Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-08 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, March 08, 2022 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Councilman Brad Hoaglun Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Joe Borton PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics RESOLUTIONS \[Action Item\] 1. Resolution 22-2317: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian, Reappointing Bonnie Zahn Griffith to the Meridian Arts Commission; Appointing Bobby Gaytan to the Meridian Arts Commission; Appointing Patrick O’Leary to the Meridian Arts Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 22-1972: An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1, Regarding Election; Districts; Terms of Office; Residency Requirement; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-2, Regarding City Council Member Qualifications; Repealing and Replacing Meridian City Code Section 1-7-4, Regarding City Council Seat Vacancies; Adding a New Section to Meridian City Code, Section 1-7-11, Regarding Meridian Districting Committee; City Council Districts; Adopting a Savings Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Public Hearing Continued to March 15, 2022 for Third Reading of Ordinance 3. Public Hearing Continued from September 7, 2021 for ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility (H-2021-0029) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 3764 W. Ustick Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 30.27 acres of land with a request for the I-L zoning district for the purpose of constructing an Ada County Highway District (ACHD) maintenance facility on 23.7 acres. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Hoaglun Voting Nay: Councilman Cavener 4. Public Hearing for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. Approved. Public Hearing Remains Open for Consideration of Findings on March 22, 2022 A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single-family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R- 15 zoning districts. Motion to continue to March 22, 2022 for the purpose of creating findings for approval made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun Abstaining: Councilman Bernt 5. Public Hearing for Quartet South Subdivision (H-2021-0088) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on Parcels S043432586 and S0434325410, at the Northeast Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Black Cat Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation of 67.61 acres of land with the R-8 (48.83 acres) and R-15 (18.78 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 229 single-family residential lots, 2 multi-family lots with 140 townhouse units, and 42 common lots. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener Voting Nay: Councilman Hoaglun Abstaining: Councilman Bernt FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 10:18 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council March 8, 2022. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:05 p.m., Tuesday, March 8, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Members Absent: Joe Borton. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach, Tracy Basterrechea, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, call the meeting to order. For the record it is March 8th, 2022, at 6:05 p.m. We will begin this evening's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Our next item is the community invocation, which will be delivered this evening by Pastor Vinnie Hanke. If you all would, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and personal reflection. Hanke: Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council, good evening. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to come and pray for you. God, we thank you for this evening for the City of Meridian. We thank you for the peace and the prosperity that we have gotten to experience as its citizens and we pray and think of those who lack this evening and pray for their comfort. God, we ask that you would grant wisdom and discernment to the City Council as they lead. To the citizens of Meridian would you grant us the ability to live with one another in kindness and that we would be neighbors who would seek the welfare of our city. God, we pray for those first responders. God, those in education, those in the police, fire and rescue and continue to keep them safe and secure as they serve us well. Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 2 of 74 God, we ask that Meridian would be a city that ultimately would glorify you. We ask this through Christ, amen. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, pastor. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Real quick. Pastor Hanke, I just -- I want to say thank you. I know you have been coming before us a lot lately and that's time away from your -- your family and your friends and your congregation. I just -- I know the Council feels this way, too. We just -- we appreciate your time, we appreciate you coming before us and praying for us. We don't often comment afterwards, but it's something I have really appreciated and found great comfort in. So, thank you. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Next item up is the adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move adoption of the agenda as published. Bernt: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. RESOLUTIONS [Action Item] 1. Resolution 22-2317: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian, Reappointing Bonnie Zahn Griffith to the Meridian Arts Commission; Appointing Bobby Gaytan to the Meridian Arts Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 3 of 74 Commission; Appointing Patrick O'Leary to the Meridian Arts Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Okay. Then with that we will move on to resolutions. Council, first item up tonight is Resolution No. 22-2317, which is appointments to the Meridian Arts Commission. We --- we had a lot of interest, a lot of extremely qualified people who are wanting to serve and so before you I have three people moving forward. First is a reappointment of Bonnie Griffith, who has served faithfully on the commission. The current chair of the commission and well known to many of you. Next is Bobby Gaytan. Bobby was someone who applied last time around. He -- he was the next one out from my selection and I asked him to get involved with the Arts Commission, which he did. He's -- he's been faithfully serving as a member of the public art subcommittee and very engaged and when this opportunity came up to reapply he put his name in the hat and, you know, I -- I had several of the commission members say, please, consider him for appointment. It was -- it was the easy -- very easy decision, because I already had -- and he -- he -- he brings a great background to the Commission as a practicing artist with you can see from what he's done in our region and just a fabulous individual. One of the third one -- and this -- this was -- this was a tough component, because I -- I worked with one of our longest serving arts commission members Leslie Mauldin, served for 12 years. She also put her name in up for reappointment. But in conversations with her and looking at the needs of the commission, she graciously said that she was willing to step aside to allow additional resources and talent to be brought forward to the commission and that's really what Patrick O'Leary brings. He -- he definitely brings a different side of the business to the arts commission. Very--very much needed skill set that he is bringing and one that is very welcomed, again, by the resume you can see he -- he's got a lot of experience teaching in the -- in the for profit, nonprofit side of the performance industry and it's exciting -- and that's one of the great things about a growing community is we have a lot of people from out -- who have moved to the area who are bringing their skills and talents into the commission, that allows our commissions to grow and prosper as well from these opportunities. So, with that, those are the three recommendations to -- to round out the arts commission at this time. Happy to answer any questions. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Seeing no questions, I would move approval of Resolution 22-2317 reappointing Bonnie Zahn Griffith to the Meridian Arts Commission and appointing Bobby Gaytan and appointing Patrick O'Leary to the Meridian Arts Commission. Bernt: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the resolution is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 4 of 74 Simison: Patrick, would you like to come forward and say anything this evening? I think -- I think he might be the only one. I didn't see Bonnie -- and, Patrick, you don't -- you don't need to if you don't want to, but I -- I'm sure Council would like to put a name to the face as they see -- Hoaglun: You're almost here, Patrick. O'Leary: I wasn't ready for this. Just Mr. Mayor and Madam Commissioners, thank you for this opportunity. I really look forward to working with the -- the City Council and the other commissioners in developing the arts here in Meridian and doing whatever I can to make Meridian the great city or greater city than it is. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 22-1972: An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1, Regarding Election; Districts; Terms of Office; Residency Requirement; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-2, Regarding City Council Member Qualifications; Repealing and Replacing Meridian City Code Section 1-7-4, Regarding City Council Seat Vacancies; Adding a New Section to Meridian City Code, Section 1-7- 11, Regarding Meridian Districting Committee; City Council Districts; Adopting a Savings Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Thank you, Patrick. Appreciate it very much. With that, Council, we will move on to our action items this evening. First item up is a public hearing and second reading of Ordinance No. 22-1972. Mr. Clerk, would you like to read the ordinance by title? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, be happy to. This is Ordinance 22-1972, an ordinance repealing and replacing Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1, regarding election; districts; terms of office; residency requirement; amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-2, regarding city council member qualifications; repealing and replacing Meridian City Code Section 1-7- 4, regarding city council seat vacancies; adding a new section to Meridian City Code, Section 1-7-11, regarding Meridian Districting Committee; City Council Districts; adopting a savings clause; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. You have heard this item read by title. Is there anybody who would like it read in its entirety? Okay. Seeing none, this is a public hearing. Mr. Nary, would you like to make any comments? Nary: Just briefly, Mr. Mayor. So, this is pursuant to state code. This is a requirement for the city to establish districts for the upcoming election in 2023. The purpose of the ordinance is to establish both the commission and a method for creating those districts and, then, ultimately, that final product will, then, come back before the Council for approval. So, this is to try to accomplish that within this calendar year. So, hopefully, if all goes well as anticipated with both the public hearings that are required by ordinance, Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 5 of 74 as well as any other public hearings that may become warranted based on the commission and the input from the public, we would have a -- hopefully, a final district done by the end of the summer. That's what's anticipated. So, it would be a full year in advance of when our elections open for candidates to file for the 2023 election. So, this would, then, create six districts within the city and there would be an election in 2023 for three of those districts to be elected by -- or three of those seats to be elected by district and, then, the remaining three seats to be elected in the following subsequent election in 2025. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council, any questions? Okay. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up in advance to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody in the audience who would like to provide testimony on this item you can come forward to the mic at this time or if there is anybody online that would like to provide testimony you can use the raise your hand feature and we can bring you in for any comments. Seeing no one wishing to testify on this item, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilmen Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move to close the public hearing on Ordinance No. 22-1972. Strader: Second that. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilmen Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, if I'm -- if I'm not mistaken we will have a third reading -- Nary: Yes. Cavener: -- and the vote next week. I -- I appreciate the -- the motion to close the public hearing and I know we -- we typically refrain from substitute motions, but I think because this is such a substantive change to how we do our elections, I guess I would encourage the Council to keep the public hearing open for an additional week. We didn't have anybody come tonight and there likely might not be anyone that wants to come and testify. I think we have all been in those situations where somebody has said, after the fact, they wanted to come and provide some input. So, this is something that I think is such a large Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 6 of 74 change, I would -- I would support that we keep the public hearing open for an additional week. I don't know if that's something that Council's supportive of, but I just think it's -- it's a good practice for us to give our citizens the opportunity to come address us if they have any questions or concerns. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I have no issues keeping the public hearing open. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I withdraw my motion to close the public hearing. Simison: Second agree? Strader: I agree. Simison: Okay. With the motion for withdrawal the public hearing will remain open. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Two things. So, that would --just for the public's perspective, that still allows also written comment, if there is any written comment that wants to be submitted prior to next week as well and we would anticipate having our third reading and approval for next week. Simison: All right. Then with that we will -- the item is continued until -- to -- actually, do we need to have an official motion continuing? We withdrew it, but do we need to have a motion to continue it? For the public hearing. Do we need a motion to -- do we need a motion to continue the public hearing to next week? Nary: We should probably, just to make it clear on the record, yes, sir. Simison: Okay. Simison: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move to -- I move to continue the public hearing for the third reading of Ordinance No. 22-1972. Strader: Second the motion. Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 7 of 74 Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this item until next week. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the item is continued until next week. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing Continued from September 7, 2021 for ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility (H-2021-0029) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 3764 W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 30.27 acres of land with a request for the I-L zoning district for the purpose of constructing an Ada County Highway District (ACHD) maintenance facility on 23.7 acres Simison: Next item up is Item 3, public hearing continued from September 7th, 2021, for ACHD Ustick maintenance facility, H-2021-0029. We will continue this public hearing with any staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Seeing it has been six months, I will briefly go over what was proposed just for the benefit of the public hearing and, then, we will get into the meats and potatoes of everything. First, the request before you tonight is for annexation and zoning, with a request for the I-L zoning district. The annexation area is 30.27 acres, but the subject site is approximately 23.7 acres, because the applicant is being gracious enough to include the irrigation areas that are not part of the property, but they are proposing to annex it to help clean up the area. Secondly, the proposed use is for a maintenance facility for ACHD, which falls under the public utility major use within our development code. The future land use designation in this -- on this site is mixed use nonresidential, because it is near and within a certain area of the city's wastewater resource recovery facility. This type of use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because of its proximity to the wastewater plant. The proposed use is a permitted use within the requested I-L zoning district. It is subject to specific use standards. Staff has analyzed the project to be in compliance with those specific use standards and all other development regulations, except for the building setback to Naomi, which we have discussed before. It needs to be 35 feet. They are showing it at 25. Simple fix for them to do that. This is the last concept plan that I received. I'm not aware of any changes to that. Since the last City Council hearing in September of last year, ACHD did -- ACHD did submit two documents that are worthy of note. One a letter to the Council outlining the timing of development of the facility in relation to the widening of Ustick Road and their recently adopted integrated five year work plan and also a response to the previous conditions of approval in my staff report -- my latest staff report. Now, in between the staff report publishing and the September hearing, there were some possible recommendations that were in the presentation. I will go over those briefly as well. Specifically this one regarding the wastewater discharge, which was discussed between the applicant and Public Works, because sewer is unavailable for this site currently. It's my understanding that both the applicant and the city engineer, Public Works, are okay Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 8 of 74 with this. So, I have not been told otherwise. It seems pretty straightforward. Secondly, this was a DA provision that had been modified, as you can see with the strikethrough and underline in regards to occupancy, permits on the site and, then, the widening project for Ustick. Now, this was not something staff included, this was at the behest of Council. I did not write a memo following ACHD's latest -- or I should say the applicant's latest letters, because they are requesting that this provision be waived or stricken completely and they are also proposing two additional conditions. I did not want to presume what Council's direction on that DA provision would be, so I did not include additional -- an additional memo for that. Really, the outstanding issues are regarding this and, then, the proposed timing of development for the area. So, they did not submit a different phasing plan. However, they did -- or I should say they didn't submit a phasing plan that's tied directly to the site plan like they had previously, but they have shown what their site phasing and trip generation will be, which was also included in their letter. Plus the overall widening projects in the area. So, really, that's the end of my presentation, so I will stand for any questions, but I presume you will want to hear from the applicant. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Berenger: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. For the record Jennifer Berenger. I'm the deputy director of maintenance for Ada County Highway District. I did want to add a little bit of additional information. Joe, if you could go to the next slide. It's very similar to what you had in your packet to review, but it adds a little bit more insight into other things that ACHD is doing as far as site building and -- and expanding our capability across Ada County, specifically because Ada county is growing so much we need to grow as well. So, as we move forward with not only the Ustick yard -- I wanted to let you know that we have a yard on Franklin that is currently in design and that's where traffic operations are going to be going into. We have the Ustick yard and, then, just below that I kind of show that timeline of the Ustick Road widening and, then, we have property that's been acquired on Federal Way at Apple Street and we have very similar strategy for the Ustick yard that -- that will apply to that site and, then, overall kind of what that might mean for our currently operational Adams yard. So, in general, what I wanted to show on this slide was development at Ustick yard is tied pretty closely to our timeline for developing the Federal Way yard and if you think about Ada county as a whole and where our-- currently our two yards are, expanding out to be able to cover all of the zones appropriately -- if we are going to develop up the Federal Way yard, we really need to have the Ustick yard operational, because we are kind of shifting a little bit in our -- in our capability and response times. So, I just -- this -- this slide just kind of shows -- or this slide shows how all of those sites are going to kind of time together and, really, the -- the value of the location that we have for building up the Ustick yard and our ability to service this side of Ada county specifically. Meridian being a prime -- prime location for that. A lot of our development is going to be tied to cost. So, not going into any of the details on the bottom part of the slide, but you can see some of our decisions are going to be made on what the costs are going to be. So, any delays in any of those pieces will --will possibly impact timelines for the others. But that's -- that's, in general, what I wanted to share. Just kind of in addition to the details that we gave you on the Ustick yard that ACHD wide Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 9 of 74 we do have other plans for other sites. So, everything is kind of tied in together and I will stand for any questions and I will have -- Becky has a portion as well. Simison: Council, do you want -- have any questions or do you want to wait until they finish their presentation? Berenger: Okay. Thank you. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm here as a representative of Ada County Highway District. I have been working with the district for, gosh, at least a year on this particular project and it's had its ups, it's had its downs. We have been working diligently to, obviously, take into consideration some of the comments from the City Council about the Ustick corridor and the importance of -- of improvements along that corridor. If you look at the attachments that were provided by the district, as Jennifer indicated, that site phasing and trip generation shows what -- the district plans over the next eight years at that site. It's -- you know as -- as Meridian grows it's imperative that the district be able to provide services, because they are integral in our community and the support between the city and the highway district is of utmost importance if we are going to deal with the traffic and growth issues that we are now encountering. Secondly, if you look at the other attachment it shows a '20 to '22 -- 2022 to 2026 integrated five -- five year work plan and all of these documents were reviewed and endorsed by the ACHD commission. Some of those representatives are here tonight, obviously, showing their support. So, one of the things that they did go back and -- and look at is -- as far as the cost effectiveness of improving that Ustick corridor and they determined that it was more cost effective for them to -- to do a rebuild from Linder to Ten Mile and, then, from Black Cat -- or from Ten Mile to Black Cat and so they have those design year 2022, right of way acquisition in 2023 and, then, construction to begin in 2024 on the first phase and, then, that second phase in 2025. As Joseph indicated, the site plan has not changed from what the -- the Council saw previously. I did submit a letter to the Council and the Mayor, basically outlining the conditions of approval that were within the staff report, which was written on 7/13/2021 . 1 have highlighted some of the sections that we need revisions to, A-1-C, as far as the administrative building is concerned, that is, basically, the focal point there at the intersection of Naomi and Ustick Road. The district is in agreement that the design of that administrative building shall meet the commercial guidelines under the Meridian design guidelines or the commercial standards. As far as the other proposed buildings that are within the interior of the project, we would ask that the Council allow us to apply the industrial standards, since the I-L zone is what we are asking for. We are also providing a significant amount of berming and the staff has included a condition of approval that requires that we have additional landscape berming, fencing, buffers. Obviously, that's going to mitigate, you know, any industrial look. If you drive down the Ustick corridor right now what do you see? The wastewater treatment facility. Not that pretty. Not that nice. So -- well, from that perspective -- Cavener: Beautiful facility. Love to give you a tour. Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 10 of 74 McKay: Fabulously. Plant some trees. But anyway -- so, you know, we -- we were already agreeing to additional landscaping, berming, fencing combination and, obviously, cost is an issue. These are public dollars, just like the city has public dollars, so that we ask, like I said, that --that the -- the commercial standards, design guidelines apply to the administrative building, but not to any of the other buildings, which are more industrial in nature. Under item 1-D, the district will be installing detached walks along the project frontage of Ustick and Naomi. We voluntarily included that five foot micro path going north attaching to the sidewalk -- a future sidewalk in Naomi, so that we have an interconnectivity to that multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek. We are agreeing to improvements along Five Mile Creek frontage and the lighting as requested by the Meridian pathways coordinator. Item 1-F, the applicant's in agreement with --with the city engineer and Public Works. They provided us some alternatives. They are willing to work with the district, obviously, to -- to facilitate getting this project online, knowing that the eventual trunk line designated to serve this property is northwest of us, but will eventually come to this site, but we can use like a grinder pump or something along that line as an interim facility to pump back to the manhole. I have included in mine, under Item H, that that landscape buffer along Ustick will be vegetated with additional landscaping, trees to touch at maturity, incorporating beds, fence line, shrubs, vegetation to mitigate any commercial or -- industrial type uses within the site with that first phase and, then, if you go down to Item C, the district has asked me to propose two conditions be added to the development agreement. One, that building permits will be issued for the on-site improvements based on the timeline provided by the district and the commitment in the documents that have been submitted as part of this record. ACHD will construct the plan deceleration turn out-lane prior to any building permit request, so that we won't hamper any of the traffic along that Ustick corridor and ACHD will be authorized to construct and obtain a final inspection and occupancy permit for the decant center, so that it may be operated during the development of the site as outlined in the timeline and site phasing and the decant will be constructed within the calendar year of 2024 and the site will also be used for some staging equipment and outdoor storage. One of the things that -- that the commission made it very clear and the staff is that we have made the commitment to the Ustick widening, we have provided the documentation, it's in the work plan, but we cannot accept a condition of approval that states that that Ustick widening has to be done prior to any improvements on the site. That's just not going to work for the district. There is trust here, it goes both ways, and I think the district has taken these past few months to -- to talk through this. They have come up with a very defined site phasing plan and showing their commitment to the City of Meridian and their commitment to the Meridian residents to provide better service and I feel that the Council and -- and the Mayor should support this, because I do believe it's in the best interest of the community as a whole. May I answer any questions? Or do you have any questions for the ACHD staff that's here this evening? Simison: Council, any questions for the applicant? Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Can we go to Council? Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 11 of 74 Dodson: Sure. I just wanted to make a clarification before the questions, because I might get one about this. Simison: Yeah. Dodson: Thank you. Regarding the A-1-C and the commercial standards versus industrial along Ustick, I just wanted to be clear for both the applicant and Council, the way the DA provision is currently written is that all of the buildings along Ustick have to meet commercial standards, not just the admin building. So, I did want to make that very clear. It sounds like the applicant is requesting that that only apply to the admin building. I don't really care about the fleet maintenance, because it's going to be so far back, but the covered storage and the admin building I do believe should meet the commercial standards, because the storage can get pretty rough if it doesn't meet the commercial standards. So, I just wanted to make that very clear. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And that was the question I had and, Joe, I think we touched on this at the previous hearing for that particular building covered storage and I know when we have homes and whatnot we require modulation and different colors and different things like that, but I think at that last hearing we talked about for industrial it's -- it's -- it's not -- it's not as intense in terms of having -- it's -- to be not stark white, that sort of thing. So, it wasn't going to be a major thing -- oh, you got to have cupolas on this thing and, you know, let's put up a weather vane, whatever. Can you -- can you -- I don't know if you recall the conversation, but what would that mean for -- to meet the standards, just because it is visible from the road for -- for a portion of time, because we do want trees that touch eventually, but -- Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, that's a great question. Now that I'm thinking about it, between the industrial and the commercial centers there is not going to be that big of a difference for what's going to be required in the provisions, because it faces Ustick. So, a lot of the architectural standards are applicable to -- if you face residential, you face the public entrance of another business, or you face a public space slash right-of-way. So, this faces right-of-way, so it's going to have to meet pretty much everything that the standards manual is going to request. So, it has to have modulation, it has to have -- you know, both in the wall, as well as the parapets or the roof of the building. It can't just be one color, you got to have like an accent material, things like that. It usually requires some landscaping. Granted that will be within the buffer, so I'm not too concerned with that. It shouldn't be anything substantive, especially because I believe in that conversation. They had noted that it shouldn't be any higher than like 18 feet, which between six foot fence and, then, you have the landscaping that will eventually be taller than the building, it won't be that noticeable. But the city and staff just want to -- to make sure we have that ability to say, hey, you at least got to meet the commercial standards here. Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 12 of 74 Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Follow-up question for -- for Becky. You mentioned the berm. If you got a six foot fence, how -- how high is the berm; do you recall? McKay: Well, obviously, it hasn't been designed yet and that's going to be determined, obviously, with the Ustick corridor design and -- and the elevation of the berm. Right now we have I believe 35 feet to out closest building and, then, we have -- I believe a 25 foot landscape buffer and in my conversations with the district, obviously, they want that Ustick corridor to be as attractive as possible, so, you know, they have indicated to me if-- if the Council or the Mayor thinks they are just going to stick up an RM steel building, you know, as -- along Ustick, that's not their intent. You know, their intent is to -- you know, to incorporate different colors and some textures and stuff. They just don't want to get into a situation where they are incurring excessive costs to meet the commercial standards for the shop or the -- the fleet storage. But their willingness to work with the staff to come up with color schemes, material texturing -- I mean I have seen a lot of -- a lot of mini storage where, you know, it's got one wall that, you know, due to different materials and colors you wouldn't even know it was mini storage and -- you know. And it's -- on the interior it's -- it's more of an industrial type metal building, so -- so, the primary concern is, obviously, cost, but they are concerned with aesthetics, just like the city, and I guess they -- you know, they would like the opportunity to work with the staff and take staff recommendations, but -- but not be saddled with conditions that wouldn't be applied to any other project that -- that may be in an I-L zone. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. Becky, would you mind bringing up the timeline again. So, I just want to talk about FY 2025. Is the plan to have the widening under construction while there is 103 trips per day at the same time? How is that going to work-- excuse me. How is that going to work? Is the assumption that the construction that happens in 2024 -- what will run in front of the site and, then, perhaps as you are going towards Black Cat that's where 2025 construction comes in or does it not work like that? McKay: Based on what they provided me they indicated that the Ten Mile to Black Cat would be constructed in 2024 and so in 2025 when you start generating trips, they are going to have that one mile completed. Then they will start working on the -- the Linder to Ten Mile. Okay. So -- so, yeah, they have -- they have indicated that as far as their trip generation, you know, there aren't going to be -- there is going to be very few trips which will be completely insignificant and negligible as far as the overall trips on Ustick until such time as that widening in front of the parcel is complete. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 13 of 74 Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Becky, it's nice to see you and it's nice to have the bulk of the commissioners here and the director and legal counsel. Their remarkable communications director joining us all tonight. I think it speaks to the partnership collaboration. I think we should all be celebrating. I know we are maybe looking at this issue a little bit differently, but I'm appreciative that everybody is here. I guess, Becky, I'm going to ask you to kind of dumb this down to a 101 level, so I can make sure that I'm wrapping my head around this correct. When I look at Condition J that it sounds like you and the commission aren't supportive of, when I read that it -- it resembles a lot of what I think your legal counsel suggested when they were before us six months ago and so I'm trying to wrap my head around about what's changed since you were before us in September and why what you are now suggesting you think is I guess the better mousetrap. McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, yes, we did ask that Condition J be removed and the reason being is we have basically supplied the Council and the Mayor a road map and adopted integrated plan showing what the improvements are going to be, what those steps -- what fiscal year they will take and the commission is extremely concerned that -- that they would be saddled with a condition that would inhibit their ability to get the site going and when you start putting conditions on, it would just be -- it would be the same thing as if on a subdivision you said prior to the issuance of any permits -- construction permits for your first phase you have got to build a whole mile of arterial. I mean, you know, it's -- it's -- I have never had that happen. I have done my frontage requirements. I have done signals, so what I'm -- my point is the mitigation that is more than what the impact of this site is and that's --that's the crux of it. This isn't a subdivision. This is -- this is part of your infrastructure and a facility that will serve this community for years to come and they will be able to react with their -- their -- their deicing equipment, their maintenance equipment, their sweepers. It will be more cost effective for the district and provide better service to Meridian and the commission is strongly against any condition that says you can't have a building permit until you do all the road widening. That's -- they need to get that decant center on. You are talking 20 vehicle trips a day, which is like absolutely nothing and that's in 2024. They have made a significant commitment, so you ask what's changed? This document that I have in my hand that I put in the record is what has changed. They have made commitments and they have said, no, we are not just going to build one mile of Ustick corridor, we are going to build two miles of Ustick corridor. So, that's -- that's significant. That's -- that's a big fiscal commitment on their part and trying to meet the Council in the middle and do a little more than what was offered last year. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 14 of 74 Hoaglun: Yeah. That I -- I was going to do a follow up with -- with Becky, making sure that the deceleration lane was constructed as part of that construction in 2024 and -- and this does answer that after it's -- we disappeared. Can we go back to that slide that was just up on deceleration lane, Joe, or whoever is controlling it? Yeah. The deceleration lane at Naomi Avenue and Ustick Road is construction -- no building permits shall be issued until that lane -- deceleration lane is -- is constructed and, then, building permit -- after its constructed building permits may be issued for those other facilities and no certificate of occupancy permit shall be issued by the city until Ustick Road widening project is completed per the letter from ACHD commission. Certificate of occupancy -- and you will know this, Becky, and I don't, but I -- I will learn -- is certificate of occupancy for -- for coverage sheds and those types of things, is that -- do we do that? McKay: Like a decant center? I -- you know, I -- I -- I would assume so, because you have got have some final measure in order to final out the permit. A permit has to be granted. I think, you know, that -- that condition is written. What we have done is we have tailored it so that, you know, you can, obviously, attach this timeline as an exhibit to the DA. You know, this -- this -- this document -- this timeline in this integrated plan that -- that I brought before you can be part of the DA and, then, I tried to, basically, clarify that in my request for modifications and additions within the conditions of approval. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I appreciate that, because I think in the last meeting that was the question, what's happening when and what's being built and proposed. This really does lay it out much better. It is very helpful, so I appreciate that. McKay: I think so and I think-- I think we kind of got out into the weeds at the last hearing, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, and -- and, then, some of the Council Members were like now, what, you are going to build this, but when are you doing that and, you know, we thought it was clear to us, because we have been working on it for a year, but up on the screen it became kind of confusing and so this format that ACHD came up with that -- that Jennifer prepared and the -- the Commission worked on with the staff and Steve, I think is a lot better exhibit to put in the DA. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: I just want to be very clear that this DA provision as written was -- you know, this is six months old or so and I just wanted to make sure -- this is the one that the applicant is proposing to strike. So, this would -- this whole deceleration lane and all that, not part of it, but it is part of what the applicant has proposed within these two conditions. I just wanted to make that very very clear. Tied to the timeline of Ustick in the exhibit, et cetera. Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 15 of 74 Simison: So, there is five Council Members here this evening, I'm not going to be part of any decision that's made, unless somebody gets a call and -- or goes out with their voice from that standpoint. So, I'm going to ask the hard question, Becky. Commissions can change, they can revise that document next year, so other than trust -- you are asking us to trust maybe new commissioners that are not even elected if they are going to fulfill that plan as outlined by this current set of commissioners and, you know, I think there is a lot of similarities to development where when we approve a development, if they go sell, that new developer is tied to those conditions, you know, and we don't give one a break because they are better than the others, they are still tied to the same level of expectations and so, yes, I understand trust, but you are also saying this document has weight, when it really has no legal weight beyond this commission for this year's decision making process. How-- how-- how are you -- how is the commission -- or who at the commission is going to guarantee that this is doing, especially when you are -- the guarantee would be to put it in the DA, but we are being told not to do that. McKay: Mr. Mayor, I think -- I think the issue is the fact that they are here, the staff is here, the commissioners are here and, you are right, commissioners can change over time, but as an exhibit, as part of the development agreement, this document would be binding, you know, this is -- this is a public agency. The -- the bait and switch game is not on the table here. If we can't trust each other, then, who can you trust? Simison: It's not about trust in -- in a lot of ways. McKay: But I'm trying -- I guess I'm -- I'm -- I'm -- I don't-- I don't understand the reluctancy of the Council to -- to be supportive of what they are trying to do and what they are trying to accomplish and -- and -- and I think they have been forthright, they have had a lot of meetings with me and without me to get to this point, to get to this commitment and I -- I commend them for that. Simison: And I'm -- I'm just trying to take other conversations about other issues and apply them fairly and equally to all parties for that prospect, where -- I have been very educated by our legal department that we are not allowed in to -- be allowed to enter into long-term agreements with other partners that have funding obligations tied to them, because we can't tie future councils to decision making processes, just like they can't tie them -- and that's where I'm really trying to get at and -- and ultimately I will turn to the Bill at some point or he can -- or Council can if it's relative. I just want to make sure that there is a -- yeah, trust is good, but what is the value of a time -- putting that document into this process and if legal says, yep, that -- that's a legally binding document that will hold people to do stuff, then, maybe Council will have what they feel a need -- I'm just trying to work through the -- McKay: And I respect that, Mr. Mayor, and I guess -- I guess from my perspective as a planner for 32 years now, when a project comes before you, obviously, there are exactions that are warranted based on the trip generation as far as any transportation improvements. This is a public site. It's not like anything that I have represented before that has a significant impact on the transportation system by itself. I guess, you know, Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 16 of 74 they are here in good faith saying, you know, hey, we know that the -- the Ustick corridor is a priority in Meridian and we are willing to make that commitment. But to put an exaction on them that you wouldn't put on a developer, I don't think that is proper or supported by the UDC or by the law. Simison: I wouldn't use the word exaction. That's your -- your word, not mine, but I think we have a developer who is right behind you who has been held to occupancy of buildings specifically on road improvements that they opted to do themselves and that has been part of work that we have done, it's just fortuitous that they are in the audience right behind you tonight. So, it has been part of that, but that's a voluntary -- voluntary element. McKay: And, Mr. Mayor, they -- they are going to generate significant amounts of traffic when you are talking projects of that magnitude. So, obviously, there is a chicken and egg when those traffic -- those trips are generated the improvements are in. But this is a different animal. Simison: Fair enough. I just wanted to get that out there, because it's -- I could feel it, but I wanted to get it out there for the -- McKay: Appreciate that. Simison: -- discussion. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a comment. You know, when I joined City Council there were a lot of projects that went forward as a result of decisions of past councils and I feel like as an elected official I tried to honor the previous decisions that councils had made and I understand that things can change, but I just want to say I appreciate the documentation of widening Ustick and the timeline that was put together. It gives me a lot of comfort. I have faith that the entire Ada County Highway District is in support and that I hope future commissioners will follow the promises that were made. I consider it a promise and arising to that level and at some point, yeah, I wish we could have what I thought was a workable legal approach, but it feels like we have just pushed this as far as it can be pushed, in my opinion. The overall benefit is to our community to have it here. Ultimately we are going to get Ustick widened a little bit earlier than probably would have happened. So, just wanted to provide my take on that. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Becky, you said something interesting earlier and that was, you know, in your experience you deal with development and this is a whole road and yet if this was a single Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 17 of 74 development -- if we take BridgeTower, which is a good example, just a mile down the road and something you were involved with, I think you were required to put in a center turn lane for that in -- in and out and maybe some other things on Ustick Road. So, if this was just a private development and homes going in, I would assume we would want a center turn lane and maybe a decel lane for something like this and landscaping. From your experience what -- what would be required for -- if that was just a project you were working on right in front of that facility? McKay: You know, the -- the -- the property is not that large. It's 23.7 acres. So, you know, it will -- it wouldn't -- you know, if we were say doing single family there, you are right, it may warrant a turn lane. We would have to widen Ustick, so -- 17 feet from center line. We would have to install sidewalk. We would have to do the arterial buffer. But as far as signalizing Naomi or building Naomi Avenue to the north, we probably would not be required to do so, because the trips we generate wouldn't warrant it, because the project wouldn't be a significant size, so -- so, I think, you know, that's -- that's the big thing. The Council is getting a big bang for their buck here, considering the traffic impact to the site and, you know, getting that signal in at Naomi, the -- the residents were very supportive. You know, pedestrian crossing there, so they can go down the sidewalk that we are building, get on the micro path and get on the multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek. I mean I think this is -- this is a puzzle piece. The district's gone out of their way, you know, they--they--they paid me and a survey to --to clean up all the little out parcels that were part of Five Mile Creek and Nine Mile Creek, so that the city limits don't have all these little pieces and parts that aren't in the city limits. You know, everything the city has asked us to do we -- we have stepped up and we ask that the city step up and -- and support us and support these modifications to the conditions as requested and -- and include these documents as an exhibit in the DA. Hoaglun: Thanks, Becky. McKay: Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, Becky, I just -- I want to make sure I'm hearing you and really clear on exactly what it is that has changed and what's being requested. So, at the last meeting one of the biggest concerns was that the district was -- wasn't wanting a condition that said they had to widen Ustick Road in the DA, but by attaching that schedule -- are -- are you not, essentially, doing that by saying we are going to follow this timeline, therefore, we are going to widen it by 2025? And so -- so help me understand -- McKay: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman -- oh, go ahead. Sorry. Perreault: Thank you. So, help me understand that. And, then, the second question had for you is it's my understanding -- as Joe was explaining this, that we -- we are no Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 18 of 74 longer considering this -- the -- the version that was -- of the DA provision that was written six months ago, completely going to be gone, and -- and it's just the two conditions now that you are proposing; is that correct? McKay: That is correct. Perreault: Okay. McKay: And -- and, secondly, on -- on the -- the first question is the -- the problem with the language was it stated that the Ustick improvements had to be installed prior to the issuance of any building permits and they need that decant center or station, as they call it, to -- to come online. They need to store some material, some equipment out at that site, so they do not feel comfortable with having restrictions placed on them as far as the -- getting that going and, then, with setting this site phasing timeline and making the commitment and having this part an exhibit of -- of our application, they are showing the Council their eight year plan for this site and their plan for the Ustick widening for two miles and accelerating that as -- as much as possible and putting it into their integrated plan. So, that's -- that's what's changed. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Thank you. I'm just thinking about all this -- and I'm not a lawyer, so -- you know, bear with me here, but I'm not a complete idiot. So, just thinking about all this as we are going through it and -- and reading these two conditions compared to the other one from, you know, last year, they are a lot closer than they seem and I think that's what Council Woman Perreault is -- is getting at and I would agree by the way they are read and to Mr. Mayor's point, you know, integrated five year work plan can change outside of our understanding or -- or, you know, know with all, so I would recommend modifying the first condition to just -- after the first sentence put, you know, timeline provided by the district and as shown in the attached exhibits and, then, in parentheses I would put whatever those exhibits would be. However -- and Mr. Nary can correct me if I'm wrong -- I think that would, then, make those exhibits legally binding to the DA and those improvements almost necessarily that way, regardless of the integrated five year work plan, which, in turn, is almost the same condition that I already had in some ways, maybe with some modifications, because they are already adding the one with the decant station, which makes sense. I understand that. We already -- Council was already ready to do that last time. I just wanted to -- you know, maybe Council can help me understand, as well as the applicant, because it -- may be with that slight modification we are all on the same page. Nary: So -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 19 of 74 Nary: Joe, if you put up the slide with the -- the timeline and that's where I think what you are getting at. So, here -- if you look at the -- the decant station to FY 24 -- so, what we had previously talked about -- and I hadn't heard that tonight, but at a prior meeting I had with both the district staff and -- and with Becky -- talked about tying the certificates of occupancy to some of these later construction pieces and that Council Member Hoaglun asked that question. So, I did speak with the building department and, yes, everything that has a permit has a -- has a certificate of occupancy. Even for a shed. And as we have discussed on other occasions -- not with this project, but other projects and you have heard me say a number of times from this seat -- again, the building permit is your hammer; right? It's because it's a no. It's a hard no. At -- at the -- it's a hard no at the window when you come with your check. So, that's one tool to enforce your DA, but a lot of it is dependent on who the other party is and -- and Mr. Mayor's example was a good one, but here is the slight difference I see. In a normal residential building project, whether it's multi-family or single family, the potential to sell it from one developer to another is very high. In this particular instance for ACHD to sell this project, who, then, another developer to develop a lay down yard for a construction company is not quite likely or the same. It's a completely different scenario. So, what you are getting in this DA is what you are getting. I mean I -- you're not likely to have that happen. That's -- that's the least likely scenario I could see. Time. Because the certificate of occupancy is more difficult than a building permit. I won't kid you and Mr. Price and Ms. McKay know that, but it's not a -- it's not the same tool. It is a tool. We have means to enforce it. We have a development agreement that has conditions in it that allow us some leeway to enforce through a court if we had to. I don't know that we would have to, but we do have means to do it. It's just a different tool. Yes, there is trust. Yeah, you are dealing with a developer that is not likely to change or the most least likely to change that you would in every other scenario. So, there is at least a method here that is better than other developments with certificate occupancy as your one tool left. We have used it before. We have used it in conjunction with the district before. So, it isn't something that's foreign to us to apply or the district. So, I wouldn't say it's completely, you know, an unusable form of enforcement -- again, I'm never going to tell you it's a better tool than is the building permit, but in this particular scenario it certainly can function, it is a different animal than your typical residential or multi-family or even commercial or even an industrial sub, because, again, all of those with private development have a much different ability to change from one person to another or one -- one business to another. This one isn't the same. Simison: Council, additional questions for the applicant? Okay. I think we are good for now. