vehicles andpedestrians. Future SH-16 will separate the commercial and multi-family developmentfrom the townhome development making it impossiblefor these uses to be directly accessible. Pedestrian pathways are proposed throughout the commercial and multi-family development and a 10- foot wide pathway is proposed to the single-family development to the north for connectivity. "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types." A roadway,parking area and landscape buffer is proposed between the commercial and multi- family development(150'between structures); and a 2-way drive aisle with parking on either side and a landscape buffer is proposed between the proposed multi-family andfuture single- family development to the north (115'between uses) as a transition and buffer between uses. Page 7 "Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town,development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein." The subjectproperty is not located in Old Town; therefore, this item is not applicable. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-R areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pgs.3-16 thru 3-17): • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas. Staffs analysis on the proposed project's compliance with these guidelines is included above. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. Residential uses are proposed over 86%of the development area at an overall gross density of 14.58 unitslacre, consistent with the density desired in MU-R designated areas. The gross density of the multi-family portion is 20.5 unitslacre and the townhome portion is 7.71 unitslacre. Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area. Retaillcommercial uses are only proposed to comprise of 14%of the development area in accord with this guideline. 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. This guideline is not applicable as no publiclquasi-public uses are proposed on this site and the retail development area is below the allowed 50%. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) Page 8 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 beprovided upon development. "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed retaillcommercial uses should be compatible with the existing low-density residential use to the west if a 25-foot wide buffer is provided with dense landscaping as required by UDC Table 11-2B-3 and 11-3B-9C.I to minimize conflicts between land uses. The proposed multi-family development should be compatible with future single-family residential uses to the north in Aviator Springs subdivision with the proposed separation in uses by drive aisles,parking and a densely landscaped buffer to minimize conflicts between higher and lower density residential uses; and to the high school to the west. The proposed townhomes should be compatible with existing low-density residential properties across McDermott Rd. to the east and anyfuture redevelopment of that area with MU-I(Mixed Use —Interchange) uses; and also, thefuture research and development use to the north, which is proposed to be separated by a 75-foot wide densely landscaped buffer. • "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 apartments and townhomes will provide housing in close proximity to Owyhee High School which will reduce bussing and vehicle trips in the area. The proposed retaillcommercial uses shouldprovide benefits tofuture residents of being able to live, shop andpossibly work nearby enhancing overall livability and sustainability. • "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A) The conceptual development plan depicts pedestrian pathways throughout the commercial and multi-family residential developments and to the adjacent single-family residential development to the north (Aviator Springs)for interconnectivity. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available to this site and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response timesfor Police and Fire Dept. currentlyfall outside of response time goals; however, when the new MPD precinct opens in Fall of2023 and Fire Station#8 is constructed and staffed in late summer of 2023, response time goals will be met. Page 9 • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) Safe pathway connections should be providedfrom the proposed multi-family development to the abutting high school to the west. Usable open space and quality amenities are proposed with the multi-family development that exceed UDC standards. • "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.)." (3.07.0 1 Q A minimum 35-foot wide landscaped street buffer is required to be provided alongfuture SH- 16 and N. McDermott Rd., both designated entryway corridors. Noise mitigation is required within the buffer alongfuture SH-16per the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4Dfor residential uses adjoining a state highway. • "Evaluate the feasibility of annexing existing county enclaves and discourage the creation of additional enclaves."(3.03.031) This property abuts City annexed land to the north and west; a large enclave area of County land exists to the east. This area is largely sprawl with a lot ofproperties still in Ada County to the east and southeast. The land directly to the south is within Canyon County's Area of City Impact boundary. Annexation of this property will not create additional enclaves and will actually decrease the existing enclave area. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban infrastructure as noted is required to be provided with development in accord with UDC standards. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area per the analysis above. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS(LLo A. Annexation: The proposed annexation is for 40.05 acres of land with R-15 (17.12 acres),R-40 (15.85 acres) and C-G zoning(7.08 acres). The proposed use of the property will include a mix of commercial uses,including a fuel sales facility&convenience store and flex commercial/office(tenants have not been identified at this time) on 3.8 acres in the C-G district,multi-family residential apartments on 12.19 acres in the R-40 district, and townhomes on 10.51 acres of land in the R-15 district. The right-of-way proposed to be dedicated for the future extension of SH-16 consists of 13.55 acres of land. A conceptual development plan was submitted, included in Section Vll.B below that shows how the overall property is planned to develop. Based on the analysis above in Section IV, Staff is of the opinion the proposed annexation, zoning and development plan is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the provisions noted in Section V111 as discussed herein. A multi-family development requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)in the R-40 zoning district, subject to the specific use standards for such listed in UDC 11-4-3-27, and townhouse dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Commercial/retail and fuel sales facility uses are listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-2,fuel sales facilities are subject to the Page 10 specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-20. Other uses may be allowed as noted in the Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts.Table 11-2B-2. The proposed uses and zoning districts are listed as appropriate uses and zoning in the Comprehensive Plan for the MU-R designated area. The property is contiguous to City annexed land and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area is included in Section VILA. