Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-16 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 6:00 PM All materials presented at public meetings become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities should contact the City Clerk's Office at 208-888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Minutes ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioner Seal Commissioner Stoddard Commissioner Grace Commissioner Wheeler Commissioner Rivera Commissioner Lorcher Commissioner Smith COMMISSIONER INTRODUCTIONS 1. Introduction of newly appointed Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Rivera to the Planning and Zoning Commission ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted Motion to approve made by Commissioner Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Grace Voting Yea: Commissioner Lorcher. Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Rivera CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved 2. Approve Minutes of the February 2,2023 Planning and Zoning Meeting 3. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Conditional Use Permit for ESI Office Building (H-2023-0002) Motion to approve made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Lorcher Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Rivera ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing: Variance Request from a Department Determination Concerning a Proposed Addressing Change for 2201 E. Gala St. by Orme Family and Implant Dentistry. Continued to March 2, 2023 Motion to continue to March 2, 2023 made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Smith Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Rivera 5. Public Hearing for Newkirk Neighborhood (H-2022-0088) by Conger Group, located at 4250 W. Franklin Rd. Continued to March 2, 2023 A. Request: Annexation of 23.67 acres of land with a TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 63 building lots and 8 common/other lots on 21.11 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district. Motion to continue to March 2, 2023 made by Commissioner Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Rivera Voting Yea: Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Rivera, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Smith 6. Public Hearing for Alexanders Landing Subdivision (H-2022-0084) by Kent Brown Planning Services, located at the southeast corner of W. Pine St. and Black Cat Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council. Tentatively scheduled for March 14, 2023. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.2 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 24 building lots and 4 common lots. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Grace Voting Yea: Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Rivera Voting Nay: Commissioner Lorcher 7. Public Hearing for Meridian OZ Apartments (H-2022-0073) by Realm Venture Group, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council. Tentatively scheduled for March 21, 2023. A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to the existing Development Agreement (Inst.#99121334 AZ-99-005 Cobblestone Village) to remove the subject property from the agreement and enter into a new agreement for the proposed multi-family development. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 60 dwelling units on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Rivera Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Rivera, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Smith Voting Nay: Commissioner Lorcher 8. Public Hearing for Millwood Subdivision (H-2022-0089) by Epic Development, located at 1975 E. Victory Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council. Tentatively scheduled for March 21, 2023. A. Request: Annexation of 4.11 acres of land with a R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 17 building lots (including 1 for the existing home) and 2 common lots on 4.11 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Grace Voting Yea: Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Rivera, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 9:14 P.M. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 16, 2023. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 16, 2023, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Andrew Seal. Members Present: Chairman Andrew Seal, Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Patrick Grace, Commissioner Enrique Rivera and Commissioner Jared Smith. Members Absent: Commissioner Nate Wheeler and Commissioner Mandi Stoddard. Others Present: Joy Hall, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Stacy Hersh and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher Mandi Stoddard X Patrick Grace X_ Enrique Rivera X Jared Smith X Andrew Seal - Chairman Seal: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for February 16th, 2023. And at this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorney and clerk's offices, as well as the City Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting, however, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. COMMISSIONER INTRODUCTIONS 1. Introduction of newly appointed Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Rivera to the Planning and Zoning Commission This evening we have some new faces that are joining us. We will welcome our new Commissioners, Enrique Rivera and Jared Smith. If either one of you would like to say anything? Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure being here. Having done a couple stints on Transportation Commission, it's a pleasure being able to see the other side. I'm -- I'm a firm believer that land use policy is transportation policy and -- and vice versa. So, it's going to be a pleasure to learn from you all and -- and help -- you know, help the city manage its growth. Simison: Good. Welcome. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 2 of 55 Rivera: Same here, Mr. Chair and Fellow Commissioners. It's an honor and a privilege to be here with you and serve on this Commission and our community. Thank you. Simison: Welcome to both of you and I can't go too far without saying welcome back, Commissioner Grace. Grace: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to be back. Seal: All right. And with that we will have roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Seal: Okay. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. This evening we have the file for the variance request from a department determination concerning a proposal address change from 2201 East Gala Street for the Orme Family and Implant Dentistry. That is a mouthful. And File No. H-2022-0088 for Newkirk Neighborhood. Those files will be opened for the sole purpose of continuing to our regularly scheduled meeting. They will be opened for that purpose only. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify for those applications, we will not be taking testimony on them. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Lorcher: So moved. Grace: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded -- seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 2. Approve Minutes of the February 2,2023 Planning and Zoning Meeting 3. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Conditional Use Permit for ESI Office Building (H-2023-0002) Seal: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda. First item is to approve the minutes of the February 2nd, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and we have Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for the conditional use permit for ESI Office Building, File No. H-2023-0002. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Grace: So moved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 3 of 55 Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. None opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Seal: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item -- or how -- how the item adheres to Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called on only once during the public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted in Zoom or you can come to the microphones in Chambers. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or presentations for the meetings, they will be displayed on the screen and you will be able to run the presentation from the stand. Oh. Lost my place. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may come forward in Chambers or in Zoom press raise hand button or -- in the Zoom app or if you are only listening on a phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please, be sure to mute the extra devices, so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And please remember you will not be called on a second time. After all, testimony is -- all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant is finished responding to the questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing: Variance Request from a Department Determination Concerning a Proposed Addressing Change for 2201 E. Gala St. by Orme Family and Implant Dentistry Seal: All right. So, at this time I would like to open -- or sorry-- continue the public hearing for a variance request from a department determination concerning a proposed address Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 4 of 55 change for 2201 East Gala by Orme Family and Implant Dentistry and that -- to continue that to the date of March 2nd, 2023. Can I get a motion on that? Grace: Mr. Chairman, does that have a file number? Seal: It does not have a file number that I'm aware of, but it has a really really long title. Grace: Mr. Chairman, I would -- I would move to continue Item No. 4, variance requests from a department determination concerning a proposed address change for 2201 East Gala Street by Orme Family and Implant Dentistry to our next -- or to the regularly scheduled meeting on March 2nd. Seal: Got a second? Smith: Second. Seal: it's been moved and seconded to continue the variance request from a department determination concerning proposed addressing change for 2201 East Gala Street by Orme Family and Implant Dentistry to March 2nd, 2023. All in favor, please, say aye. Opposed nay? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Newkirk Neighborhood (H-2022-0088) by Conger Group, located at 4250 W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 23.67 acres of land with a TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 63 building lots and 8 common/other lots on 21.11 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district. Seal: At this time I would like to continue public hearing for Newkirk Neighborhood, File No. H-2022-0088, for continuance to March 2nd, 2023. 1 will take a motion on that. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: I motion that we continue File No. H-2022-0088, Newkirk Neighborhood, to the hearing date of March 2nd, 2023. Seal: Do I have a second? Rivera: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 5 of 55 Seal: It's been moved and seconded to continue File No. H-2022-0088, Newkirk Neighborhood, to the date of March 2nd, 2023. All in favor, please, say aye. Opposed nay? Motion carries. It is continued. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for Alexanders Landing Subdivision (H-2022-0084) by Kent Brown Planning Services, located at the southeast corner of W. Pine St. and Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.2 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 24 building lots and 4 common lots. Seal: All right. I would like to open File No. H-2022-0084, Alexanders Landing Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Hersh: Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. The applicant is here to present their presentation for Alexanders Landing Subdivision. It's -- the applications are annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The site consists of 5.2 acres of land, zoned RUT, located near the southeast corner of West Pine Avenue and Black Cat. The Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation is medium density residential. The subject 5.23 acres currently contains an existing home. The subject site abutting an R-8 development to the north, Horse Meadows Subdivision. To the east and west is county residential, not yet annexed into the City of Meridian. And to the south is the railroad and the Purdam Gulch Drain. The subject property is designated as medium density residential and the future land use map consistent with the approved development to the north. The applicant proposes a 24 lot subdivision and four common lots for single family residential detached homes at a gross density of 4.59 units per acre, which is in the --within the desired density range of the medium density residential designation. An existing home on the property is proposed to remain on Lot 1, Block 2. The outbuilding located on Lot 3, Block 2, shall be removed with development of this property. The existing home does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces per the UDC for a three bedroom home. Four parking spaces are required -- or at least two in an enclosed garage or other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum of ten foot by 20 foot parking pad. The existing home does not comprise of an enclosed garage and staff recommends that the nonconformity of the home be remedied to meet the off-street parking regulations prior to the city's -- city engineer's signature on the final plat. Access is proposed from Quarter Horse Lane from the north. Direct access to North Black Cat Road and Pine Avenue is prohibited. The subject property is dependent upon the development of the Horse Meadows Subdivision directly to the north to reconstruct a portion of -- this property is required to reconstruct a portion of Quarter Horse Lane, which is an existing private road as a public street, which would provide public street frontage and access to this site. So, due to access availability, development should not commence until a public road access is available to the site upon development of the Horse Meadow Subdivision prior to submitting a final plat for approval. A local stub street is proposed for interconnectivity between the two developments that is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 6 of 55 stubbed at the east-west boundary on the site in accordance with the UDC. The street does exceed 150 feet, so, therefore, a temporary turnaround is required. The applicant is proposing to construct the temporary turnaround on a common lot, which decreases the usability of the area. Staff recommends that the applicant construct the temporary turnaround on Lots 5, 7, Block 3, in the southwest corner of the development to increase the open space for the development. The reason for this recommendation is to ensure open space for the development remains intact without placing a burden on the HOA to remediate the removal of the turnaround area, The applicant included a concept plan for the property on the west to show how that would develop in the future and it's currently zoned R-1 in the county. And that road also goes to the west to go through that property. This is potential. No street buffers are required per the UDC for internal local streets. Common open space landscaping is proposed as shown on the landscape plan. A minimum of 15 percent or 1.23 acres based on the 5.23 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided in this development per the standards in the UDC -- UDC. An open space exhibit was submitted that depicts 2.15 acres of common open space for development and .78 acres of this area is qualified open space. The amount of qualified open space required is 0.78 acres, approximately 33,977 square feet. There is -- a ten foot wide pathway is required per the master pathways plan in lieu of the proposed six foot pathway running along the southern border. The project size of 5.23 acres requires a minimum of one amenity point for every five acres and according to the plan submitted there are three amenities -- three amenity points. A picnic shelter -- shelter with tables and a pathway, according to the UDC. The proposed amenities and their point value is correct and exceed UDC requirements for this project of this size. Sidewalks are all five feet attached and proposed within the development in accordance with the UDC standards and the Purdam Gulch Drain runs along the southern border of the site and staff did not receive a response from Meridian-Nampa Irrigation District on whether or not an easement exists on the property for the lateral. If it does it should be depicted on the plat and no encroachments allowed within the easement and, then, per the UDC the applicant is requesting -- requesting a Council waiver to allow the Purdam Gulch Drain to remain open in a natural state. Elevation -- three conceptual elevations were submitted and floor plans that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like. Variations of two-story homes with two car garages are proposed. The submitted elevations depict a number of architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding, different coloring accents, roof purlines and varying of home styles. Staff recommends the applicant add additional stone or brick accents to the front of the homes to provide more of a variation of materials. There wasn't any written testimony on this project and staff recommends approval for this annexation with the requirement of a development agreement and a preliminary plat and with the conditions listed in the staff report. And that concludes the presentation and I stand for any questions. Seal: All right. Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. We thought our technical troubles were over, but we are going to get to it. Brown: Can you hear me now? Seal: We can hear you now. There we go. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 7 of 55 Brown: I think we have heard that before. For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. And I'm representing Quarter Horse Lane, LLC, on this project. I just click the presentation? I submitted some slides for my presentation, Joy. Only got two slides that we -- this is the part of my job that's the most difficult is the IT technical part, so -- Seal: Technology is wonderful when it works. Brown: It is. What I want to show you is a vicinity map. One of the challenges of doing this kind of development as in-fill is keeping the existing that's there and -- and, then, at the same time being a part of, if you will, a master plan for the -- for the area. It's like the master plan pathway that we have along our southerly boundary, so -- yes. Can you make that vicinity map bigger for me? There we go. Thank you. As you can see our site, we are right adjacent to the railroad tracks and one home off of Black Cat Road. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a regional pathway to go along there. What's interesting is -- I did the developments there along Ten Mile, the Mile High Pines and Foxcroft, and we were able to put that pathway in. I did quite a bit of the developments that are to the -- to the east -- or to the west that -- which is the Chesterfield Subdivision that's there. There is approximately 2,500 feet of that that's in there that doesn't have any accommodations for a future path. So, you have a pathway that is coming from the east and off of Ten Mile and, then, you have the ability when the property between us and Ten Mile goes in that the pathway can be extended out to Black Cat and, then, when the property to the east of us goes in, then, the pathway can continue, but, then, it needs to get up to a street somehow and, then, get back up onto Pine, because there is no way for it to go through that 2,500 feet and so that's some of the challenges that you end up with. We can see the advantage in doing that -- that regional pathway in our development long term, but it is something that the HOA is going to have out there for quite some time and --depending on what -- what takes place with our neighbors. If you look to the north of us, just above where I put Pine Street, there is an entrance into the Castlebrook Subdivision up there and, then, a common -- a vertical common area. Can you put a cursor right there? So, to the right of where it says Pine Street there is an entrance to that subdivision to the north and, then, right straight through that common area and, then, right there at that location is a bridge that enters into the park -- the City Park. So, that link, however that takes place when development goes around us, will actually make that pathway kind of work. Over here on the Ten Mile side I show what's in green, which we are building in those two developments and, then, we are putting in a bridge that takes us into the park and also provides a safe access into the school. So, then, it -- then it makes sense. But by itself it's kind of difficult at the -- at this point. Let's go to the next slide, which is the one of the plat. We chose to put the turnaround on the common area. We are doing a development agreement. In the development agreement we can put conditions that would ensure that the developer has put money aside to remove that common -- that -- that space. We really feel that it's a good location for that turnaround at that point versus having to basically put nonbuilds on the lots that staff is recommending to the south. We have no idea when the property to the west of us is going to develop and he can remain doing what he's doing currently and not be affected by either the Horse Meadows that's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 8 of 55 to the north of us -- we have been working with them to get access and help them meet some of their ACHD requirements and, in turn, water and sewer comes through their development and helps get to us. So, we would like that as our -- I guess change to what staff asked. Everything else I think we are agreeable to. We have tried to do a development that fits in with what's existing and still meet what's going on around us. We have plenty of common area without--we will increase it when our turnaround goes away, but currently we meet the -- the open space requirement by having that with a temporary turnaround on it for right now. I stand for any questions that you might have. Seal: Okay, Kent. Commissioners, do we have any questions for-- Commissioner Grace, I see you reaching for the microphone. Go right ahead. Grace: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brown, with regard to the existing structure that's there, there is a comment in the report that they are going to have to update their off- street parking. Is that something there -- so, is the existing homeowner is going to continue to live there? Brown: Yes. Grace: Is that something they are going to have to pay for? Brown: They -- they will be a part of it, but the -- basically what we are talking about is that you -- you need parking pads. Right now in front of their house they have a circle driveway and people park on that circle driveway, because it's been at the end -- or near the end of, basically, a private lane that was gravel to begin with. So, we are sure that we can provide some parking pads and meet those requirements that the city has. Grace: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: For new Newland Drive where you have the turnaround as it exists right now, is the -- if the parcel to the west becomes developed is that intentioned that would go out as an access road to Black Cat then? Brown: No. The highway district and -- and city staff don't want any further connections to -- to Black Cat. So, what would end up happening -- and we provided staff with, you know, a possible scenario. So, what it would tie in is that basically you would have that - -what's Horse Meadows with the cul-de-sac, that that street would stub down and it would connect there and that would provide a means of resubdividing that property someday in the future. So, we kind of anticipate that. It is also on the -- the east end of that property we have aligned the -- our stub that goes to the east with what's in Chesterfield that's a property away also. So, we have tried to put those in locations and staff has been a part of that review to make sure that we are not putting a road -- it's like saying you put the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 9 of 55 bridge to nowhere. Well, we are -- we are trying to put a bridge -- a road and the stub in a location that is beneficial for the -- the future property, as well as us. Lorcher: Mr. Chair, one more question. Seal: Yes. Go ahead. Lorcher: Are -- is your group involved in the Horse Meadow Subdivision? Brown: We are not a part of it, but our -- our developer has been in very close contact with them about that. They are supposed to start construction soon. So, we -- obviously, we -- we didn't want to really move forward until we knew that that was taking place, because -- I mean that's going to be our access. We could not access off of Black Cat, we need to access off of Pine that's to the north. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Seal: Any further questions? Smith: Mr. Chair? Seal: Oh. Go ahead. Smith: More of a -- a newbie question, if you will, for maybe staff or other Commissioners. Reading through the Fire Department comments it looks like -- and it looks like this is the same case for the other application they commented in the packet. They state that they are able to service the area, but not within the five minute goal. I don't know that I have seen any applications where they are confident they have been able to hit the five minute goal. Do they ever comment on what the estimated time would be? Obviously there is a difference in my mind between six minutes and 15 minutes theoretically. Do we -- do we know that at all and, you know, I guess any clarification around that would be helpful. Seal: We have had a couple of different meetings with the -- with the Fire Department and that's pretty common for them to not be able to make a five minute goal, unless it's right, you know, in real close proximity. That said, there -- I was kind of hoping to see more of a time estimate instead of, you know, we don't make the five minutes, but we expect to make it in eight. You know, like you said, and -- and I'm not seeing that at this point yet, so, hopefully, that's to come, but generally speaking if there is a large issue with it that they -- they will definitely point that out if they are opposed to it for -- for whatever reason or they think it's going to create an unsafe condition or if it's really outside of a time limit they will, you know, require places to be -- you know, have sprinkler in them and things like that, So -- good question though. Smith: Thank you. Seal: Commissioner Grace? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 10 of 55 Brown: If I could comment about that. Seal: Okay. Brown: We look back at the vicinity map. So, the two developments that I'm working on off of Ten Mile, Foxcroft is the one that's right next to the canal. Currently everybody that's on Pine that lives there has to go to the west back to Black Cat, even though they might be wanting to go to the east. We are in the process -- we just had the precon to put that bridge in and have that bridge installed. The road will continue to the -- to the west and what's to take place over there -- actually it's right along the railroad tracks that road extends and that area is industrial, but this road will help improve the timeline that they are talking, because right now they have to drive around and by having this road cut through and that being created, it's viewed by the highway district that most of that traffic is going to go to the east to Ten Mile, then the interchange and so forth. So, that's taking place and being done. Most of that Pine Street has been constructed, except for the bridge. So, as soon as we can get that bridge in before water enters the ditch, then, that will change the traffic patterns there, so -- Seal: Which is going to be good news all around I think. Commissioner Grace. Grace: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is probably for staff. Can I just get some clarity on the open space requirement? I was a little confused maybe on the -- on the staff report as to -- it looked like 15 percent or 1.23 acres was needed to qualify -- for qualified open space and, then, below it -- it talks about .788 acres. I was just looking for some clarity on that. Either way it looks like they have met it, but -- Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Grace, we are going to pull up the staff report and double check, but they did provide 2.15 acres of open space, but we are double checking the staff report right now. Seal: Okay. We will go back to that answer. Any other questions from staff-- for staff or the applicant? Smith: Mr. Chair? Seal: Yep. Go ahead. Smith: Another process question if you will. So, with the potential -- if we were to approve this with the requirement of a development agreement, I know there was discussion about in that development agreement being the need for setting aside funds for remedying -- the event -- eventual remedying of that turnaround. Would that be something that we include in this approval condition or is that just for a future -- like will that be discussed in the future with the development agreement? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 11 of 55 Seal: For -- for Planning and Zoning -- and since we are a recommending body we can - - we can ask to have that be a provision -- a provision of our recommendation, but it's something that we would have to have stated in our motion. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Seal: Any others? All right. Brown: The one comment I will make is as we worked with the engineers that was our goal was to make sure that even though we were doing the turnaround we didn't view that we could count that as open space and so I'm pretty confident that we -- the open space outside of that that's required and we will have more open space as soon as the turnaround goes away, so -- Seal: Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this? Will that make this quick for you? Hall: We have Lindsey Nikki or Nikki? Okay. Seal: The lady in the back. Thank you. Ma'am, do you want to go ahead and come on up? Sorry, there is somebody sitting right behind you that -- oh. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to come up and testify on this? I don't think we have anybody online that's going to be doing anything. Nobody's raising their hand. Hall: I do not have anybody signed up online, Mr. Chairman. Seal: Okay. Mr. Brown, do you have anything else to add? All right. Thank you very much. Well, I will take a -- unless there is any other discussion I will take a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2022-0084, Alexanders Landing Subdivision. Smith: So moved. Rivera: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for File No. H-2022- 0084. All in favor, please, say aye. Opposed nay? Okay. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: I will take any discussion. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 12 of 55 Lorcher: I live near Black Cat and Cherry, so I'm familiar with this site. I'm also familiar with the site -- the homestead in front of this development and it's the Roosevelt Elementary School that was used in 1910. So, it's a part of our Meridian history and it's a little presumptuous to say that there will be development. It would be a catastrophe for the City of Meridian to lose that as a historical building with a road possibly going through it in the future. So, I'm not part of the historical committee, but I would fight pretty hard to make sure that that school slash home now stays part of our history. The fact that there is so much going on here right now with everything happening at Ten Mile with Pine coming through, but it hasn't happened yet. Horse Meadow being developed, but it hasn't happened yet. ACHD is not planning to widen Black Cat yet. I believe they have the right product for the site, but in the best interest of the city I think a few things need to happen before the site can be developed. Seal: Anybody else have comments? Grace: Mr. Chairman, I would only make the comment that I was really curious about the -- the open space. It's not critical to me. It's only the annexation stage and I'm sure that's subject to some change in the future. So, I don't want staff to get too wrapped around the axle about it. But, yeah, I was just a little confused on that piece. Seal: Okay. Stacy, do you have anything to contribute on there? Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Grace, so, yes, we just were double checking the numbers and they are only required to have 34,000 square foot open space, so they exceed it. It maybe wasn't explained. It was a little bit thrown off. The 2.15 -- it's actually all of the open space they proposed, not the qualified. So, it was broken down. Grace: Thank you. Seal: Thank you very much. Any other comments? Smith: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go right ahead. Smith: Just to put some thoughts out there around the -- the -- the timing. I agree there is a lot going on in that area and -- and Black Cat seems to be one of those areas that will be hopefully worked on at some point maybe. That being said, I think that Horse Meadows -- the requirement that Horse Meadows be developed prior to this I -- I do think alleviates some of my concerns around that -- around that -- that access and the -- kind of the things up in the air. I do -- I appreciate the information around that historical site and that does certainly factor in. I -- I wonder, though, if there are certain possibilities for these to be worked out, not -- not necessarily all the additional external factors, but, you know, to be considered during the development process, because, otherwise, you know, like my fellow Commissioner said, it does seem like it's the right product for the area. It does seem like it's a good fit for the area. So, those are just some thoughts. I think it's - Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 13 of 55 - it's -- it's a tough balancing act at the moment, but I -- I think it -- I am generally more amenable to letting them work on those -- those historical site considerations and those kind of externalities on that end as development progresses, given the Horse Meadows requirement and the development agreement, that I would probably -- I would support requiring as well. Seal: I will --a couple thoughts on this. In-fill is tough, so--you know, I mean I'm generally a little critical of some of these -- I call them -- call them that have your cake and eat them too developments where the property owner wants to maintain their house. So, sometimes that makes for good transitions, sometimes it doesn't, so this seems to me it's not outlandish in this case for sure. One of the concerns that I have that was addressed is that, you know, basically the funding to take care of the turnaround that's there. One of the concerns I have about it, just being that turnaround, is it's somewhat unusable. Another -- we have had other circumstances like this where, you know, other Commissioners have talked about putting up a basketball hoop or something like that just to make it a usable space basically. It's not qualified open space, so something along those lines. But the -- the private road dimensions of this are a little concerning, because there is not a lot of homes here to support the private road as far as the funding for that in the future. So, that to me is probably the bigger concern I have of this. I mean, I -- you know, my comments about the ACHD report is maybe they haven't been there when I have been there, so -- but that seems to happen a lot with the ACHD reports saying that Black Cat is okay. When Pine Street opens up I think that's going to eliminate a lot of the problems that we are seeing on the Black Cat area there. It's going to create a whole new set of problems for Ten Mile and that intersection there, but it's being built to handle it. But, again, I think the -- the private road and just the funding of that is probably more -- that's a concern for me just for the -- the people that live there in the -- in the future and their -- their ability to fund, you know, maintenance and care on those roads, so that -- that is all private, correct; Bill? No. Oh, I thought it was all private. Just the -- just the extension? Sorry. I may be speaking out of turn. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, currently the -- the property only has private street access, but as part of this project they are dedicating right of way to ACHD, contingent upon Horse Meadows happening and -- Seal: Got you. Parsons: -- public street being provided to this property. Seal: Okay. Parsons: And, then, the applicant will have to relinquish their rights to use their current access to Black Cat -- Seal: Okay. Parsons: --which is Quarter Horse Lane, which is that easement that we discussed when Horse Meadows came through. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 14 of 55 Seal: Right. Parsons: So whatever they do out here -- and Kent Brown -- Kent -- Kent Brown. Kent knows very well that they can't just remove somebody's easement, they have to maintain access in perpetuity or provide other means of access and that's what they are doing here. So, just for the record, to clear it up, this is intended to be public streets, not private. Seal: Got it. Okay. That makes a lot more sense, so -- never mind everything I said about the public streets -- or the private streets then, so -- interpreted that incorrectly, Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Yes, Commissioner Lorcher, go right ahead. Lorcher: But currently Quarter Horse is a private street, so -- Seal: Right. Lorcher: -- as everything gets developed it will become a public street and ACHD will manage it; correct? Seal: Yeah. Okay. Anymore discussion? Motions? Grace: Mr. Chair, I -- I was talking about the open space and I probably didn't comment generally about it. I -- I don't necessarily know that I have too many issues with the --with the proposal, but I -- I do agree -- I guess I didn't pick up on the -- the historical school aspect of it and I would agree that whatever is in our purview to try to preserve that -- and I don't know what is in our purview, but I would agree that we should try to do that. We - -we don't probably have a tremendous amount of those kind of historical sites in Meridian and to the extent we do have them I think we should try to preserve them. So, that would be the only caveat to my -- to my support. Seal: Okay. Yeah. And I -- I mean I have similar feelings to that piece of property myself, but I'm also looking at the application that's in hand and the rules we have to follow, and the code that's there in order to provide for this application. So, myself, I'm trying not to get too wrapped up in that, but good comments. Anymore discussion or a motion? I'm open to -- Smith: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go right ahead. Smith: I -- I do have a potential motion. I -- looking over to counsel to hopefully help me ensure that this is proper. But I would like to make a motion to approve -- recommend approval to City Council for File No. H-2020 -- sorry. That's not the right. That is right. H-2022-0088 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2023, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 15 of 55 with the following modifications -- and that would be the modifications laid out by staff in section -- I believe Sections 9 and 10, with the exception of the requirement to move the turnaround. Instead I'm asking for requiring a development agreement and requesting that that be part of that development agreement, that funds be set aside for future remediation of that turnaround, as well as a recommendation or request in an advisory capacity to work with the city on preserving that historic site in the future. I hope that's kosher. Seal: Do I have a second? Grace: Second. Seal: Okay. Starman: And, Mr. Chair, just for the record -- great first motion. Well done. Smith: Thank you. Starman: And just for clarity, we both heard on this end that we may have misstated the file numbers. I just wanted to clarify for the record the -- the file before the -- that you are voting on right now, which is H-2022-0084. This will get that for the record, and you are -- Mr. Chairman, you are -- feel free to proceed with your vote. Hall: And, Mr. Chair, who made the second, please? Seal: Commissioner Grace. So, it has been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2022-0084 for Alexanders Landing Subdivision, with the aforementioned modifications. All in favor, please, say aye. Opposed nay? Lorcher: Nay, Parsons: Mr. -- Mr. Chair, just before -- I'm sorry, I should have caught you a little sooner. Is the motion also currently -- and Stacy can correct me if I'm wrong, but currently we have a condition of approval that states that they relocate that turnaround on those buildable lots. So, we probably -- if it's your intention to allow the turnaround to stay on the common lot through the surety process, then, we probably should strike that condition as well. Seal: Okay. That -- Parsons: Was that your intention for the motion? Smith: Yes. Mr. Chair, yes, that was my intention. Apologies. Parsons: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we still had that condition. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 16 of 55 Seal: I was going to say that's how I understood it, so I just wanted to make sure. No opposed, so motion carries. Thanks for -- Lorcher: I opposed. Seal: Oh. Sorry. One opposed, but motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing for Meridian OZ Apartments (H-2022-0073) by Realm Venture Group, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to the existing Development Agreement (Inst.#99121334 AZ-99-005 Cobblestone Village)to remove the subject property from the agreement and enter into a new agreement for the proposed multi-family development. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 60 dwelling units on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Seal: We will get there tonight, I promise. All right. Thank you very much. And with that we will open the public hearing for File No. H-2022-0073 for Meridian OZ Apartments and we will begin with the staff report. As long as you can make all the technology work for the rest of the evening, Bill. Parsons: I think I can do that. All right. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I think we are up and running now. So, here I am tonight presenting to you the Meridian OZ project. This was continued from the last hearing in order for the applicant to massage the plan -- modify the plan so that it could address some of staff's comments and, then, also ACHD's comments in their staff report. So, you can see here on the first slide tonight that the future land use map on this property is mixed-use community. Current zoning is R-40 and, then, the property is located on the northwest - - or, excuse me, southwest corner of Franklin and Locust Grove. In 1999 this property was actually annexed in as part of the Cobblefield Village project --or Cobblestone Village project, excuse me, and received conditional use permit approval to develop 96 multi- family units on the site. You can see here in this particular graphic at the time that this came in -- here is a graphic here for you, it showed what was approved officially in '99 when it was annexed. When that intersection was improved and that road was widened ACHD went in and took a portion of that property and developed their storm retention facility on it and, then, also put up chain link fencing around it, so, again, it's part of a natural riparian area for the File Mile Creek, so it's -- it's a little bit more enhanced in that area, but what it did was actually leave this particular property in the current configuration that you see in the graphic to your right. So, the applicant is here to talk with you about - - submit an application for a conditional use permit and also a development agreement modification and, again, you can see the reason for the DA modification is because the - Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 17 of 55 - the property has just changed and so they need to modify the concept plan and the density that was approved with that plan. So, staff also dug deep into our history of what was the Comprehensive Plan designation on this property back in '99. It was actually a mixed -- mixed-use plan development, which basically allowed for apartments and the project at the time that it was approved was 15 dwelling units to the acre. In this current configuration and what the application is proposing this evening is 60 multi-family units at a density of 25 dwelling units to the acre. Now as -- as this body knows, a mixed-use community designation, we anticipate densities between six and dwelling -- six and 15 -- between six to 15 dwellings to the acre. So, again, it is on the higher density type side, but, again, the property is zoned R-40 and if you look at the purpose statement in the -- the zoning ordinance, it does anticipate higher densities occurring on that. So, again, Council will take action on the development agreement modification and determine whether or not density is appropriate for this site, if 25 is the right number, or if -- if something should change. But as far as what we are showing with you tonight, we feel like -- whether it's four buildings at 40 units to the -- eight units to the acre -- or eight units to -- per structure or 12 units per structure, it's pretty much going to be a similar design as you are seeing. So, it's really whether or not three stories is appropriate, two stories is appropriate, as -- as we move forward through the development process. As I mentioned to you, this application was condition --was continued because ACHD actually required the applicant -- the applicant to relocate their access. When they originally submitted their application to the city the primary access was from Franklin and ACHD actually required the applicant to reconfigure their site plan and require that their access to this development come off of Locust Grove, because it's the lesser classified arterial roadway and so that's why we reached out to the applicant and said, hey, are you aware of this? They indicated they were and they realized they had to redesign, so they did accommodate our request to continue, so they could make those modifications. I will also mention to you -- if you had a chance to look at the staff report, staff wasn't confident that the site met the open space requirements of the code and so the applicant revised the plan, submitted in that revised plan today, and that's why you see that--that word revised in parentheses on the graphic to the left. So, we are confident that what the applicant is proposing now meets the minimum open space requirements for the multi-family development. As I mentioned to you, the conditional use permit is for 60 dwelling units. There is -- it's a mix of 30 one bedroom and 30 two bedroom units, again, at a gross density of 25 dwelling units to the acre. Access, again, is Locust Grove, and that is the only access that they will have. I know typically we would like to have more accesses for these types of developments, but because this is a multi-family development and it's under 200 units, the code does not require an additional access point. So, the -- the fire code allows you -- I'm putting my -- my Chief Bongiorno hat on for you this evening, so we don't go down that discussion for another access to Franklin, because it's not going to happen. But, essentially, you can have a multi-family development, you can have up to 200 units before you need a secondary access. So, this is well under what's required by code. But just to make -- because the -- the property owner -- property to the south of this project is also part of that mixed-use designation, we are recommending cross- access to that piece, so that it could integrate or potentially a new access point could be provided or readjusted in the future if something were to happen on that property. We want to make sure we limit those access points in the near future. Amenities for the --for Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 18 of 55 this site -- we are looking at -- you have to have three qualifying amenities, one from quality of life, open space and recreation, and the applicant is proposing enclosed bike storage, a community garden and, then, a children's place structure. If you had a chance to review the staff report as well, originally the applicant was proposing an interconnected pathway along Locust Grove that ran -- ran along the south side of the detention facility and ran up the east side of this development to -- to add it as a recreational amenity. Because of site constraints that was removed and they elected to go with the tot lot, which we think is a better amenity for this site, as there is -- there is limited parks in this area. They are about, what, a mile, two miles down the road to Storey Park, if I -- if I remember correctly. And, then, the applicant also provided revised open space to show how they are meeting the intent of the code and, then, here are the conceptual building elevations that you guys look at as well. Again, it looks like it's a mix of fiber cement panels, window stuccos, synthetic wood cladding and, then, all done in neutral color. So, again, more of a modern aesthetic on the site. Keep in mind that this -- this site will screen somewhat that ACHD facility. There are some topographies on this site as well,, so the site is built up a little bit compared to what that -- that -- from the detention pond as well. But a lot of that parking will be skewed from the adjacent streets. I had a chance to look at the public record before the hearing tonight. It looked like we did -- did receive written testimony from Travis Perrin. He is actually -- represents the Intermountain Wood Products property, which is just directly -- a couple lots south of this. If you remember they came through and annexed in a piece of property with the I-L zoning district to develop a warehouse, so he is concerned with that access to Locust Grove and how that will impact some of the -- he is fearful that the -- the additional traffic -- it's a dangerous situation with the amount of truck traffic that will be coming in and out of that roadway to serve their facility. So, again, staff is recommending with the conditions in the staff report and we are -- I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much, Bill. Would the applicant like to come forward? Parsons: I believe she's online. Seal: Online? Okay. Parsons: It should be Jorre. Jorre. Hall: Jorre, you can speak now. Delgado: Hello. Are you guys able to hear me? Seal: Yes, we are. Need your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Delgado: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jorre Delgado. I'm here with Realm Venture Group, located at 1109 West Main Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. And I'm here to discuss the Meridian OZ Apartments located at 1475 East Franklin Road in Meridian, Idaho. Bill did a great job of reiterating that staff report and Sonya did a great job of writing that staff report. I appreciate her help on getting me some of those comments early on and helping me make these adjustments, so that I could come back Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 19 of 55 and, hopefully, get an approval on this quickly. A couple items that I would like to just make a note of is that our property is in -- within one mile of a Valley Regional Transit of Route 30 Pine. Our development agreement modifications --we do agree with all of your guys' provisions that are being requested to be carried over from the previous development agreement. We plan to keep outside lighting, perimeter fencing and drainage sections of the previous DA agreement and carried it over to our new one. Also the access point, we do plan to provide a cross-access, ingress-egress easement and driveway with a pedestrian walkway to the property to the south for future connectivity, which we hope that there can be some connectivity on that and I know that we have had a little bit of discussion about that, but nothing too extensive, but we do plan to have that easement there just in case that there is that potential of having a future development there and, then, another item that popped up was the trash enclosure. We are more than happy to relocate our trash enclosures to where ever is needed. I know in the staff report it said that it was -- that they wanted us to relocate it to the east boundary and add a recycling receptacle, which we are totally okay with adding the recycling, which we anticipated adding the recycling in there anyways, but the location of it is also going to be up to Republic Services and where they feel it is best that they can pick up the trash on a daily basis or whatever their schedule is for our development. And, then, bike parking also came up. We have already added a bike rack for every building, so every building has their own bike rack, along with we also have a covered bike rack parking that's one of our amenities. I have not submitted one of our bike parking -- our covered bike parking plan yet, just because we don't know what it actually is going to be built out as, but it will be a fully enclosed bike storage facility for the residents. And, then, our -- as Bill noted, our common open space has been revised and we do now meet the minimum standards for common open space and as well as our landscape plan. Our landscape plan has also been modified to meet all of those comments that have been made in the staff report. And, then, I'm open for questions. Seal: Okay. Thank you, Jorre. Questions for the applicant or staff? Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: For the applicant is the 60 units or five buildings with 12 units a make or break deal for this project to go forward? This is pretty high density for this small L-shaped space, which would -- if we were to discuss it would any consideration be to lessen the density of the number of units? Delgado: I would say that 60 units would be what we are set at. It would be hard for us to go any lower than that and I feel that we have been pretty code compliant with the 60 units in meeting the common open space and the amenity requirements and the ACHD recommends. So, I think 60 units is probably our -- our minimum that we are willing to hit. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 20 of 55 Seal: I have a question real quick on the -- this is going to be a right-in, right-out onto Locust Grove; is that correct, Bill? I'm fairly certain it would have to be, but -- Delgado: Yeah. That's correct. Seal: Okay. And, then, as far as the right-in, right-out, is that going to be just painted or is that going to be enforced by some -- like a curb -- curbing? I don't know if we do that, but -- Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, it's -- I don't think they use curbing -- or striping anymore. They are going to use a curb. Seal: Okay. Parsons: They like to put curbing -- Delgado: Yeah. Parsons: -- out there and make sure it works. It functions. Seal: Right. Okay. Delgado: Yeah. It would be curbing. Seal: Anyone else? Smith: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Smith, go ahead. Smith: Another question about the Fire Department. I -- I noticed a conspicuous absence of comment here and -- and if-- and if there are any developments that I would especially like to see consideration of Fire Department response times it's those that are especially dense and just curious, again, to -- to -- Mr. Chair or other Commissioners or staff, about any potential reasons that we know that that might not -- those comments might not be there and if any discussion around fire response times and -- and -- and safety. Seal: Sure. Bill, I will let you take that. You know the Fire Department. Parsons: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Smith, this may be one where everything works right and so Fire is like it's good. Fire station is just a mile down the road, so I think we are good on fire response times. Two, multi-families require sprinklers. So, they are going to have a fire sprinkler system. So, I think -- and, then, access -- again, as I mentioned, it meets the fire code for access and, then, all of the other requirements as far as code compliance with building codes, that will happen at the time that they submit for a building permit. So, again, if -- if I had to guess why you didn't see a lot of that information, it's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 21 of 55 just because we -- we still get comments from Fire Department, they just may not raise to the level of where you are typically seeing it. So, Fire does provide comments as part of the -- the packet in laserfiche, and -- but in this particular case it was in line with what they anticipated with their goals. Smith: Good to hear. Thank you very much. Seal: Commissioner Grace, go ahead. Grace: Mr. Chair, probably a question for staff. The -- the single ingress and egress on Locust, that's -- that's a highway district decision; is that accurate? Yeah. What happens if the property owner doesn't want to give an easement to the south? The city has no -- no control on that transaction; right? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we do. That -- that would happen at the time of annexation. So, that property to the south is currently in the county. So, whenever they came in and requested annexation, we are -- we are going to -- we are going to pre-app with them. Grace: Okay. Parsons: We are going to let them know that the development of the north reciprocated an easement to them and that we expect them to -- to work with them on that. But to your -- because we anticipate other properties to the south also doing that or providing that access in the future, too -- so, if I can go back to that aerial real quick. So, you can see here there is still a -- a few properties that are in the county there. That's what that white is in the center graphic here. So, that RUT. So, that's where it's going to be critical for us to make sure that we look at the current -- the current accesses to the -- the county properties and, then, through redevelopment in the city that we -- we -- our code does speak to cross-access when you don't have the local street access and we are -- we are working with legal currently to tweak some of that language, but in this particular case, yes, we -- we have every right as part of our code requirements to do that when it's annexed into the city. We can't require them to do anything now, because they are not under our rules. Grace: That's good to know. Thank you. I -- I, too, think that's a -- it is only one direction to go when you exit the -- the property and there is three other highly probably sought after directions from those people, so -- good to know. Thank you. Smith: Mr. Chair? Seal: Mr. Smith, go ahead. Smith: Question for the applicant. Curious to know -- have you heard -- have they heard any feedback from Mr. Perrin or other local community members and -- and, if so, have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 22 of 55 they taken any efforts to -- to work to accommodate concerns slash would they be willing to work with community members, like Mr. Perrin, to ameliorate concerns going forward? Delgado: I have not heard from anybody, but we are willing to work with any comments or concerns that we do have from anybody in the surrounding areas. Seal: Real quick question on the -- one of the comments in the staff report was on -- there -- there are no sidewalks that kind of -- that go from the parking area into the entrances. Is that something that -- how -- how will that be mitigated or remedied? Delgado: We -- we do have sidewalks. So, we do have a pathway that goes down this side. I don't know if you guys are able to see my -- my mouse on the screen. Seal: No, we are not. Delgado: Okay. We are --we do have sidewalks and walkways that are attached to each building and around each building. Around each parking area there is a walkway and, then, when it does cross the road there is a crossing path there that will be noted with either some striping or a different type of material. But there is some type of walkway that surrounds each building. Seal: Okay. Any other comments? Any other questions for applicant or staff? Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up for public testimony? Hall: We do, Mr. Chair. Ann Witherall. Or Witherell. Seal: Okay. Thank you, Jorre. We will be back to you shortly. Delgado: Thank you. Seal: Good evening. Just grab that microphone. We will need your name and address for the record, please. Witherell: My name is Ann Witherell. 215 South Locust Grove Road. I live just south of the proposed development and I just had a conversation with the other owner. I guess I am now the homeowners association, so -- most of my concerns I would like to have taken up with the developer at a neighborhood meeting. One was proposed -- I think it was back in August or July. I showed up at the meeting. We did 20, 30 minutes. Nobody showed up, except the owner from -- operations manager from Basalight up around the pumice factory around the road on Franklin. We had a nice chat for about 20 minutes. Nobody showed up, so we went home. It was a thousand degrees. It was rescheduled for a month later. I went. Same story. Except Mr. Murphy, the operations manager, didn't show. I have his card. He is a witness. Nobody showed at those meetings. I would have concerned -- shared these concerns with them then. So, since we were not contacted about any further meetings or notified about anything, other than the initial Planning and Zoning meeting, which was rescheduled, and not notified about any other meeting, I'm here to say that I guess I do share the concern with the one in and out on Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 23 of 55 Locust Grove. I have no plans to sell my home. The -- there is another issue that -- the dumpsters. I'm glad that those will possibly be moved, but they are very noisy on -- when they collect them. There is safety of the pond on the corner. How do I draw on this thing? There. Seal: What do you need, ma'am? Witherell: Right there is that big -- big pond. It's a beautiful -- it's full of cattails, marshes, beautiful birds in the summer. Fall. It's also a nice attraction for children to get in and play in and drown in. That's a safety hazard. I hope they can address that. The transition between the developer or the development and the property immediately to the south, I don't see any significant transition there at all. Mitigation for sound. White noise. Foot traffic, for example, there is a -- well, it's supposed to be 20 feet. It's not. Transition between my property and the -- the development behind me, the light industrial. I don't want ten thousand children -- people of -- I don't know who they are -- traipsing behind my property. What kind of foot traffic mitigation will there be? I don't know. It's also the -- the minor problem of the irrigation. The irrigation pipe goes behind the property here. It's never on any plats ever and I have been dealing with the City Council now for 20 years. It's even a -- part of this irrigation pipe that's under a parking lot. Not a good place to maintain it, but when we address it at this point there is not that problem. The irrigation pipe is where we get our irrigation -- irrigation water that's very important to us. Especially my neighbor who has an acre field. I have a neighbor field. It's for watering down plants and pasture and our kids like to play on them. Without it we -- we would be using well water, which is a great expense on the pump especially. So, that needs to be addressed and maintained. The -- the -- the flow -- overflow water, the -- the drainage is fine. It drains down into this area here and into Five Mile Creek and also into the decorative pond at the -- at the entrance to the light industrial subdivision behind me. Seal: Ma'am, I will need you to wrap up real quick if you would. Witherell: Oh, I would love to. I could also go on for a few dozen things. But those are the main ones. Safety especially. I have two grandsons that live with me. One of them catches a bus and with all the traffic making right-hand turns onto Locust Grove Road, which is no longer a small side road, it's a five lane highway, there are safety concerns about children catching school buses. Anyway, for now I will -- I will be quiet and sit down for now. Seal: All right. Witherell: Thank you for listening. Seal: Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Madam Clerk? Hall- Okay. We have Lynzey Uechi. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 24 of 55 Seal: Good evening. Just need your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Uechi: My name is Lynzey Uechi. Seal: Can you speak right into the microphone there? Uechi: Can you hear me? Seal: Yep. Uechi: Okay. I live at 1376 West Whitehall Drive and I also own the property directly south of this -- of this application. So, before I begin what I was going to say today, I do want to mention that Ms. Delgado said that she has not received any public comments and we have e-mailed back and forth with my concerns. Okay. So, good evening. I would like to begin by thanking the Commission for information on the ongoing development of Meridian accessible and transparent for its residents. Without this service my input tonight would not have been possible. I'm also thankful to the Commission for upholding the Unified Development Code by requiring cross-access easement, lighting restrictions and enforcing a standard width and landscaping in the buffer zones and also acknowledge my appreciation for the developmental agreement modifications, which requires the continuance of accepting drainage and requiring a dividing fence. I would request an addition to the fence on the property line -- the Commission consider implementing an additional fence through the industrial zoned buffer on the western edge. Without such provisions, residents of the apartment complex can easily access the neighboring single family lots through their backyards. There is a high concern for the proposed location of the trash receptacle in the southwest corner. Because of the odor and noise caused by this I requested it be relocated or at minimum moved at least five feet away from the property line. The final and largest concern for the proposed development, which I'm sure has been a concern for the Commission as well, is the safety for motorists on Locust Grove. The proposed property has low visibility due to its unique L shape, which is wedged behind a retention pond. The only proposed entrance and exit comes after a very quick turn on a very busy intersection. If one of the up to 180 residents of the complex was not prepared for this turn, they may stop short, creating a traffic and safety concern. If the turn is missed, the subsequent driveway 30 meters to the south is likely to be misused as a turnaround point. This unpaved driveway proceeds for over 300 feet towards a single family home. The single lane driveway can only safely accommodate one direction of traffic and into the garage where the turnaround area is very limited. Please also consider the impact of all motorists proceeding on Locust Grove, as many citizens of Meridian choose to travel on Locust Grove as an alternative to facing the traffic on Eagle Road. The impact of this poorly visible and quick turn will remove this alternative route option. I requested the Commission -- if the Commission still finds this to be a reasonable design that you would require traffic slowing measures in addition to a solution for protecting the right to private use of a private driveway on a private property. For the benefit of the Commission I would also like to add that the house depicted on the survey submitted for the proposed development is not of concern, as it was demolished Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 25 of 55 in August of 2022. 1 sincerely appreciate you for all your services that you have provided to ensure a safe and flourishing city for myself, my family and my neighbors. Thank you for your time. Seal: Thank you very much. Any questions? All right. Thanks. Hall: There is no one else, Mr. Chair. Seal: Anybody else like to testify and you raise your hand? I don't see anybody online. All right. With that would the applicant like to come back up for -- and discuss what's been discussed with the open -- or the public comments. Delgado: I just have a couple of comments. It appears that the dumpsters were mentioned in both public comments and, again, we are more than happy to move the dumpsters to where ever necessary. But, again, that is going to be in Republic Services -- it's going to be up to them as to where we locate and where they are able to easily access them day in and day out. So, we are able to move those where ever they would like. But, again, it's going to be at the discretion of Republic Services and, then, it appears the safety of their right-in, right-out of Locust Grove came up a couple times. Again, we are totally open to making whatever safety measures need to happen at that right-in and right-out happen, whether that is a curb cut or some type of striping or whatever it is, we are totally open to that, as well as the pond. We do plan to have a safety measure as to a larger fence on that back, which, if you guys have seen that fence, there is already a fence with some barbed wire on the top. If that needs to change we are happy to change that to something safer, but we are open to any safety measures that need to happen and that that is all I have. Seal: A quick question for you on the -- the fencing portion of it. I -- I was under the impression that the fencing would be not only in the south, but it would be on the west. Is that not correct? So, all the fencing that is currently on that property we plan to keep. Again, I don't know if you can see my -- my mouse, but every fencing that is currently already there we plan to keep, unless advised by the city that we need to change, we are more than happy to change the fencing on any side of this property to make it better for any of the tenants, any of the safety of the public. But we are open to changing any of that fencing if that is an issue. Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: Mr. Chair, to the applicant. What kind of fencing is currently there? Delgado: There is currently just the typical chain link fence. Lorcher: On all -- on both sides? Delgado: That's correct. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 26 of 55 Lorcher: And is it the standard six feet or does it also have barbed wire like around the retention pond? Delgado: Around the retention pond there is barbed wire on the top of it. Around the exterior of the lot it is just regular chain link fencing. Seal: Commissioner Grace, go ahead. Grace: And that was -- how high is it? Delgado: I believe it is six feet, but I'm not certain. I can go out there and measure that just to be exact, but I believe it is six feet. Seal: Okay. Anything else? All right. Jorre, if there is nothing else, thank you for your time. Delgado: Thank you. Seal: And with that I will take a motion to close the public hearing for H-2022-0073 for the Meridian OZ Apartments. Lorcher: So moved. Smith: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for File No. H-2022-0073 for the Meridian OZ Apartments. All in favor, please, say aye. Opposed nay? Okay. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Discussion? Lorcher: I will start, Mr. Chair. Seal: Go right ahead. Lorcher: What -- what does a Commission do when an applicant dots all the I's and crosses the T, yet it still feels like they are putting everything in that they possibly can for the sake of putting it in? This is a very strange project because of the retention pond in front of it and ACHD's requirements. Sixty units on this L-shaped parcel with a very narrow in and out seems very compact and looking at the aerial views of the area there are townhouses, there are single family houses, there is an LDS church. There are businesses. So, the product fits, right, but it's just-- I -- I'm uncomfortable with the number of people within this very small space going in and out of Locust Grove. I think the product is right. It should be multi-family housing. There are -- as far as I know there are no three stories within the current vicinity. There is industrial behind it. I would like to see Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 27 of 55 something with maybe two stories or townhouses that would be less dense, but the applicant says that that's not financially feasible. So, I'm struggling with this, because even though they have followed code of R-40, they have done their amenities, they have done everything that, you know, the city has asked, but it doesn't mean it's the right density for this space. So, I would be actually in favor of denial. Seal: Commissioner Grace? Grace: Mr. Chair, I would echo -- echo some of those comments from Commissioner Lorcher. The density is what's giving me some concern. It is a tough piece of property for sure and whatever they do, I -- I would hope there is ability to -- particularly since there is no access from Franklin to move the dumpsters as far away from the homes to the south as possible and I do think they need to address the fence on the west side and make sure it's adequate for the pond. I think the public comments were dead on that there is a potential safety concern there for kids and whatnot if -- if there is an ability to get to the pond. So, those are the things I would like to see them address. It is a tough piece of property. The traffic is -- I already asked the question about that earlier. I don't know that I would go -- I'm going as far as denial. I -- I guess I would like to see what the other commissioners have to say. There is bike storage, though, Mr. Chairman, which I'm sure makes you happy. Seal: I like the bike storage idea. Absolutely. Commissioner Rivera. Rivera: Mr. Chairman. I'm in agreement it's a tough property. I think they are trying to do everything they can to accommodate and I want to see -- I would like to see more of that to work with what was stated today by the public, especially with that--with that fence and also, you know, it's tough just that one in and out on Locust Grove, especially, you know, if, you know, you have Republic Services big trucks coming in and -- you know, coming in around and all the traffic of having 60 units, we can -- can be a safety concern as well. But just -- I guess I want to see a little bit more clarity on how that's going to be, you know, worked out, where --where the -- the dumpsters are going to end up and, then, you know, and the fence, what -- what other fence options are there that they are willing to accommodate to -- for more of a -- you know, less noise and safety from the other adjacent properties. Smith: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Smith, feel free. Smith: At risk of turning this horse into glue, I agree this is a very difficult--difficult location and I do want to comment that there is two sides to this coin. I do want to comment I appreciate the proximity to the VRT stop and I think that, you know, given -- given the -- the Comprehensive Plan and the need for a diverse mix of -- of housing and a diverse mix of density, you know, I think there is a place for -- for housing that is dense and perhaps this dense. I do think that there needs to be some consideration beyond the other concerns raised about, you know, if -- if we are -- if one of the benefits of this Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 28 of 55 property being dense and being, quote, you know, close to housing -- or close to -- apologies -- close to public transit and if that's being presented as a benefit, I -- I would like to see some more commitment to encouraging residents to use public transit when possible. You know, like I said, one of the first things out of my mouth this evening was land use planning is transportation planning, in my opinion, and I think that is -- it's tough, because, to be frank, there is -- there is not as much infrastructure -- public transit infrastructure as some might like related to this -- this housing and this -- this dense of housing, but it's kind of a chicken and the egg problem of you have to have enough customers to make the -- the public transit worthwhile, but you also have to have public transit to serve a relatively dense area. So, those are some of my concerns. I -- I think hearing -- having heard some of this testimony and giving the -- the benefit of the doubt seems to be there is -- there has been some miscommunication and confusion. Okay. My time is up. I'm waiting for the -- it seems to be -- you know, with a good faith position it seems to be that there has been some miscommunication or some confusion about communication between -- opportunities to communicate between residents and local stakeholders and the developer. I -- to give Commissioner Grace some -- some insight to where I'm at, I don't think I'm -- I also don't think I'm at the -- the spot of preferring a denial. Having been new here I do -- I would like to express that I don't know how much good a continuance would do, given kind of-- some of the heavy lifting of some of these or what standard practices are, but just wanted to throw out kind of where I'm at. I -- I think, if anything, a continuance might be preferable to my position, but I also don't know how much is accomplishable within the limits of that. Rivera: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go right ahead. Rivera: And it's probably been discussed before, but is there a reason why the properties don't start further closer to Franklin and not as close to Locust Grove where that's going to be your access point. I know it's a weird shaped L, but just seems like that first building is really close to Locust Grove. Seal: Well, I will -- I will -- I will weigh in here. So, I -- this is the be careful what you wish for speech here, so -- and I mean in looking at this if we were to, you know, request that they do two stories, instead of three, I -- I would imagine that's, you know, what -- what - - what we would end up with is we would probably end up with another building. You know, they are going to take the adequate space that they have and try to, you know, eliminate some of the parking that they have or some of the features that they have in order to, you know, fit this -- as many of the units in there that they possibly can. Townhomes and things like that seem like a good idea, but now all of a sudden you are going to have, you know, buildings right on the property lines, which I think in the future will actually inhibit, you know, traffic flow or the ability for them to use another -- use another road in order to get out to Franklin or, you know, another way to even get out to Locust Grove. So, I do share the heartburn with Locust Grove, that being the only in and out and it being a right-in -- right-in, right-out only. So, that's going to make it difficult for folks that live there. They are going to have to go -- you know, essentially, they are going Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 29 of 55 to have to wind around, you know, cross the freeway, go over to Eagle Road and go over to, you know, Meridian Road or whatever to come out on the freeway. So, hopefully, we don't see a lot of illegal U-turns out of here, but I would imagine that will be par for the course. Yeah. It's -- I -- where this is at -- there is actually a lot of light industrial, a lot of jobs in this area, so, you know, with the bike storage that they have there, hopefully, that, you know, will help to motivate people to, you know, use that kind of transportation. I'm a person that does that myself, so I -- yeah. I -- do I wish it could be something else? Yes. Does it check all the boxes? Does it meet everything? Yes. Could it be something else? Possibly, but I don't know that we would get any better than this as far as what we can do with it in the future. So, that's my thoughts, helpful or not. Grace: Mr. Chairman, could I ask one question of staff? Seal: Absolutely. Grace: It looks like he's busy right now, so I will -- Seal: Bill, we got a question for you when you are ready. Grace: Bill, can you tell me what the proposed density is in relation to the -- the -- the density range that's allowable there? Parsons: Yeah. As I -- Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission -- Grace: You probably already told us, Bill, but maybe just for my -- Parsons: Commissioner Grace, I did. So, before -- so, that's what I tried to describe to you in my presentation is the graphic on the right is what was approved in '99. Different comp plan designation than what we have on the books today. But that was approximately 15 dwelling units to the acre, the project on the right. So, let's fast forward. ACHD comes in and says we are redoing -- widening the road, we are redoing the intersection, we need a pond site. So, they come and they take two-thirds of the property and they develop that retention pond and we are left with this I-shaped 2.37 acre piece of property. So, the current Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is mixed-use community. Now -- and under that land use designation we anticipate densities between six and 15 dwelling units to the acre and this is at 25. So, you can see there is quite a range there. It's -- it's definitely up towards the higher spectrum, but keep in mind to -- to our point, at least in our analysis in the -- in the staff report, we realized it was a stretch. It is higher than what we anticipate. By giving the -- the circumstances of what's occurred on the property and that they were entitled to the somewhat 96 units and they were decreasing with this project, it made sense to support -- they didn't say that they are -- they are proposing here -- provided they meet all the dimensional standards of the code. Yeah. And that's why the --to your point, by the time you look at the required open space, the required parking, and just how narrow this -- and the odd shape of this property, the only way you are probably going to get any kind of density on this side is to go vertical and that's -- that's the reality here. But I can tell you we have pre-apped on this property Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 30 of 55 for two or three years and we encouraged the applicants to go change it to industrial, as you -- as we mentioned to you back when Kent Brown was here in front of you, when we changed the comp plan on the Intermountain property to industrial we thought the same thing, we are -- we are slowly carving away at the mixed-use community designation in this area and when you do that you kind of just pinch everything into a -- a little corner that may not always make sense at the end of the day and that's -- whereas staff is -- we have -- we have got a balancing act. We know we have zoning in place, we have an entitlement there, and now we have to make the most out of an odd situation and that's where we are at today, I guess is the way to put it. And so keep in mind that the only way this is going to move forward is if Council approves that DA modification. So, that's kind of a -- the caveat. I -- again, your purview tonight is is it compatible. It's a conditional use permit. Is the density right? Is the open space right? Do you feel like the -- the parking is right for the site? They are three above minimum code requirements. So, again, there is no other places to park here. So, if you have a party, you have guests, you have three people renting one space, parking could be an issue. But, again, the project before you tonight does meet minimum code requirements. Starman: Mr. Chairman, can I -- Seal: Go ahead. Starman: -- add some additional advice for -- or some input for the Commission, but I want to ask a clarifying question first of Mr. Parsons. I just want to clarify, Bill, that -- we talked about the -- the current Comprehensive Plan is mixed-use. Current zoning allows, however, 40 units per acre; correct? Parson: Mr. Chair, Council, not necessarily. There is nothing in the code that refers to density. Density is all driven by comp plan these days. So -- Starman: Let me ask the question differently. How -- what is the zoning district today for this L-shaped parcel? Parsons: It is R-40, which, again, when you look at the purpose statement of the code, it -- of the zoning ordinance, it will say it's for apartments, you know, higher density, intensified residential uses. So, that's kind of where we have landed. It's -- it's not quite 40. 1 don't want to skew the discussion tonight talking too much about density, because density is not driven in code, density is all driven by comp plan and given the fact that, again, this was a larger piece, a piece of it taken by a government agency and reduced, it does make it a little unusual, if that's the best way to say it. So, again, your purview tonight if -- if you feel like -- I know Sonya and I talked about it when we were writing the staff report, about density and how to analyze that, and that's why we did go back and look at the research and look at the previous comp plan and try to understand the rationale of the body back in '99, 2000, to see how they felt this was right and, then, what happened with ACHD. So, at least we can put all the cards on the table for you and -- and make that decision. Again, if this Commission were to say no more than two stories, you are going to get 40 units, it's not going to change the design or-- unless they want to add that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 31 of 55 additional building to -- to your point, Commissioner Seal, but you -- you lop off a story it's still the same design. And, again, it -- to your point, we have met with many different people told them do lay this out this way, move the buildings away from the detention pond, because we were concerned about the -- the barbed wire fencing and all of that -- to, you know, put the parking up against that area, that way you move the living space away from that and we just -- as you know, we try not to design on the fly here. So, think, again, if this body -- you have the option tonight, you can move it forward with approval or denial or if you feel like you want to see changes to see if it can increase that compatibility, redesign it a little bit to add -- require more fencing or have a vinyl fencing or move some buildings differently on the site, but still meet the parking and the open space requirements, that's certainly within your purview tonight. Starman: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to try to clarify from a legal perspective and I don't want to conflict with Bill from his planning -- or in his planning hat, but I wanted to just say that courts will interpret -- so, let me back up and say we have two different things at play. They both relate to one another. We have a Comprehensive Plan, which is an aspirational document and talks about how we want our community to grow on a going forward basis and we -- we have zoning districts and as Bill just mentioned, the zoning on this particular parcel is R-40. It has a Comprehensive Plan and our future land use map it has contemplated for mixed-use. Those are -- that's aspirational, it's not an entitlement. So, I guess I want to impress upon -- from a legal perspective the zoning is the entitlement and as R-40 zoning. The density being proposed here is consistent with that zoning district. So, if I -- from a legal perspective my advice to you is you focus from a -- what the entitlement is -- the entitlement is a zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan is informative, but not the driving factor. That's thought number one and Bill can help me out here if I'm misstating something. The second thing I will say, though, is that the city does have some discretion here, but this Commission, but ultimately the Council, because we have a development agreement that contemplated 15 units per acre and the applicant is seeking a modification to that development agreement that would increase that density considerably. So, that is a discretionary action on the part of the City Council. This Council is not required to amend the development agreement and certainly not required to amend it in such a way that would increase the density. So, I think really from the city's perspective, if the density is the concern both for the Commission and later for the Council, I would focus on the development agreement. For this body that's not really before you tonight. You certainly can make a recommendation to the Council that says, you know, from the Commission's perspective additional density is not desirable. We don't think the Council ought to amend the development agreement to allow for this additional density. I think that's all perfectly fine. But I was -- I guess back on that first topic, I really want to reiterate that the zoning district today is the entitlement for this property and that is R-40. So, we need to keep that in mind as you deliberate and as you make a recommendation to the City Council. So, that's my advice for the Commission this evening. Bill, if I missed the mark on that let me know. Seal: Thank you. Parsons: I -- I agree with -- with counsel. That makes a lot of sense. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 32 of 55 Seal: Appreciate that. Always welcome your comments and your guidance to keep us on track for sure, so -- is there any discussion on that? Further comments? Smith: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Seal: Go right ahead. Smith: I -- I'm thinking back and -- and I'm -- I'm trying to -- I'm trying to strike a balance here, because I know there -- there is two kind of disparate thoughts that I'm holding in my head at the moment and one of them is I don't -- Kurt, please, let me know if this is ex parte. Don't believe it is, since it was prior to my appointment. But I know in our conversations when I was interviewing for this Commissioner job something stuck out -- or Commissioner position. If only it were a job. When we were interviewing I -- one thing that stuck out to me was the Mayor expressing, hey, if there are questions that are less tangible and less code related, that that is something that, you know, Council should be able to grapple with as elected officials. At the same time I know there is kind of a desire for us to not send open questions to Council and load their plate up with things if we are able to -- to kind of answer those questions and find some solutions for them. To that point, I do think that this is -- now that I think about it more -- I don't -- I really don't know what a continuance would accomplish, so I -- I'm -- I'm actually in a position where -- I'm not making a motion here quite yet, because I would like to leave this open to some more discussion. But I'm -- I'm supportive of recommending this to Council, but also making clear some of the -- the issues that the developer is going to face if -- if they don't -- you know, if -- if residents and local stakeholders do show up and say we still haven't been able to communicate with them. They still haven't responded to us and answered our questions or we still haven't seen any -- any discussion around fencing and -- and right- in, right-out pedestrian traffic mitigation. But, as we said, I don't know that there is much that's going to benefit from -- from a continuance here and I don't think a denial is the answer. So, food for thought. Seal: Yeah. That -- I mean to me on this, I'm -- you know, I -- I struggle with the right- in, right-out again, but I don't know-- you know, I mean if-- if somebody wants to, you know, go the way that Kurt had talked a little bit in here as far as, you know, recommending to Council that they -- they not allow the DA modification to go above the -- you know, the density that's -- that's in that existing agreement and that's -- that's perfectly -- you know, that's something that can be considered in the -- in the motion that you make. I mean for me it's -- you know, housing and population. You know, again, I -- if we limit these to two stories, instead of three, I think we get an additional building. If we try -- you know, if we try to scale it back, then, you know, it might just make this to where it's a very, very cramped location to live, where I think they -- you know, the -- the parking is close, but I can see that there is, you know, pretty adequate parking that's provided here. I mean they are not the only concern that I have, you know. Really, with the right-in, right-out is the -- you know, the -- where they show the giant trees right there by Locust Grove. It would be nice to have that wide open, nothing inhibiting your view of the traffic that's going to be coming your way. But other than that I -- you know, in-fill is tough. This is a really, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 33 of 55 really -- this is a really tough piece of property right here, so I -- I'm not seeing anything that makes me, you know, really adamant about denying it and I just know that we have had stuff come in after we recommended denial, it gets denied, and, then, the next thing that comes in is like, boy, I wish we could have that project back, so that's -- that's where I'm at on it. I mean I'm -- I could definitely see it going to Council. Grace: Mr. Chairman? Seal: Yes, sir. Grace: In sketching out a little bit of emotion here, I --just drawing upon maybe some of your experience, is it -- are we just punting to the Council, which I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate, if we said, well, give that some thought, consider it, or should we say you should or shouldn't accept that density in the -- in the development agreement? So, just based on some of your experience. Because the way it kind of reads now is that they -- they should consider a lower density and -- but I don't know if that's helpful to them. Seal: And that's -- you know, again, if -- whoever makes the motion, if you feel strongly about the density piece of it I would definitely recommend that's -- again, that's not in our purview to approve or disapprove, but we are a recommending body to Council. So, that can go into the motion if-- if somebody feels -- you know, if you feel strongly about it, then -- then we are going to vote on it and see if everybody else does and, if not, then, we will see where we go again. Grace: Mr. Chairman, I would be ready to make a motion, but I don't want to jump in front of anyone else if there is further discussion to be had. Seal: Anyone else? Smith: Okay. I just have a quick -- quick -- two quick procedural questions. I guess one quick procedural question. Seal: Go ahead. Smith: And this is more of just kind of trying to fine tune some things. But there are two requests in this -- in this file number and the question is around -- is there any possibility to like divide the question or is there any willingness to do so and how that might impact, for example, approving the CUP, but denying -- but requesting a denial on the development agreement modification. Is that doable? Is that reasonable? Is that desired at all? Seal: Well, I was going to say, I know Kurt was reaching for his microphone there, because -- but -- but I -- but I almost have an answer to this, but I will -- I will take a crack at it and you tell me how wrong I am. But I -- I think if we went that route -- number one, I don't know if it's something that we can do as part of process, but, number two, if we approve the CUP, the conditional use permit, but, then, recommend a denial on what the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 34 of 55 entitlement is based on, I think that would probably put us in a legal bind, to be perfectly honest. But -- is that -- and, Kurt, feel free to jump in and correct me. Starman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I think -- I will just say in general on this issue or other issues that, you know, the Commission can take -- take issues individually in terms of, you know, a motion on topic A, then topic B. In this instance I would recommend that you not do that for a couple reasons. One is really if you look at -- at our code, the Commission is not really a recommending body with respect to development agreements, it's actually the department director that recommends to the -- to the City Council. The reason it's in the discussion today, however, is because it sort of goes hand in glove with the CUP discussion. It's almost impossible to separate them. So, I think, you know, to the extent the Commission entertains a motion later that discusses the development agreement or the proposed modification to the development agreement, that would make some sense, because it's so closely interwoven with the CUP itself. But to try to break them apart I think wouldn't make as much sense, because, really, this body is not the recommending body with respect to modifications to development agreements. Does that makes sense? So, that would be a thought there. And, then, secondly, I -- along the lines of Chairman Seal, it does seem -- it would seem odd I think in the sense counterintuitive, I guess, to recommend approval for the CUP, knowing that, you know, the density is not a good fit for the Commission and you are not prepared to recommend that to the Council. It seems sort of Contradictory I guess in the sense that they -- they sort of cancel each other out. So, it seems to be inconsistent. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Smith: Thank you very much. Appreciate the -- Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could just kind of tag onto Kurt's comments, too. Keep in mind we just amended the ordinance that when a CUP accompanies a DA mod you are a recommending body at that point. So, it -- it has to go up to -- you can't -- we shouldn't bifurcate -- to Kurt's point, we shouldn't bifurcate the application and looking at the development agreement in the staff report, it says they are allowed to develop up to 40 dwellings to the acre in it and so they have -- to Kurt's point -- and this really is more of a development agreement issue, more than whether or not you are making a finding it's consistent with the comp plan or not, it -- again, they are allowed to build up to 40 units to the acre currently and, then, with the modification and tying them to this site plan, it's, essentially, saying you are -- you are going to develop 25 units to the acre based on what they are proposing now. So, Council will have to look at that and determine whether or not they will allow that or not as part of that DA modification. Just wanted to clarify that, too. So, very good points tonight. It -- it is, again, a very, very odd situation that we are in this evening with this type of project where you have so many moving parts -- essentially, what, almost 30 years later or whatever. I mean it's -- it's -- it's mind boggling to me how we are here doing this, but it does get tricky when zoning gets in place and that's why when we do all of our training with you we try to make it very clear to you that zoning really kind of does trump comp plan and this is one of those cases where we have not only a DA and we have zoning in place, so we can have two -- two Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 35 of 55 things that we have to be very cognizant of as we deliberate on these types of applications. Seal: Okay. Thanks, Bill. Thanks, Kurt. This is a good one this evening. I have learned a lot. Is there anymore discussion? Would anybody like to throw out a motion? Always happy to hear those. Grace: Mr. Chairman, you are looking at me, so I -- Seal: Commissioner Grace, go right ahead. I wasn't trying to stare you down specifically. Grace: And I invite anyone if -- if you feel like I get the -- the wording wrong on this to -- to correct me and we can -- we can redo it. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2022- 0073 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2023, with the following additional recommendations: One, that the applicant work to ensure adequate fencing around the entire property. Two. That the applicant work to ensure the appropriate placement of the trash receptacles. And, three, that a recommendation to City Council consider a low -- a lower allowable density in the development agreement. Seal: Do I have a second? Rivera: Second it. Seal: Okay. It has been moved and seconded -- Parsons: Mr. Chair? Sorry. Before you -- Seal: Oh. Go ahead. Parsons: -- deliberate -- didn't mean to inject. Now, I like -- I like the last part of that motion. I think -- but when you say consider a different density, are you saying that aligns with the current comp plan designation or do you want to put a number on it or do you just want to leave it open-ended? Typically we like specifics -- specifics I guess. Grace: Yeah. Parsons: Again, more -- they are allowed to do 40 dwellings to the acre. The plan is 25. Comp plan says 15. So, again, if it's your intention to have Council deliberate on something else, I will defer to Kurt, too, if he has any comments, but, again, to me tie it to something. Don't leave it arbitrary. Just think about density. Well, what -- what do you want Council to look at? That 15 is appropriate? Is -- what's the number for the body here? I don't know. Grace: Well, Mr. Chairman and Bill, I guess I was -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 36 of 55 Parsons: So, if Kurt even wants them to go that specific or not, but just -- just want to make sure Council knows what they are -- Grace: Yeah. Parsons: -- referring to. Grace: No. Thank you for that. That's --that's a good point and that's why I sort of asked a question are we just punting if we say, well, consider this. Seal: Right. And the only feedback I will give on that is that I -- I think if you attributed the comment to the original development agreement, maybe have -- look at density closer to the original development -- development agreement and that way it's -- it's understood. And -- and there is -- I mean there is a timing issue here, you know what I mean? In 1999 1 was still young. So, it's been a while. So, you know, I mean we -- we do have a long spans of time here. So, that is -- that is definitely going to play into it. So, again, that's the only advice I would give on that. Grace: Mr. Chairman, what if I modified my third recommendation to say that it's a recommendation to -- to -- to Council to consider a lower allowable density more in conformity with the original -- Seal: DA? Grace: -- DA. When City Council considers the -- I guess the -- a modification to the development agreement that's currently on -- on this. Seal: Does the second still stand? Rivera: Yeah. I will second. Seal: Okay. All right. Look around, making sure here. So, it has been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2022-0073 for Meridian OZ Apartments, with the afore- mentioned modifications and suggestions. All in favor say aye. Lorcher: Nay. Seal: I hadn't even called for nay, but thank you. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. Seal: All right. Thank you all very much. Delgato: Thank you. Grace: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 37 of 55 Seal: Yes, sir. Grace: Would it be appropriate for a bio break? Seal: Absolutely. We will be back in about five minutes. We will take a quick bio break. Thank you. (Recess: 8:02 p.m. to 8:09 p.m.) 8. Public Hearing for Millwood Subdivision (H-2022-0089) by Epic Development, located at 1975 E. Victory Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 4.11 acres of land with a R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 17 building lots (including 1 for the existing home) and 2 common lots on 4.11 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Seal: All right, we are back. Now I would like to open the public hearing for item number H-2022-0089 for the Millwood Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item on the agenda tonight is the Millwood Subdivision. The request is for annexation and preliminary plat. The -- the site consists of 4.11 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at a physical property address at 1975 East Victory Road. As you can see here in the existing aerial map, there is an existing residence that is currently developed on this site and it was approved through the county. I would also mention to the Commission that this property does not have any street -- public street frontage or access. It has access, but no public street frontage to this property. They actually take access across somebody else's property through an access agreement and it ties into Victory Road and that will be part of the presentation tonight. But just wanted to make you aware of that unusual circumstance when you have a -- don't want to say it's landlocked, but when you go to further intensify or further develop a property we have to make sure that we have adequate street frontage. So, that you can also see here that the future land use map designates this property as medium density residential, in which we anticipate residential densities between three and eight dwelling units to the acre. So, as I mentioned to you, the annexation is going to be a little bit larger than the plat square footage, just because we require legal descriptions to go to the center line of the adjacent Eight Mile Lateral that runs along kind of the northwest portion of the project and, then, dives down along the east side as well. This -- the applicant is here tonight to discuss with you -- or, excuse me, I should say they are here to develop the site with a seven lot -- or 17 lot subdivision and four common lots. One -- again, one of -- the existing home will stay on one of the lots, so they are actually proposing to construct 16 new residential units on this particular property. There is also two common driveways that are proposed as part of the plat as well. Just like the -- the earlier residential subdivision, this -- this evening this property's access is contingent on the adjacent property to the west, the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 38 of 55 Teakwood Subdivision that was approved. I have -- I did go drive by this site -- not recently, but I know that that construction -- that first phase of construction for that development is underway. So, I anticipate -- in this particular case they are a little bit farther along than the first project tonight. So, we do anticipate the public street frontage to be there sooner, rather than later. The other interesting part about this, if you had a chance to look at the ACHD staff report, is ACHD's actually requiring this segment of local street to be dedicated, but they are only requiring them to construct it to the intersection and this would just, again, be dedicated, but not constructed, because that way when the adjacent properties to the east redevelop and that road is extended, it allows that construction to happen more easily or alignments to happen without having to rip out existing roadways. So, it's unusual for me to -- at least for staff to see them to say dedicate, but don't construct. So, I just at least wanted to point out that nuance to you. So, essentially, the -- all of this cul-de-sac and everything will be built and just this will be left out and constructed at such time as the road is -- is extended in the future with the adjacent property. You can also see here how it ties in with the adjacent subdivision to the west, the Teakwood Subdivision. So, you can see how this is going to work. And, then, as I mentioned to you that current access that serves the existing home now, that will remain intact as an emergency access only. So, the applicant will have to build a 20 foot fire lane here and, then, bollard it, so no one can use that roadway and impact the adjacent property owner. So, I just want to be very clear on that and that is a provision in the development agreement that that is only to serve as an emergency access until such time as that road is extended and we get that -- that network created in the area. So, just FYI on that as well. Again, the existing home currently has an address to Victory. When we keep existing residences we have to make sure that the existing structures meet our R-8 dimensional standards. They hook up to city utilities when they become available and also the residents -- or future owners will also get a new address. So, they will no longer have a Victory Road address, they actually will have to get it--they will be assigned a new address once this -- the subdivision records and the street names have been approved. So, that's a lot of work to keep an existing residence as part of a development, just for your information on that. I would also mention to you in the staff report staff wanted additional transitioning to occur along the south boundary. So, we are recommending that they lose one -- one lot. It looks like Sonya has recommended that one last one be removed between Lot 6 and 8 and, then, one lot -- another lot is removed along the south boundary between Lots 11 and 14. So, this density could slightly decrease from the 4.14, probably into the three -- 3.7 range or so, if I had to guess on that. I already touched on access for you. Because the site is below five acres in size and the site -- in size, excuse me, they are not required to have any open space. However, the applicant is proposing -- I was hoping we had something in here -- a color graphic for you, but you can see here there is open space planned, so up here in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the Eight Mile Lateral there is a common lot. The applicant is working with the city to extend a multi-use pathway for our master -- master pathway plan. So, they will work with Parks Department on that. Where trans -- when it transcends through the site -- traverses through the site it will eventually cross in the location of where this bridge currently exists and, then, go -- transition to the other side of the creek. So, this portion - - segment of the pathway does cross through Teakwood. This site crosses the Eight Mile Lateral, goes on the east side of the creek and, then, ties into Tuscany in a future date Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 39 of 55 when that property to the east develops, just to let you know. You -- you probably see this graphic here that the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation district has a fee simple lot adjacent to this property, so that's why you see it on this graphic, but it's not part of the -- the plat itself, because it's not the applicant's property to control or include it as part of a -- a lot and block in the subdivision. The applicant did provide some sample home elevations for you to look at. Again, pretty consistent to what's already occurring in the area. So, again, staff is supportive of -- we like the mix of materials on it as well. Looking at the public record it looks like we did receive some public testimony on this from the represent -- a representative from the Tradewinds HOA, which is one subdivision west of Teakwood Place. So, there -- that subdivision located on the southeast corner of Locust Grove and Amity. Or Victory. Excuse me. They are concerned about the amount of traffic that's going to be generated, especially with the road construction starting in the area with the widening of Locust Grove and the roundabout extension at the intersection. So, with that -- oh. Staff is also -- if you had a look at your hearing outline, we are recommending that two conditions of approval be added to include it in your motion this evening and those are on the hearing outline. So, it looks like we want to make sure that no road construction traffic is using that existing access on Victory Road. It needs to come from the adjacent subdivision. So, we would like that added either in the conditions of approval -- more than likely the development agreement would be my preference, so that it's part of that contract and, then, it looks like we want -- it looks like we got some revised common drive exhibits and we want to make sure to amend the plat so it's consistent with the new configuration of those common driveways. So, with that staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you may have. Seal: Real quick, Bill. Just the -- the conditions that you talked about are documented and -- with staff comments in the public record; correct? Parsons: That is correct. Seal: Okay. That will -- that will be helpful when making a motion. All right. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Good evening, sir. Need your name and address for the record, please. Lakey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Todd Lakey with Borton Lakey Law. Address 141 East Carlton Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Thank you, Bill. Let me make sure I can up and down this. Okay. Good. Well, I will start out, Commissioners, by thanking staff for their analysis and their recommendation of approval. We appreciate that and -- and agree with the large majority of the conditions. I will mention a couple that we would like to see differently, if possible. And, then, we do have our civil engineer online if you really dig into the plat and have some questions outside the lawyer zone and -- or in the engineer zone. So, Commissioners, I want to emphasize -- Bill did a good job talking about this. The Comprehensive Plan does call this out for medium density. It is an in-fill project and that medium density is three to eight dwelling units per acre. We are at about 4.16 dwelling units per acre. So, we are at the low end. I know you have talked about density tonight being concerned sometimes and in this case we are at the low end. With that staff was recommending that we take a lot out on the southern boundary and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 40 of 55 on the western boundary. Our preference would -- would be and our ask would be to leave those in, knowing that we are at the low end of the density for the comp plan as it stands. So, it does meet with the comp plan. It is in-fill, which is encouraged and staff did a good job as far as goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. We are compatible with the existing zoning and there is a lot of R-4 and R-8 in the area of the project that's being developed. Teakwood is R-8 and we are consistent with that R-8 zoning. So, let's see if I can -- does the pointer move on this? There it goes. So, this is the Teakwood project to the immediate west. You can see the kind of lot configuration there in the red to the west of our site and, then, this is the most current county assessors map. You can see the road kind of being constructed there. My Google Map actually had the pavement in. I didn't go out there and drive on it, but I think they are further along. So, that's where we will be connecting. There are 33 lots on 7.4 acres, so their -- their density is 4.6. So, we are a little bit lower, again, at 4.1 on our site. And we will connect to that Teakwood and dedicate that right of way that Bill described that runs the connection to the east. Talk just a little bit about the landscape plan. There is a really nice home that's left on the property that will have its own lot at about three-quarters of an acre. It has a fair number of mature trees that we will be leaving a number of those mature trees on the project and those that we do take out we have to mitigate under the landscaping ordinance and we will do that with the new landscaping that's put in. You saw some of the homes, Commissioners. They are kind of diverse as far as the materials, the elevations. They do fit with what's in the area as Bill described. We would like to add one condition. In our discussions with the folks that live to the south, they requested that we not have two-story lots on those southern parcels and we are willing and ask that you add that condition of approval that we not have two-story homes on those southern lots. So, just to -- Bill covered this pretty well, but we will be dedicating that right of way to ACHD here and, then, if we do incorporate landscape, then, we will have that license agreement with ACHD and they also want a sign that says this road to be extended. I have seen lots of friends live in subdivisions that has a nice -- you know, a nice kind of stop red and white sign and for some reason they don't think that that road might be extended in the future, so there will be a sign to that effect. The pathway -- or excuse me. Before I talk about the pathway -- the emergency access -- there will be that 20 foot wide emergency vehicle access for the fire district -- or excuse me -- Fire Department requirements. That will connect in with the existing driveway to that bridge that goes over the Eight Mile Canal and, then, out to Victory and I think the requirement in the staff report was to put the bollards about 30 feet back from Victory to make sure that there aren't cars coming in and out onto that Victory entrance. And that fire district access is next to the -- the common area open space -- one of our common areas and open space to the north of that access. And, then, the pathway will run on the northern portion of the property there along the canal. We stay out of the canal easement. They were concerned about that. We don't want to harm them and their operations. That pathway will be a ten foot with landscaping on either side, five foot of landscape on either side and, then, it stops -- this is at the city's request. They are, essentially, at that fire district--or excuse me --fire department access and the bridge and, then, the city does not require a pathway going further, because that's the terminus of the pathway. So, that can be incorporated into those lots that are there on that eastern boundary. Fencing on the pathway will be four foot open view fencing and, then, six foot privacy fencing around the perimeter of the project. There was a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 41 of 55 request in the staff report regarding that bridge that goes over the canal, to either widen that bridge or install a separate pedestrian path bridge adjacent to that. Our preference would be not to do that. It can be a little challenging to get permission to have a bridge across an irrigation facility, but that bridge will now -- no longer be used for regular traffic coming and going, it will simply be for emergency vehicle use. So, it would -- when it's ultimately used, very open, very unused and I think could accommodate continuation of that pathway without any further improvement or widening. Then I will note here are the common lots there that abut the project to the west and that's where the tot lot will be located. There was also a request in the staff report that we not include the fencing on that one boundary and adjacent to the Teakwood Subdivision, so you kind of have open space between the two projects and we are amenable to that. Happy to do that. Not include the fencing along that boundary. And, then, just for your reference, the existing home -- the driveway access there will remain in place, but the access for that lot itself will go along the top of the lot there. That's how they will connect into the -- the road. So, with that, Commissioners, again, we ask that we would -- we not lose those two lots on those two sides based on our low end of the density and the Comprehensive Plan and that the bridge remain as is. With that, Commissioners, I would be happy to answer any questions if you have them. Seal: Commissioners, do we have any questions, comments for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Grace, go ahead. Grace: Mr. Chairman, I -- maybe this is for staff or maybe it's for the applicant. In the report it simply says that they are -- they are recommending one lot be removed for better transition to abutting future lots. Is -- can you -- can they -- can you explain or can staff explain what--what's meant by that? Because I -- I do feel like they are under the density and I'm -- I'm questioning why -- why we are -- why that recommendation was there, so - Lakey: I can respond and, then, let Bill respond. I think part of the thought was -- our lots are going to be a little bit smaller, because we have that larger lot with the existing home on it, but our density, again, is in conformance. We have a project that's slightly more dense than we are to the west. No request or comments from those folks to the west to eliminate a lot there. So, I think that was kind of the -- the basis is to have larger lots, but, again, we focused on that density being in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Grace: Yeah. I mean I feel like this is hard enough to make -- probably maximize your -- so -- but I guess I -- yeah, I would be questioning why we are doing that. Seal: I was going to say -- Bill, do you mind if I comment on this one? Parsons: I think -- I think the applicant did a great job. I think that's right where staff was -- was landing on it. It's just compatibility with the -- the perimeter lots and make that a little better. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 42 of 55 Seal: Yeah. Part of this, too, is you have one building on one huge lot, so if you took the density -- if you took all the remaining property and took that one out of it, that skews it, so-- and we have heard that argument before and that is correct. But there is no provision for it really. But, again, the Comprehensive Plan is not code, so -- I mean that's kind of for us to determine. But that -- that's one of the things that I see in -- in applications like this and I know in-fill is hard. I know people want to stay living in their house on a giant piece of land, you know, that doesn't transition very well with the -- with the land around it. So, yeah, you know, I'm -- I'm not Sonya and I wouldn't pretend to be a city planner, but I can see that, you know, in order to help with the transition with that one big lot some of the lot -- you know, if you increase the lot size across the other ones and made that more compatible with what's adjacent to it, that would be a better fit for the plan overall. That's the way I have come to look at it, just through listening to other Commissioners and some of the feedback that we have had on other applications that look very similar to this. Lakey: If I might just expand a little more, Mr. Chairman. Seal: Sure. Lakey: Appreciate those comments and I guess the fact that we haven't had the adjacent developer say they -- they would like a transition or need some smaller lots on that western boundary -- I would think normally the -- the adjacent property owner might be the one that would drive that transition if there was a particular need and, then, our request from those folks to the south was really just not to have two-story houses on that southern boundary. So, we are trying to be responsive to them and address that concern. Seal: Commissioner Lorcher? Lorcher: Mr. Lakey, in regard to the common drive, is that going to be available for people to be able to park on it or is it just for access for those -- Lot 7 through -- 4 through 7? Four through -- yeah. Four through six. Lakey: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Lorcher, I'm not sure with that -- with -- I don't think -- and maybe Bill can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's designed to be parked on. So, it's - - it's a drive aisle to be used by those lots. Parking would be in their driveways and their garages. Lorcher: Thank you. Grace: Sorry. Seal: Go right ahead. Grace: I had this in my mind, but I -- I forgot the answer -- ask it. But, Mr. Lakey, so what -- I would tend to agree with you it's probably not easy putting bridges over canals. But what -- can you expound what -- what's involved in that? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 43 of 55 Lakey: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Grace, so that would require a license agreement with the Nampa Irrigation -- Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Company and I have worked with them on various things in the past, they are very protective of their easements and don't like to see things under or over them, unless absolutely necessary and in this case, you know, the -- the -- the bridge is there, it's -- it supported vehicular traffic to the home. It supports the emergency access traffic. We just don't feel that there is a need to pursue further approvals from the district when we have a bridge that will be rarely used by vehicles and now in the future it would be easily used by -- by those when the pathway is ultimately connected, because it will be simply emergency vehicles. You can see a fire truck coming with its lights on and -- and not have any concerns about conflict with pedestrian and use. Grace: Thank you. Parsons: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can certainly elaborate on this topic a little bit more, because I'm right in the middle of one of these situations right now and I'm being educated on the process and so it's -- the -- the -- what the Parks Department wants is to make sure that any pedestrian facility that we have it mimics the width of the pathway. So, if that road is wider than ten feet -- at least ten feet or more -- or wider, then, we are good. If it were under that ten feet, then, we would certainly want them to build a new bridge to match the width of the pathway and, then, design it as such that it maintains pedestrian safety. Now, the other piece of that is, one, the irrigation district -- to the applicant's point, the irrigation district requires a license agreement, but there is also a step two process where they will only allow the bridge if it's assumed and owned by the city and so they don't want to take responsibility for it. So, once a bridge is constructed and meets the specifications of the city, then, we have to go back to City Council -- the applicant fills out the paperwork, transfers that asset to us and we put it on the City Council's agenda and they approve it and I'm in a situation right now where the applicant wants to put an eight foot wide cargo container as a pedestrian bridge and we are telling them we can't take ownership of that, because we want it a minimum ten feet wide. So, that's how I'm getting involved and learning the process that bridges are okay, they have to have rails, be designed a certain way to meet the specs, which we don't have specs, we have things we like to aspire to, so the condition was really mean to say we just want you to have a ten foot wide bridge and so I think the -- the existing bridge -- as long as the language that it's converted to meet the city's requirement -- meaning rails or some -- whatever we have to do to make sure there is safety rails on it, so you don't jump off -- off the bridge, although kids will do -- kids will be kids. I mean -- but minimize those concerns, still have a certain esthetic. Maybe the applicant as we transition from this body to City Council can maybe give us some renderings or something of what the bridge looks like now and, then, how we can maybe retro-fit it or use it in the future for a ped bridge and at least we can have something in a development agreement or have something on record as to what the expectation is for -- for that conversion. Lakey: Mr. Chairman, I think we can do that -- do a little more. I can't tell you and I don't know if my clients know exactly how wide the bridge is -- ten feet? Twenty? Oh. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 44 of 55 Nineteen. Okay. So, we are well -- 19, 20, pick your number, we are well over the ten foot when it comes to the bridge. So, I don't know that there is a -- a need for a condition there, but it sounds like as long as we can understand we can use that existing bridge when the time comes down the road, that -- that would be fine. Seal: Okay. Yeah. That -- a question I was going to throw out on the bridge was what would be needed in order to transition it from vehicular to pedestrian, you know, bike access, so -- I mean a vehicle can go across a bridge and it will go across it no big deal and you get people walking across it or biking across it, it's a little bit different situation. So, you want to make sure it's something that can be applicable for the traffic that it would need to bear now and in the future, so -- Lakey: That makes sense, Mr. Chairman. We would certainly want to maintain its ability, if that is the -- it depends on how development goes right down the road and what --what else is there for secondary access, but as long as that secondary access is still needed we want to make sure it's still usable by those emergency vehicles and appropriate, as you mentioned, for pedestrian use. Lorcher: One other -- Seal: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: One other comment. Where you have the tot lot between Lot 5 and Lot 9, that seems like -- so, as a commission we have found that common driveways can be problematic in our city. Even though there is parking on it, they share the -- they share the driveway, but all the garbage cans need to go out to the cul-de-sac. So, Lot 4 would have to bring everything out all the way through, because I don't know if the -- who ever the recycling and garbage people will go down, they can't turn around, they have to back up. So, you have got, you know, a quarter of your cul-de-sac that's actually a perfect -- I don't know about size, but would be its own driveway and you can eliminate one of the -- one of the lots along the common drive to be able to kind of mitigate some of that potential issues among neighbors when it comes to sharing a common driveway. Would that be something under consideration? Lakey: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Lorcher, I just want to make sure -- I think we are seeing this the same. So, the tot lot is here. This is an additional common lot here. So, it's not -- that one isn't a residential lot. I'm not sure if that's what you were describing. And, then, that would be the pathway and the open area adjacent to the open area in the Teakwood. So, they are -- those are both common lots there. Lorcher: They are both common lots. So, half of your -- almost half of your cul-de-sac is not designated to housing, but common lots; is that right? Lakey: Yep. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 45 of 55 Lorcher: And have you and the developers discussed the placement of those two as opposed to houses right there? Lakey: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Lorcher, I think we located that adjacent to the common area for Teakwood to have that kind of commonality, but we haven't really talked about making one of those a residential lot. I can ask about that if you would like. Lorcher: Well, on the other side of this pathway when you go over to Teakwood, is that the open space as well? Lakey: I believe that from -- not -- I haven't seen it, but from staff's description the fact that they want us to take the fence out, the Teakwood's common lot is in that location as well to help share that open space. Lorcher: Okay. All right. Thank you. Seal: Commissioners, anymore questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Thank you very much. Lakey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Seal: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up testify? Hall: We do. Mary DeChambeau. Seal: Good evening, ma'am. We will just need your name and address for the record, please. DeChambeau: Mary DeChambeau. I live at 2015 East Victory Road and I am the farm. The big -- big little arrow -- we call it the arrow. I could have answered a lot of those questions. This --this has been an --an interesting 20 years. I have debated and debated to tell you my -- my story and I'm kind of glad there is not very many people here. The level of intimidation that I have experienced for 20 years from various developers and neighbors has been atrocious, but we are not here -- we are here to talk about this, but had been encouraged by the Ada county code officer to tell you some of the stuff that has gone on. It has a lot to do with the access road. What they are not telling you is this lot up here -- yeah, it was approved, but the conditions of approval were never met for that road. So, there is an easement, but the conditions of approval for that road were never finished and I have been into Ada county developer services through the years and they just kind of don't do anything. So, let's talk about that the bridge is 19 feet. One of the reasons why I don't want access off my piece of property is because it's 30 feet with the utilities inside the easement road. Okay. And the bridge has only had to be 19 if you are scraping the sides. Okay. I measured it. They -- there is -- they want another road to butt out onto my parcel. Even though I have the larger parcel, the parcel that's next to it is barely -- I think it's under to two acres. It's not even, because of the easement road. So, now they want to bring another road out called Richardson. But if you go back there Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 46 of 55 it's actually called Spring Glory or something like that and if I had time I would tell you the reason why they wanted to change that name, but all of a sudden now it's called Richardson. I don't know if you are aware that Nampa-Meridian and I have been in talks about this very thing and they said that they -- they had no idea about all these bridges that they want to put up along this whole section. So, from Tuscany to Victory, if you put all these bridges in, there is going to be four bridges within a half mile on the Eight Mile. Okay. And how it's -- they want me to put a bridge to meet the road that they are building out, the Richardson Road you see the stub. That's why they don't know really what to do with it, because here is the deal. Nampa-Meridian has easements to other people's real property. Okay. But in 1910 when they split and -- am I supposed to stop or what? Seal: Well, keep going, but you will need to wrap up pretty soon, please. DeChambeau: Well, I'm actually speaking for four other -- three other owners, too. Seal: Okay. DeChambeau: So, anyway, they -- they actually own that parcel. So, there is actually a parcel between this subdivision that they are putting in, then, there is the Nampa-Meridian parcel and, then, there is my parcel. Okay. So, this is where it gets tricky. There is an Idaho statute law that says if Parcel A has an easement through it and it connects to Parcel B, they cannot piggyback to Parcel C. That's something they are not telling you. The other thing is we have been -- our -- there was conditions of approval that were put on -- or conditions on that 1975 lot and one of them was -- was the height of the buildings that could be built back there and when -- a resident of 1975 when they were building the houses back on Tuscany, he went back there and threw a fit. He wouldn't let them get their houses high, because there was restrictions in that area. Now, I don't know if that follows through, because I was not being annexed in. I'm still rural transition. Okay. So, I don't know how this works. Okay. So, the other thing is -- so, Nampa-Meridian is kind of surprised about all these bridges and, yeah, he is right, you don't want -- I don't want to have anything to do with building on anything Nampa-Meridian actually owns. That was sold -- you know, because usually they just do -- it's called a fee -- fee thing and it's very rare, but there is a few stretches -- well, when they went and brought the canal through the -- in the 1910s, there was a few landowners that said, no, you are going to buy my little strip. We are not going to just give you an easement. You have to buy it and that's -- this is one of the ones. And, then, it runs into my piece of property. Okay. So, let's talk about the pathway -- they are running it alongside, but they want to come and have it go over the bridge, which is going to run into a little area where my headgate is and where my irrigator and all of us kind of work and they --then they want it to continue south on the east side of the canal, which is the Eight Mile, and to Tuscany. Okay. But we are still farming. I still have a headgate. I have had trouble in the past with kids opening my headgate and the reason they don't want to continue it on the backside of their eastern border on the south eastern corner is because I own a long strip along there. Okay. And Tuscany--we actually own that corner. If you look at the back part of Tuscany you can kind of see where there is a corner that we -- our part -- if you draw a corner from my acreage you can kind of see where they used to -- you could see where it would even Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 47 of 55 out to a corner. We sold that to Tuscany for the purpose of -- well, yeah, you could put a pathway back there. What did they do? They dug a hole. There is a pond back there. And so they -- you know, because I actually had seen the plans. I have a plan thing here from way back almost -- let's see. 1998. And I -- I think this was printed in 2000 and the very plans that you are being presented tonight for these guys is on here. Over 25 years. And the reason why I'm a little -- bringing this up is because when Tuscany went in they had on here one out on the back of my property. Okay. But now I had to put in three. I'm sorry. Three of them and so I have always asked the City of Meridian why didn't you put an out in the back of Tuscany. This would have solved everybody's property -- problems and any of the terrorism that I have had to experience wouldn't have happened. I have been attacked by walking on my property. I have -- they sprayed me with water while I was checking ditches. Now, these gentlemen have bought it from the two that did all that stuff. Okay. But it went on for six years. Now, you are talking about a pathway and we are talking about that other lady and the safety about the little drainage thing. Well, I happen to know -- I'm surrounded completely. Okay. And I can't tell you how many households have taken the bolt off those black and -- you know, what do you call those fences? And they take them off and Tuscany is really notorious for doing that, because this house was the party house and they would take it off along that canal at night and, then, they would walk around and go into 1975. So, my question to you is why don't they approach Tuscany and have them shave down a little area and continue that pathway on this -- on their subdivision and continue it on down? You can't put it on my piece of property, because I own that little sliver. Now, here is the sad thing about it. If Ada county hadn't decided to throw me in jail while I was on that I might have like maybe donated it or maybe sold it for ten bucks or something. So, they could have continued the pathway. But, you know, when you get falsely arrested over and over again for being on your property, because simply you don't want to sell, you know, it's just gotten out of hand and I'm very concerned, so what -- Seal: Ma'am, we will need to wrap it up. DeChambeau: Okay. Well, Kevin Horan said he wanted me to tell you that this is a potential spillway situation. Do you know what I'm referring to? The spillway situation where it went -- litigation went on for years and years and years because of all the trespassers. So, the pathway, by bringing it back over on mine -- you know, these people here have no open space, no free thing. They are going to have to walk around and do something -- and let me just tell you they are going to be falling in that canal unless we figure out fences. There is just a lot of things in here that I have questions about that I haven't had time to really even look at. You know, I have been -- I want you to know that I have really looked at all this stuff. Okay. But it just didn't get posted until last week and so there is a lot of contingents. The other thing about the -- the -- the use of the access for the fire engine -- he put in all the fire codes, but he left out one. I thought that was interesting. It's Section B is obstacles and you can't have power lines crossing a fire access road and not only does it have power lines running all the way down my access road, they also call a -- cross on the front and on the back. So, here is the thing, if you have Parcel A with an easement and it moves to Parcel B, it serves Parcel B. Idaho statute is that it cannot connect to Parcel C. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 48 of 55 Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have anybody else signed up? Hall: We have a hand raised online. Seal: Okay. Hall: Vicki, you can speak now. Vicki, can you hear me? Vicki, can you unmute your -- your mic? One last time. Vicki, can you unmute, please? It's your turn to speak. Seal: Well -- Hall: I have no one else signed up, Mr. Chair. Seal: Okay. Anybody else? One other person in here. So, unfortunately, Vicki, we are not able to hear you. So, we are going to go ahead and move on. Is there any other questions for the applicant or staff? Would the applicant like to come back up? Lakey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Again for the record Todd Lakey. 141 East Carlton Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Commissioners, we meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. We are compatible with the existing zoning. We are at a lower density as was described in our adjacent and other -- the project adjacent to us. We are at the low end of that density. I think we have kind of discussed our requests regarding the two lots and the bridge I think with sufficient description of how that would work. We are okay with that. That can be utilized for that. Commissioners, can't really comment on past history or the lady's criminal history or interaction. I can simply say my clients have been gentlemen in regards to their proposal. The reason we aren't using that access that exists now is it's -- it's an access that wouldn't be appropriate for us to utilize for the subdivision. We would be, essentially, intensifying that use and so we are tying into the adjacent subdivision as typically required by the city and the stub road to the east is required by ACHD and the city's planning. I can't really comment about the other bridges along Eight Mile, but when -- when we are talking about they or who wants those, it's part of the city's pathway plan and we are incorporating the desired pathway on our-- our property and it won't proceed beyond that until development occurs on -- on either end of that by those that are developing that property or property to the east if that happens at some point. We --as was discussed, we are incorporating fencing. We are incorporating open space as was previously described. So, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I would ask for your approval. Again I would be happy to answer questions if you have them. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Questions? Mr. Smith? No? Smith: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 49 of 55 Smith: I do have a question kind of piggybacking on Commissioner Lorcher -- Lorcher's question about the common lots and you said that that wasn't something that was discussed, but I guess in thinking about it the -- really, the -- the main thing that I don't love about this, kind of as you mentioned, is that, really, that lack of frontage next to that common drive for things like trash bins, et cetera. It's -- having been near some of these -- live near some of these, I have seen ones that are fine, seem to be great and some that are crammed and packed and there is not really any area for a car maybe to park along kind of the adjacent areas because of that -- that kind of cramped frontage area. So, my question is -- comment and some question of just the consideration of repositioning those -- those -- one or both those common lots and I -- you probably don't have -- and maybe if you do have people who are willing to comment, but just -- I would love some clarification around how committed the position those common lots are and whether there is willingness to alter the -- the order of where those common lots are relative to the common drive to increase that frontage. Lakey: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Smith, so are we -- are we talking about these common lots? Smith: Yes. So, specifically talking about those common lots and mostly probably common lot five is what I would imagine, which is right below the pathway and kind of the ordering relative to say -- say lot seven and eight, you know, going from that common drive into the cul-de-sac there seems to be some frontage to the right or some -- some ability for people to access, for example --- and garbage -- garbage can is a perfect example and that's top of mind right now. Yeah. There is some space to the right, but it -- you know, I worry about congestion of -- you know, especially in a recycling week of, you know, garbage cans. You have four to five houses potentially using garbage cans, recycling cans all in that area with kind of minimal area to disperse and so just curious about the common lot theoretically. If you were to flip common lot five's position with lot seven, then, making adjustments for square footage, et cetera, and other code requirements what that might look like and if that's a consideration or if you are -- you know, you guys are married to the use of those common lots in those specific areas. Lakey: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Smith, I could take a moment and visit with my client, but if we -- are we talking -- are you talking about switching a residential lot in relation to one of those common lots? Smith: Theoretically as an option. I -- I am really just -- I guess I'm trying to drill down on potential solutions to that common drive issue that -- that we are talking about here and that's one of them that's just coming to mind of say switching lots, you know, making lot seven a common lot and lot five as, you know, a residential lot and that's -- I'm not a planner, so that's very spitball version of that, but yes. Lakey: I could visit with my clients, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Smith. I -- you know, I guess the way I look at it, if we are talking about putting more residential lots around the cul-de-sac, it seems like it would drive the garbage can issue to be more of a concern compared to having a common lot on that cul-de-sac. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 50 of 55 Smith: I'm specifically referencing the -- the common lot would still be used in the cul-de- sac, it would just be within the cul-de-sac adjacent to the common drive, rather than adjacent to the pathway specifically. Lakey: So, putting -- you are talking about putting the common lot over here next to the common drive? Smith: Yes. Say, for example, you were to swap lot seven and common lot five and to increase the street space available for residents of that common drive. Lakey: I'm not sure exactly how that -- Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Smith -- exactly how that lines up with the adjacent open space that we are trying to I guess maximize, but if you don't mind I could -- I could ask my client that if you would like. Smith: Yeah. It's not, you know, make or break, it's just, you know, that's -- it's something that Commissioner Lorcher is correct that I have seen it done well and I have seen it done not so well of sometimes these common drives, especially in cul-de-sacs or a long curves or driveways -- there is one near my house where I think it's not too great where there is -- especially when it's icy there seems to be serious risk of things are backed up in that corner and there is a lot of garbage bins and because of that parking is offset and it just becomes this really tight area and there is not a lot of space to maneuver. That's really the concern here and, again, not make or break, but I think there is -- I wonder if there is opportunity to improve that. And if you to consult if that's something you wanted to -- you know. Seal: If you don't mind I will jump in here a little bit. Usually I'm the person that's coming after you for common drives, so there is a -- there is a couple of things in play for me here with this particular application. So, one, you have the -- you know, you have the -- the existing lot that's there that opens up a lot of space to put anything in there. Two, there has already been a recommendation to reduce the lots by one on there. More than likely one of the lots that would be reduced is going to be along that common drive. There is also something that's becoming more prevalent in the neighborhoods and that is that they can actually pick up your garbage in a common lot. So, they will make it to where -- with an agreement -- and that was something that I was going to bring up is that basically that there should be an agreement with the trash collection company to pick those up in the common drive instead of having them out in -- in the cul-de-sac. So, I think there is a lot of different ways to solve the potential issues within this application right here. So, generally speaking, if there is, you know, five common drives in one application I'm vocal about it, but where there is one here and they have already been asked to reduce a lot, that's going to accommodate some of it. And, then, again, I think, you know, if that is an issue within the subdivision itself they can ask for common drive pickup. So, essentially, they put their trash cans out on the far side of the common drive and the trash truck backs in. It costs a little bit extra, but they can't accommodate it, so -- Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chair. One kind of follow up. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 51 of 55 Seal: Sure. Smith: So, the -- the spirit of that question, I'm trying to reduce some of these issues without potentially -- maybe preserving the amount of lots was the thought, but that, you know, if-- if reducing the lot -- the number of lots by one is kind of the -- the way that the winds are blowing that's -- that's totally fine as well. I think there is just -- it's just a little too much pressure in that corner. But that -- that information about the common lot is also very informative and helpful. Thank you. Seal: Okay. Lake: And, Mr. Chairman, if I might -- my light came on just as Commissioner -- light up here. Commissioner Smith was -- was finishing and, then, as you were commenting. One of the benefits of having this large lot here, the driveway access is up here at the top, so this is, essentially, a functional equivalent of like a common lot. With all of this open space we are not going to have additional access there from other lots. So, there is, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, quite a bit of room there that's not going to be used as it would for a typical residential lot in the cul-de-sac. So, thank you. Seal: Uh-huh. So -- Lorcher: Yeah. Mr. -- Rivera: One of the -- oh, sorry. Seal: Commissioner Rivera, go ahead. Rivera: Sorry. I just wanted to clarify that -- that that easement is between lot two and the -- and the existing lot -- I mean lot three that the entry is going to be over there. So, it's going to be pretty much fenced all along that -- that cul-de-sac on the -- on the lot three; correct? Lakey: I believe -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rivera, I believe that's correct. Seal: Commissioner Grace? Grace: Is the applicant being required to put those common lots in that spot, so that they can back up against future common lots? Lakey: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Grace, my clients indicate that that's not the case. We are not being required to put them in there. Grace: Okay. So, you are sort of doing it out of the good graces to -- yeah. They could put houses there. Okay. Thank you. Seal: Anything further, Commissioners? All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 52 of 55 Lakey: Thank you. Seal: And with that I will take a motion to close the public hearing for File No. H-2022- 0089 Millwood Subdivision. Smith: So moved. Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for File No. H-2022- 0089. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Okay. Conversation? Lorcher: I will start. Seal: Go right ahead. Lorcher: I actually like this one for once tonight, with one exception, and because we are not the deciding factor on annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, so that will be something you will have to take up with City Council -- is in my -- I'm starting my third year of experience here on the Commission. Common driveways are a problem. A problem for the residents, a problem for selling your product, a problem for utilities, a problem for garbage collection. Even if you have them all up on the side of the road, if I was in lot four at the end of that common driveway and once or twice a week garbage or whomever else is coming down and beeping back and forth or if Republic or Hardin forces you to put all the cans up in front, then, you have got ten possible cans all sitting at the entrance and you may have to, you know, swerve around just to get to your property, because the arms of those garbage trucks are going to leave them where ever they are going to leave them. So, it doesn't make very good neighbors. I have lived on a cul-de-sac in Parkside Creek and our driveways were all big enough to be able to accommodate cans in front of our own driveways. But, then, a common lot they are either stacked up against that wall like you suggested where the garbage cans have to come back in and out or they are possibly going to butt up against the farms parcel of the cul-de-sac and, then, you are going to have cans all over the place. So, I'm not sure if it's a safety issue, it's maybe more of an aesthetic, but in our experience here at the Commission we have found that common lots are -- or, excuse me, common driveways are problematic, especially when you have two lots -- and I understand it abuts possible common lots in another subdivision when you have ample portion of your cul-de-sac that you could have individual driveways not marrying -- marrying up to that common driveway, eliminating that, especially with -- if you were to eliminate one parcel. So, all I'm suggesting is when -- before you go to City Council you may want to consider how those common lots fit compared to the driveways on the common driveway. It's not enough for me to deny it. I guess whoever buys parcel four needs to know what they are getting into when they purchase that home on that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 53 of 55 common driveway. But overall I like the design and as long as all the code enforcements are met I feel for you with the farm, I have one of those as well, and I'm very familiar with Officer Horan and worked with him in the past and just be a good developer to a neighbor who has been there for a long time. Seal: Commissioner Grace? Grace: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of approval of this. I -- I actually feel like we are requiring several expensive modifications -- well, I mean I didn't hear for safety reasons or zoning reasons or -- I thought I heard more aesthetic or maybe just desirable type things. So, it sounds like the bridge may be resolvable, so that's -- that's good to know. But there is only -- it is kind of a little bit of a weird shaped property. There is not a lot of homes here relatively speaking to other things we have -- we have reviewed. I think that existing home does make it difficult. It takes up a lot of -- of the property and it's awkwardly shaped. The applicant's added common space where it wasn't required and the density is already on the lower end, so I'm in favor of it. Smith: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead. Smith: I agree. I think -- I think in a perfect world if you can make that larger lot on the south side and have more space everything's perfect, but I'm not here to make the perfect the enemy of the good and -- and I think this is -- this is still a good application. So, with that being said -- Seal: Well, I will -- if you don't mind, there is a few things that I want to make sure that we remember. The applicant did ask to condition that the south property -- that there are no two story homes. We want to include the additional staff comments -- or sorry. We want to include the additional staff recommendations. If you would like to, I think usually a reference -- verbiage is like something like work with staff on bridge dimensions and requirements, just to kind of keep it open and, you know, that doesn't put any requirements on it, other than they work with staff in order to make sure that everybody's in agreement on what the bridge should be, can be and will be in the future. Smith: Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Parsons: Commission -- Commissioners. Last item was -- if you -- if this body want -- doesn't support staff's recommendation for losing lots, then, that would be condition 2-A to strike. Seal: Okay. Smith: So, I believe I have everything and I'm happy to amend if I miss something. So, I move that we -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony and move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2022-0089 as presented in the staff Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 16,2023 Page 54 of 55 report for the hearing of date of -- hearing date of February 16th, 2023, with the following modifications: I would like to approve with the conditions in the staff report including the two additional staff recommendations. Striking the recommendation for losing lots. Adding a further condition of no two story homes on the southern face -- or the southern lots in the development. And, then, lastly, a request to work with staff on dimensions and requirements of the bridge. I believe that's all. Seal: Do I have a second? Grace: I will second that. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of File No. H-2022- 0089 Millwood Subdivision with the aforementioned modifications. All in favor, please, say aye. Opposed nay? Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: All right. Thank you very much. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: I motion we adjourn. Seal: Do I have a second? Grace: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? All right. We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:14 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN 3-2-2023 ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 3-2-2023 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the January 2,2023 Planning and Zoning Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 2,2023 Page 40 of41 Okay. I -- I will take one more motion, then, for the evening. Thank you very much. Wheeler: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go right ahead. Wheeler: I would like to make a motion we adjourn. Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor say aye. Motion carries. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:05 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN 2-16-2023 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 2-16-2023 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Conditional Use Permit for ESI Office Building (H-2023-0002) CITY OF MERIDIAN C� E IDIAN --- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND I D A H O DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum building height listed in UDC 11-2B-3A.3 of 65-feet to allow an average elevation of 84-feet with screen walls extending to 97-feet above grade for the ESI Office Building,Located at 1044 S. Silverstone Way in the C-G Zoning District,by BVA Development. Case No(s).H-2023-0002 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. February 2,2022 (Findings on February 16,2023) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2,2023, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2,2023, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2, 2023, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2, 2023, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). ESI OFFICE BUILDING CUP[H-2023-0002] Page 1 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of February 2,2023, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § I I- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2023, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). ESI OFFICE BUILDING CUP[H-2023-0002] Page 2 G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2,2023 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). ESI OFFICE BUILDING CUP[H-2023-0002] Page 3 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 16th day of February ,2023. COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER NATE WHEELER VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED COMMISSIONER MANDI STODDARD VOTED Andrew Seal, Chairman 2-16-2023 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 2-16-2023 Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 2-16-2023 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). ESI OFFICE BUILDING CUP[H-2023-0002] Page 4 EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING February2 2023 L=C M 1 Legend DATE: RU P Troject Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission �R�1�.� R-2 FROAM: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner BRUT R-1 C 208-884-5533 C-G SUBJECT: H-2023-0002 L-O A-1 ESI Office Building CUP RUT R-1 C OCATION: 1044 S. Silverstone Way, South of 84 halfway between Eagle Road and Rf1 R-1 RUT Cloverdale Road,in Section 16, C-G Township 3N.,Range IE. (Parcel C"=C C-2 #R7555000285) R-15 C-G R-15 R-1 B R-40 R-15 R'z8� Rail A I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum building height listed in UDC 11-2B-3A.3 of 65 feet for the C-G zoning district to allow an average elevation of 84 feet with screen walls extending to 97- feet above grade. A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 6.38 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use Under construction for an ESI Office Building CZC,DES A-2022-0118 Approved. Proposed Land Use(s) ESI Office Building Current Zoning General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Physical Features(waterways, NA hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date 1/17/2023 r History(previous approvals) AZ,PP,CUP,ALT(H-2021-0075, DA Inst.#2022- 026383;ROW Vacation(H-2022-0018);PBA-2022-0009; ESI Office Building CZC,DES,ALT(A-2022-0118) Page 1 EXHIBIT A II. APPLICANT/OWNER INFORMATION A. Applicant: Hallie Hart, BVA Development— 1144 S. Silverstone Way,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner: Thomas Ahlquist, BVA Development— 1144 S. Silverstone Way, Meridian ID 83642 C. Representative: Tonn Petersen,BVA Development—2775 W.Navigator Drive, Suite 220,Meridian,ID 83642 111. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Commission Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 1/18/2023 Notification mailed to property owners within 500 feet 1/13/2023 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 1/23/2023 Nextdoor posting 1/13/2023 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS This property is designated Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R)on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,including residential,and to avoid predominantly single-use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3D (pg. 3-17). This site is part of a much larger mixed-use designated area that contains a wide variety and mix of uses as desired in MU-R designated areas. The Applicant is currently developing the site with a commercial office building,which is a desired use in the MU-R designation. The proposed use is listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-2. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS A Conditional Use Permit is requested to exceed the maximum building height listed in UDC 11-2B- 3A.3 of 65 feet for the C-G zoning district to allow an average elevation of 84-feet with screen walls extending to 97-feet.See application narrative for more information. The original design of a 74-foot tall, 5-story, 145,000 square-foot office building with 372 new parking stalls were approved through CZC,Design Review, and Alternative Compliance(A-2022- 0118). To obtain Alternative Compliance through UDC 11-2B-3A.3 to add additional height,a minimum of 10%of building square footage open space was required and 15,346 square-feet was Page 2 EXHIBIT A provided as courtyards and usable outdoor space. The open space that was approved with CZC(A- 2022-0118)for Alternative Compliance exceeding the minimum landscaping requirements will remain with this application request. The Applicant is proposing"Office Building#4"at Eagle View Landing to be six(6) stories with approximately 29,000 square-feet of floor space per floor totaling 174,000 square-feet overall. The Applicant believes that the proposed height is compatible with other uses in the Vicinity. Building#5 is adjacent to Building#4 to the east,which has an overall building height of 74-feet with screen walls extending to 87-feet above grade. Top Golf is located directly to the west with poles and nets that extend approximately 156-feet in height above grade. The building footprint will remain intact as approved by the CZC,the only addition is that of the sixth floor. The proposed modifications to the square footage of the building require 348 parking stalls per UDC 11-3C-6, 372 stalls are provided. Staff believes this is an appropriate location for a building of this height since it is adjacent to the freeway and located near other employment and entertainment uses. The Fire Dept. has the following comments on this application as follows: `A FARS system will be required for the structures per Appendix L of the 2018 IFC and City Code. A full fire plan review will need to be completed, as well as, a secondary access shall be provided for this site." VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions noted in Section IX below. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on February 2,2023.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject Conditional Use Permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Tonn Peterson,BVA Corporation b. In opposition: Lynette Adsitt c. Commenting: Tonn Peterson d. Written testimony: None. e. Staff presenting application: Stacy Hersh.Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting: bill Parsons.Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Concerns with additional traffic in the residential neighborhood to the south. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Include the 65-foot building height restrictions in the commercial zoning districts as a topic of discussion in the upcoming UDC focus group. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 3 Y Y YrKrYv xc:,�ex,nrla+v�..Y:ar_crnxnoYs� � �_ III ■■■ _- Yr YYYYYYY. � 11 kilo MINA u#i ► Aw a-IIIIIILHIIIIMIIIIII IIIIJIYY YY III �+ I Y�Y 111 li 1,•177N. l� M m ---------- �■Yr■■YYi iY ■■ 11■■ 1■■ 1■■ 1■■ 1■C s a a :■■■■■■■■■ �■ ■■■w ■■■■■■■■a: ::::i■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■i :__ 1■■ 1■■ 1■■ I � ,�!lIIIl� �■a 1■■ 1■■ w ::e 0 moi ii�ii�iiwi ii■■■■ � �■......... G EXHIBIT A VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of the existing Development Agreement and the conditions contained herein[AZ,PP, CUP,ALT(H-2021-0075, DA Inst. #2022-026383; ROW Vacation(H-2022-0018);PBA- 2022-0009; ESI Office Building CZC,DES,ALT (A-2022-0118). 2. The proposed structures shall not exceed an average elevation of 84-feet with screen walls extending to 97-feet. 3. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structures shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19; the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 6. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC I 1-313-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single- point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. Page 6 EXHIBIT A 5. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains,exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. hi performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 10. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 11. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 12. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 13. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 htip://www.meridianciiy.org_/public_works.aspx?id=272. 18. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Page 7 EXHIBIT A Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=287029&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use if the increase in building height request is approved. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Commission finds the proposed commercial office project with an increased maximum building height will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IX of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Commission finds although the building heights will be taller, the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IX of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Page 8 EXHIBIT A 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 9 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2023 Item #6: Alexanders Landing Subdivision AERIAL MAPZONING MAPFUTURE LAND USE MAP Preliminary PlatAnnexation, Zoning, and – Annexation Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Item #7: Meridian Oz Apartments AERIAL MAPZONING MAPFUTURE LAND USE MAP Preliminary PlatAnnexation, Zoning, and – R-15 R-8 R-4 RUT O-T R-15 INE P PIN E PINE LegendLegendLegend C-N L-O R-8R1 R-2 \[\[\[ Project LocationProject LocationProject Location Old C-G L-O RUT O-T R1 Town M1 LOCUST GROVE LOCUST GROVE LOCUST GROVE I-L General O-T C-G Industrial RUT L-OC-G I-L C-G FRANKLINFRANKLINFRANKLIN RUT R6 R-40 R-15 MU-C R1 C-N RUT RUT R-15 C-C Medium Commercial C-G Density R-4 Residential RUT Civic R6 MU-N R-8 R1 I-L Existing Concept Plan Included in Plan/Landscape Plan Proposed Development Development Agreement Conceptual Building Elevations Qualified Open (REVISED)Space Exhibit Changes to Agenda: nd  Item #5: Newkirk Neighborhood (H-2022-0088) – Request for continuance to March 2 as the site wasn’t posted with a public hearing notice per UDC standards. Item #6: Alexanders Landing Subdivision (H-2022-0088) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.2 acres of land, zoned RUT, located near the Southeast corner of W. Pine Avenue and Black Cat Road. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) Summary of Request: The subject 5.23 acres currently contains an existing home. The subject site is abutting an R-8 development to the north, Horse Meadows Subdivision; to the east and west is county residential not yet annexed into the City of Meridian; and to the south is the railroad and Purdam Gulch Drain. The subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with the approved development to the north. The Applicant proposes a 24-lot subdivision and 4 common lots for single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 4.59 units per acre, which is within the desired density range of the MDR designation. An existing home on the property is proposed to remain on Lot 1, Block 2. The outbuilding located on Lot 3, Block 2 shall be removed with development of this property. The existing home does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces per UDC-3C-6 for a three (3) bedroom home; four (4) parking spaces are required, at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10-foot by 20-foot parking pad. The existing home does not comprise of an enclosed garage. Staff recommends that the non-conformity of the home be remedied to meet the off-street parking regulations prior to the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat Access: Access is proposed from Quarterhorse Lane from the north; direct access to N. Black Cat Road and W. Pine Avenue is prohibited. The subject property is dependent upon the development of Horse Meadows Subdivision directly to the north to reconstruct a portion of Quarterhorse Lane (existing private road) as a public street, which would provide public street frontage and access to this site. A local stub street (W. Newland Drive) is proposed for interconnectivity between two developments that is stubbed at the east/west boundary on the site in accord with the UDC. The street does exceed 150 feet; therefore, a temporary turnaround is required. The Applicant is proposing to construct a temporary turnaround on a common lot (Lot 10, Block 1), which decreases the usability of the area. Staff recommends that the Applicant construct the temporary turnaround on Lots 5 and 7, Block 3 in the southwest corner of the development to increase the open space for development. The reason for this recommendation is to ensure open space for the development remains intact without placing a burden on the HOA to remediate the removal of the turnaround area. The Applicant included a concept plan for the property to the west that demonstrates how the western R1 property could potentially develop in the future. Landscape Buffers: No street buffers are required per UDC Table 11-2A-6 for internal local streets. Common open space landscaping is proposed as shown on the landscape plan. Open Space and Amenities: A minimum of 15% (or 1.23 acres based on 5.23 acres) qualified open space is required to be provided in this development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. An open space exhibit was submitted that depicts 2.15 acres (41.2%) of common open space for the development with 0.78 acres of this area as qualified open space. The minimum amount of qualified open space required is 0.78 acres, approximately 33,977 square feet. There are three (3) main open space areas proposed within Alexanders Landing, the centralized common open space, the linear open space along the southern boundary, and the linear open space located on Lot 1, Block 3. The Purdam Gulch Drain does not count as usable open space but is located on Lot 16, Block 3 (21,617 square feet). The Applicant illustrates the drain to remain open in a natural state on the landscape plans submitted as well as stating that all repairs and damage due to construction will be seeded with dryland mix. The large central open space area is approximately 22,028 feet in size and is the largest usable common area within the project. The Applicant has proposed a 5-foot micro- path running north/south within this open space for easy pedestrian access. The linear open space along the southern boundary is approximately 20 feet in width and over 500 feet in length. This linear open space is shown with trees and a 6-foot wide pathway for an added pedestrian element and will also act as a buffer between this project and the railroad to the south. The proposed micro-path on Lot 1, Block 3 connects to the 6-foot wide pathway running along the southern boundary to provide convenient access and pedestrian connectivity. A 10-foot wide pathway is required per the Master Pathways Plan in lieu of the proposes 6-foot pathway. The project size of 5.23 acres requires a minimum of one (1) amenity point (1 point for every 5 acres). According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing the following amenities worth 3 amenity points: a picnic shelter w/tables (2), and pathways (1), According to UDC Table 11-3G-4, the proposed amenities and their point value is correct and exceed UDC requirements for a project of this size. Sidewalks: Five-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed within the development in accord with UDC standards. Waterways: The Purdam Gulch Drain runs along the southern boundary of the site. Staff did not receive a response from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) on whether or not an easement exists on this property for the lateral. If it does, it should be depicted on the plat and no encroachments allowed within the easement area. Per UDC 11-3A-6, the Applicant is requesting a council waiver to allow the Purdam Gulch Drain to remain open in a natural state. The drain should be fenced with an open vision fence at least six (6) feet in height and having an 11-gauge, two-inch mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal, slough or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, slough or drain. Building Elevations: (3) conceptual building elevations and floor plans were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like. Variations of two-story homes with a two-car garage are proposed. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding, differing color accents, roof profiles, and varying of home styles. Staff recommends that the Applicant add additional stone or brick accents to the front of the homes to provide more of a variation in materials. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement, and preliminary plat per the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2022-0088, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2023, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0088, as presented during the hearing on February 16, 2023, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0088 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Item #7: Meridian Oz Apartments (H-2022-0073) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification – doesn’t require Commission action.  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.39 acres of land, zoned R-40, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd., off the SWC of Franklin & Locust Grove. History: This property was annexed in 1999 with a DA that includes a concept plan for a 96-unit MFR development on the subject property & the adjoining property to the east, now owned by ACHD containing a drainage facility; a CUP was also approved for a MFR development, which has since expired. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C Summary of Request: A modification to the existing DA for Cobblestone Village is proposed to remove the subject property from the agreement and enter into a new agreement for the proposed development. This is being done because the abutting property now owned by ACHD is not part of the development plan. The applicant proposes to update the concept plan in the agreement consistent with the development plan proposed with the concurrent CUP application. Staff recommends the provisions pertaining to outside lighting, perimeter fencing & drainage be carried over to the new agreement. New provisions are recommended requiring future development to be generally consistent with the development plans proposed with this application and vehicular & pedestrian connectivity to be provided to the property to the south for future interconnectivity. Again, this application does not require action from the Commission, only City Council, but approval of the CUP by Council is contingent upon approval of the modification to the DA. A CUP is proposed for a 60-unit MFR development on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district at a gross density of 25 units/acre. Five (5) 12-plex structures are proposed with a mix of 1-bedroom (30) and 2-bedroom (30) units. Access is proposed via S. Locust Grove Rd.; no access is proposed or allowed via E. Franklin Rd. Because this property and the property to the south is designated MU-C & no local street access exists to this site or the adjacent property, Staff recommends a cross-access/ingress-egress easement & driveway with a pedestrian walkway is provided to the property to the south for future interconnectivity. Off-street parking is proposed in accord with UDC standards with (3) extra spaces. Compliance with the specific use standards for MFR developments is required, which includes standards for open space (private & common) & site amenities. A minimum of 80 s.f. of private open space is proposed for each unit as required. A minimum of 13,500 s.f. (or 0.31-acre) qualified open space is required to be provided; the proposed open space was 2,710 s.f. short of the minimum standard so the plans were revised to include an enhanced street buffer along Locust Grove & Franklin Roads containing a dry stream bed with boulders and a planter bed that now meets & exceeds the standard at 14,416 s.f. (or 0.33-acre). Based on the number of units, a minimum of (3) qualified site amenities are required from each of category – quality of life, open space & recreation. The applicant proposes enclosed bike storage, a community garden and a children’s playground from each category – a pathway along the perimeter of the development was originally proposed but was removed due to site constraints. Conceptual building elevations & perspectives were submitted for the proposed 3-story structures as shown. Building materials consist of fiber cement panels between windows, stucco and synthetic wood cladding in neutral colors. Final design of all structures is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony: Travis Perrin, representing Intermountain Wood Products, located 3 parcels to the south - safety concerns due to the proximity of the proposed access via Locust Grove to the Locust Grove/Franklin Rd. intersection; perceived conflicts between the residential traffic from the proposed development & their tractor trailers and trucks that come and go from their distribution center multiple times per day; and concerns with trespassing from future residents on their property. IX.A.8f Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2022-0073, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2023, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0073, as presented during the hearing on February 16, 2023, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0073 to the hearing date of _______________for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #8: Millwood Subdivision (H-2022-0089) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.11 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, generally located south of E. Victory & east of S. Locust Grove Roads at 1975 E. Victory Rd. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) (3-8 units/acre) Summary of Request: Annexation of 4.74 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district for the development of 16 new SFR detached homes & retention of the existing home. and preliminary plat consisting of 17 building lots (including one for an existing home) and two (2) common lots on 4.11 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district for Millwood Subdivision. Written Testimony: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\] Staff Recommendation: \[Approval/Denial\] Why? \[i.e. what is unique/premier (Comp. Plan policies/goals), meets minimum requirements or not, process comments/story\] Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number \[#\], as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2023, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number \[#\], as presented during the hearing on February 16, 2023, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number \[#\] to the hearing date of _______________for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing: Variance Request from a Department Determination Concerning a Proposed Addressing Change for 2201 E. Gala St. by Orme Family and Implant Dentistry. Applicant Requests a Continuance Mayor Robert E . Simison City Council Members : E NZ!V I IDIAN ..... Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault Luke Cavener Liz Strader January 3 , 2023 Dr . Aaron Orme , DDS Orme Family and Implant Dentistry 2201 E . Gala Street Meridian ID 83642 RE : Notice of Department Determination — Request for Addressing Change 2201 E . Gala Street , Meridian, Idaho Parcel no . R3052170010 Dear Dr . Orme . You are hereby notified that pursuant to its authority under Meridian City Code section 8 - 2 . 4 (A) , the Land Development Division of the Community Development Department has reviewed your request for an addressing change , a copy of which is enclosed . You requested that the City authorize suite designations for the two businesses that are co - located in the building at 2201 E . Gala Street . The Department has determined that your request must be denied , pursuant to Meridian City Code section 8 - 2 - 7 (E) (2 ) (b ) , which reads : Multi- tenant commercial building. When multi -tenants are colocated in a commercial building , there shall be a single address assigned . Suite numbers shall be assigned to each tenant space in accordance with this section . Because there is only one tenant space inside the building located at 2201 E . Gala Street , suite designations may not be assigned to this address . Further , it is the opinion of the Meridian Fire Department that assignment of suite designations to a building with a single tenant space will adversely affect the accurate dispatch of emergency vehicles or delivery of emergency services to this location . In order for the building to contain two suites , you would need to complete a tenant improvement and establish two separate tenant spaces . Alternatively , you may seek a variance from this Department Determination by submitting a written request for a variance to the Meridian City Clerk ' s Office , by 5 : 00 p . m . on Tuesday , January 10 , 2023 . Your request may be delivered to the City Clerk ' s Office at 33 E . Broadway Avenue , Suite 104 , Meridian, Idaho , or you may email your request to cit c�(a ,meridiancit y�org . The request must set forth the specific reasons justifying the variance , including the extraordinary hardship caused by this Department Determination . Further information about the variance process is available at Meridian City Code section 8 - 2 - 11 . A copy of Title 8 , chapter 2 , Meridian City Code , is enclosed for your reference . Thank you for your inquiry . Sin el , Bru r kl on irector, ' mmunity Development Department Encl. (2) ORME FAMIL N( EXPERIENCE • AESTHETICS • EXCELLENCE City Of Meridian Community Development 33 E Broadway Ave , Ste 102 Meridian , ID 83642 All , 21 Dec . We are requesting an address change at 2201 E Gala St . We are requesting the following changes : Orme Family and Implant Dentistry Mountain View Pointe Dental 2201 E Gala St , Suite A and 2201 E Gala St . , Suite B Meridian , Idaho 83642 Meridian , Idaho 83642 There are two separate dental businesses in our building . Having the exact same address with no suite numbers is causing difficulties with the contracting of dental insurance companies . Fee guides are getting dropped or changed which is causing our businesses to lose money . Insurance companies look at locations to determine if we are in - network or out - of- network . When they see a discrepancy , the in - network dentist is being dropped . Insurance companies are continuing to change how they verify in - network and out- of- network and how fee guides are assigned . This has had a direct impact on each of our businesses as these changes are being made . In order for us to continue to not be compromised , a distinction in the address is necessary . This problem is not going to go away and in the future could even cause more issues . Getting contracted with an insurance company can take up to 4-5 months . So when in - network . status changes it can take up to a year to get everything corrected . Again , a direct impact on the company . There will always be two businesses at this location . The current lease agreement is for 10 years . We understand that there is not two separate entrances for each business . The suite numbers are to distinguish each business so that there is no confusion when contracting with insurance companies Please reconsider your decision , Thank you . Aaron Orme , DDS Orme Family and mplant F)) GPnUtsTVy Phone : 208- 947. 5005 Fax : 20 &205 - 8899 & mail : Ormedentistry� gmai ( com 2201 E . Gala St . , Meridian , ID 83642 12/28/22 , 10 : 12 AM Meridian , ID Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 2 . - UNIFORM STREET NAME AND ADDRESS NUMBER CODE & 2 - 1 . - Title . This chapter shall be known as and cited as the " City of Meridian Uniform Street Name and Address Number Code . " ( Ord . 17 - 1737 , 7 - 5 = 2017 ) & 2 - 2 . - Purpose and applicability . This chapter is adopted for the purpose of providing the proper implementation , administration and enforcement of a uniform street name and address number grid system to assist the public , public safety , and emergency services providers in the consistent identification of roadways and property addresses . This chapter shall apply to all lands within the corporate limits of Meridian and Meridian City area of impact incorporated and unincorporated territory as such boundaries shall exist from time to time . ( Ord . 17 - 1737 , 7 - 5 - 2017 ) & 2 - 3 . - Definitions . ACHD means the Ada County Highway District . Address means the combination of an address number and street name that identifies a residence , dwelling , business , structure , industry or other property . Address number means the number assigned to a residence , dwelling , business , structure , industry or other property that is expected to be displayed upon the structure or property for the purpose of property identification to emergency service providers and the U . S . Postal Service , among others . Address subdesignation means the address alpha or numeric sub - designation used to identify individual buildings , units or suites within a common complex . A //eymeans a public or private way affording only secondary means of access to abutting property at the back or side of a property . An alley does not have a street name associated with it . Assessor means the office of the Ada County Assessor . Assessor 's street name and address database means a database to archive streets , street names , addressing grids , and assigned addresses within Ada County which have received official recognition by the Board , Assessor , or a City Council . The database shall be made available for access by the public at reasonable times and in a manner prescribed by the Assessor . abouttlank 1 / 17 12/28/22 , 10 : 12 AM Meridian , ID Code of Ordinances 8 - 2 - 5 . - Delegation and rescission of authority . The Council hereby delegates both responsibility and authority for implementing this chapter to the department . ( Ord . 17 - 1737 , 7 - 5 - 2017 ) 8 - 2 - 6 . - Standards for designation of street names . All new street names shall be established in accordance with the same general standards hereinafter set forth and shall be made a part of the Assessor ' s Street Name and Address Database . A . Standards. The following standards shall be used in determining or approving street names . 1 . Name required. Any street , whether public or private , that provides access to two ( 2 ) or more addressed structures or properties must be officially named according to the provisions of this chapter . 2 . Names to conform . Street names shall generally conform to the recommendations given to the department by the Assessor and other affected jurisdictions . a . Exception . Where the recommendations given to the department differ from the standards set forth in this section , the designation of the street name shall be established in accordance with the standards set forth herein . 3 . Change in direction . If a street makes a very obvious change in direction , as determined by the department , a new street name shall be assigned except as provided for 'U ' shaped streets in this section . Whenever this situation occurs , the change of street name shall occur at the nearest intersection to the point where the direction changes . 4 . Cul- de -sac or dead end streets. The name and posttype given to a cul - de - sac or dead end street depends on the overall length of the cul - de - sac or dead end street , as follows . a . Length of one hundred ( 100) feet or less. A cukde - sac or similar dead end street that has an overall length of one hundred ( 100 ) feet or less ( as measured along its centerline from the centerline of the principal street that it intersects to the point of radius or centroid of the cul - de - sac ) shall carry the same name and the same posttype as the street from which it emerges . b . Length of more than one hundred ( 100) feet. A cukde - sac or similar dead end street that has an overall length of more than one hundred ( 100 ) feet ( as measured along its centerline from the centerline of the principal street that it intersects to the point of radius or centroid of the cul - de - sac ) shall carry a new name and posttype , and must be named in accordance with the provisions herein . 5 . about : blank 3/ 17 12 /28/221 10 : 12 AM Meridian , ID Code of Ordinances 11 . One designation . Where a new street connects or aligns with two ( 2 ) differently named streets , the department shall determine which existing name will be used , giving consideration to the existing streets ' lengths , classifications , and usage . 12 . Posttypes. a . Where a proposed street aligns with an existing street which has an incorrect posttype , the proposed street shall be named with the correct posttype . b . The following posttypes , and no others , shall be attached to the corresponding type of street : ( 1 ) Avenue . A north - south street generally running in a straight line . ( 2 ) Boulevard. A street that is eighty ( 80 ) feet wide or greater and which directional travel is separated by a raised median strip , usually landscaped . The use of this term must be approved by ACH D . ( 3 ) Court. An east -west cul - de - sac or dead - end street . ( 4 ) Drive . A street generally meandering in an east - west direction . ( 5 ) Lane. A private street . ( 6 ) Place . A north - south cul - de - sac or dead - end street . ( 7 ) Road. A designated street which extends through both urban and rural areas . The use of this term must be approved by ACHD . ( 8 ) Street. An east-west street generally running in a straight line . ( 9 ) Way. A street generally meandering in a north - south direction . 13 . Predirection . Every segment of street shall include a predirectional of north ( N ) , south ( S ) , east ( E ) , or west ( W) , based on the street ' s direction of travel and its location relative to the initial point of the addressing grid in which it lies . a . Streets that meander or are diagonal relative to cardinal directions shall be treated as either north - south or east - west streets . Once orientation is established , the most appropriate predirectional shall be used throughout the entire length of street , except as provided for " L " shaped streets in this section . The predirectional will not change even if the street changes direction . b . Numbered streets shall be assigned two ( 2 ) predirectionals . c . Street names shall not contain the words north , south , east or west or any combination or abbreviation thereof; these terms shall be used as predirectionals only . ( Ord . 17 - 1737 , 7 - 5 - 2017 ) 8 - 2 - 7 . - Street address numbering standards . about : blank 5/ 17 12 /28/22 , 10 : 12 AM Meridian , ID Code of Ordinances Multi- tenant commercial building. When multi -tenants are colocated in a commercial building , there shall be a single address assigned . Suite numbers shall be assigned to each tenant space in accordance with this section . c . Strip commercial buildings. Strip commercial buildings shall be assigned one ( 1 ) address number . Unit numbers shall then be assigned in accordance with this section . 3 . Circularstreets. A circular street is one that returns to the same origin point or to the same originating street . Circular streets shall be numbered beginning at the low numbered intersection and continuing to the other end of the street . The outside of the circle is numbered first and the inside is then numbered to coincide with the outside . Numbering sequence of the outside and inside of the circle shall be used throughout the entire length of the street . 4 . Cul- de -sacs. Cul - de - sacs shall be numbered with odd and even numbers on the appropriate sides of the street , in conformance with the standards for odd / even number parity as set forth in this section , and meeting at the midpoint , or the back of the cul - de - sac . 5 . Fractional, alphanumeric orhyphenated addresses. For new addresses , there shall be no use of fractional , alphanumeric or hyphenated address numbers . This prohibition also applies to unit numbers . 6 . Future development. Address numbers shall be assigned in such a manner that adequate numbers are reserved for possible future development or re - subdivision of land . 7 . Individual commercial buildings. Individual buildings shall be given one ( 1 ) address number to the street on which the driveway access is located . 8 . Mobile home parks. Mobile home parks shall be assigned a single address along the street on which the driveway access is located ; and then each space within mobile home parks shall be assigned a space number . 9 . Odd/even number parity. Address numbers located on the north and east sides of a street shall be even numbers . Address numbers located on the south and west sides of a street shall be odd numbers . Diagonal and meandering streets will maintain the chosen parity at origination throughout the entire length of the street regardless of change in direction . For diagonal and meandering streets , parity shall be determined based on the predirectional of the street ' s name . 10 . Private streets. Primary structures accessed from an approved private street shall take the name of said private street and shall be assigned an address number in conformance with this section . 11 . Single - family dwellings. A single -family dwelling shall receive an individual address number in conformance with the Assessor ' s Street Name and Address Database . abouttlank 7/ 17 12/28/22 , 10 : 12 AM Meridian , ID Code of Ordinances Posting address numbers. The owner of each structure shall post the assigned address number in such a manner that it is clearly visible from the street . Address numbers shall comply in all respects with premises identification requirements set forth in both the International Fire Code and Building Code as adopted and / or amended by the City of Meridian . Address numbers must be posted prior to occupancy . ( Ord . 17 - 1737 , 7 - 5 - 2017 ) & 2 - 9 . - Process for naming new streets . A . New street name proposals. 1 . New street names may be proposed only in conjunction with a development or private street application . 2 . New street name proposals may only be submitted by the property owner listed on the associated development application , the property owner ' s authorized representative , or a government agency . 3 . Proposed new street names will be reviewed and may receive preliminary approval in accordance with the process established by the Assessor . 4 . A property owner or their authorized representative may seek a variance of a new street name decision in accordance with the process set forth under this chapter . B . Final approval. 1 . If no circumstances require rescission of the Assessor ' s preliminary approval pursuant to the Assessor ' s established process , final approval of the street name is granted automatically with Council ' s final approval of the associated development or Department Director final approval of the private street application . ( Ord . 17 - 1737 , 7 - 5 - 2017 ) & 2 - 10 . - Changes to existing street names ,$ address numbers . A . Public hearing required. In addition to the process set forth in this section , changing an existing street name or multiple existing address numbers of five ( 5 ) or more , requires an affirmative action of the commission at a public hearing before any change shall take effect . 1 . Notice ofpublic hearing. All affected property owners having frontage on the subject street shall be notified by mail at least thirty ( 30 ) days before the public hearing . Notice shall include the reason for the hearing , and the place , date , and time set for the hearing . B . Changes to existing street names. 1 . Reasons for change . Existing street names may only be changed if the existing name is not in compliance with this chapter and / or the existing name negatively impacts public safety or the delivery of emergency services . about : blank 9/ 17 12/28/22 , 10 : 12 AM Meridian , ID Code of Ordinances emergency vehicles or delivery of emergency services , the date of the original dedication of the street , the number of existing addresses on the street in question , and any other factors pertinent to proposed street name change . f. Notice of commission decision . The department shall mail to all affected property owners having frontage on the subject street written notice of the commission ' s final decision . Such notice shall include notice of the right to appeal the commission ' s decision to City Council in accordance with the requirements of this chapter . The commission decision is deemed final after approval of the findings of facts , conclusions of law , decision , and order . g . ACHD notification . Following entry of a final decision to approve a request to change an existing street name , and expiration of the appeals period or resolution of any pending appeals , ACHD shall be notified of the newly assigned street name according to the Assessor ' s established process to coordinate through ACHD invoicing for all costs associated with production and installation of the new street signs ; remittance shall be to ACHD . 3 . Effective date . No change to an existing street name shall become effective until ninety ( 90 ) days after entry of a final decision to approve a request to change an existing street name , and expiration of the appeals period or resolution of any pending appeals , and ACHD ' s receipt of payment for the new street signs . C . Changes to existing address number. 1 . Process for address number change . Where deemed necessary or desirable , and in accordance with this section , the department may change one ( 1 ) to four ( 4 ) existing address numbers at its own discretion . When five ( 5 ) or more related address changes are deemed necessary or desirable the department shall schedule a public hearing before the commission following the public notice provisions set forth in this section . 2 . Reasons for change . Existing address numbers may be changed only in the following situations : a . The existing address number conflicts with the official address number grid , b . The existing address number conflicts with any of the requirements of this chapter , c . The existing address number is not in sequence and / or does not run consecutively in the same direction as the official address number grid ; d . The existing address number is such that the assignment of address numbers for new development is not practical and in keeping with the addressing standards as set forth in this chapter ; e . When a new street is approved and the existing address must reflect the new street name using the correct numerical range for the new street ; abouttlank 11 / 17 12/28/22 , 10 : 12 AM Meridian , ID Code of Ordinances requirements of this chapter . The commission decision is deemed final after approval of the findings of facts , conclusions of law , decision , and order . b . Effective date . No change to multiple existing address numbers of five ( 5 ) or more related addresses shall become effective until ninety ( 90 ) days after official action by the commission or expiration of the applicable appeal period whichever is longer . 6 . Exigent circumstances; waiver of notice requirements. The department shall have authority to lessen notice requirements in certain circumstances including , but not limited to : a . Imminent initiation of development. The department determines that change of the initial address assigned to building lot is required to comply with the addressing standards as set forth in this chapter and that affecting such change prior to initiation of development I s administratively prudent ; b . Publicsafety. The department determines that circumstances warrant waiver of notice requirements due to public safety concerns ; c . Timely notice . The department shall provide notice in as timely a manner as feasible under the circumstances utilizing any and all available methods of contacting property owner . 7 . Posting date . New address numbers must be posted by the property owner by the effective date . D . Notification to public agencies. The department shall notify certain public agencies of changes of street name or address number within five ( 5 ) working days of the written final decision as determined by the expiration of the appeals period or resolution of any pending appeals . Notification will be provided to affected agencies as determined by the department , including , public health and safety agencies ; United States Post Office ; and utility companies . E . Property owner 's responsibility. At or before such time of the effective date , if the property owner ' s address has changed , the property owner shall complete a change of address form with the United States Postal Service and display the new address number as required by this section . It shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner to notify the property owner ' s banks , creditors , periodicals and any other persons of the new street name and / or address number . ( Ord . 17 - 1737 , 7 - 5 - 2017 ) 8 - 2 - 11 . - Variances and appeals . A . Variances, 1 . Grant of variance by Commission . The standards and requirements of these regulations may be modified or varied by the Commission where the enforcement of the rules hereunder will result in extraordinary hardship ; provided , that substantial justice is done and the public about : blank 13/ 17 12/28/22 , 10 : 12 AM Meridian , ID Code of Ordinances That multiple tenants would be required to change their address along with the primary user . ( D ) That the existing address number can be administered and maintained for future development . ( E ) That not assigning a proposed new street name would have substantial negative monetary impact to the property owner . 3 . Process for requesting variance . a . A property owner may seek a variance from a department determination in which the property owner is an affected party by submitting a written request for variance to the City Clerk ' s Office within five ( 5 ) working days of the date of written notification of the department determination . A copy of the notice of appeal shall be provided to the department . b . A request for variance must specifically set forth the reasons justifying the variance including the extraordinary hardship caused by the regulations and decision of the department . c . The department may submit a response to the City Clerk ' s Office and the property owner within five ( 5 ) working days of receipt of the request for variance . d . The City Clerk ' s Office shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the commission at the first available opportunity and provide notice of the hearing to the parties . e . On the date and time duly noticed for the hearing before the commission , the parties may provide testimony and / or evidence to assist the commission in reaching a decision regarding the requested variance . The commission decision shall be supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law . f. The commission ' s decision shall become final upon its approval of written findings of fact and interpretations or applications of this chapter supporting the decision . g . The City Clerk ' s Office shall mail written notification of the final decision to the property owner . Such notice shall include notice of the right to appeal the commission ' s decision to City Council according to the process set forth in this section . B . Appeals, 1 . Limited right of appeal to Council. The Council may affirm , overturn , or modify a decision by the Commission only where the Commission ' s findings of fact are not based upon substantial evidence or the conclusions of law are erroneous . No new evidence shall be presented on appeal to City Council . The Council shall decide the matter upon consideration of the record of hearing before the Commission . The decision of the Council shall be final . 2 . Appeals process. abouttlank 15/ 17 12/28/22 , 10 : 12 AM Meridian , ID Code of Ordinances Posting address required. All persons shall post the address number of his property as designated by the City Council and as required by this chapter and all other applicable provisions of law . D . Violation a misdemeanor. Each violation of these regulations shall be a misdemeanor . Each violation for each day it shall continue shall constitute a separate offense , and each violation shall be punishable as provided in Idaho Code § 18 - 113 . ( Ord . 17 - 1737 , 7 - 5 - 2017 ) abouttlank 17/ 17 O RM E FAM H L & IMPLANT DENTISTRY EXPERIENCE • AESTHETICS • EXCELLENCE City Of Meridian Community Development 33 E Broadway Ave, Ste 102 Meridian, ID 83642 All, 21 Dec. , 2022 We are requesting an address change at 2201 E Gala St. We are requesting the following changes: Orme Family and Implant Dentistry Mountain View Pointe Dental 2201 E Gala St, Suite A and 2201 E Gala St., Suite B Meridian, Idaho 83642 Meridian, Idaho 83642 There are two separate dental businesses in our building. Having the exact same address with no suite numbers is causing difficulties with the contracting of dental insurance companies. Fee guides are getting dropped or changed which is causing our businesses to lose money. Insurance companies look at locations to determine if we are in-network or out-of-network. When they see a discrepancy, the in-network dentist is being dropped. Insurance companies are continuing to change how they verify in-network and out-of-network and how fee guides are assigned. This has had a direct impact on each of our businesses as these changes are being made. In order for us to continue to not be compromised, a distinction in the address is necessary. This problem is not going to go away and in the future could even cause more issues. Getting contracted with an insurance company can take up to 4-5 months. So when in-network status changes it can take up to a year to get everything corrected. Again, a direct impact on the company. There will always be two businesses at this location. The current lease agreement is for 10 years. We understand that there is not two separate entrances for each business. The suite numbers are to distinguish each business so that there is no confusion when contracting with insurance companies Please reconsider your decision._:Thank you. Aaron Orme, DDS� Orme Family and Implant Dentlatry Phone: 208-947-5005 Fax: 208-205-8899 E-mail: Ormedentistry(cDgmail corn 2201 E. Gala St., Meridian, ID 83642 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation OFFICE LEASE AGREEMENT THIS OFFICE LEASE AGREEMENT (the "Lease") is entered into by and between Aaron G. Orme, D.D.S., PC, an Idaho professional corporation ("Landlord") and Mika Management, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company ("Tenant"), effective the day of September, 2020 (the "Effective Date"). In this Lease, Landlord and Tenant are sometimes referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" as appropriate under the circumstances. The Parties aelmowledge that Tenant has been the owner and occupant of the Building and has sold the Building to Landlord. Tenant desires to continue operating Tenant's business in the Building along with Landlord. 1.BASIC LEASE PROVISIONS. 1.1. Effective Date: September 1,2020 1.2. Landlord:Aaron G. Orme,D.D.S.,PC 1.3. Tenant:Mika Management, LLC 1.4. Guarantor(s): N/A 1.5. Tenant's Trade Name:Pope Place, PLLC 11.6. Lease Term: Four(4) years Commencement late: September 1, 2020 1.7.Renewal Options: Two 5-year options to renew 1.5. Rent: In addition to Rent, Tenant shall pay Tenant's Proportionate Share of all Operating Expenses, taxes, insurance and other charges as specified in this Lease. Year Price / Monthly Annual Square foot Minimum Rent Minimum Rent 1 $19.60 $4 263.)0 $51,156.00 2 $19.991 14,347.82 $52,173.84 3 $20.38 $4,432.65 $53,191.80 4 $20.78 $4,519.65 $54 235.80 Option Term 1 $21.19 $4,608.82 $55,305.84 Year 5 Option Term 1 $21.61 $4,700.17 $56,402.04 Year 6 Option Term 1 $22.04 $4,793.70 $57,524.40 Year 7 1 Monthly installments equal to the Rent for the last month of the Term shall be increased by two percent(2%)annually effective on the anniversary of the Commencement Date of this Lease. Office Lease Agreement-1 Option Term 2 $22.48 $4,889.40 $58,672.80 Year 8 Option Term 2 $22.92 $4,985.10 $59, 821.20 Year 9 Option Term 2 $23.37 $5,082.97 $60,995.64 Year 10 Option Term 2 $23.83 $5,183.02 $62,196.24 Year 11 Option Term 2 $24.31 $5,287.42 $63,449. 44 Year 12 Option Term 2 $24.80 $5,393. 99 $64,727.88 Year 13 Option Term 2 $25.30 $5,502.74 $66,032.88 Year 14 1.9. Percentage Rent:None 1.10. Tenant's Proportionate Share: 50% 1.11. Description of Premises: The exclusive use of Operatories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and Tenant's designated office space; and an undivided 50% interest in all Common Areas located within that certain Property commonly known as 2201 E. Gala Street, Meridian, ID 83642, and all improvements located thereon and appurtenances thereto to be shared with Landlord. 1.12. Tenant's Square Footage:Approximately 217.50 square feet. 1..13.Primary Use Of Premises: Dental office use. 1.14.Address For Notices: To Landlord: To Tenant: Aaron G. Orme, D.D.S.,PC Mika Management, LLC 2201 E. Gala St. 203 711'Ave South Meridian, ID 83642 Nampa, ID 83651 1.15. ]Exhibits: The following exhibits are deemed to constitute part of this Lease and are incorporated herein as an integral part of this Lease. Exhibit A -Site Plan Exhibit B—Sign Standards The foregoing is a summary only and reference should always be made to the full lease provisions. References have been provided for convenience and designate some, but not necessarily all, of the other Articles where references to the particular "Summary of Certain Lease Provisions appear. Each reference in this Lease to any of the summarized Lease provisions contained in Article I shall be construed to incorporate all of the terms provided under Office Lease Agreement-2 each summarized Lease provision and in case of any conflict with the balance of the Lease, the latter shall control. 2.AGREEMENT TO LEASE. In consideration of the payment by Tenant of Rent, Real Estate Taxes (as defined in Section 4.2), Operating Expenses(as defined in Section 4.3)and other sums to be paid by Tenant pursuant to this Lease (collectively referred to hereinafter as "Rent") and the performance of the other covenants and agreements in this Lease, Landlord hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant hereby leases from Landlord those certain premises described in Section 1.11 (the "Premises") located within a single building ("Building") located at 2201 E. Gala Street, Meridian, Idaho 83642, which Building is located within the Gaudry/Seegmiller Professional Center ("Project"), subject to all conditions, restrictions, obligations, rights, privileges, easements and appurtenances thereto, the Declaration of Restrictions and Easements and other similar easements, use or restriction agreements (the "Declaration" or 'DEC") affecting the Building or the Project, as amended from time to time. A general site plan showing the Building and Common Area improvements which comprise the Project, and the floor plan of the Premises is attached as }Exhibit A. The Premises shall extend to the exterior faces of all outside walls. Except for the costs associated with (i) the repair and replacement of the structural portions of the Building and (ii) the complete re-roofing of the Building roof, this Lease is an absolutely net lease and, in addition to the rents due hereunder, Tenant shall be responsible for its Proportionate Share of all costs and expenses of ownership and operation of the Building and common areas, it being generally understood and agreed that Landlord shall not be responsible for any costs or expenses in connection with the Tenant's Premises during the term of this Lease and shall be entitled to a net return of the rental herein specified undiminished by costs of any kind or nature whatsoever, now or at any time hereafter, during the term of this Lease or any renewal or extension hereof, except where otherwise specifically provided to the contrary herein. The common areas which comprise the non-exclusive portion of the Premises which Tenant shall have the right to use in common with the Landlord consist of the following (hereafter"Common Areas"): (a) Building Common Area. The common stairways, entry ways, access ways and passage ways; the common pipes, ducts, conduits, wires and appurtenant equipment serving the Premises; and any and all lobbies, waiting areas, reception areas, kitchens, storage areas, conference rooms, labs, lounges, hallways, lavatories and other common facilities not designated for the exclusive use of either Tenant or Landlord. (b) Land Common Area. Common walkways, interior and exterior window surfaces, sidewalks and driveways necessary for access to the Building, landscaping and the parking lot appurtenant to the Building. 3. TERM This Lease shall be effective, binding and enforceable on the Effective Date. The term of this Lease shall commence on the Commencement Date and shall continue as specified in Section 1.6 ("Term"), and Tenant's obligation to pay Rent shall commence on the Commencement Date,as specified in Section 1.6. In the event the Commencement Date does not Office Lease Agreement-3 Aetna Information I. Became out of network 11-15-2022, was on Guardian fee guide 2. 3rd largest insurance company that our patients use with our office 3. Now that we are not in-network, we are not listed on website as a provider. It also effects existing patients because claims are processed differently. This applies to both PPO and Medicare plans. 4. Received email regarding Aetna's decision to drop our Guardian fee guide. It indicate that our location with Aetna PPO is directly contracted with Dr. Melany Mallett and Dr. Nathan O'Neill. Aetna does not allow overlap between networks for the same TIN/or location. These dentists are with the other office at our location.Aetna fee guide pays much lower than Guardian Fee guide. L BOX 14079 Ex lanation Of Benefits EXINGTON KY 40512 4079 Please Retain for Future Reference V�tn� USA Printed: 01/26/2023 Payment Address: Page: 2 of 4 AARON ORME DDS 2201 E GALA ST AARON G ORME DMD MERIDIAN ID 83642-2798 PIN: 0009976146 TIN: XXXXXX X5633 Provider Address: Trace Number: 823026000256867 AARON G ORME DMD Trace Amount: $615.40 2201 E GALA ST MERIDIAN ID 83642-2798 Medical providers: sign up before it's your turn Enroll for directly deposited payments. Just go to PayerEnrollServices.com. If you don't enroll to receive payments by direct deposit, you may receive future payments by virtual credit card. You can get electronic Explanation of Benefits (EOB)statements from our provider portal on AvailityO. To do so, go to Availity.com and register. Patient Name. (selo Claim ID:EG363NXROOO Recd:01/19/23 Member ID: Patient Account:15742 Member.MICHAEL C ANDERSON Group Name:SORENSON Product:Aetna Dental®PPO Group Number:0187818-32-002 FL ZIX-EO Aetna Life Insurance Com2any Network ID:00000 Network Status:Out-of-Network SERVICE SERVICE ALTERNATE TOOTH SURFACE NUM. SUBMITTED ALLOWABLE COPAY NOT SEE DEDUCTIBLE CO PATIENT PAYABLE DATES CODE BENEFIT NUM. SVCs CHARGES AMOUNTIQPA AMOUNT PAYABLE REMARKS CODE INSURANCE RESP AMOUNT 01/17123 D2391 D2140 18 0 1.0 126.00 79.00 47.00 1 50.00 2.60 115.60 10.40 16.00 2 TOTALS 126.00 79.00 63.00 50.00 2.60 115.60 10.40 ISSUED AMT: $10.40 Remarks: 1- Coverage for services rendered by a non-preferred provider is limited to a maximum of the Plan's payment,which is based on the contracted maximum fee for participating providers. The member is responsible for the difference between[RVRC-for Internal Purposes(B09] the billed charges and the Plan payment. 2- If you can treat this condition with more than one service,the member's dental plan only covers the one that costs less.For full disclosure of the Downcoding and Bundling Policies,Procedures and Practices,please access AetnaDental.com. You can also ask us for these in writing.(RVRC-A19] For questions regarding this claim or if you wish a review of this decision: P.O.BOX 14094 LEXINGTON,KY 40512-4094 Total Patient Responsibility: $115.60 CALL(800)451-7715 FOR ASSISTANCE Note:All Inquiries should reference the ID number above for prompt response. Claim Payment: $10.40 Patient Name: spouse) Claim ID:EGJM3R4SJ00 Recd:01/19/23 Member I D:44800kllW Patient Account:15713 Member:MONICA A BIDDINGER Group Name:HRG MANAGEMENT LLC DBA HOME RIVER GROUP Group Number:0870160-10-001 B ZGOMOO Product:Aetna Dental®PPO Aetna Life Insurance Company Network ID:00000 SERVICE SERVICE ALTERNATE TOOTH SURFACE NUM. SUBMITTED ALLOWABLE COPAY NOT SEE DEDUCTIBLE CO Network Status:Out-of-NY Bork DATES CODE BENEFIT NUM. SUCS CHARGES AMOUNTIQPA AMOUNT PAYABLE REMARKSPATIENT CODE INSURANCE RESP AMOUNT 01116/23 D1 110 01 1.0 100.00 100.00 100.00 01/16/23 D0120 01 1.0 57.00 57.00 57.00 TOTALS 157.00 157.00 157.00 ISSUED AMT: $157.00 Continued on Next Page Careington Information 1. Careington pulled a list of providers by address 2. We were listed on the list according to the same address and we were terminated 3. 