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item this evening? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, only one person signed in. They didn't wish to speak according to the form. Simison: If there is anybody that would like to provide testimony on this item, if you would like to come forward at this time or if there is anybody online who would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand feature at the bottom. Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 20 of 74 Bernt: Thought for sure it would be Kent Goldthorpe. Simison: Come on up and state your name and address for the record. Olsen: Ryan Olsen. 4559 West Niemann Court, Meridian, and I'm the one that did sign in, but decided I did want to comment. So, thank you, Mayor, Council Members. Appreciate it. As -- as a neighbor -- well, first of all, I want to say I appreciate ACHD and all they do. I think they do a tremendous job in our county and really do appreciate them. My only concerns about this project, really, are just the aesthetics. As -- as a neighbor I am concerned about the -- the appearance. Now, it was discussed that the difference between the --the commercial standards versus industrial standards for the buildings and I don't know the difference, but I do hope that -- that the buildings that are near Ustick Road, if approved, that those do have more of a commercial feel. Just a -- a -- a nice look to the -- that -- that adds to the -- to the neighborhood and the -- and the streets nearby. Also if it's -- if it's not inappropriate, I do have just a few -- maybe questions that might be addressed by the applicant. Number one is there has been mention of a six foot high fence. Skimming through the application I had thought that was an eight foot high fence. So, just wondering if -- if they could provide -- correct me if I'm wrong or provide clarification on that. Also, the -- the buffer -- it sounds like there was a question about the -- the -- the height of the berm. That was one of my questions as well. It sounds like that hasn't been designed yet, but I was wondering if the 25 foot buffer was the distance between the fence and the edge of pavement. Just trying to understand what that buffer entails and -- and just like to encourage the applicant and the City Council just to make sure this is a good looking project for us in the neighborhood. We -- we really do care about that. We have a lot of pride in our neighborhood and just -- just want it to -- to maintain a good -- good feel and so that's all I have. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Simison: Council, any questions? Thank you. It looks like we do have one person online. Johnson: Yes, Mr. Mayor. If my mouse will work here. We have Mike with no last name and, Mike, you can unmute yourself. Lewis: Good evening. I just wanted to talk and make sure that we understand, because I think there is a -- Simison: Mike, could you state your name and address for the record, please. Lewis: Michael Lewis. 5343 West McMurtrey Street. Simison: Thank you. Lewis: In Meridian. Good evening. I would just like to bring up that I think there is a developer in the audience tonight that is going to be developing on the Black Cat and Ustick area, so that's going to be additional traffic in the area as well and being here with Owyhee High School down the road, the traffic already is getting heavy and this is a one Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 21 of 74 lane road. So, I would ask -- I am thankful that they want to put something over here, because it's usually one of the last areas I think that gets maintained, so that will definitely help on this side of town. But with that said, what's the impact -- I mean the roads get closed down a lot already for the construction that's going on in between McMillan and Ustick. So, with this project coming online and, then, asking for no conditions, I guess how do we hold them -- besides for the DA-- to making sure that they are upholding their side and they are meeting their timelines. And that's what I have for you guys. Thank you. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions for Mike? Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Price: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Steve Price, general counsel for the Ada County Highway District. I just wanted to be very clear the commission's position on the projects that are identified in the integrated five year work plan. They are committed to doing those projects for a lot of the reasons that you just heard from the last speaker. You got a high school. You have got a lot of other things and we recognize the growing need out there. But the commission will not agree to any condition in the DA that ties the -- any of the projects in the integrated five year work program to this development application. I just want -- want to make sure that's very clear, because that's very much their position. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Price, appreciate you coming up. I know you are -- are with Becky and I want to make sure you had a chance to weigh in, so I'm glad you came up. Talk to me a little bit about the amount of projects that have been intended to be completed as part of the integrated five year work plan, but has had to be delayed or pushed off from year to year and we know that happens. We, as the Council, earlier talked about fire stations and police stations and parks and conditions change and what you anticipate doing five years from now, conditions change, but give us a flavor -- are you guys executing at a hundred percent of your five year work plan, 80 percent, 90 percent -- give us a flavor for that. Price: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener. The -- I can tell you that, yes, we do have projects slide. A lot of the times every year you will have -- it will go from one year into the next year. Very rarely do we delay one project multiple years. It usually just slides because of the contract schedule. You have irrigation issues. So, if anything, it would slide into the next calendar year. The key thing, once the -- the horse let's go in terms of the design of the project and right of way, then, it's pretty much full steam ahead. But, again, this application for development -- the property itself and the development will generate very few trips per day, especially during the construction. We are really fighting over something that I don't think is a fight. The reason is is that you will see from that schedule a lot of the project -- the buildings, they are not even being -- they won't even be developed until after that project is built. One thing the commission was interested in Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 22 of 74 doing was tying the two projects on Ustick together. One, we were afraid that it would create a bottleneck if we just improved one and not the other and the other is is it will save money if we do them both at the same time. So, it was a win-win and that's something we have talked about over the last six months is how can we not just give Meridian what they want, but how can we make it work for the area and that's their commitment to do that. The total -- if you exact -- and I will use that word because it's a legal term. If you exact and you make it a condition of this development agreement that we complete those projects that's a 14 million dollar exaction for less than 300 trips per day and I know it's an annexation, but it's also subject to the Idaho Regulatory Taking Analysis. I mean Becky mentioned she doesn't think that it's legal. We don't feel that it's legal. But the concern is this. If we -- if the commission is subject to that, then, anything else that we do in any other community, then, we have other cities that will condition projects in the ACHD integrated five year work program tied to something that we need in that community. It's really improper and I hope you can see that. Cavener: So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: There is a couple of things in there that I -- at least I started to agree with. Maybe -- maybe my mind is changing, because I don't think we are fighting either. I think your commission likely relies on your expertise and advice, as they should, as all good commissions rely on their staff. Likewise, we, as a Council, are relying on the feedback and advice and subject matter expertise of our staff as well. You gave me a lot of extra insight and information that I find actually very valuable, but you didn't also answer my question and so I will ask it again and I will give you another chance. Price: Sure. Cavener: What percentage of -- of projects that are part of the integrated five year work plan -- I think you used the word slide from year to year -- what percentage is that that slides from one year to the next? Do you anticipate doing it in '23, but conditions change, something happens and it moves to '24, '25. What percentage? Price: Well, I don't -- as the lawyer I don't walk around with that number, but as part of the executive team I will tell you out of a 50 to 60 million dollar capital improvement project, maybe four million slide and that's what's happened in the last year. A little over four million and we track that in the financials. It's -- they are called encumbrances and so I would say -- you can do the percentage off of that, but it's a very small percentage. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Maybe a couple and, then, maybe not for you, but maybe for Becky or -- you have got a lot of very talented people here, maybe they can get us that answer. My -- my Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 23 of 74 other question would be is it looks like your -- your daily traffic counts in many cases is four or five years old and as we have heard from public testimony, there has been a lot of growth in -- in west Meridian. The addition of the high school. What impact does that have in moving the service level of -- of better than E to E or something beyond that? And, again, I recognize you are legal counsel, you are -- you are not a traffic engineer. I don't play a traffic engineer or I -- I would not -- I'm not near capable of that. But relying on the expertise of maybe some smart people in the room to answer those questions for us I think would be helpful as well. Price: Okay. So, I just want to be clear on your quite -- sorry, Mr. Mayor. You want to know what the -- if-- what's the -- the increase in traffic since the last traffic study. Cavener: Sure. Simison: And that might be better as -- Mr. Price, I don't want to hold you to that, but we know that that's not your role, but perhaps your team is on notice and maybe Becky can provide that when she comes up. Price: You bet. Yeah. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, while Steve is up I have a question. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Steve, you --you talked about the projects on Ustick Road and you talked about the 14 -- were you talking about both the -- if we work back from Black Cat to Ten Mile and Ten Mile to Ustick for -- was that both projects? Because I -- and I just wanted to be sure. I think they had mentioned that the -- Price: Where is that map of Ustick? Hoaglun: Yeah. I think the Ten Mile to Linder would be 2025, because that -- seems like that's a more complex build because of Five Mile Creek right along that northern edge and -- and I wanted to be sure that -- and, then, the '24 was definitely the Ten Mile to Black Cat. I guess -- and -- and to come down -- my point and question to you to confirm, I guess, is the fact that ACHD has made Ustick Road a priority now, because of Owyhee High School, because of the growth that's occurring out there, it -- it seems to me the district has really moved that up and it's committed to -- to making that work. So, I -- I guess can you -- can you confirm that? Price: Sure. Well, if you look on this -- Councilman Hoaglun -- okay. You will notice the two projects, the Ustick, Black Cat-Ten Mile, and the Ustick, Ten Mile-Linder, those are the two projects that would be moved up. Well, that you see the schedule, but the idea is that the Linder project's very much part of that. Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 24 of 74 Hoaglun: I guess, Mr. Mayor, to -- to follow up and, Steve, just to kind of -- Councilman Cavener raised an interesting question about the push and whatnot and to me when you look at these two construction projects, I see them as -- as two. That Ustick Road, Ten Mile to Linder, is -- is -- is a much more complex one. If one is going to get pushed it probably would that one, just because of the irrigation season, because of that -- having to build a huge retaining wall. To me that Ten Mile to Black Cat is the one that -- that gets done. I mean the right-of-way acquisition, what needs to be done, it's less complicated than the other one and since your site is there to me that -- that gives me a little more comfort that that's not the complicated one, which engineers are capable of overcoming it, but sometimes nature and other things, you know, conspire against that. So, that -- that gives me -- I can sleep better at night where -- where the facility is located than if it was located off the other one, just because of that. When we talk about pushing projects, you know, when things get complex, that's when you have a greater chance of those things happening. So, thanks for bringing that up, because that does show the construction years and how that comes about, so -- Price: And as a -- kind of a follow up to your last question, Mr. Mayor and Councilman Hoaglun, we are committed to a lot of the road improvements out there. We have been very concerned about the impacts of Highway 16 and what's going on with that and that's caused the commission a lot -- and that's one of the things, we have had some funding issues during the last budget session and that's why we really did ask for a deferral is how can we fund this and we did receive a big chunk of money from the legislature this year that's committed to this area. It was specifically earmarked -- well, not in writing, but the commitment from the legislature as understanding the impacts of Highway 16 on the local roads within this area and the commission is committed -- at least in my understanding is is that there will be a lot of focus with the dollars out in this area. So, Councilman Cavener, I -- in terms of funding, that's usually one thing that makes a project slip and I think with -- once it gets into this -- and with the additional money that we have received from the state, I don't see that the project would slip because of funding, I would see that it would -- any -- any logistics or design issues or something like that. But we would keep the city fully appraised of that just through our integrated five year work program. I would also like to -- Mr. Mayor, we have Justin Lucas, who is our deputy director of projects and planning, he is on the line and he can answer some of your questions on traffic counts, as well as scheduling. Simison: Becky, before you speak, I'm -- I want to make sure we are in regular order. I took Mr. Price as a citizen of -- not a representative of the applicant for closing. Before you start speaking, can I just verify that there is no one else in the audience from the public who would like to provide testimony, so we can give the applicant -- get into the closing portion of the public hearing. Is there anybody else here or online that would like to provide testimony on this item? Seeing none, the applicant, it's your time to close. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. Just to kind of answer some of the questions that arose. The gentleman got up and asked about the height of the fence. The maximum height in that I-L zone is eight feet. We did submit pictures of like very attractive like Trex sight obscuring fencing that Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 25 of 74 would be used along that Ustick corridor and, then, we had like chain link coated fencing that would be adjacent to the multi-use pathway that, obviously, because we can't put sight obscuring there, we want eyes on the path. In a combination with that eight foot fence, plus the berm, plus the additional landscaping that's required above and beyond what the code says, I think, you know, we are going to have a very nice and attractive corridor. One of the things that I did in my site plan is I did modulations of the buildings. So, if you look at the site plan I kind of staggered those buildings a little bit to give that visual interest, but you are probably not going to see a lot when you drive down Ustick with the fence, the berm combination and the heavy landscaping. Secondly, this is an opportunity I -- I -- I don't think we want to miss as far as getting -- getting this Ustick corridor upgraded and, obviously, advancing ACHD's establishment of -- of maintenance facilities out in the Meridian area that benefits us all. The question arose what are the current traffic counts on Ustick Road. 10/19/21, the traffic count east of Black Cat was 7,512 vehicle trips per day on Ustick Road. 10/19/2021 . 1 think we have -- we have got a good -- we have a good project here. It's -- it's a -- it's a different -- different type of project. Very challenging for me, because I knew nothing about a maintenance facility when I started. Toured their facilities down in Garden City over on Cloverdale. Learned a lot. Worked directly with their staff. I think we have worked with Bill. We have worked with Joseph. We worked with your pathway coordinators. And I ask that the Council approve this project this evening to move us forward. The district is already in design, Jennifer tells me, as far as the Ustick Road improvements are concerned and I would ask that you include the conditions that I have incorporated into my comment sheet and delete Item F-J -- or no. J. I'm sorry. Sorry. I worked late last night. I can't read right today. Simison: All right. Thank you. Council -- McKay: Thank you very much. Simison: -- additional questions or comments for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, since we will need to make a motion at some point, I want to be very very clear about something that Mr. Price said, which is that we cannot tie the five year plan to the DA. How does that affect your suggestion that the schedule be tied to the DA? Because that is -- I see it as one document. So, I want to understand that, because the schedule is working in coordination with the other document, which shows -- I understand he doesn't want to tie all six of those projects to this DA. So, is that why -- McKay: I will leave that up to Mr. Price to explain his legalese here, since I am no attorney. Price: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault. The -- I think Becky may have been a little confused about the idea of attaching and incorporating by reference those exhibits and making those binding. The -- the commission is very clear that they will not Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 26 of 74 agree to any condition that ties our projects to the integrated five year work program. To the extent that the city or ACHD want to incorporate that into the agreement is really as good faith and tie it to that, then, I think we are okay with that, because in moving forward we are in good faith going to follow that. I think there -- that the anxiety is really tying as a condition to a development application for a facility -- ACHD facility. Tying it to a 14 million dollar outlay in our integrated five year work program goes too far and it will set a bad precedent and I believe the president of the commission is here tonight if you would like to ask her the commission's perspective, but I believe I have captured that. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Ask a follow up. So, you are giving verbal commitment, but if you put it in writing, then, it sets a precedent? I'm trying to understand that. You are -- you are -- it's -- you are setting a precedent either way in my opinion. You are -- you are actually on the public record saying that ACHD is giving a verbal commitment to do this, but they won't attach it to the DA. So, help me understand the difference. Price: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault. What we are saying is is that in terms of developing our project we are committed to doing that, but we are not going to agree to it as a condition of the development agreement. We are happy to say that this schedule -- that we will use our best efforts to try and accomplish that, but we will not agree to it. We don't think that the city has the authority to exact a 14 million dollar improvement for the -- the very little impact that it's going to cause. I believe that it's illegal. That's like telling Mr. Turnbull, who is here, that he can -- he gets to improve all of Black Cat for something way beyond than what he needs for his development. You are welcome. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just to make sure, Steve, don't want to beat this horse to death, but we talked about outlined in the time -- timeline and site phasing that you have provided. If that's incorporated into the documents as part of staff and applicant comments, that is there for the record to the Mayor's point that if future commission comes on we can say, hey, look, this was what was committed to -- yeah, legally binding? Maybe not. But committed to. We have some evidence there that this is what -- Price: Exactly. And I think that was Ms. McKay's intent. Hoaglun: Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 27 of 74 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm willing to kick off discussion. I'm -- it's not perfect, it's not where we would want it to be, but, like I said, I think this is as far as we can push this. I -- I personally am in favor of it. Ready to make a motion and go through each condition after we discuss and close the public hearing and see if people agree. If that's the most efficient way. But if people have other thoughts for discussion, happy to -- happy to wait. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I'm just wondering -- if we don't close the public hearing and we go through a condition that might have a question to need the applicant's input, maybe that's -- might be a better way. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Sure. Yeah. I'm not sure how it works to make a motion without closing the public hearing, though. It feels a little bit backward. But I guess just to flush out where -- where a potential motion would be, I would think just sort of going through each condition that -- starting with Condition A-1-C, as proposed in Becky's letter, I would say not just the proposed administrative building, but also the covered storage buildings located adjacent to Ustick Road should be designed to meet the commercial design standards and the other ones that are not adjacent to Ustick it would be appropriate to allow them to use industrial standards. Certainly the Condition D, that they will install the sidewalks, lighting. Condition F, connect to city and water. Condition H, the landscaping buffer. I am in support of deleting the Condition J with the new conditions outlined. So, ACHD's new conditions under one I would like to include the DA exhibit -- the exhibit of the site phasing document and timeline. I think that that's important to have that on the record. Certainly they are planning the deceleration lane and, then, Condition Two, the final inspection occupancy permit for the decant station that they have outlined and, then, I think we will need to add the condition outlined by city staff about engineer approval for the wastewater discharge proposal. But I think with the totality of this it puts on the record the intent of ACHD, their support for widening Ustick. It helps -- it helps our community in terms of accomplishing an enhancement of the service that they receive from ACHD and ultimately an acceleration to some extent of the widening of Ustick. It's a tough one, but I feel like with -- with all that laid out I'm in support of it. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 28 of 74 Hoaglun: Just a clarification on --on Item 1-C. There were two covered storage buildings. One was between the admin building and the future covered storage, which was closer to Ustick Road. The one in the middle was back farther. You weren't referencing that; correct? Strader: Yeah. That's correct. I think it's more important to apply the commercial design standards to the buildings that are located adjacent to Ustick. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I have been silent for most of the evening listening and I really appreciate the discussion that's been made. I appreciate the commission's and the district's willingness to be committed to what their plan is. I -- I can't think of a -- before I go to my next statement, I preface it by saying I -- I'm -- I'm in favor. I do agree with Council Woman Strader's point about making the building along -- all buildings along Ustick to design to commercial standards to alleviate the concerns by the good citizen that's been -- that -- that testified here this evening. I think it's a big deal. I -- I think that it's incredibly -- I think it's incredibly important that we have a working relationship with the district and I think that there is not a person in this room that would disagree. I mean we provide a lot of services -- these services to our good citizens of Meridian and it's important that we work together. It's important when we make commitments that we come through with them. I trust that you are going to come through with the commitments that you have made this evening. I can't remember a time that I have watched a project like a hawk. I'm going to put in my calendar on my cell phone to make sure -- drive by -- and I want to know -- I will be watching. I want to know that you guys are -- we don't normally do this. You know, the -- the -- the good Mayor stated earlier that we have a -- a process in place for consistency with development across our city. I think that's extremely important. This is not something we would normally do. But I trust the district. If you say that you are going to do it, then, you are going to do it and I trust you. I will be watching and I want to make sure this is done. Simison: The rest of development community don't get any ideas. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: To that point I mean -- I mean good points have been raised on -- on both sides about this, but, you know, we are dealing with another public entity and it really is different than a private concern. You know, we have an applicant tonight who is a good community partner and -- and we work through things. But, really, we have to do things in a way -- because they could turn around and get an offer they can't refuse and whatever they were Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 29 of 74 bound by goes with that land and it might not be what we wanted with somebody else, because they won't do it to the same standard that we know another developer does and -- and -- and so to me that -- that's what the difference is. We have got a public entity, they need a facility in Meridian that is going to serve our citizens. This is a benefit to our community and they have stepped up and, as Becky pointed out, there they are also providing other community benefits with our pathway system, with straightening out some property line issues. I mean all these things come together to -- to help out. And -- and looking at what we could require, because it entered my mind do we just say, okay, if we really want to protect ourselves we just make them put in DAs that say, okay, you got to have a turn lane, decel lane, and all those things we would require for a private developer, and, then, we want the 2024 completion for the rest of the road, but if it doesn't happen, well, we have locked in that. But I -- I don't think we need to do that. They have committed to it. We know it's a priority. It's part of their five year project and it's coming up quick, so the funding mechanism -- I think Mr. Price pointed out they have got the money for it and we know that is huge. That is huge. So -- and as Mr. Nary pointed out, certificate of occupancy, yes, not as strong a tool as a building permit, but it is a tool. I don't think we will need to use it, but if -- if it gives you comfort that we have something -- we do have something, so I'm -- I'm certainly in support of this to -- to move forward with that tonight. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I guess I will just -- this is the wet blanket portion of the program. Appreciate the comments from my colleagues and it sounds like this is -- this has got a thumbs up and I agree so much with what my colleagues have said about the impact and positive impact for our community and I recognize Meridian's taxpayers are highway district taxpayers. I will just be real direct with what I struggle with and I guess I would ask my fourACHD colleagues that are here to envision you are sitting at the dais and an applicant comes before you and they are asked direct questions multiple times and they don't answer that question directly, especially when there is a lot of conversations about trust. It makes me question now. It makes me scratch my head. Because I -- I hold our highway district commissioners in such high regard and you have some of the best staff in the nation, but when I hear we have got money to do the project, we got the desire to do the project, we just don't want to commit in a development agreement that we are going to do the project, I got to ask myself why and when I don't get direct answers it -- it makes me wonder what is it that I'm not asking and what am I not being told and so that gives me pause. So, I think there is a lot of benefits to this project and I have no doubt that Ustick Road will be done. What I sit here thinking is that it's not about that it's going to be done, it's about the when and I think that we owe it -- I personally think that we owe it to the Meridian citizens to commit to them when those roadway improvements are going to be done and if the highway district is not willing to commit via a development agreement to that, I'm going to be hard pressed to be in favor of this project, as much as I love it. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 30 of 74 Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I am appreciative that the district is interested in widening two full miles. I don't think it's just for Meridian's sake, however. I do think that there is a benefit to the district as well. So, to say that this is done just for this application I -- I'm not entirely in agreement with that. But I'm very appreciative of what it will bring to our residents. I -- I am in favor of this, because it's needed, but I'm not -- I'm a bit disappointed in how the -- the -- the district has gone about the process, to be honest. I think in all three of our hearings Council has struggled with sort of a -- it seems to be like there is one thing that's said and, then, it's changed and somebody else comes up and says something different and every one of our hearings has been that way and -- and it -- it's -- it's -- I think that's why we have had three or four hearings, to be honest, and -- and so I don't know what the cause of that is, but it-- it makes it a little bit more challenging on us to really get all of the factors down, so that we can make a motion to make a decision. So, that being said, however, I'm -- I -- I don't see a single difference between what -- between what is being proposed by ACHD this time as last time. But there is something that we can -- we can't just keep kicking the can down the road with this, we have to make a decision about it. I -- I do not think that -- well, let me -- let me just say this. We can -- we can argue back and forth about whether the widening of Ustick Road is -- is an -- a above and beyond request for the district, but in my opinion we don't compare this to a residential application, because there is heavy use on Ustick Road with the trucks that are coming and going -- gravel trucks that are going to come and go from this site, there is going to be heavy use on Ustick Road and that was the original -- one of the original reasons that we asked ACHD to widen the full mile in the first place. So, it's an unfair characteristic to say that we are just trying to get a mile of road out of ACHD, because that's not what the intention was originally. So, that's -- that's all I had to say. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: You know, relationships take work; right? All of them do. And let's keep working on it. Let's keep working on the trust and the communication. I think that's really important; right? Let's build on this. I think -- I think we can do that. I will go ahead and make a motion. Mr. Mayor, I move that we close a public hearing. Bernt: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 31 of 74 Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I stated my comment. I just want to thank the commission for being here. I know we have -- we are missing one, Jim, and I'm sure he's busy, but -- Simison: He -- he's online. Bernt: Oh, Jim's online. Perfect. So, we have the entire commission here. Thank you for being here this evening and thank you, Director Wong, for being here and other members of your leadership team. So, thank you so much and I'm excited to get this thing going. Simison: The public hearing is closed. Can we wait until after the motion? It might be more appropriate just that way. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I will go ahead and try to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0029 as presented in today's hearing date with the following modifications: Condition A-1-C, that the proposed administrative buildings and covered storage buildings located adjacent to Ustick Road will be designed to meet the standards outlined in the Meridian design guidelines for commercial. All the other proposed structures will be designed to industrial standards typical within the I-L zone. As outlined in Becky McKay's letter, dated March 2nd, 2022, that under Condition D the district will install the detached sidewalks at the micro path and the ten foot wide multi-use pathway along the Five Mile Creek frontage, including lighting, will be installed as requested by the pathway coordinator. Condition F. The applicant shall connect to city water and sewer services if available with the complete verbiage as outlined in the letter. Condition H. Landscape buffer shall be vegetated with the additional landscaping. Condition I. They will comply. Condition J will be deleted. All the other conditions they have agreed to. The conditions they will comply with all the way up to C, ACHD had requested that they add the following conditions, so we will add them. Condition one. Building permits will be issued for the on-site improvements based on the timeline provided with the district and to be attached as an exhibit to the DA, site phasing document and timeline. And condition two. That they will be authorized to construct and obtain the final inspection occupancy permit for the decant station with that verbiage that they have attached in their letter. Additionally, we will include the condition that the applicant shall obtain the city engineer approval for the interim wastewater discharge proposal prior to phase three development or at the time of construction of the decant and washout areas, as noted on the concept and phasing plans. Additional pre- treatment may be required per the city engineer's review. Let me check my notes and make sure I didn't miss anything. Okay. Thank you. That's the motion. Bernt: Second. Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 32 of 74 Simison: I have a motion and a second and I'm not going to repeat that motion. Bernt: It was a great motion. Simison: Is there any discussion on the motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Condition J is kind of the sticking point for me, so as I mentioned earlier in my comments I will be opposing. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: It's my understanding the applicant has stated that they are refusing to add the -- the timeline. So, I want to understand the motion maker's thoughts on that and whether that's something that the city is -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. The timeline and site phasing plan are informational and demonstrate the district's intention and I believe that it is to our benefit to have that included in the development agreement and, further, I would just say I believe that they are morally, if not -- they are not legally maybe, but they are morally committed to moving this forward and that gives me a lot of comfort. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, so -- and the way I understood the testimony was that was to demonstrate their intentions. It's not tied to any particular phase or permit. So, it is simply a demonstrative evidence of what their intentions are. But it doesn't tie any permitting or final inspection to that timeline. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 33 of 74 Strader: I will amend my motion to say that instead of the exhibit being attached to ACHD additional condition one, that simply ACHD's site phasing plan and timeline be attached to the DA. Simison: Second agree? Bernt: I agree. Wholeheartedly. Simison: Second agrees. Is there any further discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, nay; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: Four ayes, one no, and the motion is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Commissioner May, did you want to come up and make any comments? May: Mr. Mayor and Council, for the record Mary May, ACHD Commission President. just want to say thank you so much. We appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and to have this dialogue and the fact that we now have some resolution and we are moving forward and I speak for the entire commission and the rest of our team at ACHD, to say that we, too, are committed to building on what I think of as an already good relationship. It's only going to get better and we are looking forward to collaborating and making this really one of the best projects ever and we thank you and, please, know that we are committed. But thank you very much for the -- for the time this evening. Simison: Thank you. Council, with that we are going to take a 12 minute break. We will reconvene at 8:00 p.m. for our next two items. (Recess: 7:48 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) Simison: All right. Council, we will go ahead and come back out of our recess. Mr. Clerk, are we ready with the audio? Johnson: We are on. 4. Public Hearing for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single- family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 34 of 74 Simison: Okay. With that we will move on to Item 4 this evening, a public hearing for Apex West Subdivision, H-2021-0087. We will open this public hearing with staff comment. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 96.08 acres of land. It's zoned R- 2, R-8 and R-15 and it's located on the north side of East Lake Hazel Road, approximately a quarter mile west of South Locust Grove Road. This property was annexed with the -- Simison: Sonya, do you have a presentation that you are sharing? Allen: I didn't realize it wasn't sharing. Thank you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, Sonya got really quick to the draw on that and just like quick before I can make a little comment on the public record. Simison: Yes, Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I need to recuse myself on this one. Simison: So, what you are saying is there is a chance I get a vote. Wow. Okay. Thank you for that information. Thank you, Sonya. Allen: Alrighty. So, this property was annexed with the previous Shafer View Terrace and Apex Developments and is included in their respective development agreements. The Comprehensive Plan designation is shown there on the left map. It is low density residential the green. The medium density residential the yellow. And the medium high density residential the orange. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 208 building lots, 205 single family building lots -- I should say the 208 building lots consists of 205 single family building lots, two lots for future resubdivision for residential homes and one lot for future resubdivision for either townhomes or the development of multi-family apartments and that is that lot on Lake Hazel right here. We have 34 common lots on 96.08 acres of land in the R-2, R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. This subdivision is proposed to develop in four phases as shown on the phasing plan on the right. The proposed plat includes a portion of the parcel to the east, depicted on the plat as Lot 1, Block 5, in the surrounding area and that is this area -- if you could see my cursor -- right here. The entire parcel is required to be included in the boundary of the plat or a property boundary adjustment. The applicant is proposing to submit a revised plat prior to City Council approval of the findings to include the entire parcel in the boundary of the plat. This area will be resubdivided in the future for residential homes. A revised landscape plan is also required to be submitted, both of which will require review by staff for compliance with UDC standards. Additional conditions may be -- may need to be added to the staff report. Access is proposed at the northwest corner of the development from East Quartz Creek Street, a collector street, from South Meridian Road. From South Sublimity Avenue and South Apex Avenue, both collector streets, from Lake Hazel Road. Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and interconnectivity. Qualified open Page 63 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 35 of 74 space, consisting of linear open space, open grassy areas of at least 5,000 square feet in area, eight foot wide pathways and street buffers along collector and arterial streets is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Site amenities consisting of a swimming pool with changing facilities and a restroom, two segments of the city's multi-use pathway system, totaling a half mile, and a playground are proposed in excess of UDC standards. The future development areas will be required to comply with the open space and site amenity standards with development. The McBirney Lateral crosses this site within a 41 foot wide easement and the Watkins Drain runs along the west side of the site within a 38 foot wide easement, as depicted on the plat. These waterways are required to be piped unless otherwise waived by City Council. The applicant is requesting approval of a waiver to allow the Watkins Drain along the west boundary-- and that is this area right here in green -- to -- excuse me -- to remain open and not be piped. No fencing is proposed to prevent access to the drain. In order for Council to waive the requirement it has to find that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. Conceptual building elevations in a variety of materials and colors were submitted for future single family detached homes in this development as shown. Homes on lots along collector streets are required to incorporate certain design elements as noted in the staff report, since they will be highly visible. And just to back up a little bit. This is a cross- section that the applicant submitted showing the Watkins Drain easement and the pathway and -- and landscaping that's proposed in that area. The Commission did recommend approval of this project with conditions in the staff report. Mike Wardle and Jon Wardle, Brighton Corporation, testified in favor. No one testified in opposition or commented. Written testimony was received from Julie Edwards and Josh Beach, Brighton Corporation. Key issues were concerned with the provision of three common driveways within the development and associated traffic congestion. Concern pertaining to parking in relation to the alley accessed units and the adequacy of such for guests on the adjacent public streets, especially with the common driveways proposed and parking issues -- issues associated with those. And suggest some of the building lots be eliminated in favor of a provision of guest parking, in addition -- guest parking lot in addition to the on-street parking and elimination of the common driveways in favor of larger lots in those areas. School capacity concerns from their proposed development and others in the area. Key issues of discussion by the Commission are as follows: Desire for South Sublimity Avenue to be built with the first phase as a final build, instead of a temporary fire access. Question pertaining to if Apex East and Apex West will be considered one development for common use of common areas and amenities. The provision of common driveways within the development and associated congestion. Not in favor of common driveways, although they are allowed by code, and in favor of the applicant's request to leave the Watkins Drain open and not pipe it. The Commission did not make any changes to the staff recommendation. The following are outstanding issues for Council tonight. Number one, the Council requests approval of a waiver to UDC 11- 3A-6B as I mentioned earlier, which requires all waterways on the site to be piped in accord with UDC standards to allow the Watkins Drain to remain open as an amenity feature. Second. Staff requests Council include a modification to condition 2-B in Section 8-A to also include Lots 4 through 11 , Block 10, and the requirement for an easement for a 20 foot wide street buffer to be provided on the lots along East Horse Creek Street and South Sublimity Avenue. And, lastly, with submittal of a revised plat and landscape plan Page 64 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 36 of 74 to include the remainder of the legal parcel previously mentioned, staff may identify additional conditions of approval that need to be added to the staff report. Therefore, staff recommends the public hearing is left open and continued in order for Council to have a final review of the revised plans and any added conditions. If the applicant is in agreement with the conditions, findings can be prepared to be approved at the same meeting if deemed appropriate by Council. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Allen: There has been no written testimony since the Commission hearing also. Thank you. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Sonya, I think in -- in reading the summary document in your report I think you said that Planning and Zoning recommended approval. I have got my notes that they recommended denial. Am I misremembering, misreading? Allen: They did recommend approval. Cavener: Okay. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Sonya. So, I -- we -- we often see the -- these lots that are set aside for multi-family, maybe townhomes in the future, but I haven't often seen lots that are dedicated to single family dwellings that aren't included in the proposed plat. So, can you help me understand the thinking behind those two lots that are on the north that are triangular shaped, does it have to do with kind of how the parcels are already set out or -- it's just unique. Allen- Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I -- I don't really know why, so the applicant can respond to that question in their -- in their presentation. Thank you. Simison: Council, any other questions for staff? Then will the applicant come forward, please. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, 2929 West Navigator, Suite 400, in Meridian. 83642. Thankful for the technical capability of some people in the organization that give me the opportunity to address you this evening and I will get to the questions that were raised in due course. I'm -- I'm going to just kind of recover some of the -- the ground that Sonya has covered, but also just note that -- well, let me -- let me start with the first one. When the recommendation for approval was given by the Commission, it was -- quoting directly from the meeting minutes of February Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 37 of 74 3rd -- as presented with no modifications, but embracing the applicant's request to have a waiver for the open waterway for the Watkins Drain. So, there really were no issues that the Commission had. I mean there was a lot of discussion, but when they made the motion it was a fully affirmative motion. As Sonya noted, this area was part of the annexation that the city did back in 2015. You have already approved three projects or three specific phases of the project as Apex Northwest, Apex Southeast, and Apex East that are denoted in the purple color. This project -- again, two years ago when we brought forward a concept plan and the rezoning and those preliminary plats, it was all zoned at that point in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. So, everything that is before you is as was approved two years ago in the R-2, R-8 and R-16 zones. A little bit more detail in terms of what the ground looks like today before we get started on this. The Shafer View Subdivision, the -- and there has been applications separate from ours relative to some of the ground in that project, but Shafer View is to the west of us and west of Watkins Drain. Kind of the easterly portion of our project as proposed for specific development is along the Williams Pipeline corridor, that's the green diagonal, in reference to Council Member Perreault's comments about the triangular future development, those were specifically because they were within a parcel and we had to include them, we just don't have the detailed preliminary plats that will come forward at some point in the future. So, part of that was because of the way that the separation from -- of the parcels by the Williams Pipeline -- and that's a very difficult thing to cross without a lot of thought and so we are just not quite ready to make that crossing at this point. But it will happen as part of the area that the Council has already addressed in our past actions for the rezoning and preliminary platting. Now I need to go back and talk a little bit more about some of the elements. You will see just below the Williams Pipeline there is the McBirney Lateral. That, as the preliminary plat will show, will become a -- that lateral will be piped and there will become a pathway corridor that links many of the facilities together on kind of an easterly -- east and west alignment. The Watkins Drain, which forms the west boundary of the project, actually kind of at the beginning down at Lake Hazel, we will be piping the portions that go through the project along Lake Hazel and up Sublimity -- Sublimity Avenue of the collector along that western boundary to a point where it enters adjacent property and goes into that property. But, then, the portion above that that we will propose to be left open we will illustrate in a few moments, just kind of the character of that. So, those are the elements on the ground that we will be dealing with in the course of development. The site plan specifically shows the single family lots with those future R- 8 parcels that will be preplatted with adjacent ground in the future and as Sonya has noted, if you look kind of east -- northeasterly from the project where it says future development and has the -- the school site, that's the parcel that we have agreed with staff that will be brought in in the revised preliminary plat, only just to take -- make sure that we don't leave something out that was an original parcel. So, nothing specific will be approved there, except it will be subject to a future preliminary plat application. But just for the parceling purposes it's going to be brought in by a revised preliminary plat and so the only thing that will add to it will be the buffers along Crescendo, the east-west street, It's a collector, and along Locust Grove, which is the arterial on the east side. So, the only -- well, the only real issue that we are going to be just addressing here in a moment is the waiver. But we do have in the project 46 alley or rear-loaded lots that are designated there kind of in the southerly portion of the -- the site. I would note that those lots are 120 Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 38 of 74 feet deep. They will have the 20 foot parking pad at the back. There will be no driveway curb cuts on the streets. The streets are full width ACHD streets. So, on-street parking, so there is no need -- there was some discussion about, well, maybe they need to have a parking lot. There is no need, because we actually have more on-street parking, but we also have the required parking pads at the back of each of those lots. The open space, 16 percent -- 16 plus percent of the area is in the open space and you will see that --that green McBirney pathway corridor that I mentioned a moment ago. Community pool and playground complex there on the east side that is linked by that pathway corridor also that goes over to the --the Watkins Drain and Sonya did note the amenities, the pool, playground, and the pathway corridors. And, again, a little bit more detail precisely to show how that McBirney corridor connects the future Williams Pipeline pathway corridor, that will, in fact, be a pathway that connects already to your city park, Discovery Park, is -- has that pathway and that same pipeline going through it. We have the -- the connections that will link people down to the intersection of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove and onto the -- the park to the east. But, then, that McBirney pathway corridor, again, links all of those facilities over to the Watkins, which does have a -- already a sewer access. There is a sewer line that has been constructed into the project and I will illustrate that again in just a moment and that becomes part of the common area pathway corridor along the Watkins Drain. This is the existing Watkins. Shafer View on the left. Apex to the right. That gravel pathway or trail that you see there right now is actually the sewer access maintenance road. That will become a multi-use pathway, 14 feet wide, and so the only issue before the Council this evening, if you agree with the affirmative recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, is the question of will you grant a waiver to maintain the Watkins in an open corridor. This is just a view from the northwest corner of the project looking back with Shafer View on the right, Apex to the left, and, of course, the city's sewer access road future multi-use pathway. This simply shows that there is going to be a section that Sonya already showed to you, but I want to just reinforce. There is a -- a Watkins Drain easement that goes through that area currently. You have a city -- a 25 foot sewer easement that will become the dual purpose pathway and maintenance access and that will be the manicured area as proposed. Everything from the top of bank to the back of the lots will be manicured, but the Watkins Drain itself and the area over to the west would be native landscape and part of that you will see in the next slide is actually -- the property line is at the centerline of the Watkins. I would note that on the very west side you will see that it shows a fence location. There is, in fact, a white rail fence along all of that property, so that where it says fenced property line there is a white rail ranch type fence already in place on those adjacent Shafer View properties. Where the property line, then, deviates and goes down to the center of the Watkins, that actually occurs -- it's an interesting -- it's an engineering phenomenon, but the McBirney lateral actually siphons under the Watkins. So, you will see the McBirney Lateral at the very bottom center of the photo, it ends there, goes into a pipe, goes down through the swale under the Watkins Drain, comes back up and you can see a little roadway connection there that's an access for the purpose of maintenance for the irrigation district, that, then, intersects with the McBirney where it, then, surfaces and runs to the west. So, it's an issue that's been addressed in the past and from that point, then, to the northwest boundary of our property the Watkins Drain is actually centered on the property line and you will see, then, that sewer access road, the gravel road, that will Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 39 of 74 become paved -- a 14 foot pathway. So, we concur with the staff recommended conditions and the Commission's recommendation for approval and, again, quoting them: As presented with no modifications, but embracing the request for a waiver for the open space -- the open Watkins Drain. We agree with that recommendation and we ask for your approval with that acknowledgment. Be happy to answer any questions that you have. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, that is -- if I understand correctly drain easements generally stay dry most of the year; right? With exception of any excess groundwater that may come through natural causes. So, is -- is that correct, this is not -- there is not active water running through this on a regular basis. Wardle: Mr. -- Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, that is -- that is correct and it was interesting because of the hearing this evening -- let me go back one slide. The property owner -- if you look the very left side of the slide where the property line jogs down from the Shafer View, that adjacent property owner called me just to find out what our schedule was, noting that they plan to come in sometime this year with an application of their own on their eight acre parcel and I asked the question of him -- I said so would you tell me what the Watkins Drain is like and he said it's wet, but it doesn't really run much water and he said we really are the only ones that put any water to it from our irrigation, but it's not a stream, it's just a -- a wet swale. So, it's not a waterway that -- that would raise concerns for safety, it's purely just a natural swale that picks up the excess drainage that comes out of the area, which as development occurs will be less and less. Thank you. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I guess I can do that, Dean. Thanks for the reminder. Batting a thousand tonight. Mr. Wardle, I'm certainly supportive of -- of the request and -- but I -- I do have kind of an odd question that you may help me just become a better Council Member. When we pipe these waterways do they need to have a certain amount of moisture running through them with any type of regularity in order for them to function correctly? Do you create scenarios where they can fail because they run dry for a certain amount of time? Just -- not about this particular project, just you are here, you are making a good request that I'm supportive of, because -- because there isn't a lot of water movement and I just would seek your insight and counsel. Wardle: Well, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I kind of anticipated that there may be a question about this, so I have slipped a slide in there from your code and if we, in fact, wanted to create what is deemed a water amenity, we would have to qualify -- we would have to design and note exactly what the flows were and, then, appropriately grade, but Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 40 of 74 this doesn't even qualify for that purpose and so your code actually says -- and this is the one that we are requesting the waiver for -- in Section A, the purpose, it says -- since I'm going to just pick up the yellow highlights that -- the purpose is to limit the tiling and piping of natural waterways, including drains, where public safety is not a concern and it certainly is not. Then in the subsection on the piping, the natural waterways will remain as a natural amenity and, then, in the subsection B-2 and, then, the fencing section C-2, it talks about maintaining these as maybe left open as a water amenity and that's where you get into the technical details or linear open space. And so, again, there is no public safety issue. It's going to be primarily making sure that stuff that blows into that -- the grasses and weeds there is picked up and since it will be a homeowners association maintained corridor that will occur. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, that follows my -- that was my next question. Could an HOA erect a fence in the future if they choose to do so, if they find that -- that there is a safety issue after all? Is that something that an HOA would be able to do? Is it on -- will they have jurisdiction to do that? Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I would assume that they would if they -- if they determined that there was a threat, but there will be eight, essentially, acre lots that will back up to that and it will provide them with kind of a -- a space and a backyard area that will be, frankly, enjoyable. Probably a few critters that will wander through there occasionally. But, yes, an HOA would have the authority if they deemed that there was some kind of a threat. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Sorry, I don't want to beat this to death, but is there any -- we are in a desert, we are not like experiencing flash floods or something. Just want to make sure -- have you guys at least taken a look at it, if there is a rain storm to make sure like -- there is not a part of it that is a hazard? I know it feels remote, but I -- I just want to make sure that -- that -- that we are not missing something. Wardle: Let me go back to the pictures of what that actually looks like. Strader: And maybe -- maybe to answer the question also, like is there a part of this that if it was full of water would be more than like a foot or two feet deep in terms of the actual terrain I guess. Wardle: Under extreme conditions and, you know, with a hundred year storm, yeah, there would be the potential of a foot or two of water, but if you look at the channel right there Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 41 of 74 it's only a couple of feet wide itself. So, yeah, I -- I -- I just don't know how to respond, other than the fact that you will find that this is really similar to a lot of facilities in the community that are actually left open, many of which are improved as amenities, but because there is really no perennial water that runs through here it doesn't really even qualify for the investigation or assessment from an engineering perspective as a water amenity. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilmen Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just to shed some light on that, we have a drain that used to be on the farm, but now is part of a development and they left that open. There are requirements for safety that -- the slope and different things like that and -- and they lowered it down to have a walking path and during the summer during irrigation season drains can have a fair amount of water, I mean it probably at the deepest gets knee deep, but the rest of the year it is a drain, it -- it takes natural groundwater and water flow and carries it off. A lot of times they are under -- it's a Boise Project Board of Control and I think this one is as well. In fact, they have a letter here and they -- they don't want fencing within the project and whatnot. It can be an amenity and -- and what you are doing is similar to what they did in BridgeTower in terms of having a pathway and doing it. So, it's -- it's -- there hasn't been a safety issue. I mean we see kids making little dams across and whatnot, which they really shouldn't, but they do and, then, they--they get taken out, so it-- it's something that's actually used there. The ducks are there, the geese are there, and -- and whatnot. So, it makes it -- it makes it nice when -- when it's done correctly, so -- but I know a lot of times the Boise Project Board of Control does not want it piped, because they want that access and they want it open and so -- hope that helps. Simison: Okay. Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to provide testimony on this item? We do have someone online. It looks like Julie Edwards is online. Johnson: Julie, you are able to unmute. Edwards: Hi. My name is Julie Edwards and I live at 1310 East Mary Lane, which is just north of this subdivision and there is just a couple thing -- couple things. It wasn't about the waterways, but I did have a question about -- if there is any water studies ever done, because the majority of us surrounding this area are on wells and so once the subdivisions go in and, you know, we are not getting the water regenerating back into the aquifer from the agriculture, I'm just wondering if that's something that the neighbors all need to plan for in the future, that we are going to be drilling deeper wells or being forced to connect to city services. So, that's one thing. The other one is in regards to schools Page 70 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 42 of 74 again. I know I bring that up a lot. But, you know, it's -- in the small picture it's listed in the information packet it said this, you know, could generate 132 school age children, 154 once they had the townhomes and so my thing is that, you know, 132 students, that doesn't sound so bad, but when you look at the bigger picture of all the other applicants -- and I was hoping to talk to Marcy Horner at the West Ada School District before this, but she's out of town until tomorrow. So, I just looked at your active public hearing map online and just kind of pulled numbers from there for the schools that were zoned for this area. So, Mary McPherson Elementary, Victory and Mountain View and so there is Apex East, West, Graycliff Estates, Burnside Ridge Estates, Biltmore Estates, just for the elementary school that's almost 700 new homes going in in those and that's just, you know, what hasn't been fully approved yet. So, I know there is other things that are in the works surrounding us as well, so that's in addition to that 700 and same with the middle school, it's just under 600 and high school that was like right around the 600 mark, too. So, that was one other concern. And, lastly, I -- well, I wanted to know what the timeline was for phase three completion, just because it's edging closer to me and I just wanted to know that and also if planting -- and this is a general new development question. I don't know if they have pre-selected trees and shrubs that they are supposed to use, but I was just wondering if there was a way to kind of migrate towards using drought tolerant shrubs, trees, things like that, just doing more native landscaping because we are so dry these days. And that's all. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Julie. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Not a question, just a comment. Thank you for--for providing that concern. We recently met with the West Ada School District staff and while I agree with you, there appears to be a very acute issue, particularly brewing in south Meridian, when we directly ask them the question of what they needed from us, they -- they told us they didn't need anything from us, that they have the situation with the student population under control. I'm having a hard time, frankly, believing that. I'm doing my own math on it, but it's pretty hard when another agency emphatically disagrees and doesn't provide district wide projections. We are continuing to meet with them. I think, you know, we have meetings coming up, hopefully soon, but I just wanted to tell you I feel like we are trying to address that issue head on, but in a very recent meeting when we directly asked that question of them they told us that they will redraw their boundaries, that they have tools available and that they don't see any issue. So, I would encourage you if you see an issue to be vocal and bring that directly to them. Thanks. Simison: Thank you. I know we do have two members of our Public Works staff online. Would Council like to hear any of the information about the water issues that were asked by the applicant from Warren or Laurelei, if you are available, to unmute and provide comments to the question for Mrs. Edwards. Page 71 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 43 of 74 Stewart: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you know, the -- I can tell you that -- and let you -- let the lady that testified know that the City of Meridian has been keeping track of the aquifer for about the last 20 years. Every well that we put in we also drill a test well, which has a series of smaller wells inside of it to -- that goes to various aquifers and we track that on a regular basis to see if there is any declines in the aquifer and we have not determined that there is any significant decline in the aquifer in the Meridian area. That the aquifer underneath Meridian seems to be fairly robust at least at this point, but to caveat that a little bit, we don't -- you know, really shallow, depending on how deep the person's well is, we typically take a look at things at two to four hundred feet and deeper. There could be a situation where some private wells are not that deep and we would not necessarily measure those aquifers that they are in, those really really shallow aquifers. But we have not seen any declines in the aquifers that we have been measuring for the last 20 years and you can go to the Department of Water Resources, they have other information that's available on wells that have been drilled and water table and so forth and so that's another resource if they would like to go there. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony? If you are online you can use your raise your hand feature -- raise your hand feature on Zoom or if there is anybody else in the audience that would like to come forward on this application. Seeing none, would the applicant like to close? Wardle: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. Again, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. One of the first things that we do whenever we undertake a development is go visit with the school district. We have a reputation for addressing their needs first and foremost and we have identified a future elementary site within the project. We have also worked with Gem Prep and they are under construction for their facility to be open this fall. So, schools, yes, and we all hope and trust that decisions made by West Ada will deal with what appears to be stress and overloading, but they do have the ability to make those changes in boundaries. Ms. Edwards asked about the timeline for phase three. It would appear that 2024 would be probably the earliest that we would be into that northerly area. There is still ground between our phase that's being proposed in Apex West and their property. So, this doesn't get adjacent to them, it just gets closer. Final comment. We agree with the recommendation and ask the Council to affirm that recommendation for approval. We acknowledge that Sonya has asked that the find -- that the issue be left open until findings, so that if we add that parcel that there is any question that needs to come up or be addressed at that point that it can be and we agree with that, but we do ask that the Council approve by motion and second this evening what we have requested and what the Commission has recommended. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Page 72 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 44 of 74 Perreault: Mr. Wardle, I do have a question for you regarding the schools and when -- when Brighton set out to do this whole concept with Gem Prep being a part of it, it's my understanding that Gem Prep will be about five or six hundred students; is that correct? Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, Jonathan has been the one that has dealt with them. If there is a -- if you can answer that one. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, for the record Jon Wardle, 2929 West Navigator, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, that is correct. Their -- their student body population is designed to be about 600 students at that location. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, follow up if I may. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: We --we have a lot of hearings, so if memory serves me right, you had another annexation application before us recently where we talked about this again and -- and I guess my question for you would be was it Brighton's anticipation that this would offset the amount of public students that were anticipated to come from the whole project or was it just more of like -- it wasn't necessarily intended to replace what the public schools were offering, it's just something that is being -- a benefit that's being provided to the community, because the -- in our last hearing it was also brought up in the -- that -- that Gem Prep was -- was -- you know, was being built as an asset and -- and so I just -- is that something that you want us to take into consideration in every phase of the Apex development? Because I would anticipate that the student -- that you are probably going to have -- I mean maybe closer to a thousand students coming out of this based on kind of what I'm seeing for West Ada. So, I just want to understand a little bit more about that. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, it's an interesting question. At the time that -- when we started doing the planning for the project we were approached -- we had conversations with West Ada, but we had also been approached by Gem Prep. We did not look at it as a replacement to the responsibility that West Ada has to educate our kids and provide those facilities. This is a plus one. So, this is another opportunity, another option for families to make should they choose. It is a public charter, so it's open to all, but we really viewed it as something similar like we would do with a -- you know, our other amenities. While it's not necessarily Apex specific, there -- there were donations made so that that could be -- that could happen and happen quickly. So, not to replace, but to be a plus one. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Same question I asked last time. Has the timeline changed in terms of delivering your phases overtime. You know, if it-- if it take -- if this whole thing -- if this whole buildout ends up taking you a number of years that is a positive thing in terms of the school Page 73 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 45 of 74 district's ability to absorb students as well. So, if you guys see a big change in your timeline I would just ask that you flag that for us when these hearings come up. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, we will do that. Simison: Council, any additional questions? All right. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Seeing that there is no further questions or comments, I would move that we close the public hearing for H-2021-0087. Cavener: Second the motion. Hoaglun: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Oh. Perreault: Sorry. I believe the last outstanding issue for Council was that the public hearing be left open, but I don't know that we can do that if -- if we are going to make a motion tonight. We would have to continue; is that right? Nary: So, Mr. -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, so, yeah, thank you for -- thank you for injecting, Council Member Perreault. So, I -- I think -- Sonya and I talked about this today and we can see what the applicant thinks, but I would agree -- I think what we are trying to get to is clear direction to planning staff to create findings based on the direction and the conversation tonight, but there is this one issue that needs resolution and may require additional findings that are unclear. We don't think so. I mean the potential is probably not, but we want to make sure that there was an opportunity both if there was maybe not meeting of the minds between planning staff and the applicant or a disagreement as to whether that's complying with the Council direction, that there is at one last opportunity for the Council to weigh in on the final findings, but we could, then, approve the findings at the same hearing. So, instead of closing it and, then, waiting another week or two for findings, we would have it prepared and if there is no disagreement or they are very minor, we could finalize it that night. So, I think that was our desire was to not close it, to give direction, to create findings pursuant to that with leaving that one condition left open for a resolution before the final findings come back for approval. If I have misstated that I'm sure Sonya or the application can correct me, but I think that was our desired avenue for tonight. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Page 74 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 46 of 74 Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yes. Kind of habit to close the public hearing, so thanks for the catch there, Council Woman Perreault. So, Bill, in -- in making the motion do we signify that the public hearing will be left open? Nary: Yes. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: We leave the public -- Allen: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. Councilman Hoaglun, I might just suggest, if I may, that the public hearing just be left open for discussion of that item, rather than clear open. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Let me take a stab at this. After considering -- Simison: Are you going to withdraw your motion to close the public hearing? Hoaglun: Oh, yes. I withdraw my motion for -- to close the public hearing. Simison: Second agrees? Cavener: Second agrees. Simison: Motion is withdrawn. Hoaglun: Wow, two of them in one night. I think I have never done that before. Anyway, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve H-2021-0087 as presented in the staff report for hearing date of March 8th, 2022, and that we include a waiver of UDC-11-3A-6B to allow Watkins Drain to be left open and that the public hearing also be left open for discussion of revised plans and any added conditions. Cavener: Second. Page 75 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 47 of 74 Allen: Mr. Mayor -- Simison: Have a motion and a second. Allen: -- clarification from the city attorney if I may. Is -- should they actually be making a decision at this meeting, since the public hearing is being continued? Nary: So, the way I took that motion is that it is still pending and there is a final decision to be made when the findings are completed, but the direction is to complete the findings but for this one outstanding issue to be resolved. So, it's not a final decision until the findings get approved. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, I -- I would just maybe suggest one other alternative and that would be to actually close the hearing, make the motion and, then, if that one issue requires some further discussion at the time of findings, that the issue could be reopened at that point, just so that we can avoid confusion only on that one item. Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Wardle, but, then, we have to renotice it. Wardle: I didn't under -- Nary: We have to renotice the hearing. Wardle: Oh. Okay. Nary: So, this would avoid us being able to having to renotice and be able to take action at the final hearing. Wardle: We are agreeable with that, as long as the Council's direction is clear that they are recommending it -- or approving the project subject to just clarification when that one issue is addressed through the revised preliminary plat, that adds only undeveloped parcel. Nary: Yes. Subject to the final decision and approval at the next hearing. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: I do have a motion and a second, so we are in discussion. Hoaglun: Yes. To just clarify, I just want to make sure that -- from -- from the -- the staff deal, it is -- for the public hearing to be left open and continued in order for Council to have a final review of the revised plans and any added conditions. So, that's what we want to -- want to follow here and that's why we are leaving the public hearing process open. Page 76 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 48 of 74 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I don't have anything specific to state regarding the motion, but before we vote I wanted to mention specifically regarding the public testimony this evening, that because these properties aren't even annexed and we already had conversations with the applicant prior about school enrollment and whatnot, we -- we do take the decision regarding approval of preliminary plat just a little bit differently. I -- I know that Ms. Edwards had mentioned that in a letter that she had written and -- and I want to be clear to her and anybody else that's listening that -- that we are hearing -- but that we -- we address this -- approach this just a little bit differently, because this has already been annexed and they are complying with the zoning, so -- Simison: Is there any further discussion? All those in favor -- you know, because we are not approving the project, so voice vote okay? Nary: Yes. Simison: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the item is continued. To what date? Allen: It depends on how long it will take the applicant to revise their plan. Simison: It depends on how long it will take the applicant to revise their plans. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: You know I better abstain just for the record. Simison: Yeah. Noted. Allen: I need the revised plans a few days -- like at least a week before the hearing to get the staff report out. Nary: The April 5th or whatever the -- Allen: So, if we continue for two weeks I will need the revised plans in a week. The applicant states are good with that. Simison: Okay. So, all clear -- clear is good for the record? Do we have a date on the record with a motion? Okay. Approved until the 22nd? Okay. Thank you. Let's not do that again. Page 77 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 49 of 74 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Quartet South Subdivision (H-2021-0088) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on Parcels S043432586 and S0434325410, at the Northeast Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 67.61 acres of land with the R-8 (48.83 acres) and R-15 (18.78 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 229 single-family residential lots, 2 multi-family lots with 140 townhouse units, and 42 common lots. Simison: All right. Next item up is Item 5, Public hearing for Quartet South Subdivision, H-2021-0088. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. Alan Tiefenbach, planner with City of Meridian. Get moving here. Okay. This is a proposal for an annexation, rezoning and the preliminary plat. The site is 67 acres, zoned RUT in Ada county, located at the northeast corner of the North Black Cat, West Ustick intersection. July 2020 Quartet Northeast, which is 137 buildable lots, and Quartet Southeast, which were 50 lots, were approved north of this property, which is up in here. This is basically a southern continuance of that development. This is proposed from medium density -- or sorry. This is designated by the future land use map medium density residential, three to eight dwellings per acre. The applicant proposes to annex a total of 67 acres of -- 67.6 acres of land. 48.83 acres on the northern portion of the property is proposed to be rezoned to -- or excuse me -- is proposed to be rezoned to R-8 to allow 229 single family detached homes. The southern 18.78 acres of land is proposed for R-15 zoning to allow 140 single family attached or multi-family units, although the housing type has not been chosen yet. They have not determined what that's going to be. Here is a graphic showing what's been approved or what is in the process out there. Jamestown Ranch Subdivision, which is here, Quartet Northeast and Southeast, which you see down here. The Klamath Basin, Staten Park, and Geddes Subdivisions, those are to the south and Birchstone Creek Subdivision is to the west across the street on Black Cat. To the east, which is here, is all unincorporated and that is the area of the wastewater facility plant and the ACHD maintenance facility where I think you know where that is. There is -- these all have comparable densities in the area, except that what is being proposed with this one includes multi-family and there is no multi-family in this area. Again, the applicant has said they are not sure whether it's going to be multi-family or single family attached. It is important to know, though, that if they do multi-family that would be a conditional use required at that time. There are presently four accesses off of Black Cat Road. These accesses will be closed and the west entrance from North Black Cat will occur from West Aspen Stone, which is here and North Makato Drive, which is already approved as part of the Quartet Subdivision, which is to the north. Internal streets will be built to ACHD local standards. The applicant submitted a traffic study for this application. ACHD Page 78 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 50 of 74 responded that the level of service at the North Black Cat-West McMillan intersection, which is up to the north of here, is functioning at level of service F and that sections of North Black Cat and West Ustick Road also are exceeding the acceptable level of service. J -- as you now know, the integrated five year work plan has been updated as of January 26th. This is not what the Planning Commission knew at the time, where is -- they are -- will be widening Ustick Road in this area to five lanes. I hope. That was sort of a joke. Yeah. The North Black Cat-West Ustick intersection was signalized with turn lanes in 2021. This intersection is eventually intended to be widened between 2026-2030. The applicant will be required to construct a dedicated eastbound turn lane on Ustick, Sunnyside, and a dedicated northbound right turn lane on Black Cat and Aspen Stone Drive. The applicant will also be required to construct ten foot wide pathways along North Black Canyon and West Ustick. There are two common drives proposed with this subdivision. I will go back to this. There is a minimum of 15 percent open space meeting the standards listed in UDC and that's -- oh, sorry. Minimum of 15 percent is required with this development. They are showing just about 15 percent -- well, they were and will show you the updated plans, which has increased the open space, but at the time that this came out 15 percent was being provided. This includes that-- includes two larger parks, several smaller open spaces, some park -- some parkways, as well as the pathways running along the facility. Based on the not quite 49 acre area of land proposed for R-8 zoning, ten amenity points are required. That's the way our new regulations read. Because this is more than 40 acres, amenities are required from all of those categories. This application proposes a community pool and changing room, children's play structures, and a clubhouse. Although the square footage is not indicated, just with staff scaling it out, we determined this clubhouse does scale at a larger than 5,000 square feet. What that means is it qualifies it for six amenity points. There is -- depending on the square footages how many amenity points you get. Let's see. Also the -- the -- yeah. So, also the children's play structure is indicated. That would be one amenity point. Although the 13 points which we came up with would exceed what's required -- again they need to have ten -- it doesn't meet all of the categories, which is what's required. That's easy enough for them to solve, but at the time that we received this it didn't meet all of the amenity categories that were required. This subject property is adjacent to the Naomi Farms property, which is what you see with the brown and the pluses I guess or the crosses. That area is resident -- is designated for mixed use nonresidential. The purpose of that designation is designated areas where new residential dwelling units should not be permitted, as they would deem to be not compatible with the planned or existing uses in the areas. The wastewater treatment plant is approximately 1 ,200 square feet to the east, which is -- sorry -- right about here. Also as you now know the ACHD facility will be just to the south of this property, about a thousand feet away. Staff does have concerns with this being close to the highly intensive use in regard to noise, light, and traffic. At present the Naomi Farms property could be developed as industrial if it was annexed into the city and it would comply with the future land use map. Staff has recommended to the applicant that a better transition should be provided between this property and the mixed use neighbor -- or, excuse me, mixed use nonresidential designation to the east. The applicant has responded that there may be a future request for a future land use map amendment to allow additional residential uses in this area and I mean, again, this area in here and the applicant has noted that a buffer or transition via Page 79 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 51 of 74 a road or something like that could be provided as part of this request. The applicant also states that the mixed use nonresidential designation is intended to provide that transition, which is why this project shows houses directly backing up to the Naomi Farms parcel. Staff has noted that due to the increasing loss of industrial land and the impacts of the wastewater treatment plant and the future ACHD maintenance facility, we may not support a change to the -- to the residential designation in this area. However, whether or not the City Council is compliant -- is inclined to support redesignating this area for residential, unless the applicant procures his property or the current property owner is also an applicant, staff cannot ascertain whether or not an appropriate transition is provided based on a parcel that's not owned by the applicant and not part of this proposal. Staff does have concerns with higher density residential and actually low density residential this close to industrial uses, not only because of the wastewater treatment plant, but backing up to the Naomi parcel and because it's now going to be relatively close to the ACHD maintenance -- maintenance facility, which will have light, sound, and traffic impacts. Council should determine if there has been an adequate transition in this area. The applicant has submitted elevations of the single family homes. These are depicted as one and two story structures with attached garages and a variety of architectural elements. Submitted elevations do seem to meet our architectural requirements. Design review is required for single family attached or multi-family. Again, the applicant said they are not sure which type it would be. However, since they have not provided us elevations at this time, we are proposing that as a condition of approval that if you were to approve this, the architecture of any single family attached or multi-family units be generally consistent with what's being shown here with the single family elevations, so that it blends better. The application does meet most of the requirements of the UDC, so within the density range there is 15 percent, which has gone up, which I will talk about in a second. The minimum 4,000 square foot are met and the applicant has provided the required amenity points, although not within all of the required categories, which, again, is easy for them to fix. However, staff, as I said, does have concerns with the density and the proximity to the industrial uses, the existing traffic in the area, the level of service and the timing of future improvements, which will be somewhat helped with the new Ustick widening. At the February 3rd, 2002, Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application. Their concerns include the length of the block to the east without a break, which is -- this is the previous one, which is what you can see in this pointer here. That the traffic study that was analyzed was more than four -- four years old and this traffic study was actually done before most of the development in this area had even been approved. The existing level of -- the existing traffic level of service in the area now, which is not good. That the timing for future improvements, except for Ustick, were at least ten years out. They also had issues with how close it was to the residential -- or, excuse me, to the industrial uses, to the ACHD facility, to the wastewater treatment plant, that there is no lack of transition. There was a comment about whether they were trying to fit in as many lots as they could. Since the time of the Planning Commission meeting the applicant has submitted these revised drawings and on the right I'm pointing out what the significant changes are. First one is a break in the block length. So, again, there is a requirement how long a block length can be. They have added this trail connection here -- I don't know if you can see it well, just because of how small it is, but what I'm showing there with the arrow. So, that's breaking Page 80 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 52 of 74 the block length as required. They are narrowing down the street in this area to provide traffic calming. They have widened the lots along the east to reduce the number of lots from 41 to 36,just to make it a little larger on the east. They have redesigned this southern cul-de-sac to make it easier for fire turnaround. This has increased their open space from 15 to just about 16 percent. And as I noted again, since the time of the Planning Commission, this is very new--ACHD has told us that now they are going to widen Ustick Road, which was certainly one of the major concerns when the Planning Commission saw this. With that staff will conclude our presentation, unless you have any comments or questions. Simison: Thank you. Councilman Bernt, did you have any statement that you want to make on this one this evening? Bernt: Same statement. Thank you. Simison: Okay. Council, any questions for staff? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question, Alan. You know, this is in Ada county right now. RUT. The future land use map is -- designates it as medium density residential. With all the things you just outlined, with transitions and, then, the waste treatment plant, should this have been something else -- zoned something else? Tiefenbach: I don't think I'm going to answer that one, because I'm sure Caleb's on the line listening. Hoaglun: I -- I mean the outlining issues and -- and I'm like, okay, are -- are we going in the wrong direction with this, so -- Tiefenbach: Mr. Hoaglun, Members of the Council, I guess -- I don't know if I want to answer that one, but I will say I think staff is comfortable that what is designated to the east as mixed use nonresidential is very appropriate. Hoaglun: I guess, Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Alan, I'm -- I'm -- so, you know, we have areas where we do zone residential and, then, there is commercial. When the residential moves in and, then, a little bit later the commercial comes in and the commercial then -- and I was thinking when I was on council previously on Overland, that's when the Walmart went in and the requirements of where they are shipping was, move it from the back to the side, the walls, the trees, how the lighting works, all those good things that we have when we abut, you know, different Page 81 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 53 of 74 uses together and I'm just thinking, okay, who -- who makes the transition here. Is -- are we trying to -- and what does that transition look like for residential for what's going to be possibly mixed use or something else, which we don't know. Tiefenbach: Council Person Hoaglun, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess that's the million dollar question. Sort of the chicken and the egg; right? Does this applicant provide the -- the transition, since this applicant knows that they are developing next to what will possibly be industrial and they are the ones developing or do we let the applicant build houses directly on the property line and, then, hold somebody who is not part of this application or developing at this time, hold them responsible for the transition. I do know that one of the Planning Commissioner's concerns was that if we did allow houses to directly back to that line that's putting some pretty significant limits now on what kind of uses will occur to that -- to that parcel, because now we have just eliminated a lot of uses that could occur right there on the property line. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: On that same note, however, to be devil's advocate, what if the applicant does do that and, then, a minimally impactful use goes in anyway and now the applicant's spent those funds or modified their application and it was unnecessary. Tiefenbach: Council Person Perreault, Members of the Council, valid point. Don't think I can answer that. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just to double check and make sure that I -- I understand the concern about the transition and the property next to it being nonresidential. I just want to make sure that this is not within the area of concern identified in the odor study. So, maybe that's a question for the Public Works Department if they are still online. McVey: I can -- I can jump in if you would like. Simison: Sure, Laurelie. McVey: Okay. Thank you. So, this is actually outside of our -- this particular parcel is outside of the impact -- the odor study impact area. So, at this point the only parcel that -- and I should say this is from the Public Works standpoint, so other planning issues aside, but the only parcel that is of a concern at this point that's non-city owned for the odor study is the parcel directly to the -- the north and -- I guess northwest of this parcel. So, this parcel and the parcel next to it, because of the prevailing wind patterns and odor study, are not a concern -- or significant concern from the odor study standpoint. Page 82 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 54 of 74 Strader: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, maybe to give some context on the past and maybe to answer Council Member Hoaglun's question. Originally this entire area was listed as a nonresidential zone and so the whole area around the treatment plant for a long time would not allow anything other than commercial uses, industrial storage units, those types of things because of the concerns about the plant. Over time the Public Works Department has worked very hard on the -- on the odor and noise studies to figure out where the concern should be and that's kind of where we have landed and in the last iteration of the comp plan that was the conversation of what else can we put here now that we are -- we have a better clarity from the science and from the studies as to where the areas of industrial or nonresidential uses should be and where other things could be. So, I don't know if that answers your question on did we zone it right, but we based it a lot on evaluation and study and analysis of the science around the -- the treatment plant. So, it really was intentional to allow other uses, including residential, to the east of the -- or to the west of these properties. Whether and how far and what's close I think, again, we looked at that a lot in those studies on what's appropriate buffer, but it doesn't answer the ultimate question of who is supposed to buffer. Is it both sides? Is it one side? You know, is it -- is it reasonable on the first property owner or is it reasonable to split the difference -- again I think that's your decision. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Perreault: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: This is where I really wish that the neighboring property owners would come to the hearings, because I would like to hear their thoughts, even if they don't have a plan in place, just in general and I guess I have to make this assumption that -- that that individual is not showing up to advocate for their own property. Simison: I don't know that -- do we know they are not here? Perreault: So -- well, I apologize. Perhaps they are. I assumed that they weren't, because I hadn't read anything -- any -- any entries. But that's -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Alan, this -- this road there to the -- I guess that's to the east. Thank you, Mr. Hoaglun. Where you have got these -- these kind of arrows pointing, my assumption is staff is supportive of this type of change. Again, I'm not the traffic engineer, as we have Page 83 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 55 of 74 learned tonight, but it -- it looks very similar to what was initially proposed and I know there was a lot of concern from the Planning and Zoning Commission about that. Does staff share those same concerns? Tiefenbach: Mr. Cavener, Members of the Council -- well, certainly they -- they broke up the eastern block. That was -- that was something -- they just weren't meeting the code. They had to do that. The -- the concerns that staff has listed in the staff report and same with the Planning Commission, we are really not related to what they were showing with the road here. These --these were some tweaks that are positives, that they have broken up the block length, they provided some traffic calming. I believe that -- that Mr. Buongiorno does support the turnaround, but what they are showing here -- what -- what you are seeing here is really not the reason why Planning Commission did not support this and this really was not the -- the cause of most of staff's concerns. Staff's concerns were related to the traffic on the surrounding network, proximity to the ACHD facility, the water treatment plant, the industrial, those were staff's concerns. Cavener: Thank you. Simison: Counsel, any additional questions for staff? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Alan, I -- I always gave credit to President Reagan for breaking up the Eastern Block, but if you want staff to be in -- I guess. That's kind of -- Tiefenbach: Might be coming back, Mr. Council Person, by the way things are going on the news. Hoaglun: I hope not, but you may be right. Simison: With that I will ask the applicant if they would like to come forward, please. J.Wardle: Alan, can I share my screen? Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Council Members, good evening. My name is Jon Wardle. 