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-651 IA. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the development plan proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA is required with this application,containing the provisions noted in Section VIII.A, as discussed herein. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 85 building lots(81 townhome, 1 multi-family and 3 commercial)& 8 common lots on 40.05 acres of land in the R-15,R-40&C-G zoning districts. The Applicant anticipates the development will be constructed in three(3)phases with the multi- family development first,the townhomes second and the commercial last unless they get a demand for the commercial,then it might be second. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or improvements on this site. Dimensional Standards: Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district and 11-2A-8 for the R-40 district; and UDC Table H- 2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. Some of the R-15 zoned lots do not comply with the minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet per dwelling units; revisions are necessary to comply. Zero (0)lot lines should be graphically depicted on the plat on the internal lot lines where the townhomes are proposed(i.e.where structures are proposed to span across lot lines). 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. Road Improvements [Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)/Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP)I: The intersection of Ustick Road and McDermott Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened and reconstructed with design in 2026 and construction in the future. Ustick Road is listed in the IFYWP and CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Star Road to McDermott Road with design in 2026 and construction in the future. Star Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5- lanes from Ustick Road to McMillan Road between 2031 and 2035. The intersection of Ustick Road and Star Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 4-lanes on the north leg,4-lanes on the south, 5-lanes east, and 5-lanes on the west leg, and signalized between 2031 and 2035. See A CHD's staff report in Section V111.1for more information. Access(UDC 11-3A-3 A public street access is proposed via W.Ustick Rd., an arterial street, to the portion of the site west of future SH-16.A stub street is proposed to the property to the north(Aviator Springs)to connect to a planned stub street to this property.Another stub street(W. Endeavor St.)is proposed to the school property to the west for future extension and connection to N. Owyhee Storm Ave., a collector street. Alleys/private streets are depicted on the plat in the proposed Page I I multi-family development. Private streets should be provided for addressing purposes. A private street application should be submitted prior to or concurrent with the final plat application. Two(2)accesses are proposed via N. McDermott Rd.,a collector street,to the portion of the site east of ftiture SH-16. McDermott Rd. is planned to dead-end in a cul-de-sac just north of Ustick Rd. and not connect to Ustick when the interchange is constructed. An emergency only access is proposed out to W. Ustick Rd. that has been approved by the Fire Dept.; ITD has verified that this access does not touch or abut the State Highway system. The bollards should be located completely outside of the right-of-way.ITD's roadway plans for the existing Ustick/McDermott Rd. intersection are included in Section VIIII Alleys are proposed for access to the townhome units located north of W. Aspenstone St. and south of Beechstone St. All alleys must comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. The proposed alleys appear to comply with these standards. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should be provided between all C-G zoned commercial lots in the subdivision via a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8 : The Pathways Master Plan depicts a I 0-foot wide multi-use pathway along W.Ustick Rd. on this site; a I O-foot wide pathway is depicted on the landscape plan as required. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed within the street buffer along the west side of N. Glassford Ave.,consistent with the developments to the north,which crosses to the east at the north boundary of the site within the buffer along SH-16 which will connect to the pathway planned to the north in Aviator Springs.A 14-foot wide public use easement is required for the pathway; the easement should be submitted to the Planning division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature on the final plat. Internal pedestrian pathways are proposed throughout the central common open space area and to the commercial development to the south. Safe pathway connections should be provided from the proposed multi-family development to the abutting high school to the west. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : Detached sidewalks are required along all collector and arterial streets; attached sidewalks may be provided along local streets. Sidewalks are not required along 1-84;however, a pathway is proposed within the buffer.ACHD is requiring a sidewalk to be constructed off-site along one side of S.Rolling Hill Dr.with development of this site. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B : Street buffers are required to be provided as follows: A minimum 35-foot wide buffer is required along future SH-16 and the interchange and along N.McDermott Rd., entryway corridors; a minimum 25-foot wide buffer is required along the western portion of W.Ustick Rd., an arterial street; and a minimum 10-foot wide buffer is required along local streets in the C-G zoning district,measured per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.M. Landscaping is required within the street buffer as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C(see updated standards). Street buffers are required to be maintained by the property owner or business owners' association and should be depicted on the plat in a common lot or permanent dedicated buffer per UDC I]- 3B-7C2b. Landscaping is required adjacent to all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Depict landscaping within common open space areas as set forth in UDC 11-3G-5B.3. Page 12 The City Arborist requests a change in tree selection of the Fraxinus Pennsylvanica "Marshall's Seedless" Green Ash is changed to another variety due to a future threat of Emerald Ash Borer. There are no existing trees on the site to be removed or that require mitigation. Common Open Space(UDC 11-3G-3B : A minimum of 15%qualified open space is required to be provided within the townhome portion of the development that meets the quality standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3A.2. Based on 10.51 acres, a minimum of 1.58 acres of qualified open space is required.A total of 3.33 acres of qualified open space is proposed on the open space exhibit included in Section VII.F in excess of UDC standards(i.e red hatched areas). Open space areas consist of open grassy areas of at least 5,000 square feet and linear open space. Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G- : A minimum of 2 points of site amenities are required based on 10.51 acres of development area from the Site Amenities and Point Value Table 11-3G-4. It's not clear to Staff what is proposed for site amenities in the townhome portion of the development. The Applicant should clarify prior to or at the Commission hearing what amenities are proposed. Noise Abatement: Noise abatement is required for residential uses along state highways per the standards listed in UDC I 1-3H-4D.A I 0-foot solid screen wall is proposed. Noise abatement should be provided within the street buffers along SH-16 that are adjacent to residential uses per the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D for residential uses adjoining a state highway.A berm or a berm and wall combination that's a minimum of 10-feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway is required.Include a cross-section of the berm or berm/wall that complies with this standard with the final plat application(s). Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-1 : 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 Roor for the subdivision. Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. This property lies within the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District boundary. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21 : Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-2l.. Street lights shall be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances/ Waterways(UDC It It-JA-du"] The Sky Pilot Drain crosses the southern portion of this site within a I 00-foot wide easement;the Eight Mile Lateral crosses the northeast comer of the site within a 50-foot wide easement; and the Noble Lateral runs along the east boundary of the site within a 40-foot wide easement(20-feet from centerline each side). The easements for all of these waterways shall be depicted on the final plat; structures shall not encroach within these easements.All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B.3,unless otherwise waived by City Council. This project is not within the flood plain. The developer has requested ITD relocate the Eight Mile Lateral to accommodate the proposed development plan. Because the plans have already been designed and envirom-nental approvals Page 13 obtained to pipe it in its current location,a change this late in the process may not be approved. If the location of the lateral changes,it should be depicted on the plans submitted with the final plat application. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 6-foot tall solid screen fence is proposed along the northern&western boundaries of the multi-family development. C. Conditional Use Permit(CUP): A Conditional Use Permit is requested for a multi-family residential development consisting of 250 dwelling units on 12.19 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-2. The proposed development will have(12) 3-story multi-family structures and a 9,055 square foot amenity building centrally located within the complex. Six(6)different floor plans are proposed with a mix of units consisting of 1-(97),2-(114)and 3-(39)bedroom units ranging from 712 to 1,278 square feet in size. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-27): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff's analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: Site Design: I. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent properties. The siteplan included in Section VII.D depicts buildings at a minimum setback of 10-feet; no greater setback is required. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. Theplans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should demonstrate compliance with this standard. 3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-513-5 of this title. The Applicant's narrative states each dwelling unit is provided with a minimum 80 squarefoot attachedpatio or deck, which meets this standard. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculationsfor the site. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate,designated and screened area. The Applicant should comply with this requirement. Page 14 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chqpter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 4 minimum of 477 off-street parking spaces are requiredfor the multi-family development with 250 of those being in a covered carport or garage; a minimum of 19 bicycle parking spaces are required. 4 minimum of 18 spaces are requiredfor the amenity building with a minimum of one (1) bicycle parking space. The minimum number ofspaces required overall is 495 with a minimum of20 bicycle spaces. ,4 total of 482+1-parking spaces are proposed overall, with 250 of those being covered, and 20 bicycle spaces, which does not meet the minimum standard. 4 revisedparking plan that meets the minimum standards should be submittedprior to the Commission hearing.Bike racks should beprovided in central locationsfor each multi-family building and the amenity building. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location,including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) The site amenity plan included in Section VII.G depicts a leasing area (property management office), a maintenance storage area and mailbox location (including provisionsfor parcel mail), in accord with this standard. The location of the directory and map of the development should be depicted on the siteplan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Common Open Space Design Requirements (LTDC LI-4-3-27C): The total baseline land area of all qualified common open space shall equal or exceed 10% of the gross land area for multi-family developments of 5 acres of more. 4 minimum of 1.22 acres of common open is required to meet this standard. Common open space areas are also required to comply with the standards listed in UDC I I- 4-3-27C.2,which state that open space areas must be integrated into the development as a priority and not for the use of land after all other elements of the development have been designed. These areas should have direct pedestrian access,be highly visible, comply with CPTED standards and support a range of leisure and play activities and uses—irregular shaped, disconnected or isolated open spaces do not meet the standard. Open space areas should be accessible and well connected throughout the development(i.e. centrally located, accessible by pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street). Open space areas should promote the health and well-being of its residents and support active and passive uses for recreation, social gathering and relaxation to serve the development. The proposed common open space meets these standards. All multi-family projects over 20 units are required to provide at least one(1) common grassy area of at least 5,000 s.f. in area that's integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages,which may be included in the minimum required open space. The area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the development as determined by the decision-making body. The,4pplicant proposes two (2) central common open space areas of 67,632 and 29,360 sf that meets this requirement. Page 15 In addition to the baseline open space requirement, a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area.All units contain more than 500 squarefeet(s.f.) of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.A total of 211 units contain between 500 and 1,200 s.f. of living area; therefore, a minimum of 52,750 sf (or 1.21 acres) of common open space is required. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.A total of 39 units contain more than 1,200 sf; therefore, a minimum of 13,650 s.f (or 0.31 acre) of common open space is required. At a minimum, a total of 66,400 sf (or 1.52 acres) of qualified outdoor common open space is required to be providedper this standard. In order to meet the baseline requirement noted above and this standard, a total of 119,500 sf (or 2.74 acres) of common open space is required. A total of 146,094 sf (or 3.35 acres) of qualified open space is proposed in excess of the minimum standards as shown in Section J17I.F(red hatch areas). Qualified areas consist of central commonlamenity areas and a pedestrian corridor where a multi-use pathway is planned. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area,and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20').All of the red hatched areas depicted on the open space exhibit in Section VII.G meet this requirement. In phased developments,common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. The Applicant anticipates the multi-family development will be constructed in one phase. If not, compliance with this standard is required. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4) in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, eff. retroactive to 2-4-2009) None of the common open space areas are located adjacent to a collector or arterial street. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. (5) Dog park with waste station. (6) Commercial outdoor kitchen. Page 16 (7) Fitness course. (8) Enclosed storage. b. Open space: (1) Community garden. (2) Ponds or water features. (3) Plaza. (4) Picnic area including tables,benches,landscaping and a structure for shade. c. Recreation: (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. d. Multi-modal amenity standards: (1) Bicycle repair station. (2) Park and ride lot. (3) Sheltered transit stop (4) Charging stations for electric vehicles 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two(2)amenities shall be provided from two(2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20) and seventy-five(75)units,three (3)amenities shall be provided,with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy-five(75)units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision- making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Proposed amenities include a clubhouse with afitnessfacility, a swimmingpool and spa with cabanas and an outdoor lounge area, I 0-foot wide multi-use pathways and internal walking trails, a plaza, a pickleball sports court, and a bike repair station. A BBQ area is depicted on the site plan;Staff recommends this area is constructed as a commercial outdoor kitchen.An outdoor seating area is also depicted on the siteplan;Staff recommends this area is constructed as a picnic area with tables, benches, landscaping and a shade structure. Staff also recommends a children's play structure is provided. Staff is of the opinion these upgrades and addition of an amenity is commensurate with the number of units proposed. Page 17 E. Landscaping Requirements: I. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chgpter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(Y)wide. b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation,an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches(24") shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict landscaping in accord with these standards. F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. Landscaping(UDC LI-3B): Street buffer landscaping, including noise abatement along future SH-16, is required to be provided with the subdivision improvements as noted above in Section V.13. Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C.A mix of trees,shrubs,lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover with a minimum of one(1)tree per 100 linear feet of pathway. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC I I-3A-7. A 6-foot tall solid screen fence is proposed along the northern&western boundaries of the multi-family development. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manua�: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structures, included in Section VII.H. The townhomes are proposed to be 2-or 3-stories in height,the multi-family structures are proposed to be 3-stories in height, and the clubhouse if proposed to be a single-story in height; building materials consist of a mix of vertical board&batten fiber cement siding and horizontal lap siding with brick veneer siding and wood ridge beam accents,metal awnings and asphalt shingle roofing. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the multi-family and commercial development to ensure compliance with UDC standards and development provisions associated with this application.A Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the townhomes.Final design of all structures must comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff- Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation with the requirement of a development agreement,preliminary plat and conditional use permit with the provisions noted in Section V111, per the Findings in Section IX. Page 18 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map IDAHO 9955 W Emerald St SURVEY Boise, ID 83704 GROUP Phone: (208)846-8570 Fax: (208)884-5399 McDermott Village Subdivision Annexation Boundary Description Project Number 21-578 June 15,2022 The southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32,Township 4 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,and being more particularly described as follows; BEGINNING at the southeast corner of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32,Township 4 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian: Thence N89'17'49"W, 1325.58 feet along the south line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter to th e east sixteenth-section corner; Thence NOO'33'07"E,1316.23 feet along the west line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter to the southeast sixteenth-section corner; Thence S89'19'58"E,1324.63 feet along the north line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter to the south sixteenth-section corner; Thence SOO'30'38"W, 1317.06 feet along the east line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter to the POINT OF BEGINNING, The above-described parcel contains 40.05 acres,more or less. Page I of I C OF I S. Page 19 Scale-. 