Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-21 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Joe Borton (left at 9:03 p.m.) Councilwoman Liz Strader (left at 9:12 p.m.) Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 1. Settlers Park Subdivision Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement No. 1 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Sagecreek Subdivision (SHP-2023-0001) by Mason and Associates, located at 1554 S. Labrador Way 3. Approval of Sole Source purchase of Allen Bradley Products from Consolidated Electric 4. Agreement for Use of Kleiner Park for Capital Church Community Egg Hunt 5. Memorandum of Agreement between the Idaho Transportation Department and the City of Meridian for Meridian Police Department’s Use of Department of Motor Vehicles Motor Vehicle Registration Information 6. Resolution No. 23-2378: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian Approving City Council President's Appointments of Meridian's Meridian City Council March 21, 2023. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6.01 p.m. Tuesday, March 21, 2023, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Brad Hoaglun, Luke Cavener, Jessica Perreault, Liz Strader and John Overton. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Berle Stokes, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_ John Overton _X_ Jessica Perreault _X—Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is March 21 st, 2023. It's 6.01 p.m. We will begin this City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item up is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Next up will be the community invocation, which tonight will be delivered by Doug Connelly of Stonehill Church. If you would all, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Conley: Thank you for allowing me to do this tonight. Dear God, we thank you, we love you and we are so thankful for all that you have given to us, whether it be our life and our breath. Lord, we thank you for a country we get to live in where we have the freedom to worship you and we have the freedom of -- of speech and so many other freedoms and we also thank you for the community that we live in. We thank you that we live in Meridian and truly blessed with the city, with so many great things, but most importantly so many great people. We thank you for the leaders of this community and -- and all that they do to serve it both day in and day out as they do their best to see the City of Meridian continue to be a great place. So, I pray for them. Lord, I lift them up tonight. I lift up the Mayor, God, that you would give him the strength and wisdom to lead in the way that you want him to lead. God, give him the strength and what we think of the City Council Members as well and, God, thank you for them and their service and Representatives to Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho and its Executive Board; Providing an Effective Date; and Affirming Other Appointments ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 7. Public Hearing for Proposed Summer 2023 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Continued to March 28, 2023 Motion to continue to March 28, 2023 made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 8. Resolution No. 23-2377: A Resolution Adopting the Summer 2023 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Continued to March 28, 2023 Motion to continue to March 28, 2023 made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 9. Public Hearing continued from February 14, 2023 for Sagarra (H-2022-0027) by Accomplice, located on the south side of W. Orchard Park Dr., west of N. Fox Run Way and east of N. Linder Rd. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0027 A. Request: Planned Unit Development for a residential community containing a mix of single-family detached, single-family attached, townhome and multi- family units with a reduction to the setback requirements in UDC Table 11-2A- 6; and two private streets. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 114 building lots and 16 common lots (including 3 private street lots) on 17.49 acres in the R-8 and C-C zoning districts. Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Overton, Councilman Cavener Voting Nay: Councilwoman Strader, Councilwoman Perreault 10. Public Hearing for Meridian OZ Apartments (H-2022-0073) by Realm Venture Group, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. Denied Application Materials: https://bit.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. Motion to deny made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 11. Public Hearing for Millwood Subdivision (H-2022-0089) by Epic Development, located at 1975 E. Victory Rd. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.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. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION 12. Per Idaho Code 74-206 (a) To consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, wherein the respective qualities of individuals are to be evaluated in order to fill a particular vacancy or need Amended as follows: Per Idaho Code 74-206 (d) To consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code Motion made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener Into Executive Session: 10:52 p.m. Out of Executive Session: 10:58 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 10:58 p.m. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 2 of 94 their willingness to -- to do this. Lord, we just pray that you would continue to guide them and give them wisdom and clarity in all things, Lord. We lift up the city staff and other city officials and -- and workers and first responders, Lord -- God, as they -- as they work hard and as they serve this community, God, would you bless them as they serve our -- our people on a daily basis and give them what they need. And, then, finally, Lord, I pray for the residents of our community and just help us, Lord, help us to do the things that we need to do to step up and to serve our community, Lord, whether it's the service or voting or -- or whatever it would be, God, that we would -- we would add to this -- this place and -- and help us, Lord, to be what we need to be. God, would you be in this City Council meeting tonight in all of the decisions they have to make would you guide them, God, give them direction and wisdom and clarity, Lord, and -- on the things that, Lord, you want them to do and -- and how to handle those decisions, Lord, and just help it to go smoothly tonight. So, we thank you, we love you, and we thank you for this opportunity, in Jesus' name, amen. Thank you. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you. Council, next up is adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: We do have one change in tonight's agenda. We have an Executive Session at the end of our meeting, but we want to make sure we do it the right way and that is we are just doing a little bit alphabet shuffle. Instead of (a) we are going to go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 74-206(d). So, that is the only change I move to adopt the agenda. So, with that, Mr. Mayor, I move approval of the agenda as amended. Borton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt agenda as amended. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Settlers Park Subdivision Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement No. 1 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Sagecreek Subdivision (SHP-2023-0001) by Mason and Associates, located at 1554 S. Labrador Way Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 3 of 94 3. Approval of Sole Source purchase of Allen Bradley Products from Consolidated Electric 4. Agreement for Use of Kleiner Park for Capital Church Community Egg Hunt 5. Memorandum of Agreement between the Idaho Transportation Department and the City of Meridian for Meridian Police Department's Use of Department of Motor Vehicles Motor Vehicle Registration Information 6. Resolution No. 23-2378: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian Approving City Council President's Appointments of Meridian's Representatives to Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho and its Executive Board; Providing an Effective Date; and Affirming Other Appointments Simison: Next item up is the Consent Agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move approval of the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest. Borton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye? Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the Consent Agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Simison: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: So, the next item up is Public Forum. Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we just have one. Sally Reynolds. Simison: Good evening, Sally. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 4 of 94 Reynolds: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council. I'm happy to see you all here tonight and in the best spirit possible I'm glad that Council Member Strader is not here and I hope that she is either had or will have a happy family occasion very soon. Oh, no. Wait. Wait. What am I looking at? Simison: She's on the -- she's on the -- Reynolds: Oh. You're there. Oh, I'm sorry. You are there. Strader: I'm still here, Sally. Reynolds: Well, bless you, Council Member Strader, for being so dedicated to your city. Thank you so so much. Strader: You got it. Reynolds: Stuck in olden times. I forget we have Zoom. Anyway, I just -- you can raise your hand -- I know I am not totally up to date on all of what the Council is considering. So, if this is already under consideration just stop me, but with the growth of Meridian city I would love to see our Planning Department expand a little bit. So, if you would be willing to take into consideration an additional hire in the Planning Department and budget for that, I will watch when the budget comes up, I would be happy to come testify to that for our budget. I just think that with Meridian's growth and everything that they need to do that that could use some more for buttressing. Yes, it's already under consideration? Oh. Oh. Okay. I thought it was -- I just -- one of the things I will just tell you, I was preparing my remarks tonight and I saw one of the things had been uploaded last night at 10.30 p.m. and, number one, no one should be doing their job 10-30 p.m. at night and number -- so, it shows the dedication of our staff. And, number two, it would just -- to have everything there and everything complete would really give the residents and the Council ample opportunity to review those and I know that sometimes when public testimony comes up and it can maybe seem or come off as the public as, you know, complaining or not, but I think that if we can have that information, then, we can really prepare factual remarks that can speak to the applications having them in a timely manner. So, thank you. ACTION ITEMS 7. Public Hearing for Proposed Summer 2023 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department 8. Resolution No. 23-2377: A Resolution Adopting the Summer 2023 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 5 of 94 Simison: Thank you, Sally. With that we will move on to our Action Items this evening. First item up is public hearing for a proposed summer 2023 fee schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. We will open this public hearing with a brief statement from staff. White: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, thank you for having me tonight. Like Mr. Mayor just mentioned, these are the fees proposed for the summer activity guide. With that I will stand for questions. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, we have a -- to meet noticing requirements we are going to have to continue this. So, Garrett has opened the public hearing and so we are going to continue the public hearing to March 28th, so we can meet those noticing requirements. So, I would move, Mr. Mayor, that we continue the public hearing for proposed summer 2023 fee schedule and Resolution No. 23-2377 to March 28th. Cavener: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to continue Item 7 to March 28th. Is there any discussion? Do you want to do them both at the same time? Does the second agree to also include Item 8, which is Resolution No. 23-2377? Okay. Is there further discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and we will continue it to next week. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 9. Public Hearing continued from February 14, 2023 for Sagarra (H- 2022-0027) by Accomplice, located on the south side of W. Orchard Park Dr., west of N. Fox Run Way and east of N. Linder Rd A. Request: Planned Unit Development for a residential community containing a mix of single-family detached, single-family attached, townhome and multifamily units with a reduction to the setback requirements in UDC Table 11-2A6; and two private streets. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 114 building lots and 16 common lots (including 3 private street lots) on 17.49 acres in the R-8 and C-C zoning districts. Simison: Next item up is Item 9, a public hearing continued from February 14, 2023, for Sagarra, H-2022-0027. We will continue this public hearing with comments from staff. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 6 of 94 Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. So, since the last hearing the applicant has submitted revised plans, a preliminary plat, a landscape plan, open space exhibit, site amenity plan, parking diagram, setback diagram and concept elevations for the single family residential units to address items of discussion from the previous hearing and I will just go through those real quick. And just a side note, I did put in a copy of the approved concept plan that's included in the development agreement for this project for the future development area -- future residential development. It's hard to see, but it did show some very light lot lines on these. But, anyway, just wanted to include that for review if you are interested. And this is a copy of the previous preliminary plat and this is the revised plan and I'm just going to run through them quickly. I imagine the applicant has a presentation that they will go into more detail with you on the changes. This is the landscape plan. Proposed reductions to the R-8 setbacks. Staff did prepare a table that you received in an e-mail and is also here before you and I can scroll back to that when we are -- we are done here. The common open space exhibit and site amenity exhibit and parking diagram and, then, the new concept elevations for the single family homes and I can go back to any of those at anytime if you would like to review them in more detail. And I just go through the changes to the plans. The changes include two common lots that have been added, three building lots -- or, excuse me, three buildings with nine multi-family units have been removed and two single family attached units have been added for an overall reduction of seven units, resulting in a decrease in density from 8.35 to 7.95 units per acre. Removal of on-street parking where the road curves and updated elevations for the single family homes that represent a better architectural quality. The reduction of units increase the qualified open space by .11 of an acre. With the reduction of seven units and reconfiguration of parking, a total of 25 extra off-street vehicle parking spaces are proposed and with the removal of on-street parking spaces on the curves, a total of 76 on-street spaces are available. The updated setbacks diagram depicts the portions of buildings that are nearest the property line where reductions to setbacks are requested through the PUD application and the standard R-8 setbacks required by the UDC. Overall the proposed project exceeds the minimum parking open space and site amenity standards and is consistent with the density desired in the medium density residential and mixed-use community future land use map designations and with the minimum density required in the development agreement of six units per acre. In summary, staff is supportive of the proposed changes to the plan and overall planned unit development, as staff believes it is -- provides an opportunity for exemplary site development that allows for innovative design that meets the purpose and findings required for a planned unit development as noted in the staff report and the applicant is here to provide a more in-depth -- a narrative of the proposed changes and overall development. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 7 of 94 Perreault: Thank you, Sonya. That's -- that summary was very helpful. One quick question about the parking. Where is their parking -- parking that was removed from the curved public road, was there additional parking added, then, to the other public portions to the south and the east? Allen: The -- the previous plan, as Mayor and -- Mayor and Council, Council Woman Perreault, the previous plan is shown there on the left. The revised plan is on your right there. The parking that I noted that was removed was on the curves. I believe all the other parking remains the same that was shown on the plan previously. Perreault: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I have one more question. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Somewhat significant changes in -- that were made. Did any of these changes cause the conditions of approval to change in the staff report that would be of note for us to know this evening? I saw the recommendations made by the Commission, but is there anything else that you wanted to point out to us specifically? Allen: Nothing else -- no. Nothing else. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks, Sonya. I -- you know, I recall we have a rule that we need all of the changes and materials in -- I think it's at least two weeks before the hearing. I just want to make sure we received everything with an adequate amount of time for you to review and feel comfortable and for the public to review and feel comfortable. This one feels like a little bit of -- a little bit of a scramble. I'm amazed that you pulled it off getting all this information together and these setback tables, et cetera. But I just -- I don't like feeling like we are rushing through something when it feels like it's respectful of everyone's time to have enough time to sort of review staffs analysis of the changes. So, if you just want to comment on that. Allen: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, Council, admittedly staff is a bit stretched these days as you know being short staffed and just the amount of applications and the applicant did turn in I believe all of the revised plans the 15 days prior to the hearing as required. The one plan that I was waiting on was the -- the one that you noted specifically that you would like to have, the comparison between the standard R-8 dimensional standards and what was proposed. That was the plan we were waiting on. It came in Friday afternoon and it -- it didn't quite detail what I know you were asking for, so that was the kind of mad scramble on staff's part before the hearing today to try to get that side by side for you and, you know, we -- we always like to have more time, but I -- I do feel confident that we are there on this project and that the applicant is complying and actually exceeding our -- our minimum standards. So, Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 8 of 94 staff is okay with it if -- if Council and the public is okay with it. Having said that, the most time possible is always desired. But thank you for your patience on that. It is appreciated. Parsons: Mayor, Council, if I may just piggyback on some -- some of Sonya's comments for you real quick. So, I -- I want to just let the -- this body know that I actually did meet with the applicant on February 27th after the public hearing and we went through a lot of these changes that you are seeing tonight. So, although they didn't technically meet the -- giving us the revised plans within that 15 day window, we felt that what they were proposing was adequate for us to make a recommendation to share that with you this evening. Now, I know as part of that discussion with the applicant on the 27th they were -- they had informed me that they were also going to meet with Sally to talk about some of these changes, too. So, I'm hoping that some of that has occurred and they can share that information with you tonight as well. But I just at least wanted to give you that background information that they -- they are trying to meet what you asked them to do a month or so ago when you wanted to see the revision. So, hopefully, that adds to some of the discussion tonight. Simison: Council, any additional questions or comments for staff? Okay. Then I will invite the applicant to, please, come forward. Tsang: Tony Tsang. 