2929 West Navigator, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 appreciate the opportunity to come tonight and to talk about this project, which is a continuation of projects that have been brought before you already, which we have called Quartet Northeast and Quartet Southeast and, in fact, this is a continuation and providing some continuity with the community as we move towards Ustick Road. Quartet South includes a variety of -- of housing and living options on 67.61 acres, both single family and alley loaded homes, as well as future townhomes on -- towards the south shown there in yellow. The area designated for -- in red is the R-8 area, which is 48.83 acres. R-15 would be that future attached or multi-family down there in yellow on -- along Ustick and Black Cat Road. In addition to the -- I just want to clarify regarding the R-15. We don't know exactly at this point if it would be a -- a single family attached or a multi-family. Page 84 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 56 of 74 Regardless, that still goes through a process, which is a conditional use process, and we would bring back more detail for the city to review as part of the overall project. The overall density for what you see, both the single family and the multi-family, the R-15, is 5.35 acres for the entire project. When we have gone through and we did an update to the master plan for Quartet South, in the R-8 area we have 9.42 acres of open space, which is 19.3 percent for that and as Alan noted the requirement is 15 percent overall. The R-15, as it stands right now, although this is interim, we are at 7.8 percent., That as I mentioned we will come back. There will be open space requirements for the multi- family in the future. The amenities that are presented before the Council tonight is, yes, we will have a very large clubhouse, which will be over the threshold that Alan mentioned with a large play structure and a community swimming pool. We are trying to emulate the type of amenity package we have done in our Cadence communities, but this is an all ages community, so we are just trying to add some more social interactions opportunities in Quartet South and that's why we are showing a much larger clubhouse in this project. We will be installing ten foot sidewalks on Ustick and on Black Cat with the project as we move forward and like I mentioned, we will bring back the R-15 in the future and bring that back for the city's review and approval. As Alan mentioned, we did make some amendments and adjustments to the design. I just wanted to hit these quickly, just so that you understand what we have done based on, you know, comments that were made, but also ways to improve the overall project. The first one is over on the middle of the project, which I identify as number one. We looked at this -- yes. Originally there was just one long road. It doesn't look like much at the moment, but I'm going to zoom to the next sheet here. When Brahm comes down and connects with -- with this road, it's actually -- the movement is a forced right turn and if you are going to go south we are going to choke that with a 24 foot back to back, which is approved by ACHD and the same thing on the bottom here. Is if you are coming up Brahms you are going to be taking a left-hand turn. So, we have broken it up, so that you no longer have that straight continuous road that's kind of shown on the left-hand side here. Like also mentioned, we have reduced the number of lots along the eastern boundary and have increased the open space as well, both in the north-south and in the middle of the project. Overall we have removed six lots along that boundary. On the south there has been lots of comments made about common driveways and we do agree that there was an opportunity to improve the design of this We worked with Mr. Buongiorno to come up with a way that we could perhaps provide still some on-street parking. This would be a 33 foot street coming all the way around, which would allow on-street parking, but we would limit the parking in the bottom of the - - of that turn around, just so there is no impact to the fire department, but this does eliminate the common drive on the southern, which also improves the project. And, finally, you know, we wouldn't want to eliminate all common driveways, but we did want to look at a way to improve it. I -- some of the concerns we have had -- or have heard from Council is these common drives just dead end and it -- it becomes tight. On the right- hand side the improvement is we are actually going to install a detached sidewalk. We will have a planter strip. And so there will be a sidewalk that connects from Trilby all the way out to Black Cat and opens it up. It's not closed in. We think that common driveway should still be a tool. They may not need to be the only design solution, but we feel like this one, by adding the pedestrian access and not blocking that off, this is a very good way to do common driveways and I think we have proven that it could be -- it will be very Page 85 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 57 of 74 livable. There were a few items that were in the staff report that we want to address. The first one was arterial frontage improvements and timing of those. The future residential in the R-15, alleys, and, then, the big one is the future land use map. Staff had indicated in the staff report that they wanted from day one Ustick Road and Black Cat improved with our first phase. We have always been a supporter of making roadway improvements. It is, however, problematic for us to do that in this case. There are utility improvements that need to be made. As noted as well, ACHD will be making improvements as well, so there is an opportunity that some things would be thrown away, but we do feel like, yes, we do support those, but the timing of those at the very beginning of the project is not appropriate and we would request that the improvements be made at a time such that those phases adjacent to that -- or in concert with ACHD's improvement be the -- the opportunity for those. So, we request Condition 1-B be deleted. Regarding the 140 residences in the future on the R-15, like I said, it could be single family attached or it could be multi-family. Either way it's going to require a CUP. We will bring that back. If it's single family there will be a plat associated with that. If it's multi-family the CUP -- and we will meet the open space requirements. We are just asking that this condition be modified, so that it can run concurrent with the CUP and not prior to that submittal. Alleys -- we have actually -- we have really just narrowed this down to a single issue. Staff had made a comment that this doesn't comply with the city's ordinance. It actually does comply. You can see from one end to the other. What the -- where they want to avoid those is when they make a -- like a turn and it doesn't -- you can't see through, kind of a blind corner. But this one you can see all the way through and you can see this way as well. So, we are asking that condition be deleted. Finally, the big item, which has a lot of history. It actually goes back to 2001 . If you want to go back in time and we can -- I can bring back the -- the future land use maps and we might need to do that tonight, but this mixed use nonresidential designation has been on the city's Comprehensive Plan since at least 2001 where the question came up was who is responsible for the buffer. There were early conversations that perhaps there could be a change in this use. Let's just take that off the table. We know that the use today -- or in the Comprehensive Plan is mixed use nonresidential. We don't have any ownership in that. We can't speak for that owner. They would need to come do that on their own. As it stands today, this is mixed use nonresidential and the city's Comprehensive Plan is very clear as to how that should be treated. Just like a commercial project in any designation would buffer or transition to residential, this one is no different. If you look at the city's Comprehensive Plan, which I have a snapshot up here in the corner, as well as a concept diagram that is also in your Comprehensive Plan, this shows specifically how that transition is to occur and I will zoom into this on the next one. I have just created the highlights here. I have taken the same exhibit here, I have taken the mixed use nonresidential and made it brown, just like it is on your -- on your future land use map and the residential in yellow. That exhibit shows clearly, as does your -- the narrative in the future -- in the Comprehensive Plan that transitional use is encouraged on the perimeter of the mixed use nonresidential area between any existing or planned residential development. In fact, tonight the ACHD project that came before you provided that transition to Naomi Farms, even though they are in that designation it is an existing residential. Little nuance that was perhaps missed, but that was, in fact, a -- a requirement of the ACHD project for that landscape buffer. Also in the city's exhibit it clearly shows that there is single family residential coming right Page 86 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 58 of 74 up to the mixed use nonresidential. If you look here it shows that there is existing industrial use or new industrial use in the middle, perhaps some flex use, light manufacturing and, then, going to office and light distribution along the perimeter before you would get to the single family. This has been codified in your Comprehensive Plan. This has actually been in the Comprehensive Plan -- I think this exhibit has at least going back to 20 --the previous one and 2011 . This exhibit has been there since that time. This just simply shows the type of zones that could occur within the mixed use nonresidential, from C-C all the way up to I-H. There was a project to the east, they are showing I-L, but these are zones that could be allowed. The city has built in transitions that are required for these. On I-L or I-H there is a minimum of 25, up to 40 feet between that use and residential. When you look at the C-C through the H-E, it's anywhere from 20 on L-O -- don't know you do L-O here, but more traditionally be 25 feet. So, the city is already built in these transitions into the UDC. Finally, if there was a heavy user that decided they wanted to come along and build on the boundary, there are additional setback requirements built into the UDC under additional requirements, anywhere from 300 feet, depending on the industry, to light heavy, or if it was a food and beverage processing that would be 600 feet. The city has already anticipated some of these uses and how they should transition. The mixed use nonresidential is the transition. It's not the adjoining use. We are -- we have been part of the comp plan process for a long time. We are familiar with it. The Comprehensive Plan is very clear. When you go back to your exhibit and the way that the language is, that the transitional uses, whether it's to us on the west or to the south, those transitional uses should be required against residential and that's where that transition would have come from. I just want to show one other thing here. It's not really clear, but you can also see if they have designated in your exhibit a landscape buffer, even from those transitional uses against the residential. In summary we are requesting the following conditions be deleted or modified. We want 1-B, 2-A and 2-B to be deleted and modify 1-C that the applicant be required to amend the development agreement concurrent with the CU for the multi-family piece on the R-15 zone. We feel like the modifications that we have made from a design perspective actually improve the overall project. It gave us an opportunity to go back and look at some of those things, to break up the long road, to provide some additional opportunities for connectivity to the public roads and to look at it as a whole project. We respectfully request that the City Council approve the Quenzer South annexation and rezone and preliminary plat and I stand for any questions you might have. Simison: Thank you. We -- we had a minute 45 back on the timer. I was actually surprised. Jon normally goes right to the last second, so -- Turnbull: Pretty punctual. Excuse me. Mayor, Members of the Council. David Turnbull. 2929 West Navigator in Meridian. I just wanted to highlight a couple of things and I usually don't speak at these, because Jon does a much better job. Mike and Jon do a much better job. But if you take a look at this area that we redesigned on that area on the east side, that roadway -- and I think Jon did a good job of zooming in on that. We actually went through so many iterations between the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and this hearing from -- and -- and I -- and I mentioned to our team -- and -- and this goes back -- we don't always do everything perfect, but every project we do we like to do it Page 87 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 59 of 74 better and we like to look at it with fresh eyes. So, we looked at this and we looked at it with common drives that would break up that area and we looked at it with little Snoopy dog entrances that would break up that area and in the end I said, well, let's listen to what the Council has been saying. We need to take a look at common drives with new eyes, not make them sterile, like sometimes they are. Provide for some connectivity and in this case why don't we just connect it all the way through, but create those chokers and that -- those chicanes in this area, so it makes it look like a -- like a private street, it still meets ACHD standards. But the other thing that you will notice here, if you zoomed out, now we have around that common park four sided -- they are all alley loaded homes with no driveways facing that common park. So, that's kind of like something that I think really enhances the feel of the overall project and so those are some of the things that we feel like --we want you to know that we hear what you say and we are always looking at ways to improve and, then, I think Jon made it abundantly clear what the issue is on the perimeter buffer with the resident -- the nonresidential use to the east. Whenever we have done commercial projects next to residential we have provided the buffer on our commercial properties. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, let's go back to talking about Ustick. So, I want to understand the ACHD report and their requirements of you for the turn lanes. So, they are requesting a turn lane on Ustick eastbound coming -- and heading north; is that right? And would that not, then, be constructed with their development and improvement and -- and not something that you would be required to do? J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, we actually were anticipating that we would be doing -- you would have that center turn lane where -- it actually would go through the intersection. Itjust doesn't dead end there. There would be a widening there. It does get back to the timing of their improvements and the way that we are phased on this project, we actually -- see if I can get to that. Our phasing here is we would be doing the red area first and, then, we would go green and so perhaps by the time we get down here ACHD is a little bit closer and we can coordinate those. We are -- we are willing to make the improvements at the time that they needed, but it may be better to coordinate with them, so we are not throwing things away. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. That's where I was going with that was how you were -- how that was going to work, because based on the time -- you had mentioned in the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that you thought that phase one would start summer -- early Page 88 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 60 of 74 as summer of '23 -- or '23. Yeah. So, that means that phase two maybe a year later and they were not confident in their hearing tonight that this section would be done in 2024. So, I didn't know how that would play out. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, we have worked with ACHD very closely on improvements as you can appreciate what we have done out in south Meridian and timing of certain things that they are doing. We will just work with them to make sure that those things are done in concert. I did want to clarify one thing regarding the traffic study. It's been mentioned a couple times that the traffic study was dated. That's not correct. We actually -- our traffic study was done in the summer of '21. We went out and did traffic counts in August of '21. The only part of the traffic study that goes back four years was the intersection of Black Cat and Ustick. At the time we did our traffic counts that intersection was shut down because of the signal, which we now have, and so ACHD requested that we use data from 2018. But, then, we put an inflation factor in it for a 2021 basis. So, there were no traffic counts at the intersection of Black Cat and Ustick when we did our study, but that's not -- it wasn't a correct statement that this was an old traffic study, because we actually went out and did it. There was additional modeling that COMPASS has been doing at the same time related to the State Highway 16 corridor, so this area has a lot of information that is current. So, I just wanted to clarify that, that this is not a dated traffic study. This is a current traffic study, with exception of that intersection. But ACHD dictated that we use 2018 and, then, just inflate that to today's numbers. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, one more question about traffic. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, am I reading correctly that they also are asking you to do a center turn lane heading north on Black Cat or was it just the right turn into that --that northerly street and, then, a left turn lane within the development onto Black Cat heading south or are they-- because there is not currently a center turn lane in that, so that would be significant -- a significant road improvement on your part in that section of Black Cat. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, we will be adding a center turn lane on Black Cat through that intersection to make that turn. It's not necessarily needed right now for right turn coming into it, but that moving either southbound -- there needs to be the ability to get out of the lane of traffic to get into the site and so, yes, there will be a center turn lane needed on that. That's also a situation where, you know, timing of -- ACHD just put in the interim signal, but their plans -- this will be a dual lane roundabout. So, there are improvements here at that same time frame, just talking through how that's all going to work together. I will note that that would be our third phase and I would assume that we would be pretty close -- our timing of that phase and what ACHD has of their plans are going to, you know, be pretty consistent. So, we just would look to make sure that we are doing improvements that are additive to what they need. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Page 89 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 61 of 74 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Question for staff just to clarify. If a future CUP for the R-15 would come in front of City Council or not. Tiefenbach: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, no, a conditional use -- it would go only to Planning Commission. I suppose you can require something by the DA, but in general no. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I can just add something there as well. Council Strader, we are in agreement, however, that there would be a DA modification that would detail what we would be doing there. So, we haven't -- we aren't saying you won't see it. You are going to get an opportunity to see it. If it is single family attached, there is also going to be a plat accompanying that. But, regardless, there will be a DA modification that will come to Council and so you will be able to see that part of the project. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess just to get some feedback on that. I -- I guess the -- the challenge that I have with that is that the most power that the city has is during the annexation process and so, you know, we are all different. My -- my psychology is a control freak psychology and I apologize for that, that's just how I am. I hate the idea of approving something that I am not going to see. I -- I just don't -- I'm not into it. Especially something really dense In this location. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I can add one thing to that perhaps to address Council Member Strader's question. We would agree to bring back that CUP so the Council could see that before it got approved. So, it will go to Commission and we would allow the city to see that -- the City Council to see that. It's not required, but we are making a commitment that we would bring that back. Simison: That's a commitment I would trust. Because we are on commitments from partners this evening. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, I'm not going to respond to that. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, that being R-15, I mean for multi-family it doesn't seem to me like that's not quite as dense as you would expect. So, I know you haven't decided what's going to go in there, I just -- as a Council Member and -- and as a real estate professional, I want to make a --a plea to consider townhomes. We really have a shortage of them in Meridian and we have --we have approved a lot of apartments, but I would love to see opportunities Page 90 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 62 of 74 for folks to purchase homes that are attached and so I'm just -- that's -- I'm going to leave it there. But I am making a plea to you to consider the townhomes, because we really don't have enough of those as of -- as we encourage a variety of housing in our community. Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Perreault, I meant to clarify that when I was up here before. I didn't want anybody to get confused about a multi-family designation here. Our intent -- what we are debating on here is something not to exceed a townhome type of a product. So, I don't want anybody to get the impression that we are talking about three or four story apartments here. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, in fact, you know, we -- you know, we have designed this so that it would be a townhome style project. Two story in nature and kind of have built in a density here so that that was also into the traffic study. So, that information is there, it's in the background information and we just wanted to give the whole picture here and just to clarify -- if -- if desired that CUP -- it could be a required condition that it come back for Council review. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Jon, let's -- let's walk through Black Cat and what improvements you are going to be making. I mean with the approved developments already and, then, with this one before us, ACHD is showing that Black Cat in the CIP is to be widened to five lanes from McMillan to Ustick Road between 2031 and 2035 and I know-- I think -- I have seen some turn lanes that you are required to put and what not, but that -- that's going to be awhile before that road gets improved and there is a lot more traffic coming on there. So, can you walk me through how -- how are you mitigating those increases in traffic that these developments bring in? J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun -- Council Member Hoaglun, that's a good question. We are not going to leave those improvements just alone; right? We are going to be required to make those improvements, so that we can get at least a three -- what would be a three lane road by making our piece on that -- you know, we have to expand at least 17 feet. It would be great if we could do more improvements on this roadway section, but given the timing of Black Cat -- in fact, Black Cat from Chinden all the way down to -- to Franklin is a transportation corridor that has a lower priority. It doesn't mean it's not important, but there are some limitations on what ACHD is able to do in the short term. We are fully committed to working with -- as best as we can where there is available right of way to make some improvements ahead of those time frames. We also -- there -- there is a nuance right now in the ACHD requirements, typically on street -- or your sidewalk is in a five foot detached. They are in the process of amending that to be ten feet. We are actually saying we will go ahead and do ten feet, so we have it right to begin with in the right location. So, that improvement is done as the project develops. I -- would like to be able to say, yes, we are fully committed to do a CDA and make all these Page 91 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 63 of 74 improvements, but there are limitations and ACHD did indicate -- provided your staff a letter today saying, you know, there is priorities in place and it may not be possible to do this if the right of way is not there. Between our project and the project to the north, the ultimate right of way can be dedicated with these two projects and ACHD has the ability to make that happen with these projects and not have to go through any type of condemnation or eminent domain in the future. So, we -- short of being able to say, yes, we could do a CDA, I don't know that we can at this point until priorities change on some of these transportation improvements in this area. I will say, however, it is a very good step by ACHD on the prioritization of Ustick back to Linder. I think that's going to enhance this area dramatically based on -- you know, from just a two lane road to a five lane road with a dual lane roundabout at this location. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant at this time? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: If we -- if you don't mind going back to the slide we were just on. So, with Black Cat and -- and I understand what you are saying, incurring that whole cost, right, with phase one -- that's hard to take that on. But what's the timing of each phase and when could improvements start to happen from just -- how does that fit with your timeline? And I understand that that could change, but what you are expecting? J.Wardle: I anticipated that might come up and I'm just scrolling through my notes here. So -- so, best case for us in terms of development is we would be starting in phase one in summer of 2020 -- we would be able to deliver lots in summer of 2023, which means there would be occupancy starting in the, you know, springtime, early of 2024. And, then, coming down to the green area, this would be a spring 2024 delivery and, then, over here this would be a delivery probably late fall 2024. Again, there -- there -- we are going to have a much better idea with ACHD and their improvements, but our -- our connections down -- connections over to Black Cat and the improvements that we are making actually with Quartet Northeast and Southeast on Black Cat Road with those projects and the future improvements, I -- I feel comfortable and confident that we will be able to marry up our plans with ACHD's plans, so that these things are happening concurrently and also to minimize, you know, what those future restrictions or closures would be on both Ustick and Black Cat. Be better to do improvements all at once than shut down, open, shut down, open. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Sure. Yeah. I -- I get what you are saying there in terms of efficiency of -- of -- of kind of the order of operations that you want to do it in. I guess I'm a little bit concerned that I'm sensing a reluctance on their part to enter into a CDA. Do you -- do you feel like Page 92 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 64 of 74 that's the case? Is it just a question of resources at this time and -- and prioritization? Just help -- help us understand that, because you are not the first person. Actually, this has happened now two times in a row where a developer has been just getting -- trouble getting traction on the CDA and I just want to understand kind of what the constraints could be. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, I do think it is -- there -- there are two issues here. It's --their integrated five year work program and the timing of these projects in those. There is also just overall resources that if, you know, they do make their capital plans based on what's happening in the next five years and so it may be problematic to move some of these projects forward. If you look at the list that the City of Meridian has been working with ACHD in terms of prioritization, Black Cat doesn't make that list, because there are other -- you know, there are other pressing needs in the community. I think ACHD is trying to balance those. One of the biggest issues that comes up on projects is right of way acquisition. I mean if they have to get into a situation where there is eminent domain and things like that, but where we have development and there is arterial roadways are built into what that ultimate right of way is, ACHD can accelerate and does accelerate the acquisition of those at the very beginning of the projects. They don't have to wait until that time frame. So, they will -- they will be able to hold that and move -- move it forward. There are other opportunities that they may say -- that they may have dollars available, but they have their bigger projects that they have to work within that plan. So, I wouldn't say that they are reluctant to do it, but it does mean that they would have to prioritize it and move it up, so that it dropped into that five year work program, which it does not exist right now. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. And --and our Transportation Commission's recommendations and I think the approach that we have taken as a city is kind of a corridor approach, similar to the efficiency you were trying to achieve, we have corridors that we are trying to improve fully and so it -- it -- don't take this the wrong way, but this to me kind of makes it a challenge to make this development as much of a priority if we have this kind of a grade on the road and -- and this sort of timeline. But I appreciate the feedback on your phasing. Let me just mull it over at this point. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant at this time? J.Wardle: Thank you very much. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Page 93 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 65 of 74 Perreault: So, you had mentioned on your slides that you would like to delete three sections and run the DA modification and CUP currently. I assume you mean in the same application we can't have the hearings on the same day. But the staff has removed all conditions, because it was proposed denied by the Commission. So, can you help me understand what -- I mean there -- there -- I can't find those numbers in the staff report. So, are you referring to the original staff report before the Commission heard the application or -- J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, you actually do have conditions in your packet, but that's the section that everything is stricken through. So -- so, those are the conditions that were in the Planning and Zoning Commission. There has been no change to those. In the e-mail and the letter that we provided to Council -- I think it landed in the city on May 1 st, we pulled back those conditions that were there before and so these are verbatim and what we have asked for is the same. So, this is part of the -- the letter that we provided on -- this is dated -- well, that says February 2nd, but February 28th and, then, the last three pages show what those conditions are. The -- the project specific conditions. So, that's what we are referencing. Perreault: Thank you. The staff report attached to the agenda doesn't show any conditions, so I was trying to track that. J.Wardle: So, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, what we are asking is taking the conditions that are there with these modifications or deletions. Perreault: Thank you. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: In that regard -- I don't know if this is a question for Legal or for Alan. Would we need to continue in order for staff to develop new conditions before we approve or -- that's what we have done in the past when there has been a denial. Tiefenbach: Members of the Council, Mr. Mayor, the conditions that are listed on the staff report that have been crossed, those were staff's conditions going into Planning Commission. So, when Planning Commission recommended denial, we struck them. It would be easy enough for you to -- I mean the Council has approved cases and just -- what's the word I'm looking for? Reverted the Planning Commission striking and the conditions. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, if I can also give to recent history, Apex East also fell into the same category and the Council took the conditions that have been stricken through and adopted those at that same hearing. So, the conditions are before you, even though they are redlined out. We are just asking that they be stricken -- or not stricken, but brought back into for your consideration with our modifications. Perreault: I know we haven't -- Mr. Mayor? Page 94 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 66 of 74 Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I know we haven't had the public testimony yet, but I just wanted to make sure I understood that before we move forward. Thank you. Simison: Any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony this evening? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. This is a public hearing. If there is anybody in the audience that would like to come forward and provide testimony, come -- come forward, sir. State your name and address for the record, please. Rowles: Good evening. Good Evening, Mayor, Council. My name is Mike Rowles. I'm a resident at 5242 West Torana Drive, Meridian. And in The Oaks. I'm sure you are all familiar with that. So, it's my concern that I'm expressing just about the entire concept of dumping, you know, so many families onto -- onto Black Cat and to Ustick. It just -- it just -- you know, I hear about traffic studies and all of that, but what I hear you telling me that it's all going to be okay. That we are going to, you know, add a huge number of families that are exiting or entering onto Black Cat and onto Ustick and I can't see in the planning where there is a way for that to actually be done and I'm maybe missing it, but, anyhow, that was just my concern and -- and the fact is that it's immediate. The congestion on Black Cat and -- and particularly the intersection there -- yeah, it's better with the light, but, oh, my gosh, the Black Cat back up at anytime in the afternoon -- bring a lunch. So, anyhow, that's my concern. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Then we have Mike online. Johnson: Okay. You are unable to mute yourself, sir. Lewis: Michael Lewis. 5343 West McMurtrey Street. It's in Jaden Village, just west of the Ustick and Black Cat intersection. When we are looking at this long term Highway 16 shows the on-ramp and off-ramp is going to be on the Ustick Avenue and there is -- there was the 2026 plan for ACHD to expand Ustick. But as the gentleman before me stated, in the morning and the afternoon when the school is going in or going out, the intersection is a nightmare. The road has been closed down -- I can't even tell you how many times for construction already. So, as a resident it's kind of frustrating. I would just ask you guys to consider the infrastructure before we keep continuing to add to this area. It's not built for this rapid growth. Growth is going to happen, so I'm fine with that, but I just -- the infrastructure needs to be put in place and it doesn't sound like there is anything for a long time going Ustick west towards Owyhee being thought of when we are doing these expansions. And the other thing I heard in a previous testimony was the water. So, is the Meridian wells adequate for this growth? Just to the south of us, Lactalis, pumps over a million gallons a day and they are getting ready to go to 1 .5 million gallons a day. So, Page 95 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 67 of 74 is the city prepared -- are we tied into that same aquifer would be my questions for tonight and thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I don't have a question, but I do have a statement for Mike. I wish this wasn't true, it would make planning much easier, but both the schools and the transportation department tend to run behind the city's applications and if -- they bring in their infrastructure and they build their schools after residents have already established there and so if-- even though it's in the -- the plan for Black Cat to be widened in 2031, 1 think, to '36, if there were no residents on that street, then, ACHD would just likely push it out farther. They have shown that they are willing to step up and move some of their projects forward because of growth. The Ustick intersection was not supposed to be done for another several years and the McMillan intersection, which is going to be done in two years from now, I think, isn't -- was not supposed to be done for another several years. So, they -- they are making improvements that they didn't intend on making because of the growth that's out there and my opinion is -- is that -- that's my cue -- is that the center turn lanes that the applicant is proposing to put in will really help that whole area, in addition to the lights that have been put in. I lived on -- off of Black Cat for many many years and still drive that road constantly and I understand what you are saying. I can -- I can -- can relate. Simison: Okay. Council, any other questions for -- is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Seeing none, will the applicant like to come forward with final remarks. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council, for the record again Jon Wardle with Brighton. We are committed long term -- even in the short term to making improvements before or concurrent with our project. If there is a way to do that and work with ACHD we are going to make it work. We are going to figure it out. In the interim, if need be, as -- as was mentioned, we are going to make sure that these intersections do work for the project and for also traffic coming through, so that people can get out of the lane, so that through traffic can happen. ACHD is making -- expediting projects in this area, which I think is very good. Will it satisfy everything? Absolutely not. And I also think we need to remember that McMillan has always been -- has since probably 2001 has been determined that it's going to be a three lane road and so McMillan will always be constricted and it will always be an impact. There will be improvements made with intersections at McMillan and long term with Black Cat. There is a plan and -- and let's -- we will continue to work with ACHD to make that happen. I just wanted to clarify again -- and -- and David did a good job of this. When we say multi-family sometimes that's a little scary, but our intent here is that it would be townhome style and very likely could be single family for sale. We just needed to vet through that a little bit more and we will bring Page 96 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 68 of 74 a plan back to you. That's our commitment to you. I just wanted to restate that the city in its Comprehensive Plan understands and has detailed how that mixed use nonresidential buffer transition should occur. It's always been that the commercial or the nonresidential provides that transition. The city anticipated that they. Described it by text. But they also graphically showed how that would happen. This mixed use nonresidential, like I mentioned, has been on the city's plans starting back in 2002 and I will show you that there was actually residential still showing up right up against it in 2002. 2011 same situation. 2018 with that update. And this is what exists today as there has been some changes recently and -- and clarifying that. The mixed use nonresidential is the transition to the existing residential or future residential and the city does have a plan, both in the Comprehensive Plan and in the UDC on how that should happen and how that buffer should occur. We are asking that the conditions of approval that were in the staff report be reinstated. That conditions 1-B, 2-A, and 2-13 be deleted and that 1-C probably need to work through that a little bit, but be modified. The development -- we will bring a development agreement back to you and we are committing as well to bring the CUP back for a City Council review. Again, we are looking forward to adding a continuation of Quartet as we work out here and provide opportunities for good development and be a good partner with the city and stand for any questions you might have at this point. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Jon, so we have had some applications recently where neighbors have come and said with lots that are really narrow, especially ally load lots, and these are all public streets is my understanding. J.Wardle: Correct. Perreault: Even with the public streets and -- and the -- the street parking, because the lots are so narrow and you have got a mailbox and you have got a tree out front, that it doesn't really still leave any space for cars to park between the two homes or maybe one space because of, you know, impediments -- and especially now since Meridian is requiring ten feet -- no parking within ten feet of a mailbox. It's creating issues with street parking on very narrow lots. Can you give us some thoughts on that and whether you anticipate that -- that being a problem in this, because it seems to me like these lots are maybe 35 feet wide, 40 feet wide. J.Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, regarding on-street parking, these streets are designed as a 33 foot street back to back. This is a standard ACHD street that allows parking on both sides. There has been one thing that has changed, whether good or bad. The United States Postal Service no longer allows individual post office mailboxes. So, they are all in clusters. So, every project we do now on a go forward basis we have to identify a location for those. We do anywhere from 80 to 120 in a Page 97 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 69 of 74 location. They are spread out through the community. So, it's very possible that you would have location -- probably even here in the community center with part of that and some of the other common areas. So, they are spread out. So, the parking in front of mailboxes, which I'm sure has been a complaint at times, mailboxes are pulled out of the -- pulled out of the equation. This is a street section just like you would find anywhere else. One of the -- yes, we do have alley loaded homes here and these are averaging 40 feet wide with a minimum two car garage, but also that 20-by-20 parking apron on the back of those homes as well. It's been our experience that, yes, you will have some on- street parking, but, actually, by eliminating a lot of driveways that parking isn't as congested as it would be with a lot of driveways punching out there on that road. So, we don't believe that there will be an issue and also the -- for mailboxes, that's kind of resolving itself. Simison: Council, any additional questions, comments? J.Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we close the public hearing for file number H-2021-0088. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and seconded to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the -- the motion and the second. I just -- kind of meatier applications like this I -- and the Council brings something up and, then, the applicant may want to provide some extra context, so I would prefer maybe let's keep the public hearing open, we can continue to deliberate and discuss, that way if we have got questions the applicant can -- can respond. That's my suggestion. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I will withdraw my motion to close the public hearing. Simison: Second agrees? Strader: Agree. Page 98 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 70 of 74 Simison: Okay. Then would Councilman Cavener like to kick off the conversation to get us going. Cavener: Well played, Mr. Mayor. Happy to. Appreciate the -- the applicant's testimony. This was one that for me as I was reading the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission and going through the application and whatnot, I -- I was really conflicted, because I -- I appreciate what the applicant is trying to achieve. It's a challenging part of town. I think we -- we heard some public testimony with some concern about that. Some of those things the meeting -- kind of changes the meeting and I think the presentation from the highway district earlier gave me some greater comfort, what about their commitment to Ustick and, moreover, the funding they received from the state to make those easterly connections to Highway 16. 1 also appreciate Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Wardle, you both talking a little bit about that R-15 piece. That's always going to be a little questionable for me. I -- I -- I like to see multi-family closer to -- to interstates and state highways and while I wasn't envisioning four story apartments, knowing kind of where you are headed and the fact that's going to come back to us gives me good comfort. I think overall I'm -- I'm supportive of the application. I'm supportive of the requested condition removal and modification. I think that this is going to continue with -- it's been I think a track record of building a unique part of our community in a unique part of town. So, I -- I think overall I am supportive of the application. Simison: Or I will accept a motion to close the public hearing. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Very well said, Councilman Cavener. I have nothing else to add. I am also in support of this application. So, I will make a motion, Mr. Mayor, to close the public hearing for H-2021-0088. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Do I have a second for purposes of discussion? Strader: Sure. Simison: Okay. Second for purpose of discussion. Council Woman Strader. Strader: I have been waiting for Council Woman Perreault to say something, because she's been warning us about Black Cat now for two years and I feel like maybe the -- the breaking point has -- has come and gone. I feel really conflicted about this, because I feel like the applicant will make the problem a little bit worse before they make the problem better. You know, I -- I have -- I have been kind of on the fence. I think I can support it, considering it will improve this section of Black Cat earlier than ACHD would normally. I also am happy to hear about ACHD moving up the Ustick widening, although not -- you Page 99 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 71 of 74 know, maybe to the extent we all would love to see, but I do appreciate that. I personally just want to say I could support a motion if the CUP comes back before City Council. I am in the same boat as Councilman Cavener, I just -- yeah, I get concerned about a lot of density in a location like this that's not -- not really near a transportation corridor. So, I would encourage the applicant to focus on the townhome approach and I also just want to say definitively -- and I -- I think that -- that direction was definitely received, but the nonresidential piece I do not support the expansion of residential into that area that's in the FLUM. I just want to say that. So, you don't -- you know, it's only one person, but I just wouldn't want you to waste a lot of resources on that effort, so -- that's it for me. Simison: So, the second stands on closing the public hearing? Strader: Yeah. Simison: Okay. Strader: Sure. Simison: Then we will consider the public hearing closed. Just -- just some notes on -- and I'm actually really surprised -- not entirely, but a little bit, you know, the state -- it is going through the legislature where they have approved --where they are recommending 34 million be added to see the improvements of the roads in this area, specifically the mile to the east and west of the access point at Ustick and, quite frankly, it might get them before any of the rest of Ustick gets widened by ACHD. I mean depending on the -- the -- if it's a part of the ITD contract with --with their project or somebody else's. I understand it hasn't been approved by -- you know, signed into law, it's not there yet, but I -- I want to give some hope to Black Cat and the community that really with the opening of McDermott traffic could go significantly different directions than are currently planned in all these impact studies and you could have well built intersections from this intersection going west to McDermott. Now, I don't know what that does. I don't. But I think that there is hope in this area from what I understand as the elements moving forward, but nothing is inked at this point in time. So, for whatever that is worth of value. I know ACHD probably didn't want to talk about it earlier in their context either, because it's not finalized, but their -- it is moving through the process to improve this area, so -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I would like to respond to Council Woman Strader's question about Black Cat. So, absolutely, yes, I am an advocate for being very careful how we develop in this area, having been a resident there. Three things on that. I -- I would likely be having a different thought on this application if ACHD wasn't doing that widening on Ustick for sure. I'm really appreciative that the applicant is adding the turn lanes in on both sides of that intersection. Without that I also would be highly considering recommending it a denial on it. But the southern part of Black Cat is really complicated, because you have -- you have Page 100 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 72 of 74 Pine that doesn't go through. You have got Cherry Lane, which is an intersection that -- that is -- it's really not that -- it really doesn't get that congested. Honestly, Ustick and Black Cat gets more congested than Cherry. Probably because it's five lanes. Then you have Pine that doesn't go through, so you have a lot of people turning left there. Then you have a railroad track. Then you have a school and you have a substation and you have -- you know. So, that -- that mile is just exceptionally complicated. This is a little bit less so. But I'm -- but I'm also a little more -- more comfortable with this, too, because the McMillan and Black Cat intersection is going to be improved with the light in the next couple years. So, there is a lot going on that makes me feel more comfortable with -- I also like how the traffic enters and exits on the north and -- very north and very east side of this development. I think that moves it away from the Black Cat-Ustick intersection a little bit more, just kind of how it's designed. So, just to share those thoughts, because I appreciate you asking me that. I am always hyper aware of what happens along Black Cat. Simison: And to piggyback off that, I mean to a certain extent I don't want to -- you could have people in the north part of this subdivision exiting onto Ustick by passing a lot of the Black Cat traffic and I'm sure they will figure that out. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there was not a vote on closing the public hearing. Simison: Just some discussion. Johnson: Just making sure. Simison: Thank you. But I did -- I had forgotten. Is there anymore discussion on that motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. Thank you, Chris. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: President Hoaglun is pointing at me. I was waiting for you to make some comments. Okay. I will make a motion. Mr. Mayor, I -- excuse me. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0088 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 8th, 2022, with the following modifications: To delete Items 1-B, 2-A, and 2-B from the conditions in the staff report and that the DA modification for the multi-family area and the CUP be applied for and processed concurrently and that the City Council hear the CUP application, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission. Strader: Second the motion. Page 101 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 73 of 74 Simison: I have a motion and a second. Mr. Nary? Nary: Mr. Mayor, maybe before the -- I don't think there was a second. I think one of the requests by the applicant was to -- to grant approval of the pre-existing conditions that went to Planning and Zoning that had been recommended denial, so that Alan knows to, then, basically, reverse that -- that action that came before you tonight. Simison: Does the motion maker agree with that comment? Perreault: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Does second concur? Strader: Agree. Simison: Okay. Is there discussion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Not discussion, just a --just a comment. I just want to thank Alan. I know this particular project's been a little bit of a bouncing ball and I appreciate you keeping us focused on task, the staff report, and the way you communicate to us, just -- you know, we don't always say we appreciate it, but I know that we as a body really appreciate -- particularly on these kind of more nuanced applications. So, thank you. Simison: Any further -- if not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Bernt, abstain; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, nay; Strader, yea. Simison: Three ayes, one no, and the item is approved, so -- thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: With that we don't have any ordinances to do this evening. Future meeting topics, Council? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 102 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 8,2022 Page 74 of 74 Cavener: Perhaps maybe just a conversation for you and Council President to discuss. We have had some -- we have had a presentation, some e-mails with some -- I have received some comments from citizens who had some concerns and some questions about the library and its relationship to the city and what role that we do and don't have. I'm not -- I -- I struggle to find the nexus about what would make for a public hearing, but perhaps maybe an informational session for Council, so we can all be on the same page about what role, if any, we have with the library. With some of the issues that are playing down at the legislature I think -- I'm getting at least more inquiries about our involvement and so perhaps if you and the Council President think it's necessary, that may be a potential topic at a later point in time. Simison: Duly noted. Anything else under future meeting topics? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move for adjournment. Simison: I have a motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:18 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. IMISON ATTEST: Approved 3-22-2022 CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 103 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date : March 8 , 2022 Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic . Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum : • DO NOT : o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals , business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3 - minute time limit ( you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed is for this forum ) Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution 22-2317: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian, Reappointing Bonnie Zahn Griffith to the Meridian Arts Commission; Appointing Bobby Gaytan to the Meridian Arts Commission; Appointing Patrick O'Leary to the Meridian Arts Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 22-2317 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, REAPPOINTING BONNIE ZAHN GRIFFITH TO THE MERIDIAN ARTS COMMISSION; APPOINTING BOBBY GAYTAN TO THE MERIDIAN ARTS COMMISSION; APPOINTING PATRICK O'LEARY TO THE MERIDIAN ARTS COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,Meridian City Code § 2-1-1(C)(1)provides that commission members shall be appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council on a vote of a majority of the city council members; and WHEREAS,Meridian City Code § 2-2-3 requires that Meridian Arts Commission members have an interest, competence, or knowledge in the arts, and the appointed individuals do qualify for appointment under this requirement; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems the appointment of these individuals to further the objectives of the Meridian Arts Commission, and to be in the best interest of the City of Meridian; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That Bonnie Zahn Griffith is hereby reappointed to seat 4 of the Meridian Arts Commission, for a term to expire on February 28, 2025. Section 2. That Bobby Gaytan is hereby appointed to seat 5 of the Meridian Arts Commission, for a term to expire on February 28, 2025. Section 3. That Patrick O'Leary is hereby appointed to seat 6 of the Meridian Arts Commission, for a term to expire on February 28, 2025. Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 8th day of March, 2022. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 8th day of March, 2022. APPROVED: ATTEST: Mayor Robert E. Simison Chris Johnson, City Clerk RESOLUTION APPOINTING MERIDIAN ARTS COMMISSIONERS PAGE I OF I 77 C� E IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 22-1972: An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1, Regarding Election; Districts; Terms of Office; Residency Requirement; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-2, Regarding City Council Member Qualifications; Repealing and Replacing Meridian City Code Section 1-7-4, Regarding City Council Seat Vacancies; Adding a New Section to Meridian City Code, Section 1-7- 11, Regarding Meridian Districting Committee; City Council Districts, Adopting a Savings Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : March 8, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2 PROJECT NAME : Ordinance No . 