1"=400* 0 100 200 400 800 Lagerid S.32 S.33 El/4 Property Corner Property Boundary Line Parcel Llne Section u1ne Z�D !2 2i; Cr) SE1/1 6 S89'1 9'58"E 1324,63' Si/16 lr4 1� U11 W ±40.05 Acires '60 E 1- ro Q z C:) En S.32 E1/16 S.5 N89'1 7*49"W 1325.58' S.5 S.4 W. Ustick Rd, Point of Beginning P-\M35 N M&­It Rd ffdV 21-578\d"\21-579 M....bmA,, &/15�2M 7 17 22 PU IDAHO 9955W.EMEFLkLDS7 Exhibit Drawing for SURVEY GOGE.1DOADUTN Annexation (2U)04&85M GROUP, LLC Situated In the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Seetton 32, Township 4 North. Range I West, 8,M.. Ad* County. Idaho. Page 20 B. Conceptual Development Plan, Overall Development Plan in the Vicinity&Concept Data Ift got CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Page 21 (TI p ik .4 . 4k]; &"64 -k*W Ip Ire ILL, go Page 22 U.VdV M,D—tt Rt'd.ti.1 PNot Ni,dh Aifi lt� Mt,,di.,.I D 05125/2022 $1.Mie: I NSF' .,CX N.,,�k NSF SO.,CX N "I­Iy� JT.) .1 11 11 11, ZI I SIZ2 x High.,(NAP.)� Aq AC Subtatal I-bed 97 731 70,903 38.Y%-- pwn— C.——­ BUI Im.1,Li"..—HB..., P­�2-�g(mr):R-W (—­l 11 11 11 1 1,217 Bo 1,197 M,,.D...BY: 43.56d./kC(1,(X)0,fjd,) P"N�D"'ity: 20.S AJAC Ic 3S w ICS4 SAtotal 2.bed 114 L024 216.780 45.6% -Ino-—,� B—, 2CY 11 t'— de I., W ,,ted in Req,ined St—S.M,k 1.titemp P.limtd: Iblinel� ,d 39 �,28S Ki�s 15.6% W'a 20' L-1, 2V min C—R.q.iM, — dem,,—­& — 27" "1 11 21Y n,M,R.q�,.d; 5—UnOsope DuMrPm '.4; .1. L.A 2(Y i. M.,HeUhl: w Belch 41'-9" ......in wmeeelq: Bli.iffil-1, Fl,-t," Mg. Bldg. .0, -t —niig Re,ined: F.dinit hoposed; Heighi� CSF�deck GSF Net s F a fl.., 1 111 1*11, to wi lm.413 1 Z't 3 n� 1. 1-d L - n. 1. ,�b He 2 221 B.t in-, —et Z5 I-d- T�I; 42'.9" W,801 326,801 237.793 73% 250 NnM M P�d: "I �,Beetill nn,kftnnkl� C—ie: I I 2SO C-mnid 1,141 W"f Iz 3. B.' 3',m —a" I Infl� 1� R-il 2 6:117 R.ei�2: 6,117 15009 13 HC 3_ Bilke —Aro, Co....Op..Spete Rinl.u.d, Common Own Split,,Propmed. BOB.P.rking Requr,d Me-king mpm,d: B—Ime 1 1-1 I-I —,,n, m% G—d u, 30,10 ww—'V, mmil '.In T U-15 Wiffnend, 41 ­5 M —,.dj—m-.d: Unit, "'0": .. 52,"1 T-1 ReiNfinid; zo T..I P"..d: 20 2SID i"W'.d: S.—I Mf—,id�, IM,730 0 THK,t— #tf ME, tonil lol'I —'d—1: 21' 7 5% 8p4?3 In— 5.— t" S.—I-- , CONCEPT DATA kn.., 05252022 Ustick&McDeffnott,Mendian ID McDermott Multifamily PNa JOB#21-OM' pivot nottW Page 23 C. Preliminary Plat(date: 10/25/202 1)&Conceptual Phasing Plan MCDERMOTT VILLAGE QD -7 PRELIMINARY PLAT A PORTION OF THE SEJ OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH,RANGE 1 WEST ADA COUNTY,IDAHO OWNEWDEVELOPETZ GIVILENGINEER LAND SURWYOR u III H­ PRELIMINARY PLAT DATA 11-- T X LEGEND 0 III- -H I T PRELIMINARY PLAT NOTES E�W 1�11 V �1' T�'E 17::11'YE I SHEET INDEX D I I E El...H.LE E E D.1�," IT "1 1 71 4"J" !L II. T 111, 1 F'TL I _"L T H-I L1 7, T E� I E 11 4­T 11 1 H T E I'E. 'FIDL'�­C I` 1E ''T LIT I I 1 -1 1 E IT. ­T 1,� I I Ll L .1 IT I- TITAZ�l 4 T I I T IT E H-LL T�,FLI_ IEE.E E I I ­I E E I E T E LLT, L��T L I LL LL T L,T L T T T L 5 L T H,1,IDIE I Ig IF� " ��,,H 7E I'D`E E T I E' L­ WT�,J 11­1.11 I'T I L-T­ 111- Lu L) Lu X IL 01 17 Page 24 ELL MATCHUNE SEE SHEET LEFT T7. F 2 mom 4- 51,x BLOCK 3 '9� 17 T -FMAM < 19 Lu Lu-L�67��-.,, BLOCK 4 I tz MATCHLINE-SEE SHED oft n2� 17 Page 25 F xu MATCHLINE- SHLET LEF1 4 M Fs--K� IL MAHEHUNE-�EE SHEET RIGHT Page 26 rc CL IF IOL Lli 0 Page 27 D. CUP Site Plan for Multi-Family Development(dated: 6/30/2022) all'% IN ITT ----- ILLL P: 'TT 1-HUNE- 14 OzEd I 07, - , 6--', =1. 11 ---- ------ ----- 12 17 Page 28 E. Landscape Plan—PP&CUP (date: 6/30/2022) tilt ig LC qmm%m,W PIN Ch Pill jp,.IL 0 77 Page 29 wommm mom w-Nommagwa HININWRINNIN J9 !3�y QQ WEE NZ IMP Me w- Ab, -Mir Mir. ............ VANS N.............. sw Mlwm PRON lug 151; 171; IA V, X 4 q . 1 WK M C. p IV 'c 15 il �1- R , I it up0 ui MM R ju Rig ..,I Q Lu I!;I I Wn �; 2 s- 3 P j Lu M 4! Hs - p- i H dig 6 M T gig i, I pe LU FIRM a—M-- RE, AV3GN] CI uj z. co I? 7e mmish hK Page 31 LLP h x . A ;1,i 1 1-I ii "; I k, CL 1 1.1 N LLP LL ml x Up IM i1h i m Rb -4. 3,. iqLLP LLP Ch HIR i X Ng i! 0 Lu 6 'lip )ousn ....... .... Page 32 RNWORRV WH -.Wk VFW AM NINAANINIER MIN MOME miri =0 lam aim WE As 2�o d in Azi dp ou nlaillowam— Mil 104 i R M 5 But sp LLP 2 H 2 ill 11 IR I i LOL. tg . , 1! 1, i !1 1- " , MIN RI HIP M S2 LU Fz H� M VV lit d R1. F H HE i sm a A 11o. U Mo W3CIN3 ',A ............... 12 0 .......... LL 2� Page 34 MID! i g-.4'r ol'. - . 5 ]; 1. - J LLP BUNN 9W I . . g CL H I uji i, o LLP z ia cc I RIN,Hll 12 I........... p LL, LC LLP 4J-; C3 G 1p I C3 IS el i H M 7-7 M� K�l ALI I v.;� '6 IN MI 41 0 E M jai ui ....... .. ..... 0 Ri g.R--'J§! 1! Page 35 G. Site Amenity Plan for Multi-Family Development—CUP (dated: 6/29/22) 21'-4" 11.-1.. 7 1 1 O'X T 2U1 72�;21�V' El B",6 5 17,DIX 1 L_j-11 b-N LLT Lj Aw�. RR 6-V�11 4' L-----D SEAING 16'1'�12' D 0 L-1 N Li 0ABMAMP, POOL Pam VUL MAI 16 J-5 1' X2�51 212'X911' -9,055 SF JF GROSS SF:+/ SCALE:I"- 01 CONCEPT AMENITY U 46292M Ustick&McDermoft.,Meridian ID McDermott Multifamily PNa JOB#21-OXX pivot nofth Page 36 H. Conceptual Building Elevations&Perspectives for Residential(dated: 6/30/22) Townhomes: 0 wig Multi-Family Development—Apartment&Amenity Buildings: MMPO-O COW-NA- McDermoft Mixed-Use pivotww Page 37 ­3 WElYFORESMENTBU—NG—G—w— I—T.0 ENT BU'.-—1. UT. Ebb. ViEffl��RESIUENT��-11,1�NIT�FR�MFU RE—Y VEW U.AEERL YEW TO AM—­LDING CGNCEPT IMAGER' McDermott Mixed-Use M..�.L)1.1111IDIMLID p1wt f"w PNaJOB4 21-059 1 9 vim m 1.STREET(NORTH)ELEVATION 2.STREET(WEST)ELEVATION 3.HWY16�EAST)ELEVATION BEEN 4.INTERIOR DRIVE(NORTH)ELEVATION CONCEPT ELEVATION VIEWS &G�E lfl�-1'7@24� 06 IG 2D22 Md)..flud U,bd,VIERIDIAN,ID McDermoft Mixed-Use PN,',OB A 21-059 pivot nortW T.I..E Page 38 1.OPEN SPACE ISOUTH)ELEVAnON 2.(WEST)ELEVATION 3-JEAST)ELEVATION 4.INTERIOR DRIVE INORTH)ELEVATION 02 CONCEPT ELEVATION VIEWS 06.30.2022 MuD noff and UsUck,MERIDIAN,ID McDermott Mixed-Use PNa`JOB#21-059 pivoknoftW 777 I-CLUBHOUSE ENTRY(SOUTH)ELEVATION 2.(WEST)ELEVATION 3.(EAST)ELEVATION 00 M 4.CLUBHOUSE POOL DECK(NORTH)E EVATION 03 CONCEPT ELEVATION VIEWS 06 3G 2022 McDenoft and Ustick,MERIDIAN,ID McDermott Mixed-Use PNS JOB#21-059 pivotnoftW Page 39 OF Lj "!rr- BY I-BWK BY CIER­ED i_5-i- 1PAINTELMETAILLOLV­ lGC0MI­I­0R­ I UMWUMYT­BBW 12, ­GMN 13-BRIMEMAMOMIL 14GhRLLD0RME­W S.-,B-,E T&GAMG 1. 1. ­1 1. 12 11 0 IA 2C 70 ==II.B. =`IHLYkMS-.. 8'A"""". B'M:N EMINNUL11BASSM015 SHIHZ WLLAMSM50 ro"r lEllIBLElEllE E""" SHERWIN WILLIAMS SWGSSI MEW SHER*IH WILLIAMS AW704B NrMBfR8M­RIALS AHLM­ASIVflED0­ER ---------------- ­Lw. XX GONCEPT DIETIMIJ MATERIAL BOARD 06 29—W2 WD­.tIi,ndUhBk,MERIDIAN,lD McDermott Mixed-Use PIN,JOB it 21-05'9 pivotnortW Page 40 1. Emergency Access Exhibit Approved by Fire Department �zv --7 7,F'-'.'��7r=Pv Lur �T-�T' W. 'T'T T T' 2SN Ilk WHY 10.17 Page 41 J. ITD's Plan for the Ustick Rd./SH-16 Interchange 24 3 0 i i-8-6, - tA �01.42, �,TCH N, to T4N, RIW, B.M. 5.-91 LT -2227 wm.a"m -SrA 430 �4 a OiD LL�-±�o 614 025B 70 4 SE4 SEC.32 WOODSIDE AVENUE -21' +50 +85 4. u 06 1, SE 2-FT =�2':=-�"?LLTT- 2026 176 L 614-025 -6.00, 100110�LT --- --------- 2026.74.58�0 R IWES70RS LLC lot 62-IT R-20 On 31 L, 1 -12'2 ]�I'IT R-20 00 2026+54 -g- -Tto 133.2 1"Toy 35.50��R ................ ...... -1 212=�l 111;lp LlTD 243D+00.31, 4A�-�1 1�.FIT SIDEWALK 5 5W LT T BY '2 E.+1 0'1.1.1 R-10 no, -u-O�' -.192A 2026. V LT 2027.75 04 WAT -7 26,44 93' R- �c 2 9 '6.LT 2 C. kkEGlN+T6 9`�R C=M"2.