87 insurances are listed under this same fee guide. Once we were reinstated one insurance company still wouldn't put is back on the fee guide. ;i t 'f t1 Dental Growl 4/21/2022 Please remove the following providers from each location at they are no longer with the group: Nathan O'Neill- LOCATIONS TO REMOVE; 203 7th Ave So Nampa,ID 83651 4403 E Ustick Rd#104 Caldwell,ID 83605 10572 W Business Park Ln Boise,ID 83709 2201 E. Gala St Meridian, ID 83642 8660 W. Emerald St Ste 152 Boise, ID 83704 David Sterzer- LOCATIONS TO REMOVE: 4403 E Ustick Rd#104 Caldwell,ID 83605 16548 N Franklin Blvd Nampa,ld 83687 .dames Stirland- LOCATIONS TO REMOVE: 4403 E Ustick Rd #104 Caldwell, ID 83605 16548 N Franklin Blvd Nampa,ID 83687 10572 W Business Park Ln Boise,ID 83709 8660 W. Emerald St Ste 152 Boise,ID 83704 Joshua Fleyrend- LOCATIONS TO REMOVF: 4403 E Ustick Rd#104 Caldwell,ID 83605 16548 N Franklin Blvd Nampa,ID 83687 Renee Summers- LOCATIONS TO REMOVE: 4403 E Ustick Rd#104 Caldwell,ID 83605 16548 N Franklin Blvd Nampa,ID 83687 10572 W Business Park Ln Boise,ID 83709 Calvin Despain- LOCATIONS TO REMOVE: 16548 N Franklin Blvd Nampa,ID 83687 10672 W Business Park Ln Bolse,ID 83709 Aaron Orme- LOCATIONS TO REMOVE; 2201 E.Gala St Meridian, ID 83642 Chad Sellers- LOCATIONS TO REMOVE: 170512th Ave Rd Nampa, ID 83686 607 2nd St South Nampa, ID 83651 Daxton Pulham- LOCATIONS TO REMOVE: 1705 12th Ave Rd Nampa, ID 83686 607 2nd St South Nampa, ID 83651 Kaci Jensen- LOCATIONS TO REMOVE: 16548 N Franklin Blvd Nampa,ID 83687 Page Bolinske LOCATIONS TO REMOVE: 16548 N Franklin Blvd Nampa,iD 83687 fin ank you, dy Evansl Credentialing Manager 0 CareingtonSOLUI Third Party Administrator Group Listing(TPA) Careington's participating General Dentists and Specialists will collect the patient's applicable copayment and submit claims with your office's usual and customary rate(UCR)to the Third-Party Administrator(TPA).General Dentists'claims will be re-priced by the TPA and paid according to the appropriate plan fee schedule or a percentage for unlisted codes.Specialists'claims will be re-priced by the TPA and paid according to the appropriate plan percentage. The following is a list of the most common TPA's accessing our network of PPO plans.Also,if you hold a direct contract with any of these groups, your contract with them is primary and you may be reimbursed according to your contracted fees with that network.The network selection used at the time of claims processing is determined solely by the TPA. Prior to services being rendered,please verify eligibility and benefits with the group,in order to know which PPO network will be accessed for your patient. Administration Services Only(ASO) Encore Dental/stonebridge Life Morgan White-Standard Life/Am First EAegis Equitable (Excludes Careington Providers in IL and WI) (Applicable only in CA,CO,CT,MA,ME,MT,NJ,PA,RI,NC,VA) Mutual of Omaha Aetna Maximum Care Senior Su lemental Insurance Free Market Administrators National Care Dental-MBA Aetna Commercial and Aetna Medicare Does not access Careington Specialists or any NC provider Freedom Life National Foundation Life (excludes all new FL Providers starting 8/08/2022) (Care PPO Only) AlwaysCare/Sta rMou nt/U n um Excludes Carein ton Providers in LA and Ms) GEHA National General Accident and Health AmeriBen Solutions GEHA Solutions(Formerly PPO USA) Nationwide Insurance Anthem Global Health New Era Life(NEL)-Philadelphia American Beam Dental Global Management Passive PPO Beta Health Association Group Administrators Peoples Benefit Life Insurance Company Blackhawk(Precise)(Virtue)(Luminous) Guardian Preferred Insurance Specialist Excludes Carein ton roviders in IL and WI BEST Health Plans Harrington/Colonial Life Premier Access Excludes Carein ton roviders in CA Blue Shield of CA Health Markets Printing Specialties/Northwest Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Health Resources/Dental Health Options Care PPO Onl Care PPO Onh,1 Pro Benefits Admin/Dental Pay Bright Benefits Healthgram Renaissance Century Healthcare HealthNet Associates-HealthNet of Arizona,California and Ore on Roofers Union Welfare Trust Fund Cigna DVH Healthplex 11 L SkyGen Coordinated Benefits Humana(FL) Self Insured Services Co. Colonial Life Humana(Zelis) (Excludes Careington providers in LA and MS) (Excludes Careington providers in AL,AR,CT,GA,FL and LA) Shelterpoint-Pro Benefits Admin Delta Health Systems Humana(Nationwide) Dental Select SISCO (Care PPO Only) Imperial Excludes Staff Benefits Management&Administrators Carein ton roviders in UT Dental Works(Workers Comp) Kaiser Superior Dental Care DentaQuest ConnectiCare Alignment Key Benefit Administrators Suffolk County Employee Benefit Plan (Applicable to Careington providers in NV and NC DentaQuest—DenteMax Plus Kuwait Cultural Office(KCO) Trans America DenteMax Lifemap Tuckpointers Local 52 DNOA-Blue Cross Blue Shield:Texas,Illinois,New Mexico, Oklahoma,Montana,and Kansas City Lincoln Financial(DBP) UHC Optum Dental Excludes Careington Providers in Ks Missouri or CA (Excludes Careington providers in MI) (Excludes Careington providers in AR,CT,FL,IA,IL,LA,Nc,NE, NY OR and WA DNOA-Dearborn National Local 786 Building Material Welfare Fund LIAR DNOA-LineCo Manhattan Life Unimerica Dental Emblem Health/GHI Excludes Carein ton roviders in NJ and NY Medico United Concordia EMI Health Care PPO OnI (Care PPO Only) Merchants Benefit Administrators United Healthcare-Dental Benefit Providers Excludes Carein ton roviders in UT Medicare/Commercial Employee Painters Trust Health&Welfare MetLife Zelis-Cigna PDP Plus and FED VIP(Does not access Orthodontist) E (Excludes Careington providers in LA) *This is not a complete listing of all TPAs and is subject to change at any time.Call for more information* TPA List 10.2022 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Alexanders Landing Subdivision (H-2022-0084) by Kent Brown Planning Services, located at the southeast corner of W. Pine St. and Black Cat Rd. Application Materials: https:Hbit.ly/H-2022-0084 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.2 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 24 building lots and 4 common lots. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: February 16, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 PROJECT NAME: Allexanders Landing Subdivision (H-2022-0084) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Plea Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) se If yes, please provide HOA name y 2 3 V 4 V\ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E IDIAN�-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING February 16, 2023 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ® FROM: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Alexanders Landing Subdivision ME H-2022-0084 ------- LOCATION: 4574 W. Quarterhorse Lane near the , Southeast corner of W. Pine Street and Black Cat Road., in the NW 1/4 of the , SW 1/4 of Section 10,Township 3N, Range 1W. (Parcel#S1210325711) Mons PAR I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 5.23 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat consisting of 24 building lots and 4 common lots for Alexanders Landing Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 5.23 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR) Existing Land Use Single-family residential(SFR)/ag Proposed Land Use(s) SFR Current Zoning Rural Urban Transition(RUT)in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-8(Medium Density Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 24 building/4 common Phasing plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 23 single-family detached units and 1 existing home of units) Density(gross&net) 4.59 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total [%]/ 0.78 acres(or 15%) buffer/qualified) Page 1 Amenities Open Grassy Play Area,Walking Pathways with Benches, Shade Structure Physical Features(waterways, Purdam Gulch Drain to the south hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date 9/19/2022 History(previous approvals) None B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires No ACHD Commission Action es/no • Existing Quarterhorse Lane is an existing 16-foot-wide unpaved private road abutting the Conditions site's north property line. • CIP/IFYWP Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)i Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP): There are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that are in the Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP). Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Franklin Road to Cherry Lane between 2031-2035. Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Black Cart Road is classified as a minor arterial roadway. Other than the Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) access specifically approved with this application off of W.Quarter Horse Lane,direct lot access is prohibited to this roadway and should be noted on the final plat. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service See Section IX.C Police Service No comments received. West Ada School District No comments received. Distance(elem,ins,hs) Capacity of Schools #of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Sewer Shed South Black Cat • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 40,880 EDU • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan Page 2 1 1 1 ��illlli � n�1►� ' - ' • - • • • i aiiii iii' - • � e � � • - • • • it , \II■111■11 ■ �• I� . ��I��•ii:::�iiiiiiiii iiiiiii��'� j � _'` .�; �'•'a- - � 1 - ■ L `pal ■1■1■unlalnn Inlnlnl yY, ,"-s„ ,41 �� ���0♦♦'111111_e_■�_ _\III A I��■1 111111=_ :�d111111 _ 111\\\\\IA�IIIt111111111111111 ��Q IIIIIIII� � - Q . l�1111111►;-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .11111..;•.•11111111 11 ♦•j.11111111 11 o winm•♦♦i.��nnnn _ o wnnlwl • nnm = 1".nlil • • e nnnm�♦�%p♦i.ml - +♦ p:inn nnnnn•� ♦♦ 5 aii ® 3 e:��all �::illlli■\� '_ :illlli■� - • - • �nnnn nmu. ■' = - • - • ■■■non■.lu m. Fr•nn■■u� � : 1 a� u■o■ �III►=7711�,�1 inn uu■I �� ■IU•A�• 1■■■■�� ..:■IIn••�■ wino I�r1 0����I�� nuu1: I��I+■.n�4�i�11�� y �J �i�iiiii■■■C■•• u■u a■\p ,■1111■ III I■- -�� i �• - ■■■- �:one. �-�� ►-v♦ - u■n:�:■��� ►•••♦ "` •1��•��■- Illnn■ nun►: ./4■■■ IAllw unl■►::ul�•\ ��1►�1► �■ -in■1■m noon■ ♦ �■■■:�in\OO\ Ilwillll■■��++ L on ill:►.1\I\I\I■11111111111►%III ■■— �\.��IIO■:►.11111111 11111111111►IILr•S' ■■ pV■ nn■Inq- nll 7nIn111 Y■ �� 111�1 \I\I\I\\III=�IIII IIIIIIIIII ="�■ ��\ 111111=- ___- —" ■ ; ♦♦I 111111 =7-�7 ill ♦' -_ -nn M■'I ♦♦' _�3-- _-will ii�r ■�%..11111@===__=% n11 ML ry-� ■✓G.11111=3:.===: 12�nun e- ii �_,���. ����■u■a-..:.'.�iiiiil d11"" LIIp\\�Ilppllltllllnlllnnq IIIp\\\II=OI11 1'111111111 F- Quiiiuil� ■n. Y.�IIIIIIIII'I�fwuuS��w `:/ � I�-5�/� J■ ��,c ��• 1 �'� ■wino�� I ��� �� UI UCl I I■■■��m� �IJ'1.�::::,1. ,,f�l■I I :: .:u: ..111111►� 11111■/�-I■Illllllllll llHill I \11111111 11 I •\11111111=_=11 1 -■11111■ �\Illlnll=== Y■11111\♦I I♦VIIIIIII=-� _■111111� UIIII--__ ::1111111•G i \IIIII==- =nnnm��, p♦i.nn€__ ::nuuuq G♦i♦♦i nn=_ m.91 1111111111.% u;.1111 •Illlllllu;♦.�.1111-__- III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Kent Brown,Kent Brown Planning Services—3161 E. Springwood Drive,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner: Benjamin Kneader,Quarter Horse Lane, LLC PO Box 4067, Boise,ID 83711 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 1/29/2023 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 1/27/2023 Public hearing notice sign posted 2/4/2023 on site Nextdoor posting 1/30/2023 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Medium Density Residential(MDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The subject 5.23 acres currently contains an existing home. The subject site is abutting an R-8 development to the north,Horse Meadows Subdivision;to the east and west is county residential not yet annexed into the City of Meridian; and to the south is the railroad and Purdam Gulch Drain. The subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with the approved development to the north. The Applicant proposes a 24-lot subdivision for single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 4.59 units per acre,which is within the desired density range of the MDR designation. Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed single-family detached dwellings with a mix of lot sizes will contribute to the variety of housing options in this area and within the City as desired. Single-family detached homes are in the development process to the north and south of railroad tracks are an existing and planned Medium High-Density Residential development consisting of attached, townhouse , and, and multifamily dwellings. Page 4 • "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. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01G) This area consists primarily of single family detached homes with some multi family apartments to be developed to the southeast; only single-family detached homes are proposed within this development. The proposed development offers lot sizes ranging from 4,010 to 5,258 square feet (sf.) with the existing home on a 21,852 sf. lot. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities,and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The proposed medium-density residential single-family homes contribute to the variety of residential categories within the surrounding area as desired. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed site design provides maximum use of the land with the proposed residential dwelling types and should be compatible with planned development on adjacent properties that are also designated for MDR uses. The project does abut three(3) existing multiple-acre County residential properties to the east, west, and north. Until these properties are redeveloped, development could impact the County residences. • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities,irrespective of existing development."(2.02.02C) The proposed development will not likely impact the abutting development to the north existing homeowners in the county to the east and the existing homeowners south of the railroad tracks. • "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 with development of the subdivision;services are required to be provided to and through this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) A 10 foot wide multi-use pathway connection is required and a 6-foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed along the south boundary adjacent to the railroad tracks. The Applicant shall provide a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. This pathway will provide a link between all subdivisions east off. Black Cat Road and west of this site. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter, and sidewalks are required to be provided with development of the subdivision. Page 5 • "Eliminate existing private treatment and septic systems on properties annexed into the City and instead connect users to the City wastewater system; discourage the prolonged use of private treatment septic systems for enclave properties." If annexed, the existing home will be required to abandon the existing septic system and connect to the City wastewater system. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Development of the subject infill parcel will maximize public services. Based on the analysis above, staff finds the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION(AZ) The Applicant proposes to annex 5.23 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. The annexation legal description submitted does not include to the centerline of the railroad tracks. The Applicant should submit a revised legal description of the property proposed to be annexed that encompasses the area to the centerline of the railroad tracks 15 days prior to the City Council Hearing. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with 24 single-family residential detached dwelling units at a gross density of 4.59 units per acre(see Sections VIII.B, E). The proposed use and density of the development is consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. There is an existing home on approximately half an acre to the northeast along W. Quarter Horse Lane. The property owner intends to annex and connect to City utilities with this development. The property is contiguous to City annexed land to the north and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area for the R-8 zoning districts are included in Section VIII.A. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IX.A. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 24 building lots and 4 common lots on 5.23 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 4,010 to 21,852 square feet(s.£) (or 0.09 to 0.50 acres). The proposed gross density of the subdivision is 4.59 units per acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase as shown in Section VIII.B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: An existing home on the property is proposed to remain on Lot 1,Block 2. The outbuilding located on Lot 3,Block 2 shall be removed with development of this property. The existing home does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces per UDC- 3C-6 for a three(3)bedroom home; four(4)parking spaces are required,at least 2 in an enclosed garage, Page 6 other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10-foot by 20-foot parking pad. The existing home does not comprise of an enclosed garage. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat,the non- conformity of the home should be remedied to meet the off-street parking regulations. Once the plat records,the existing home will require a new address. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the district are required to be removed. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I1-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Access: Access is proposed from Quarterhorse Lane from the north; direct access to N. Black Cat Road and W. Pine Avenue is prohibited. The subject property is dependent upon the development of Horse Meadows Subdivision directly to the north to reconstruct a portion of Quarterhorse Lane(existing private road)as a public street,which would provide public street frontage and access to this site. Horse Meadows Subdivision has not submitted its Final Plat for approval at this time;therefore,there is no right-of-way abutting the subject site. The Applicant's proposal to construct public streets within the Alexanders Landing Subdivision is contingent upon the development of the Horse Meadows Subdivision prior to submitting a Final Plat for approval. A local stub street(W.Newland Drive)is proposed for interconnectivity between two developments that is stubbed at the east/west boundary on the site in accord with the UDC. The street does exceed 150 feet; therefore,a temporary turnaround is required. The Applicant is proposing to construct a temporary turnaround on a common lot(Lot 10,Block 1),which decreases the usability of the area. Staff recommends that the Applicant construct the temporary turnaround on Lots 5 and 7, Block 3 in the southwest corner of the development to increase the open space for development. The reason for this recommendation is to ensure open space for the development remains intact without placing a burden on the HOA to remediate the removal of the turnaround area. The Applicant included a concept plan for the property to the west that demonstrates how the western Rl property could potentially develop in the future. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): No street buffers are required per UDC Table 11-2A-6 for internal local streets. Common open space landscaping is proposed as shown on the landscape plan in Section VIII.C. Landscaping is required along all pathways with a minimum of 5-feet wide shall be provided on each side of the pathway with a mix of trees,shrubs,lawn, and/or other vegetative ground covers per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; the landscape plan should be revised accordingly. A Tree Mitigation Plan should be submitted with the final plat detailing all existing trees and methods of mitigation outlined by the City Arborist before any trees are to be removed as set forth in UDC 11-3B-IOC.5. Common Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-3): A minimum of 15% (or 1.23 acres based on 5.23 acres) qualified open space is required to be provided in this development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. The proposed project is approximately 5.23 acres in size requiring a minimum amount of open space based on the requested zoning. Per UDC Table 11-3G-3, the R-8 area requires a minimum of 15% qualified open space. An open space exhibit was submitted that depicts 2.15 acres (41.2%) of common Page 7 open space for the development with 0.78 acres of this area as qualified open space (see Section VIII.E). The minimum amount of qualified open space required is 0.78 acres, approximately 33,977 square feet. There are three(3) main open space areas proposed within Alexanders Landing, the centralized common open space, the linear open space along the southern boundary, and the linear open space located on Lot 1, Block 3. The Purdam Gulch Drain does not count as usable open space but is located on Lot 16, Block 3 (21,617 square feet). The Applicant illustrates the drain to remain open in a natural state on the landscape plans submitted as well as stating that all repairs and damage due to construction will be seeded with dryland mix. The large central open space area is approximately 22,028 feet in size and is the largest usable common area within the project. The Applicant has proposed a 5-foot micro- path running north/south within this open space for easy pedestrian access. The linear open space along the southern boundary is approximately 20 feet in width and over 500 feet in length. This linear open space is shown with trees and a 6-foot wide pathway for an added pedestrian element and will also act as a buffer between this project and the railroad to the south. The proposed micro path on Lot 1, Block 3 connects to the 6-foot wide pathway(a 10 foot wide pathway is recommended below) running along the southern boundary to provide convenient access and pedestrian connectivity. Because of the pedestrian connectivity and the general locations and uses of open space, Staff supports the proposed qualified open space. UDC 11-3G-4 dictates the minimum amenity points required for projects over 5 acres in size. The project size of 5.23 acres requires a minimum of one (1)amenity point(1 point for every 5 acres). According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is proposing the following amenities worth 3 amenity points: a picnic shelter w/tables(2), and pathways(1),According to UDC Table 11-3G-4,the proposed amenities and their point value is correct and exceed UDC requirements for a project of this size. Based on the proposed site design and zoning,Staff supports the proposed amenities. Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts a multi-use pathway along the southern boundary adjacent to the railroad tracks on this site for connection to future developments to the east and west across Black Cat Road. In accord with the Master Pathways Plan,a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway should be provided within a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement; only a 6-foot wide asphalt pathway is proposed. The landscape plan should be revised to include a 10-foot pathway and an easement should be submitted and recorded prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat. Sidewalks(I 1-3A-17): Five-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed within the development in accord with UDC standards. Waterways: The Purdam Gulch Drain runs along the southern boundary of the site. Staff did not receive a response from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) on whether or not an easement exists on this property for the lateral. If it does,it should be depicted on the plat and no encroachments allowed within the easement area. Per UDC 11-3A-6, the Applicant is requesting a council waiver to allow the Purdam Gulch Drain to remain open in a natural state. The drain should be fenced with an open vision fence at least six(6)feet in height and having an 11-gauge,two-inch mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch,lateral, canal, slough or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch,lateral, canal, slough or drain. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The existing home proposed to remain on Lot 1,Block 2 is required to connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Page 8 Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted landscape plans,the Applicant is proposing two types of fencing throughout the site,vinyl solid fencing and vinyl semi-privacy fencing. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC I 1-3A-15. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations: Three (3)conceptual building elevations and floor plans were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like (see Section VIII.F). Variations of two-story homes with a two-car garage are proposed. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding, differing color accents, roof profiles,and varying of home styles. Staff recommends that the Applicant add additional stone or brick accents to the front of the homes to provide more of a variation in materials. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement, and preliminary plat per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 9 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map Annexation Description[or R-8 Zone February 13,2022 A parcel located In the Northwest 114 of the Southwest 114 of Section 10, Township 3 North,Range 1 Lest,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho more particularly described as follows; Commencing at the 1f4 winner common to Sections 9 and 10,T.3N_,H.1 W., B.M.,from which the Section comer common to Sections 91 10,15,and 161 T_3N,, R_144.,B-M_,bears South 0'38'55"West,265102 feet thence ors the west boundary line of said Section 10,South OW38165'West,422.02 feet;thence leaving said west boundary line,South 89121'54"East,250,10 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; lhence continuing South W21'54'East,634,21 feet; (hence on a line parallel with the west boundary line of said Section 10.South OD°3B'55'West,422A1 feet to the north right-of-way line of the Union Pacgic Railroad; thence on said north right-of-way ling,North 98°26712"West,784.41 feet to the west boundary ling of said Section 10; thence on said west boundary line,North DO'38'55"East,30.00 feat; thence leaving said west boundary line on a line parallel with and 30.00 feet north of the north right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad,South 98°26'12"Easi, 2fi4.79 feet thence leaving said parallel line,North 01'32'22'41 ",383,67 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING_ Gonlalning 5.230 acres,more or less, End of Description, OkLLAV 64- G? 11779 Y��' Af aGA Page 10 1/4 Yf. Pint Avc, S.a- 5.10 -- 1 Q 30 60 120 240 ' I - o I ry I� I* Unplatted Line Toble I Line Bearing Length I L1 "M139'55-E 30.W I I Real Point of 9cginning SW21'54"E SR9'21'WE 534-21' 25).10' iy off m ' q eil0'f is in on 00 m I {n "� C tS-230 Acre! kn ell f . I i t I I s88'2912'E 264,79' - J NM'26'12'w T04.41' Union Pacific R611road +1 LAN 779 A 5,9 5.1U O1 4t pF x� Q S-111 5.15 Ai.Franklin Rd- Y McGP P ti.Uavd�' l 71 F. JZINZ 74$7a PV Jab No. IDAHO Anneuation Exhibit 21-553 SURVEY ww Loan. R-8 Zone sfi�w ua. eamse..lamfo rio earn �I ew.euTa 1 GROUP, LL L01md ti fw■�+�14 or Vi.SVM/4 of S.cuea 10, D-J. oot. T.a , R.A7f., H.M.,Add Cwntg IdaMo. 2/13/2022 Page 11 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 12/15/22) ---.—.—.--- ,--�--__ _ PREU MINARY PLAT FOR Sg AISAANDSR9 LANDING 9UBOP713ION ;y$�� wrn Ffr I i 1 -%'M. r � I _ i axs::iae�^aFus. I =' PI AN SNPFT INUFX- i I F z U sum _ OJ Pam, �:w.�,,.. i I "!�'''��•�, lam. --.a.gacee��y rr� sewtA vr�ns'�`�uc J ; J d0W VI J Zz z ¢ Page 12 C. Landscape Plan(dated: 12/15/2022)—NOT APPROVED(NEEDS TO BE REVISED) __— ___ __-_- - '\ LANDSCAPE NOTES_ ___ � a `_-- e m ui. acraor Rrmr i� W s iz� _ DEVELOPMENT FEATURES Vim•-.�-��... _ __=��,� ! RRIGATION NOTES_ -- -�:y LANDSCAPING INFORMATION i ,r i i-----i i il- ;�s�;j_ f_:ll,''M'�—,1 I �__ ; i �_ _ _e mr - -- ..•_._. II f -.e.•..d.- 1 DISCLAIMER. 11 Q 1 I II IL - _i �- laaaea• - 1 � 1 _..•_......,m..,._. _-....._e. �® r97 I LANDSCAPE SHEET INDEX y Ii110YF11M11 UJaB[APE PUIN �� L1.0 - - - LANDSCAPE LEGEND I I I I VA� �� _ .� • I f----------- i "-"' - I !r� --- PLANT SCHEDULE^�•_ I I ° I I I � cAuour LEGEND I 1 eiL liL mm f --- __ ____________ ____ I i E Lt.i I 1 Page 13 LANDSCAPE LEGEND W ARIERHDRSE -_m --® W�v" --- ----` II �:%•L I `� �1-� I PLANT SCNEOLILE'•C=C _ I All I•• GALLOVT LEGEND % .j2;M.'I! L1.2 i • (1PlAN1^E�flED C�11T E5DGE _ — "41E PVJJTiNO �v _. 0•rau•F(�� Par _ Mil B WIDE - 4 Page 14 D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 11/2/2022) ....... ------------------------�.—.—.—.-- PRE Li1l[NARY FIAT FOR ALH%ANDEW LAN➢[NG SVROMSION � Z. rAaarr irr I SHFFT INDFR. yF ICJ � o� VC—ww.xu,fs F 0 F PP-] I-MgNFFNNG J � Il11 PP-. • P PROFlIfS n O L �P. Zlow- 9 � — WA19 N� OF, d a Z Page 15 E. Conceptual Building Elevations Sample Homes Plans(nor the ocnidpIons to be b0d,bur provided fcr Wosrrative use wty) �y FLOOR PLAN f U3M PLAN 5q ft.2,289 Beds;3 --- Bath:2.5 -- - .7-1. . 84YNFYYSSIi�TE nwi-,x36r+ rr v l GARAGE Page 16 Sample Homes Plans(nor the caua;pans to be buxd,but provhted for m srromm use o*) r �Pwp— Z- 54 fL:2,051 FLOOR FLAN FLOORPLAN ' .•'. tti O'WHENS'J-4TE OPEN T¢EIELBW 114 F41Y ECM' f%IW'S Iw LL .77 CARACA Page 17 Sample Homes Plans(nor the artuni plan-9 to be build,bur pfl)vlded forWustrutive use only) r -r �F Sq fl 1,98 FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN �'"I B ed S:3 Bath:2.5 6m"SsuTE or,uaU ' r.w�,»-wow , . i•.{�:�t�. W,aWd E.-. Page 18 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. The Applicant shall submit a revised legal description of the property proposed to be annexed that encompasses the area to the centerline of the rail-road tracks within 15 days prior to the City Council Hearing Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan,common open space/site amenity exhibit and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. The existing home on Lot 1,Block 2 shall be required to connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available and disconnect from private service, as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. c. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat,the non-conformity of the home shall be remedied to meet the off-street parking regulations. d. Due to access availability,development shall not commence until a public road access is available to the site upon development of the Horse Meadows Subdivision prior to submitting a final plat for approval. e. The Applicant shall provide written documentation that they have relinquished their rights to Quarter Horse Lane prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Depict an easement for the Purdam Gulch Drain,which runs along the southern boundary of this property. b. Depict a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway on common Lot 15,Block 3 per the Master Pathways Plan;provide the pathway within a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement and include the recorded instrument number on the Final Pat. c. The temporary turnaround area on Common Lot 10 shall be landscaped in accord with UDC 1I- 3G-3E or transfer the temporary turnaround area to a buildable lot so it is not constructed on the common open space. d. Graphically depict the ACHD storm water drainage easements referenced in Note#6. e. The existing home shall obtain a new address upon development of this project consistent with the development of the new local street. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Depict a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway on common Lot 15,Block 3 per the Master pathways Plan with landscaping along each side of the pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Page 19 b. Include mitigation calculations on the plan for existing trees that are proposed to be removed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City Arborist(Kyle Yorita kyoritakmeridiancity.o to determine mitigation requirements prior to removal of existing trees from the site. c. Depict an open vision fence at least six(6)feet in height around the Purdam Gulch Drain per UDC 11-3A-6. 4. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2a-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 5. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat,all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district shall be removed. 6. The Applicant shall obtain a Council waiver to allow the Purdam Gulch Drain to remain open in a natural state at the Council hearing, Per UDC 11-3A-6. 7. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat,a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded for the multi-use pathway as required by the Park's Department. 8. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 10. Direct access to N. Black Cat Road and W. Pine Avenue is prohibited. 11. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations that include a mix of stone and/or brick t prior to the Council hearing. 12. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5,UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 13. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1)obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 20 obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-613-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A second water connection to either Black Cat Road or Pine Avenue is required. This can be through the Horse Meadows development or by another means. 1.2 At Quarterhorse Lane and Bareback Street must provide a tee with two valves and a blind flange on the eastern leg, so that water can be extended to the east in the future. 1.3 Provide two valves at the tee located at Bareback Street and Newland Street 1.4 A fire hydrant is required on Newland St at the eastern boundary of the site. 1.5 A 4"blowoff per City standard drawing W 13 is required on Newland Street at the western boundary. 1.6 Sewer does not need to be provided to and through to parcel to the east.Provide sewer mains to eastern boundary only as needed for development. 1.7 Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches Page 20 1.8 Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls, fences, infiltration trenches, light poles, etc.)are built within water/sewer easements. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. Page 21 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review,and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.17 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.19 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.20 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.21 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. Page 22 C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=287136&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) No comments at this time. G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES(ACDS) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=287386&dbid=O&repo=MeridianCitX H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) No comments were received from WASD. I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.or,g/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=288137&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the Applicant's request to annex the subject property with R-8 zoning and develop single- family detached dwellings on the site at a gross density of 4.59 units per acre is consistent with the density desired in the MDR designation for this property; the preliminary plat and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential homes/uses in the area. Page 23 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds City services are available to be provided to this development. Comments were not received from WASD on this application so Staff is unable to determine impacts to the school district. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city if revisions are made to the development plan as recommended. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds there are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity that are in the IFYWP or the CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 24 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation i ■BloomsEmmons ■ ■� ��► ■ �■ ■■ �I� �����' �����/ ��� �■ --- �� ■—�.—� %�llllll►� `■■■■ BROWN ���■ ■��r�i t�'���I�I�����►i ij11111�i i■ �■ram �������i 1111 Boiling mill ,� ■■ ■1111■ ■L � ■■ 1f��■ 1�■■a�i t■�� loll► �1� � ►�■ ■■■ Elm■m■■■■■� ■■■■■■i R ■ = = �■■�L1■�<<<s ��►�• •• �■ ■ram <<�►�■ ■r ■�11111�,�>��■■■■■■■ ■■■I mil■■. son ■ ■■■� �� �11■■► �� �►� 1■ �► �■ r�! ■ �I� =: ■■■■■■■■■■■i fill■■■ ��■/■� ■ C■ ■��■/1f��■/a1♦ ���� i�►■�■ ��ii �Ir� � _ =� ■■■■■■■■■■■� !' loll■■ loll. ■ �i �� ► ■� �� ■■r ■ �� ■� w. loll■Emmons I■loss■■■■■■. . ► � ! ■f�1 �!�i !1 �►� ��■.. �►1fi►��i ■■......■. ice.....■■... �� ���■. ..■■■■.■■■■, '� � ■ � loll■ ■■ �� ■ � ■ ■ �■ ■■ loll■ ■■ ■ li■■■■` ■ !MEMO► �. ■ NEI � ■. 1■1■■ ■�11 II■ ■■ ■■ ■� �■ ■ ■ rf■ ■�ti ^ ■ ; - ■ all wl � ■■ loll■ ■■ ■� �.. �■ � ■►� -- ---I � ���� 1 ����■ ■ M FEE mill im �� 1/■■ ■■ ■� .IIM�■■■■ ■■■■■ram. �1�1: � `-. = ■ �i. :_ �: ',♦ _ ���♦loll■ :_►�IIIIIOO■ 11111111111►%1� pil ■■■W"Rarll>f ■ � y . . . � -- -- -Illf llf l► � � .Il l�lllll ll!ill t* �♦,i i_ -- .. .II�IIIt111■ � ■��j�iii I�IO1►���11�■��Ir'�111�111111111�111111111,i 1►�ll 111ruilu■ - IIIIIIIIIII = ■■ 0 MIN MEN ■ _ _ _ `■ loll■■■ v Q p U - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR oM � 1/4 W. Pine Ave. .% Q 5 0 - - - _ - - ALEXANDERS LANDING SUBDIVISION � N S.9 SA O - - -� --� Curve Table Curve Table = - - - - - - w - - - - - - - - - - - - Curve # Radius Length Chord Bearing Delta Curve # Radius Length Chord Bearing Delta LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4 •i Z ~ 3 SECTION 10 T.3N., R.1W., B.M. z C1 100.00 8.27 8.26 S86'59'50"E 4'44'08" C26 770.00 11.05 11.05 S80'09'35"E 0'49'21" Z I - - - - - - - _ i MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I C2 100.00 29.02 28.92 S07'39'53"E 16'37'36" C27 185.00 3.98 3.98 S79'07'56"E V13'58" 2022 �_ a C3 100.00 13.16 13.15 S12*12'27"E 7'32'28" C28 185.00 37.10 37.04 S72'46'16"E 11'29'21" ■ Common Lots = CS I I C4 100.00 61.22 60.27 N70'53'54"W 35'04'37" C29 185.00 38.90 38.83 S61'00'10"E 12'02'52" W Z_ o I f1 f " f ff > " - II� w V Lot Area Type C5 303.50 139.78 138.55 N66'3315 W 26'2319 C30 185.00 45.08 44.97 S47'59 53 E 13'57 43 W LU BLOCK 1 Lot 4 OPEN 22028 OPEN SPACE �, �, „ , ,� W C6 888.50 158.14 157.93 N84'50 51 W 10'11 52 C31 185.00 17.54 17.53 S38'18 03 E 5'25 56 BLOCK 1 Lot 10 COMMON 3710 TEMP TURNAROUND C7 123.50 10.21 10.20 N86'59'50"W 4'44'08" C32 123.50 23.04 23.00 N83'05'34"W 10'41'17" ■� Z `j BLOCK 3 Lot 1 OPEN 1428 PATHWAY I Z w " " ff " IW Q I C8 123.50 35.84 35.71 N07'39 53 W 16'37 36 C33 123.50 33.87 33.76 N69'53 31 W 15'42 50 � o BLOCK 3 Lot 15 OPEN 10950 PATHWAY " � ui 7 I C9 76.50 10.07 10.06 N12'12 27 W 7'32'28" C34 123.50 18.70 18.68 N57'41'51 W 8'40'30' �, J � BLOCK 3 Lot 16: OPEN 21617 MASON CREEK � U w C10 76.50 36.20 35.86 S66'54'59"E 27'06'46" C35 280.00 20.47 20.47 N55'27'17"W 4'11'23" \y I I C11 327.00 150.61 149.28 S66'33'15"E 26*23'19" C36 280.00 46.31 46.26 N62'17'17"W 9'28'37" J B 0 - - - - - C12 912.00 66.05 66.03 S81'49'24"E 4'08'57" C37 280.00 52.15 52.08 N72'21'46"W 10'40'20" �pNAL F C13 912.00 96.93 96.88 S86'56'33"E 6'05'22" C38 280.00 10.02 10.02 N78'43'26"W 2'02'59" _ _ PINE STREET _ - _ o��s�G\STFR��i�F C14 28.00 15.46 15.26 S26'05'30"E 31*38'13" C39 865.00 5.01 5.01 N79'S4'S2"W O'19'54" a� N O �� C15 48.00 120.90 91.38 N82'25'43"W 144*18'38" C40 865.00 49.62 49.61 N81'43'24"W 3'1T11" I \ W�� - - - - UNPLATTED C21 76.50 22.20 22.12 S07'39'53"E 16'37'36" C41 865.00 44.84 44.83 N84'51'06"W 2'58'11" O - - - - - - - - - - - - - C22 123.50 16.25 16.24 S12*12'27"E 7'32'28" C42 865.00 53.84 53.83 N88'07'11"W 3'33'59" - p9 F OF ff f ff ff " A.8 P 4575 W. Quarterhorse Ln. C23 770.00 28.23 28.22 S87'23'12 E 2'06 01 C43 750.00 113.73 113.62 S84'OS 34 E 8'41 18 t5.230 Acres I C24 770.00 39.91 39.91 S84'51'06"E 2*58'11" C44 165.00 136.91 133.02 S55-58'39"E 47-32'31 - - - - - . . - . . _ . . - CHECKED BY: DAVID A. BAILEY P.E. C25 770.00 37.57 37.57 S81'58'08"E 2'4T44" UPRR DRAWN BY: UPRR DAB/DES I -, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PROJECT �. I I SITE - Parcel Table - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lot Area Perimeter Type BLOCK 1 Lot 1 4753 291 SFR R-8 I I I BLOCK 1 Lot 2 4038 275 SFR R-8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BLOCK 1 Lot 3 4038 275 SFR R-8 BLOCK 1 Lot 4 OPEN 22028 1111 OPEN SPACE BLOCK 1 Lot 5 4037 275 SFR R-8 VICINITY MAP Unplatted BLOCK 1 Lot 6 4038 275 SFR R-8 1 "= 500' - -- -- BLOCK 1 Lot 7 5258 295 SFR R-8 BLOCK 1 Lot 8 4076 278 SFR R-8 EMERGENCY ACCESS ON HORSE BLOCK 1 Lot 9 4259 291 SFR R-8 NOTES MEADOWS SEWER AND WATER EASEMENT/EXISTING ACCESS ROAD - - - r{ orse Ln. T� - �� - - - BLOCK 1 Lot 10 COMMON 3710 254 TEMP TURNAROUND 1. MERIDIAN CITY WATER AND SEWER SERVICE SHALL BE EXTENDED TO ALL LOTS. - - - - - - 54 Ec>534.21 ,^ -- -- -- -- BLOCK 2 Lot 1 21852 582 EXISTING HOME 1so' ss' - 2. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT FALL WITHIN A FEMA FLOOD HAZARD I 42 W QUAR TERHORSE LN BLOCK 2 Lot 2 4851 295 SFR R8 ZONE. REFERENCE FIRM PANEL 16027CO425F REVISED 24 MAY, 2011. 43' \ \ �l I I 42' _ _ _ \- _ _ 42 __ h� _ __________________ _ BLOCK 2 Lot 3 4010 274 SFR R8 3. ALL LOTS SHALL HAVE A PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES, - ---------------------- --2�- _�_____ �7-----��---- -- - 30' _ STREET LIGHTS, IRRIGATION AND LOT DRAINAGE OVER THE 10 (TEN) FEET I I I I 30 30° f �� BLOCK 2 Lot 4 4276 280 SFR R8 ADJACENT TO ANY PUBLIC STREET. ALL LOTS SHALL HAVE A PERMANENT 1-�I o O I I I I I I I 30 6 I, � T - - - - - - - - - - I EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES, IRRIGATION AND LOT DRAINAGE OVER THE 10 i I I_ I o I - - - - - I BLOCK 3 Lot 1 OPEN 1428 220 PATHWAY CO 2 I' I- I I 1 7 I I I (TEN) FEET ADJACENT TO THE REAR LOT LINE. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE 4,753 I�' I 4O 1° - O I� I I I 0 W I BLOCK 3 Lot 2 4047 276 SFR R8 I I- I SHOWN THERE SHALL BE A 5 (FIVE) FOOT PUBLIC UTILTY IRRIGATION AND 1 I 4,038 I 1 � 0 1 0 6 I I �� y LOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ADJACENT TO ANY LOT LINE NOT ADJACENT TO A I I 1 I 1 1 1 4,037 i I 4,0038 I - - - - - - - I i M i BLOCK 3 Lot 3 4019 283 SFR R8 PUBLIC STREET. 95, I� \T / � I rI - oo - - - i I i / / ` l / I BLOCK 3 Lot 4 4759 296 SFR R8 4. MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK LINES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 44' 4 -� (_ - - - J IM I (( /�-f�1 BLOCK 3 Lot 5 4704 289 SFR R8 APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE N W 3 42' L - - - J 1 ® o i21z 1 0 OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. 0 0 42' 42 1 4,076 - 1 I I = I BLOCK 3 Lot 6 4347 285 SFR R8 I W I � 5. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION WATER TO EACH v BLOCK 3 Lot 7 4026 275 SFR R8 LOT. ALL LOTS IN THIS SUBDIVISION WILL BE SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENTS OF N Q i THE NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT. w - --- _ I o: 60'I BLOCK 3 Lot 8 4038 275 SFR R8 z 11 , I o 0 6. STORM DRAINAGE SHALL BE RETAINED ON SITE THROUGH SURFACE DRAINAGE L z 10 1 0 0 l it �? I BLOCK 3 Lot 9 4141 277 SFR R8 c� a \ 4 µ,'..` . I I I � I I PONDS AND SUBSURFACE INFILTRATION FACILITIES AS APPROVED BY ACHD. N 3,710 L - - 4,259 I 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � 1 22,028 ;.;:.: I BLOCK 3 Lot 10 4037 275 SFR R8 z O cn - - - - - - I 64, 7. COMMON LOTS ARE TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE SUBDIVISION F v w c13 i 42' 4s' BLOCK 3 Lot 11 4037 275 SFR R8 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR IT'S ASSIGNS. a w (A I I � o: 0. o. --- 1 � o N i N I - - - - I_ BLOCK 3 Lot 12 4239 279 SFR R8 8. EXISTING STRUCTURES, EXCEPT AS NOTED, WILL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO o W �E�^/j A ,D o DEVELOPMENT OF THE PHASE CONTAINING THE STRUCTURE. 0 aj 0 WL /�/ DR I D \ I i-� I N BLOCK 3 Lot 13 4252 280 SFR R8 W I U w cs - i ` \ I ,d 9. DIRECT ACCESS TO N. BLACK CAT RD AND W. PINE AVE. IS PROHIBITED. N o z o (44 Y "I - � _ _ I � I � � I I � BLOCK 3 Lot 15 OPEN 10950 1135 PATHWAY � � N I; - m i v i I N \ 0 I 'C'J /l0 1� 4 0 3 d BLOCK 3 Lot 16: OPEN 21617 1018 MASON CREEK Z o C42 , 13 4,851 I 1 I 0 lL) N 2 Z C41 rr ^ \ 1 4010, I 4276 1! PLAN SHEET INDEX- C40 \ \ I V 1 ro l I / I t o� I0 Z o - SHEET DESCRIPTION I I 1 30 30' c3j ,."Z \ i N I i I I 30' � r \ ' I 1 I PP- 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT VICINITY MAP & NOTES 0 J I O I rn I O / / 30 ) - f,, 4,704 I I 4 0026 1� O /� / / / c� \ 0� to PP-2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (n I I 41 / o 301 S �4 _ _ _ _ - Jam/ NE WL A ND S T I - I I I 1,4 8 sf / co 12 / 35' - _ _ PP-3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 1 / 4,239 //� /o cR - -150' -1 PLAT LEGEND PP-4 SEWER PROFILES - -- - 4,047 C32 13, I +7 - _:C23 _ . -- C2 -_-_ - / �� 43' 43' 42' 44' 49 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT 0 W \ a- STREET LIGHT W -C25_ _ /� 1 Z--------------------------------------------------------�----- �.\ O / 3a, 30, 1 - EXISTING CONTOUR .