224972 Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1972 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 1-7-1, REGARDING ELECTION; DISTRICTS; TERMS OF OFFICE; RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 1-7-2,REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEMBER QUALIFICATIONS; REPEALING AND REPLACING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 1-7-4, REGARDING CITY COUNCIL SEAT VACANCIES; ADDING A NEW SECTION TO MERIDIAN CITY CODE, SECTION 1-7- 11, REGARDING MERIDIAN DISTRICTING COMMITTEE; CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS; ADOPTING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Idaho Code section 50-707A requires cities with more than one hundred thousand(100,000) inhabitants to establish City Council districts and elect City Council members by such districts; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Meridian finds that the following ordinance will serve the purposes of Idaho Code section 50-707A, related provisions of Meridian City Code, and the people of the City of Meridian; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. Meridian City Code section 1-7-1 shall be repealed, and replaced with language to read as follows. 1-7-1. ELECTION; DISTRICTS; TERMS OF OFFICE; RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. A. Elections. General city elections shall be held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November, in odd numbered years. B. City Council districts established. There shall be six (6) City Council districts in the Cites Meridian. Pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code section 50-707A and Meridian City Code section 1-7-11, following the release of federal decennial census data and the County Clerk's establishment of election precincts, the Meridian Districting Committee shall establish and number six (6) City Council districts. C. City Council seats established. There shall be six (6) City Council seats on the Meridian City Council. The Meridian Districting Committee shall number each City Council seat pursuant to this section and Idaho Code section 50-707. The number of each City Council seat shall correspond to the numbered City Council districts. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND DISTRICTING COMMITTEE PAGE I Item#2. D. Terms. Each elected City Council member shall serve a term of four(4) years, or until his or her successor is elected and qualified. E. Staggered terms. At each election, three City Council seats shall be open for election, alternating odd-numbered seats and even-numbered seats. 1. Election in 2023. In the 2023 general city election, the first election after the establishment of City Council districts in the City of Meridian, no candidate, including an incumbent candidate, may run for election or re-election to a City Council seat in a CitX Council district in which the candidate is not a resident. Incumbent City Council members who are servingin n City Council seats 1, 3, and 5, as such seats were designated prior to the assignment of City Council seats to City Council districts, and who are runningfor re- election in 2023, must be residents of the respective City Council districts in which they are running. In order to preserve staggered terms, City Council members servingin Council seats 2, 4, and 6, as such seats were designated prior to the assigmment of City Council seats to City Council districts, shall serve the remainder of their terms in those seats, during which time they shall represent the City Council districts corresponding to their City Council seat numbers, reizardless of whether they are residents of the City Council district to which their seat corresponds. 2. Elections in 2025 and thereafter. In the 2025 general city election and in each election thereafter, no candidate, including an incumbent candidate, may run for election or re- election to a City_ Council seat in a City_ Council district in which the candidate is not a resident. F. Candidate to be resident of City Council district. Any candidate seeking election to the City Council shall file his or her candidacy for one, and only one, City Council seat. Except as otherwise set forth in Meridian City Code section 1-7-1(E)(1), the candidate must be a resident of the City Council district that corresponds to the City Council seat for which the candidate is running. City Council members shall be elected by the electors of the said City Council district. To be eligible to run for City Council, the candidate shall meet this and all other qualifications for the office of City Council member, as required by law. Section 2. Meridian City Code section 1-7-2 shall be amended as follows. 1-7-2. QUALIFICATIONS; DEFINITIONS. A. Any person shall be eligible to hold the office of City eCouncil member: 1)whose demioile residence is, at the time of declaration of candidacy or intent to seek election, and if elected, remains, in the City Council district to which the City Council member is elected to serve; and 2) is a qualified elector as set forth in this section and within the City of Mer-i under the constitution and laws of the State of Idaho. B. " -Residence," for the purposes of this section, shall have the definition as set forth in Idaho Code section 50-402(d)mea-n that i al's true, fixed permanent homed plaee of habitation. it is the plaee where tha4 individtial intends to remain, and to whieh that. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND DISTRICTING COMMITTEE PAGE 2 page 7 Item#2. individual expects to retufn when that individual leaves without intending to establish a new domieile elsewhere. C. "Qualified elector," for the purposes of this section, shall mean a person who is at least eighteen(18) years of age, is a United States citizen, has resided in Meridian City Limits and the City Council district for which the City Council member is elected to serve for at least the thirty (30) days preceding the election at which he desires to be elected, and who is registered to vote in such jurisdiction as required by law. Section 3. Meridian City Code section 1-7-4 shall be shall be repealed, and replaced with language to read as follows. 1-7-4. VACANCIES. A. In the event a City Council seat becomes vacant through the death, resignation, or relocation of a City Council member, or any other cause, the Mayor shall appoint, with the approval of the City Council, an appointee to fill the City Council seat until the next general city election, at which time the vacancy shall be filled for the balance of the original term, if any,by a vote of the electors of the City Council district that corresponds to the City Council seat. 1. If an appointment is made prior to the establishment of City Council districts, the appointee shall satisfy the qualifications set forth in Idaho Code section 50-702,but need not reside in any pecific geographic district within the City of Meridian. 2. If an appointment is made after the establishment of City Council districts, the appointee shall satisfy the qualifications set forth in Meridian City Code section 1-7-2 and reside in the City Council district that corresponds to the vacant City Council seat. Section 4. A new section shall be added, Meridian City Code section 1-7-11, to read as follows. 1-7-11. MERIDIAN DISTRICTING COMMITTEE; CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS. A. Establishment. There is hereby established the Meridian Districting Committee, the purpose of which shall be to establish six (6) City Council districts and assign one 1 City Council seat to represent each City Council district, in accordance with applicable laws, available federal decennial census data, and principles of districting as are or may be established bX law,policy, and custom governing the same. B. Duties and powers. The Meridian Districting Committee shall be charged with, and authorized to: 1. Evaluate and apply federal decennial census data regardingthe City of Meridian in order to establish six (6) City Council districts pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code section 50-707A; Title 1, Chapter 7, Meridian City Code; and all other applicable provisions of local, state, and federal law. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND DISTRICTING COMMITTEE PAGE 3 page 8 Item#2. 2. Assign City Council seats, numbering 1 through 6, to the corresponding numbered City Council districts, pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code section 50-707 and Title 1, Chapter 7, Meridian City Code. 3. Act independently to make decisions regarding City Council districts and City Council seat numbers, without regard for the residency of elected officials or candidates running for municipal office of the City of Meridian. 4. Consult resources and experts in demographics and population distribution, including, without limitation, the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho, the United States Census Bureau, and their delegees and staff, as needed or desired. 5. Consult resources and experts in districtingand nd apportionment, including, without limitation, the Idaho Secretary of State, the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment, the Ada County Clerk, and the delegees and staff thereof, as needed or desired. 6. Consult City of Meridian Geographic Information System and Planning staff for information and assistance with establishment of City Council districts and the preparation of maps. 7. Consult the City Attorney or designee regarding compliance with applicable Idaho Code and Meridian Citesprovisions. C. Meridian Districting Committee membership and qualifications. 1. The Mayor shall appoint, with the approval of the City Council, members to the Meridian Districting Committee. Should a vacancy subsequently occur on the Meridian Districting Committee, the Mayor shall fill the vacancy in a like manner within fourteen(14) days, or as soon thereafter as practicable. In addition to the names of the members so appointed, the resolution shall include the following directives to the City Clerk: a. Directingthe e City Clerk to convene the Meridian Districting Committee. b. Directingthe e City Clerk to post on the City of Meridian website the agenda and minutes of the Meridian Districting Committee meetings, as well as the census data used by the Meridian Districting Committee in the course of its charge under this section. In the event that the Mayor fails to timely act pursuant to this provision, the City Council President shall so act. 2. Voting members of the Meridian Districting Committee shall include six (6) Meridian residents from diverse geographic areas of Meridian, to include at least one (1) individual who resides south of Interstate 84, one (1) individual who resides north of Ustick Road, one 1) individual who resides west of Meridian Road, and one (1) individual who resides east of Meridian Road. The six (6) Committee members shall be voting members, and shall serve without salary or compensation for their service. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND DISTRICTING COMMITTEE PAGE 4 page 9 Item#2. 3. The Meridian Districting Committee shall include the following ex-officio, non-voting members: a. The City of Meridian Geographic Infonnation System Manager or designee; b. The City of Meridian Planning Manager or designee; and c. The Ada County Clerk or designee. 4. The Meridian Districting Committee may include the following ex-officio, non-voting members, as may be hired by the City of Meridian: a statistician, a cartographer, and/or any other experts whose services may be helpful in the discharge of the Meridian Districting Committee's responsibilities. 5. A person who has served on the Meridian Districting Committee shall be ineligible to run for a Meridian City Council seat for five (5) years following such service. A Organization and meetings. 1. At the initial meeting of the Meridian Districting Committee, the Committee members shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair. a. The Chair shall be a voting member of the Meridian Districting Committee and shall hold the same rights and privileges as any other Committee member. The decisions, statements, and/or actions of the Chair shall obligate, commit, and/or represent the Meridian Districting Committee only insofar as the Committee has specifically authorized. The Chair's duties shall include: 1) Preparing Meridian Districting Committee meeting agendas in cooperation with the City Clerk or designee; 2) Presiding over all Meridian Districting Committee meetings, and 3) Signing all documents requiring an official signature on behalf of the Meridian Districting Committee, including the Meridian Districting Plan. b. The Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair, and such other duties as may be delegated by the Chair. c. A special election may be held at any time to fill a vacancy of the office of Chair or Vice Chair. 2. The Chair shall propose, and the Committee members shall adopt, a timeline of meetings and actions to timely coinplete the Meridian Districting Committee's work in accordance with this section and with Idaho Code section 50-707A. 3. The Meridian Districting Committee shall comply in all respects with the Idaho Open Meetings Law. The agenda for all meetings shall be prepared by the Chair in consultation with the City Clerk or designee. The City Clerk or designee shall assist the Chair with scheduling meetings,posting meeting and agenda notices, preparing meeting minutes, and distributing agendas, minutes, and other materials to Committee members prior to each meeting. 4. A majority of currently-appointed Committee members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of any business of the Meridian Districting Committee. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND DISTRICTING COMMITTEE PAGI?5 Page 10 Item#2. 5. Each voting member shall be entitled to one (1)vote on any matter before the Meridian Districting Committee. Except as otherwise designated herein, the vote of the majority of the voting members present at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall effectuate any decision of the Meridian Districting Committee. Voting shall be verbal and on the record; proxy voting, secret voting, and written voting shall not be permitted. 6. Scheduling of public hearings,public comment, or presentations before the Meridian Districting Committee shall be at the discretion of the Chair. The Chair may set rules to maximize efficiencyproductivity of meetings, including setting a time limit for comments or presentations to the Meridian Districting Committee. 7. Upon the City Clerk's filing of the Meridian Districting Plan with the County Clerk as set forth in Meridian City Code section 1-7-11(H), the Meridian Districting Committee shall automatically dissolve and may be reconvened only upon appointment by the Mayor pursuant to Meridian City Code section 1-7-11(Cl(1). E. Procedure. 1. The Meridian Districting Committee shall evaluate and apply the federal decennial census data for the City of Meridian in order to establish six (6) City Council districts pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code section 50-707A; Title 1, Chapter 7, Meridian City Code; and all other applicable provisions of local, state, and federal law. To assist the Committee, one or more of the ex officio members set forth in Meridian City Code section 1-7-11(C)(3) shall prepare three (3)potential districting maps for the Committee's initial consideration. The Committee may utilize one of these potential districting maps, or the Committee may develop and utilize a different districting map 2. Upon completion of a draft districting map, the Meridian Districting Committee shall designate each City Council district with a number from 1 to 6 pursuant to the provisions of Meridian City Code section 1-7-1(C) and this chapter. The draft map and numbered City Council districts shall constitute the draft districting plan. The Meridian Districting Committee shall hold a minimum of two (2)public hearings to receive public testimony on the draft districting map_ 3. The Meridian Districting Committee shall act to establish,by resolution, the Meridian Districting Plan, to include the following documents,which shall be appended to the resolution, and incorporated into the same by reference: a. A map of the City of Meridian showing the exact locations of the designated City Council districts, labeled with the district numbers and corresponding City Council seat numbers. b. A description of the boundaries of the City Council districts, described by the names of streets or other established features or landmarks. c. A declaration that the City Council seats shall be designated with numbers corresponding to the like-numbered City Council districts, in accordance with Meridian City Code section 1-7-1(Q. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND DISTRICTING COMMITTEE PAGI?6 Page 11 Item#2. The resolution must be approved by at least four(4) voting members to be effective, and shall certify that the established City Council districts meet the criteria set forth in Idaho Code section 50-707A and other applicable statutes and laws. 4. The Meridian Districting Committee shall transmit its resolution to the City Clerk, and the City Clerk shall: a. Schedule a public hearing before the City Council on the resolution; b. Make the resolution available on the City of Meridian's website; and c. Publish a notice of hearing on the matter before the City Council. F. The City Clerk shall publish notice of the public hearing on the Meridian Districting Committee's Meridian Districting Plan before City Council at least once prior to the date set for the public hearing, which notice shall solicit written and verbal testimony on the City Council districts as established by the Meridian Districting Committee, and shall include a link to the City of Meridian's webpage with access to the resolution and documents described in Meridian City Code section 1-7-11(E)(3). G. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing on the Meridian Districting Plan as established by the Meridian Districting Committee, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Meridian City Code section 1-7-7. Followingsch public hearing, the City Council shall review the Meridian Districting Plan as established by the Meridian Districting Committee, and upon a finding that it meets the criteria set forth in Idaho Code section 50-707A, shall adopt it by ordinance as the final Meridian Districting Plan. Such act shall be a ministerial function of the City Council; modification of the Meridian Districting Plan established by the Meridian Districting Committee shall occur only upon remand to the Meridian Districting Committee. The City Council may remand the matter to the Meridian Districting Committee only upon a finding, supported by substantial evidence, that the Meridian Districting Plan established by the Meridian Districting Committee does not meet the criteria set forth in Idaho Code section 50-707A. Should the City Council fail to adopt the Meridian Districting Plan via ordinance at least one hundred thirty-five (135) days prior to the date of the next general city election, the Meridian Districting Committee's last resolution shall comprise the final Meridian Districting Plan. H. The City Clerk shall file the Meridian Districting Plan with the County Clerk at least one hundred thirty-four(134) dilys prior to the next general city election, with a request that the County Clerk prepare ballots and establish polling places for all subsequent Meridian City Council elections in accordance with the Meridian Districting Section 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof or in conflict with this ordinance are hereby voided. Section 6. That this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of , 2022. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND DISTRICTING COMMITTEE PAU;7 Page 12 Item#2. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of , 2022. APPROVED: ATTEST: Robert E. Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND DISTRICTING COMMITTEE PAGI:8 Page 13 Item#2. STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 22-1972 The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached Ordinance no. 22-1972 of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A(3). DATED this day of , 2022. William L.M. Nary, City Attorney NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1972 An ordinance repealing and replacing Meridian City Code section 1-7-1, regarding election; districts; terms of office; residency requirement; amending Meridian City Code section 1-7-2, regarding City Council member qualifications;repealing and replacing Meridian City Code section 1-7-4,regarding City Council seat vacancies; adding a new section to Meridian City Code, section 1-7-11, regarding Meridian Districting Committee; City Council districts; adopting a savings clause; and providing an effective date. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND DISTRICTING COMMITTEE PAGG 9 Page 14 E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 Changes to Agenda: None Item#3:ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility(H-2021-0029) Application(s): ➢ Annexation and Zoning,with a development plan. Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 23.7 acres of land,zoned RUT, located at 3764 W. Ustick Road (approximately'/mile west of Ten Mile on the north side of Ustick). Adjacent Land Use&Zoning: • North—Fivemile Creek, City Wastewater recovery facility and I-L zoning • East—Ninemile Creek, C-N zoning on City property(future well/water tank site) • South—Ustick Rd., R-4 zoning and detached single-family • West—RUT, County Ag/Residential History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-use Non-Residential (MU-NR) Summary of Request: • Mixed-Use Non-Residential—The purpose of this designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these areas. For example, this MU- NR area is used adjacent to the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility, a heavy industrial use that should be buffered from residential.Appropriate uses in MU-NR areas would include: employment centers, professional offices,flex buildings, warehousing, industrial uses, storage facilities and retail, and other appropriate non-residential uses. \ • Staff believes the proposed Development Agreement provisions and screening methods will be sufficient in mitigating any noxious consequences of the proposed use. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed ACHD Maintenance Facility to be generally consistent with the Comp Plan. • Request for Annexation and Zoning with the I-L zoning district;Annexation area is 30.27 acres but subject site is only 23.7 acres—Applicant is also annexing creek area to ensure no County enclaves exist. • Proposed use is for an ACHD Maintenance Facility that falls under the Public Utility, Major use within our development code. The project is proposed over multiple phases from this year through 2028 and includes a number of different elements to the site including: decant and washout area, broom sheds, salt shed,truck wash and scales,Admin. Building, Fleet building, and covered and uncovered storage areas. • The proposed use is a permitted use within the requested I-L zoning district, subject to specific use standards. Staff's analysis finds the proposal to be consistent with the specific use standards as well as the dimensional standards of the I-L zoning district except for the required building street setback to Naomi Avenue(new collector street along half of the west boundary). The site plan shows the building 25 feet from edge of ROW but should be at least 35 feet. • The Applicant is proposing solid fencing and the required landscape buffers consistent with code requirements. Despite the probable noise associated with a maintenance facility such as this, Staff finds the proposed site plan offers adequate landscaping and separation from existing residences by Ustick Road and should mitigate much of the noise from trucks and machinery. • Access is proposed via construction of a new collector street that aligns with Naomi Avenue to the south.The Applicant is proposing to construct the road as a 3-lane collector street with a deceleration lane and with 5-foot detached sidewalk on the east side of the street;when the property to the west redevelops they will be expected to complete the street with sidewalk on their side of Naomi. • The submitted plans show this new road to terminate in a temporary hammerhead type turnaround approximately 625 feet into the site for future road connectivity to the west. • Off of Naomi Avenue, the Applicant is proposing two driveway accesses for access into the facility that will be gated. Staff supports the proposed access and road improvements. • Sewer services are not currently available to the site. Therefore,the Applicant is requesting a City Council Waiver to delay connection to City sewer; City water is readily available. It is not entirely clear at what point utilities will be available or needed for the site but due to the phasing and the lack of sewer availability currently, the Applicant has not submitted any utility plans at this time. With future development,the Applicant will be required to submit these plans and continue coordinating with the City to connect to public utilities, including water needed for irrigation.The Applicant is having ongoing discussions with the City Engineer on the best path forward for the sewer needs and timeline of this project. Commission Recommendation: Approval w/a DA Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Becky McKay,Applicant Representative ii. Commenting: Becky McKay; Lloyd Carnegie,ACHD Maintenance Manager. iii. Written testimony: None Key Issue(s)of Discussion by Commission: • Timeline for the use of the site, construction of the westbound deceleration lane, and overall phasing; • Potential issues associated with having large trucks utilizing Ustick Road and the site prior a deceleration lane being constructed by ACHD as part of the overall road widening project—Applicant stated that consistent truck traffic to the site should not occur until after the Ustick Road improvements due to overall timing and use of other maintenance facilities in the valley as well as the timing of developing the subject site; • Estimated timeline for Ustick Road widening—Applicant stated there is a desire to move up the construction of this road widening project to 2024 instead of between 2026-2030; • How concrete the proposed concept plan is in terms of building placement and phasing; • Capacity of the Commission/City to limit the use of heavy truck traffic for the site via a condition of approval or DA provision. Commission Change(s)to Staff Recommendation: Create a new DA provision to help limit heavy truck traffic until Ustick Road is widened and the deceleration lane is constructed. Outstanding Issue(s)for City Council: Connection to City Sewer services and what the alternatives may be—Applicant and PW Staff have discussed a potential option for the interim discharge of wastewater to be used until Black Cat Trunkshed is constructed. Staff recommends Council instruct the Applicant and Staff work together to come up with a new DA provision that could read similar to the following: - "Applicant shall obtain City Engineer approval for interim wastewater discharge proposal prior to Phase 3 development, or at the time of construction of the Decant and Washout areas as noted on the concept and phasing plans.Additional pretreatment may be required per City Engineer review." - Since previous Council hearing,ACHD has submitted two documents worthy of note: a letter to the Council outlining the timing of development of the facility in relation to the widening of Ustick Road,and; a response to the conditions of approval in the staff report. Written Testimony: None Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0029,as presented for the hearing date of March 8,2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0029,as presented during the hearing on March 8,2022,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0029 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance.) Item#4:Apex West-PP(H-2021-0087) Application(s): Preliminary Plat Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 96.08 acres of land,zoned R-2, R-8&R-15, located on the north side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., approximately'/mile west of S. Locust Grove Rd. History: This property was annexed with the previous Shafer View Terrace&Apex developments and is included in their respective DA's. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designations: LDR, MDR, &MHDR Summary of Request: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 208 building lots (205 single-family building lots, 2 lots for future re- subdivision for residential homes& 1 lot for future re-subdivision for townhomes or development of multi-family apartments)and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8& R-15 zoning districts for Apex West Subdivision. The subdivision is proposed to develop in four(4) phases as shown on the phasing plan. The proposed plat includes a portion of the parcel to the east depicted on the plat as Lot 1, Block 5 and the surrounding area;the entire parcel is required to be included in the boundary of the plat or a PBA. The Applicant proposes to submit a revised plat prior to Council approval of the Findings to include the entire parcel in the boundary of the plat—this area will be re-subdivided in the future for residential homes.A revised landscape plan is also required to be submitted, both of which will require review by Staff for compliance with UDC standards—additional conditions may need to be added to the report. Access is proposed at the NWC of the development from E. Quartz Creek St., a collector street,from S. Meridian Rd.;from S. Sublimity Ave. and S.Apex Ave., both collector streets,via E. Lake Hazel Rd. Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and interconnectivity. Qualified open space consisting of linear open space, open grassy areas at least 5,000 s.f. in area, 8'wide pathways and street buffers along collector&arterial streets is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Site amenities consisting of a swimming pool with changing facilities&a restroom, (2)segments of the City's multi-use pathway system totaling a''/z mile, and a playground are proposed in excess of UDC standards. The future development areas will be required to comply with the open space&site amenity standards with development. The McBirney Lateral crosses this site within a 41'wide easement;and the Watkins Drain runs along the west side of this site within a 38-foot wide easement, as depicted on the plat. These waterways are required to be piped unless otherwise waived by City Council. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver to allow the Watkins drain along the west boundary of the site to remain open and not be piped; no fencing is proposed to prevent access to the drain. In order for Council to waive the requirement, it has to find that the public purpose requiring such will not be served&public safety can be preserved. Conceptual building elevations in a variety of materials and colors were submitted for future single-family detached homes in this development as shown. Homes on lots along collector streets are required to incorporate certain design elements as noted in the staff report since they will be highly visible. Commission Recommendation:Approval w/conditions Summary of Commission Public Hearing: iv. In favor: Mike Wardle and Jon Wardle, Brighton Corporation v. In opposition: None vi. Commenting: None vii. Written testimony: Julie Edwards; Josh Beach, Brighton Corp. viii. Key Issue(s): Concern with the provision of(3) common driveways within the development&associated traffic congestion; concern pertaining to parking in relation to the alley-accessed units&the adequacy of such for guests on the adjacent public streets, especially with the common driveways proposed and parking issues associated with those. Suggests some of the building lots be eliminated in favor of provision of a guest parking lot in addition to the on-street parking &elimination of the common driveways in favor of larger lots in those areas. School capacity concerns from the proposed development and others in the area. Key Issue(s)of Discussion by Commission: • Desire for S. Sublimity Ave.to be built with the first phase as a final build instead of a temporary fire access; • Question pertaining to if Apex East and Apex West will be considered one development for common use of common areas and amenities; • The provision of common driveways within the development and associated congestion—not in favor of common driveways although they're allowed by code; • In favor of the Applicant's request to leave the Watkins Drain open and not pipe it. Commission Change(s)to Staff Recommendation: None Outstanding Issue(s)for City Council: • The Applicant requests approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B which requires all waterways on the site to be piped in accord with UDC standards,to allow the Watkins drain to remain open as an amenity feature (see pg. 10 of the staff report for more info). • Staff requests Council include a modification to condition#2b in Section VIII.A to also include Lots 4-11, Block 10 in the requirement for an easement for a 20'wide street buffer to be provided on the lots along E. Quartz Creek St./S. Sublimity Ave. • With submittal of a revised plat and landscape plan to include the remainder of the legal parcel previously mentioned, Staff may identify additional conditions of approval that need to be added to the staff report.Therefore, Staff recommends the public hearing is left open &continued in order for Council to have a final review of the revised plans&any added conditions. If the Applicant is in agreement with the conditions, Findings can be prepared to be approved at the same meeting if deemed appropriate by Council. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0087, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 8, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0087, as presented during the hearing on March 8, 2022,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0087 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance.) Item#5: Quartet South Subdivision (H-2021-0088) Application(s): ➢ Annexation, rezoning and preliminary plat. Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 67.61 acres of land,zoned RUT in Ada County, located at northeast corner of the N. Black Cat/W. Ustick Rd intersection. History: In June of 2020, Quartet Northeast(137 buildable lots)and Quartet Southeast((50 buildable lots)were approved north of the subject property. This subdivision is a southern continuance of those subdivisions. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential 3-8 du/acre Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to annex a total of 67.61 acres of land. 48.83 acres on the northern portion of the property is proposed to be zoned to R-8 to allow 229 single family detached homes. The southern 18.78 acres of land is proposed for R-15 zoning to allow 140 single family attached, or multifamily units, but the housing type has not been determined at this time. Jamestown Ranch Subdivision, Quartet Northeast, Quartet Southeast are north of the property,the Klamath Basin, Staten Park, and Geddes Subdivisions are to the south, and the Birchstone Creek Subdivision is to the west. To the east is unincorporated property designated for Mixed Use Non-Residential is to the east and with the wastewater facility and other industrial uses east of that.These subdivisions have comparable densities and housing styles as what is being proposed, except there is no multifamily in the vicinity, and the applicant has stated the R-15 portion of the property could result in a multi-family proposal via a conditional use permit at a future date. There are presently 4 accesses off of N. Black Cat Rd.These accesses will be closed and the west entrances from N. Black Cat will occur from W.Aspenstone St(new)and Machado Dr,which is already approved as part of Quartet Southeast and Northeast. Internal streets will be built to ACHD local standards. The applicant submitted a traffic study for this application.ACHD responded that the Level of Service (LOS)at the N. Black Cat Rd/W. McMillian Rd intersection is LOS"F", and that sections of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Ustick Rd. also exceed ACHDs acceptable LOS. The IFYWP was updated on January 26t"to include Ustick Rd. being widened to 5-lanes from N. McDermott Rd to N. Linder Rd. in 2024. N. Black Cat Road is listed to be widened to 5-lanes from McMillan Rd to Cherry Ln between 2031 and 2035. The N. Black Cat Rd/W. Ustick intersection was signalized with turn lanes in 2021.This intersection is eventually intended to be widened between 2026 and 2030. The applicant will be required to construct a dedicated east bound left turn lane on Ustick Road at Sunnyside Way, and a dedicated north bound right turn lane and south bound left turn lane on Black Cat Road at Aspenstone Drive. The applicant will be required to construct 10 ft.wide pathways along N. Black Cat Rd and W. Ustick Rd. There are two common driveways proposed with this subdivision. A minimum of 15%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 is required to be provided with development. 15.4%(10.4 acres)of qualified open space is shown. This includes two larger parks of 114,283 sq.ft. and 65,401 sq.ft., several smaller open space areas of 24,000 sq.ft. and 17,330 sq.ft., parkways which meet the minimum requirements, '/of the area of arterial buffers and open space corridors that meet the minimum dimensional requirements of at least 20 ft. in width by 50 ft. in length with an access at each end. Based on the 48.83-acre area proposed for R-8 zoning, 10 amenity points are required. Because this project is more than 40 acres, amenities are required from all the separate categories listed in Table 11-3G-4. This application proposes a community pool and changing rooms, children's play structure, and clubhouse.Although the square footage is not indicated,the clubhouse scales to greater than 5,000 sq.ft. qualifying it for 6 amenity points in the Quality of Life Amenity Category.A swimming pool with changing rooms is shown (although it does not indicate whether restrooms are included)which would qualify it for 6 amenity points, and a children's play structure is indicated,which would qualify an additional 1 amenity point from the Recreation Activity Area Amenities Category.Although the 13 total points would exceed the minimum, as described above, there would need to be amenities provided from the Multi-Modal and Pedestrian or Bicycle Circulation System amenity categories. The subject property is adjacent to the Naomi Farms property,which is designated for Mixed Use Non-Residential. The purpose of this designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these areas. The wastewater treatment facility is approximately 1,200 feet to the east, and a potential ACHD maintenance facility,which could be a highly intensive use in regard to noise, light and traffic impacts, is about the same distance.Also, at present,the Naomi Farms property could be developed as industrial if it were to be annexed into the City. Staff has recommended to the applicant that a better transition should be provided between the subject property and the MU-N designation to the east.The applicant has responded that there may be a future request for a Future Land Use Map amendment for additional residential uses further to the east, and a buffer or transition via a road could be provided as part of this request. The applicant also states the Mixed-Use Non-Residential designation is intended to provide the transition to residential uses,which is why this project shows houses backing directly to the Naomi Farms parcel. Staff has noted that due to the increasing loss of industrial land and the impacts of the wastewater treatment plant and future ACHD maintenance facility, staff may not support a change to residential designation in this area.Whether or not the City Council is inclined to support re-designating this area for residential, unless the applicant procures this property or the current owner is also an applicant on this application, staff cannot ascertain whether an appropriate transition is provided based on a parcel which is not owned by the applicant or part of this proposal. Staff has concerns with higher density residential uses in close proximity to industrial uses. The Council should determine if the adequate transition has been provided as contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant has submitted elevations of the single-family homes for this project. The single-family homes are depicted as one and two-story structures with attached garages, and a variety of architectural elements and finish materials including gabled roofs, covered porches, dormers, stone wainscoting, and lap siding. The submitted sample elevations appear to meet design requirements for single- family homes but do not include elevations of the sides or rears of structures. Design review is required for single family attached or multifamily structures.The applicant is unsure which type of product will be constructed on Lots 1 of Block 4 and Lot 2 of Block 3(the area proposed for R-15 zoning. The applicant has not provided any elevations for the potential attached or multifamily units. To ensure consistency throughout the development, staff recommends a condition that architecture of all single family attached or multifamily units be generally consistent with the single-family elevations provided in this application. The application does meet most of the minimum requirements of the UDC and the Future Land Use Map. It is within the density of 3-8 dwelling units per acre, 15.4%open space is provided whereas 15% is required, the minimum 4,000 sq.ft. lot sizes are met, and the applicant has provided the required amenity points although this needs to be adjusted to meet all the required categories.ACHD has also agreed with the requirement improvements mentioned in the traffic study. However, staff does have concerns with the density and proximity to industrial uses, the existing traffic level of service and the timing of future improvements. At the February 3, 2022 meeting,the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application. Their concerns included length of the block to the east without a break,that the traffic study that was analyzed was more than 4 years old, before the majority of the land in the area was even approved for development, the existing traffic level of service, the timing for future improvements, issue with proximity to industrial uses and lack of transition,that the amount of development in this area is premature given the lack of infrastructure improvement, and that it appeared the applicant was trying to"fit as many lots in as they can." Since the time of the Planning Commission meeting,the applicant has submitted revised drawings. Revisions include adding a"break along the eastern block(N. Brahms Ave), narrowing down the street to provide better traffic calming, widening the lots along the east (reducing number of lots in this area from 41 to 36), redesign of the southern cul-de-sac for better fire turn around and addition of a sidewalk(and planter strip)connecting a private drive to N. Black Cat Rd. Since the time of Planning Commission,ACHD has indicated they have updated their Integrated Five-Year Work Plan to show W. Ustick Rd will be widened to 5 lanes from N. Black Cat to N. Linder Rd in 2024. Written Testimony: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0088, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 8, 2022,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0088, as presented during the hearing on March 8, 2022,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0088 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) City Council Meeting March 8, 2022 Item #3: ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility AERIALZONINGFLUM Maps– Annexation23.7 acres–Project Site –Boundary Aerial/Vicinity Map Last Concept Plan Recommended DA Provisions City Engineer review.”phasing plans. Additional pretreatment may be required per Decant and Washout areas as noted on the concept and wastewater discharge proposal prior to construction of the “Applicant shall obtain City Engineer approval for interim Recommended DA Provisions issued until the Ustick Road widening project is completed.truck wash, truck bays, covered parking, or any other structure shall be Further, no building permits for the fleet buildings, administrative building, decant/washout as shown on the submitted phasing and concept plans.; except one (1) building permit may be submitted for the constructed.deceleratio n lane at Naomi Lane and Ustick Road is the and submitted and revised phasing plan OR until the Ustick Road widening consistent with the from the ACHD Commission, dated July 22, 2021, City until the Ustick Road widening project is completed per the letter agrees that no Certificate of Occupancy permits shall be issued by the shed, covered material storage, and parking area; however, ACHD may be issued for the decant/washout facility, broom shed, drainage constructed. After the deceleration lane is constructed, building permits the deceleration lane at Naomi Avenue and Ustick Road is projectphase 4 of the untilsubmittedissuedshall besNo building permit–VIII.A1.j Requested DA Provisions by Applicant Item #4: Apex West FLUMAERIALZONING Maps– Preliminary PlatPhasing Plan Landscape Plan Open Space Exhibit Watkins Drain Amenity Corridor Exhibit Conceptual Elevations Item #5: Quartet South Subdivision AZ, PP, CUP FLUMAERIALZONING Maps– Surrounding Land Uses BeforeAfter 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from September 7, 2021 for ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility (H-2021-0029) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 3764 W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 30.27 acres of land with a request for the I-L zoning district for the purpose of constructing an Ada County Highway District (ACHD) maintenance facility on 23.7 acres. Page 15 Item#3. C� fIEN , IN;, IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: March 8, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from September 7, 2021 for ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility (H-2021-0029) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 3764 W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 30.27 acres of land with a request for the I-L zoning district for the purpose of constructing an Ada County Highway District (ACHD) maintenance facility on 23.7 acres. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 16 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : March 8 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility ( W2021 - 0029 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes , please provide HOA name 1 ys39 cMav%� L+ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#3. Mayor Robert E. Simison E N.-' City Council Members: IDIA =�� Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault D A H O Luke Cavener Liz Strader September 1, 2021 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor& City Council CC: Becky McKay, Applicant Representative FROM: Joseph Dodson, Associate Planner, Community Development RE: ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility- Continuance Dear City Council, On July 27th, the City Council heard the Annexation and Zoning application for the requested ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility(H-2021-0029) after being continued from the July 13tn hearing. At this hearing, the Council discussed the project timing in relation to the desired Ustick Road improvements. This discussion directly noted a particular interest by the Applicant to be able to obtain building permits prior to the completion of the road widening projects. Staff, the City Attorney, and the Applicant have discussed the appropriate revisions to the proposed DA provisions through email but have not had final confirmation from the Applicant. In response to the recent discussions and desires of both ACHD and the City, Staff and the Applicant have worked together to modify condition VIII.A.I j as follows: j. No building permits shall be issued stibmit4e until the deceleration lane at Naomi Avenue and Ustick Road is constructed. After the deceleration lane is constructed, building_permits may be issued for the decant/washout facility, broom shed, drainage shed, covered material storage, and parking area; however, ACHD agrees that no Certificate of Occupancy permits shall be issued by the City until the Ustick Road widening project is completed per the letter from the ACHD Commission, dated July 22, 202 with the submitted and revised phasing plan OR tifffil the Ustiek Read widening a-ad the deeeler-atien!a-ne Further, no building permits for the fleet buildings, administrative building, truck wash, truck bays, covered parking or any other structure shall be issued until the Ustick Road widening_project is completed. Respectfully, Joseph Dodson Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 page t� Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org Item#3. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 7/13/2021 ' Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner n 208-884-5533 - SUBJECT: H-2021-0029 '- ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility LOCATION: The site is located at 3764 W.Ustick Road, approximately'/2 mile west of Ten 9� Mile Road on the north side of W. Ustick Road,in the SW '/4 of the SE '/4 of E Section 34,Township 4N.,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and Zoning of 30.27 acres of land with a request for the I-L zoning district for the purpose of constructing an ACHD maintenance facility on 23.7 acres,by Engineering Solutions,LLP. Note: Sewer services are not currently available to the site. Therefore,the Applicant is also requesting a City Council Waiver to delay connection to City sewer; City water is readily available. Further discussion of this is located throughout the staff report below. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—30.27 acres;Project Site—23.7 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Non-Residential MU-NR Existing Land Uses County Residential home is no longer occupied) Proposed Land Uses ACHD Maintenance Facility Lots #and type;bldg./common) One 1 building lot Phasing Plan #ofphases) Proposed as eight 8phases over eight 8 ears. Physical Features(waterways, Fivemile Creek abuts the north property boundary; hazards,flood plain,hillside) Ninemile Creek abuts the northeast property boundary.A large area of the site lies within the floodplain along the north third of the site,both Zone"AE"and Zone"X." See further analysis in Section V.N. Neighborhood meeting date;#of March 25,2021—3 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) N/A Page 1 Page 18 Item#3. 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 construction of a new collector street along the west (Arterial/Collectors/State property boundary(N.Naomi Avenue)that accesses W.Ustick Road(arterial) Hwy/Local)(Existing and near the mid-mile mark. Proposed) Stub Applicant is proposing to terminate N.Naomi Avenue in a temporary Street/Interconnectivity/Cross hammerhead type turnaround approximately 625 feet into the property.Any future Access development west of the subject site would connect to this terminus and continue west for interconnectivity.No other stub streets are proposed or required due to the proposed and adjacent use. Existing Road Network Ustick Road is existing arterial street with 2 to 3 lanes of travel. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Ustick Road is existing but there are no sidewalks or landscape buffers along the Buffers north side of Ustick Road. Proposed Road No road improvements are required with this application due to this segment of Improvements Ustick being scheduled for widening in 2025,unless the proposed right-hand turn lane is proposed with future development(see ACHD staff report in Section VIILD). CIP/Five Year Work Plan for Ustick and other nearby roads: • Ustick Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Linder Road to Ten Mile Road in 2025. Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Ustick Road to Cherry Lane in with design in 2025. This project is listed as in preliminary development and is currently unfunded. The intersection of Black Cat and Ustick Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be improved with an interim signal in 2021. This intersection is also listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes on the north leg, 7-lanes on the south, 6-lanes east, and 6-lanes on the west leg, and reconstructed/signalized between 2026 and 2030. Ustick Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Black Cat to Ten Mile Road between 2026 and 2030. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 1.1 miles from Fire Station#2 Station • Fire Response Time Project lies within 5-minute response time goal - • Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 85%(above the goal of 80%) • Risk Identification None to report at this time • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths,and turnaround dimensions. Police Service • Concerns None/no comments Wastewater • Distance to Sewer 2,650 feet from current sewer services to the west(Black Cat Road) Services • Sewer Shed North Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's Page 2 Page 19 Item#3. Description Details Page • WRRF Declining 14.15 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Sewer is a 2,650'from site and per the Master Plan needs to come from N. Black Cat Rd. • Provide to-and-through to parcel SO434438850 to the east. • If sewer is not available at the time of construction of the site,provide a utility easement to the northern end of the parcel SO434438850. • Flow is committed. Water • Distance to Services 0' • Pressure Zone 1 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None Concerns • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • No utilities are shown with application.A utility plan will need to be reviewed by Public Works. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend L°w�-r Legend Resider Project Location MU-NR Project Location Office II VV�!!11 1 Nr71 L® imu Eo ��_oo •� TII]i Medw�m Density Residential° H ghtDensity 3 i Civic �,1wL�rrr-!sir Residential Zoning Map Planned Development Map Page 3 Page 20 Item#3. Legend G R-8 R-2 Legend 0 L-{ a 0 Project Location G RUT Liu aProject Location City Limits -�___ _ __---__" I.L—RUT ® Planned Parcels RUT - � Rri , RUT RIB. I-L I-L _`-- RUT N� C-G �R1 RUT R-8 ® �® RUT �. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions,LLP— 1029 N.Rosario Street,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Ada County Highway District(ACHD)—3775 N.Adams Street, Garden City,ID 83714 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 5/28/2021 6/25/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 5/26/2021 6/22/2021 Site Posting 6/6/2021 7/1/2021 Nextdoor posting 5/26/2021 6/22/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(hgps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Mixed Use Non-Residential(MU-NR)—The purpose of this designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted,as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these areas. For example,MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be buffered from residential. Developments are encouraged to be designed similar to the conceptual MU-NR plan depicted. Appropriate uses in MU-NR areas Page 4 Page 21 Item#3. would include: employment centers,professional offices, flex buildings,warehousing, industry, storage facilities and retail,and other appropriate non-residential uses The subject site is an approximate twenty-four(23.7) acre parcel that abuts Ustick to the south, two creeks along the north and a portion of the east boundary, and the City's wastewater treatment plant directly north of the abutting creek. South of Ustick Road are existing detached single-family residences that currently have generally vacant parcels between them and the treatment plant. The proposed use of a maintenance facility for ACHD falls under the Public Utility, Major use within development code and is subject to specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3- 31). The Mixed Use Non-Residential(MU-NR)future land use designation calls for industrial uses, such as a maintenance facility, to act as a buffer between the City's treatment plant and any existing and/or future residential development. The Applicant is proposing to install solid fencing and the required landscape buffers adjacent to Ustick and the existing county residence directly to the west(in addition to a new public collector street). If the property to the west develops in the future as a nonresidential use as called for on the future land use map, the buffer proposed with this application along the west boundary should act as an adequate transition between uses. Despite the probable noise associated with a maintenance facility such as this, adequate landscaping and separation from existing residences by Ustick Road offer appropriate separation and should mitigate the noise from trucks and machinery. In addition to the proposed use itself, the hours of operation for the facility are an important factor in determining if the proposed use fits in this location. The Applicant has stated the planned hours of operation are Monday thru Friday, lam to S:30pm with occasional late-night hours during emergency situations. During the summer, the Applicant has also stated that chip- seal operations require some weekend hours but should be within the normal daytime operating hours. Staff nor the Applicant can foresee emergency situations so it is not feasible to mitigate every possibility associated with the proposed use. Due to the likely minimal late-night operations, Staff believes the proposed Development Agreement provisions and screening methods will be sufficient in mitigating any noxious consequences of the proposed use. Because of this, Staff finds the proposed project and use of an ACHD Maintenance Facility to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed below. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application and phasing plan, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owners)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.otglcompplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Coordinate with utility providers on acceptable landscape materials, design and site locations for their future facilities to avoid negative impacts to the community."(3.08.03). The location of the proposed ACHD Maintenance Facility is located within a non-residential designated area adjacent to the City's wastewater treatment plant. This area is intended to be developed with non- residential uses to act as buffers between existing/planned residential and the treatment plant. ACHD is considered a utility provider and they have worked with Staff to find an appropriate location for their new maintenance facility to further increase road maintenance capabilities within the City of Meridian. Page 5 Page 22 Item#3. Furthermore, Staff is recommending denser landscaping along the property frontage on Ustick to further mitigate any negative impacts to the nearby single-family residences and meet this applicable and significant comprehensive plan policy. "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 services are readily available to the subject site but sewer services are nearly a half mile to the west. This site is in a different sewer trunkshed than the properties to the east. As previously noted, the Applicant is proposing to develop the site in multiple phases over the next 8-9 years with a potential for the first building to be constructed in 2024. It is not entirely clear at what point utilities will be available or needed for the site but due to the phasing and the lack of sewer availability currently, the Applicant has not submitted any utility plans at this time. With future development, the Applicant will be required to submit these plans and continue coordinating with the City to connect to public utilities, including water needed for irrigation. With this application, Stafffinds it appropriate for the Applicant to provide a more detailed utility phasing plan than what has been presented in the application materials. Staff has discussed this with the Applicant and has received a general utility phasing plan as follows: FY22-Site Prep, cutting in access roads, landscaping and fence installation—no need for sewer, just water. FY23-Decant and washout area, with the possibility of the Admin Bldg. or may get pushed out to FY24. FY24-Drainage and Broom Sheds that would need to be connected to the sewer as well since this building will have restrooms. FY25—Fleet Buildings-Sewer hook-up as well for this building. FY26—Admin Building(originally, but possibly pushed up to FY23 or 24). If not built this year no need for sewer tie in. FY27—Truck Wash, and Truck Scales—Sewer to be hooked up FY28—Finishing of outlier projects Based upon the updated information, connection to City water and sewer is likely needed by 2023. Water is readily available but sewer is not, as noted previously. The Applicant is having ongoing discussions with the City Engineer on the best path forward for the sewer needs and timeline of this project. "Require industrial uses to conform to disposal, spill,and storage measures as outlined by the Environmental Protection Agency."(4.10.01B). Because of the nature of the proposed use and its different disposal, storage, and chemical requirements, they will be tasked with obtaining all necessary permits from the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Planning Staff does not perform environmental reviews as part of their analysis but due to the added layer of floodplain being located onsite, the City's floodplain coordinator will be a consistent part of future development of the site as phasing progresses and structures are proposed within the floodplain that require environmental permits. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Despite the project not being a residential development, a segment of multi-use pathway is shown on the master pathways plan along the north property boundary, adjacent to the Fivemile Creek. The Applicant is proposing to construct the required segment of pathway and construct a pedestrian bridge over the creek to connect to an existing pathway segment further to the east. This connection and added pathway are also proposed to Page 6 Page 23 Item#3. connect to detached sidewalk along the property's west boundary that eventually connects to Ustick Road. Staff appreciates the added pedestrian connections proposed with this project and should further Meridian's multi-modal transportation goals. "Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties."(6.01.02C). The Applicant is proposing to construct a new industrial collector street along west property boundary despite it not being required on the Master Street Map (MSM). This new street is proposed to terminate in a temporary hammerhead type turnaround approximately 625 feet north of Ustick allowing for future connectivity to the west if future development occurs within other areas of the MU-NR designation to west and northwest. The existing county residence and agricultural use to the west will have an opportunity to access this new collector street directly and gives that property an option to utilize the collector street instead of accessing Ustick directly. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing county residence on the property that is no longer occupied. The Applicant has stated this home is to now be sold and removed from the site instead of being used as a temporary office, as originally proposed. Therefore,the existing driveway access to Ustick will be closed as well. Staff is recommending this access be closed with phase 1 of the development, consistent with standard conditions to construct required landscape buffers with the first phase of development.No other structures are known on-site. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is an ACHD Maintenance Facility which falls under the Public Utility,Major use within development code. This use is a permitted use in the requested I-L zoning district per UDC Table 11-2C-2 and is also subject to Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-2-31).As previously discussed within the Comprehensive Plan section above, Staff supports the proposed use at this location—the relatively low vehicle trips,nonresidential use,and proposed pedestrian and landscaping improvements should make the proposed use ideal for this location next to the wastewater recovery facility. Staff analysis of the Specific Use Standards is in italics below: UDC 11-4-3-31—Public Utility,Major; and public infrastructure: A. Accessory uses directly related to the maintenance and fueling of vehicles(including,but not limited to,truck and trailer washing, fuel pumps, garages for minor repair)may be allowed. Proposed development incorporates many of these accessory uses and the Applicant is required to obtain all necessary City, State, and Federal permits for them. Furthermore, the submitted concept plan shows a large maintenance building in the southern quarter of the site but sufficiently outside of the minimum 35 foot street setback from Ustick. This separation and landscaping should mitigate any noxious outcomes from these buildings. B. Installation of underground fuel tanks shall require written approval from the Idaho division of environmental quality,Idaho department of water resources,and the appropriate fire authority. Applicant is aware of this requirement and shall comply. C.No portion of the outside storage areas and/or outside activity areas may be visible from any highway,interstate, gateway corridor,principal arterial,or minor arterial as herein defined. According to the submitted concept plan, none of the proposed outdoor storage areas appear to be visible from Ustick Road, a principal arterial street. The applicant is proposing landscaping and a solid fence as well as future building pad sites that will screen the outside activity areas from Ustick Road. To ensure this standard is adhered to, Staff is recommending the required Page 7 Page 24 Item#3. landscape buffer along Ustick is constructed with the first phase of development.More specific analysis of the landscaping and fencing material is in subsequent and relevant sections below. D. All driveways into and through the facility and any open area with a driving surface shall be surfaced with a dustless material including,but not limited to,asphalt, concrete,pavers or bricks. According to the submitted concept plan, no asphalt or driveways are proposed until phase 2. However, upon further discussions with ACHD and following the removal of the existing home, Staff is of the understanding that phase I will occur in 2022 and will include the new road, overall site prep, landscaping, and fencing installation. With the first phase, it appears that a gravel pit and paved open storage are proposed along the northern boundary. In addition, other areas of paved open storage are depicted on the concept plan. Per the submitted plans, it appears the Applicant is compliant with this standard. E. For any use requiring the storage of fuel or hazardous material,the use shall be located a minimum of one thousand(1,000)feet from a hospital.No portion of the site or any hazardous or potentially hazardous material is located within 1,000 feet of a hospital. The concept plan and phasing plan submitted with the application depict specific parts of the maintenance facility being constructed at different times.A revised concept plan has since been submitted. In general, the revised concept plan depicts the following: the required multi-use pathway segment north of the proposed fencing and along the north boundary; a gravel pit and paved open storage along the north and northwest boundary;fuel tanks, truck scale and a salt/sand shed within the central area of the site; central but along the east boundary more paved open storage and the decant and washout stations are proposed; employee and fleet parking as well as the drain truck shed are located in a majority of the center of the site; in the south and southeast area of the site the administration building,fleet maintenance building, broom truck shed, and covered storage is shown on the concept plan. Please see the phasing plan in the exhibit section below(Exhibit VILE)for when these areas are proposed to be constructed from approximately 2021-2028. Staff notes that the location of the decant and washout areas have been moved since the revised concept plan was submitted to a new location outside of the floodplain and is therefore not accurately shown on the phasing plan. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The Applicant is proposing to annex the subject property into the City with the I-L zoning district which does not have a minimum lot size. As noted above,the proposed use meets the requested zoning and the dimensional standards noted in the specific use standards. The project requires both landscape buffers and building setbacks,per the I-L dimensional standards. At a minimum, there is a 25-foot landscape buffer required adjacent to Ustick and a 20-foot landscape buffer required along the new collector street,Naomi Avenue. In addition,the I-L zoning district requires a street setback of 35 feet. The submitted site plan shows the required 35-foot building setback from Ustick but shows only a 25-foot setback from the future Administration Building to the new segment of Naomi Avenue. This should be corrected with future development applications. In addition,the I-L zoning district has a minimum landscape buffer of 25 feet to any residential use which is applicable along the west property boundary where Naomi Avenue is not proposed adjacent to the parcel to the west. The submitted concept plan shows this 25-foot landscape buffer compliant with the required dimensional standards. The proposed building height of any future buildings are not known at this time but Staff presumes none are proposed near the 50-foot height limit of the I-L zoning district. With future Page 8 Page 25 Item#3. CZC submittals, Staff will confirm conformance with the required dimensional standards of the I- L zone and the Public Utility, Major specific use standards(11-4-3-31). Therefore,the prosed project meets all required dimensional standards outlined in UDC 11-2C-3 except for the required street setback to Naomi Avenue. Staff has recommended this be corrected prior to future CZC submittal. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has not submitted any conceptual elevations of the future buildings. According to the submitted concept plan,there will be an Administration building, Maintenance building, and a long"L" shaped covered storage building that will require future Administrative Design Review (DES) approval as fixture development occurs that will also require Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC). Because future buildings are not proposed until later phases of the project and because they will require CZC and DES approval, Staff does not find it necessary to obtain conceptual elevations at this time.However, due to existing and established residential homes to the south and Ustick being a heavily trafficked arterial roadway, Staff is recommending a DA provision that any future building fagade that is visible along Ustick Road is held to the Commercial design standards in lieu of the Industrial design standards. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via construction of a new collector street that aligns with Naomi Avenue to the south. The Applicant is proposing to construct the collector street as a 3-lane, 52-foot wide street section within 74 feet of right-of-way with 5-foot detached sidewalk on the east side of the street; when the property to the west redevelops they will be expected to complete the street with sidewalk on their side of Naomi. The submitted plans show this new road to terminate in a temporary hammerhead type turnaround approximately 625 feet into the site for future road connectivity to the west. ACHD has offered their approval of the proposed Naomi Avenue extension and termination on the north side of Ustick Road. There is an existing home on the property that is expected to be sold and moved to a new property which allows the existing access to Ustick to be closed sooner than originally proposed. Off of Naomi Avenue,the Applicant is proposing two driveway accesses for access into the maintenance facility located approximately 360 and 625 feet north of Ustick Avenue. The concept plan also shows each access to be gated approximately 150 feet from the edge of right-of- way of Naomi. ACHD has given their approval of the proposed driveway and gate locations for the maintenance facility because they meet district policies. Lastly,the concept plan also shows a westbound deceleration/right-hand turn lane from Ustick onto Naomi Avenue. The Applicant has stated a desire to include this right-hand turn lane for trucks and other vehicles to access Naomi without impeding traffic along Ustick. Staff is supportive of this.ACHD has noted within their staff report this dedicated right-hand turn lane is not required by ACHD because Ustick Road is programmed to be widened to 5 lanes of travel within 10 years. The Naomi Avenue extension would allow for future public road connectivity for the parcels to the west and allow for more efficient traffic management along the Ustick corridor than individual nonresidential access points to Ustick common within industrial areas. Staff appreciates the initial investment being placed on the road infrastructure and extension.All of the proposed access points (including the existing driveway closure) meet UDC requirements and ACHD has noted compliance with district policy. Therefore, Staff supports the proposed access and transportation element of the proposed project. Page 9 Page 26 Item#3. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II- 3C-6B for nonresidential uses based on the ratio for industrial zoned properties of one (1) space for every 2,000 square feet of gross building floor area. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of CZC submittal for each building. The proposed use of a maintenance facility will rarely have any customers so the vast majority of parking needs would be for employees. Initial review of the concept plan does not give Staff any concern over the amount of parking due to the proposed use and ample area for additional paved parking. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are proposed within the required landscape buffers to Ustick Road and the new Naomi Avenue collector street(due to alignment, sidewalks are only proposed on the east side of Naomi).At the terminus of Naomi,the 5-foot sidewalk is proposed to continue north within the required 25-foot land-use buffer along the west property boundary and connect to the required multi-use pathway segment at the north property boundary. The proposed sidewalk meets UDC requirements. There is currently no sidewalk to either the east or west of the subject site because neither property is developed at this time. Further to the east, approximately'/mile, there is existing sidewalk on the north side of Ustick constructed as part of the McNelis Subdivision. This area of the City is rapidly developing so sidewalks should be constructed with the landscape buffers for overall connectivity. As properties further to the west and east develop in the future adequate pedestrian facilities will be required and will connect to the overall sidewalk network. In addition, the intersection of Naomi and Ustick is slated to be signalized in the future as more development occurs in this area. A signal in this location would allow for safe pedestrian crossing to the established sidewalk network on the south side of Ustick that offers connection to both Black Cat and Ten Mile Roads. Furthermore, the sidewalk connection to the multi-use pathway segment along the north boundary would allow pedestrian connection back to Ten Mile Road through the regional pathway network. Overall, Staff supports the proposed detached sidewalk layout and locations within the landscape buffers. J. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Consistent with the sidewalk facilities,the proposed regional pathway extension is required of the Applicant. In addition,the Applicant is required to construct a pedestrian bridge over the Ninemile Creek to connect to the existing pathway segment at the west boundary of the McNelis Subdivision. The submitted concept plan shows compliance with all of the requirements surrounding the construction of the multi-use pathway except for the required landscaping along both sides of the pathway. The north side of the pathway is encumbered by the irrigation easement so the Applicant has proposed trees only along the south side of the pathway. Staff is not necessarily against this but the Applicant should be required to apply for Alternative Compliance with the first CZC to determine the adequate alternative to the landscaping requirement along the creek. To ensure these pedestrian facilities are constructed, especially the multi-use pathway segment, Staff is recommending the pathway and sidewalks are constructed with phase I when the landscaping and fencing are proposed. Page 10 Page 27 Item#3. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The Applicant is required to construct landscape buffers along Ustick Road,Naomi Avenue, and the remaining western boundary. In addition,the Applicant is required to install landscaping along the multi-use pathway along the north property. The buffers along Ustick and Naomi are governed by UDC 11-313-7; the land use buffer along the remaining west property boundary is governed by UDC 11-313-9; and the multi-use pathway landscaping is governed by UDC 11-313- 12. The Applicant did not submit specific landscape plans for the project but the revised color concept plan(Exhibit VII.C)does depict proposed landscaping in the required areas. The revised color concept plan shows lawn and trees within each required landscape area.As noted previously, Staff is recommending denser landscaping within the landscape buffer to Ustick Road to help mitigate any noise, light, or fumes from the maintenance facility. Furthermore, the landscape buffers should be constructed with phase I for this exact reason. The landscaping shown on the color concept plan appears to meet code requirements but further analysis will be done with the first CZC submittal and a specific landscape plan is submitted. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and appears to meet UDC standards as proposed. The Applicant is proposing to construct 8-foot tall chain-link fencing with 2 feet of barbed wire above that along the north and east property lines—this fencing is also proposed to be coated in a colored and rubberized material.Along the west and south property boundaries, the Applicant is proposing 8-foot tall TREX fencing(see fencing rendering below,Exhibit VILD). The proposed TREX fencing is being strategically proposed to offer the most screening and buffering to the existing residences. 8-foot tall fencing is allowed within industrial zoning districts and per the height definition of fencing provided in UDC, barbed wire fencing is not included in the height measurement of fencing and is allowed in the I-L zone. M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The subject site abuts two waterways along the north and northeast property boundaries—the Fivemile Creek runs along the north boundary and the Ninemile Creek forks off of the Fivemile and runs along the north segment of the east boundary. The Master Pathways Plan depicts a segment of the regional pathway system adjacent to the Fivemile Creek but also requires a pedestrian bridge to the northeast of the site in order to connect to the existing multi-use pathway segment further to the east. The Applicant has proposed to build the required multi-use pathway as well as to construct the pedestrian bridge over the Ninemile Creek to the east. Staff appreciates the added cooperation with the Parks Department on extending pedestrian facilities. In addition to the pedestrian elements surrounding the adjacent waterways,there is floodplain located on the north quarter of the site. Staff has reviewed the site for compliance and notes that a floodplain permit(s)will be required and that future construction within the floodplain will be required to adhere to MCC 10-6 for structure elevations and waterproofing. Further and more specific analysis will be done by Staff with future development applications. In addition, additional environmental permits may be required with the federal government depending on where the final location of specific items are located onsite (i.e. fuel tanks,decant station, etc.). N. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the development in accord with 11-3A-15.No irrigation plans have been submitted for industrial use at this time. With future development applications,the Applicant will be required to provide a pressurized Page 11 Page 28 Item#3. irrigation system for the required landscaping around the site. Land Development will review these plans in more detail at a later date when specific irrigation plans are submitted. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on June 17,2021.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Becky McKay,Applicant Representative b. In opposition:None c. Commenting. Becky McKay; Lloyd Carnegie,ACHD Maintenance Manager. 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. Timeline for the use of the site, construction of the westbound deceleration lane, and overall phasing; b. Potential issues associated with having large trucks utilizing Ustick Road and the site prior a deceleration lane being constructed by ACHD as part of the overall road widening project---:A stated that consistent truck traffic to the site should not occur until after the Ustick Road improvements due to overall timing and use of other maintenance facilities in the valley as well as the timing of developing the subject site; C. Estimated timeline for Ustick Road widening Applicant stated there is a desire to move up the construction of this road widening project to 2024 instead of between 2026-2030; d. How concrete the proposed concept plan is in terms of building placement and phasing; e. Capacity of the Commission/City to limit the use of heavy truck traffic for the site via a condition of approval or DA provision. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Create a new DA provision to help limit heavy truck traffic until Ustick Road is widened and the deceleration lane is constructed. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Connection to City Sewer services and what the alternatives may be—Planning Staff is still not aware of the final alternative decided by the Applicant and the City Engineer; if an answer is known prior to the meeting, Staff will alert City Council. C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 12 Page 29 Item#3. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps ACHD USTICK PROPERTY - ANNEXATION LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, T4N, R1 W, BM, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO C 1/4 1/4 _ _ _ _ S8917'01"E 2647 77 34 35 CURVE TABLE LINE TABLE LINE TABLE I I CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD LINE LENGTH BEARING LINE LENGTH BEARING C1 98.65' 337.00' 16'46'20' S80'41'21'E 98.30' L1 182.16' S7218'11'E L8 105.95' S72'36'59"E C2 117.40' 458.00' 14'41'10" S79'38'46"E 117.07' L2 145.45' N68'09'49"E L9 45.13' S42'31'05"E r l C3 99.31' 229.00' 24'50'50" N80'35'14"E 98.53' L3 243.43' S53'20'11"E L10 84.44' N89 07'11"W W w I C4 53.16' 143.00' 2118'00" N78'48'49'E 52.86' L4 43.02' SO'53'03"W L11 49.81' 1 SO'09'49'E a C5 42.20' 65.00' 3772'00" 571'56'11'E 41.46' L5 295.14' N64'08'05"W L12 45.13' N42'34'43"W Z I C6 122.51' 100,50' 69'50'36" S37'41'41'E 115.06' L6 277.37' S64'49'45"W L13 105.95' N72'36'38"W C7 152.82' 290.92' 30'05'54" S57'34'02'E 151.07' L7 140.80' S2'46'23"E C8 100.29' 190.92' 30'05'55" N57'33'40'W 99.14' 1 C9 72.79' 200.50' 20'48'02' N62'12'37"W 72.39' CS 1 16 _ FIVE MILE CREEK 362.98' IJ N S89'04'31"E-Cl -'t1 C3 N89'2T49"E,C5� 434.23' C2 1 S86'59'21"E-940.67' !3_ o S&1'07'09`N L6 N89'0'303 Ol''w �S 287.40 N86'15'46"W 701.30' ANNEXATION AREA = 30.27 ACRES c6 L8 J 19 � N 3 !�� �y !1•6�F' � PARCEL SO434438600 z 3764 W. USTICK RD. y`�0.�ss � ��6. 46 o :r%`9� '3" � POINT OF sd,lo� si. BEGINNING o`sue, �'' � �10 34 N89'07'11"W 825.29' 795,86' _ _ 935,01" 34 35 3 i/4 2640.61' W. USTICK RD. IBASIS OF BEARING 3 z A \�NpL LA Afo 0 0 -OH 2110= Lan �1ut1on 0' 200' 400' 800' �, f"' of ���5 Land Surveying and Consulting S A 231 E_5TH$T_,STE_A 01V W Tar MERIDIAN,ID 8254 (208)26&2040 (M)288.2557 fax WWW,]and6vution�biz JCH;:f,;=- - Page 13 Page 30 Item#3. Legal Description ACHD Ustick Property -Annexation A parcel located in the SE '/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point marking the southwest corner of said SE %, from which a point marking the southeast corner of said SE'%bears S 89'07'11" E a distance of 2640.61 feet; Thence along the westerly boundary of said SE '% N 0043'44" E a distance of 1290.37 feet to a point on the centerline of the Five Mile Creek; Thence along said centerline, also being the southerly boundary of that annexation parcel as described in Ordinance No. 784, Instrument No. 98003485, records of Ada County, Idaho, the following described courses and distances: Thence S 89°04'31" E a distance of 434.23 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 98.65 feet along the arc of a 337.00 foot radius curve right, said curve having a central angle of 16°46'20" and a long chord bearing S 80°41'21" E a distance of 98.30 feet to a point; Thence S 72'18'11" E a distance of 182.16 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 117.40 feet along the arc of a 458.00 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 14°41'10" and a long chord bearing S 79°38'46" E a distance of 117.07 feet to a point; Thence S 86°59'21" E a distance of 940.67 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 99.31 feet along the arc of a 229.00 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 24°50'50"and a long chord bearing N 80°35'14"E a distance of 98.53 feet to a point; Thence N 68°09'49" E a distance of 145.45 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 53.16 feet along the arc of a 143.00 foot radius curve right, said curve having a central angle of 21°18'00" and a long chord bearing N 78°48'49" E a distance of 52.86 feet to a point; Thence N 89°27'49" E a distance of 362.98 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 42.20 feet along the arc of a 65.00 foot radius curve right,said curve having a central angle of 37'12'00"and a long chord bearing S 71'56'11"E a distance of 41.46 feet to a point; Thence S 53'20'11"E a distance of 243.43 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of said SE La_I8d::01,gfi0n ACHD Ustick Property Annexation Q__ ' .d S„ ,m,..d C.ewtm Page 1 of g Jab geo.1 of 3 3 Page 14 Page 31 Item#3. Thence leaving said Five Mile Creek centerline and along said easterly boundary of the SE '/4 S 0°53'03"W a distance of 43.02 feet to a point; Thence leaving said easterly boundary N 64°08'05"W a distance of 295.14 feet to a point marking the northeasterly corner of McNelis Subdivision as shown in Book 100 of Plats on Pages 13082 through 13084, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence along the northerly and westerly boundary of said McNelis Subdivision the following described courses and distances: Thence N 89°07'41"W a distance of 303.80 feet to a point; Thence S 64°49'45"W a distance of 277.37 feet to a point; Thence N 86'15'46"W a distance of 701.30 feet to a point; Thence S 81°07'09"W a distance of 287.40 feet to a point; Thence S 2°46'23"E a distance of 140.80 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 122.51 feet along the arc of a 100.50 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of W50'36" and a long chord bearing S 37d41'41" E a distance of 115.06 feet to a point; Thence S 72d36'59" E a distance of 105.95 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 152.82 feet along the arc of a 290.92 foot radius curve right, said curve having a central angle of 30d05'54" and a long chord bearing S 57°34'02" E a distance of 151.07 feet to a point; Thence S 42°31'05" E a distance of 45.13 feet to a point; Thence continuing along said boundary and the extension thereof S 36d50'13" E a distance of 861.51 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of said SE%; Thence along said southerly boundary N 89'07'11"W a distance of 84.44 feet to a point marking the southeasterly corner of"Parcel C" as shown on Record of Survey No. 6018, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence leaving said southerly boundary and along the easterly boundary of said "Parcel U N 37d06'59"W a distance of 584.06 feet to a point marking the northerly corner of said "Parcel C", Thence along the westerly boundary of said"Parcel U S 0d09'49" E a distance of 49.81 feet to a point marking the northeasterly corner of"Parcel B"as shown on said Record of Survey No.6018, also being the northeasterly corner of that annexation parcel as described in Ordinance No. 02- 992, Instrument No. 103012606, records of Ada County, Idaho Thence along the northerly and westerly boundary if said parcel the following described courses and distances: Lzi��r�'ution ACHD Ustick Property Annexation Job No.21 Land Surveying and Consulting Page 2 off 3 3 Page 15 Page 32 Item#3. Thence N 36°49'52"W a distance of 255.94 feet to a point; Thence N 42°30'43"W a distance of 45.13 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 100.29 feet along the arc of a 190.92 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 30°05'55" and a long chord bearing N 57°33'40" W a distance of 99.14 feet to a point; Thence N 72°36'38"W a distance of 105.95 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 72.79 feet along the arc of a 200.50 foot radius curve right, said curve having a central angle of 20°48'02" and a long chord bearing N 62°12'37" W a distance of 72.39 feet to a point; Thence S 0°48'30" W a distance of 760.49 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of said SE%; Thence leaving said boundary and along said southerly boundary N 89*07'11" W a distance of 825.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 30.27 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W. Hansen, PLS \oNPU LA Nos Land Solutions, PC 5 STFF GpL April 14, 2021 m 0 11118 oy �y/mil ( �iL9TF �O �5�0 F TON W NP � �� �ons ACHD Ustick Property Annexation Q----' 3 U.d 5-1ying—d C—ultlng Job No. of 3 Page 3 of 3 Page 16 Page 33 Item#3. B. Revised Concept Plan(dated: 4/14/2021) �I b _ � 1 E T ' J, l ' I 1 � (1—LL r I U �� _'yI , InI � A1,Y1111 4l).e - �m svae'ww�wsv'� T a� ,. �• — r 'III Y T' 11 II IN ZVI Pig fl a y � 4 I I 0 A T Ll T _ / 9 MINE Mop ACID MAINTENANCE FACD ITY ENGINEERING PIANNLR/CONTACT OWNERIAPPLICAN V) - W.USTICK ROAD (� icn couun nmr«w�usmla - PRELIMINARY SITE {S PLAN OLUTIONS„a Page 17 Page 34 Item#3. C. Color Concept Plan G� I I I I E C --E- £ L j I ask— LE -Eli I J I I I I r r z l � Page 18 Page 35 Item#3. D. TREX Fence Example Page 19 Page 36 Item#3. E. Revised Phasing Plan- 6/14/2021� Not upda4ea a-a NOT APPROVED Erg FiIg MILE CkE£X L———————- A! CONSTRUCTION PHASE TIMELINE KEY _-L � PRA2EP _ — — 2022 2223 AffW4 PXAS25 II FCr laze . ,�..�__ I CONSTRUCTION PHASE TIMELINE (2021-2028) ACHD MAINTENANCE FACILITY — -------- W. USTICK ROAD W. USTICK RCAF] ,re, ni+Mac.� W. USTICK ROAD 1„= 150, �— T T O _— r LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, r'—T---i - -- — —T---�� II F T.4N., RAW.,B.M. U ADA COUNTY, IDAHD os-1�—s1 Page 20 Page 37 Item#3. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the approved concept plans included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. With the first phase of development,the existing home shall be removed and the existing driveway access to Ustick Road shall be closed. c. Future structures proposed along the Ustick Road frontage shall adhere to the Commercial district design standards in lieu of the Industrial district design standards. d. The required multi-use pathway segment, detached sidewalks along Ustick and Naomi, 5- foot micro-path, and landscape buffers shall be constructed with the first phase of development. e. The Applicant shall construct all fencing as proposed on the approved concept plan to specifically include closed vision fencing along the south and west property boundaries. £ With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall connect to City water and sewer services, if available. Should sewer service not be available at the time of development, the Applicant shall connect to sewer services when available or the water service may be discontinued by the City. g. Provide a utility easement for the benefit of the City through the site to parcel SO434438850 to the east along the north half of the boundary for future sewer infrastructure. Coordinate the exact location with Public Works staff. h. With the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application,the landscape buffer to Ustick Road shall be vegetated with additional landscaping to include: trees that touch at maturity,and; incorporate landscape beds along the entire fence line for added shrubs and vegetation to help mitigate any noxious uses within the site. i. The Applicant shall adhere to the specific use standards for the approved Public Utility, Major use, as outlined in UDC 11-4-3-31. j. No building permit shall be submitted until phase 4 of the project consistent with the submitted and revised phasing planOR until the Ustick Road widening and deceleration lane at Naomi Lane and Ustick Road is constructed. Page 21 Page 38 Item#3. 2. Prior to commencing any site development,the Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) approval for the first phase of site development. Any future buildings and site development will also require CZC approval. 3. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2C-3 for the I-L zoning district and in UDC 11-4-3-31 for the Public Utility, Major specific use standards. 4. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-613 for nonresidential uses within the I-L zoning district. 5. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 6. 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. 7. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along Fivemile Creek to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14' in width(10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side). 8. 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. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall connect to City water and sewer services, if available. Should sewer service not be available at the time of development,the Applicant shall connect to sewer services when available or the water service may be discontinued by the City. 1.2 Provide a utility easement for the benefit of the City through the site to parcel SO434438850 to the east along the north half of the boundary for future sewer infrastructure. Coordinate the exact location with Public Works staff. Page 22 Page 39 Item#3. 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 be dedicated via the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the construction 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. 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 irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains,exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being developed 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. 2.6 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. 2.7 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. 2.8 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.9 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. 2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. Page 23 Page 40 Item#3. 2.11 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.12 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-31-1. 2.13 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. 2.14 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. 2.15 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridianciU.oMIgublic worb.aspx?id=272. 2.16 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. PARKS DEPARTMENT—PATHWAYS https://weblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=230782&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=230783&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the I-L zoning district with the proposed Public Utility, Major use and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met to help mitigate any noxious uses nearby the existing residences to the south. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the requested development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested I-L zoning district and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone. Page 24 Page 41 Item#3. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, especially if all conditions of approval are met. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission 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. Commission finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 25 Page 42 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll Our Mission: We drive quality transportation for all Ada County…Anytime, Information Briefing Jennifer BerengerFeb 2, 2022Deputy Director of Maintenance Anywhere! PROJECT:2024Construction Year:2023Way Year:-of-Right2022Design Year:Ustick Rd, Bridge #1444PROJECT:2024Construction Year:2023Way Year:-of-Right2022Design Year:Ustick Rd/Naomi Ave SignalPROJECT:sidewa lk and Level 3 bike facilityWiden Ustick Rd to 5 lanes with curb, gutter, 2024Construction Year:2023Way Year:-of-Right2022Design Year:Ten Mile RdUstick Rd, Black Cat / PROJECT:FutureConstruction Year:FutureWay Year:-of-Right2026Design Year:Rd/Black Cat RdUstick Rd, Star/McDermott PROJECT:2024Construction Year:2023Way Year:-of-Right2022Design Year:Ustick Rd/Black Cat Rd SignalPROJECT:2025Con struction Year:2023Way Year:-of-Right2022Design Year:Linder RdUstick Rd, Ten Mile Rd / 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single-family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Page 108 Item#4. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: March 8, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd.,Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single-family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R- 15 zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 109 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : March 8, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4 PROJECT NAME : Apex West Subdivision ( W2021 - 0087 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 i 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#4. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING March 8,2022 DATE: TO: Mayor&City Council r. FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533I SUBJECT: H-2021-0087 Apex West—PP(aka Pinnacle) LOCATION: North side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., approximately 1/4 mile west of S.Locust PROJECT Grove Rd.,in the south 1/2 of Section 31, T.3N.,R.IE. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat consisting of 208 building lots(207 single-family residential lots and 1 lot for future development of townhomes or multi-family apartments) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R- 2,R-8 and R-15 zoning districts for Apex West Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 96.08 acres Existing/Proposed Zoning R-2,R-8 and R-15 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR),Medium Density Residential(MDR)and Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural land Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR)detached dwellings Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 208 building lots/34 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 4 phases Number of Residential Units(type 207(SFR detached dwellings) of units) Density(gross&net) ' 3.17 units/acre(gross); 5.29 units/acre(net)—overall(not including future units in R-8 and R-15 zoned lots) Open Space(acres,total 16.17 acres(or 16.61%)common open space [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities Swimming pool,two(2)segments of the City's multi-use pathway system,and an additional 5%open space above the minimum required. Physical Features(waterways, The McBirney Lateral and another un-named waterway hazards,flood plain,hillside) cross this site. Page 1 Page 110 Item#4. Description Details Page Neighborhood meeting date;#of 10/19/21 attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2020-0066;Development Agreement Inst.#2020- 178120(Apex);H-2020-0117;Development Agreement Inst.#2021-102396(Shafer View Terrace) B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes is Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Two(2)accesses are proposed via E.Lake Hazel Rd.,an arterial (Arterial/Collectors/State street; and one(1)access is proposed via E.Quartz Creek St.,a Hwy/Local)(Existing and collector street. Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Roadway FrorHage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Lake Hazel Road 1,321-feet Principal Arterial 351 Better than"E" Locust Grove Road 1,350-feet Minor Arterial 181 Better than"E" 'Acceptable level of service for a two-lane principal arterial is'E"(690 VPH). 'Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is"E"(575 VPH). Stub E. Quartz Creek St.is proposed to be extended through this site; Street/Interconnectivity/Cros stub streets are proposed to be extended from Apex Northwest#1 s Access and#2;stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties. Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Buffers Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)l Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Improvements Amity Road between 2036 and 2040 • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Linder Road to Meridian Road between 2036 and 2040. • Lake Hazel Read is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian Road to Locust Grove Road between 2036 and 2040 - • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2036 and 2040. Apex Subdivision entered into a Cooperative Development Agreement with ACHD in May 2021 to widen the segment of Lake Hazel Road to_Al to the east of this site.These construction plans are currently under review. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2-11 on the north leg,2-lanes on the south, 4-lanes east,and 4-lanes on the west leg between 2036 and 2040.Apex Subdivision entered into a Cooperative Development Agreement with ACHD in May 2021 to fully improve this intersection consistent with the 2020 CIP.Construction plans are currently under review with ACHD. • 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. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Meridian Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 7-lanes on the west leg and signalized between 2036 and 2040. • The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2-lanes on the north leg,2-lanes on the south,4-lanes east, and 4-lanes on the west leg between 2031 and 2035. Fire Service is Distance to Fire Station 3.6 miles • Fire Response Time Falls outside the 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#6—cannot meet response time goals. When Fire Page 2 Page 111 Item#4. Description Details P Station#7 is constructed in late summer of 2023, it will be within the S:00 minute response time area. • Resource Reliability 85%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would be adequate to supply service • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. ALL residences having two frontages(the street&an alleyway behind it)shall have address numbers on the front of the building and on the back side facing the alley. • Special/resource needs Project will require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Police Service No comments received • Distance from police station • Police Response Time Approved ME Pro ected West Ada School District Approved lots per units per Students from • Distance(elem,ms,hs) Enrollment Ca aci attendance area attendance area Approved 0ev. • Capacity Of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary 449 675 2677 26 591 Victory Middle School 984 1000 3738 502 501 • #of Students Enrolled Mountain View High School 2368 2175 2701 0 432 School of Choice Options Christine Donnell School-Arts 489 50n N/A N/A Spalding Elementary-STEM 656 750 NIA N/A • #of Students Predicted from this development 132 school aged children predicted from this development by WASD(154 for future townhomes) School Im act Table Wastewater • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • All sewer manholes must have a 14-foot-wide access road per the City Design Standards. • Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches • No permanent structures may be within City utility easements including but not limited to trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash enclosures, fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc. • Do not run sewer main in common driveways,services should be run within the common driveway. • Sewer main should be run from the northern portion of the site down South Sublimity Way from the existing sewer main.Main should be kept within the Right of Way whenever possible. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality None Page 3 Page 112 Item#4. • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • 12 inch water main will need to be constructed at the Northwest corner to make the second connection at East Quartz Creek Street. • There is a piece of water main missing at the corner of East Prickle Drive and East Pinpoint Way,this must be included to complete the water loop. • The water main in East Prime Drive needs to be upsized to 12 inch from South Sublimity Way to East Prickle Drive. • The water main in East Prickle Drive needs to be upsized to 12 inch from East Prime Drive to East Heyday Drive. • The water stub in East Heyday Drive to the property line needs to be upsized to 12 inch. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend W a ffeegend � t L aTK:m w i nsih ide tia f" dium Den LU ni LAKE �u1ed-High ens �side�ntial .R Page 4 Page 113 Item#4. Zoning Map Planned Development Map (f Rl Rl Rl Legend W E 0 Legend 0 W 9 Prajeci Lccafkm RUT let Project Lcca�n R-o— — R1 +_i City Lim& R-4 R-8 R.g R-4 R — Planned Parcels i R- —R- ----, - C- R' 1 R- F R-4 RUT p ' RUT R-4 a I i 5 R� R-4 R-4 R' ' G- —A RUT - -- --- f --- R-4 I RUT - A. Applicant: Josh Beach,Brighton Development, Inc. —2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Brighton Development, Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 12/21/2021 2/20/2022 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 12/15/2021 2/17/2022 Applicant posted public hearing 12/22/2021 2/24/2022 notice on site Nextdoor posting 12/16/2021 2/18/2022 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates approximately 11 acres of the site as Low Density Residential(LDR), 65 acres as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and 20 acres as Medium High-Density Residential(MHDR). The LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of 3 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. Page 5 Page 114 Item#4. The use of open spaces,parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high-quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The proposed development consists of a total of 207 single-family detached dwellings. The plat includes two(2)R-8 zoned lots in the MDR designated area for future residential development; and one(1)R-15 zoned lot in the MHDR designated area for future development of townhomes or multi- family apartments. The proposed development in the MDR designated area has an overall gross density of 3.17 units/acre with a net density of 5.29 units per acre, excluding the future development areas. The R-2 portion has a gross density of 0.70 units/acre with a net density of 1.18 units/acre and the R-8 portion has a gross density of 3.70 units/acre with a net density of 6.16 units/acre, consistent with the densities desired in the associated LDR and MDR designations. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) Only one housing type, single-family detached, is proposed in this development at this time; some units will be accessed via internal local and collector streets with front/side entry garages while others will have rear access via alleys.Another housing type, either townhomes or multi- family apartments, is planned to develop on the R-IS zoned future development area (i.e. Lot 1, Block 1). If townhomes are proposed, the lot will need to be re-subdivided to accommodate the townhome units; if apartments are proposed, a conditional use permit will be needed for approval of a multi family development. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available to service this development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response time for the Fire Dept.falls outside of the 5-minute response time area; once Fire Station No. 7 is constructed in the late summer of 2023, it will meet the response time goal. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) Staff believes the proposed use and site design are compatible with existing and future uses, which should minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. • "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 Page 6 Page 115 Item#4. required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "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) Two (2)segments of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed within this site consistent with the Pathways Master Plan, which will provide safe pedestrian and bicycle access to the internal common area with a swimming pool and school site to the southeast in Apex Southeast. • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions (e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)."(3.01.01A) A Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was required by ACHD for this development and was taken into consideration in ACHD's report. See comments from WASD and Community Development in Section VIII for school enrollment calculations in regard to the number of school-aged children estimated to be generated from this development and associated school capacity. The closest City Park to this site is Discovery Park, a regional park consisting of 77-acres of land, to the southeast of the S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. intersection bordering Apex Southeast. • "Require all development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The proposed site design should be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses. • "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 proposed as required with this development. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis above. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 208 building lots (207 single-family lots and 1 lot for future development of townhomes or multi-family apartments)and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2,R-8 and R-15 zoning districts for Apex West Subdivision. The subdivision is proposed to develop in four(4)phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.A. The proposed plat includes a portion of Parcel#51131417220 depicted on the plat as Lot 1, Block 5 and the surrounding area outside of Parcel#51131417210.As discussed at the pre- application meeting,the entire parcel must be included in the proposed plat or a property boundary adjustment application must be approved to create a separate developable parcel for that area—a portion of the lot cannot be included as it would create an illegal split.Until this concern is resolved,the City Council has inadequate information to make a final decision concerning this application. Therefore, Staff recommends that prior to City Council entering its Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law,Final Decision and Order, a Page 7 Page 116 Item#4. property boundary adjustment shall be approved,which incorporates Lot 1,Block 5 and the surrounding area into Parcel#51131417210 or creates a separate developable parcel for that area. Three future development areas are depicted on the plat, Lots 32 and 43, Block 6; and Lot 1, Block 1. The R-8 zoned lots (i.e. Lots 32 and 43,Block 6) are planned to be re-subdivided in the future through new preliminary plat applications. The R-15 zoned lot(i.e. Lot 1,Block 1)may be re-subdivided in the future through a new preliminary plat application for the development of 240 townhomes; or, a multi-family development may develop on the site,which will require approval of a conditional use permit. If single-family homes or townhomes are developed on these lots, they shall be re-subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or site improvements on this property; it's currently agricultural land. 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, including but not limited to streets and block face. The proposed plat complies with these standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access is proposed at the northwest corner of the development from E. Quartz Creek St., a collector street, from S. Meridian Rd. and from S. Sublimity Ave. and S. Apex Ave.,both collector streets,via E. Lake Hazel Rd. Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and interconnectivity. A note should be included on the final plat prohibiting direct lot access to the collector and arterial streets,except for Lots 4-11,Block 10 which are allowed direct access via S. Sublimity Way—homes on these lots should have side entry garages with a turnaround area so that vehicles aren't backing out onto the collector street in an effort to preserve public safety. Street setbacks for residential units abutting collector streets shall be as approved with ZOA-2021-0003. Public alleys are proposed for internal access to some of the lots in Phase 1; alleys are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. Three(3)common driveway lots are also proposed and are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D; an exhibit for such is included in Section VII.B. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 1I- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Garages and parking pads in driveways are proposed to satisfy this requirement. The proposed local street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets for guests in addition to driveway parking spaces on each lot; 146 spaces are proposed for-guests i the residential area along with another-28 spaees as depieted on the par-king plan in Seetion VII.E. Staff is of the opinion suffieien4 par-king ean be provided for-this d&velepfflelftc Off-street parking is also required for the building/changing rooms at the community swimming pool. A minimum of(1) space is required per every 500 square feet of gross floor area; 12 spaces are proposed which exceeds the minimum standards.A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is also required to be provided per UDC 11-3C-6G and should be designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Page 8 Page 117 Item#4. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan depicts a segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the west and northeast boundaries of the site. Pathways are proposed as shown on the landscape plan. The Park's Dept. is requiring a 10-foot wide detached pathway along the west side of S. Sublimity Ave. which will connect to the pathway proposed in the common area along the back side of lots in Block 10. The gravel pathway proposed through Blocks 5,6,7,9 and 10 is required to be improved per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.3.Landscape strips are required along both sides of all pathways,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-12C,which include a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover, including those in Blocks 6, 7, 9 and 10—if within an easement, additional area shall be provided outside of the easement to accommodate landscaping. See comments from Park's Dept. in Section VIII.J. A minimum 5-foot wide pathway should be included in Lot 36,Block 6. All multi-use pathways not located within the right-of-way are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public use easement,which shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature on the final plat(s) for the phase in which they are located. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along all streets where detached sidewalks are proposed. All parkways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street; and 20-foot wide street buffers are required along E. Quartz Creek St./S. Sublimity Ave., S. Apex Way and E. Crescendo St., collector streets. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffers per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C,which require a variety of trees and shrubs,lawn,or other vegetative groundcover—shrubs are required to be included in the buffer in accord with this standard; lawn shall comprise no more than 65% of the vegetated coverage of a landscape buffer(see UDC 11-3B-7C.3 for more information). Landscaping is required adjacent to all pathways per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C as noted above under Pathways. Landscaping is required within parkways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3B-7C as proposed. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3 Based on the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3,the R-2 zoned area requires a minimum of 8%(or 0.80-acre) open space based on 9.94 acres of land; and the R-8 zoned area requires a minimum of 15%(or 6.01-acres)open space based on 40.09 acres of land for a total of 6.81 acres of common open space.Although the future residential R-8 and R-1 S zoned areas (i.e.Lots 32 and 43, Block 6 and Lot 1, Block 1)are included in the boundary of the proposed plat, Staff did not include these areas in the required open space calculations as they are proposed to be re-subdivided and/or included in a conditional use permit in the future prior to development.At such time they will be required to comply with the open space standards on a stand-alone basis. The proposed open space consists of linear open space, open grassy areas of at least 5,000 square feet in area, 8-foot parkways and street buffers along collector and arterial streets as shown on the Page 9 Page 118 Item#4. open space exhibit in Section VII.D. A total of 16.17 acres of qualified open space is proposed, which exceeds UDC standards. The proposed open space areas have direct pedestrian access,high visibility, comply with the CPTED standards and support a range of leisure and play activities and uses,while promoting the health and well-being of its residents as required in UDC 11-3G-3A.2. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1, Based on the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-4,the 50.03-acre development area requires multiple amenities to be provided totaling a minimum of 10 points from the separate categories listed in UDC Table 11-3G-4.Note:As noted above under the Qualified Open Space analysis, Staff did not include the two (2)R-8 zoned lots (Lots 32 and 43,Block 6) and the R-15 zoned lot(Lot 1, Block 1) in the calculations. A swimming pool with changing facilities and restrooms (6 points);two(2)segments of multi- use pathways totaling approximately�/z mile(totaling 4 points); and a playground(3 points) are proposed totaling 13 points,which exceeds the minimum standards. A detail of the playground equipment should be submitted with the final plat application for the phase in which it is located. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Limited Geotechnical Engineering Roort for the subdivision. 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. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC It It The McBirney Lateral crosses this site within a 41-foot wide easement; and the Watkins Drain runs along the west side of this site within a 38-foot wide easement, as depicted on the plat. These waterways are proposed to be piped in accord with UDC I I-3A-6B. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver to UDC I I-3A-6B to allow the Watkins drain to remain open as an amenity feature; a cross-section of the amenity corridor is included in Section VII.C. In order for Council to waive the requirement for covering the drain, it has to find that the public purpose requiring such will not be served&public safety can be preserved per UDC 11-3A- 6B.3a.No fencing is proposed to prevent access to the drain and the Applicant is not proposing to improve the drain per the water amenity standards in the UDC,which require construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho to be submitted to both the Director&the authorized representative of the water facili , for approval. If the waterway/drain is improved as part of the development as a water amenity,its banks in all places adjacent to and located on said development should be no steeper than one (1)foot vertical per every four(4) feet horizontally and have a depth and velocity in all places adjacent to and located on said development such that the product of the maximum depth (feet)multiplied by the peak velocity(feet per second)does not exceed four(4). Page 10 Page 119 Item#4. Williams Pipeline: The Williams Pipeline runs across Lot 32, Block 6 within a 75-foot wide easement. All development within the pipeline easement should comply with the Williams Pipeline Developers Handbook. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Five-foot tall open vision metal fencing is proposed adjacent to all internal common open space areas to distinguish common from private areas; and 6-foot tall solid wood fencing is proposed in other areas as depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.0 in accord with UDC standards. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations in a variety of materials and colors were submitted for future single-family detached homes in this development as shown in Section VII.E.Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved for the changing rooms and swimming pool on Lot 1,Block 5 prior to submittal of applications for building permits. All non-residential structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Because homes on lots that abut collector streets(i.e.E. Quartz Creek St. and S. Sublimity Ave. and S.Apex Way south of E. Crescendo St.)will be highly visible,the rear and/or side of structures on these lots should 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. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on January 6 and February 3, 2022.At the public hearing on February 3',the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject PP request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Mike Wardle and Jon Wardle,Brighton Corporation b. In opposition:None C. Commenting. None d. Written testimony: Julie Edwards; Josh Beach,Brighton Corp. e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. Concern with the provision of(3)common driveways within the development& associated traffic congestion as discussed at the Commission hearingfor or Apex East; concern pertainingto parking in relation to the alley-accessed units&the adequacy of such for guests on the adjacent public streets, especially with the common driveways proposed and parking issues associated with those. Suggests some of the building lots be eliminated in favor of provision of a .guest parking lot in addition to the on-street parking&elimination of the common driveways in favor of larger lots in those areas. School capacity concerns from the proposed development and others in the area. Page 11 Page 120 Item#4. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Inquiry if S. Sublimity Ave. could be built with the first phase as a final build instead of a temporary fire access; b. Inquiry if Apex East and Apex West will be considered one development for common use of common areas and amenities; c. The provision of common driveways within the development and associated congestion —not in favor of common driveways although they're allowed by code; d. In favor of the Applicant's request to leave the Watkins Drain open and not pipe it. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B which requires all waterways on the site to be piped in accord with UDC standards,to allow the Watkins drain to remain open as an amenity feature(condition#7 needs to be modified if Council approves the waiver). b. Prior to City Council approval of the subject preliminM plat application, a property boundary adjustment is required to be approved,which incorporates Lot 1,Block 5 and the surrounding area into Parcel#S 1131417210 or creates a separate developable parcel for that area. Council can act on this application but the Findings can't be approved until this has been done. C. Staff requests Council include a modification to condition#2b in Section VIII.A to also include Lots 4-11,Block 10 in the requirement for an easement for a 20' wide street buffer to be provided on the lots along E_Quartz Creek St./S. Sublimity Ave. Page 12 Page 121 Item#4. VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan(date: 8/16/2021) APEX WEST SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT wa"mFRr raooa A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST 114,THE NORTHEAST 1I4 OFTHE SOUTHWEST 1/4,AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST, ROISE MERIDIAN,ADA COLINTY,IOAHO. 3 I PREDMINMY PLAT DATA -\ uu Iw R — Lwpo We �sr , L�VNGSP Ili e�ouln�eR�Y j 2, • I I� o �'� e0 ®i SDfNEY OONTRtt NOTES M wwx w, ��m` J-- _`��___—_ o� I ° .N°�°®m m o�aN� o • • • IsE E3�ti: I OF OPAWIH mn� a m I e .S �• . . ;ns �.,.nu, Li Jil FFFTIF9 RPE%ERIDIAN,1 OIYISON MERIDIAN,W W 0 F F9R�w LOVfP SHfEF 0E, of kiwl.lE Page 13 Page 122 Item#4. APEX WEST SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT vEaxmxwE:� aar A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OFTHE SOUTHWEST _ 1/4,ANDTHE SOUTHEAST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 114 OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST, BO1SE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO. WuMINAfiy PLAT DATA MIX WESlSNMYGW vn° 5--- ��`, vH6NA�eaI1Nm �xye• `� i tl o Ywe Si Phase 1 76 Count Phase 2 72 Count -„-„s �•tu I • ,• Phase 3 57 Count © I • • 9A Phase 4 1 Count �'ri,.,,.�6 � w I • • —' ' ._.�- �:,. w�c�xTRo.,oR�E�„o,,,n. m1°"-'`�"' • /■• • • • .••f••.:: -l-: o .—x OF OEAWINGS —�-- — 1----- . .:• .. . ........ �nM -- • I �, .o,.,.. P� k �I.v I Build temp fire access with phase 1 in this -- APEXWEST SUanIwslON P g°u MERIDIAN,IDAHO location and final build- MERIDIAN, ID with phase 4 � � Page 14 Page 123 Item#4. B. Common Driveway Exhibits a,N i - _REAR Io I BLOp 4 ICE D O 12'LEBOW SIDE LOT 24 IS A NON-BIIILVABLE W Q COMMON LOT WITH A BLANKET S O n uull4 pm 0 INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT IN I;r 3 O ¢ N Z m FAVOR OF LOTS 13.14.15 E. m 10• - 12' AND M.BLOCK 4 <3• h¢ 0 y _ SIDE yy Z DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 25 rn 3 BLOCK 4 TO BE LOCATED ON ? d of THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE SHARED ON DRIVE PROPERTY LINE N 20' — SIDE —ET E.HIGH POINT ST.� \V • •��\ 1y� r O 1� - LOT,4 OWNER 15 RESPON5IBLE SIDE J FOR SCA K A AND MAINTAIRRIGATION IN TMG �-IES�ARI�ANO IRRIGATION IN \ ± s1pET 1P Q 11p _ 51OE� J EX Z.0 BE LOCATED FOR LOT 17 BLOCK 4 ID B ELOPE. BE LOCATED ON THE OPPGSRIV SIDE ENVELOPE OF-THE SHARED COMMON DRIVE TYPICAL, PROPERTY LINE 0P.�gOFID9y 0 ®1'-30 WHEN AND 24-25,BLOCK 4 1'=30'WHEN PRINTED AT 11'%17" S = 16 ] a ef261a ev� MEM DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 27 LOT 23 IS A NON-BUILDABLE SLIMING - BLOCK S TO BE LOCATED COMMON LOT WITH A BWIKET ENVELOPE. N—vI ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT IN TYPItP1. OF THE SHARED COMMON FAvOB OE LOT$2q.25 Anp 28, Slp� DRIVE PROPERTY LINE BLOCK 8 0 W W m LOT 25 OWNER IS `a I T ESPONSIBLE T 5 INSTALLING AND _ 12'4AIW O gLOCKq LANDSAINING CAPII4G AND ,O' N I c R GARAGE I o KI �. IRRTION IN SE THE ` DRIVEWAY FOR LOT $ O L SIDE � f 5 S+ Q m Y ,4 22 BLOCK 6 TO 1 �pT i BE LOCATED CH 1m - 12• THE OPPOSITE R SIDE OF THE L SIDE J SIDET ZO• - pm O SO 5HME6 COMMON TT -- - - ..�0 Q I N 70 DR1TN EL PROPERTY __ _ Q ,D• y a o a SIDE 12' ; s m O O Z b II ZSt I ' E.SNAG SF. ' 12' BIDET —1 7 V g .._.. W 2G• zp• rani x SIDE _ 2 �I aSO E y a t SIp� — L——— EmE� — J '} E.HIGH pg pp POINT ST Y c,C �y•,O O. n SIOET & LOT 4AB MR ,m�II •:a3" I T 5-�-1 ` !m C I 1� r• TO eE WGATm W =- T•]• 12 ¢ O ?O CP NON SIDE 12' ]O OF THE SHARED .y 10' L sIDE� PPADPORTV LINE km 1�S• O L I SIDE J � W W�N s ae5P E OWNER L E N G I N E E k 1"G ' i O FOR INS—UNG fON�"ci�c•t. 51pET LOT 42 IS A NON-BUILDABLE BUILDING pRIVEwAY FOR AND MNNTANING �PXOMEm'm zes v rONT III COMMON LOT WITH A ENVELOPE. LOT 48 BLOCK 4 •^ LANDSCAPING ICL r, 61ANNET INGRESS/EGRESS 1YPICAL. TO BE LOCATED ANO IRRIGATION ON THE E a c} EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF LOTS OPPOSITE S1DE IN 1HESE AREAS 43,4q Ann 45.BLOCK 4 OF THE S EX 3.0 u� BLDCK6 n O 12 HARED I ®LOTS 4146 BLOCK 4 COMMON ORN - , II PROPERTY LINE L — REAR 1'=30'WHEN PRINTED AT 11-X17' vOF a$SAY II E I} r�A O9x * LOTS 22-27,BLOCK 6PRINTEDefSEP, I'=30'WHEN PRINT AT 11";f1]' -9y Ml$CA�'A "nV Page 15 Page 124 Item#4. C. Landscape Plan&Fencing Plan(date: 8/16/2021) I � °19Cm.r__°�r�'°`o•oi0:ms"wams'�cm'm Mz�o:w".� }— OPEN SPACE TREEGILQIIATIONS(1 THEEjS %I _ c �: wau.mc°.e nns I P— SEEPPL3 ��•m°i�°Cniw•w wcn.ar cwx w e. w W x r•,J•n re.'7 2i @t;;.]by i=:'0 i C•7"s•i C•,' :7 II' � tS Ca T��BEE� G e?24.. .•a I - N' __ i �wr` TOTAL DPEN SPACE7REE5�•°•u •`'�EJ' iJ C':, •'7r;R, " SEREETTREE�l11ATIONS j1iREEJ35 LF} ° Nw Y�°m mm o+�o• � � °r vfs m { --------- APEX WESTSUBDIVISIDN ° ' � MICRO PATHWAY CAL[UTATIONS[LiREE/1uR lFl MERMAN,IDAHO PRE IIMINARY'PIATLWNSCAP YER PRELIMINARY PLATLANOSCAPE COVER f6i 9] TOTAL PATHWAY TREF5 a �. MITIGATION RUQUIRSWNIS COHTALT INEORMATON TOTAL TAEF5 REQJIREDJPRO4IDED Tg nlE�.e Page 16 Page 125 Item#4. p` o ® ® ® ale e a a a . c e ® ® ® ® a a a e ccccca -? c, o oo on wQ, i PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN R a-� APUWMSUBDIWSION ...o MERIDIAN,IOAHO �.wwa- agar 1 -PPU 0._ o"'n ® c I a ® 2 a G, i p�[� 4 ac ----------------- I r� yu, ' AM WEST SIIBMUSION PRELIMINARY PEAT IAN�SCAPE PLAN MERIMM.1O pPPl3A'- Page 17 Page 126 Item#4. O ® GJ 0 f O O mOGJ R� c� o �a o P sea 0ee®®e G�t]cgp OOOOe�9 ® ne®eoqyale II ps 41 ti� 9 o it a e, aka .,... �"' ariz wEsrsueavlslon MERI rtDIAN,IDA41D wyb PRELIMINARY PLAT IINCH EXHIBIT Q N r-w% aRFa D m_ x f81' w WIDTH VARIES THROUGHOUT SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN zo 0 38, 25' '^� z c WATKINS DRAIN CITY SEW ER mQ H EASEMENT EASEMENT N z Z z z � a O Z O a O X Z a� �m 14. w� a SHAFERVEW DUAL PURPOSE APEX WEST z ESTATESI j PATHWAY 3 SUBDIVISION a PEDESTRIAN 3 `^,o—� o AND SEWER ACCESS ini Zp z o��LL _ _ _ I I I 1 2730 —_2730 2728_--_ _____ _ _ _ _ —2728 ENGINFE0.ING 2726--- -_ — _---- _-- -- - - - - — _ 2726 NATIVE MANICURED11ioe o LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE WATKINS DRAIN SECTION NTS 7�p"'.28 ,O'•�A'OSCA4EP••��,, Page 18 Page 127 Item#4. D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 8/16/21) i I PREIIMNARV PUT DATA Rd COMMON LOT AREAS T ® A COMMON LOT AREAS O ME © m� I O- z. i 1 R-1$COMMON LOT AW-45 ry r -- �nkKaMw wrtMq�lr I I APEX WEST SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN.IDAHO OPEX SPRCE E'[HI9R f�APEX WEST SUBDIVISION OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT •ie°'"�� [ONTAR INFORMATION R'o.RNFA G Ws iirz r Page 19 Page 128 Item#4. E. Conceptual Building Elevations y. �r1 � der — �et��--!•� f �Z��rRMS L ' Page 20 Page 129 Item#4. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Prior to City Council entering its Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law,Final Decision, and Order, , a property boundary adjustment shall be approved,which incorporates Lot 1,Block 5 and the surrounding area into Parcel #S1131417210 or creates a separate developable parcel for that area. A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Future development shall comply with the provisions of the existing Development Agreements(i.e. Shafer View Estates—Inst. #2021-102396 and Apex—Inst. #2020-178120), and the preliminary plat,phasing plan, common driveway exhibits, landscape plan and conceptual elevations in Section VII and the conditions of approval listed below. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note prohibiting direct lot access to the collector and arterial streets, except for Lots 4-11,Block 10. b. Depict an easement for the 20-foot wide street buffer on the west side of S. Apex Ave. south of E. Crescendo St. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Depict additional landscaping within street buffers as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.Note: These standards were recently revised. b. Depict a 20-foot wide street buffer on the west side of S. Apex Ave. south of E. Crescendo St. with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Note: These standards were recently revised. c. All pathways shall be improved per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.3 and have landscape strips along each side of the pathways and be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C,which requires a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover. Pathways are not allowed to have a gravel surface. Landscape strips are required along all pathways, including those in Blocks 6, 7, 9 and 10—if within an easement that prohibits trees, additional area shall be provided outside of the easement to accommodate the required landscaping. d. Include calculations in the Project Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with the standards for pathway(11-3B-12C)landscaping; include required vs.provided number of trees. Landscaping is required along all pathways. e. A minimum 5-foot wide pathway shall be included in Lot 36,Block 6. f. Depict a 10-foot wide detached multi-use pathway along the west side of S. Sublimity Ave. as required by the Park's Dept. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. 4. A 14-foot wide public use easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi- use pathways within the site that are not within the public right-of-way prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature in the phase in which they are located. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-4 for the R-2 zoning district, 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district and H- 2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all residential units in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Page 21 Page 130 Item#4. 7. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise waived by City Council. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver from City Council to leave the Watkins drain open. 8. Homes on Lots 4-11,Block 10 shall have side entry garages with a turnaround area so that vehicles aren't backing out onto the collector street in an effort to preserve public safety. 9. If a multi-family development is proposed on Lot 1,Block 1, a conditional use permit application shall be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for that lot. Qualified open space and site amenities shall be provided in accord with UDC standards for such. 10. If single-family homes or townhomes are developed on Lots 32 and 43,Block 6 and/or on Lot 1,Block 1,these lots shall be re-subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits. Qualified open space and site amenities shall be provided in accord with UDC standards for such. 11. Homes on lots that abut collector streets(i.e. E. Quartz Creek St. and S. Sublimity Ave. and S. Apex Way south of of E. Crescendo St.)will be highly visible,the rear and/or side of structures on these lots should 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. 12. Submit a detail of the proposed playground equipment with the final plat application. 13. All development within the Williams pipeline easement shall comply with the Williams Pipeline Developers Handbook. 14. Street setbacks for residential units abutting collector streets shall be as approved with ZOA- 2021-0003. 15. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications shall be submitted for the non-residential portions of the development(i.e. changing rooms associated with the swimming pool) and approved prior to submittal of applications for building permits.All non-residential structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 16. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 All sewer manholes must have a 14-foot-wide access road per the City Design Standards. 1.2 Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches. 1.3 No permanent structures may be within City utility easements including but not limited to trees,bushes,buildings, carports,trash enclosures, fences, infiltration trenches, light poles, etc. 1.4 Do not run sewer main in common driveways, services should be run within the common driveway. Page 22 Page 131 Item#4. 1.5 Sewer main should be run from the northern portion of the site down South Sublimity Way from the existing sewer main. Main should be kept within the Right of Way whenever possible. 1.6 12-inch water main will need to be constructed at the Northwest corner to make the second connection at East Quartz Creek Street. 1.7 There is a piece of water main missing at the corner of East Prickle Drive and East Pinpoint Way,this must be included to complete the water loop. 1.8 The water main in East Prime Drive needs to be upsized to 12-inch from South Subilimity Way to East Prickle Drive. 1.9 The water main in East Prickle Drive needs to be upsized to 12-inch from East Prime Drive to East Heyday Drive. 1.10 The water stub in East Heyday Drive to the property line needs to be upsized to 12-inch 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 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. Page 23 Page 132 Item#4. 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-313. 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 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 Page 24 Page 133 Item#4. 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://weblink.meridianciU.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=243074&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky Phasing Map: https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=243072&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=244321&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty E. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=248416&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS https://weblink.meridiancioy.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=248658&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=242586&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &Cr=1 https://weblink.meridiancit .00rg WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=250827&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity Page 25 Page 134 Item#4. H. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=243205&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty I. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciN.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243211&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty J. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orQ/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251528&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat is generally consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density and collector street layout. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section IV of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission 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; The Commission 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, The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 26 Page 135 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll a � o � N 00 z U s W ~ � " a W � L � a � i O `w L � O i•-W-•r • • • . • • • W AW . a . r a N m � y \ LY aanoaj) ;snoom 4 1 MIFF, r ■ .■ � IWA� ` ' -- - - I y uelplaaw - � FIFFIFFIFFIFFIT i m ICW+ a yi0 T ; I � I t O I a� I c - �3 0 o ti 4 o Iw a f yM Fn � 4 zFo 0 En O LA 0 � G4o W e n N 1 PaGI I% I T i N I O ;; u I W pdi t f� � O ; � ,y W - z I �� =- I� - !_ � 1 I ! o � Gil a L Wes . oP , o adA / ocLC dos � c � ° z e z � zlei I I J I o y W I v t M 3noNo isnool S -- - - - -- - ------ - z SFJ ao � I 1 X H J - >- w I I . W I ryM . I qJ I04 , ■ I wi i ON NVIaIN3W S z u T w Aojq ; snooml oQ _ ii 6 � ■ ■ w by wr ■ �1Y. • • anowwwon ■ � IF A N jT • 1. W d' 3 CL .,0' : �2 � Ir � d 3 � 00% Qi V W C � - � �+ ZW . JCL = CI IF ■ 0%wo tit 9 R // ♦♦ • • • .♦ ' 1 Ill 11 LLI 44P um LL LL � i 0 co — � .. c W LL } cc W / of LL I OWG co ` LL 1 1 { O IW ' W W 3 g � . 3 � ' IL ° v13 PFF �+ G� 0 m 0) 1"Fj L : w L sL a O 3 v y =LE �♦ i 0 Oa O ` m O O vlp Z J Q Q � Y Q m "l B loll tot title Q NOW a IfTI - �� � � I zap I awlrM.urs -- m ' � - v � s d V *, o oo © p o 0 o FF 0 0 oao 0 D p O p O O O O I � I C 0> p e o 0 _ I m i ~ "Are 7 © O E I ppE� i 2 w w � 6 - - - - - - o I "-A ' Q ' � - - — � . ..v ., n ,.,a. Oe I arum s N Z uj fill I � I Z tA I OF 6 ILy y d Z = = I � Q rA W W OC ° L a V V H C) Waa `0 V� za � � co W � W � z3 Jyr � � � NgZ � � w ' / � / _ . LU I :D �-- OO CL ' W Z / O { W i o I � NN L— NdL1 W 1 . - w , s LL \\. / - vp 0 w co f— ac lww - >ME LL W F O H �■ k E- W t� 3 � a _ lw� Al tt/ fir i hy� K(r( � �+ • r. qm-i i r pc r� bj t lit p Fill �h Filmr. rr d ` 1!► \v d9�t • 1tr`:1 rFit fib' t r Fit IF ato r�� p `1. iIlly �me All . 4 PI A to Fie Q • � �.} A I �? °` IF Irl" V / I� �'� 'T •! V:. art k= � pp mill FIX —F rr 11 � . W H ��� _ ,�y _ ,� ri ell C isvo it mool Ft tell Ifs Feek , � j % � Aid ' a Y = l ± o owe mit jjit iler Ir ele It _ i,Films- ! ate r Fir elk it F` ell let 6 SIN l� 3t Fit F. _ T• * � Ft .,a., ... uAl of Sme ; �r Y I Fromow. motorr` _1 ' ' = ` r OFF, mei ppAA.trA�J o I .1 F mmaN le ' . ny. .•rn w r t . , F ..i. me Gth"I y r r ► 7• dr ,� Sk rig t . f ,a m � _ 1 me + to - ✓ . _ hl i. 1 ..r fib,rkJ el . Fell / 1 ~ ramof m de lit emC I me � . . r '' Fr.. , = O ' '� , rrFee i- _ me r �.0. A I" Y tito tof ; Wit Fit Fit ca m me Ate O 1i1•t y�,11V, „1 Mc L— Film ru Fle IF Ft I It L d ` ' J" �. Fill 0 ` L61 •' ��� r4 k :ate• `� 1V r = V WiI� 1 II � ' = Y� Fill r1i' ll , NONE F Flit lit Jo IF ONE milliFrr`r a � C � � to ii: momma, MM. t. O i , For F, . • ,:.4: FF � 1 IF l I .vim �Ir- r:_ -tip -r �•y�� ' �• go All � fI _ � ! J" AAA IF I� `, a. J ai /` "Ir Flow oil I " : . f to or or f. ALI All FF l ; A. t Ago a FFA > _ ���:11v� - irk FF n ' 1 3 f � : ✓ . r � . / Ilk A. IF OF IF I t � . _r r. IF �I - I, (I low v` r Fl 1lor llierr Yr5 - ee - 7 11 OF _ . F x y(T.: !k t `FI �i r \ ! _ Al Im FF Ago 4,10 FF tf 1 IFFIFF _ � �r y { f , rFFr \I / 1 l I , . ' 1 f HIGHLIGHT AVE.. g tj = I zI _ TION 1VAV TION AVI l 1 I � I Ll �' O OO ID m ry rV N N N IIIII N o IIIII � � IIIII w 0 IIII m 3JN33 IIIII Q N 1V13N 0 1dO IIIII �' N is - - 3NI1101 I - ' llll V) Q rr Ln ; III I w ~ Qo � F� � Ww ? W ) wQ3v 9 illliOwa " W ' Illl < a IIIII - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IIIII NNVO J O d Ol dOi dol -� doi 414- - oZ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LD g .wAlIII 0a Q I { = ^ ! +1wo Z II > w < ~ II~ Lui CC n 0 w �:oLn2 m Z "-' I I W Ln a Y < W < W I IIIQo IliZg ! il . III - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ! III IIII 3NI1 l l l z H NOISIAI48f1S U S31VIS3 ( IIIII LOU N M31A ( IIIII z LLJ w N33VHS Q F . » 3d3DN33 ( IIIII � Q JNIlSIX3 Q w IIIII z N 000 N Q M N� r N N N Z J Inc N ui $ too V = ♦ W W D W W ♦ W ZImmom of crm W J a Z Q ♦ MOWN u MINES W • � ca ug MEMIN . , Z W W —j Q W Z ` . CC _ Z m W Z w MEND �Mmm W �. � Z0cc �. V W LLI am z , a 0 J MEMIN a ' • > Q 46 o ` W � Y W W W � � ui a am Z „ a ♦ 0 --� Q - � Abdo u Om LU N as _ W as � - c� W �+ c� ' V U � Oo , _ 61 H CL � N 0 . > O � � O a � as v z o � y � � V � � a Q irl �I v 4 mmmmsv � SOON COO CC o J .a? NOON ammmm � � t11p • • � � aJ O - c a1 L ' Cl Q • Q c O • � Q NOON a-- SOON Q v a m (NON ? o O Q) W w 3 L C: Q = Q V) O = to = v1 N IY fB N � Q � N Q a1 m vi CiA u � � Q V) 70 O V -� � vi � O O- O a � Cn 4=mJ � — vi 'o V) W w �, � O m � Qj m E ammmm U -� vi V) Q) I` Low Z = viammmm Z . - � `n > �-- Q � a� Q �O t�A m, a1 w a) DC J um U U M � I V1 aJ O Q "' O a� Vi in , c c 4— +-, p N _ mmmmm, ammon .� C ommmm O • � d' DC o a1 � m vi B nNOON i i > ZZ E 0 u ammmm 4=,J ol V) OL Q. E M J � to Ommmmm f� >% m O (a W a V W . � f ELT NOON�6 N ONE: L Q a V p bn v cz :t m � � W V, WF- V U OCOO+. O o a) m Ln o f � v m + c O a� M U � ftmmmmm LA 0C, vy > Q aU-+ f6 � vl MO +NO a CL W I- I � � I "o b I N" � Q a to = . , hfJ r-I N C N mNOON S? 0 O a, H L V n C m O o 0o U o ommmm ONO Y - Ln w u uu �z o m y v u a) - - a� Q u o M QSeoul >- " s✓ � a� Ln � o a o I- V V) II go 00 pp LLL � , i Jo 4 11 1 _ ��- 9 i . ` loot 1 ( ' 7 • \ I I mw� ormm pp 73 low P oil LW PT70d II LAllo II i i 1 I I Lom ' Y 1 ' 'f 1 71 le �1 .� V ► _ r •op d011 Pee gomm, t 6 06 I �l I y , .-. . I �► - � � .I : � r l � 1 f , WZ O W J t9 W Q 1M T Z W t� N � n a t � t ti d T a . a r , r t W W uj a; W tsA k ^,, ,� r/.l 1 N CD LI 00 O t - Lz N It O LL LLI _ k O ' •p . '. A As W ! i .OL F . W so y Z a' it ��} M Y co �. y, - �I I �k .4•y ./.ti.. • a. t4 Woo �,.Wi Is It Z a � ', -, A n at41 . .. 4 < ;_ AIL W - CD co f Cq WFA W uj VIA W 14 , _ rIV VI VP , , W uj .� Va. Via Is fit a` 3 LJ JIM 1 . LU rr LU � M E � ' � i LnFri - - -z , f � _ is ul — OZZ - - - Ae �. _ l � i LLL .. 1 _ a - ' ' \) !%' • f � FIR Milk k , 0 ` • `v to FOP / �[ p 14 do I ed A � ♦ , �+ , ♦ :' ' r 00 41 IF lumId 0od,Ar li Ff No j ` W _a I„ WFor • MJ IL y SLL 4 ,% - -- r J i- �' . •1 1� opt t •J�v is Five 0 41, F AV to 04 Pir I, l f'a rf a a ' a F � • waN p J i- w W 1 i tsovo , > to i r 3 . 1 � a a f • � i NEE, ' ; c + . 1 ti y., ME? ME ME TO 0 moopla IL LU , 1 � 1 - i � a � Y s 1 zZ � w O W - 1 , p G A I 4 � • 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Quartet South Subdivision (H-2021-0088) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on Parcels S043432586 and 50434325410, at the Northeast Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 67.61 acres of land with the R-8 (48.83 acres) and R-15 (18.78 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 229 single-family residential lots, 2 multi-family lots with 140 townhouse units, and 42 common lots. Page 146 Item#5. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: March 8, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Quartet South Subdivision (H-2021-0088) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on Parcels SO43432586 and SO434325410, at the Northeast Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 67.61 acres of land with the R-8 (48.83 acres) and R- 15 (18.78 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 229 single-family residential lots, 2 multi-family lots with 140 townhouse units, and 42 common lots. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 147 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : March 8, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5 PROJECT NAME : Quartet South Subdivision ( W2021 - 0088 ) 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 Item#5. STAFF REPORT E IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 3/8/2022 Legend DATE: Iff P•n-pot Lcoa ton TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: AZ,PP -H-2021-0088 --,-- ---- Quartet South Subdivision - LOCATION: Parcels 50434255555, 50434325410, SO434325867 and 3680 N. Black Cat Rd., located at the northeast corner of the N. Black Cat/W. Ustick Rd intersection. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 67.61 acres of land with the R-8 and R-15 zoning district,and preliminary plat consisting of 229 building lots, future townhome or multifamily units,and 42 common lots. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 67.61 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential 3-8 du/acre Existing Land Use(s) 1 single family residence Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential,attached and detached Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 229 building lots, 140 attached units on 2 lots,and 42 common lots. Phasing Plan(#of phases) 3 phases Number of Residential Units(type 229 single family residences, 140 townhouses of units) Density(gross&net) 5.45 du/ac gross Open Space(acres,total 10.49 acres of qualified open space(15.5%) [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities Community pool,clubhouse,and children's play structure. Physical Features(waterways, Five Mile Creek parallels the properties northern property hazards,flood plain,hillside) line,but is not on the property.Rutledge Drain bisects the property. Neighborhood meeting date;#of June 15,2021 —1 attendee attendees: History(previous approvals) None — Page 1 Page 148 Item#5. B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District Staff report submitted • Staff report(yes/no) Yes Access(Arterial/Collectors/State N. Black Cat Rd.and W.Ustick Rd. are existing accesses. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Plat shows a northern stub and a southern stub. Access Existing Road Network N.Black Cat Rd.and W.Ustick Rd. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None along the frontage of the subject property.There is a Buffers 25 ft.wide buffer and 5 ft.wide sidewalk on the west side of N.Black Cat Rd and on the south side of W.Ustick Rd. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant will be required to build eastbound left turn lane on Ustick,northbound right turn lane and south bound left turn lane on Black Cat Rd. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.7 miles to Fire Station 2 • Fire Response Time <5 minutes • Resource Reliability >80% • Risk Identification 2,resources are not adequate • Accessibility Yes • Special/resource needs Aerial device will be required • Water Supply 1,000 gpm required • Other Resources None Police Service • Distance to Police Station 6.5 Miles • Police Response Time P3 3:40 P2 7:03 P1 10:43 • Calls for Service 823 • %of calls for service split %of P3 CFS 1.3% by priority %of P2 CFS 69.9% %of P1 CFS 26.9% • Crimes 73 • Crashes 19 Page 2 Page 149 Item#5. Wastewater Comments • Flow has been committed. • See site specific conditions for additional information. Water • Distance to Water Services Directly Adjacent • Pressure Zone 1 • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan Comments • Water main needs to be built in the proposed road at the northeast corner,extending the existing water stub from the Quartet Southeast Subdivision C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 1-- - Legend - P^o*c±Loua fcm P•aje o'Luca Tian Medium rrsity _ Residential ;. FV >/ s , Law e E ? Page 3 Page 150 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend C-C 10 Lg..d 0 F-a:jec*Lcca'6on C-C' let F.C3:je04 L=a*on Paprad Parcels R T C.N R-41. L- L_0 K. R-A C.N R Jr R 111. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Representative: Josh Beach,Brighton Development Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Drive Suite 400,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner: Brighton Development Inc. -2929 W.Navigator Drive Suite 400,Meridian,ID 83642 Dean and Deborah Quenzer Living Trust—3680 N. Black Cat Rd,Meridian,ID 83646 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 1/4/2022 2/20/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 1/4/2022 2/17/2022 Nextdoor posting 1/6/2022 2/18/2022 Sign Posting 1/7/2022 2/24/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS In June of 2020, Quartet Northeast(H-2020-0017, 68.73 acres and 137 buildable lots) and Quartet Southeast(H-2020-0018,22.26 acres and 50 buildable lots)were approved north of the subject property. This subdivision is a southern continuance of those subdivisions. A. Annexation&Zoning: The Applicant proposes to annex a total of 67.61 acres of land. 48.83 acres on the northern portion of the property is proposed to be zoned to R-8 to allow 229 single family detached and alley-loaded single family attached homes. The southern 18.78 acres of land is proposed for R-15 zoning to allow 140 single family attached, or multifamily units,but the housing type has not Page 4 Item#5. been determined at this time. Comparison of the proposal against dimensional standards is discussed below. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. The annexation area is within the Area of City Impact Boundary(AOCI). Legal descriptions for the annexation area are included in Section VIII; separate descriptions were submitted for each of proposed zone districts. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation approval. B. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /g compplan) This property is designated Medium Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The annexation area is surrounded on three sides by the City limits. The proposed project has a gross density of 5.45 du/ac, being within the required density range listed above. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed preliminary plat, requested R-8 and R-15 zoning districts to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Medium Density Residential. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section IX.A. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.orgIcompplan): • Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. (2.01.02D) Several housing types are proposed with this development;single family detached, alley-loaded single family attached), and future attached or detached units (including possibly multifamily) at the south side of the property. However, as is mentioned in the dimensional standards section below, as is presently configured, the alleys do not meet the requirement to be fully visible end to end. • With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) The proposed plat depicts 5 ft. wide detached sidewalks on both sides of roads internal to the subdivision. There are also 5 ft. wide detached sidewalks along N. Black Cat Rd. This is the same width provided along N. Black Cat Rd. by the Jamestown Ranch and Quartet Northeast No 1 Subdivision to the north, the Daphne Square Subdivision north of that, and across W. Ustick Rd south of the property. However,ACHD has responded the applicant will be required to build 10 ft. wide multimodal pathways along these arterial frontages. The Master Pathways Map (MPM) does not indicate any pathways crossing the property or adjacent to the property lines. As will be mentioned in the Qualified Open Space and Amenities Sections below, the applicant proposes several connected common open space areas and amenities with this development. Page 5 Page 152 Item#5. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) As mentioned above, S ft. wide detached sidewalks are provided along all internal roadways, and the applicant will be required to construct 10 ft wide pathways along N. Black Cat Rd and W. Ustick Rd in accord with ACHD standards. • "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. • Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction. (2.02.02F) Daphne Square Subdivision (zoned R-1 S), Quartet Northeast, Quartet Southeast(both zoned R-8) are the north of the property, the Klamath Basin, Staten Park, and Geddes Subdivisions are to the south (zoned R-4 and R-8), the Birchstone Creek Subdivision is to the west(zoned R-8), and unincorporated property designated for Mixed Use Non-Residential is to the east(with the wastewater facility east of that). These subdivisions have comparable densities and housing styles as what is being proposed, except there is no multifamily in the vicinity, and the applicant has stated the R-1 S portion of the property could result in a multi family proposal via a conditional use permit at a future date. This development proposes architecture consisting of one and two-story homes with gabled roofs, covered porches, dormers, stone wainscoting, and lap siding comparable to what has been approved with adjacent subdivisions. In order to ensure compatibility and quality of design with existing and approved residential uses surrounding the property, staff recommends a condition that rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on facing N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Ustick Rd. incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs), bays, banding,porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. If multifamily residential is proposed for the southern portion of the property, design review and /or certificates of zoning compliance will be required. To ensure consistency throughout the development, if the southern portion of the property is approved for multifamily, staff recommends a condition that architecture of all single family attached or multifamily units be generally consistent with the single-family elevations provided in this application. Staff does have concerns with developments of this size and density inclose proximity to Mixed Use Non-Residential and the Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility, as is discussed below. • Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross- access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. (6.01.02B) Page 6 Page 153 Item#5. There are presently 4 accesses off off. Black Cat Rd. These accesses will be closed and the west entrances from N. Black Cat will occur from W. Machado Dr and W. Grand Rapids Drive, already approved as part of Quartet Southeast and Northeast. • "Discourage residential land uses in close proximity to the Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility,the Intermountain Gas Facility on Can-Ada Road, and other incompatible land uses." (3.06.02E) The subject property is adjacent to property designated for Mixed Use Non-Residential(the Naomi Farms property), all within unincorporated Ada County. The purpose of this designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these areas. For example, MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be buffered from residential. The 2021 Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility Odor Study indicates an odor detectable threshold(DT) of 50 DT and greater on the western and northern portion of the property for at least 50 hours per year. The study reflects DT< 20 is the threshold where odor is detectable. This impact could lessen if odor control improvements are installed.Although the Study indicates the subject property is not within the direction of the prevailing winds, based on the Study, odor impacts are still probable. The northern half of the property is approximately 1,300 feet from the wastewater facility, with the southern portion (proposed for R-15 zoning)approximately],600 feet from the facility. With the Quartet Northeast and Quartet Southeast Subdivisions (H-2020-0017 and H-2020-0018)staff noted that because the site was in close proximity to the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility, staff had concerns with density in the area. This proposal is approximately the same distance from the Wastewater Facility (if not closer)and higher densities are proposed than Quartet Northeast and Southeast. The subject property is also near the location of a proposed ACHD maintenance facility(proposed at the southeast along W. Ustick Rd), which could produce significant noise and lighting impacts. Staff has recommended to the applicant that a better transition should be provided between the subject property and the MU-N designation to the east. The applicant has responded that based on the results of the odor study there may be a future request for a Future Land Use Map amendment for additional residential uses further to the east, and a buffer or transition via a road could be provided as part of this request. The applicant also states the Mixed-Use Non- Residential designation is intended to provide the transition to residential uses, which is why this project shows houses backing directly to the Naomi Farms parcel. Staff has noted that due to the increasing loss of industrial land and the impacts of the wastewater treatment plant and future ACHD maintenance facility, staff may not support a change to residential designation in this area. Whether or not the Planning Commission and City Council is inclined to support re- designating this area for residential, unless the applicant procures this property or the current owner is also an applicant on this application, staff cannot ascertain whether an appropriate transition is provided based on a parcel which is not owned by the applicant or part of this proposal. Staff has concerns with higher density residential uses in close proximity to the Wastewater facility.As already mentioned, these concerns include loss of industrial land, the potential for foul odors and noise impacts associated with both the treatment facility as well as potential from the ACED maintenance facility. The Commission and Council should determine if the applicant has provided adequate transition as contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 7 Page 154 Item#5. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) The proposed project is located in part of a larger "enclave"around the City's wastewater facility; development of this property will assist in maximizing public services. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) The proposed project is located in part of a larger "enclave"around the City's wastewater facility; development of this property will assist in maximizing public services. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits." (4.05.03B) The proposed project is in a larger enclave area around the City's wastewater facility and is not on the fringe. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing single-family residence and several outbuildings on the subject property. The plat reflects this house will be removed. E. Proposed Use Analysis: Townhomes, single-family attached and detached dwellings are listed as principal permitted uses in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts and a multi-family development is a conditional use in the R- 15 zoning district in UDC Table 11-2A-2. Since there is no concept plan for the R-15 lots(Lot 2, Block 3 and Lot 1,Block 4), staff recommends a DA provision that requires the applicant to amend the DA to include a concept plan and conceptual elevations prior to submitting a CUP for a multi-family development. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and fixture development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 and R-15 zone districts. Standards in R-8 include minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft., and required street frontages of at least 40 ft. Lots in the R-15 zoning district are required to be at least 2,000 sq. ft. in area. The plat includes two lots proposed for R-15 zoning. The narrative states 140 townhouses are proposed in this area. Depending on number of units and whether or not they are on separate lots would indicate whether these units would be considered townhomes or multifamily. This would have different requirements for parking, open space and amenities. Staff contacted the applicant, who responded it is not known what kind of housing product is anticipated in this area at this time. The applicant noted additional public review would occur during either the plat for townhomes or conditional use for multifamily. UDC 11-6C-3-B-5 states"alleys shall be designed so that the entire length is visible from a public street."The plat reflects alleys that are aligned north—south and intersect with another alley in a "t-intersection"that does not allow visibility of the entire alley from a public street. UDC 11-513- 5 does not allow alternative compliance from this requirement. The plat must be revised accordingly, such as extending these alleys. UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft, although there is the allowance of an Page 8 Page 155 Item#5. increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. It does appear this limit is exceeded along the eastern boundary of the property. The applicant should revise the plat to the meet the requirements of UDC 11-6C-3. There are two common driveways proposed with this subdivision. The applicant has provided a common drive exhibit which demonstrate no more than 4 units are served with no than 3 units on one side. The common driveways meet the minimum width of 20',do not exceed the maximum length of 150' and show 5' ft. of landscaping on side.Based on the plat which was submitted by the applicant, all lots in the proposed R-8 zoning area meet the minimum lot sizes. If the applicant proposes attached units in the future phase at Lots 1 Block 4 and Lot 2 Block 3, they will be required to plat the property with zero lot lines. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): The property proposes one access point from N. Black Cat Rd and one access point from W. Ustick Rd. There is also a northern stub provided to the Quartet Southeast Subdivision to the north and the Naomi Farms parcel to the east. There are 4 existing driveways from N. Black Cat; all of these will be closed. The applicant submitted a traffic study for this application. ACHD responded that the Level of Service(LOS) at the N. Black Cat Rd/W. McMillian Rd intersection is LOS"F",and that sections of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Ustick Rd. also exceed ACHDs acceptable LOS. Ustick Rd. is listed to be widened to 5-lanes from N. McDermott Rd to N. Ten Mile Rd.between 2026 and 2030.N. Black Cat Road is listed in the ACHD CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from McMillan Rd to Cherry Ln between 2031 and 2035. The N. Black Cat Rd/W.Ustick intersection was signalized with turn lanes in 2021. This intersection is eventually intended to be widened to 6 and 7 lanes (depending on the direction)between 2026 and 2030. ACHD noted this project generally conforms with district policy. 51-feet of right of way dedication from centerline is required along W.Ustick versus the 47 feet proposed by the applicant. 57 feet of right of way dedication from centerline is required along N. Black Cat Rd. whereas the applicant proposed 48 feet. The applicant will be required to construct a dedicated east bound left turn lane on Ustick Road at Sunnyside Way, and a dedicated north bound right turn lane and south bound left turn lane on Black Cat Road at Aspenstone Drive. The applicant will be required to construct 10 ft. wide pathways along N. Black Cat Rd and W.Ustick Rd whereas 5 ft. sidewalks had been proposed.No improvements are planned for W.McMillian Rd. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 1I- 3C-6 for single-family attached and detached dwellings as well as multifamily based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Future development should comply with these standards. I. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): No pathways are indicated on the Master Pathways Map or are proposed with this subdivision. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot detached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. The plat shows 5-foot detached sidewalks proposed along N. Black Cat Rd. and W.Ustick Rd,but these are now proposed to be 10 ft.wide pathways based on the traffic study. Page 9 Page 156 Item#5. K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are provided between the detached sidewalks and road on both sides of all local roads. All parkways meet the requirements of 11-3A-17 and 11-3B-7 including at least 8 ft. in width and landscaped with at least 1 tree per 35 feet. L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-2A-6 requires 25 ft. wide buffers along arterial roads(N. Black Cat Rd. and W.Ustick Rd.)The landscape plan reflects buffers of at least 30 ft. exceeding the requirements.As mentioned above, all roads internal to the subdivision have detached sidewalks with 8 ft. parkways that meet the requirements of UDC 11-3A-17 except for the two proposed alleys at the east and west. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 1I- 3G-3E. Landscaping is depicted in common areas in excess of UDC standards. There are existing trees on the site around the existing homes that are proposed to be retained that may require mitigation if removed. The Applicant coordinated with Matt Perkins,the City Arborist,who mentioned there did not appear to be any trees meeting the mitigation requirement per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. The landscape plan includes 10.49 acres of qualified open space(15.5%)as will be discussed in the Qualified Open Space and Amenities sections below. As this is a three-phase project, staff is recommending all road frontage improvements along N. Black Cat Rd and W. Ustick Rd be completed with the first phase. The applicant submitted an updated preliminary plat on January 25, 2022 but has not yet submitted a revised landscape plan or open space that matches the updated plat. Staff is requiring the revised plans as a condition of approval. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 15%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 is required to be provided with development. 15.5%(10.49 acres)of qualified open space is shown. This includes two larger parks of 114,283 sq. ft. and 65,401 sq. ft., several smaller open space areas of 24,000 sq. ft. and 17,330 sq. ft.,parkways which meet the minimum requirements, '/2 of the area of arterial buffers and open space corridors that meet the minimum dimensional requirements of at least 20 ft. in width by 50 ft. in length with an access at each end. It does appear that the project meets the minimum open space requirements, although there are portions of Lot 13 of Block 2, Lot 7 and 43 of Block 6, and Lot 6 of Block 9 that do not meet the minimum required 20 ft. width to be credited as open space. The open space exhibit should be revised accordingly. As already mentioned, it is unknown at this time if the property proposed for R-15 zoning will be townhomes or multifamily. Depending on which housing type is eventually chosen,there could be additional qualified open space requirements. There appears to be common lots used for stormwater drainage. Any common lots proposed for drainage shall meet the landscape requirements of 11-3B-11. M. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the 48.83-acre area proposed for R-8 zoning, 10 amenity points are required. Because this project is more than 40 acres, amenities are required from all the separate categories listed in Table 11-3G-4. Page 10 Page 157 Item#5. This application proposes a community pool and changing rooms, children's play structure, and clubhouse.Although the square footage is not indicated,the clubhouse scales to greater than 5,000 sq. ft. qualifying it for 6 amenity points in the Quality of Life Amenity Category. A swimming pool with changing rooms is shown(although it does not indicate whether restrooms are included)which would qualify it for 6 amenity points, and a children's play structure is indicated,which would qualify an additional 1 amenity point from the Recreation Activity Area Amenities Category. Although the 13 total points would exceed the minimum,as described above,there would need to be amenities provided from the Multi-Modal and Pedestrian or Bicycle Circulation System amenity categories. Applicant should revise the open space plan to indicate whether all amenity categories are met. As already mentioned,the applicant has stated that at present they do not know if the R-15 zoned portion will be townhomes or multifamily. Additional amenities and qualified open space could be required based on housing type. N. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-ft The plat indicates the Rutledge Drain and a concrete irrigation ditch bisecting the property at an approximately 45-degree angle. Both will be required to be piped per UDC 11-3A-6. Coordination will be ongoing with the irrigation districts managing the waterways to meet their requirements.A very small portion of the property is within a FEMA designated A Zone. This area is preserved within an open space lot(Lot 1,Block 1).As required per UDC 11-3A-6, irrigation easements wider than ten(10) feet shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty(20) feet wide and outside of a fenced area,unless otherwise waived by City Council. O. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The landscape plan shows 6 ft.high solid vinyl fencing. Fencing as shown does not appear to obstruct visibility into any common lots or open spaces. The landscape plan does not show any fencing abutting pathways or common open space areas to distinguish common lots from private areas. There also does not appear to be any fencing shown around the perimeter of the pool. All fencing must meet the requirements of 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7 as well as building code. P. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalk is required to be provided with development as proposed. Q. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted elevations of the single-family homes for this project(see Section VII below). The single-family homes are depicted as one and two-story structures with attached garages, and a variety of architectural elements and finish materials including gabled roofs,covered porches, dormers, stone wainscoting, and lap siding. The submitted sample elevations appear to meet design requirements for single-family homes but do not include elevations of the sides or rears of structures. A number of the houses will be very visible from N. Black Cat Rd. and the townhouses or multifamily will be on the corner(and very visible) of N. Black Cat Rd and W. Ustick Rd. Therefore, staff recommends a condition that the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face N. Black Cat Rd. and/or W.Ustick Rd 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 Page 11 Page 158 Item#5. monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. Design review is required for single family attached or multifamily structures. The applicant is unsure which type of product will be constructed on Lots 1 of Block 4 and Lot 2 of Block 3 (the area proposed for R-15 zoning. The applicant has not provided any elevations for the potential attached or multifamily units. To ensure consistency throughout the development, staff recommends a condition that architecture of all single family attached or multifamily units be generally consistent with the single-family elevations provided in this application. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff has raised concerns with traffic and how this project will transition MU-NR designated property to the east above,however the proposal is consistent with the density allowances of the FLUM,the traffic study shows improvements in this area will occur in the future, and most dimensional standards have been satisfied. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IV. per the Findings in Section VIII. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on February 3, 2022.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to DENY the subject annexation and preliminaryplat request. I. Summary of the Commission public hearin& a. In favor: Jon Wardle,Mike Wardle b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Jon Wardle d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Comments regardingthe he length of the block at the east without a break. b. Concerns expressed regarding the traffic study being analyzed was four years old and was completed before even most of the adjacent development was approved,roads are already congested, and improvements are still years out. C. Comments that the applicant is trying to fit in as many lots as they can. d. Issue with the proximity to industrial uses and lack of transition. e. Comments that additional development in this area is premature and it would not be responsible to support this project. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. As Commission recommended denial, all staff s conditions have been stricken. Page 12 Page 159 Item#5. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Maps (date: July 13, 2021) J my 1.3,2021 Praiect No.21 027 Quartet South Subdivision Exhi bit A teal Desc6ption for Annexation and Rezone to R•8 A parcel of land being a portion 4f the West 112 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34,Towashlp 4 North, Range 1 West,8,K,Ada County,Ida ha being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 34,which bears N89'10'57"W a distance of 1,314,40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the 5uutheast cum erofsaid West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4{West 1/16 corner),thence foltowing the westerly Iine of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 34, f QO'27'12"E a distance of 696,43 feet to the POINT OF BEGIN INING; Thence following said westerly IIne,NOQ"27'12"E a distance of 1,279.60feet; Thence leaving said westerly line,58913'35"E a distance of 77-99 feet; Thence NOT27'14"£a distance of 175.59 feet to a 5/8-1nch rebar; Thence N45'27'19,'C a distance of 29.14 feet to a 5/0-inch rebar; Thence S89"32'4VE a distance of 589,03 feet to a 5/S-in ch rebar; thence 423.64feet along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 520.00 Feet,a delta angle of 46°40'43",a chard bearing of N57"06'57"Sand a chord distance of 412,02 Beet to a 5/S-inch rehar; Thence N43°45'36"F a distance of 306.45 feet to a 5/84neh rebar; Thence 60,97 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 517.00 feet,a delta angle of 06"45'23",a chard bearing oaf N47'09'17"E and a chord distance of 60.93 feet tip a 5/S-Inch rebar on the easterly llrle of said Vilest 112 of the Southwest 114; Thence following said easterly line,5D0°35'2VW a distance of 2,151.36 feet; Thence leaving saJd easterly Ifne,77,Z0 Feet along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet,a delta angle of 29'25'19",a chord Bearing of 575°50'44"W and a chord distance of 76.35 feet; Thence SG1'06'05"W a distance of 12138 Feet; Thence 97.64 feet along the are of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 3SO.00 feet,a delta angto of 15"59'00".a chord bearing of N40'18'29'W and a thcrd distance of 9 7,32 feet; Thence N48*17'594W a distance of 210.32 feet; Thence 126.29 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve hawing a radius of MOM feet,a delta angle of 48°59'53",a chard bearing of N23'5433"W and a chard distance of 124.40 feet; Thence N89'24'36"W a distance of 861.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel cantains a total of 48.83 acres,more or less,and issubjEctto all Exksting easements and/ar rights-of-way of record or tmplled. Attached hereto is Exhibit Band by this reference is made a part hereon. n" ,412459 c L. B }"�' Page 13 Page 160 Item#5. 1,4 0 300 Soo 900Plan Seale:I"=308' Unpiatted 589'32'4 i"E 589.03' G z LIME TABLE w LINE f3EARiNG a1SrANCI: 0 SaW 13'3a'E 77.99 a L2 NV27'19"E 175.59 ? !,_25' PRESCRIPTW '� RIGifT�OE-1k,4Y L3 "45'27'19'E 28-19 L4 S61'05'I75"IN 123.38 U nplatted Annexation and Rezene Area:48.83±AC M A PN:504343 2 5967(Portion) Current Zoning:RUT in -m w Proposed Z❑rling:R-a '- °0 CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHCRp BRG CHORD 0 C 1 920.04' 423.64' +4E'40'+43" 146T06'57'E 412.02' x c C2 517.U0' 60.97' G'45'23" N47'09't7"E 60,83' 4 C3 1W.04' 77.20' 29'29'19' 575`50'4-4 W 78.35' a 4 r C4 .350.04' 97.64' 15'59'40' Wr18'2S'W 97.32' POINT OF BEGINNING G5 150.00- 128.28' 48'59'53- N23'54'33'W 124.4d' N89'24'36 ' W 861.05' Uj w _ UnQlatted in r- ir N48'17'59"W Ln 21 0,32' In a im "C 3 POINT 0t' COMMENCEMENT SW CbRNEIR StnO.N 34 W 1f16 CORNER FOUND ALUMINUM CAP SECTIONS 3 & 34 l FOUND ALU6tINUM GAP 33 34 W.L1stick Rd. Ikm 4 3 N89'1()'57 W 1374,4W Et4GINEERIN5 BASES OF BEAMING 57Z5 NORTH OPWOkIb"WaY 806Z.dDANO 037A } 41H1nNF I'Dw om-mm Exhibit B kmar by.Cw Annexation and Rezone to R'$ PATE: Jaymi PAL'A u: 75-427 SHEET: Quartet South Subdivision 1 OF 17 W 1/2 SW I/4 Set, 34,T4N., RIW, BIA.,Ada County, Idaho Page 14 Page 161 Item#5. km July 13,2021 Project No.21-027 Quartet South Subdivision Exhi bit A Legal Description far Annex Von and Rezone to R-15 A parcel of land being a portion of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34,Township 4 Forth, Range 1 West, R.M-, Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as fcsllows: Beginning at an aluminum cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 34, width bears N89°1057"W a distance of 1,314.40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the Southeast corner ofsaid West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 (West 1/16 corner},thence following the westerly line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 34, N00°27'12"E a distance of 696.43 feet; Thence 589"24'35"E a distance of 861.05 feet; Thence 128.28 feet along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet,a delta angle of 4$"59'53",a chord bearing of 523°54'33"E and a chard distance of 124.40 feet; Thence 548'17'59"E a distance of 710.32 feet, Thence 97.64 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,sald curve having a radius of 350.00 feet,a delta angle of 15°59'00", a chord bearing of 540"1$'29"E and a chord distance of 97.32 feet; Thence N61*06'05"E a distance of 123.38 feet; Thence 77.20 feet along the art of a curve tv the right, said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet,a delta angle of 29"29'19",a chord bearing of N75°50'44"E and a chord distance of 7 6.3 5 feet to the easterly line of said West 7./2 of the Southwest 114; Thence following said easterly line,SDO'35'24"W a distance of456.77 feet to an aluminum cap marking the Southeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4(West 1116 torner); Thence leaving said eestefly line and following the southerly line of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 114, N89"10'57"W a distance of 1,314.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 18.78 acres, more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. 12459 m Page 15 Page 162 Item#5. C:}LI3lR37FORRI'lR.kMEfJQ3FM1Tlf{Q71il�A[MQ}RM Llhr&RIL•REMME 7QN'1-9-U G,CRAB-,PRFPM,?IIW7W I.PY/f T{71lOFP r� N. Black Cat Rd. d%: m LM NOT2712°'E 696,43' vo 4 OT rm Q O� C? Q :;U rn 25' PFRESCRIPTNE n ' rL j PJGHT—OF-WAY I C K Z I- IZ z A En to g MR t tip ib 4 'Ott Ld W # fV a a _ cn fn Cy @ LR CM 4 9a [} D m {D Cr CO O F- LA 01 C4 f*I rl 7 h 7 W CL O m d cc Ewa O � Q %J Ci ca I* 3 -IU C'j 0 dm M(A [�, CP 4r NJ N X Q 3-TAm F] KM LQ SOC'35'24" 456,77' ton Exhibit B 3=�� Annexation and Rezone to R-15 ' a re n Quartet South5ubdivi5ion u M rt p w W 11 SW 1f4 Sec, 34, T41_, R1 _ BNI., Ada County, Idaho Page 16 Page 163 Item#5. B. Preliminary Plat(date: 1/25/2022) - '; ; - . - [ - 4L - dddddddd y . - . F. i Page 17 Page 164 Item#5. C. Phasing Plan(date: 7/25/21) --- • - tL#+-Ank+ L41t JNCf ACEESAAPQM4 FOS Frvm*I VWL-Val Mo9IrA NAWP4 .*�'_t ' - .. ' ■ 1�4+LA4E�?�tllw�p����'k�MM1+�4wT Ip - Ip i i i ■ IiC hT W-CKM 0lE�iTA1�JN�UYT ■ r # • t Iw i i * * , * 4 W I i ►- D"uvdnn Qrpambb, Owl r �j4 . IL 4 * : i 40 # * r r a ■ s • i ■ #' s • • • • ■ ■ a # • * # f r in * ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ ra 'F - -- J F-'- � _* ti■■FiiYYrF ■ 41 pp 4 � ■ F Page 18 Page 165 Item#5. D. Color Rendering(date: 11/2/2021 —does not match the most recent revised plat) �i I I + 'QUARTET NORTHEAST f7 iw.. X'+C SUBDIVISION -7. Ale. . PrV .x. QUAWFEY 54UTH EAST SU9pIUISraru �4 Jy .F 3 V I I J qlartet RTESUBDIVISION TSOUTH SUBali+I510M CONCEPTUAL,SUSJECTTOCHANGE BRIGHTON F r 1 IT 3212�-F 3I� 11J i .4 ' FVWAEir51DEsMAL ' R-15 I I .I r� Page 19 Page 166 Item#5. E. Landscape Plan(date: 7/15/2021) 61 I _aw1�i1 �ryw I f f. f / y 'ta'fC �..4. ! e .ie G t vwm�91Ld� — "/•�EGIPL1016 TREE PIA ..APl.+SfAA711G OEfAtL m L i. • f y.a p ski. L`f• Y k'' 5 .p 14 � � �'.'.•.'..'+� � F���'. - � f:t++`h�'-w<�s�£:ar��+=���'��'''r..-vrass- .-1 m':ss�..v.-'_eti�.s.�..��„�,' Page 20 Page 167 Item#5. _________---___— _,_______ xrol�aa-sffsr�repaaa __ r �•t� - k s•..i r AN- sm ' ' N 666 ' =3 e�� a �. •.'Y' ._'�.___ __. _—_—a = r'�`�t. s�: �-1 '. af._•�0f' _L.'. '•�.. k•.',� �rY.r.�;�:,.:�y� �, wm.-� _� _-- r lrylTCHuw-mser.�r CPCLOr wrl_r____________�I.a_ifL_____ r_r_r r___r.___r___w-x ------_____w r r___ r_r r:_____ j ; � 't,•. _ ..J_ •Pl:�� fit. .. •'1 y RdRa i I ' •' �%,y,'a,,ra;1; Me.~xs�.,' :as1 �,.. icy-: ------ ------ ------- _--------- -----�, Page 21 Page 168 Item#5. F. Common Open Space Exhibit(date: 7/15/2021) u _ PARKWAY (QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE) COMMON LOT (QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE) flip COMMON LOT (NOT QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE) r S W.BEM DR. �I I W-9EEX7 CRI. # ±a (D # �� �s1.'.J ?j a 49 Tr A @ e ock is I @ v..rnea;Dr+sr. 8 w 57. 00r �3C o 2) qGr ' �5} W. E Sr. L'+ Ik ui1 [ W.T146TST. w-TI MST. I � , @ �S A.3PEHS[Y4ES7.nr I L R-E 1 T. REiIDMu(R-1.71 ,p�'r` ElAOf 3 FMRE 4FED4$Fyn-LEIVIOMUM5 fig rtlUt.Ift THE [Rr Or u[�Ihx uh[ Gh6' 3WE S.4[ARH 5HIL.L 9E PRPYIDED V H �# THE R--PrlZJ--Y+f a4-IrP6 -31: [ Page 22 Page 169 Item#5. G. Common Drive Exhibits (date: 7/15/21) DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 15 BLOCK LOT 16 OWMER IS RESFDNS19LE DRfUEWAY FOR LQT 59 13LDCK 9OILDING ETNELDPE'. S TO 6E LDCATEG OH TiE FOR Ii15ibLL1NG AND 2 TO 8E LOCATED D71 THE TYPICAL pPP0311 SIDE OF THE TIMED Y4IHTAINING LANllStAPING AND OP,414EV 511E OF THE LOT 52 OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DWIVOH DRIVE oHWEItT' LINE IRRIGATIDN IN THESE AREAS 3HARE0 COMMON DRIVE IN D IRRIGATION ION IN THESE AREAS ING �, p�p�y �}{E ?RIG IRRIGATION IN THESE AREAS ¢I LOT 17 I5 A NON-BUILOAHLE 1- — — — — G0111,40y LOT WTi A LOT 59 I5 A DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 54 BLOCK NMILDINp BLANKET IKCREBSJEGRESS NON-6UILDA9LE 1 TO 9E LOCATED off mE ENYELDPE. EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF L[M5 COMMON LOT OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE SH4AE0 , �+5. ' 10. SS ANO 14. BLOCK 5 WITH A ELMKEF CQIAM71 DRIVE PROPESiit LINE "L" •. '1' INGl1E55fEGnESS g 1a ORIVE'AAY FOR LOT 13 EASEMENT IN a IS 12' 16 FAVOR AN 57. _ ON THE S pp 5 LOCATED 95.$g 3L 2 ON THE OPVGSTTE SIDE BLOCK 2 �-�� - 11 ww OF THE SHARED COMMON 20 - ME 'WERTT LINE 10, u+ rcL _ .,(.. jz�W.TRILBY ST. '� a �IGE _ram 1... . • r • ?'- SIDE I iil" C{]IV11Mnf4 • .117..... � ' F L m -f. 1 2D' DRIVE10. FRONT 1z• a, I o cr r� 7 r GARAGE e — C >v _ 0 F mU-1 wl I I - 20 1H 12' _ Q . & 9 - 1 - � F y I ti _ � 9L9IXC5 BL�CIC2 20' Tn � - E PEAR I _ u REAR L L R J L. AEJ4RJ REaR� - 72 f 1 s owe 1 1 4. 1 Y t' F W 4 Y 3 U k f - /j� ( ■ LOTS 13-M BLOCK 5 LOTS 54-59,BLOCK 2 ��Sy Page 23 Page 170 r H. Conceptual Elevations W%'5" t. + .A.k. qP 4 . f AA Page 24 -�i t C 4 r. Item#5. - - r i � I I ;6� p ` I r � - T4 kir O Ri rr y JEF- p' p ,.� •; r Page 25 Page 172 ,e y _ J 4 •a _r Page 26 r Item#5. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Prior-io approval of the afmexa4ion or-dinanee, a DA shall be efitefed into bet-ween the city-of eommeneemef4 of the PA. The PA shall be signed by the pr-opei4y owfier-a-nd f:etumed!a the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Cotimeil gfan4ing the amexa4iea. The DA shall, ca mini I . . rate the folio Wifig Pf:0visiefisi a. Futefe develepmet4 of this site shall be generally eensistepA with the pr-eliminafy plat, !a-ndseape plan a-nd eoneep�ual building elev4ioas for-the her-eift. b. All front ien4s aleng N. Blaek Cat Rd a-md W. Ustiek Rd shall be the following: mod l.,tief (e.g. eetions step 1-.aes outs)-,�ro 0 owek � � ), bays,1..,.n,1;.ig .. ,:ehes b l,.onies ma er-.,1 t5Tes other-;,lto..-.,te afehiteetufa4 elements to break tip monotoneus wall planes and foof lines. Single sty,.-y st,- etufes are exempt f-.,,v,thisr-equir-ement. Planning, l will be r-equir-ed at time of Wilding pefmit. ;stoney . ..,,,..1.o t the deyel,,..mof.ta-ny F,t,,.o t,,...n1.ome . mttitifamily dwellings shall be genef ally eeosistei4 with the fin—m—ily Page 28 Page 175 Item#5. revisions: a. The pla4 sheti4d be revised to provide a tra-msitien between the east propefty line and the pr-epef4y lifie. re edper-UPC 113-8. Plat, dated 1 L25/2 »2 4. Prior-to City Couneil,the opeft spaee e�d�it shall be revised to femove my areas of less 9+m eefisistefA with the t.,�set foAh"'zrrUPC11 3A-7 cam-3A 6B pli-e�e. 6. Any common lots proposed for-drainage shall meet the landscape requirements of 1-1-- 2R-1 1 7.Per-UPC 11 3 A 6 iffigation o 0 o,fts wider-tl.a to (1 0)feet shall be ifieluded in other-wise waived by City Couneil. 8. The applieapA shall eemply with all provisions of 11 3 A 3 "vith regard to aeeess to stfeets. UPC 11 3B-5-ca�rnaincena-nEe-thereof-a:r set zir UPC;�11 3-B-rr. > > • 12. The developmefA shali eemply with all subdivision design and impr-ovemefA standards as set !I. Pathway a-ad adjoining feneings a-ad landseaping shall be eofistraeled eefisistef4 with the ingfess/egress easemen4 being filed with the Ada County Reeer-def,w-hieh shall iftehide e"ipfnent. a fifial plat in aEE6,-•1 with UPC 11 6 R 7 Page 29 Page 176 Item#5. pfoblem within er-awispaees of homes. 2. Dtie to the low pet:meability of the soils on site, a mass gr-ading plan sha4l be developed to show how the site will ma-aage drainage for-eaeh let. See the geeteelfflieal ifivestig4ie 3. Wa4er-main shall be beilt in the proposed r-oadway at the neAheast eefner-ef this 4. The slepe ef proposed sewer-main line"B"sha4l be installed at the minim,&m allowed slope Site Speeifie Conditions of Approval- ,;)throughout the pr-ejeet. This is to maximize sewer-depth fer-fu�ffe develepment 5. sewer-set=viee lines pass through infiltration tfefieheR. 6. There appeafs to be tfees planned within a sewer-easemefft. These n�mst be moved.No > > eneleswes> fenees,light poles, infiltfa4ien tfenehes, utility easement General Conditions of Approval 1. Applieant sha4l eeefdina4e wa4er-and sewer-main size a-md r-ou4ing with the P41ie Wer-ks provide set=viee outside of a publie right of way. MiniffiUm eover-ever-sewer-mains is thfee feet, if eover-ffem tep ef pipe to stib gr-ade is less tha-a thfee feet than a4emate matefials shall S., i fie 4 2. Per-Nier-idia-a City Code(NIGG),the appliea-at shall be responsible to insta4l sewer-a-ad wa mains to a-ad through this developmefft. ApplieafA ffwy be eligible f0f:a r-eimbufseme 3. The applieant shall provide easemefft(s)for-all p4lie wateElsewef mains ou�side of public- fight of way(ifielude all w4er-set=viees a-nd hydrants). The easement wiEhhs shall be 20 fM wide fef a single utility, of 30 feet wide fef�we. The easemeffts shall not be de ated via fofms. The easement shall be gr-aphieally depieted on the plat for-fefer-enee pur-poses. (ma-r-ked EX141BIT B) fef feview. Both exhibits ffmst be sealed, signed a-ad da4e&b�,-a Pfefessional Land Surveyor, DO NOT RECORD. Page 30 Page 177 Item#5. , reviewed, a-md approved pfief to development plan • siffgle poifft eeffneetieff te the euliffat=y water-system shall be required. if a single poifit > > > > > efessing ef laying adjaeefit a-ad eefitipetis to the afea being s"vided shall be address per-UDG 11 3A 6. In per-fefming stieh work,the applieapA shall eemply with idahe Cede 4 2 1207 and any other-applieable law or-f:egulation. 9. Any wells tha4 will not eepAifme to be used must be pr-oper-ly abandoned aeeofding to ida Resour-ees. The Developer's Engineer-shall provide a statefnen�addressing whether-there afe any existing wells in the develepment, a-ad if se,how they will eentiode to be tised, e 10. Any e*isting septie systems within this pr-ejeet shall be r-emoved ftem serviee per-Gi W. Stfeet signs are te be in plaee, sa-mitafy sewef and water-system shall be appfeved an aetiva4ed,read base approved by the Ada GeuR4y Highway Distmr-iet a-nd the Final Plat for-this subdivision shall be o ,p 0 ,;will be r-eEluifed for-all uneempleted =efte' seapi`iamenit:ies,etcpriof:to signature oft the fiflal pla,4. 13. All impr-evements related to ptiblie life, safiaty a-ad health shall be eempleted pr-ier-te oeeupa-ney of the stfuetufes. Where approved by the City Engineer-, a-a oNN%ef:may post per-fenna-nee stffety for-stieh impr-evemen4s in order-t-o Obtain Cit-ly Engineer-signatufe en the appfeval letter, with the Amefiea-ms with Disabilities Aet a-ad the Fair-Heesing Aet.-. Page 31 Page 178 Item#5. material.18. Compaetion test results shall be submit4ed to the Mer-idia-n Building DepaFtment for-all building pad . . - ,ifteer-ed bael(All,where footing would si!a4E).p fill miaimttfn of 3 feet above the highest established pea-k groundwater-eleva4ion. This is to eastffe that the bettem elevatien ef the er-awl spaees ef hemes is 4 least 1 feet above. 20. The applieapAs design engineer-shall be r-espoftsible for-ifispeetion of all itT-igatioa a-nd/o drainage faeility within this pr-ej eet that do net fall tinder-the jefisdietion of an iffigatie installed in aeeor-da-nee with the appf:oved design plans. This eei4ifieation will pr-ejeet. 23. The City of Nier-idia-a fe"ifes that the evimef pest to the City a per-fofma-nee swetmy in the afnoupA of 0 e estimate provided by the owner-to the City. The siffety ea-a be posted in the fefm of an iffevoeable let4ef:of ef:edit,eash deposit or-bofid. ApplieafA must file a-a applieation for-sufety, of infr-astftuetth-e pr-ier-to final pla4 signatefe. This siffet-y will be verified by a line item ees of the total eenstmetion eest for-all eempleted sewer-,water-and r-etise infr-astfitet"F-e fer-dwation of two years. This stifety will be verified by a line item eest estima4e provided by the owner-to the City. The stifety ean be posted in the foffn of an iffevoeable let4er-of er-edit, eash deposit or-bond.Appliean4 mttst file an applieation for-stffety,W-hieh ea-a be fi3tmd on the Page 32 Page 179 Item#5. C. RESPONSE FROM APPLICANT REGARIDNG TRANSITION https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=250949&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243073&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243071&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv E. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243231&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv F. CITY ARBORIST https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243078&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv G. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244626&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv H. COMPASS https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244626&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244322&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=250630&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC IX. FINDINGS A. ANNEXATION AND/OR REZONE (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds annexation of the subject site with an R-8 and R-15 zoning designation is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan MDR FL UM designation for this property, if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section VII. Page 33 Page 180 Item#5. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; As noted above, there are changes that are required in regard to block length and alley orientation. Otherwise, Commission finds the layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that housing opportunities will he provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Commission does have concerns regarding the proximity of this property to industrial uses and existing traffic impacts in the area. The Council should consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment could result in adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission does not believe this annexation is in the best interest of the City due to existing traffic, timing of improvements and proximity to industrial uses without adequate transition. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(UDC 11-611-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) With the revisions listed in Section VIII, Commission finds the proposed plat would generally be in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Commission finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. Page 34 Page 181 Item#5. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Commission does have concerns with how the proximity to industrial uses, the existing traffic in the area and timing for improvements will impact the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) There are several laterals along the property that will be piped, but are not natural features. According to the landscape plan, there are no healthy trees onsite meeting the requirements for preservation. Page 35 Page 182 E IDIAN.;--- Applicant's Presentation Page 4 -14 4 QUARTET SOUTH City Council March 8, 2022 �"go--.'�'. �i�UARTETiJ4RTHEAST "I ' QUARTET 5al1TNER5T �� } NW Corner Ustick & Black Cat Previously Approved Quartet Northeast 5U8UNI514N r---•'* 1 Quartet Southeast - �Q1�ARIETSOUTN �'�� Ifs ..... ..... sweolv�5ls�d_.- CQNCEPTUAL,5U6�ECTTOCHANGE Requested Approval Quartet S Quartet South � ■ '-1���W.MCMILIAN R0. vl' / f'JT J�o-?s rl;:h71hL 11i� i} rt ET SOUTHEAST F �'f r{ _ ' JBDIVISION J -W-MACHADO Epp j f �'_ ou( rtet QUA TET soulm SUBDIVISION ■ CON C EPTUAL, S UBJ ECT TO CHANGE = ;: ' . BRIGHTON NJ Ab ml T . W-MCMILLAN RD. W IRW3 ti T W.u5r CK RM- FUTURE HESIDENTIAL A-is I PROJECT -d- 4- 5IiCKRI. a -ArDIJ�DfiVf ' ET Q4� SU 50UTHEAST ° BDIVISION J Lb . Quartet ¢ 4 j QUARTET SOUTH SUBDIVISION ,J CONCEPTUAL-, SUBJECTTO CHANGE I _ � � BRIGHTON • I Z . I, • • I Clubhouse AAV V.D N 1 • ' I 1 I ' I - i Ln i • • • • w y • • • i RESIDENTIAL(R-15) � I f, Play Structure C° Pool � FUTURE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS I FOLLOWING THE CITY OF MERIDIAN UDC OPEN I { `„ SPACE STANDARDS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH µr THE R-15 DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL I r UPDATES - Design IIII-A QUARTET SOUTH5UBDIVISION ®--6==.--• QUARTET SOUTH5UBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT EXHIBIT PRELIMINARY PLAT EXHIBIT lip l \-�_,.—. •� / Viz;. i\..�_—.-- � / . i 0.7arp a I Y�-'� / Q 1 d .eP?l.21.�)m! siF3f 2r sr.Wa—a n / ➢� 1 x-1 In!,w,l_i al.a.elal lal at sJ �'. — -01 _ 1 � r 1 Y 1!w 1 A l �p_ y I-�' 1 d-' r�l©' �� � � • / � Lots: 229 � ! — ; - -; Lots: 222 1 1 D R ::1 _. 1 $.� F >^>:�3�slal olw � 1 � 17 �_ 1 f .;7 q � ',� 1 1 I I_I..l�" I S 17 '� � �� • _ _ AL � a F 9 II➢ � I A ! � { sBIgIRI� r r�1jgJg}gJlojgl.l I 7t n'. � � i �yl R�s1sJ .s�a(sralslir}�i.r,l I 1 � r 1 � i r �_i , II -Iw,yllglii_'.III.^II III AtIAAI�A,Ijj nllI aiAl.41``AEII.4);.0.1 W. I a I� _Q ::al�I p_I SyrlI mr yllI 1 iII PI➢.11I,0.!' kkl.P.r AF ai. a� W. li -I - — - -- km - IaYt 2 : . 3 • • • • ION QD QUARTETSOUTHSU80NISION ® / I PRELIMINARY PLAT EXHIBITas I . f • - + Y 1 I - -tzlzs/rzl �. 1 . . . I I / 1 F.' Inlal ql 11 aFsl al Zak I d _ � 1 T„ �• � - 40ai., Lots: GLGS a " S r f IVY Parking 9LDc[lt I ' �i I C�J _ I mW.TRILS47 1 1 ..�-�. tea.yF� 1 ■ �' 16 "�._ , . W.AVENSTONE ST. U7 6,WSSF `r.:' 6,3105E '�' I •,eau 5r - — w. ;F 4,3765E 4,3725F �'f n: Sc 120.CO' , ' 110.00' Mi. 115,90' - o - o S.21SO SF 40.00' 40.00' � � � ` 4A70 5F BLOCK 6 11 IOU, wus.w ��•_ 11,4BSff 4.400 Sf $ `:ti:� 37-d7' N I 15.63'S,Iizq 281'SF '~ ti • w 110.00, 114.73' 120.21' 51335F � ��` � • ���� �L T `q �S 116.Od' 1 111,99' I � _ .. ''�i• $ 31 0` `+: g :,,, ! 124.99' - - - 4,4005E :. 5.5335E Lots:222 - 44i25F 4M5F 31 1 -k - - - 1 t O.Od' ey�•, 97.79' 24.94' 'A""' '� 1 y950 SF ryF+* 4,21E5F v 140.33' ��•tt.q _c x 110.00 .................. 28 i"a 25 1 {5t 1 t1'e —_— �•.. `y2255F !dry 4,1"5F !} 110.0d' ?E': .55,47' 14-7.97' r t•■y I 1`� 27 2)M 5F . .� 25._2 a ;s?�; 'LiU15F 26 33 '?, 3.87' 25.J3' 1313 156,50' I. _. • .. • '� L,J l ' .. d' 4f1AC' �.9. q.3 20.00 19.62' 7G.3B' 7<.1 - a - I �t' •,cr. �a - 1rs _ M- � J 10.62 ' �231iF Ifl1. CREASaN ST. }q $ 3.'1• 27 i2,ldd5F •'r R; i1,6475F 11 1~ 4.52, y 1 f t 10.00' Mu 5F $0005F 26 $ n 35 r I I s 5,2259F 4"735F - 7a1525F 4�1 93.29' - � 140.33' 24.94• �? I`-Y T 1'•~ 4U.00' d,5655F gkM225F Q �x r 'CJ �vqj 14.55' t;";' 161.50' UPDATES - 2: East Boundaryr REVISION as r'x - t.ki'P, f -- N ANK 6 Quartet South 31.00 1 10.D0 1 15.00' 1200 0' 25 92'15 2 0185E 2,1125F, 25 92 31.00 O - 13 - 120 00' rn ....�`.'� �:• 93.50 18,88'.. 18.88'-�4650• -.z � c 45 0 _. -.. � I , 7 40' 5,280 SF LTRILBY ST._ . 120.00' — a _ � 24.39' RN 61 P 1 4t, 32.50' 5,2805F 44.00' 44.00' 44.00' 33 50 a aa,s.w II-.---- , 25 92 120.00' ', I p 8. ao 0 2 5,2805E Ow" o O 63 n fit fil — v 120.00' '1• [l L��n�r 2805F�' o; OW 5,2005E 5,280 SF� 5,280 SE 5,9425E 2I g O „llll11 f4 I `� _ 5,280 IF Z — o zo.00' IVI I 4,00' aa_po' 44.00' 44.00' SD as .-,.n' $ I, Ln tiry .27,9665F. o BLOCK 24.36 5,280 IF 120.00' Lots:zzZ - 73615E77 _ q} 142.96' 5,280 IF 120.00' - . 5,9695E i = 134.94' J 5.2805E O B; 9,403 SF ,fi',;: 5,280 SF f5 ` 120.00' =r 57 56 a 5,260 T 8.568 SF 5,017 IF 120.00'0' 5,280 IF hS�Q 41 20' 44.00' )U-00% 120.00' F 21.75'' ,,5•.. h . 93 ai J 120.00" 1 i0' o a I 5,7495F ¢,70' ss yIII W 5,280 SF ¢ y W 1 14.61' I I J a I r Y 23.11' If 0 720.00' o F 86.93'�2,5O5SF 33 w.; 5,280SF P� ± 46.36' 40.00' ¢0.00' 120.00' pp { 5,280 SF 120-00' 5,000 SFr 4,400 SF 4,400 SF ' - _ o 5,280 SF 314' ¢ 31.37' Lots:222 ?� = a 120.09' 26.14' 40,00' 40_100' 21.QD' 6,352 SF — 3 7 5.Bf • . 44,D0' o0 �26785Ff:'2. .':- 44_00' 44.00' 6Qf 1.19,y 44,00' 44, in o o n v o Q 0 o a -- 6,1605E a 15 14 I3 12 r' 11 �= 1 # w 5,099 SF 5,104 SF 5,398 SF 5,2W SF 5,280 SF 5,224 II ' y 44.00' 44,00' 44.W' 44.00' 44.06' 44. ; .. _ • , • 1 ET SOUTHEAST F �'f r{ ' ijaDIVISION I -W-MACHADO uartc AV AV 4p QUAFtTET soulm CONCEPTUAL S UBJ ECT TO CHANGE SUBDIVISION 0 0 BRIGHTON A AV ■ AL AV F.1 0 ■ FUTURE 11ESIDEWIAL A-is .-d- 4-, • I • - - - v q Li I 3,CKk Description Quantity Phase#1 Lot Count 89 Frontage Improvements Phase 42 Lot Count 65 Phase 43 Lot Count 68 �, f J R-15{Future} 1 To be completed when adjacent • p J .. ..................... ................... property develops, per ACH D AkZ11A.61 ..� • Surface water modifications must - .._ 1 .. ` : occur prior to any roadway work, , :� . ,��... = - including the removal of the = uenzer familyhome ' =' • City imposes significant burden to ; : ......::..... require concurrent with Phase 1 . T . DELETE Condition 1.b BRIGHTON 1 . Arterial Frontages Future R- 15 Residential VJ.7RILSY 5T. • q � �, _ n. �r�w— _. ; .�,� -.ram � ��� Up to 140 residences • Undetermined if it will be Single � m � C Trrs—T =5 h � I Family Attached or Multi Family RESIDENTIAL(R-15) 'L I • CUP will be required FUTURE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS '•f4 } s FOLLOWING THE CITY A MERIDIAN UDC OPEN WITH I SPADE STANDARDS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE R-15 DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL `tip .• L�SI • Additional open ace will be II , FUTURE RRE15ENTIALp p I provided per UDC standards W. MODIFY Condition 1.c so that the 1� p- llSTICKRD. DA modification can run concurrent with the CUP. Future-Y*- BRIGHTON 2 . . IN-TI W.BECKY DR. Alleys w SECKY DR. 1 • The alleys in question do comply 39 0 BLO) r ® ooaaa a with UDC 11 -6C-3 z BLDCKI°° © m � o 2 @ O 5 W.DUGAN DR. W.DUGAN DR. S 4 © ® 6 OCK 11 0 0 , • Entire length is visible from a o o i, 3 BLOCK 8 o x QQ Q RESIDENTIAL( -8] Q c public street la = W. EASON ST. ® O ® a 1 W.CREASON ST. 33 DELETE Condition 2.b ' ® � BLa K4 4 � o W.BEEC14STONE ST. 2 ® BLOCKS © a i U o a CO i a ® m BLOCK 9 W.TRILBYST. W.TRILBYST. L© w BLOCK 5 BLOCK 2 © � � ao ® aoo © o ® 000 © MEN f � m p j� �W.AS PE N STO N E ST.� z FLUM - MR- NR • Proximity to WRRF • MU - NR to MDR transition X . • City's Comp Plan describes and Xx XM X depicts how MU - NR transitions xxX X �`x 11 - xxX x . X XX u f to MDR ' x x", x ,�_ ' Medium x Mi eM>ix) "X x' x x x X Density X XX x N or�x x x Residential - x lgesioe i i� x X Xit X X . ,,X X X X X x X X -- x �l _ i BRIGHTON Mixed Use Non-Residenetial (MU-NR) Future Land Use Map Designation Cut Sheet ■ General Criteria Map Color ■ Sample caning C-C,GG,L-D,M-E,Ham,Imo,and I-H Description The purpose ofthis designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted,as residential uses are not compatible with the planned andlor existing uses in these areas.For example,MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be buffered from residential.Developments are encouraged to be designed similar to the conceptual MU-NR plan depicted. Sample Uses Sample uses,appropriate in MU-NR areas would include:employment centers,professional offices,flex buildings,warehousing,Industry, storage facilities and retail,and other appropriate non-residential uses. Design Direction No new residential uses will be permitted(existing residential may remain). X O All developments should have a mix of at least two types of land uses. O Development is not required to comply with the minimum number of uses in the general mixed use standards. ■■■■■■■■■■•r �. X O Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code. ■ X O There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office,food servicelrestaurants,industry,or i r X X X warehouse uses. * X x XX X Atransitional use is encouraged on the perimeter ufthe MU-NR areas between any existing or planned residential development. ■ 7� �X X X x X X x X X X x ,;� Figure 3E: !MU�NR Con !le Q1� r m X ` X k ' nub — Office.Light X X 'X o Distribution or Medium : '� x MIXI X �a P.-LA Servicellses X „ XX . X a Density X XX x INorTx X X -- — - - Light Manutacturing Residential X " esaoekiol X or Warehousing + 1 X . , I Existing X X X X -- _ ,l_• Industnaf ;1X XX X X X X X Laval load use X r ?C XvXXu X X . mo "`——""""" Single Family Residential - '� �iLlliiIL1J��Lll_ t — LL1iJ l LJJ-LL[ _ LY= Office or offict or ��344 Arterial Road BRIGHTON Transition. City suggests a Mixed Use 1Van-Residential (MU-NRj In reviewing development applications, the following items transition . . . which by Comp The purpose of this designation is to designate areas where will be considered in MU-NR areas: new residential dwellings will not he permitted,as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing p No new residential uses will be permitted (existing uses in these areas_ For example, MU-NR areas are used near residential may remain]_ All developments should have a mix of at least two Plan is to provided by MU the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility and where p there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations types of land uses_ that need to be buffered from residential. Developments are Development is not required to gamely with the NR zone . . . NOT Quartet. encouraged to be designed similar to the conceptual MU-NR standards_ minimum number of uses in the general mixed use plan depicted in Figure 3E. " Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required -� within the Unified Development Code_ FIGURE A- MIXED USE Nori-KEti1DE\TLAL CorJf-Er'T L11AC:RARI " There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed � }� on non-retail commercial uses such as office,food r service restaurants industm or warehouse uses_ — Ofk)nLighT n rand Iona use Is encourage an a perlme er o x �fstri6utionor the MU-NR areas between an existing or fanned .. — • serview s y 9 p residential development. ...■■.■..........■... w X x X ghtAianufaclullnq - z Sample uses, appropriate in MU-NR areas would include- X orVfarehawing a employment centers, professional offices, flex buildings, X >'x xXj I 1 -- " b I��i warehousing, industry, storage facilities and retail,and other X X X X —_ the appropriate non-residential uses.Sample zoning include:C-C, v X C-G, L-Q M-E, H-E,I-L,and 1-H. Medium .X � X WWII #; � T D can XX Density -. �q.� , v .ii`.){..■�G.�i� for — a 3 s .a Moor Residential x � X _ �� ; � .. LL. < ux xX C f �_�}ssit3` 1 ` RetaYllifill ff 7LoLYTTT__F1 � `.iw �, www_merr d ianc it y_org/co mppl a n I BRIGHTON Mixed Use Non-Residenetial (MU-NR) — 11-4-3-25.-Industry,light and heavy. % 44 R e Future Land Use Map Designation Cut Sheet A All mechanical equipment emissions;shipping andlor delivery;or other outdoor activity areas ■ General Criteria shall be located a minimum of three hundred(300)feet from any abutting residential districts,co) Color ■ Sample Zoning C-C,GG,L-D,i H-E,I-,and I-H the use is subject to a conditional use permit. Description The purpose ofthis designation is to designate areas where neev residential dwellings will not be permitted,as residential uses are not B. The application shall identify how the proposed use will address the impacts of noise and other compatible with the planned andlor existing uses in these areas.For example,MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource emissions on adjoining residential districts.More specifically.the following adverse effects shall be Recovery Facility and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be buffered from residential.Developments are encouraged to be designed similar to the conceptual MU-NR plan depicted. mitigated through setbacks,buffers,sound attenuation andlor'hours of operation: Sample Uses Sample uses,appropriate in MU-NR areas would indude:employment centers,professional offices,flex buildings,warehousing,Industry 1. Noise,odor,or vibrations,or direct or reflected glare detectable by the human senses without storage facilities and retail,and other appropriate non-residential uses. the aid of instruments. Dimensional standards I-Land I-H Dimensional Standards 1,4 C-N C-c C-c f-o M-E H-E 2. Radioactivity and electric or electromagnetic disturbances that unduly interfere with the normal operation of equipment,instruments,or appliances an abutting properties. Front setback(in feet} 0 Front setback(in feet) 0 3. Any other emission or radiation that endangers human health,results in damages to Rear setback(in feet) 0 Rear setback(in feet) 0 vegetation or property or which exceeds health and safety standards. 4. In the event that the director determines that the applicant cannot adequately address such Interior side setback(in feet) 0 Interior side setback(in feet) 0 lots, o 0 impacts,the use shall be subject to conditional use approval. Street setback 1(in feet) 35 street landscape huffer(in feet): C. Additional standards for industry,heavy.The use shall be located a minimum of one thousand (1,000)feet from a hospital. Street landscape buffer(in feet): Local 10 D. The application materials shall indude written statement that the proposed facility meets any Local 10 Colleyter 20 applicable federal,state,or local standards regarding such use including,but not limited to,those of the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,the U.5.Department of Agriculture,Central District Collector 20 Arterial 25 Health Department,the Ada County Air Quality Board and Idaho Department of Water Resources. Arterial 25 Entryway corndor 35 [O rd.05-1170,8-30-2005,eff.9-15-2005) Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 11-4-3-19.-Fond and beverage products processing; Interstate 50 Landscape buffer to residential 20 25 25 20/10 25 25 major. uses(in feet]3 All structures,loading areas,outdoor activity areas,exclusive of parking shall be located a Landscape buffer to residential uses(in feet) 251-L and 4o I-H minimum of six hundred(600)feet from any abutting residential districts. — (Maximum building height(in feet) 35 50 65 35 65 95 Landscape buffer to nonindustrial uses(in feet) 01-L and 401-H B. Foocl processing shal I be liacated a minimum of one thousand(1,000)feet from any hospital. Parking requirements See chapter 3,article C,"DffStreet Parking And Loading C. The application materials shall include written documentation that the proposed facility meets any Maximum building height(in feet) 50 Requiremi ofthistitle applicable federal,state,or local standards regarding such use including,but not limited to,those Parking requirements See chapter 3, Landscaping requirements See chapter 3,article B,"Landscaping"Landscapling Requirements",of this title of the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,the U.S.Department of Agriculture,Idaho article C of this title Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ),Idaho Department of Agriculture,Idaho Department of Water Resources,and Central District Health Department. Landscaping requirements See chapter 3, (Ord.18-1762,1-23-2078) article B of this title BRIGHTON FLUM - MR-NR • MU - NR is the transition between WRRF and Residential x x, • Comp Plan shows how MU - NR X X x• X7 � X X� transitions to MDR Xx", xxx>;< X ;I • '\ UDC requires buffers/setbacks Medium : 'x h ��v''� X � x X for allowed zones in MU - NR Density xn pr�X X X Residential . est�t0i X • When an MU - NR application - x comes forward, the City has the guide for transition to Residential P�tfiifffi-rnv �ti DELETE Condition 2.a SUMMARY. We request the following - - conditions be deleted or modified : • DELETE Conditions 1b, 2a , and 2b y IJL, o y. f 7 •L _ • D I FY Condition 1c: {The a Ii n Opp cat M10 = _ dillr GII4 shall [be] required uired to amend the T � development agreement to include a conceptplan and conce tual elevationsp , concurrent with a CUP for a multi -family development." w Quartet South We concur with Staff recommendation for approval , and ask Council to accept and include our modifications to the Conditions Fk �' ;� Ir y - of Approval . 5 :now �;y Council M HWe respectfullyre request :� approval of the Quenzer South Annexation , Rezone and Preliminary Plat. .f FUTURE FLFSIDENTIAL Quartet South -4► Discussion 23 e '�� f• _ �� qMWFETMAnHEAST jL uanuna Dom .,, Ilk �a m. `l� 1 a O •:•�•••:•::•i:•: �I Q) T C. I W.BEM oR. ... ... _ •'`r,i;titi+:l: - W.BE[RY 9R. Q Ea a w W.DI1G4H oR, w.olxrw ac � -. , a ._ � RLOCX f1 �•1 0 . ................... I = I .SS• RESIDEHIIAL R-s} x i I w.rnEamxsr. C99 19 49 -._ !��Art.4-II.7�.€°.C. .: u�-� I $ � �ij x � '711 G➢������`�' �zl- 77 +� S [' I B ' �•,' ----- -• ----�- - - W.TPJEHYSf. W.TRILB'f'ST. I E: w auoa z a ---- - ; �' - •� �i —W.AaEBSTCNE4.— RESIDEHEIAL{R-151 1] 4 _'•_' P RE 9PEY SPACE GAW"nM " rOLL Jl THE cm or trE iom uCC OPEN _r 37An6-Rb5 MALL W RR Aba w M c THE R-IS—ELCPIERT SIIBITTAL W RE51DENn z -- = 4 -- -- -- --�-- ---w.usncxM. OVERALL SITE DATA PRELIMINARY PLAT DATA SITE DATA TbTTC= AREA 67.81 ACRES RESIDENTIALAREA(R-8) RESIDENTIAL AREA SITE DATA R-8 48.83 ACRES 00RREf�ONING RUT R-15 18.78 ACRES PROPOSED ZONING R-8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GESIGN.&MON MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-8 OPEN SPACE AREA DATA PARKWAY r I 2.25 ACRES BUILDABLE LOT AREA 26.0E+6 ACRES LANDSCAPE COMMON LOTS 7A 7 ACRES COMMON AREA 8.804 ACRES TOTAL AREA 9.42 ACRES ROW AREA 13.956 ACRES TOTAL AREA 48.82F3 ACES R-8 QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE TOTALS OVERALLLOTDATA ACREAGE OF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE 9.42 ACRES 259 PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE 1929 RESIDENTIAL LOTS 222 COMMON LOTS - LANDSCAPE 30 R-8 SITE AMENITIES COMMON LOTS - SHARED DRrvEPIAY 1 QUALITY OF LIFE AMENITIES COMMON LOTS - ALLEYS 6 CLUBHOUSE 5,000 SF OR GREATER IN SIZE 6 POINTS MINIMUM PROPERTY SIZE 3.999 S4. FT. RECREATING ACTIVITY AREA AMENITIES AVERAGE PROPERTY SIZE 5,115 SO. FT. SWIMMING POOL WITH CHANGING ROOMS 6 POINTS TOT LOT 1 POINT DENSITY GRDSS DENSITY 4.55 UNrS/AACRE PEDESTRIAN OR BICYCLE CIRCULATION SYSTEM AMENITIES NET DENSITY 0,52 UNITS/ACRE NCN REQ_ SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT-6F-WAY 1 POINT ALIGNED WITH LINEAR OPEN SPACE (1 POINT PER 1/4 MILE) CLOCK 5 LOT 29 RESIDENTIALAREA(R-15) CLOCK 9 ACT- 10 OTS 7 AND 31 SITE DATA CLOCK 10 LOT 6 BONING RUT BLOCK 11 LOT 1 PROPOSED ZONING R-15 MULTI-MODAL AMENITIES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BICYCLE REPAIR STATION W/`fOOL3 AND PUMP 1 POINTS BUILDABLE LOT AREA 14-755 ACRES DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH COMMON AREA 0,219 ACRES BLOCK 10 LOT 1 DEVELOPMENT ROW,AREA 3.909 ACRES TOTAL AREAL 18.761 ACRES TOTAL SITE AMENITIES REQUIRED 1n oniuFg TOTAL SITE AMENITIES PROVIDED 15 POINTS OVERALL LOT DATA IUTAL LQI`5 3 R-15 OPEN SPACE AREA DATA RESIDENTIAL LOTS 2 PARKWAY STRIP 0.00 ACRES COMMON LOTS - LANDSCAPE 1 LANDSCAPE COMMON LOTS 1.47 ACRES TOTAL AREA 1.47 ACRES OVERALL SITE R-15QUALIFIE❑OPEN SPACE TOTALS ACREAGE OF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE 1.47 ACRES SITE DATA PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE 07.839E TOTAU=AREA 57.607 ACRES TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREA DATA OVERALL LOT DATA PARKWAY STRIP 225 ACRES TnTFC-CuT' -- 262 LANDSCAPE COMMON LOTS &64 ACRES R-9 RESIDENTAL LOTS 222 TOTAL AREA 10.89 ACRES R-15 RESIDENTIAL LOTS 2 COMMON LOTS - LANDSCAPE 31 TOTAL QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE COMMON LOTS - SHORED oRrwExraY 1 ACREAGE OF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE 10-88 ACRES COMMON LOTS — ALLEYS PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE 1511% V!Nlcklman-Ka MIN 6/03 Zbi n ED x v � N• ■ e - V AM ♦;� BRIGHTON FLUM - 3�002 r •r;M�l�1i�a�il3� •7ti79i11�m1 - - f I I tir , 4 AM . !�E 47 2007 3, gib 1 �'a MMt cter`d — -. �Ji I� � rLliV�1..�1 ..•''Adl. 4 _ _ "�•lx��'� ♦;� BRIGHTON FLUM - 2011 row 12/18 s � �r I- I —Do;rL-n._. ai I L4 F ♦.z III II J r FD •:1 h ry. 1 r i r Y ♦;� BRIGHTON FLUM - 2019 I y 7• i r ,i J - _ i i k - AiL � I r � w QQ_. � ♦;� BRIGHTON FLUM - �021