="F PENOICURAR) 74,00'LT 71 70 7 95. 9A 202E144.9�. 42s+ 1 4 1 '44.� RET CT LT -1- LT 54.00' CP*223 24V VA202- + SH-15 4 Zo2l 1 11-1. w + --R- LT ,1 -0.90'LT-I I 1 --1 n- "HT qL us�TcK ROADm�:�g T� 7-201 �1..I M 11A 12$RT TO —59 50 7 -A =�"`"T 20,2,0.0 1, 2G27 202B ..._.07-E 20 1 29 USTICK RD 2030 A-+ 1�RT TO 2650. T Lo R07'RT TO z ---------- z N YU ------ --- ---4 EUN DD,-I -1 2W 1-TT. IEII"11E1 �-NUEDONNEDFTGHDET� 'T. TA LITI��=.1 L�'T.A.: USTICK RD S x TA.2026-E408 4&RT R 1 .5 12029,47. R 1.00- 1111 65.02t RT 4.34'RT I vciZM b-SIDEWALK �202'6'+'5��54, 8,siDEWALK j RT B.63.50- ............. 1428+6779. ...... .........-- D=NR�TQE DRA F FOR E-RM 26,47.06., 102 5V RT 2 8+4741, 2 RT 74 DO-RT 10%. _7.1.11' 7 2 =1 FZ. 202615454 'E - OFF E, 64 50. 2023'�53.35. OTHFR 1ACRIFIM F" v v RT 1411+11 Ili _-A 3 REFER TO VT-­NS FOR EXISTN� '9 AND PROF�EO U-MES. r 10 FIT 2026.15.w. 1121111�2'1 7482 RT IPE I". BEGIN 'CONSTRUCTION EE RAMP AB -1417+15.- 5 REFER TO ROAE-DI-ILS FOR N 717743.393 R-178.50' 51,4"s .101--D E 24328".229 fo 13.70, GRIFFIN.JAMES F KEY MAP �02 6 RT GOV7'LOT 1,SEC,5 1427+3';00, 14271 T3N, RIW, B.M. 16 00 IT 67 92 CL Pi R'Z'432.76.14 8311, '34'�'RT AT 22R3.43'a L I I Kq 120 0 20 R 1 00.2 0 1 6-1-� ----- 1427+305 ME 2418122179]278� 1 I S�&.: V=4W 115 B2'FIT I REVISIONS I DE— PIOIECT 110, ROADWAY PLAN SHEET ILI 1"* IDAHO EIYGL I SH NO 0ATi ey EMA.10 :111 -DESIGN CJEERE= ME FOR 11' SH-16.USTICK RD TO US 20126 muoriy 1 41i _�-Ly TRANSPORTATION 01�1- -—E. �FILE NAMi-- DEPARTMENT ADA AND CANYON COUNTY --ADA-&-CAIDNQ� GRAVE ?)EOF S 207".1.�D12 d.� 11 -EI-11-- A023(408) USTICK RCAD 1�� -DRAWING CHX�D ..G�w: D"IEF EVAN w STA,2025+60 TO STA,2030+40 1 5"EET 191 OF Page 42 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DiviSION 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan, site plan,preliminary plat, conceptual phasing plan, landscape plan, open space and site amenity exhibits, and conceptual building elevations submitted with the application contained herein. b. The two(2)commercial buildings proposed on the northern portion of the site shall be arranged to create some forrn of common,usable gathering area, such as a plaza or green space as depicted on the conceptual development plan in accord with the mixed-use guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan (see pg. 3-13). c. A minimum 25-foot wide buffer shall be provided on the C-G zoned property to the adjacent residential use to the west(Flower#S0432438850)and to the future multi- family residential uses in this development as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3,unless such width is otherwise modified by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners as set forth in LTDC 11-3B-9C.2. The buffer shall be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.Note:If the land use on the Flowerproperty changes to non-residentialprior to development of the subject property, a buffer to residential uses is not required. d. Noise mitigation shall be provided within the buffers along future SH-16 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D for residential uses adjoining a state highway. e. Private streets shall be required within the multi-family development for addressing purposes and shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. The private street application shall be submitted prior to or concurrently with the final plat application. f. A I 0-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be provided within the street buffers along SH- 16 within a 14-foot wide public use easement. g. The final plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits for any structures within this development. h. All future structures constructed on this site shall comply with the applicable design standards contained in the Architectural Standards Manual. Preliminary Plat: 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note granting cross-access/ingress-egress easements between all commercial lots in the subdivision via a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement. Page 43 b. Depict all street landscape buffers in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owners' association as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.2a.A minimum 35-foot wide buffer is required alongfuture SH-16 and the interchange and along N. McDermott Rd., entryway corridors; a minimum 25-foot wide buffer is required along the western portion of W. Ustick Rd., an arterial street; and a minimum I 0-foot wide buffer is required along local streets in the C-G zoning district, measuredper the standards listed in UDC.1 1-3B-7C.1. c. Depict the easements for all waterways (i.e. the Sky Pilot Drain,the Eight Mile Lateral and the Noble Lateral) on the site; structures shall not encroach within these easements.A License Agreement is required with NMIDfor any encroachments within the easements. If the location of the Eight Mile lateral changes, the new location shall be depicted on the plat. d. All R-15 zoned lots shall be a minimum of 2,000 square feet as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7. e. Graphically depict zero(0) lot lines on the internal lot lines where the townhomes are proposed(i.e.where structures will span across lot lines). 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Depict the bollards proposed to restrict access to the emergency access driveway off W. Ustick Rd. completely outside of the right-of-way. b. Depict a I 0-foot wide multi-use pathway within the street buffers along SH-16 within a 14-foot wide public use easement;the easement shall be submitted to the Planning division prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature. c. Depict landscaping along all pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. d. Landscaping is required within the street buffer as set forth in UDC I 1-3B-7C. (See updated standards) e. Depict landscaping within common open space areas as set forth in UDC 11-3G-5B.3. f. Change the Fraxinus Pennsylvanica"Marshall's Seedless"Green Ash tree to another variety per the City Arborists' comments. g. Depict a minimum of two(2)points of site amenities for the townhorne portion of the development from the Site Amenities and Point Value Table 11-3G-4. The Applicant should clarify prior to or at the Commission hearing what amenities are proposed. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district and 11-2A-8 for the R-40 district; and UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. 5. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B,unless otherwise waived by City Council. 6. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements shall be provided between all commercial C-G zoned lots in the subdivision via a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement. 7. The emergency access driveway required and approved by the Fire Dept. off W. Ustick Rd. east of future SH-16 shall be approved by ITD as it's located within the influence area of their intersection project. 8. All alleys shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. Page 44 Conditional Use Permit: 9. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi-Family Development and the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-8 is required. 