� 4,019 / / I 30' I 30' I 30' I 30' �. RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE � I 4 9 / © �I ® �I o 10 irl b 1 1 '�10 13 LOT LINE 4,347 1 4,038 I CO 3 I 0 to O R�IR� GRAVITY IRRIGATION LINE \ / / I I 4,037 I 4,037 I 4,252 1 I I s EXISTING SEWER LINE N00'38'55"E u T- 217' S8826_12"E 264.79' �� 16 5 �. I 21 ' - a 21,617 sf 10 950 f \ l 13L K 1 3 I I I s s PROPOSED SEWER LINE 30.00 m ��� Dra' �_- - J L - - - - - - - EXISTING TER E _ _ L L J�. wWA LINE 43'. -- W W PROPOSED WATER LINE Q PRESSURE IRRIGATION LINE PI PI 1 OWNERS II - N88'26'12"W 784.41' �! DEVELOPMENT FEATURES SEWAGE DISPOSAL \ - S° S° STORM DRAIN LINE QUARTER HORSE LANE, LLC ----------------,- - o _ 4067 MERIDIAN CITY SEWER TOE - ROAD CENTERLINE BOISEE,BOX D 83711 ACREAGE \ ROLLED CURB/GUTTER AND SIDEWALK TOTAL PARCEL-5.23 ACRES WATER SUPPLY Union Pacific Railroad ` � EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT QUARTER OHORE LANE, LLC LOTS MERIDIAN CITY WATER I \ NEW EDGE OF PAVEMENT ROBERT RITTER, MANAGER TOTAL LOTS-28 CITY V I PO BOX 4067 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS-24 1 EXISTING �/ Unlnlatted O LOT NUMBER BOISE, ID 83711 BUILDABLE LOTS- 24(1 EXISTING) ) MERIDIAN CITY 0. I 6,500sf LOT AREA COMMON LOTS-4 SCHOOL DISTRICT � W ENGINEER BLOCK 7 BLOCK NUMBER DAVID A. BAILEY, P.E. DENSITY WEST ADA Q P/L - P/t- - - - _ _ _ FLOW ARROW BAILEY ENGINEERING, INC. OVERALL DENSITY DU/ACRE-4.59 47'-0" - - - _ _ _ - _ 1119 E. STATE ST., SUITE 210 FIRE DISTRICT 7'-0" 33'-0" 7'-0" - - - - _ _ - _ W. ASHTON DR. STREET NAME EAGLE, ID 83616 Z OPEN SPACE MERIDIAN -0"5'-0" 16'-6" 16'-6" 5'-0" '-0' PLANNER/CONTACT BR COMMON AREA- 1.37 ac-26.2% WN 50% BUFFERS-0 ac-0% IRRIGATION DISTRICT W < SURVEY LEGEND LKB PLANNING PARK OPEN/PATHWAYS- .78 ac- 15.0% NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT /� 14'-6" 14'-6" MERIDIAN, ID 83642 USEABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED-0.78 ac- 15.0% W 40 0 20 40 80 208-871-6842 USEABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED- 0.78 ac- 15.o% HIGHWAY DISTRICT FOUND ALUMINUM CAP ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT SLOPE 2.00% SLOPE 2.00% SCALE IN FEET ZONING Q 1" = 40' O FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN EXISTING- RUT Cy CALCULATED POINT PROPOSED-R-8 Q 4" - 3/4" MINUS � DATE: CRUSHED GRAVEL � CONCRETE -- -- -- PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE SETBACKS 11-02-2022 SIDEWALK (TYP.) ___ _ __ SECTION LINE FRONT 20' PROJECT: SIDE 5', 10'STREET SIDE C2021-028 2 1/2" ASPHALT 4 - 3 4 MINUS CRUSHED REAR 12' SHEET PAVEMENT GRAVEL (COMPACTION REQUIRED) 47 RIGHT-OF-WAY STANDARD ROLLED OR 6" VERTICAL TYPICAL_ STREET SECTION PCB& GUTTER (TYP.) As PER NOT TO SCALE 10" - 6" MINUS PIT RUN v Q p U Q O i M O � O 0) v � N � v W @ ■_ Z 3 Z 3 A+ Z = a 'aA = o W Z ZLLJ W W Z U) ._ z Z W M AP W � o J U — 5 Uj J 1/4 - - W. Pine Ave. --- W S.9 S.10 r C�b\pN AL FN c N L ❑�t�' G\S TE�, �A o,r-8 Power Line Easement a 97 4- `�° U�72olatt2d `'�cv ' lnst. No. 9290235 NUU(� OF Sanitary Sewer Manhole x X x x x _ x X x x x x—��x o a�, �ti " s 15- ADS 1NV(SE)=2555.75' �D A.B 2552 P` RIM=2548.85' EGR p= - x -+ri x 1 1 -N a GR OP — —. ----� 15" ADS INV(NW)=2555.38' FOR ECR FOES _ Quarterhorse Ln. , - - - 5 20 s0 CHECKED BY: g I _ _x °P x x°P x x x x x -_x x x _ -- 0 10 40 120 DRAWN BYEY P.E. Drop �� �� — - -- Scale: 1" = 40' DAB/DES � a I • � ---� -- Legend -_ --- ------- ---- - W W x 0 Found 1/2' Iron Pin, as Noted I s x— Q Found 5/8" Iron Pin, as Noted r i i Found Brass Cap Monument �` s I i i s Found Aluminum Cap Monument i i s House Calculated Point, Nothing Found or Set Water Valve S I Q Water Meter i I I I Water Manhole s Water Spigot Water Well fl i s S Sprinkler i Building a s Telephone Junction Box Overhang/Storage s Power Pole v1 D N ' k s` � � � N � , 4575 W. 4uarterhorse Ln. '' i C Guy Wire Anchor L to � i r 1� I r {B Fiber Optic Marker m W i C) x Street Light .;� 0 a t5.230 Acres �, O R '~ ' Y 1 i Traffic Sign a ca W � r» cd [l7 � � � � 9 T) +,.p I Parcel Conveyed i w o d ❑o Mail Box O Z by Quitclaim Inst J j In oco Clean Out m p No. 113067218 \ c Z h ' Property Boundary Line v Y Y Q SA Parcel Line � I Utility ..................... Tie Line r Polo Sanitary Sewer Manhole i , x ! � � ---RIM-2544.2 Section Line 3' Right-of-Way Line I i K Centerline i N x x Fence N N ss�- Sanitary Sewer Line w/Manhole i i x 2g�s i �� 2s FO Fiber Optics Line N �-------------- �-------------------------------- s Underground Power Line GuardConcrete J i x ��,s x `X '� ``x _ x Lx� oP Overhead Power Llne w Guard Roil a i -4� + Domestic Water Line Ld x - — — f x z O I" Irrigation Line - O 4$ CMF' INV=2532.5fi - _--i ��� a�sa Of -------------- Subsurface Pipe - �...�.. _ U 0 • l • L. . Purd¢rra Gulch N00438'55"E �...�...� _ _...—...—...—...—.-_ Bottom o itch �L y ai C \ 1os Top of Bank 30.00 1 — — Dr rL f o x x x �� `� x - LLJ -:-:- Concrete N o z -lux—I > O Sanitary Sewer Manhole ~� - �~-- -- -�- --max x Bey � z RIM=2545.75' �N88'26'12"W 784.41_' . �_�� / 1 -. Z U OD Union Pacific Railroad , `❑NP>~ LANo � � O J NV,cENSF — I + J Unplatted ' ct� — 79 �p�grE �p-�r �3I p o> ❑ IC PN'� 0 W S.9 S.10 -- - W. Franklin Rd. - --` M 5.16 5.15 LLJ Z �n � J C� NQ. REVISIONS BY DATE U W Z sad IDAHO 9955 W. EMERALD ST. o V BOISE, IDAHO 83704 n/ SURVEY PH. (208) 846-8510 Z LL.LL GROUP, I ' FAX (208) 884-5399 Q UTIL.iTY WARNING t]R�U P, L LC WWw•IDAHDSURVEY.CDM I Alexanders Landin gu� THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION ' � L.L AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR r a p h CSurvey W ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED, ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE Located In the NV111 /4 of the SW1 /4 of Section 10, LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. T.M., R.M., B.M., Ada County, Idaho 0 Z THESE DRAWINGS, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, SHALL NOT BE USED Drawn: HNa ji Checked: CMM Job No. Sheet No. ON ANY PROJECT OR EXTENSIONS OF THIS PROJECT EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT IN WRITING WITH IDAHO SURVEY GROUP, INC. Date: 12/13/2021 Date: 12/13/2021 21 -553 d., 4 1 -24 PM 0. X0 Q w � Q 0� DATE: 11-02-2022 PROJECT: C2021-028 SHEET PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR oN ALEXANDERS LANDING SUBDIVISION � 'o 'R J y W LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4 or z 3 SECTION 10 T.3N., R.1W., B.M. Z 3 MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO = g 2022 a 'IA = W z cc W W Z W '� Z w ■� 0 c � Z o � W ° oo � o -j m - r ' N (n V V m I i } I � �S�pNAI FNG G\STE�RF /�F a� Q O I N l?�I TR CT� � �x�x x x u X � X \ \ / / / x—x 1255�, — 9T QP I / � / x_ — � p FOF \ m �� — — \ I ��D A.8 P� EG Esa w EMERW- CY ACCESS ON HOR --` X x �— �x x x I A \max— _ — — — — — — — — ry - - -W - w w w _ w - - - w w w x w x w >.- x—x- 0— � � _ MEADOWS SEWER AND WATER- -EGR— EGR - �R — _ EGR EGR EGR E w� oR oP JOB— — — TOB— —_ _ - - - _ _ RROP DIY- TOE_—� — — — _ _ CHECKED BY: g g I g'. EASE &T EXISTING ACCESS ROAD 8 � �/ � � — � — Op EGR °P EGR EGR TOB — — T — � �_ DAVID A. BAILEY P.E. 3-3 Is s s—�-F-s g �I 33os eo l`— oP ECR as — I �c -FO -------- — / r _ 8— / K' OP EGR FO — — EGR EXISTING SSMH o 0 0� - / oP °p �� g / o w x X xTx oP GP — — — — - — $�I— w� SSMH A3 --up o _ _ — x x x x x�x x x — — — — x — — — _ cr� � o �cR� ------ I �� ` — DAB DES BY: — -u OP — r— X x x Fo— x- X — M f_ ��\ FO FO \ \ 56 � �\ a�� 180 ` Fo EGR oPFO �� - - - - - - - - - - - - - v xl I I 42 QUA R TERH DR L 43' eG \ 1 42' I I EGR 42' \ --- -I�-- ----30 ,--- - -------------- -------------- --------- �-- ----��----- \ s 30, - 2s cr------- ------ - - -1-- --- -- - - I I I I I II I I I I I I 30' sQ — — �8. � I �� - -------- --- l ---- -r44--------------- I I I 1 , 1 30, v x -\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I I I � I _ 1 1 ► I 1 I I I I 30 1 i II eG �\�� — x \ I CO 4,7053 11 0 I - 6 O i I - - - - UP — \ - - - - - - J�X�- -I l O O 1 I I 1 4,038 I I � 0 I 1 0 I 1 I I 5,258 4,038 I 5 I I �p 4O7 I °'�' 1 O / i� y cc) 1' I I II 001 I I I I I 1 I 1 4,038 5' x I / I 43' �s "� L I I 42'� — � - - -1 I ® CJ I I (� 21,852\ PI Q N I 9 0 42' I 4,076 2' 9 X \ \ I I c1s — _ _ ss• � I I I I I MP TURNAROUND 1 0 C \ I �N cai � 4 I 4,259 coo \ 3,710 22,028 L I a I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -J �MH I Z I \ PI-PI-% I I\ c 64 42' C13 1 I .r4 e 4 Fl R PI pl PI pl 4 I � PI pl PIS c I fA O I - --- --- I — — � r - - - v� w w ---- c cLo o I I I 1 - w ----, N I m I I (1 SSMH B4 r, - - �s� _ � _ w � I I I I o � � \ \ W W g� o - �_ _ w �0 00 V I N I IN Lo 00 - \ 1 O M �� 0 in N 4,851 O m 1 C42 I C41 - �f- w I I �+' \ 14,010 4,276 1 N SSMH B3 I 100 I � C40 CS I � i II I O � N I I \ I - I I 30, 30, c3j s ' 0 _ I 1 — ^' \ I -EG \ ----- — - 1 0 I I I I I 30 -7 ss s , \ 0 W 30, 31, 42' 45 1 Z O o oq I I 4,704 I I Cp 7 1 0, O O / / / SSMH B2 d I I 4,026 I C° 4,141 ca \s\ SSMH B1 \ SS H A6 w w w w w w 3o, s \ C4 o - _ - —W �EWL AND- S - o s sue_ 150'v 4,239 / z / 3 clig s $ s—se s W Q W N ; o Z I / / SSMH A7 I o -i L — _ / / D � 3 C33 x - - - I SSCO W d — s=\ — — _ — — L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - — — — — — _ — J 47 o I - - - - - — .� I \ — _ / ` 40 \ \ C32 13' S\ — I — - C2 — — s24 _ _ _ _ L / �� \ \\ 43' 42' — _ / -e25_ � / � x _ 1 Z 0 \ \ J / � , \ s I I ------ 3o' / I -------------------------r--- 1 \� 4,019 / 30" 30' 30' \ L �S I 30 I 30' I Q J x A�, \ x x x — jII Toa — — TO — — 9 -_—Ix _ --_ __ _-_ I _—_— —— __— _ —— —— \\ \\ \\\ / 4,759 / ' / O © I x rn I O ® O rn IO 13 \ 1 —__- -_- -_— - - - -_- - -_ _ _ —_— — _—_- -_ _ _ - -_ —_—_ — — � \\ 4,347 4,038 �' - 11 'nl O _ _ V AVA\\ 1 4,037 1 4,037 4,252—___ _ — — — — — — — — =— — — _ _ — —_ — _ — a� W �1 — — — — — — _ - -_________ �\ \ \ \\ \\ �\ 1 I =-- X I ' — S88'26'12"E 264.79' N00'38'55"E V I V -�- (�- 217� -- z1 ' _ — _ _ _21,61 sf— __ - vv v V v / 13L KI 30.00' \ II \ \ (��� — =_= --_ —_ _= —� ���\\\\\\� \ \\ + ios5 sf \\ �--- - - �/ L - - - - - - -� 3 I�X\ IIII I � I I I l/ �— T08— - - - - - - ____ _ - - - _ _ —� � _ ___ _ \\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \+\ —43— — — — — — -55' — — — _\ 43= — - - - III x x 5 x x — — rep _ — B— — — — — — — — — \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ P - 43' — — — 4� — FO o — _ I �- - - - - \ ` — ( � — ( N88'26'12"W 784.41' \ ` \\\o —___ _ III I - - - - - - \ - - - - - v — - - - - TOE roe -:::::—TOE — \\ — -- -TOE _ V TOE \ � I — — — —2544- o) \ V A \ 04 30 0 15 30 60 Z SCALE IN FEET 0 I � 1 -30 0 J ' I Q V) P/L 47'-0„ P/L W 7'-0" 33'-0" 7'-0" 12 Z 16'-6" 16'-6" -0'5'-0' 5'-0" -0' 14'-6" 14'-6" SLOPE 2.00% SLOPE 2.00% Q 4" - 3/4" MINUS CONCRETE CRUSHED GRAVEL CL SIDEWALK (TYP.) 1 DATE: 2 1/2" ASPHALT GRAVEL (COMPACTION REQUIRED) 11-02-2022 PAVEMENT cc 47' RIGHT—OF—WAY STANDARD ROLLED OR 6" VERTICAL PROJECT: CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) AS PER TYPICAL STREET SECTION PLANS SHEET NOT TO SCALE 10" - 6" MINUS PIT RUN ■ PRELIMINARY SEWER PROFILE FOR = oM ALEXANDERS LANDING SUBDIVISION �,,,o � Na) _ Wm LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4 ■i z SECTION 10 T.3N., R.iW., B.M. Z MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO = g 2022 d .— W Z Wa'SEWER UNE A PROELE Z o Z0M 2570 2570 W Zw ♦� N Sn It V v 00 w 00 �cn-00 N00 �S�ON A L FNG co 00 00 M �� G\S T E7 W00 � � to NOO L M Mq FQ � a � 000 o0? � on 00N � Q � N � � N � rypoN SSMH A7 N 2560 N a; Lo 0Lo = N _ o LoZo Q + Lnry � 2560 �9T !� � �ri � �`! � N ? o can � » = N - 0 = � NzO RI :2555.27 F of a 00 N � cn F z ? N » mod » INV IN:25 3.02 8 E � F� + � ate >> zz cn _ SSCO D A.B = co = V) Nzo NFrzz N - - cncnw INV OUT:25 2.92 8 W _ STA:12+49.20 N o r- 00 (n N z z ———— — —— RIM:2555.35 CHECKED BY: 0 Lo 0 o6 — — —— — ———— — ———— — — — — INV OUT:2533.06 8 W DAVID A. BAILEY P.E. NNNZ -- --_— - --- - - ------ — --_ DRAWN BY: Q _ SSMH A6 DAB/DES >c _ z STA:10+ 2.97 W (n �' — RIM:2553 84 2550 INV IN:25 2.30 WE 2550 INV IN:2532.30 8"W INV OUT: 532.20 8"N 2540 2540 ° 15 LF C—C 2530 ° 44 LF C—C 8 LF 8" PVC ®0.40%LF C—C 12 IF C—C 2530 185 LF C—C 68 LF 8" PVC 00.40% 64 LF 8" VC 00.40% (72 L C—C) (68 LF C— ) 2520 1 1 1 12520 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 1 1 +00 12+00 12+49 U) N d O q N Sn U) J i Q N V W Z p SEWER D CIE B PROF LE o W W ZO Of of N O N d O w 2570 2570 Nw � W W O N p w I LLI o o 0 V) o w 04 N > Z O LLI N W 0= Z W ?� N 2 cn z 0 z 0000 -00 00 L0 00 z � N rnN (D; N 2560 2560 W � M � � J OOMIn J N ' NON U-) (N _ SSMH B4 cnoboNN � °° + V) N : °° 0Z ? SSMH A6 'n STA:5+32.97 + � Z C = N — 0 = N — 0 STA:10+82.97 I . V I J RIM:2551.07 � "� `� o N �_ > > cn z z RIM:2553.84 L.L ate » INV OUT:2534.23 899E N in — z_ z_ INV IN:2532.30 8 E INV IN:2532.30 8"W _� — — O INV OUT:2532.20 8"N W z2550 550 Q � J W (� Z W 254011 2540 W Q V) Q Q J � I 143 F 8" PV .0.60% 4=-- (1147 LF C—C) L.L L.L 2530 2530 W W 81 LF 8" PVC 00.40 L48 F 8" PVC @0.40% 0 (85 LF C—C (52 LF C—C) 45 LF 8" PVC 00 40% Z (49 LF C—C) _ Q L.L .J X Q LEI w 2520 2520 J 5+33 5+00 4+00 3+00 2+00 Q HOIRZONTAL SCALE 1"=50' VERTICAL SCALE 1"=5' DATE: 11-02-2022 50 0 25 50 100 PROJECT: MC2021-028 SCALE IN FEET SHEET 1"=50' PP -42 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Meridian OZ Apartments (H-2022-0073) by Realm Venture Group, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. Application Materials: https:Hbit.ly/H-2022-0073 A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to the existing Development Agreement (Inst.#99121334 AZ-99-005 Cobblestone Village) to remove the subject property from the agreement and enter into a new agreement for the proposed multi-family development. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 60 dwelling units on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: February 16, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 PROJECT NAME: Meridian OZ Apartments (H-2022-0073) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name Sl 2 J L 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING February 16, 2023 Legend DATE: Continued from:December 15, 2022& Project Location 0 January 19, 2023 ► TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 • - SUBJECT: H-2022-0073—Meridian Oz—MDA �[ CUP '• i LOCATION: 1475 E. Franklin Rd.,in the NE 1/4 of - - Section 18,T.3N.,R.1 E. (Parcel _ #51118110051) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted an application for a modification to the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #99121334 AZ-99-005 Cobblestone Village)to remove the subject property from the agreement and enter into a new agreement for the proposed multi-family development; and a Conditional use permit for a multi- family development consisting of 60 dwelling units on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 2.39 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU- Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family development Current Zoning R-40(High Density Residential) Proposed Zoning NA Lots(#and type;bldg/common) NA Phasing plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 60 multi-family units[(30) 1-bedroom units;and(30)2- of units) bedroom units] Page 1 Density(gross&net 25.08 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total[%]/ 0.25 acre buffer/qualified) Amenities Covered bicycle storage,a community garden and walking path. Physical Features(waterways, The Cook Lateral runs along S.Locust Grove Rd. on this site. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 7/25/2022 attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-99-005 (Development Agreement(Inst.#99121334;Ord. 848—Cobblestone Village); CUP-99-005 Cobblestone Village(expired);ROS#13695 (not approved by the City) B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Traffic Impact Study No es/no Access Access is proposed via S.Locust Grove Rd.,an arterial street,at the eastern boundary of the (Arterial/Collectors/State site;no access is proposed via E.Franklin Rd.,an arterial street,at the northern boundary of Hwy/Local)(Existing the site. and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Franklin Rd.&Locust Grove Rd.—Better than"E"(acceptable level of service is"E") Stub Driveway stubs for cross-access and interconnectivity with adjacent properties are not Street/Interconnectivity/ proposed. Cross Access Existing Road Network There are no existing internal roadways within the site.Franklin Rd.runs along the northern boundary of the site and Locust Grove Rd.runs along the eastern boundary of the site. Existing Arterial There are no existing buffers on this site. Sidewalks/Buffers Proposed Road Franklin and Locust Grove Roads are fully improved;therefore,no additional right-of-way Improvements dedication or street improvements are required. Fire Service No comments were submitted. Police Service • Distance to Police 0.6 mile Station • Police Response 2:58 minutes(expected); 3:44 minutes(average)—Response time goal for emergencies is Time within 3-5 minutes. • Calls for Service 7,200 within a mile of the proposed development(RD—M741)—between 7/l/20 and 6/3/22) Page 2 Description Details • %of calls for service °fP3CF5 %of P2 CF5 75.3% split by priority of Pl cF5 22.5% Z of PO CFS 1 3% Response Time and Calls fur Service(CFS)by Priority-Most frequent priority tall types: •Priority 3 calls most frequently involved Injury Cra shes,followed by Unknown Problem,and Domestic dispute. •Priority 2 calls had a majority involvement consisting of Traffic Stops,followed by calls for Code Enforcement,and Welfare Checks. •Priority 1 calls mast frequently involved Illegal Parking,Citizen Assist,and Follow Up calls. • Accessibility Police access is required into each building's entry point using a multi-technology keypad if the buildings have climate-controlled access. • Specialty/resource The PD can service this development if approved as they already serve this geographic area. needs • Crimes 761 (RD—M741—between 7/l/20 and 6/30/22) • Crashes 232(RD—M741—between 7/l/20 and 6/30/22) • Other MPD can service this area if approved.For more info,see: htWs://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/PDF]010817d448-60a3-4e76-99dc- 5243e49fabe8/280047 West Ada School District Approved ME units Projected Approved lots per per attendance Students from Enrollment Ca ac' attendance area area Approved Dev. Meridian Elementary 454 650 47 454 44 Meridian Middle School 1078 5000 656 2947 264 Meridian High School 1781 2075 3560 3613 750 School of Choice Options Chief Joseph Elementary—Arts 524 700 N/A N/A Spalding Elementary-STEM 678 750 N/A N/A Estimated#of school 14 aged children from this development Page 3 1 1 1 PIN --- —i Ci11111111..... ..... .1. 111 1A so ..� ► �IIIIIfi . 16 \.iJV1.A7 �1111111� a...11m— ■ •.r r r. PINE- — ■ { ° ■■■ i�■ ■I ,.Ills., �, • . -. •. - '111o1! M��,- 'lll�l! :.- :ill. ■�� :�R■� ���:� o ■�■■■■■■■�1_■���������■� ,Cum�ii=N NONNI _• 11 I ....� /t....■...1■�■��il]i�l�i�:�■■■■I Cil:`:7F „C r .� / ••••• ■■■■■■■ ■I \III .11+.� +���...I.d v—v rlll r KIi - 1���,��Br � �1�1� � ink M `rI♦��,,`I '°" I.. . Ili►•� :u��i:ram �G'c� t Innm Milos ==■ ■■■11■.. C. Agent/Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/30/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/13/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 12/4/2022 on site Nextdoor posting 11/28/2022 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(HTTPS✓IWWW.MERIDIANCITY.ORGICOMPPLAN): Land Use: This property is designated Mixed Use—Community(MU-C)on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-residential buildings in these areas tend to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N)areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to(up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted in Figure 3C. The density range desired in MU-C designated areas is 6 to 15 units per acre. The subject property, along with the property at the northeast corner of the site now owned by ACHD, was annexed(AZ-99-005)in 1999 with an R-40 zoning district and entitled to develop with a 96-unit apartment complex/multi-family development. A conditional use permit(CUP-99-005)was approved for the development but later expired because the use wasn't commenced. The Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of annexation designated this property as Mixed/Planned Use Development. The R-40 zoning district allowed densities up to 40 units per acre at that time. Although the CUP expired,the property is still entitled with zoning and allowed to develop consistent with the standards for the R-40 zoning district. The proposed multi-family development consists of 60 units on 2.39 acres of land at a gross density of 25 units per acre. Transportation: There are no collector streets planned across this site per the Master Street Map(MSM). The MSM designates the segment of Franklin Rd. abutting this site as a planned commercial arterial street; and the segment of Locust Grove Rd. abutting this site as a residential arterial. Both streets are fully improved and no additional right-of-way dedication or street improvements are required with this application. Access is proposed via S. Locust Grove Rd., a minor arterial street,at the site's east boundary; no access is proposed via E. Franklin Rd., a principal arterial street. ACHD is requiring access to be taken from Locust Grove due it's lesser classification; direct access via Franklin is prohibited. The site is located in close proximity to the Franklin/Locust Grove intersection, a major arterial intersection. This site is located within one (1)mile of Valley Regional Transit's Route 30 Pine. Page 5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(https://www.meridiancitV.org/compplan): Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed multi family apartments will contribute to the variety of housing types in the City. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers." (2.01.01H) The proposed multi family development is located adjacent to two arterial streets and in proximity to employment centers along Eagle Road. This site is located within one (1)mile of Valley Regional Transit's Route 30 Pine. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) A mix of residential housing types consisting of apartments and single-family dwellings (low-and medium-density) exist within a half mile of this site. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed multi family apartments should be compatible with existing single-family homes to the south and industrial uses to the west.A dense landscape buffer exists along the west boundary of this site, which will buffer the proposed residential uses from the industrial uses. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) This is an undeveloped property in the City. Development of this property will maximize public services. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. • "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) Page 6 Development of the subject vacant land, currently in the City limits, is encouraged over parcels on the fringe of the City. The development of this property will result in better provision of City services. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION(MDA) A modification to the existing Development Agreement(DA)(Inst. #99121334 AZ-99-005 Cobblestone Village) is proposed to remove the subject property from the agreement and enter into a new agreement for the proposed development. The existing conceptual development plan included in the DA is for a 96-unit apartment complex/multi- family development on 6.16 acres of land at a gross density of approximately 15 units/acre. The proposed plan is for a 60-unit apartment complex/multi-family development on 2.39 acres of land at a gross density of 25 units/acre. The development area has reduced in size due to ACHD purchasing the property at the Franklin/Locust Grove intersection for a drainage facility and right-of-way dedication for abutting roadway improvements. Staff has reviewed the existing DA provisions in Section VIII.A and recommends the provisions pertaining to outside lighting,perimeter fencing and drainage be carried over to the new agreement.New provisions are recommended requiring future development to be generally consistent with the development plans proposed with this application and vehicular&pedestrian connectivity to be provided to the property to the south for future interconnectivity(see Section IX.A). As discussed above in Section V, Staff believes the proposed plan provides housing for nearby employment uses and contributes to the mix of uses desired in the MU-C designation. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP) Conditional use permit for a multi-family development consisting of consisting of 60 dwelling units in five(5) 12-plex structures on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district.A mix of 1-bedroom(30)and 2-bedroom(30)units are proposed. There is an existing single-family home and accessory structure on this site that are proposed to be removed with redevelopment of the site. Access: Access is proposed via S. Locust Grove Rd.;no access is proposed or allowed via E. Franklin Rd. The existing curb cut on Franklin Rd. should be removed with development. Because this property and the property to the south is designated Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) and no local street access exists to this site or the adjacent property,Staff recommends a cross- access/ingress-egress easement and driveway with a pedestrian walkway is provided to the property to the south for future interconnectivity in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : There are existing attached sidewalks along E. Franklin Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. Typically, detached sidewalks are required along arterial streets;however,because these sidewalks are still in good condition, Staff does not recommend they are removed and reconstructed as detached sidewalks. Minimum 5-foot wide sidewalks are required around buildings.The row of parking on the east side of Building 3,the east and west sides of Building 4,and the west side of Building 5 do not have a sidewalk in front of the parking areas,just landscaping. The plans should be revised to include a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk in these locations in accord with UDC 11-3A-17A. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations and perspectives were submitted for the proposed 3-story structures as shown in Section VIII.E. Building materials consist of fiber cement panels between windows, stucco and synthetic wood cladding in neutral Page 7 colors. Final design of all structures is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staffs analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: "B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent properties.A 10 foot wide building setback is proposed for Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5. Buildings I and 2 may provide a 10 foot setback since it's a side setback due to the orientation of the building;however, Buildings 4 and S should be revised to reflect a 12 foot wide rear setback as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-8. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage,disposal facilities,and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts a trash enclosure on the north end of the property that screens the dumpster from Franklin Rd. and a trash enclosure at the southwest corner of the site, which isn't visible from the street. To increase visibility within the parking area and of the common area along Franklin Rd.,Staff and the Police Dept recommends the trash enclosure is relocated along the east boundary and the enclosure incorporates a recycling receptacle. 3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-513-5 of this title. The Applicant's narrative states each unit will have their own 80 square foot deck. Floor plans should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with this standard. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. The proposed parking meets and exceeds UDC standards per the analysis below. Based on(30) 1-bedroom units and(30)2-bedroom units,a minimum of I I I off-street parking spaces are required, including 6 spaces for guest parking,with 60 of those in a covered carport or garage. Accessible parking is required in accord with ADA standards. A total of 114 spaces are proposed,with 61 of those being covered,which exceeds the minimum standard by 3 spaces. Page 8 Based on 114 vehicle parking spaces, a minimum of 5 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.A total of 10 covered bicycle spaces are proposed at the north end of the site. Staff recommends a bicycle rack is provided for each building. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) The site plan depicts these items. C. Common Open Space Design Requirements(UDC 11-4-3-27C): The total baseline land area of all qualified common open space shall equal or exceed ten(10)percent of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five(5)acres or more. Because the site is less than 5 acres in size at 2.39 acres,the baseline requirement does not apply. In addition to the baseline open space requirement, a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided that meets the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C.2, as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area. (15) of the units contain 500 square feet(sf.) of living area; therefore, a total of 2,250 square feet(sf.) (or 0.05-acre) of common open space is required. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. (45) of the units contain between 500 and 1,200 sf of living area; therefore, a total of 11,250 sf. (or 0.26-acre) of common open space is required. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.None of the units are over 1,200 sf of living area. Per this standard, a total of 13,500 sf. (or 0.31-acre) of common open space is required.A total of 10,789.67 sf. (or 0.25-acre) of common open space is proposed that includes one 5,000+ sf area, a 4,159 sf area, and linear open space as depicted on the open space exhibit in Section VIII.D. The qualified open space is short of the minimum standard by 2,710 sf.If an enhanced buffer is provided along Franklin and Locust Grove Roads that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C.8, 50% of these buffers can count toward qualified open space.Additionally,there is a 5-foot wide strip on the south side of the buffer along Franklin that doesn't appear to be included in the open space calc's—this area can count 100% toward qualified open space. With these areas, the total open space would be 14,092 sf. (or 0.32- acre), which complies with the minimum standards. The Applicant should either revise the open space exhibit and landscape plan to include these areas and enhanced buffer elements or reduce the number of units in order to reduce the amount of open space required prior to the Council hearing. 2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area,and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20'). The common open space areas depicted on the open space exhibit in Section VIII.D meet this requirement. Page 9 3. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. This project is proposed to develop in one phase. 4. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4') in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, eff.retroactive to 2-4-2009)Some of the common open space is located adjacent to Franklin &Locust Grove Roads, both arterial streets. Therefore,Staff recommends a berm or constructed barrier is constructed as required. D. Site Development Amenities: All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space, and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as noted in UDC 11-4-3- 27D. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multi-family development based on the number of units. For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units,three(3) amenities shall be provided with at least one(1) from each category. The following amenities are proposed from each of the following categories: 1)Quality of Life— enclosed bike storage; 2) Open Space—a community garden; and 3)Recreation: pathway and children's playground. The proposed amenities meet the minimum standard. If a pedestrian pathway is proposed, it's required to be a minimum of 5-feet wide and have 5-foot wide landscape strips on each side of the pathway as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. If it's not feasible to comply with these standards, the pathway should be removed. E. Landscaping Requirements: Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts",of this title.Additionally, all street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27E.2. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict landscaping along the street facing elevation adjacent to S. Locust Grove Rd in accord with these standards. Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C.A 5- oot wide pathway with 5-feet of landscaping on each side of the pathway is required,the landscape plan should be revised accordingly. A minimum 25 foot wide street buffer is required along E. Franklin Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd., landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Shrubs are required to be included along with trees and vegetative groundcover;the tree class should be included for the heritage birch. The perimeter buffer is required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.1.A minimum of one (1) Class II or III tree is required every 35 linear feet along with shrubs and vegetative groundcover—the landscape plan should be revised to include shrubs and calculations that demonstrate compliance with the standard Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10C.5.Include mitigation information on the landscape plan. F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas,and other development features." The Applicant shall comply with this requirement,a copy of such shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the development. Page 10 VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the existing Development Agreement and Conditional Use Permit with the provisions in Section IX. Page 11 VIIL EXHIBITS A. Previous Development Plan Approved with AZ-99-005 &CUP-99-005 and Existing Provisions "J COBBLESTONE. VILLAGE2,li- E RANK N RONO 20MM MULTI-FAMILY •• I E R-40 Bl1LDNCt •-96 APAATMEN35 ' •c PAPo M 192 SPACES q 4 HAN04CAP ACCESSIRLE - • -n e OWNER $TAMAS CORPORATION• A � "+yf •� � I OpC • e ARCKTECT'. TA URA k ASSOCIATES 2�•ro:aµ,u 2 � _ - cr •p lk1 T 6 RAM 9QEn•s - r • i.R W V'a r] q ,-0,4I!. .•..-.uo.. w Np.W ry Y •♦ � � M • • n . 1 W P.s+rl �• -- Trays •r n ou me `~jV r 77 • r `I • ' PROPERTY AREA JA1.0 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under "City"'s Zoning Ordinance codified at Section 11-2-408 B.6. Meridian City Code which are herein specified as follows: R- 0 High Density Residential Di trict: The purpose of the (R-40) District is to permit the establishment of high density residential uses at a density not exceeding forty (40) dwelling units per acre. Connection to the Municipal Water and. Sewer Systems of the City of Meridian is required. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement, Page 12 5. DEVELOPMENT IN CONDITIONAL USE: "Developer" has submitted to "City" an application for conditional use permit, and shall be required to obtain the "City—s approval thereof, in accordance to the City's Zoning &Development Ordinance criteria, therein, provided, prior to, and as a condition of, the commencement of construction of any buildings or improvements on the "Property" that require a conditional use permit. 6, CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. 6.1 "Developer"shall deveiop the "Property"in accordance with the following special conditions: 6.1.1. The legal description shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho, and shall conform to all the provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. The legal description for annexation must place this parcel contiguous to the Corporate City Limits per Ordinance No. 686. {See the legal description attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated here as if set forth in full.) 6.2 Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement, that provides in the event the conditions therein are not met by the Developer that the property shall be subject to de-annexation, with the City of Meridian which provides for the following conditions of development to-wit: 6.2.1 Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance I i-9-645.M, The ditches to be piped should be,shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association,with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 6.2.2 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic services per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. 'Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 6.2.3 Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Page 13 Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in site-specific requirements. 6.2.4 Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Sections 11-2-414.D.4 and l 1-2- 414.D.5. of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 6.2.5 A drainage plan designed by a State-of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 6.2.6 Outside lighting shall be designed and.placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section I 1-2-414.D.3. 6.2.7 All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and. Development Ordinance. No temporary signage, flags, banners or flashing signs will be permitted. 6.2.8 Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11.9-606.3. 6.2.9 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 6.2.10 Provide revised site plan detailing all existing and proposed utilities For review by the Meridian Public Works Department. Designer is to coordinate sizing and routing of sanitary sewer and water within the development with the Public Works Department. 6.2.11 Provide Public Works Department with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. Flow and pressure From the existing mains should be monitored with the Meridian Water Department to determine whether adequate fire protection e-Usts. 6.2.12Applicant shall be required to enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian. In addition to these assessments, "bate Conners" fees may also be charged against this parcel to help reimburse the parties responsible for installing mains to their current points. Page 14 6.2.13A total of 57 three-inch caliper trees are required for the project. Due to the issues of entryway corridors and buffering of adjacent properties, trees in addition to the required three-inch caliper trees should be provided. Landscape buffers on Locust Grove Road and Franklin road need to show detailed vegetation and tree plantings. Sodding only of these areas is not acceptable. Provide detailed landscape plan for review and approval. 6.2.14Particular attention will need to be paid to lighting plans to ensure adjacent residential properties and the traveling public is not impacted by glare, as determined by the City of Meridian. 6.2.15 Signage shall be limited to one Iow-profile monument type sign near the intersection of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review. 6.2.16 Construct five-foot-wide sidewalks along the entire frontages of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. 6.2.17Revise site plan to show screened trash enclosures. Coordinate locations and construction requirements with Meridian Sanitary Service, Inc., and provide a letter of approval from their office prior to applying for building permits. 6.2.18 Provide handicapped accessible parking spaces in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. All building and parking lot construction needs to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 6.2,19The parking areas shown do not meet minimum Ordinance requirements of a 9' x 9'stall with a minimum 25' driveway aisle. The parking dimensions shown could be acceptable given consideration for bumper overhang; however, the 6.2.20Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along Franklin and Locust Grove, as they do not provide buffering. 6.2.21 provide a landscaped setback of 35 feet beyond required right-of-way along Franklin Road, 6.2.22No City water will be allowed for landscape irrigation, Page 15 6.2.23 Six-foot-high, permanent perimeter fencing and buffering shall be provided adjacent to the existing residential use. 6.2.25 Five Mile Creels is designated as multiple use pathway in the Meridian Comprehensive flan, Fish, wildlife and vegetation species and habitat should be protected and maintained, provided it is in the best interests of the City of Meridian. Consideration should be made for the land uses in these areas to minimize the risk of pollution and to preserve the natural beauty of Five Mile Creels. 6.2.26Due to the topography of the site, the parcel currently accepts drainage water from the residential properties to the south. This drainage will need to be accommodated for in the development of the property. Page 16 B. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 2/7/2023) NCMY MAP FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 2a pp MM6p°'� �� EAST F.RANI[LIN RDAII OCCUI—YGROUPS —F HEIGHTS REgmREM PARCELA e�m 5118110051 2.39 AC MEANS OF EGRESS LO i ai �IIPRELIMINARY SITE PLAN P S Page 17 C. Proposed Landscape Plan(date: 1/12/2023,revised on 2/8/2023)—NOT APPROVED lettA- 31AEK AO CA EAST FRANKLIN ROAD ------------- P1 ANT RC HED J I F 0 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS E PLAN L100 Page 18 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(dated: 1/12/23,revised 2/8/23)—NOT APPROVED 11AC[Rll[I EAST FRANKLIN ROAD aaR®¢U Da j i 1 1x PAR C EL 5116i10051 ; ! ' I = m r ` w PLAN ! _ 6 f1SCl-L�� �L100 g 8 E Page 19 E. Conceptual Building Elevations &Floor Plan ID ED SCHEMATIC ELEVATIONS 0-NDLFYFLP-WrGG- ©—RCEMENTPANEL—EENWMCOWIBLACIQ 0 AEHTH TY ©YINYLEXT WINCOW53 COO1151RldCNE]Il7 0SMUGUA—AIL QYIN (t OOMP ENTRY DOOR WI FRCSTEC GL421NC QCCNCHETF NAlLg1Y W/STEEL6DAHDRAII /f-ny R F]IYERMMM0.TERIAL4 iy.WODDFRAMEDST0.IE—NC SYNTH IANDIHCS FH T RE■ 1/ \ lC H M HELLO�L AEHMCHCOIA�MYI2 MG`JIrRDE N 04 5P0 ME WA 5093S983p ET WOOCCLACCING NEW ECHWOOD-EVRCPE6N 1 a �5S SCHEMATIC VIGNETTES&MATERIALS STREET PERSPECTIVE TREKARCH �LLD��NANH DM SMCJH�EN20 PaKANEWA DD 58G .a. Page 20 y6�, _—------------_�__—_ __ --_ •4 5 9 I will. ------ aw -------------------- --------I --_ __�_______ SCHEMATIC ELEVATIONS EYPRE 1 a sTORE=RONTwauwr FRosTEoclAss FIBER CEMENTPAHELBESWEENWINWWIBLACq pxxx SLNTCIfARCHAIL VINYLE-NCCWSiGCMS(CLACNESI) OCCMP ENIHYCOOR WIFRCSTFD GIA55 Q CONL [:GflONNC LEVEL PATM1W1 CdNC WAlliaxSIAT WAMIWL�WCCC FRAMECSTAIRWICCNCLANC{NCS R TREKARCH q�I�SMMRWT#WS os EIflGLA�INCISTAIN�I TM FEElO�BTRENARCHCCM 1225 MIXJR6E d204,SMNANE,WA 50931Sn83o ��t f] p �LpG✓J S�F1pT&G w O 16 d I I I, rr t r A, r SCHEMATIC VIGNETTES$MATERIALS STREET PERSPECTIVE T R E KA RC H fLLO�REKM HCCP 25 MIX ROE 20 SPoNANE WA S�IS�� s N Page 21 ------------ HII - -------------- UNIT BREAKDOWN El El '!1 ------- ---- --------- ----------- - -------------- TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN(LEVEL 1-3) SCALE1/8'-1'-0" 2,8633F/FLOOR TREKARCHT. Page 22 F. Legal Description&ROS for Property Subject to Amended Development Agreement(Parcel A) A parcel located in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18,Township 3 North,Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap monument marking the Northeasterly corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter from which a 5/8 inch diameter iron pin marking the Southeasterly corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter bears South 0'31'11" West a distance of 1329.58 feet.thence South 0°31'11" West along the Easterly boundary of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 565.45 feet to a point; thence leaving said Easterly boundary South 89°40'52" West a distance of 48.01 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pin and the POINT OF BEGINNING,thence coutmumg South 89°40'52" West a distance of 426.63 feet to a 5/8 inch diameter iron pin on the Easterly boundary of Medunont Subdivision No. 1 as shown in Book 75 of Plats at Page 7794 in the office of the Recorder,Ada County,Idaho: thence North 0°58'12" East along said Easterly boundary a distance of 378.91 feet to a 5/8 inch diameter iron pin marking an angle point in said Easterly boundary;thence continuing along said Easterly boundary North 2014'56" West a distance of 142.37 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pin, thence leaving said Easterly boundary North 89°46'00" East a distance of 58.37 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pin,thence South 83°23'59" East a distance of 70.65 feet to a 518 arch diameter iron pin;thence South 2°14'32" East a distance of 390.37 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pin;thence South 89°28'49" East a distance of 283.06 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pin:thence South 0°31111" West a distance of 118.23 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. RECORD OF SURVEY NO. _L_?2ka._ acnais ire ] e FOR E.FRANKON ROAD W I] MERIDIANOZ, LLC A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NEi/4 NE1/4 n NE.Bg� 'oc'E -sarzrsa OF SECTION 18. N„ E.,BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, N,ADADA COUNTY,IDAHO 2022 I E I al I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR tl i S µC S%RM TMETID I C SRSP'EFPENA7101 AND CT ACT I I � 1601 I� COLLEEN MAARS L5.TOCS n_{e 45 !W R I�� P]teex esT A.E.H.O.SIOWMMR OEIENIIEN POND I m CERTIFICATE OE COUNTY RECORDER I I a mswuAExr No.2nzns9l,xTe f 7 N 4 O STATE aP 11 I I Imo/ auurc'DZO)ss I CETTEY THAT NIS INSTRUMENT WA LEOUFgi RECORD rt� I O T NE REWfST OF NET101AN02,LLC AT I TS PAST rJ'E aaorx gM.,NIS aT" oar aE fkdnB.er f�+n U pE TY pECA pER PFlOma�CER o.E_ 8 I � s.e818A94. eRa 08' f/1 ... PARCEL A �� LEGEND E.HIS. i guR RDnO —--— T PROR—LIxE 1-S SQS 13 —ONES PROP UNE SECTION LNE I $ Ec m¢6�w.IENT 1]m ---- O WND S/e'IRON PIN " o NER 00RNER-Eallo s/9-IRON ul T,/z-1R N w/PLAmc cAP MARxeD Ls Toes -IT NARRATIVE: o cALc ( ) R-NII DATA 11uSEo ET4WNWMAFLETF IHISR A E xERFon1ME i0u0xiHG Al EI5[cnaN Ia S SM 0.5O S CF ADAPI'JNtto0u10 58 ,Baal, msl,,Dees e:ITJze,REcaH ,I INDEX N0.311-16-110-00-000 z REEEREN¢IS NAOE ro THE Eau.oW,Nc suawwslw PUT MARKS LAND SUR4EVING, LLC MEowDNT suB.