10. The site/landscape plans included in Section VII shall be revised as follows: a. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3- 27B.2. b. Depict the location of the property management office;maintenance storage area; central mailbox location,including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access; and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3- 2 7B.7. c. Depict safe pathway connections from the proposed multi-family development to the abutting high school to the west. f. Depict landscaping along all the foundation of all street facing elevations in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27E. g. Depict landscaping along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.A mix of trees, shrubs, lawn andlor other vegetative ground cover with a minimum of one (1) tree per 100 linearfeet ofpathway. i. Depict a minimum of 20 bicycle parking spaces per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C- 6G;bicycle parking facilities shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bike racks should be provided in central locations for each multi-family building and the amenity building. j. Depict a minimum of 495 off-street parking spaces for the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 and 11-3C-6B.I per the analysis in Section V1. k. At a minimum, depict site amenities consisting of the following: a clubhouse with a fitness facility, a swimming pool and spa with cabanas and an outdoor lounge area; 10- foot wide multi-use pathways and internal walking trails; a plaza; a pickleball sports court; a bike repair station; a commercial outdoor kitchen with a BBQ; a picnic area with tables,benches,landscaping and a shade structure; and a children's play structure. k. Minimum 7-foot wide sidewalks shall be provided where parking abuts sidewalks if wheel stops aren't proposed to prevent vehicle overhang in accord with UDC 11-3 C-5B4; if 7-foot sidewalks are proposed,the length of the stall may be reduced to 17 feet. 11. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.5. 12. All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of the document shall be submitted prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. Page 45 13. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27C.6. 14. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the multi-family and commercial development to ensure compliance with UDC standards and development provisions associated with this application. A Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the townhomes. Final design of all structures must comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 There is a sewer loop on the northern section. Sewer connects to McDermont in Block I and the existing SSMH-06. Reconfigure the design so this is removed. 1.2 Manhole SSMH-1 I and SSMH-12 has angles of pipe in/out of manhole at less then 90 degrees. Adjust these manholes so min angle of pipe through manhole is 90 degrees. 1.3 Provide Steel Casing for all locations where sewer crosses future Hwy 16 per City's casing requirements. 1.4 All manholes require l4ft graveled/paved access path. 1.5 End of the line requires minimum 0.6% slope. 1.6 Ensure manholes are not located in curb/gutter. 1.7 Sewer/water easement varies depending on sewer depth. Sewer 0-20 ft deep require a 30 ft easement,20-25 ft a 40 ft easement, and 25-30 ft a 45 ft easement. Adjust easements accordingly. 1.8 Area is subject to the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement agreement. 1.9 No permanent structures (trash receptacle walls,trees,bushes,buildings, carports, fences, infiltration trenches, light poles,etc.) are to be built within the utility easement. 1.10 Sewer must be built 1 Oft from edge of easement. 1.11 Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 1.12 12-inch water main must be built to and through the development on McDermott Road. On west side of future SH-16,water must connect to north. 1.13 A streetlight plan will be required for the development of this property. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. Page 46 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandom-nent. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. Page 47 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC I I-I 2-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public—works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FiRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLg_1WebLink1Qoc View.g,,ypx?id=2 72855&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianC Lty Page 48 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT h t�gs:llweb lin k.m eridia n c i V.o Ly_lWe U in klDo c View.yypx?id=2 79 5 2 2&db id=0&rgp o=Meridia n C Lty E. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) h ggs:11we b lin k.m eridia n c i ty.o Lg_lWe U in klDo c View.yspx?id=2 73 74 4&db id=0&rep o=Meridia n C hty F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancio�.orjzlWebLinkIDocView. s x?id=276592&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCit y G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridiancii�y.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=279662&dbid=O&roo=MeridianCit V&CT--I H. PARK'S DEPARTMENT City Arborist: htWs:11weblink.meridiancitE.o.-glWebLinklDoc View.y,,ypx?id=2 72 795&dbid=O&Mo=MeridianCit X 1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT https:llweblink.meridiancity.o.-glWebLinkIDocView.g,�px?id=275929&dbid=O&repo=MeridianCit y J. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES hyEs:llweblink.meridiancio�.o.-glWebLinklDoc View.aWx?id=2 7353 7&dbid=O&rgpo=Meridian Cit v&cr--I K. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancio�.o.-glWebLinkIDocView.g,�px?id=278192&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCit y L. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancio�.o.-glWebLinkIDocView.g,�px?id=275528&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCit y IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the connnission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. hi 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; Page 49 Stafffinds theproposed zoning map amendment to R-15, R-40 and C-G and subsequent development is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the MU-R FLUM designation. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment will allowfor the development of commercial uses which will assist in providingfor the service needs of area residents; and residential uses which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities in the City consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial and residential districts in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and we�fare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery ofservices by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: I. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Stafffinds that theproposedplat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use and transportation. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section IV of this reportfor 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 StaffReportfor more detailsfrom public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Stafffinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvementfunds. 