—Dlv,9�xa.+eTDR]s°fE vuT's ni vncE6 RT'as°'-ems• FFCORbs a EWII11 ionxD. ] eAsti 50 0 25 50 1W COLLEEN MARKS,L.S.10- ® 2495 N.GOLE ROAD S1E.240 }TIE PRDPEATT IS CURRENTLY ZONED R-b SCALE IN FEET BOISE,IOANO 83]04 Page 23 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Development Agreement Modification: I. The subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #99121334 AZ-99-005)for Cobblestone Village and shall instead be subject to a new agreement. The new DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting approval of the amendment. The specific provisions for the new DA are as follows: a. Development of this site shall be generally consistent with the site plan,landscape plan, common open space exhibit and building elevations included in Section V1II and the conditions of approval included in Section IX. b. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveway with a pedestrian walkway shall be provided to the property to the south for future interconnectivity in accord with UDC 11-3A- 3A.2. Provisions carried over from the existing DA: c. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on the adjacent single-family residential property to the south in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 11 C.3. d. Six-foot tall closed vision perimeter fencing shall be provided adjacent to the existing single- family residential use to the south for buffering.When that property redevelops in the future,the section of the fence where the driveway is proposed shall be removed to allow interconnectivity between properties as desired in the Mixed-use designation;the entire fence may be removed at that time if desired to promote integration of uses in the mixed-use area. e. Due to the topography of the site,the subject property accepts drainage water from the residential properties to the south. This drainage will need to be accommodated for in the development of the property. Conditional Use Permit: 2. The multi-family development shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. 3. Floor plans should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with the private open space standard of 80 square feet for each unit,per UDC 11-4-3-27B.3. 4. The multi-family development shall record a legally binding document that states the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of said document shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 5. Provide a recycling receptacle in the trash enclosures. 6. Comply with building code requirements for separation between structures within the development. 7. All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Page 24 8. The site and/or landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised as follows: a. All transformer and utility vaults and other service areas shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. b. Depict landscaping along the foundation of the east side of Building 5 that faces S. Locust Grove Rd. as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27E.2. c. Depict a bicycle rack near the entrance of each multi-family building that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. d. Depict a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4) feet in height along E. Franklin Rd. & S. Locust Grove Rd. with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27C.7. e. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide pathway with 5-foot wide strips of landscaping containing trees, shrubs and vegetative groundcover on each side of the pathway,per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Include calculations to demonstrate compliance in the Landscape Requirements table. If there is not sufficient area to comply with these standards,the pathway should be removed. f. Provide a minimum of 13,500 square feet(or 0.31-acre) of common open space that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C. The qualified open space is short of the minimum standard by 2,710 sf. The Applicant plans to provide an enhanced buffer along Franklin and Locust Grove Roads that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 27C.8; 50% of these buffers can count toward qualified open space.Additionally, there is a 5- foot wide strip on the south side of the buffer along Franklin that doesn't appear to be included in the open space calc's—this area can count 100% toward qualified open space. With these areas, the total open space would be 14,092 sf. (or 0.32-acre), which complies with the minimum standards. The Applicant should either revise the open space exhibit and landscape plan prior to the Commission hearing to include these areas and enhanced buffer elements or reduce the number of units in order to reduce the amount of open space required. g. Depict trees and shrubs along with vegetative groundcover within minimum 5-foot wide perimeter buffers adjacent to parking or other vehicular use areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.1. Include calculations to demonstrate compliance in the Landscape Requirements table. The buffers along the west and south boundary appear to be under the required width and do not contain landscaping. h. Depict shrubs along with the proposed trees and vegetative groundcover in the 25-foot wide street buffers along E. Franklin Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.,per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The tree class should also be included for the heritage birch. i. Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site as set forth in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. Include mitigation information on the plan. j. The existing curb cut via Franklin Rd. shall be removed from the plan and curbing extended across the driveway and street buffer landscaping installed. k. Include a detail for the enclosed bike storage and community garden amenities. 1. Depict a cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveway with a pedestrian walkway to the property to the south for future interconnectivity in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Page 25 in. Depict minimum 5-foot wide sidewalks around the building adjacent to the rows of parking on the east side of Building 3,the east and west sides of Building 4, and the west side of Building 5 in accord with UDC 11-3A-17A. n. To increase visibility within the parking area and of the common area along Franklin Rd., relocate the trash enclosure to the east boundary of the site. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches. 1.2 Any changes in direction of the sewer main must be made at a manhole. 1.3 Sewer service lines must be installed 90 degrees to the main or connected at manhole. 1.4 All manholes must have a 14 foot paved or gravel access path per City standards. 1.5 Water main must loop through site and connect to both Franklin Rd and Locust Grove Rd 1.6 There shall be no permanent structures within public utility easement including,but not limited to trees,bushes, carports, fences, infiltration trenches,light poles,trash receptacles,overhead power, etc. 1.7 A new streetlight on Franklin Rd and a new streetlight on Locust Grove are required. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 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. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC Page 26 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 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.10 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.11 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.12 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.13 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.14 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.15 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.16 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.17 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.18 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at hyp://www.meridiancity.oMlpublic_works.aspx?id=272. 2.19 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. 2.20 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of Page 27 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 No comments were submitted. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/PDFIO/08]7d448-6Oa3-4e76-99dc-5243e49fabe8l280047 E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=282183&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.asx?id=280818&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=283371&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https://weblink.meridianciU.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=286688&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU&cr =1 I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=281852&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU J. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) httgs://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=282866&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU X. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-511-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-40 zoning district(see Analysis, Section V for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is generally consistent with the future land use map designation of MU-C and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 in the R-40 zoning district. Page 28 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for and existing in this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water, and sewer. Staff finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Comments were received from WASD, included in Section IX.G above, that state how area schools will likely be impacted by this development. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds theproposed use will not create excessive additional costs forpublic facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed residential use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feather of importance. Page 29 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Millwood Subdivision (H-2022-0089) by Epic Development, located at 1975 E. Victory Rd. Application Materials: https:Hbit.ly/H-2022-0089 A. Request: Annexation of 4.11 acres of land with a R-8 zoning district.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 17 building lots (including 1 for the existing home) and 2 common lots on 4.11 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: February 16, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 8 PROJECT NAME: Millwood Subdivision (H-2022-0089) 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 Let i -5 J ij A iT 6<V\ 0, Na 7 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1,H p HEARING February 16, 2023 Legend _ DATE: 0 Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission , FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner _ 208-884-5533 a:1 4 6 n SUBJECT: Millwood Subdivision H-2022-0089 T.tt - _ , LOCATION: 1975 E.Victory Rd., in the NW 1/4 of Section 29,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel .. #SI129223095) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 4.74 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and preliminary plat consisting of 17 building lots(including one for an existing home) and two(2) common lots on 4.11 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district for Millwood Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 4.11 acres(4.74 acres—annexation area) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR) Existing Land Use Single-family rural residential(SFR) Proposed Land Use(s) SFR Current Zoning Rural Urban Transition(RUT)in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-8(Medium-density Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 17 building/2 common Phasing plan(#of phases) NA(not proposed to be phased) Number of Residential Units(type 17 single-family detached units(including existing home) of units) Density(gross&net) 4.14 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total[%]/ 0.27-acre(7%) buffer/qualified) Pagel Amenities Tot lot with play equipment and a segment of the City's multi-use pathway system. Physical Features(waterways, The Eight Mile Lateral runs off-site along the east boundary of the site. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date 10/27/22 History(previous approvals) ROS#2426&#2734 B. Community Metric Description Details Ada County Hjghway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • Existing There is one(1)stub street planned to the west boundary of this site with Conditions Teakwood Place Subdivision(H-2020-0006). • CIP/IFYWP Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)!Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): (If no improvements listed/scheduled) There are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that are in the Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP)or the District's Capital Improvement Plan(GIP). • Victory Road is scheduled in the IFYWP for a corridor improvement project:Victory Corridor B, which includes widening to 3-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road and constructing enhanced pedestrian bike facilities with design scheduled for 2025. • The intersection of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the IFYWP for an intersection project including constructing a multi-lane roundabout, removing,and replacing the existing bridge over the Tenmile creek;with construction in 2023. • Locust Grove Road Bridge#12 is scheduled in the IFYWP for a bridge improvement project: South Meridian Improvements A,which includes removing and replacing the existing bridge over Ten Mile Creek,with construction in 2026. • The intersection of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 4-lanes on the north leg,4-lanes on the south,4-lanes east,and 4-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2021 and 2025. • Victory Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2026 and 2030. Level of Service Better than"E" "E"is acceptable) Access Existing access for this parcel is provided via an access easement across the (Arterial/Collectors/State parcel to the northeast of this site(#S 1129223005 DeChambeau)via E.Victory Hwy/Local)(Existing and Rd.Proposed access is via the extension of E.Richardson St.,a local street Proposed) proposed with Teakwood Subdivision at the west boundary. Proposed Road Improvements None this site doesn't have frontage on Victor Rd. Fire Department • Distance to Fire Station 1.6 miles from Station#4 • Resource Reliability 74%(doesn't meet targeted goal of 80%or greater) • Risk Identification 2(current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths&turnarounds. • Special/resource needs An aerial device is required. • Water Supply 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour • Other Resources Page 2 • •. 11 / I I 'I "1 1. 1 1 • 1 _1 � • 1 1 1 1 1 1 Iiii��ri11111111��•4��,Q�♦ - - - .� Ili U..Ia ��1..1.� �♦����1r r -- - - - G� �Ill■ ' - ♦ ��i� . _ ZEE- • o - p� ��♦i���■■ua1 .mom\\�i�♦♦Q��t r11111.f\lul. �: i—� 1 •�-��,..:I�Inl�ll llllll , ,NINE VICTORY-- - � - II IIII��p■IIIIIIpII-.����t '"` lllll•i n .. Ill llll��/IIIIIII 011lllll �rr� � a IIII•l• nll unn. n:p uuum nunw I .. �rr• � ���; � - ~t i : NIMBI .a. ■ _ IA��� � N ,r ///..////•lO/•///.\ �. �I::... 11 .1 1►� =.r r*��I.♦I� .���i�1; i r►uu■11111 I11u11�1 1�0 0r� 0KU II 111111111111. f �I tllllll OIIIIIIIIIIIIII Il 1 ��1♦ ��$ ee C�� -+1 I�-nnnu.' Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend Project Location 1 � Project Location City Limits — Planned Parcels R-8 -8aLSOTi IRUT T RUT minn RUT 8�TJF� in III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Truman Mathews,Epic Development— 1831 E. Overland Rd.,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Ted Burke,EDM Partners—2185 East 3300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84109 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 1/29/2023 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 1/26/2023 Public hearing notice sign posted NA (not required as the on site property is not adjacent to any streets) Nextdoor posting 1/30/2023 Page 4 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Medium-Density Residential(MDR)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three(3)to eight(8)dwelling units per acre. The Applicant proposes a 17-lot subdivision for single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 4.14 units per acre,consistent with the density desired in the MDR designation. Lots for proposed homes range in size from 4,245 square feet(s.f.) (or 0.10-acre)to 6,799 s.f. (or 0.16-acre); the size of the lot proposed for the existing home is 34,706 s.f. (or 0.80-acre). Although the overall density is consistent with the density desired in the MDR designation,the lot sizes proposed are smaller than typical for the density proposed with the retention of the existing home on a large lot. TRANSPORTATION: The Master Street Map(MSM) does not depict any collector streets across this property. Local streets are proposed internally for access to the proposed lots. Transit services are not available to this site. Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed single-family detached dwellings on smaller lots will contribute to the variety of housing types andfinancial capabilities offuture residents available in the City. • "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. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) This area is concentrated with single-family detached homes on a variety of lot sizes in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts; there is no diversity in housing types in this area. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) No buffering or screening is proposed as residential is proposed next to residential land uses. The development proposes lot sizes that are 2,000+ sf smaller than abutting lots in the development process to the west in Teakwood Subdivision and about twice as small as those to the south in Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. To provide a better transition to abutting future lots to the west,Staff recommends one(1)lot is removed in the area between Lots 6-8 where portions of three(3)lots abut one(1) lot, and another one removed along the south boundary in the area between Lots 11- 14. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed development should be compatible with abutting existing and future single-family residential uses if the applicant revises the plat as recommended above to minimize conflicts. Page 5 • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities, irrespective of existing development." (2.02.02C) The subject property is part of a larger infill area that has not yet redeveloped and is surrounded by City annexed land. The proposed residential development shouldn't have a negative impact on abutting existing development if a better transition in lot sizes and configuration is provided as recommended. • "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 with development of the subdivision;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. The existing home that is proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision is required to connect to City water and sewer service. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) The Pathways Master Plan depicts a segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the west side of the adjacent Eight Mile Lateral adjacent to the northern portion of the east boundary of this site.A micro path is proposed to the west in the common lot at the southwest corner of the site for connectivity with the adjacent development(Teakwood Subdivision). The Applicant should coordinate with the adjacent developer to provide a break in the fencing where the common areas adjoin to allow the connectivity between developments and a larger overall open space area to be enjoyed by residents of both developments. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are required to be provided with development of the subdivision. • "Eliminate existing private treatment and septic systems on properties annexed into the City and instead connect users to the City wastewater system; discourage the prolonged use of private treatment septic systems for enclave properties." If annexed, the existing home will be required to abandon the existing septic system and connect to the City wastewater system. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Development of the subject infill parcel will maximize public services. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION(AZ) The Applicant proposes to annex 4.74 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district,which includes land to the center line of the adjacent Eight Mile Lateral owned by NMID. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. Page 6 There is an existing home and some accessory structures on the site;the existing home is proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision,the accessory structures will be removed. As a provision of annexation,the existing home should connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available and disconnect from private service,as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to develop with 16 new single-family detached dwellings and retention of the existing home (see Section VIII). The proposed use and density of the development is consistent with the MDR FLUM designation as noted above in Section V. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. This property and the properties to the north and east are enclaves surrounded by City annexed land with existing and future single-family residential detached homes. As noted above in Section V, development of infill properties is supported provided it doesn't negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Because like uses(i.e. single-family detached residential)are proposed,the proposed development should be compatible with adjacent uses and shouldn't negatively impact them. Removing a lot along the west boundary and the south boundary as noted above in Section V should provide a better transition to abutting lots and not negatively impact them. Future development should be generally consistent with the development plans submitted with this application and should comply with the conditions included in Section IX. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IX.A. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 4.14 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district(see Section VIII.B). Proposed lots range in size from 4,245 square feet (s.f.) (or 0.10-acre)to 6,799 s.f. (or 0.16-acre)with a 34,706 square foot(or 0.80-acre)lot where the existing home is proposed to remain. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and accessory structures on this site. The home is proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision;the accessory structures will be removed. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the district are required to be removed. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district although a curve table was not included on the plat to ensure compliance.Lot numbers in each block should be consecutive; revise accordingly. Access: Access is proposed via the extension of E. Richardson St., a local street planned to stub to the west boundary of the site with development of Teakwood Subdivision. Emergency access is proposed via the driveway for the existing home at the east boundary of the site from Victory Rd. and to the north through Lot 1. Bollards are required to be placed across the emergency access driveway from Victory Rd.,30 feet from the right-of-way of Victory Rd.,to prohibit public access; bollards shall meet the Fire Dept. requirements as either knock over or two bollards with a heavy chain and knox padlock. Page 7 ACHD is requiring right-of-way(ROW)to be dedicated(but the street not constructed) for the future extension of Richardson St. from the east side of Tamayo Ct. to the east property line upon redevelopment of the property to the east. This unimproved area may be landscaped if desired through a license agreement with ACHD. A local street(Tamayo Ct.)is proposed off Richardson St. to the south terminating in a cul-de-sac.No other stub streets exist to this site that require extension and no other stub streets are required to be provided to adjacent properties. The proposed dead-end street/cul-de-sac complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.4. The access for the existing home via an easement from Victory Rd. shall terminate and sole access should be provided internally from Tamayo Ct.; emergency access only may be provided from this driveway. The address for the existing home is required to change since access will no longer be provided via Victory Rd. Common Driveways(UDC 11-6C-3D): All common driveways are required to be designed and constructed per the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Two(2)common driveways are proposed on the plat. All properties that abut a common driveway shall take access from the driveway;however, if an abutting property(i.e. Lot 12)has the required minimum street frontage,that property is not required to take access from the common driveway. In this situation,the abutting property's driveway shall be on the opposite side of the shared property line; away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways shall be prohibited,unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover. A revised detail for the common driveways should be submitted that depicts the setbacks,fencing,building envelope(including parking pad), landscaping and orientation of the lots and structures. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. The easement may be depicted on the plat with a note including the required specifications or in a separate easement. If a separate easement is submitted,a copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): No street buffers are required to be provided in this subdivision as only local streets are proposed,which don't require buffers per UDC Table 11-2A-6. Landscaping is required along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; the landscape plan should be revised to include landscaping along the micro-path in the common lot at the southwest corner of the site and along the multi-use pathway along the northern portion of the east boundary of the site. Calculations should be included demonstrating compliance with these standards. Landscaping is proposed in common open space areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5B.3.Include calculations on the plan that demonstrate compliance. There are a lot of existing trees on this site,many of which are proposed to be preserved and protected as depicted on the landscape plan. Mitigation is required for trees being removed from the site per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5 and should be depicted on the landscape plan. The landscape plan incorrectly depicts an irrigation easement over the common lot at the east boundary of the site; the plan should be revised to remove the easement. Common Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-3): Common open space and site amenities are required to be provided with development of properties of 5 acres or more in area per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. This site consists of 4.11 acres of land;therefore,minimum open space& site amenity Page 8 standards do not apply. A total of 0.27-acre (or 7%)of common open space is proposed consisting of a 0.18-acre common area with a 30' x 40' tot lot along the west boundary of the site with a pathway that connects to common open in the abutting future development to the west(Teakwood subdivision) and another 0.08-acre common lot on the northeast portion of the site. Additional common open space (approximately 0.20-acre)will be provided with the provision of a common lot for the multi-use pathway along the east boundary of the site. Total common open space provided within the development will be approximately 0.55-acre(or 13.5%). Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts a multi-use pathway along the eastern boundary of this site adjacent to the Eight Mile Lateral;the"working"version of the plan has been updated to depict the pathway crossing the lateral at the existing bridge and then continuing to the south on the east side of the lateral. The landscape plan should be revised to include a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway with a 5- foot wide strip on each side of the pathway,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C,in the common lot along the east boundary of the site on the portion of the site north of the bridge; the common lot proposed to the south of the bridge is not needed and the area should be absorbed into adjacent building lots.The pathway should be constructed per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8.A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the pathway prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. The Park's Dept. recommends the off-site bridge across the Eight Mile Lateral be widened or a separate pedestrian bridge constructed to accommodate the 10-foot wide multi-use with NMID's consent. Sidewalks(11-3A-17): A 5-foot wide attached sidewalk is required along internal local streets as proposed. Sidewalks and curbing are not required along common driveways; remove from the plan. Waterways: The Eight Mile Lateral runs off-site along the eastern boundary of the site within property owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. Fencing: All fencing is required to be comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7. A 6-foot tall closed vision fence is proposed along the perimeter boundary of the development and around common open space areas visible from the street. A 4-foot tall open vision fence is proposed adjacent to the multi-use pathway and canal along the east boundary of the site. A detail of the proposed fencing should be included on a revised landscape plan submitted with the final plat application. The Applicant should coordinate with the adjacent developer of Teakwood Subdivision to the west to provide a break in the fencing where the common areas adjoin to allow the connectivity between developments and a larger overall open space area to be enjoyed by residents of both developments. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The existing home proposed to remain on Lot 3,Block 2 is required to connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. A geotechnical resort was submitted with this subdivision. Page 9 Building Elevations: Six(6)conceptual building elevation photos were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like(see Section VIILE). A mix of single-story and 2- story homes are proposed with a mix of building materials,including stone veneer accents, and architectural elements. Future structures should be generally consistent with the proposed elevations. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement, and preliminary plat per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 10 VIIL EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map ANNEXATION MILLWOOD SUB EXHBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land lying in the NW 114 of the NW 1/4 of Section 29,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the North 114 Corner of said Section 29;thence N.89°49'00"W. along the North line of said Section 29 a distance of 1340.37 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence 5.00°01'15"W. a distance of 629.36 feet more or less to a to a point lying on the Centerline of Eight Mile Lateral, said pin also being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence 5,00'01'15"W.a distance of 390.73 feet to a sJ8" iron pin; Thence N.73°42'00"W. a distance of 354.80 feet to a 5�8" iron pin; Thence -00`(31'30"W. a distance of 791.62 feet more or less to a point on the Centerline of Eight Mile Lateral; Thence along the Centerline of Eight Mile Lateral 5.37°58'06"E. a distance of 281.07 feet to a point; Thence Writinuing along Said centerline 5.3C'32'48"E, a distance of 328.43 feet to a point also being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 4.74 acres, more Dr less, and is subject to all existing easements and rights-of-ways of record or implied. not 15758 &-2*f3•2-3 g f OF NO �J. HO* Page 11 EXHIBIT B ANNEXATION FOR MILLWOOD SUS. PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF THE NW1/4, SECTION29, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO CP&F NO, IV=OF BEARINGS 2021-043321 VICTORY ROAD a�E 19 20 SEO'49'WE 2580.69' p' sh 0•� 30 29 104Q.4T 339.66' '1340.57 w N 1/4 COR SEC73ON 29 o CPSF NO. 2621-037427 In n n a x \\\ UNPLATTFD A��9 I 73.18'\'�• 4y a� .ate N N s 0 � N -{��`•� UNPLATTRR J� TEAKD 5UBDINSION O O Z 1 d rn 15758 / °F �� Q► N a J. Ho*l S srJ.Oz1 �`E 354'er �1'q'l LEQE.ND TISCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION NO. 2 — — ANNEXATION BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE GRAPE-IBC SCALE PROPERTY UNE 75 0 37.5 75 150 300 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP ® FOUND 5/8-IRON PIN {IN FEET 150} p CALCULATED POINT—NOT SET 1 ancM1- R --- 611E PFSIGN 8Y: SHEET: #' -J•�i.•.•. J.J. HOWARD ,1,,:',zz /�1� >�© , , MiLLW00D SUB. nwanl N0. ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION EXHI8IT as x me germ a v w rr�ry 1" _ 150, CLS 220503 Page 12 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 2/10/23) Millwood Subdivision —i.cvoahmsm —14 rvva/a.rsKmo 29,Tu—,3N—k , aerie K..�a+ss�r.�a.uo .vrsP�rs�.ec�,a,ms�u DEVELOPMENT Fr p r Ft", rk I I h, � Millwood EP,I Subdivision r Jr�l su- .J a R ..�..... .., C-1 Page 13 C. Landscape Plan(dated: 12/1/2022) - - — — — — — — — —.— �— - -- LNtU9GME ♦q�9 L_____PF L,.1 L4N09GAWtPREa� LLl_x LANOGfMEA1N1ApE0x___—__ ..,' _L100 q � LANUSGF MEfITS \ I � I m i i 101 Page 14 as ---T-- \ \ I v iv L NOSQ PE REQUIREMENTS .Y L \\ I PLANTSOHEOULE - I O o O I v I' � I 7 � I I > \ I > �IIY v a I it IIL I I � — il L I wuoscAPE % � L PIAN-AREA2 i --(—� L------- ---------- ----------------- ------ �L102 r0 ' d CJ1 BALL&BU-TREE PLANRNG SHRUB PLMRING evw 3..PLAN TERISlANOOETAIL /1 CONCRETE BIOEWALNS ADJ LANOINGiT ..n .I ®u ... I I ewm a b-n aua.. .. „a one �m i�l�cnmiw+m rj� �� -E.-EENCE NOlE58 OETAllS �L150 Page 15 D. Common Driveway Exhibit—NOT APPROVED u S MiFlwoad bdiv'' i.w�s.<=..n,r..�wv+mm�. , mse v,An ws��m awx I � _ — EPIG DCVCIDPId[Ni All MEN- 1� t - I �i PAYEaE1R SECtIpI TABLE 191.,.,.......,..�4 ".._. EXH-1 M:Ilmeod Subdiv:sien y iai ...avawam LL DEVELOPKI14T d( EF e z. j i I I I I_ I I I xxms«d.x I I n I I I I k I Ai I I I � I "`"` 14V` I �• a 79�cIlA�'9a4SRY�� wrvEr sLcrnN mall yen d! r�rswrese�m E i .tl>ZL •, CIu.h1E PwWE!➢ l.Mxry M.MN Page 16 E. Conceptual Building Elevation Photos OR — Aff Y _ AI l R Page 17 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION I. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. The existing home proposed to remain on a lot in the subdivision shall be required to connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available and disconnect from private service, as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Remove a minimum of one(1)lot along the west boundary in the area between Lots 6-8 where portions of three(3)lots abut one(1) lot; and remove a minimum of one(1)lot along the south boundary in the area between Lots I I-14 in order to provide a better transition in lot sizes to adjacent properties. b. Right-of-way is required to be dedicated from the east side of Tamayo Ct. to the east property line to allow for future construction of a stub street(Richardson St.).No improvements are required in this area at this time,per the ACHD staff report(condition#2). c. Remove the sidewalks and curbing along common driveways. d. Include a curve table. e. Revise lot numbers in each block to be consecutive. f. Remove the common lot for the pathway along the eastern boundary of this site south of the existing bridge as the pathway is planned to cross the bridge and continue off-site to the south. This area can be absorbed by adjacent lots. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Revise the lot configuration as required in conditions#2a and#2f above. b. Depict landscaping if desired in the right-of-way required to be dedicated for the future extension of Richardson St. from Tamayo Ct. to the east property line. A license agreement will be required with ACHD for landscaping within this area per the ACHD staff report(condition #2). c. Depict a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway with a 5-foot wide strip on each side of the pathway in the common lot along the northern portion of the east boundary of the site(north of the existing bridge across the Eight Mile Lateral adjacent to Lots 1-3,Block 1 and Lot 3,Block 2), in accord with the"working"version of the Pathways Master Plan, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. d. Include mitigation calculations on the plan for existing trees that are proposed to be removed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-I005. Page 18 e. Include calculations that demonstrate compliance with the common open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-SB.3 and the pathway standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. f. Include a detail for each of the proposed fencing types and for the children's play equipment proposed for the tot lot. g. Remove the perimeter fencing along the west boundary of the common lot at the southwest corner of the development where it adjoins common area in Teakwood Subdivision if the Applicant is able to coordinate with the adjacent developer to arrange no fencing on that development in the same area. h. Depict bollards across the emergency access driveway 30 feet from the right-of-way of Victory Rd.to prohibit public access;bollards shall meet the Fire Dept. requirements as either knock over or two bollards with a heavy chain and knox padlock. i. Remove the irrigation easement depicted over the common lot along the east boundary of the site as there is no easement over that area. 4. The Applicant should coordinate with the adjacent developer of Teakwood Subdivision to the west to provide a break in the fencing where the common areas adjoin to allow the connectivity between developments and a larger overall open space area to be enjoyed by residents of both developments. 5. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district shall be removed. 6. The address for the existing home is required to change since access will no longer be provided from E. Victory Rd. The Applicant should coordinate the new address with the Land Development Dept. (tricks(iDmeridiancity.orgy. 7. Access for the existing home shall be provided solely from internal local streets;the existing driveway via E.Victory Rd. shall be used solely for emergency access. 8. Submit a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway required along the northern portion of the east boundary of the site prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. 9. All common driveways shall be designed and constructed per the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Submit a detail for each of the common driveways with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope(including parking pad), landscaping and orientation of the lots and structures that complies with the aforementioned standards. Make any changes necessary to the preliminary plat and landscape plan to comply with these standards. 10. The bridge across the Eight Mile Lateral shall be widened or a separate pedestrian bridge constructed to accommodate the 10-foot wide multi-use pathway as required by the Park's Dept. with the NMID's consent. 11. Approval of a preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat. Upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with subsections(A)and(B) of UDC 11-6B-7,the director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two(2)years. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the director or City Council may require the preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of this title. Page 19 B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 As per the Pre-con notes, applicant to provide water main to property boundary along this southeast portion(need to provide to-and-through to 2015 E VICTORY RD). 1.2 Water mains are not allowed in common driveways. 1.3 Mains require 20'easement with no permanent structures which includes trees. 1.4 Provide hydrant or 4"blow-off at eastern property boundary. 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. 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 Page 20 in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.17 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.19 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.20 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.21 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Page 21 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.meridiancity.orz/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=286468&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr =1 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments were submitted. E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT No comments were submitted. F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=287221&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiy G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) No comments were submitted. H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=287891&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr =1 I. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=287900&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX J. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aWx?id=288 769&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.oLy WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=288763&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: Page 22 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the Applicant's request to annex the subject property with R-8 zoning and develop single- family detached dwellings on the site at a gross density of 4.14 units per acre is consistent with the density desired in the MDR designation for this property. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to R-8 and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential homes/uses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds City services are available to be provided to this development. Comments were not received from WASD on this application so Staff is unable to determine impacts to the school district. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Stafffinds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services 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; Stafffinds the plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements for this area in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. Page 23 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 24 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation MILLWOOD SUB PLAT-ANNEXATION/R8/PRE Medium DensityInfillComplies with Comp Plan COMPATIBLE R8 CONNECT TEAKWOOD 4.4 DU/ACRE 11/22 PLAT– QUESTIONS