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 commentsftom the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,A CHD, etc). (See Section V111for more information) Page 50 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware ofany health, safety, or environmentalproblems associated with the platting of this property. A CHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware ofany significant natural, scenic or historicfeatures that exist on this site that require preserving. C. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffinds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-40 zoning district(see Analysis, Section V for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Stafffinds that the proposed use is consistent with thefuture land use map designation of MU-R and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2B-2 in the R-40 zoning district. 3. That the design,construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses plannedfor this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds that ifthe applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, theproposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission and Council should weigh anypublic testimonyprovided to determine ifthe development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water, and sewer. Stafffinds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by thesefacilities. Page 51 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation THE TEAM Team•Welcome• THE ORDER OF EVENTS Project Comments•Project Elevations•Our Solutions•The Challenge•Preliminary Plat/CUP•Rezoning•Annexation•The Ask•The Development Justification•The Property• •MCDERMOTT RDUSTICK RD THE PROPERTY included this site5 miles of HWY 16 that 2017 ITD Redefined the final •growthStrategic corner in the path of •family housing developmentby with a goal of a single40 acres was acquired in 2006 •Property Background •THE DEVELOPMENT JUSTIFICATION the adjacent land usesprovides a nice transition to Owyhee High School and aligns with the proximity to Our proposed development •Use MapMeridian City Future Land RG on the identified as MUThe land is already •ANNEXATION REQUEST units per acreOur proposed density is 12.49 •per acre40 dwelling units -between 6residential dwellings in a range employment, retail and RG anticipates a mix of -MU•property linesnorthern and western to City Limits along the Area of Impact and adjacent Property is in the Meridian •REZONING REQUEST G (Commercial)and CFamily) 15 (SingleMF), R40 (Residential specified R(RUT) in Ada County to the from Rural Urban Transition of the parcel, transitioning We are asking for a rezoning •PRELIMARY PLAT REQUEST Employment Density)Offices (Increased •(Aligned with Regional Draw)Flex Commercial/Retail •Store/Fuel (Interchange)•G (Commercial)•81 Townhomes•15 (Single Family)•250 Dwellings•40 (Residential MF) •Conditional Use Permit (CUP) REQUEST development.submitted with this Conditional Use Permit was Code. An application for the the Unified Development Conditional Use Permit per the development requires a family portion of The multi THE CHALLENGE MCDERMOTT RDUSTICK RD Phase 2 (20/22 to 84) funded 2021•Phase 2 design finished in 2020•finished in 2014 Phase 1 S.H. 44 to U.S. 20/22 •Effort initiated in 2006•HWY 16 OUR SOLUTION MCDERMOTT RDUSTICK RD Water Line Easement•S. Sewer Main•N. Sewer Main•Be a Great Partner•Build the Best Team•ComprehensivelyApproach the Site •• McDermott Village plazasIntegrated green space and •for RegionRetail and Office amenities •Family Townhomes-Single•CommunityFamily Lifestyle -Multi•Schooldraw of Owyhee High Leveraging the Regional •programmingMixed Use Regional •R Development-MU MERIDIAN COMP PLAN Integrated Plaza•Office/Hospitality•Retail/Office•ResidentialSingle Family •MIXED USE REGIONAL SAMPLE– Map with actual data overlayed:DATA OVERLAY Indoor Kitchen, Outdoor BBQ, Pool 9k sqft Clubhouse–Site Amenities Owyhee High Schoolconnecting MF & Commercial to Plazas, Pickle Ball Courts, Walking Paths Open Space 32%15,000–Sqft Retail/Office 250-# Apartments 81-# Townhomes 7 FAMILY AND COMMERICIAL-LOOKING NORTH AT MULTI LOOKING WEST AT MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL- COMMERCIAL PUBLIC PLAZA TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS STAFF COMMENTS 16 impact area. -of HWYtownhomes due to the nature the east side of the side. We are providing one on family -pathway on the west side of We are providing the buffer.16 -use pathway within the Hwy-wide multi-foot-Requiring a 10 STAFF COMMENTS access is already so limited.future land use map and our current ACHD C on the -Flowers property is designated as MUWe are asking that this not be required as the lots to the west (Flowers Property).between the commercial lots and the residential wide landscape buffer -foot-Requiring a 25 STAFF COMMENTS highwaybuffer on the West side of the supported with our current 33’ variance option which can be Code allows for a 10% 16 and McDermott Rd.-along Hwywide buffer -foot-Requiring a 35 STAFF COMMENTS 76’ Buffer Total Western lot in the projectvariance, so we do not lose the highway. We are asking for a buffer on the East side of the with our current 26’ sufficient is not variance option which Code allows for a 10% 16 and McDermott Rd.-along Hwywide buffer -foot-Requiring a 35 STAFF COMMENTS McDermott Corridor”. As such, a 35’ wide l no longer be an “Entryway wilsac it -de-terminated in a culWhen McDermott Rd. is 16 and McDermott Rd.-along Hwywide buffer -foot-Requiring a 35 STAFF COMMENTS affordable spirit of the development.residents, negating a portion of the the costs of the units for Meridian 9 units) and results is a 10% increase in available units (project size decreases by it eliminates roughly 10% of the If the 2,000sqft compliance is required, variance. public health, safety and welfare for this Easement. There is NO impact to the wide Sky Pilot Drain -foot-and the 100undue hardships presented by HWY 16 portion of this project due to the two seeking a variance for the townhome The McDermott Village project is health, safety, and welfare.detrimental to the public the site and must not be because of characteristics of relieve an undue hardship Per code: The variance must a minimum of 2,000 square feet.Requiring all townhome lots to be QUESTIONS? TOWNHOME OPEN SPACE COMMERCIAL GOALS Day Care•Dentist•Optometrist•Sports Therapy•slice, Ice Cream)-by-Grab and Go Food (Subway, Pizza•Convenience Store (Frontage w/ primary traffic burden)-Fuel • ACCESS CHALLENGE W. ENDEAVOR MCDERMOTT RDUSTICK RD in 2022.and ITD for review and acceptance Associates and submitted to ACHD was completed by Kittelson and A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) •propertyNo Stub from West Endeavor to •Family Community-SingleSecondary Access through North •McDermott Rd–Sac -de-Cul•Ustick Road–Right In/Out •ACHD Access Multi“extra” parking spaces on the site. lose green space to provide 18 center. We do not feel we need to the ONLY users of this community the residents and guests who are all the parking requirements for However, our proposed plan meets community center.staff recommendation, to park the perParking plan can be adjusted, Family PARKING-