6518 North Fairborn Avenue. I represent Sagarra in this application. So, if we can -- do we have the presentation? And I will start off by talking about that we -- we do have that slide. We do have that side. I know that we had -- we didn't have that slide -- staff didn't have time to prepare that slide, but we prepared one also. Hopefully they -- they should jive completely. All the -- all the forms that we did want to submit for our application we did -- we did get done in time in the 15 days. The one slide that -- that staff so kindly did produce we were planning on producing for you, so we can just put them side by side. So, they should reflect the exact same counts. A couple things I want to address before we go too far is parking. I think parking was a question. After our last Council meeting Sally -- Sally and I actually went down to ACHD -- they had a -- we were able -- we were planning on speaking in front of them and luckily their head -- head lead counsel was there and I happen to know him through golf and he pulled me aside and said, hey, I don't see you on the docket. So, we spoke to them about the parking on the curves and I said, hey, we don't want this parking, we want to speak in front of ACHD to get the parking removed and he said, well, it's not our decision, it's a decision of the city and both Sally and I -- we said what? So, I grabbed Sally -- I said, Sally, come here, you got to hear this, because if I tell you this you are not going to believe me. So, he told me it's a city's decision as long as the neighbors and the developers agree that there should be no parking, they are responsible for putting up the signs and we said, well, what's the next -- well, Sally said what's the next step? He said we will have to reach out to you and we will give you the process of asking for them to be no parking and the ACHD will, in fact, put the signs up. So, that was kind of a surprise to me. I always thought it was ACHD's decision. They informed us that it was the city's decision. So, I stand a little confused. I don't know if it is the city's decision -- whose decision it is, but the process has been started. Sally was there. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 9 of 94 She can, hopefully, testify to the fact that that's exactly what happened. But we don't want the parking there. We removed it from our diagrams. We don't need the parking. All the street parking was extra anyways. We are self parked. And the earlier question was has the parking counts changed and the ratios have gotten better because we remove some units. We did remove some parking stalls, but because of the number of units we removed the parking ratios got better. So, we actually created more parking on a ratio basis, but we reduced the parking, because we lost seven units. So, I just want to make sure that's clear is that ratios got better, actual parking counts went down. We are still overparked on site and none of the parking on the street was a requirement anyways and that's -- I wish that that process was done now, but it wasn't done yet. We are in the process of getting ACHD to put in no parking signs and originally it was going to be in the two curves, but, then, during our meeting with Sally and the neighbors they mentioned another, Director, they wanted the two spots taken out, so we removed those. Then I notice on the north side -- northeast side there is another curve and we took those out also. So, hopefully, that settles some of the parking questions. So, just wanted to clear those two things up. Staff did a great job talking about what we have changed. I know -- I'm sure everyone was hoping for a bigger change. We went through our plans. We got rid of seven units. It was related to us that, hey, get the -- get the density under eight. You guys are playing games doing 8.35. Let's get under eight. I know it's 7.9 and change, but we lost seven units, got under -- got under eight. We did meet with the neighborhood again. Nick Grove, director of the Meridian City Library, was kind enough to open the library to us and serendipitously he was there to answer some questions. So, it was kind of a really cool format. We met at the library. We were able to present what we had and we didn't expect them to love it, because I -- I know that everyone was probably hoping for a bigger change. This is all we can -- I can't say all -- this is all we can do on our pro forma and this is what we can do and we presented. Neighbors were nice. And, then, they met on their own with Nick there. Nick was sucked into it and they were able to ask Nick some -- you know, have his opinion and he's, obviously, you know, pretty nonpartisan. So, he was able to answer all of their questions. We were involved in a portion of that meeting. The neighbors themselves spoke. Unfortunately we had to cut the meeting short, about an hour and a half, hour and 45 minutes. I had a previous meeting -- engagement we had to run to. But we did present our new plan. We asked them not for necessarily their support, we asked them to be agnostic. We asked them to say, look, we are trying our best. I think we -- we put our best foot forward. I -- I really do like it. I know that it's not for everybody, like we said before, but let me go through some of the slides. So, a lot of this is going to be redundant, because I think staff did a good job of talking about reducing the density. We have the ACHD solution for the parking. We updated some of those elevations. That was my fault that we put in there that -- that example. Where -- you know, a lot of this is taking a big step back at what we are trying to do. The site does have some limitations. I know we talked about the PUD process and why we are using PUD and I will go through all the points. I think Councilman -- Council Woman Strader asked why are you using PUD -- PUD. So, we listed all the reasons why we are using it and we will go through those slides. And this site does have one issue that makes it a little hard to develop, because on the south side we did have the irrigation ditch and there is a 40 foot easement. So, as you can see the shape of that -- the Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 10 of 94 shape of the parcel on the -- on the west side is a little narrow. Now, you take away 40 feet from us it gets really really narrow and then -- so, for us to, A, agree to do single family homes as they border Paramount, not agree, but comply. So, we are doing the single family homes. It leaves us so little space because of that 40 foot easement. So, that just caused some challenges. Part of the reason why we pursued the PUD process is because we want to feather single family to townhomes to multi-family, because as you approach the commercial space we just felt that having single family homes right abutting to commercial space didn't really make a ton of sense to us. So, that's part of our reason why we did it. Now, here are the reasons a PUD exists is that it allows us to do some building -- building clusters. Okay. Here is what the PUD allows for. We have smaller lot sizes. So, as all of you probably -- I'm sure you know with R-8 zoning 4,000 square feet is a minimum lot size. By using a PUD it lets us have certain lots -- have lots that are under 4,000 square feet and -- and the idea of -- the bigger idea of the PUD was to cluster some of the homes a little tighter, so we can create bigger and more usable gathering spaces and open spaces. You know, I was looking at the Paramount Subdivision, which is awesome, and, you know, they have almost a square mile of land, 640 acres. They have one clubhouse, which is a great clubhouse, with a pool, some walking paths and a park. We have 17 acres to work with, which is a -- percentage wise, what, three or four percent and I would love to go through our amenity package, too. Because what we want to do is create an environment with more amenities, but to do that you have to need more contiguous open space and so our amenity package I think is really nice. We have that tool shed. We have the -- we have our clubhouse with a really nice pool. We have here -- I think we -- I can show you. Michael knows the amenity package a little better. But -- and we will go into that a little bit. So, smaller lot sizes, zero lot lines, back to clustering. We allowed for the multi-family use for us to feather up to the commercial and private drives and staff can probably comment on that. That's what we caught of what does not -- and, then, Council Woman Strader asked give us a list of everything you -- you are using this PUD for that deviates from the R-8. So, we go to bad, this is what we are doing. The setbacks, here is our -- sorry. Here is our presentation there to staff. You know, did the proposed and what we are deviating from, so you guy can compare them side by side. I'm sure that they should be pretty exact, because all we did was pull the code of what needs to be done and, then, use our numbers of what we are proposing. And, Michael, if you can come up and talk about the amenity package that would be appreciated. Slavin: Michael Slavin helping present. Live at 424 East Thurman Mill Street, Garden City, Idaho. Thank you. So, I will jump if you need a little bit more. And what -- the point Tony was trying to drive home is when you have 17 acres versus let's say 500 acres and you are trying to produce the same amount of amenities, some of which were required, like a community clubhouse, I believe that between the tool shed, a multi- family clubhouse, and -- and the clubhouse next to pool, we actually have three on the site. So, we are cramming a lot of amenity uses in a much smaller space and that that's one of the advantages of a PUD and that's why we are working hard to create an exemplary site plan where you are -- by clustering homes you have a lot more community space. Besides that -- and we actually putting that would want to emphasize as well is that these are actually plans we have -- we commit to. By submitting this, you Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 11 of 94 know, to planning staff we have to build these things. These aren't ideas. These are -- and that's why they are somewhat granular. But we thought it was somewhat of a disservice to the bigger plan of the site. So, there are some drill downs on the site, so -- and walk through these fairly quickly. You can see on the western portion of the site we actually have, you know, community garden space with actually raised bed planters. Here, you know, nice pocket parks on this side, which are pretty comparable to larger subdivisions, even though we are working with less space. The other requirement of a PUD is a lot of connectivity. You can see here that we do have the multi-use pathway. We do have interstitial pathways in between a lot of the homes, which are -- you know, create that -- that great walkable environment. You see bike parking spaces here. You can see another pocket park here, which they can, you know, jointly enjoy -- I think that one of the things that's underappreciated, but you can see more here at scale. This is in the very center of the development connecting to Orchard Park to the north and this is actually we intend to -- to put a crosswalk in across Orchard Park Drive -- is we actually have enough space here for a place to throw footballs and -- and hang out and play spike ball, things like that. But we also have fire pits. You see these little groupings of chairs is actually, you know, hanging out amenity space next to a clubhouse. It's actually in this multi-family structure. I mean you can see here -- this is, actually, a shared amenity space. A tool -- tool, library, et cetera. People are living in smaller spaces. They don't have the luxury of a huge garage. But they also want a place to go work on their -- their bikes or, you know, skateboards, what -- what have you. So, we feel that's a great amenity in a living environment like this. Moving down -- of course we have another pocket park here. We are not including a -- what .7 acres to the east, because it's kind of out of the way. I think a lot of people actually enjoy walking their dogs there. But it's not contiguous space in our view, so we are not trying to overinflate what we are doing. And then -- sorry. Here is -- here is the last space. This is in the large triangle. The triangle is actually just over an acre and we do have a couple of these bolder homes sitting within it, but for the most part this acre is fairly open with -- with quite a few opportunities for people to hang out and grab a picnic or do what they want to do and, then, of course, we have enough room for a soccer field right next to the -- the pool and community clubhouse here. So, you can see -- when you think on -- on an amenity level I would say that less than -- less than, you know, ten percent of any subdivision in the country has this many amenities, you know, per -- per the rooftops involved in a subdivision. So, we just -- we are pretty proud of it and put a lot of work into it and feel that we meet the standard that -- thank you. Bill is saying that we did. So, I think that's it. Tsang: We can stand for any questions. Simison: Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 12 of 94 Perreault: You can always count on me to have questions. I have about three questions for you. First, you referenced the parking question that I had for staff and I want to clarify what my question actually was. The question was did you move some anticipated street parking from those curved areas to the straight sections of public road on the south side or are they the same -- the -- the two side by side photos -- again, it's hard to see on the small screen, but it looked like maybe there was more parking in the street sections of public road on the south side than there was prior. Tsang: No. We -- all we did was -- everything -- every parking space on public -- public road was just a removal. We didn't add any extra parking spaces. Perreault: My concern about having -- so, you said you were overparked and that those spaces are not needed, but because it's a public road of course folks are permitted to use that as parking. My concern about those long straight sections of road where you have cars parked on both sides -- there is a lot of opportunity for pedestrian accidents, from people walking out from behind cars, you know, soccer balls running out into the street and when you have it double parked on both sides I think that creates for more issues with safety problems on a -- on a straight stretch of road and that's a pretty long straight stretch of road. You have a stop sign in between those two stretches, but that's a pretty long stretch and people tend to speed up on those; right? Tsang: Yes. Perreault: So, I'm wondering if there might be -- if you considered the possibility of just doing the parking on one side or the other or -- it doesn't sound like you are going to put signage on that -- those stretches at all, it's just going to be seen as a parking street. Tsang: I mean we were open to it. I mean we don't -- because we don't need it it's whatever the community -- back to what we were informed. Again, I don't know if that information is correct. If the -- if the city wants it and the community wants it. You know, we are open to any of -- the parking issue for us -- we meet our parking standards. So, if the community says, hey, we want single loaded streets for parking and that makes sense for everyone and, again, based on some clarification if it's a city's decision, we will work with the city. I mean we -- we -- we feel that with the -- the crosswalks that we want to put in it should be decently safe. Maybe what we do is -- as a -- as an idea is maybe move some parking spaces away from the crosswalk, so there is more visibility around the crosswalks, so when people do want to cross it's not like a -- a car, a crosswalk, and a car. Maybe remove some of those. I think having some extra parking in the street -- streets are -- is a benefit. But, again, open to work with the city. Absolutely. Perreault: Thank you. I appreciate that. Obviously, it's not something that we are going to condition, because you met the standard, but I would appreciate considering the safety elements of having it parked on both sides and how close the lot -- the -- the spots are to each other. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 13 of 94 Tsang: Yeah. And I think if you guys -- if everyone likes the idea -- I mean it's coming off the top of my head, but creating a gap where the crosswalks are might -- if that's sufficient, if everyone agrees with that, I would prefer that. But if it's a, hey, it's got to be single loaded, we can talk about that, too. Just love to have an open forum about that. Perreault: Thank you. I will -- I will -- I'm sure my other Council Members can share their thoughts on that. That's just my thought on it. Secondly, the section that has the curve right in the middle where there is a green space on -- on the northwest side and there is the tool shed -- is that what you called it -- kind of in the southeast -- Tsang: Yeah. Yes. Perreault: -- section? Tsang: Off of Bergman. Perreault: Can you pull up that -- Tsang: Sure. Michael. Perreault: -- that zoom in -- and just as you are doing that I want to -- I want to just share some feedback for future applications for you. These documents were really hard to read. Tsang: I know. Perreault: There was a ton of zooming in, zooming out, zooming in, zooming out and I struggled. Okay. So, what -- have you made any consideration -- again, not a condition, just a question. Have made any consideration of maybe putting some brick or a different pavement product between -- across the street from those two areas, so that it kind of identifies, hey, you are in a public use area. It would encourage people to slow down as they were coming upon a different design and, then, also maybe tie those two common areas more together. Tsang: Yeah. I -- Stavin: That's a great comment. What we are able to do is do stamped concrete, use ACHD is like brick. But just so you know, if you see stamped concrete that would be why. Tsang: And there is a certain part of the engineering -- once we get our construction plans -- I have done a couple of developments here in Meridian -- there is a good chance we have to put pavers in anyways for stormwater retention -- for storm -- the stormwater mitigation. So, if -- if we are -- there is a good chance we have to put some pavers in, too. So, whether we like it or not I think we might have to. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 14 of 94 Perreault: I'm guessing that will be an area where a lot of folks will cross. Tsang: Yeah. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Just one more quick question on the amenities. What -- what was the original reason for wanting to create such an amenity heavy development? It -- it -- it kind of sounds like that's almost burdening you to some extent in how you are designing this. Tsang: And I think we have addressed this last Council meeting is that, you know, I'm -- I'm going to be an empty nester next year. Michael is a single guy lives in a townhome community with no front yards, no backyards. And I'm coming from a larger property and I -- maybe because I'm lazy, I just don't want a big yard maintenance. I want to lock and go. But I still want to work on my bike and still want to go to the pool and have some open space and sometimes we shoot ourselves in the foot by designing communities that we want, but we have to make sure other people want it, because we have to sell homes. But I think there is a demographic here and there is a lot of people moving in here that are empty nesters and want less. So, our motivation was to have a little different product. Not the usual, you know, R-4, big yard, you have your gardens, your dogs. You still have your dogs, because we have plenty of places to walk your dogs and exercise and get out and after we sat down -- when we designed this community with Pivot North, our big thing was a walkable -- almost -- and because we are part of Orchard Park we know that there is going to be so many amenities that there -- I picture myself living there, because I can -- not have to attend a yard. I have a place to work on my stuff. I have an open space and I can go across and get coffee. Now, I don't think I'm representative of everyone or most people, but I think there is a -- we only have 140 some units. I think there is enough people that might want to live that way, but we are betting on it. Simison: Council, additional questions for the applicant? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Tony, I -- I was appreciative of the application last time and I think you both have made it certainly better. I love the PUD concept. I wish we would see more. I think it -- it allows you to do what you are doing here. It provides more innovative and unique layout and design and product. So, I just appreciate everything you both have done on this. I think it's really well done. Tsang: Thank you. Borton: And I don't make -- I'm going to get your reaction to this, because when you remove seven units, that's a big deal. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 15 of 94 Tsang: Yeah. Borton: From the amenities. It's a small project and the amenities you are providing -- I want you to react briefly to that -- that impact on your development with -- I mean your hard costs don't change. Your infrastructure costs don't change. And -- and sometimes a change in unit count doesn't get highlighted as much. That's a big deal and it's a big impact on your ability to deliver. So, I just want to get your brief reaction on that. It's a big concession, which is appreciated, but we also understand and don't highlight enough the economic reality of -- of your project being liable when that -- when that happens. Tsang: Yeah. Of course, we had to work that pro -- pro forma a few times and that's kind of where we -- we got to with the -- the community. You know, we went in there with -- I know that it doesn't feel like much when it comes to 146 units down to 139. It's -- I know on the surface it doesn't feel like a lot, but it's a lot to us. When you hit a -- that was the disappointing part. I mean I think we had a great community. The neighbors -- the neighbors came out and I think they were just looking for more and I just -- and I finally said, honestly, this is all we got. If we have to do any more it doesn't make sense for us to do this anymore and it wasn't a threat. I know some people took it as a threat. It's just the reality of development and as -- we all know, we live in Meridian, we live in -- our -- the prices are coming down and interest rates are higher. So, it's a double whammy; right? You know, construction costs are still decently high. Values are going down. We are losing units. But we still love this development and we have the -- we have the advantage -- I keep saying the advantage of Orchard Park. You know, this is -- if we were just developers and we had bought this land and we want to build them to sell them and make a profit, I will tell you guys, seven units, I would have told Michael it's not worth the risk, you know. We have the bigger picture. We need to -- we want this part of Orchard Park to be as beautiful as possible and control the environment and have high-end renters, because we want -- we want the commerce at Orchard Park. I will be honest. It's all economically placed. I'm not going to sit here and tell you it's because I'm -- it's -- we need this to be beautiful to insure that the development at Orchard Park is successful also, so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I have a few questions. Can you go to the original plans and just start by highlighting which units were removed? Tsang: Sure. We -- Sonya, do you mind pulling up the original, because we didn't -- we didn't have the original in our presentation. Yeah. Just -- yes, please. If you go down -- I know -- I can control it here I think; right? It's I think the third slide down. Not that one. One more. Number seven. Okay. I know if we can zoom in or not, but the -- we did it -- we did some alterations. We had some really good advice about -- we had a bolder unit -- a multi-family unit here on the south; right? Oh, this mouse. Here. That we Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 16 of 94 converted into a townhome. We got rid of this bolder unit on the corner here. We got rid of this bolder unit on the corner here. So, it was -- those were three unit -- multi- family units. So, that's three there. Three in the top northeast corner, and this three unit down here in the southeast corner became a two unit townhome versus a three unit multi-family. Strader: Got it. So, you lost some garden -- were they kind of garden style -- how many units were in them? I don't remember. Slavin: They were three units each. So, there are three units -- Strader: Okay. They were triplexes? Slavin: Technically they are -- yes. They are -- they are -- they are multi-family. They are vertically aligned. Strader: Okay. Got it. Okay. So, you lost those three and, then, you added two single family attached. So, where are those? Slavin: Yeah. Sorry. We -- we replaced one of the locations that -- both are -- and this mouse tracks a little funny. It's in the -- the lower -- here we go. This corner. Can you see the circle I'm highlighting. Not really highlighting, but circling. Strader: Yeah. Okay. So, you are saying you put two single family there instead? Slavin: That's correct. Strader: Got it. And, then, the other two you just lost and they became open space. Slavin: That -- that's correct. Yes. Strader: And, then, can you guys go -- sorry to have you jump around. Can you guys go to the slide that has the comparison with R-8 and all the different setbacks? Yeah. I just want a minute to take a look at this. So, I guess my feedback would be -- it sounds like these changes are really positive. I -- I think what concerns me at this point is that the materials we had to review -- basically we didn't, in my opinion, have a lot of time to -- to review. I think it may be more our issue than your issue, but I am concerned also to hear from the neighbors, obviously, whether they feel they have had time. But just looking at this -- I mean just for comparison purposes, you know, if you were under the R-8 setbacks, how many units would you be able to fit in this development? That was one of the questions that I had. Tsang: If you are asking based on the current design -- we haven't ever -- we, as a -- the developing team have never looked at it as an R-8 design. If we had the time to go redesign it we can give you a number, but we just haven't gone through that exercise of doing the normal R-8 yet. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 17 of 94 Strader: But you couldn't even -- with sort of like the lot size and the amount of developable land, you couldn't even like take a swag at it? Tsang: We -- we could. I mean we just haven't. We would be -- Strader: It kind of surprises me that you -- Tsang: Well, because -- and it's -- not trying to be cute, but we designed this from day one as this. This has been our vision since day one. It's -- we never had a Plan B. So we could. I mean the pure math is -- you know, I guess we can do some quick math of how many acres the streets take up and using 4,000 square foot lots and the setbacks -- I mean we could -- you just -- Strader: That's kind of where I was going. Yeah. Just back of the envelope understanding that that wouldn't really be totally correct; right? But at least it would be a -- a swag. And part of the reason I'm asking is I -- I have not been convinced that this merits a PUD. So, that's part of the reason for me asking that question. Tsang: Yeah. I don't know how to respond to that in the sense of -- I think -- I think the word merits a PUD confuses me a little bit, because I don't think there is -- there is qualification to be a PUD and, you know, we were hoping that we demonstrated some of the qualifications. Michael could speak on that point a little bit. Slavin: Yeah. It's -- excuse me. And -- and it's somewhat related to never performing an exercise for a typical R-8 lot. Looking at -- they said the constraints, we did give away -- Orchard Park Drive is a condition of the original development agreement -- was quite a bit of land as well and the way it was shaped connecting, essentially, in front of the Firehouse to Fox Run created a technical condition that was pretty tough and so how many of these developments go is we go into the planning staff for a pre-app meeting and we talk about what's possible and knowing that we had a minimum standard -- at least R-6 to hit, we thought it would be much wiser just to actually pursue a PUD. So, we worked quite a bit with planning staff that are, you know, pretty sophisticated in this. This is their passion to go to school to do and work a lot with them hand in hand from a guidance perspective and -- and producing these plans it costs a tremendous amount of time and effort and energy and resources and -- and capital and so we rely a lot on that guidance, to be honest. And so when we, you know, get a level of comfort that we qualify for a PUD based on the amenities that we are offering, you know, the level of design we are offering, we get a lot of conviction and go forward with it and so, hopefully, that helps provide more context in why we -- we pursued a PUD and -- and as well didn't really spend much time looking at R-8 standard lot development. Strader: It does. It -- it just -- frankly, it does not satisfy my question, which is I believe when we use a PUD we should have an accurate comparison between what we are getting and what we would have had under the traditional zoning. But, you know, if you guys can get a chance to sort of do that back of the envelope, I think that's helpful. It Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 18 of 94 doesn't mean -- by the way, it's not like that's the decision point, it's not like that -- less units is better, but it's like I just think dancing around it is silly. I think we should be able to -- as a City Council look at what we would have under the traditional process and, then, compare it, you know, accurately with the PUD. All right. Well, I will -- I will quiet down now, Mr. Mayor, and -- and maybe we will hear from others. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Could you go to the next slide where it shows the comparison of setbacks in the R-8 zone? There is another one that had -- that was provided. Keep going. I think -- Slavin: Excuse me. That would have been our presentation. Tsang: Is that -- the one with the graphic on it? Perreault: Yes. Tsang: Oh, yeah, it's on ours. Perreault: So, was that staff's presentation we were looking at? Tsang: Yeah. Perreault: Okay. Sorry. Yes. In your presentation. That -- that is a document I would have really liked to have had. I don't know -- I didn't see it in the file. I just wanted you to leave it up for a few moments so I can review it, because you went through it really fast. Tsang: Yeah. No problem. Perreault: I didn't have a specific question related to that. Thank you. Simison: Would you like to hear from other people while you look at that? I think you guys can sit there and we will go to testimony from the public. So, with that, Mr. Clerk, did we have anybody sign up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. First is Sally Reynolds. Simison: Okay. Good evening, Sally, again. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 19 of 94 Reynolds: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council. Sally Reynolds. 1166 West Bacall Street, Meridian, Idaho. First just wanted to thank you all for listening so closely to the feedback from the public last time and for hearing that. I am really pleased to see a number of things have been explained or changed and in particular that PUD qualification a little bit more. With regard to the parking, just want to back up what Tony said. The ACHD lawyer told us Meridian city is the parking authority on residential streets. So, if you could put that in your motion as a condition of approval that Meridian city does not approve parking on Arliss, Bergman, or Director and that the applicant should -- the applicant should work with ACHD to get whatever studies or signage is necessary to make that happen that would be great. I think the developers have tried hard to give us a pleasing development in this fluctuating real estate market that will meet Meridian's changing demographics. I have no objection to the development as it has been presented tonight. I believe the applicant has been transparent and communicative with the public. They have made an effort to reduce units. While it's not close to 120 units I would like, any other developer could come in here and put about the same number of units under R-8 standards is what I personally think I would have loved to have, but like Council Member Strader said as comparison, but by my best guess, using the PUD maybe they would have had 15 more units and so by losing seven I feel like they kind of met us in the middle. They are trying to make them blend with the commercial area and they are feathering density in a small area. They are doing that well. And they are the developer who has the most vested interest in making this community a quality place to live, which they are doing through the amenities. I still don't love the condominium units here. I would have preferred to see those built in a zoning area where they truly fit the zoning, but they are not overrunning the development or making a huge difference in the total number of units, so I am not opposed to this application. However, I would like it stated on the record why Council believes this development meets the requirements of a PUD, so there is a very narrow window other applications can reference to justify zero foot setbacks on certain lot lines and around the perimeter of the plat. PUDs are handled on a case-by-case basis and as long as you are on the Council you will know how an application compares to this one, but future council members may not unless it's stated. My take away from this application is that from the optics point of public sometimes it seems like staff is giving coaching on how to use loopholes in the city code to be creative and get around things and I understand that when a developer comes to city staff and says this is what you want to do it's city staffs job to say here are the options we have available to you, here are some of the things that we can do, and that's great and they can explore those options. But, then, when those suggestions are taken and presented by city staff by recommendation, it seems there is not a -- I guess ranking on how strong that recommendation is if they have used those tools properly given our city code. So, one last -- and I will just -- a suggestion for that, for example, with this application, since they were applying for a PUD it would have been awesome if in the staff report it had the PUD from the city code, that section of code in the staff report saying this is what a PUD is. It's just a great refresher and you would have had it right there to read at your fingertips. Thank you. Any questions? Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 20 of 94 Simison: Thank you, Sally. Council, any questions? I think you are good. Thank you. And if there is anybody online and you would like to testify on this item as well, please, use the raise your hand feature, so we can put you in the queue. Up next, Mr. Clerk? Johnson: Next is Kelly Carpenter. Simison: Good evening, Kelly. Carpenter: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council Member -- Members. Kelly Carpenter. 5991 North Arliss Avenue in Meridian. Tonight I'm coming to you exhausted. I'm exhausted by my daily life and attending yet another Sagarra meeting where I feel that developers haven't truly listened. Yes, they have reduced the number of units, but does this number of units they have still really make sense? There is no reason this development should be granted PUD. The developers were the decision makers in how to divide the land in the first place. We all love our community of Meridian and that is why we are here today. Per our last neighborhood meeting we made suggestions to lower the building height, change multi-family units into a larger community center or a clubhouse, but, no, they are not willing to budge. Unfortunately, our time together ended the same as the previous two meetings. Michael and Tony showed their plan, listened to our feedback, then, left with a, well, this is it, take it leave it attitude. Orchard Park has not been what it was promised -- promoted to be thus far and this residential section I feel will not be either. These units will be shoved right up to the sidewalk and road. Nightly I am witness to people drag racing down Orchard Park Drive. I can't imagine when one of those cars slams into a residential building and takes a life, because the buildings do not have the proper setbacks. I would love to have the developer start building on their land immediately. I'm tired of the rodents and the weeds that are constantly infiltrating my home. This development needs to be right for the community. My suggestions would be to eliminate the multi-family units that backup to the park and the intersection of Bergman and Orchard Park Drive. Not only are these units out of place, they do not have the proper parking. These units that were removed are on the east side of the development and the two multi-family units are on the west side. So, the parking spots added by reducing the seven units does not help that situation. Additionally, I would ask that the developer would need to follow the -- the standard setbacks. I appreciate your time. Any questions? Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Hoaglun: Kelly? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. Kelly, just a question. I mean there is going to be houses here. Carpenter: Absolutely. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 21 of 94 Hoaglun: And it's just a matter of what kind and what that looks like. I mean one of the options truly is if they sell and it goes to -- someone comes from out of state and they just slap up, they increase the lot size a bit, but the homes are not quality, I -- I don't think that benefits Paramount at all. Paramount is a beautiful subdivision. So, what we are trying to attract here is a quality development befitting to be beside Paramount and, then, feather into that as -- as they use the term development, because it is hard to have really nice homes and that's why you see multi-family up closer to commercial properties. I mean that's the other option is -- is, you know, you got a bird in the hand here or do you -- do you go to Option B and we don't know what that is and it could be worse. Your advice, please. Carpenter: Council Member Hoaglun, thank you. I agree. I love many components of this development. I do believe the developers have worked hard. Again, I feel that they have had these meetings with us, but it has been this is what it is and we, too, want a quality development and I feel per what fellow Council Members have stated tonight that there needs to be a little bit more thought, a little bit more documentation, a little bit more time put into this. I wish it was built tomorrow. Like I said, I'm truly tired of living next to a field with dust and rodents and weeds. Tired of listening to the drag racers at night. I'm sure if there were homes there, then, I wouldn't hear it, as well as there are probably be more police out there policing the road. And so, yes, I truly do want Tony and Michael to build. I think this will be great. But I think that the small pieces that they are focusing on, the tool shed, that dog washing, good -- that's good community, let's get more, bigger, why couldn't we take away one of the multi-family units at a minimum and put in a bigger community center. I have been in this community for over ten years. I am a mom of three. I'm a homeschooler. My kids -- I have two other kids that go to brick and mortar schools. I have constantly talked to moms who want gathering community to be together and I know that they are speaking about young professionals that want to lock up and go, but that's not going to be the only people that purchase these. There will be young families with one child just starting off that can't afford a home. Maybe they can afford a nice condo, though, or a nice townhome. You know, they are going to want that -- and I know they keep talking about these bits and pieces of little green space. I just feel like it's not enough. It needs to be just a little bit more and if that means eliminating even one of the multi-families, what they are calling the Turtle Head and the Turtle Tail, why can't we eliminate one of those? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Follow-up, Kelly. I appreciate those comments. Helpful and -- but they have removed three multi-family. One of them was replaced with two -- I believe they are townhomes. But I mean that -- that is, from our understanding and knowing how the developers work and, you know, how some of the costs are, that -- that was a big concession. Understand that, so -- and I -- I do believe -- I did hear that there is a community center there of some sort? Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 22 of 94 Carpenter: Uh-huh. Hoaglun: So, I mean they have the tool shed, yes, but there is a community center. If you guys could make sure that -- I heard it correctly, so -- yeah. Because we definitely look at those things as what are the amenities, especially places that are -- where it is more compact, so -- but your comments are greatly appreciated, because we do want things to be quality, especially over where you live. It's -- it's a very nice. I have friends who live there and it's -- it's a -- it's a great neighborhood. Carpenter: Uh-huh. Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you so much. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Quick follow up question. Sally's comments and your comments and, then, Council Member Hoaglun's questions, do you look at it and do you provide comment from the perspective of whether or not as presented it would be popular and in demand for that future customer and you are concerned that without these changes it might not be as attractive for the individual who is going to reside here or is it not that and, instead, just from the perspective of, you know, an adjacent property owner, a member of Paramount, who is concerned that even -- even if it's in high demand as presented, we think it should have some adjustments to it. Carpenter: Right. Thank you, Council Member Borton. I honestly come to it from both sides. Again, I am a member of the community. I love our community. This is an amazing community. My husband and I chose to raise our children here. I want to be able to befriend these people and if they are, you know, young professionals or they are families or maybe they are retired people. I just want a good community and, absolutely, adjacent neighbor -- I mean do I want a four story -- you know, I'm not saying that this is, but like -- you know, do I want a huge building? Of course I don't want that, you know. But I just -- again, the concern is like just the amount of units, the crowding and the pushing. You know, I go, honestly, anywhere in Meridian there is -- there is so many little shopping centers popping up and not Orchard Park specifically, but the parking is a problem. Specifically Linder and McMillan across the street from Walgreens where the Mike's Subs is at, there is Loose Screw Brewing, there is a workout place in there, there is an Italian place and there is a huge dirt lot and it is chock full of cars. What's going to happen when they build there? And I just think in general as the City of Meridian, as a community, we can focus on more planful and better parking. So, that's, again, a concern. I know they are saying that they have enough. I have gone through and counted and those multi-family units, I personally don't feel like they have enough parking. So, again, it's not my job. Just a personal kind of gut look at the numbers, know who moves into multi-family units, not typically two people with two cars, it's typically more than that. So, just kind of my feeling on that and doing well for the community. Yeah. Yeah. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 23 of 94 Simison: Council, any additional questions? All right. Carpenter: Okay. Thank you so much for your time. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there is no one -- those were the only people that marked they wanted to speak. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody else present that would like to come forward and provide testimony on this item? If so come forward now or if you are online, please, use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one coming forward or raising their hand, if the applicant would like to come forward to close. Parsons: Mayor, this is Bill. If -- if the Council would like me to indulge the audience on what a PUD is and how that all works, I'm happy to do that. I think there are -- just looking at the last hearing and tonight's hearing, I think there is some -- I don't think everyone really understands what it -- what it is and what we do as staff when we -- we work with the applicant and -- and guide them through the code. So, again, if you want me to do that I'm happy to -- to go through that exercise and share kind of our feedback and our review of how we analyze this project when we prepare our recommendations. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton? Borton: I think that's helpful. I think the Title 1175 findings, which are part of the analysis that -- that we should discuss openly, I think that's helpful for all of us for sure, as well as the public. Parsons: Thank you. So, first of all, I just want to give you some context that Sonya and I have been working with this applicant well over a year and what we do when we meet with an applicant is we go through their previous approvals and make sure that they are meeting their requirements of their contract. In this particular case the applicant had a bubble concept plan that Sonya shared with you this evening and there was a requirement for a minimum amount of density on this R-8 piece. The DA says you have to have a minimum of six dwelling units to the acre on this site. The comp plan calls for three to eight dwelling units to the acre. The applicant came in and met with us and said we want to -- we want to develop this consistent with the MDR designation. We don't want to go through a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, we don't want to rezone this, what can we do in order to get -- develop this three to eight dwelling units to the acre and still meet the spirit of this development and that's where we started the dialogue of a planned unit development. In looking at the site, in looking at the development agreement for this particular project, it was very clear that this was to be part of this development and integrated into this development. As part of that the applicant was required to build an entire backage road as part of phase one. They were not to have a direct connection into Paramount, which resulted in the S-curve of that road that tied into the collector road that they were required to build and they were Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 24 of 94 required to work with Brighton Development to the east to provide a connection to Fox Run, so that we can get people out to the light. So, when you put all of that into context in tonight's discussion you are left with this irregular shaped piece of property that is -- meets the eligibility requirements of a PUD. You put into context that there is actually a 40 foot wide irrigation easement along the south and east boundary that had to be piped and relocated at the expense of the applicant and the fact that they were able to work with the irrigation district to landscape that to make it an attractive amenity for the community and tie in with Linder Village bodes well it's a PUD. Now, according to the -- the applicant or some of the testimony that you have heard on this, a lot of the neighbors are -- keep speaking to the setbacks along the periphery. The applicant is keeping with that spirit. In the staff report we made a finding that because of that irrigation facility these lots don't necessarily back up to Paramount. That 40 foot setback is -- or that landscape buffer along that perimeter -- it's the transition. We often talk about that at public hearings is when we have smaller lots against county residents we always often talk about a transition and the comp plan contemplates that. In this particular case that is a great transition, not only for this community, but also for the Paramount community. The applicant is also working with the neighbors to address the fencing on that southbound. So, there is another attribute to the applicant working with them. Now, when you get into the PUD findings, when you look at Chapter 2 of the code, it's -- it's -- we know this is R-8 zoning. That's what they were annexed in with. The -- Chapter 2 of the code says you can have multi-family in an R-8 zone if you go through the PUD process. So, when we start that conversation with the applicant we do go through the code with them and say you have to make these findings and you have to meet these standards and so quickly I will run through that. So, here is what we do to check the boxes for you -- and we provide that analysis in the staff report, as well as the findings at the end of the staff report. So, here is one of the general standards for PUDs. Deviations from the underlying district requirements. It says they are allowed as long as it's not along the perimeter. The periphery. Well, the applicant -- Sonya and I looked at the plat -- sorry. Excuse me. Staff has looked at the revised plat. All of the lots up along Paramount are over 4,000 minimum lot sizes. So, they don't necessarily need to do that, but they have done that and the only deviation from their setbacks are the rear setbacks where they are asking for a ten foot setback, instead of a 12 foot setback. Staff found that was appropriate. When you look at the landscape buffer along the collector roadway that has been installed with the development of the property. That's a 20 foot buffer. The conditions of approval in the staff report says you are going to enhance that buffer and make it even nicer as part of this development. The applicant has agreed to that. So, in context when we are really talking about a PUD and how this relates, it's really that internal portion that you see here and when you actually have a 40 foot landscape buffer that narrows that portion of the site and so to Council Woman Strader's comments, why didn't you do a typical R-8 development. Well, if you would have you probably would have got half a -- half the density of four dwelling units to the acre, you would have got a cookie cutter development, and you would have never met the requirements of the DA and that's where staff and I -- or Sonya and I met with the applicant and said let's try to keep with the intent of what it was intended for from their -- from the onset when it was in front of you. The other one is allowed uses. Applicants may request specific conditional accessory uses allowed in Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 25 of 94 the district -- be allowed as principally permitted uses. Again, multi-family. Interconnected uses. Again, this is integrating not only with Paramount, but also the commercial to the north with interconnected pathways. The applicant shared that with you in their presentation tonight and they showed you how that was going to be accomplished. They brought up building clusters. You cluster the buildings -- in this particular case central into the development so that you can have greater amenities and more open space. They have done that. Private open space. Their condition that each one of these units has to have 80 square feet of private open space. That will be verified when they come in for building permits. That's a requirement. And, then, it says in-fill development -- it says this is -- again, it's in-fill, but not necessarily five acres or less. So, that one's not applicable. But it goes on to say that you need to comply with -- maintain the density of the underlying district or the Comprehensive Plan and they are. They have not asked for density -- density bonus as part of this project. Technically they could have, because if you look at the overall development they had a library, they had public spaces as part of that approval. Technically they could have asked for higher density for you to consider as part of this application, but they -- again, they wanted to meet the spirit of the development agreement and their original approval and meet with the neighbors and work with them to get something that was closer to that eight dwelling units to the acre and that's what they have tried to do tonight. So, in looking at all of that and looking at the standards of the code, that's where staff has landed and we found that it was consistent with the PUD standards and it did meet the required standards and that's how we got in front of you tonight. So, happy to elaborate anymore on some of those standards, but in our minds this is -- this is a planned unit development. It does meet the requirements of the code. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think it's really important to go through the eligibility requirements. Can you, please, discuss those in terms of it being an irregular piece of property and what that bar is under code? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Woman Strader, are you -- are you referring to the applicability section or are you referring to the standards? Strader: The applicability. The eligibility for a PUD. Parsons: It says the planned unit development can be developed -- developed in any district. It shall be unlawful and a violation of Unified Development Code for any person use, construct, real -- so, basically, it says it's -- it's allowed and you have to follow the rules. Strader: Okay. But what I'm getting at is the piece where we talk about how we would not give this to just any property, it needs to be an irregular piece of property. And the reason I'm bringing that up is that the other examples I can think of for a PUD have been -- where we have -- especially where we have changed setbacks so dramatically -- have been a piece of property where we had like a state highway coming through it or Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 26 of 94 something pretty major and maybe that's where my disconnect is. But if you can just help me understand why it makes sense here and the other properties where I have seen something similar where we are changing setbacks to this extent have been like major obstacles. Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Woman Strader, just right to the east of this development is Paramount Director, which went through the PUD process, and it's right along Chinden. So, Brighton has done three of those developments as part of the PUD process to deviate from our dimensional standards. And, again, you see here that -- if you compared this develop -- this development in front of you is 196 units at 5.5 dwelling units to the acre and that was a PUD. So, again -- Strader: Okay. And so -- Parsons: -- the idea is -- the purpose statement says preserve natural scenic historic features of major importance. Well, I can tell you not a lot of those properties exist in Meridian. Number two. Allow for innovative design that creates visually -- visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development, including, but not limited to residential development at great -- densities greater than eight dwelling to the acre where design guidelines are in place for development and where garage doors are generally not fronting on the street. So, in this particular case, because the requirement for keeping the periphery consistent with the adjacent development, they have to be garage dominated per the PUD standards. But when you get to the internal portion of the development, they are all fronting on the street and all the parking is internal onto private streets or shared driveways, which is, again, meeting the purpose statement of the PUD and it's -- and it's -- it is not the intent in the PUD process to be used solely for the purpose of deviation from the dimensional standards. Strader: Right. That's -- that's where I'm getting hung up. Parsons: And it's not. So, in our -- in our -- and I think from staff's perspective when you look at the amount of open space that they are providing in excess of code, they are still meeting the parking, they are having a higher amenity package than what you see with your typical R-8 development. We are making that finding that this is an exemplary design. It is trying to keep with the spirit of the law of their development agreement and meeting the requirements for a PUD and that's -- that's how we look at that. It's -- it's a whole -- looking at the whole PUD code section comprehensively, not just a portion of it, and saying this applies, it doesn't apply. It really -- you have to look at everything comprehensively and, then, make that determination and that's where staff landed on recommending approval of this project with what you are seeing tonight. Strader: So, if someone asks me what -- what the bar is for future development to warrant a PUD, so far what I'm hearing the answer is is if you have more open space and the periphery of your project meets our requirements -- and that's the bar. Am I missing anything else in terms of what -- what someone would take away from an approval on this? Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 27 of 94 Parsons: Council Woman Strader, it's exemplary design -- so, again, you have to look at the design of the units, the fact that there is going to be private open space associated with that. You have to note that there are higher -- Strader: Amenities. Parsons: -- amenities -- yes. Amenities have increased above what code requires and there is a mix of residential product types. I think that's the -- the whole -- it's all of those factors that come into it, so -- to say that it's a PUD. It's not just one thing. Strader: Okay. Thanks for the feedback. Parsons: Yeah. Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Bill. I would like you to touch on the mix of residential product types. I don't know that I have ever seen one before us with six different residential types and -- and I -- that is one of the larger parts of this that I'm struggling with. It -- it doesn't -- it feels very divided and not cohesive. So, maybe that's just because I'm looking at a two-dimensional drawing that's small and I don't have, you know, something to give me more context. But was that something you discussed with the applicant to maybe not do so many product types or is that a benefit from the staff's perspective? Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Woman Perreault, a lot of the language you are seeing tonight is marketing by the applicant. In our -- and when -- when staff analyzes this project we look at our definition of our code and we are like what are these units. So, the single family units along -- Paramount they are just that. They are single family detached in our code. The duplex units -- they are single -- we call them single family attached units. So, there is your second product type. And, then, the third product is the multi-family. So, in this particular case you have single family attached. You could -- you have some townhomes, which are the three units and, then, you have -- so, you actually have four product types and you are not six. They have -- they have labeled it as six, but in the context of our code and how we define them there is actually a total of four as part of this development, which, again, meets the standard of the PUD and it's allowed in an R-8 district. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: To close the loop on that, whenever -- I think that explanation -- you walking through that should be part of the initial presentation for PUDs, because they are great questions and that very site specific context is really an important part of the story and -- Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 28 of 94 and as I understand PUDs -- and as outlined in our code is they are intentionally not set out with a specific box parameter. There are -- they are purposely flexible and the standards have some mush to them intentionally to invite creativity. It makes it difficult perhaps to draw a line what's -- what makes one sufficient and another one insufficient. Very very fact specific and subjective. One of the elements that comes up in these PUD discussions of setbacks -- the way the code uses the word solely to me is important. It can't be solely for the purpose of -- of eliminating some or all setback requirements. That's always going to be a component in every PUD. But it has to have all those other elements. Some -- some context to it that the initial purpose elements that you described. So, it's one of the explanation reasons to Sally's question that's articulated on the record. That is sufficient in my eyes. But it's really helpful to explain it and -- and talk through that in detail like you did. So, I appreciate that. Parsons: Mayor, Council, I will also let you know -- as you -- as you are aware we -- we try to amend the code throughout -- every year and PUD standards are definitely one of those items that we want to review this year and make it a little more clear as how they -- how they function and when they are -- they are applicable. Or at least define that a little bit better. So, just wanted to go on the record and share that with you as well. We are working with the UDC focus group on that. Simison: Council, anymore questions for staff at least on that information? Okay. Before we ask the applicant to come up and close I will see if there is anybody else in the community who would like to come forward and provide additional testimony based on the stuff that was heard. We have one person that would like to come back up who mentioned this in her statements. Sally, if you would like to come back up. Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council. Sally Reynolds again. 1166 West Bacall Street. I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to come back and address you. I thought that Bill's explanation would be part of the staff report. So, I appreciate the opportunity to -- I guess respond to that a little bit. And I do think I -- I will just back him up and agree -- I agree with solely for setbacks is kind of where I got hung up on this application the very first time and the amount of amenities that they are providing I could, then, see kind of why it was a PUD, especially with the DA agreement trying to say you have to have absolutely R-6. Where -- I mean -- and it is -- I guess the periphery that I -- the periphery one that I do struggle with a little bit that I take a little issue is not the one on my side. It's the north end. And I know it's zero percent setbacks -- zero feet setbacks only at certain points. But, then, what it's kind of counting on is the buffer from that point out to the street, which that's okay. If the Council finds that that's okay and they can use that even though it's not part of their plat -- in their plat as using it as a buffer to satisfy that requirement, then, please, state that, so that other developers don't come in and say we have a zero percent setback and there is nothing there, you know what I mean? And, then, as far as -- what was the other one? Just refresh my memory. Yeah. And, then, the -- the multi -- the multi-family units. The only thing that I will have to say about that is R-8 does allow for the single family and single family attached -- well, detached and attached and townhomes. And so looking at the periphery there is 32 along the periphery of single family detached; right? So, if those Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 29 of 94 became attached or if they all became townhomes or if they all became -- I think that we would kind of be looking at the same number of units, but I do agree that adding those extra diversity types makes it feel a little bit hodgepodge and that's where -- are they used in the PUD just to do that or to really be innovative and so I would just encourage you to say that in your findings, so that future PUDs that come before you can take that into consideration. And, then, also just -- I wouldn't have brought up the PUD if I felt like those were really addressed in the staff report. They were there, but, then, I felt like as a resident I had to go through the code and find out it's solely not for setbacks and that's where the optics didn't look good is that I had to bring that to Council's attention that it wasn't there in the staff report. And, then, there were suggestions of how to get -- or not -- there were suggestions on -- originally they wanted to waive the 80 -- 80 square foot of private space open for every unit and one of the suggestions was, well, if -- if you apply for an urban label, then, you can. Okay. Well, that's a great suggestion. But if that -- if they are going to actually do that, then, I feel like somewhere in the staff report the term urban needs to be defined and why they actually met that. Does that make sense? That's -- that's where I'm at with the PUD. That's why I came before you one time saying this doesn't qualify as a PUD and now I'm not necessarily opposed, because there has been a little bit more explanation and that's been on the record now, so I feel more comfortable with that. But I'm not comfortable when there is suggestions from staff with no meat behind it, that makes the residents feel we have to go dig into the city code ourselves to find out if this is really substantiated. Simison: Thank you, Sally. Council, any questions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Can -- as to your first point on the setbacks on the north -- I don't know if Sonya or Bill can comment on it. You were asking for some clarity in the discussion or findings. But I don't -- I apologize, I might not have been tracking what you were looking for. Reynolds: No. That's okay. As I understand in the staff report, Bill, there is only -- on that northern side there is only a few points where they are asking for zero -- zero foot setbacks and it is on the periphery. So, technically, in the code it says that when you have a PUD there is no changes in setbacks along the periphery, which that would be a zero percent -- you know, technically it's part of the plat. That other 20 feet of space to the sidewalk and to the road isn't part of their plat. I mean through no fault -- no fault of their own they had to do that collector road and I understand that. But it's just -- I feel like that kind of is walking a fine line. Sonya: Mr. Mayor, if I could respond to one thing. This project is a little unique in that the subdivision plat was approved a while back and it was under a different code. It has been amended since then to allow the 20 foot wide street buffer along the collector street to be in an easement, rather than a common lot. Our old code required it to be in a common lot. So, then, setbacks are measured off of the -- the lot lines. So, if it -- if Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 30 of 94 this were reviewed under the current code today, then, there wouldn't be any need for a deviation to that setback. So, just to -- you know, kind of explanation on the old code, that this was kind of -- kind of falls under the old and the new, but there are existing lot lines that required, then, that kind of do affect -- affect developments today on this and -- and I appreciate your comments, Sally, on the staff report. It's always good to hear feedback on what -- you know, what the public and -- and the Council likes to hear it's always a fine line that staff walks as to how lengthy to make the staff reports and how much of city code to regurgitate, you know, in the staff reports and it's -- you know, nobody wants the la, la, la, la, you know -- an extremely long staff report and -- anyway, I appreciate your comments and -- and Council's comments as well on this. Reynolds: And, Mr. Mayor, Council Members, and -- and city staff. Thank you. I appreciate that explanation. It really does help and I think that you explaining that on the record will hopefully be there also for future applications. So, I appreciate that very much. Simison: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Slavin: Mr. Mayor, Council. Excuse me. I -- it's -- I love this type of process and when there is a lot of tension usually that's spurned becomes of creativity and -- and thank you so much. I wish I could speak as eloquently as Bill about the application of a PUD. For the record this is my -- what, my third in the valley. Two of which are in Garden City. And I know it's somewhat of a new living style. The waterfront district that everybody probably knows about -- is the first I was involved in, what, 13 years ago. It's now the coolest neighborhood in Garden City and nobody wanted to be -- nobody wanted to actually admit they lived in Garden City 13 years ago. So, it was pretty edgy for its time. But what it's done is it's brought a community together. I still live in that community by choice. I love living there. I'm not going anywhere else. And, then, we actually have another PUD just up the street and they are a little bit confusing. It's not trying to be tricky, we are really being innovative. And, again, I think the waterfront district is -- is a perfect testament of how this works out in time with several different living styles right next to each other and how you can build a fantastic community out of it and -- and that's our hopes for this project. I -- I think that -- the only other question that came up is parking. I know that parking is a big concern and this is more speaking specifically to Orchard Park and -- and -- and there is certain standards that we need to -- to adhere to for code compliance, essentially, for -- for what we are building. But I will say that we are going through a stringent process with our co-declarant being Winco on the site, that we are actually offering you ten spaces per thousand square feet for the restaurants. So, we are actually very confident that we are offering a lot of parking holistically on the site. And the last thing I would like to point out is just a testament to our conviction is that when you look at other branch libraries throughout the valley typically they are in strip malls and we have spent a tremendous amount of money and resources to provide a fantastic facility for the Meridian library district that, you know, it wasn't an obligation of ours, it was something we really wanted to do. So, I just hope that that stands as a concrete testament to our conviction to do nice projects. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 31 of 94 Tsang: I have nothing else to add. Just that I -- I hope everyone understands that, you know, it — it somewhat was depicted that we just kind of said take it or leave it. We worked really hard on this and I know that's part of our jobs, you know, we -- and Sally's been awesome to work with. She's educated me on certain things and I have met with her. I feel like I have gotten to know her really well, because two, three hour meetings, four or five times with the community, I really enjoyed that part of it, honestly. It's -- it's -- it's interesting hearing the feedback and you also realize that you can't please everyone. But I hope that you guys feel that we have done a good enough job, that we have tried hard, you know, so you guys can approve this project. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: A question. Can you comment about your community center, your -- your -- Slavin: Yeah. Sure. Hoaglun: -- whatever you call that. Slavin: Certainly. Yeah. And -- and, you know, funny enough, because of the multi- family requirement we -- we have two clubhouses. There -- there is one in -- what is known as the Turtle Head. It's adjacent to this nice seating area and -- and, you know, common walkway actually up to Orchard Park. So, it's kind of this little pink object. There's a clubhouse in -- oops. Oh. We need a little laugh. It's good. So, there is actually a clubhouse in here. But, then, we also have another clubhouse. The pool isn't depicted. Yeah. We can actually go to a much larger detail. Tsang: Actually, it's on our presentation. Slavin: That's okay. You kind of see it here. Tsang: Yeah. Slavin: It's really small. I'm sorry, Council Woman Perreault. This is really small. There is -- you can see there is a pool back in the clubhouse here and what's interesting is, you know, even one of these clubhouses -- Paramount has one clubhouse for 500 acres and, you know, on this site we actually have two and a tool shed -- tool library, dog washing stations and it's pretty highly amenitized. We are pretty excited about it. Simison: Anything else? Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Tsang: Thank you. Slavin: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 32 of 94 Simison: While you all ponder I could go through my little -- you know, my life is a song sometimes and this reminds me of the great facts of life song from the day, you know, where you taking -- whether she takes the old, you take the new, you put them together and there you have the PUD today. I mean -- and that's what -- really what this comes down to in a lot of ways. You know, you are taking a lot from different concepts and trying to put them together and there is pluses and there is minuses and it doesn't look like you would like it to look with those things all considered. Kind of like buying a car sometimes, too. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: We will get some --just some comment before we close the public hearing. But -- but I appreciate the work that's gone into this and the discussion between the applicant, staff and the public. I do see it with the -- the flexibility that it's intended to have, but I look at -- not only the prior approvals and the -- the entitlements on this property, but also the -- the Title 11, Chapter 7, not the purpose and the findings of a PUD and plat application that's before us and in this one I think it's -- it's met and it's -- it's pretty clearly met for me. Don't really see -- I see bad. I see more -- more -- the phrase I would use is tradeoffs -- that by having some adjustments in some of these standards that would otherwise apply it opens the application up to be unique and creative, something that we don't see as often and, then, all of the reasons that -- that the staff report articulates that this application presents, from robust amenities to unique site design and layout, all to me clearly warrants approval. I think it's going to be a beautiful project and it's not in a vacuum, on an island, it is a part of this integrated region and -- and we can be pretty sure that a lot of these folks will be pedestrian accessing libraries and shopping centers directly to the north. So, that's exactly what we had hoped would happen. I think a PUD serves its purpose -- specific purpose in code is met here. So, it's an application as updated by the applicant with today's application I'm wholly supportive of. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: You know, when they first came through I read all the neighbors' comments and read through everything you guys have done and I -- first thing I realized is what a -- not horrible, but really a tough piece of ground you guys were trying to develop and to meet all the standards that were being brought forth and to meet all the requests that were being put upon you. But as we sit here today and I look at what you brought forward and I look at the fact that you met with the neighbors again and did a follow-up meeting, my biggest area of concern at the very beginning was the transportation part. It was the parking. It was the parking on the curbs. It was the concern of several of the neighbors. And you eliminated that. I think you have done a fantastic job on giving as far as you can and still keeping this to be the high quality project that you presented Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 33 of 94 when we first heard it. I think it's going to be a great buffer between Paramount and the whole complex, the library and all the restaurants. I'm -- I'm totally impressed with what you are doing on this piece of ground. I support it very much and I would just say it and I say this a few time now is -- if we didn't approve this what would we end up with in this spot and I think at least what we are looking at right now -- I know we are looking at high quality and I know we are looking at innovative design and I think you have done a very good job on trying to bridge that gap between those two. I would like to add one other comment for staff, because this is the first time I have ever seen a PUD and I -- because they have almost some different amount of flexibility built into them, different from a lot of applications, I would sure like to see a lot of that explanation of the PUD brought into those future staff reports, so we can look at that and get a better understanding each time we deal with one. This time you did a fantastic job and -- and my hat's off to -- to staff, applicant, and the neighbors, especially Sally, thank you so much for everything you have done. It's -- this is the culmination of a lot of hard work and I will be in support. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Yeah. Happy to -- to chime in. That's why I love public hearings. I walked into our meeting tonight, frankly, not supportive of this project. I think in our last meeting I asked a question -- I didn't get a satisfactory answer -- is how does our community benefit from this project. Because that's -- that's the threshold for me. And I think like Council Member Perreault, I -- I saw too many types of housing projects. Like, oh, we are just trying to fit so many different things here to maximize every square inch. I -- I didn't see it necessarily as benefiting our community and I think it's something that Meridian has really been faced with is a lot of diversity of housing and our community responds in many different ways about diverse housing. Some people love it. Others who have lived here our whole lives we struggle with it; right? And I have definitely fallen into that latter. But I appreciate, frankly, staffs, you know, overview of the PUD process. To Council Member Overton's comments, I think -- I have been on the Council ten years. I think this is the third one that we have seen and each one has been uniquely different. So, while I agree with the recommendations about greater information in the -- in the staff reports around these PUDs, I also -- Mr. Mayor did some forecasting when he talked about future meeting topics. At the end of tonight's meeting I'm going to ask for a workshop with maybe a -- a further presentation from staff about PUDs and things that Council should consider, because I think we need to be better equipped to handle these types of requests, because I think we are going to see more of them. Back to the -- the application itself. I -- I think I have -- I have changed my opinion, because I -- you are investing your dollars on this and so you believe this diversity of housing -- this mix will work really well. It's a micro community is really how I'm looking at it. And I -- I think with a challenging piece of dirt it would be easy just to do the same mold that we have seen all over the place and so the fact that you think that this could be successful for our community and you have invested the time and the feedback from our -- our neighbors, who I hold their opinion in high regard, seem to, for the most part, appreciate what you are trying to accomplish. I think I'm going to be Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 34 of 94 supportive tonight and just want to commend you and the neighbors for working as collaborative as you can. You know, it's -- if it was easy it would just always be the way. It takes time and challenge and effort and I appreciate you and the neighbors putting the effort to bring this forth to us. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm going to probably fall outside of the group on this one. You know, for me the -- the bar just wasn't met. I needed a lot more leg work done here to get comfortable. You know, I had requested several times a comparison with the R-8 standard. I feel it took a long time to get that and I kind of view Councilman Borton's point -- I do view it as a trade off. I view it that there is a trade off between innovative design and a deviation from our dimensional standards and I don't feel that the design was sufficiently innovative to justify the extreme deviations I believe from our normal dimensional standards. So, that's one piece for me. And without I think a lot more work in terms of the design and, frankly, even additional updated elevations -- like I appreciate getting the update on the single family elevations, but I took issue with many of the elevations and didn't see any updates and for me the bar was just not met in terms of knowing that we are leaving kind of R-8 land and giving a PUD and that we are going to get truly innovative beautiful design at the end of the day. I didn't feel that that legwork was met to prove that and so for me I -- in the absence of that defaults to assuming that the purpose of the PUD is to increase the density and I feel that that was the primary purpose, so it doesn't mean I couldn't have gotten there, but I just -- for me on these going forward, I'm going to need, you know, those comparison charts up front and -- and a lot more of that leg work done to meet the bar for me to grant a PUD. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Usually by this point I have really good clarity on my thoughts on this, but, you know, we have a couple layers now of conditions to consider and in addition to that, of course, we are going to talk about what's most important for our -- and most beneficial to our community, as well as what we want to be here for a very long time and I really lean more towards sharing the same concerns as Council Woman Strader and I -- I'm not going to reiterate all of those, because I think you have -- have understanding of -- of what the concerns are. But, specifically, I -- I have had a really hard time -- if you -- if-- if you are presenting a unique development to our community, giving us a vision is a really important part of it and I -- I -- I just struggled with getting that vision from you that was -- obviously, you know, we -- we are -- we would be approving a plat and potentially a concept plan with the DA, but, you know, you are not obligated to provide elevations to us, you are not obligated to show us what you will specifically use, but it certainly does help us as we get questions from the public about what we saw when we said okay to a project that was really super unique. So, I don't know where I -- I want to Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 35 of 94 leave that in terms of whether -- at this point I'm not sure I a hundred percent would -- would encourage asking for more information and continuing this, so that we can put it into something that is different. If -- if my fellow -- if there is enough support from my fellow Council, then, I'm glad for your success. At this point in time I -- I can't be in agreement with this particular application. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I appreciate all the conversation that we are having and insight and inputs. It's always valuable. I appreciate the work of -- of the community members who put so much time and effort and -- and, Sally, Ms. Carpenter left and probably three generations, but tell her, you know, it's not a win-loss type of situation that we are in and the key take away is you made a difference. All the people who are here at the hearing a couple weeks ago, the people who went to the meetings there, you made a difference and that's what we want to have. We want to make things better. Where ever possible let's make them better and I -- I think that's -- that's the good thing about it. So, this site does have its challenges. It -- it had some certain things baked into this particular piece of property that we had to deal with that work around and it makes sense that a PUD was used here. You know, is it perfect? Do we like everything about it? No. But it's -- it's workable. I love the fact that there is a transition and how you feathered -- your term feathered out that. You know, we get a lot of places where we have the neighbors come and it's not a one to one lot line match necessarily and you get three houses up against one and people are upset. You guys put some effort into that to what -- plus the easement that was there, which, you know, we kind of take for granted, but to reroute that and that is a waterway that impacts the development. It really limits and modifies what you can do up against it and I think you used it well, though, to make it work. So, I -- I appreciate the effort that's gone into that and -- and one other thing, Mr. Mayor, I want to -- I want to mention and this might be taken political, but, you know, you use the library. Brand new library there. Right there at that Orchard Park. You know, libraries are more than about books. They are about community and how we can use them and everyone benefits from them. So, there I said it. I support our libraries but it's -- it's something that -- that's what they are there for and I really appreciate Nick in opening that up and having you guys able to have those meetings and whatnot. So, that's -- that's a good thing. So, anyway, Mr. Mayor, I -- I'm supportive of this. I think a lot of folks put a lot of time and effort into it and I think we have a project that we can say is quality and I'm excited to see how it develops. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Move we close the public hearing on Item 9, H-2022-0027. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 36 of 94 Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: In light of the -- the discussion amongst my colleagues here, I will make a motion to approve H-2022-0027 with the updated elevations and adjustments as presented and addressed in the staff report of March 21, 2023. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion and discussion -- for discussion. Simison: Have a motion and a second. Discussion? Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I support the motion, but I just wanted to follow up for -- to the maker of the motion about the no parking request on Bergman and Director and having the no parking as it was designated on curves of the applicant's presentation. I didn't know if you wanted to include that in your motion. Borton: Include both of those. Hoaglun: Okay. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I would recommend you include Arliss as well. Up to you. Allen: Mr. Mayor, if I may. There is a condition of approval currently, number eight, that states the applicant should coordinate with ACHD on installing no parking signs on the public streets where the S or 90 degree curves are located, i.e., Bergman Avenue, North Arctic Fox Way and North Arliss Avenue. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Okay. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the role. Roll Call: Hoaglun, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Perreault, nay; Strader, nay; Overton, yea. Simison: Four ayes. Two nays. And the motion is agreed to. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 37 of 94 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS. Simison: Council, let's go ahead and take a ten minute break and try to resume at 8.00 o'clock. So, technically a 12 minute break. (Recess: 7.47 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.) 10. 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. Simison: All right. Council, we will go ahead and make our way back from our recess. Our next item up this evening is Item 10, public hearing for Meridian OZ Apartments. OZ Apartments I assume. H-2022-0073. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Getting my presentation up here. The next application before you tonight is a request for a development agreement modification and a conditional use permit. Oh, still not on the right slides. Just a moment. There we go. This site consists of 2.39 acres of land. It's zoned R-40 and is located at 1475 East Franklin Road, off the southwest corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads. A little history on this property. It was annexed with an R-4 -- R-40 zoning district back in 1999 with a development agreement that includes a concept plan for a 96 unit multi-family residential development on the subject property and the adjoining property to the east. It's now owned by ACHD containing a drainage facility. A conditional use permit was also approved for a multi-family development, which has since expired and this is the concept plan that I just referenced on the left here. And, then, this is the proposed plan on the right. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed-use community. A modification to the existing development agreement 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 conditional use permit application. Staff recommends the provisions pertaining to outside lighting, perimeter fencing and drainage be carried over to the new agreement. New provisions are recommended requiring a future development to be generally Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 38 of 94 consistent with the development plans proposed with this application and vehicular and pedestrian connectivity to be provided to the property to the south for future interconnectivity. A conditional use permit is proposed for a 60 unit multi-family residential development on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district at a gross density of 25 units per acre. Five 12-plex structures are proposed with a mix of one bedroom, 30 of those, and two bedroom, again, 30 of those units. Access is proposed via South Locust Grove Road. No access is proposed or allowed via East Franklin Road. Because this property and the property to the south is designated mixed-use community 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. Off-street parking is proposed in accord with UDC standards with three extra spaces. Compliance with the specific use standards for multi-family residential developments is required, which includes standard for open space, private and common, and site amenities. A minimum of 80 square feet of private open space is proposed for each unit as required. A minimum of 13,500 square feet or .31 of an acre of qualified open space is required to be provided. A total of 14,416 square feet or remove .33 acres is proposed, exceeding the minimum standards by 916 square feet. Based on the number of units a minimum of three qualified site amenities are required from each category. The quality of life, open space and 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 and perspectives were submitted as shown for the proposed three story structures. Building materials consist of fiber cement panels between the 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. The Commission recommended approval of the proposed conditional used permit. I will go through a summary of the Commission public hearing. Jorre Delgado, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. Ann Witherell and Lynzey Uechi -- I apologize if I misspelled -- or mispronounced your name -- commented on the application and written representing was received was Travis Perrin, representing Intermountain Wood Products. He is in opposition to the application. Key issues of discussion -- discussion by the Commission are as follows: Intermountain Wood Products that exist three parcels to the south has safety concerns due to the proximity of their proposed access via Locust Grove to the Locust Grove- Franklin Road intersection and conflicts between the residential traffic from the proposed development and their tractor-trailers and trucks that come and go from their distribution center multiple times per day and concerns with safety and trespassing from future residents on their property. Relocating the trash enclosure from the southwest corner of the development. Privacy fencing along the southern boundary. Public safety concerns with this development surrounding an ACHD drainage facility. And limited access from Locust Grove Road. The Commission made the following changes to the staff's recommendation and they modified the DA provision 1-A to encourage Council to determine if the proposed density was appropriate for this property. The Commission modified DA provision 1-D to have the applicant explore other fencing options along the west boundary and the ACHD drainage facility to mitigate impacts from the industrial Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 39 of 94 uses and the existing barbed wire fence around the ACHD property. Commission modified Condition 8-N to relocate the trash enclosure in the southwest corner to a more appropriate location as determined by Republic Services. There are no outstanding issues for Council tonight on this application. Written testimony has been received from Jorre Delgado, the applicant's representative, and she is in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Oh, one thing I would like to add. I kind of touched on this, but this property is entitled with R-40 zoning and a development agreement for, like I said, more units than they are proposing. So, I did just want to touch on that and Bill Nary can answer any questions you may have on that. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Sonya, I will -- I will start with you and, then, I may -- may pivot to Mr. Nary. So, one, talking about the history -- and this may be my first time I get to say it. This thing was annexed when I was in high school. So, that's kind of unique for me. Maybe the first of many times we will hear that over the next couple of years. So, help me understand. They annex in and, then, the highway district builds a drain while still having the residential annexation. That was the process back then or that -- they were eligible to do that? Help me understand how a property owner annexing in and, then, the highway district built to drain and now they want to come back and do residential. I'm just -- I'm missing pieces in this game of -- Allen: Well, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, Council, I'm not sure if I'm stating the obvious or missing the point of your question, but they were -- they were entitled with multi-family development. They let their conditional use permit expire. After that time ACHD came in and bought a large corner of that property, left them with an L-shape and that's all they have left and it's a pretty constrained site to develop now. But they are entitled with the zoning -- you know, they already have that entitled and with the development agreement with the concept plan. Granted, the -- the proposed development is not consistent with their -- their concept plan, but that is why they are proposing a modification and there is no way feasibly for the applicant to develop consistent with their concept plan. So, anyway, did I answer your question or not? Or did I just state the obvious? Cavener: You answered one question that I asked and, then, you answered the next question I was going to. Allen: Oh, good. Cavener: I appreciate you for anticipating. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 40 of 94 Allen: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I just want to say I was pretty impressed with that response, because she was in grade school when this was annexed, so -- Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant online or -- Delgado: Good evening. My name is Jorre Delgado. I'm with Realm Venture Group. 1109 West Main Street, Boise, Idaho. I think that Sonya did a really good job with the staff report and as she mentioned, after reviewing all the conditions that were placed on this application, we are in agreement with all of the conditions that are in place. One thing I would like to know about the fencing around the ACHD drainage facility -- it did come up by the neighbors at the last Planning and Zoning hearing that there was some safety concerns about the type of fence that is currently there, which is just a chain link fence, six feet high, with barbed wire around the top of it. We do intend to change that and we have actually changed that to an eight foot fence and we are going to do an eight foot vinyl fence, so it's fully enclosed. Vinyl fences, obviously, are not as easy to climb as chain link fences, so I think that it kind of addresses some of those safety issues that the neighbors might have had and we are also going to continue that vinyl fencing around the rest of the property to -- just to match that. But outside of those safety concerns for the fence from that neighbor, I also just want to touch on Intermountain -- their issue, potentially, of the traffic coming in and out of the subdivision. There -- again, there is -- we are kind of constrained with this piece of property. There is not a lot of ways that we can come in and out and I know that we tried an entrance in and out on Franklin, we tried keeping them both open, and it's just -- there is not really -- like this -- this just happened to be the best option for us and we do have plans to put -- to make this a forced right turn. So, we will have a concrete barrier in here that forces that right turn, so that people aren't trying to go across all four of those lanes or into the center divider. So, we are going to do what we can to force that right turn and stripe it and put signage. But, again, that's -- that's all we can do to address that safety issue. Other than that I don't have any new comments. So, I'm open for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yes. Ms. Delgado, so ACHD would not even allow a right-in, right-out on Franklin Road? Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 41 of 94 Delgado: So, we were told no entrance or exit on that and we tried it, but it did come back that we were not allowed to use Franklin at all. So, we are now putting a berm on that side, so that it's going to be fully landscaped and look more presentable from that side of the road, so people know that they can enter and exit on that side and we will be removing that curb cut on that side that's currently there. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Allen: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Sonya. Allen: Excuse me. I would just like to clarify with the applicant on the record. She mentioned that an eight foot tall vinyl fence was proposed. Our city code restricts the fencing height in the residential districts to six feet. So, they would either need to provide a six foot fence or they could request alternative compliance. I'm not sure that we would have any issue with alternative compliance given the drainage facility, you know, that way, but Mr. Overton might have some comments on that from a police background if he would feel that would be appropriate or not. But, anyway, just wanted to mention that in the record. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Could you just walk us through the distribution of the parking on the site? Delgado: Yes. So, we have parking spaces in between for each of the buildings on this side, as well as a row of parking in front of each building and all of the parking spaces along the front are all covered parking spaces. I believe we have 61 covered parking spaces total and the reasoning for pushing all of our additional parking over here, which would essentially be our guest parking, is that it was hard for us to have parking right up here along the front of Locust Grove when this is going to be our in and out. So, we -- and after trying to lay out the buildings in numerous different ways just because of the constraints of the shape of this property, the parking kind of felt best back here, but, again, these are all self parked for the actual buildings in front of them. So, these residents won't have to be walking back here, they will have a dedicated spot with their unit numbers on them and a designated additional space if possible and, then, this will just be an overflow and if we could we would put some parking up here and maybe shift the buildings a little bit, but I don't feel that parking right along there is -- is best. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 42 of 94 Strader: Okay. So, it's all self parked around the buildings and, then, it's really -- this is you are saying overflow. So, will people have to pay extra for that dedicated space or you are confirming that you will dedicate a space to every unit? Delgado: Every unit will have a dedicated space. Since we aren't providing actual garages, these are going to be covered carports that will have their unit number associated with it when they sign a rental agreement. Strader: Got you. And, then, I assume there is no parking along this little kind of drive aisle. Delgado: This -- I'm not sure if you are able to see my mouse, but there is not any parking. All the parking is along the buildings. Strader: Okay. Got it. Delgado: So, it is all landscape buffer. Strader: Okay. Delgado: And, then, on the bottom portion of the property to the south, that's where we are going to be putting the easement for a future connectivity that was noted in the conditions for any future developments that happen to go there, so that we could share the driveway and that's our main reasoning for putting the buildings on that side of the property. I know it's not ideal to have them next to the ACHD drainage facility, but that works out well if there is -- happens to be a property developed next to us and, then, we can share a drive aisle. Strader: Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: It was difficult to tell from the drawings if there is a dedicated walkway from the building farthest from the grassy area on the north to that common area. Would folks be walking through the parking lot to get there or is there some sort of pathway on the north and east sides of the buildings where you see all the landscaping? Delgado: So, we do have a pathway along the front of the buildings. So, between the front of the building and the parking there is a sidewalk there. Our drawings are hard to see that and I was hoping that we could have some better renderings of that prior to this, but I wasn't able to get them. We did have to remove our walkway along the ACHD drainage facility along the back. So, we are using the front walkway of the building as the access to that common area from all the buildings. And it is a little bit hard to see, Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 43 of 94 but these back units do have a small walkway back there that does allow them to get to their set of stairs. Simison: Council, additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did. First is Ann Witherell. Simison: Good evening, Ann. If you could state your name and address for the record. Witherell: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Council. I'm Ann Witherell. 215 South Locust Grove Road. I don't know where to begin with this one. I'm -- I'm -- I would have loved to have taken my concern to the developer, but I went to both of the neighborhood meetings. I was the only one that showed up, other than a representative from the pumice factory across the road. I was the only one there. I understand that city staff -- sorry. I'm a little nervous. City staff was told that the neighbors didn't show up. It was kind of disrespectful. I was hoping to -- to meet with her -- to see her tonight. She's not here. I'd like to meet this person. Or developer. To have some of my concerns addressed by the developer. It hasn't happened. I do appreciate that there will be a vinyl fence around this wonderful drainage thing. Around the front a 13 year old with a bolt cutter can get in. It would be 13 year olds with bolt cutters they. There are bolt cutters. There are 13 year olds in the neighborhood. Not all of them are well behaved. Most are. But it is still a drowning hazard. It is a hazard to children on that road. There is nowhere for them to go. You can't fence them off. And who lives in one and two bedroom apartments? Not families with mature children. Small children. Section eight possibly. I don't think the police will be happy with that. Again, I would like to take some of my concerns to the developer, but I only have you. The location of three story apartment buildings. It sticks out like a sore thumb on that -- that corner, whereas, industrial type development or the -- the one that is behind and like the -- the wholesale wood people. They would fit in. But if you put a three story -- tiny apartments crammed in there -- I mean I just -- the only thing missing is to shoehorn. That -- now -- I'm sorry, I -- it just gives me nightmares thinking about it. Not to mention how many are going to be coming along the -- what's supposed to be a 20 foot easement between the residential and the industrial -- light industrial. Not 20, but still -- they can get on there. They can just kind of walk right into my property from behind. There is no security there. I have lived there for 45 years. I mean I really don't want to put bars on my doors and windows at night. That's not Meridian. That's not the Meridian I know. Not the Meridian I moved to. It may have to be the Meridian I move -- move from. I would hate for that to happen. I have got some great neighbors to the north of me. The -- the wood wholesalers are great neighbors, which is something not everyone can say. But my concerns, gentlemen, I just will leave with you, because if I go on and on we will be here all night. Simison: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 44 of 94 Overton: Mr. Mayor? Sorry. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Yes. I have got a couple of questions if I may. And I appreciate you coming and giving us your testimony tonight and no need to be nervous, we are -- we are all neighbors here and it's not a big deal. Witherell: Well, this isn't my first rodeo either. Cavener: Fair enough. So, here is the second rodeos and beyond. My -- my question for you is -- you had mentioned that you went to the neighborhood meetings -- W itherell: Yes. Cavener: -- but that the applicant told staff that nobody showed. Witherell: Yes. Cavener: But, then, you also said that you wish that you had a chance to voice your concerns to the applicant. Witherell: Right. Cavener: Did you not feel that you had the opportunity to do that at the two neighborhood meetings or you -- Witherell: There was no -- I was the only one there. I'm standing here in front of a backhoe and a vacant building and I looked. Nobody is there. Just me. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: So, what I'm -- what I'm hearing is you -- you -- what you are saying is you went to two neighborhood meetings and from your opinion the -- the applicant wasn't there. Witherell: Right. Cavener: That's why you didn't have anyone to talk to. So, the applicant did say anybody was there and you didn't see the applicant and so, therefore, you weren't able to convey your feelings. Witherell: Right. So, it's kind of like -- Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 45 of 94 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: It feels a little bit like that, that you -- it sounds -- and, again, we will hear -- I'm sure we will hear from the applicant on this. I just want to get some clarity about why you didn't feel you had the opportunity to convey your concerns to the applicant and the reason you weren't able to do that is because they weren't there. Witherell: That's -- right. Cavener: Got it. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Witherell: Thanks. Simison: Councilman Overton. Witherell: Anybody else? Overton: Mr. Mayor, that was the exact same question I was going to ask. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Witherell: It reads like a Monty Python. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yes. Ma'am? Ma'am? I have -- I have a softball question for you. Okay. Simison: Just get in front of the microphones, please. There you go. Hoaglun: So, you have lived there 45 years? Witherell: Yes. Hoaglun: Do you know Gene and Bernadine Presley? Witherell: Yes. Hoaglun: Okay. They are -- they are still around, so just wanted you to know. Witherell: Well, tell them hello for me. Hoaglun: I will. Thank you. Cavener: That's a better question. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 46 of 94 Simison: Anyone else sign up? Johnson: Yes, Mr. Mayor. And I apologize if I mispronounce this as well. But Lynzey Uechi. Simison: Good evening. You need to state your name and address for the record, please. Uechi: My name is Lynzey Uechi. I live at 1376 West Whitehall Drive. Simison: So Council Woman Strader can hear for certain. Uechi: Okay. First and foremost, thank you to the Planning Department for the ease of access and transparency on the ongoing developments in our city and to Mayor Simison and the City Council for providing the opportunity to voice concerns about proposed developments. The proposed development Meridian OZ Apartments does not meet -- barely meets and misrepresented meeting several of the standards put forth by Meridian officials, who intended to develop a premier community. The current development does not meet the standards for open space and buffering. It is not compliant with sidewalk requirements. It is not compliant with setback requirements. A representative was not present at any of the three rescheduled neighborhood meetings. The applicant misrepresented having no input from neighboring landowners. The submitted record of survey dated October 22nd marks a house which was demolished three months prior. Standards set by our city officials have been consistently disregarded entirely or met at an extreme minimum. In addition to the disregard for standards, I would also like to address the industrial buffer on the western edge of the development. There is no physical barrier on the southern edge of the landscape buffer. The treeline zone will allow unimpeded access to the new 180 northern neighborhoods into the backyards of the single family homes. Of larger impact I urge the Council to be open minded when considering the safety and well being of the proposed renters, who will have only one way to access their homes, moving into a parking area, which has merely three spots above the minimum requirement. The residents will further have no option for street parking within a quarter mile. Should any one of the 60 proposed households have three guests, a resident will not be able to park within a reasonable distance of his or her home. Should a vehicle accident or an emergency vehicle be parked near the sole entrance and exit, there will be no access out of the development. What would be the impact in the event of a fire or serious crime. The single right-in, right-out onto Locust Grove creates enormous traffic and safety concern. If a law abiding citizen is intending to travel east towards Eagle Road, the only legal path would require one to one and a half miles of additional travel. I would ask the Council to consider realistically if this will be regularly abided by and, if not, consider the road conditions created by motorist attempting an illegal left-hand turn out of the complex and into a small section of a turning lane, which is also being used by northbound traffic to turn into the apartments. Is this a reasonable risk that you can stand by allowing at a major arterial intersection? The mission, vision and values put forth by the City of Meridian states a dedication to a more vibrant, livable and connected Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 47 of 94 city. Does this development create more vibrance? Does it create a higher standard of livability? Does it create more connectivity for the residents, landowners and business owners of Meridian? Before you make up your mind I urge you, please, follow your gut feeling. I acknowledge that this is a difficult parcel to develop, but there is a better way than allowing five three story apartment buildings to be wedged behind a barbed wire fence surrounding a drainage pond with only one way out. I sincerely appreciate Mayor Simison and the Council's valuable time and very strong consideration to upholding the standards which protect Meridian. Simison: Thank you, Lynzey. Council, any questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Lynzey, did you say there were three meetings that were rescheduled and the applicant -- or the applicant was never there? Uechi: It was rescheduled twice. So, there was a total of three meetings and the applicant was never present. Overton: At any other meetings? Uechi: Correct. Overton: Okay. And I didn't catch where you -- do you live close and -- Uechi: I own the property directly south. 185 South Locust Grove. Overton: Okay. Are you familiar with the traffic as it flows currently out of the apartments across the street, the Shadow Creek Apartments? Uechi: Yes. Overton: Okay. I will talk about that later. Simison: Counsel, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you. That's everyone who signed up. Is there anybody else who would like to come forward and present testimony on this item? Or if you are online use the raise your hand feature. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Seeing no one -- Councilman Borton. Borton: Several things don't make sense in this application. But one is how does ACHD acquire a portion of this property without a DA modification to allow it to put the Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 48 of 94 drainage in? I mean there has got to be prior public hearing context where the things we are wrestling with right now would come up as part of approving a modified -- modification to a 1999 DA, that wouldn't also address this remnant parcel, because we would have said in '99 what in the heck are we going to do with the remnant parcel? So, what did we say back then that gave Council comfort that we are missing today? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, Council, I'm not sure that the city was ever asked. I -- it may have been, but I have a feeling it was possibly a taking here. Just a purchase of some land and -- Borton- But -- Allen: I'm not aware of anything with the city if there was. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Am I incorrect that procedurally they should have -- they should have applied to modify a DA to do what they did and that would have brought all this to light? I mean how do they -- how do they acquire -- how do they even split off that parcel to, then, put a -- without city approval? And I'm not trying to put you on the spot. Allen: More of a legal question, Joe, for Bill. I'm really not sure if they are held -- Bolton: Yeah. Allen: -- to that same -- I mean it would seem it's a legal agreement between the city and the applicant that this is how the property is going to develop and it's not. We agree. Borton: You can't -- yeah. You can't put -- you can't put stormwater drainage facilities in R-40. Allen: Yeah. It is public -- public infrastructure -- infrastructure improvements, which may fall outside of that. I'm not sure. Borton: Okay. Thanks. Simison: Well, we have three attorneys in the room and land use -- I'm sure that that's at least a 3,000 dollar question after we debate it. Sorry. Borton: I don't have an answer. I just have a question. Simison: Yeah. Council, further -- Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 49 of 94 Parsons: Also, Mayor and Council, if I can just speak to that point a little bit. Don't have a -- I don't know the specifics. It was before -- before my time, obviously, but, typically, ACHD, when they are doing road projects, they do coordinate with the city as you were and I don't know who was the planner at the time that -- that coordinated on that intersection improvement. But there is a couple of things to keep in mind here. I know -- I wish Kyle was here tonight, because he has a lot of input on the Five Mile Creek and this -- I think if you look at the statics of the area you can see that it does almost look like a wetland or tries to look more natural than a majority of their stormwater retention facilities, minus the chain link fence with barbed wire. But I think that was the intent here is that we were trying to get something attractive and we were trying to make it part of an integrated open space along that creek. So, that's probably one component of it. But the second part of that is typically when ACHD acquires a property, if they don't deem that they necessarily need all the property, they will do a record or survey and they will grab the portion that they want to purchase and, then, they leave the remnant piece out. But to your point, the DA doesn't go away. It does run with the land and as soon as they assume that -- presumably you would say, yes, you are in -- you should have come back to the city. So, I don't know if ACHD worked with city staff when they acquired that to make those improvements, so that it could enhance the creek area. I wish I had more information on that for you. But that's speculation on my part. Allen: Mr. Mayor? I was just made aware that Kyle from Public Works is online. So, he may have some answers to that question. Simison: Well -- and we also have another phone a friend with this Ms. Inselman from ACHD on the line, who may have -- be able to shed some light on their normal process when they come on these issues. Borton: Mr. Mayor, while we see who pops up, the reason for that question is in the -- in the normal sense the applicant could take this concept plan and go pull a permit and they have got zoning and entitlements and go try and get it built. But they never could have, even if they wanted to, so -- Simison: Mr. Radek, you -- he is there with his hand raised. Go ahead. Radek: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to raise my hand. I -- can you hear me? Borton: You're up now. Radek: Okay. Well, Mr. Mayor, my only knowledge of the -- of the pond project is -- I believe it was done in conjunction with the Franklin Road ACHD project and that was done in 2004 and that's before I started working here. So, I really don't have any knowledge of what happened there. Simison: Okay. Christy. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 50 of 94 Inselman: Mr. Mayor, this is Christy Inselman with Ada County Highway District. I don't have any additional information on this corner. I know it's fairly typical -- we have to accommodate the drainage from the roadway when we do the roadway expansion projects and we do -- we do have some that we do on the corner. As far as the process, similar to Kyle, it was pre my time. So, I'm not really sure what process was included to develop that. Simison: Christy, do you have a process that you would normally -- say this was to be done tomorrow, do you know how ACHD would go about implementing this in this situation? Inselman: My -- my best guess, Mr. Mayor, would be coordination with the city staff. I don't -- I'm long range planning, I don't work on the development of the individual projects, but I do know that city staff and ACHD work together closely on all of our projects and they sit on all of our project teams. So, they would -- all would be heavily involved into what process would need to occur to -- to landscape and to acquire land for drainage facilities. Simison: Okay. Thank you, Christy. Inselman: You are welcome. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Punt to legal with the question being -- in, again, a more traditional sense, a council may elect to deny a DA modification, because the original existing concept plan is preferred. So, build what you are already allowed to build and on we go. In this case are we somehow hamstrung to act on a DA when the original concept plan itself is already not viable? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, no, you are -- you are still -- you still have discretion on -- on not granting this development agreement modification. Yeah. I -- I couldn't tell you -- and I don't recall a conversation regarding this parcel, but in looking at the staff report -- and I just want to make sure with Bill and Sonya, the ACHD parcel is a separately owned parcel that's not part of this development agreement any longer. Is that correct? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nary, yes, that is correct. Nary: Okay. So, the conflict you have that I think is the concern here is that remnant -- that parcel -- that's the remnant parcel. So, that was taken out and that was separated out of this -- out of the original DA, but nobody altered the original DA, so the R-40 zoning, because it was supposed to incorporate that entire parcel, never got changed. That's why the 96 units are still listed as the viable -- or as the DA allowed development. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 51 of 94 But because clearly things have changed and the property size and location and the access and all those things have changed, the Council doesn't have to agree to this particular one and I agree with you, it is slightly different, because normally, you are correct, the reason this Council doesn't agree with the DA is they want them to build what they had already been provided. Here they can't build what was provided in the existing DA, nor can they -- nor do they -- can you -- you have to agree that they can build this. They could build something different. You know, again, there are other issues that were raised. But certainly you don't -- you do have the discretion to still say no -- even if what you are proposing isn't adequate for this based on safety and some of the other concerns you have heard. Borton: Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Are we ready to hear from the applicant for final comments? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a comment. I'm sure that the applicant understands how important, but just to underscore how important it is for the applicant in their final comments to address that the neighbors feel that the developer has not met with them, which is one of our requirements and extremely important for us. Simison: I would agree. Thank you, Council Woman Strader. Ms. Delgado? Delgado: I would like to address the two neighbors that spoke about the neighborhood meetings. This came up during the Planning and Zoning as well. We did have multiple neighborhood meetings and I waited probably over an hour for anybody to show up. Granted, there is not a long neighborhood list that needed to be sent out, so I knew I was only waiting for a few people. So, I made sure that I waited an extended period of time for those individuals to show up. The first meeting was actually when the tenants of the house still lived there. So, I do know that they were there for that meeting, too, as was 1. So, I -- I'm not sure -- I don't know if it was a passing where we missed or if they came after the meeting was ending, but I can say that I was there for at least an hour each time and I can try to pull -- if Sonya doesn't have those in her file -- the dates and times of the beginning of the meeting and the end of them and send those in to you guys and the list of people that was -- that it was sent to each time. But other than that that's the only way that I could address their comments on that. And, then, as far as the safety for that ACHD drainage facility, we are open for any suggestions around that. We do want it to be as safe as possible for the residents there and proposing the larger fence was what our first and -- our first instinct was, just so that people weren't able to climb over it and there wasn't easy access into it, but other than that we are open for suggestions on safety measures to take -- to keep people out of that. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 52 of 94 Simison: Thank you. Council, additional questions, comments, follow up with the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, your -- your comments said that this also came up at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Is that correct? That -- the concern about the neighbors not being in communication with you? Is that -- was that accurate? Delgado: Correct. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: In light of that did -- did you make any effort after the Planning and Zoning Commission to, then, connect with those residents to hear their concerns? Delgado: I did not. But I do -- I have spoken with Lynzey prior and I know that she noted that -- I noted that I hadn't spoken with her, which I have spoken to her prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting. I had not spoken with Ann. I -- I didn't know prior to that that she had any -- any concerns regarding this project. I had only heard from Lynzey. But, again, I'm open to hearing all of her safety concerns for that ACHD drainage facility that she does have and I understand those and, like I said, we are open for any suggestions to help meet her comments and concerns about that. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So, I appreciate that you -- you heard from neighbors that they were concerned and -- and, again, it sounds like that you heard that they were frustrated that they hadn't been able to connect with you and so, again, I guess a real simple question is, then, why did you choose to not reach out to them? Delgado: I figured that by the time we came back to City Council that I would be able to address some of these issues better. But, again, a lot of it has to do with ACHD -- Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Delgado: -- drainage. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 53 of 94 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: You know, we run into this occasionally and thankfully not that much where it's kind of a he said she said on neighborhood meetings taking place, not taking place. But it's not just one person, it's two people that say they haven't had that meeting and that's just really unacceptable and I wonder, you know, is this a situation where we need to have like planning staff or the city clerk organize a meeting at City Hall to make sure that the process happens correctly and everyone can agree on a date and show up? But I just don't -- I -- it's -- I'm like having an allergic reaction to even considering moving forward on an application where the neighborhood meetings have not taken place or possibly have not taken place and so, yeah, I just want -- I'm just talking out loud, but I'm -- you know, I'm sort of struggling here. Maybe miscommunication. Maybe things happen. But I want to make sure that that process happens. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I would like to absolutely back up everything Council Woman Strader just said. I agree. It seems pretty unacceptable in this date and time that we are having those type of issues and when there are -- the opportunity is presented at the Planning and Zoning meeting it still doesn't happen and here we sit tonight and the neighbors still haven't had a chance to have that talk. Secondarily, I live fairly close to this and currently you have the Shadow -- or Shallow Creek Apartments across the street. One way in, one way out. Exactly what this is going to be. Probably almost similar densities. Every day traffic stacks coming out of that one way in and because ACHD runs a traffic barrier back, we have vehicles -- because I have had their headlights head on on my lane -- they can only turn right, right-in, right-out, but they turn left and drive in opposing traffic lanes until they can get far enough over to get onto Locust Grove. That one, combined with what this would do, would be extremely terrible traffic congestion that close to that intersection, because you got two of them, high density, coming right before that intersection and Locust Grove is getting busier and busier as we continue to grow. I don't think this is a good location for that. I think the one way in is -- is not acceptable. This just looks like it's a hazard and I try to remember when this might have been built and I do think I do know when this ACHD property was built. It's when Locust Grove was rebuilt and regraded before the overpass was completed. That's when it was put in. Because I lived by that and watched it happen and the fence went up, because the deer were in there. So, I have a little history with how that all happened. But I would not be supportive of moving forward on this application. There is just too many red flags right now. Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 54 of 94 Hoaglun: Yeah. And Mr. Overton was in college at the time. But, anyway, I digress. Mr. Mayor, a couple of paths we could take on this and like people to weigh in. You know, one is, obviously, I think there has to be a cure to the neighborhood meetings not being -- being held in some form or fashion, that -- we have to have people talking. But the other one is -- I think there is a lot of unease about this project and the access. I'm surprised -- it's probably because it's very close to the intersection, but a right-in, right- out just to -- to have people be able to go north. But, anyway, be that as it may, you know, I don't want to waste people's time by -- we delay it and have another meeting in April after they meet or do we talk about this and have suggestions for the applicant on -- of alternatives for the -- for this site? So, I guess that's -- that's kind of where I'm struggling is what direction to go with something like this right now. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I was thinking about the exact same question as Council President Hoaglun and I think it would be beneficial if we continue the discussion about other elements of the application to give the applicant direction, so that when they come back we can answer all potential questions. Unless — well, you know, unless we hear a motion for denial or something along those lines, so -- thank you. Simison: Yeah. One of the questions I was going to ask staff -- throw out the zoning, what would you recommend for this location -- or throw out the existing entitlements, but with the changes of how -- what would make sense here in this location from your standpoint now with where the city is are going in size? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council, the -- the site is designated mixed use community. Office uses I think would be a nice use in this location. Personal services maybe. Professional services. Parsons: Mayor, Council, if I can add. I have — Sonya inherited this project from some -- from other planners that actually pre-app'd with it. So, I want to step in a little bit, because I have been part of other conversations that she hasn't been privy to. So, as you recall, Intermountain Wood Products went through the comp plan change and did industrial. As part of that process we did some analysis that said by us approving this industrial we are carving -- we are reducing the mixed use community designation in this area, which will make it harder for those properties to develop as such with the three land use types that we envision as part of the Comprehensive Plan. So, when we have met with applicants we have -- we have felt it should really go industrial. I mean that's kind of the -- that's what you have to the west of the project and that seems to be the -- the natural progression to do that. But, of course, in order to change the plan and work with that, typically we like to work with the neighbors. So, when I have worked -- when I have -- when -- and during the other pre-application meetings we told them we may be able to support multi-family if you were to acquire more property to the south, so that you can get cross-access, so you can get farther away from that intersection, so Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 55 of 94 you can have -- spread that density across a greater area, so you can get a more attractive site plan. One of the struggles that Planning and Zoning Commission had with this site was the fact of density and that's why it ended up in your lap tonight, because if you look at the original approval and its the concept plan that's on the left here, that's 15 dwelling units to the acre and the reason why -- you know, it's because there was more acreage. Well, ACHD came in and did a record survey, converted that pond to right of way, they own the property and now we are left with a development where they want 25 dwelling units to the acre and the applicant was asked at the Planning and Zoning Commission can you do two story? Can you go down to 15 dwelling units to the acre and be consistent with the MUC designation? And if I'm not mistaken, I believe she testified, no, they needed to get this density. So, long story short, in the long term -- right now we have an entitlement, but to Mayor's point, if I were to take all that aside and someone wants to come to me and ask me what -- what we would think would be appropriate here, to Sonya's point, I think office can work or a commercial component or potentially doing a Comprehensive Plan map amendment changing that to industrial and finishing out that -- that corner consistent with other developments in the area. At least what's happened to the west side. I think this -- this Council is aware that we need more industrial land and here is an opportunity to do that. But, anyways, just giving you some feedback on some of the previous conversations that I have had. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I have a question for staff. So, it's been a while since I have driven by and really closely paid attention to that corner of the intersection. Is there not some geographic -- geographical -- geographic — what is the right word? Geographical. It's 9.00 o'clock. Limitations on that site as well? Doesn't it slope down because of the drainage and is that going to limit what goes there? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, you are correct, there is some -- some topography on the site, but the area that's able to develop could still be developed. It's not impacted by the topography. But your -- to your point it -- and to what the resident said, the pond is down and the three story apartments are going to be elevated above the pond site. So, it is going to contribute to the height in the area for sure because of that elevation change. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I don't know how I could move forward on this application. It sounds like the best long-term solution — in short term it -- it's difficult, but maybe appropriate to deny the -- the CUP and the DA modification in light of these unique circumstances and invite and encourage the applicant to, you know, submit a rezone and -- and try and use this Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 56 of 94 parcel in the way that it's unique design will allow. You touched on some of those components and it's just not an R-40 parcel now and I know it is technically, but, you know, it never would get that zoning if it was presented today. It's just a very difficult situation. So, I don't know how you go forward without -- quite frankly, if they can't do what's originally approved, which I don't think they can, they should be encouraged to rezone it and have a different use there. Just being blunt and honest, so nobody wastes time. Simison: And even going a step further, I'm not saying, you know, the access unless there is -- dependent -- you know, unless the access is somehow resolved to working with the neighbors to the south or back with ACHD for additional places, it just does not seem to be able to support a use of this nature and I don't even know personally if putting a dentist office and others is — talk about commercial viability, right-in, right-out only in this location, is that -- maybe, you know, destination locations, but you still have to figure out how people are going to get in and where they are going to come from and there is -- that's just going to be a challenge. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. You know, when -- talked about that drive aisle on the south, if the property to the south develops and -- well, that drive aisle would be expanded and that's the -- the exit for that development. I mean to Councilman Overton's point in his example of the other side having that, now you have got even more cars doing that. You just compound the problem. So, yeah, for -- for what is being proposed this site just doesn't work for that. I think that there should be other uses, other plans. Maybe if they do acquire more property to the south, then, we can look at something that was similar before. But, again, access is I think always going to be an issue there. But that's just -- this particular one just doesn't -- doesn't work for that particular site. And I feel for the developers. It's what was left over, but at the same time it's -- it is what it is and we want to -- like we said earlier, quality development and something that works, of course, so -- I don't see that here. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I'm kind of an out-of-box thinker, because we are kind of saying something about shutting it down and trying to find an alternative way this can turn into something. Is there any way this could be moved to industrial and have any type of access back to the west, so it does not need Franklin or Locust Grove? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, there is currently no access available to this site from the west. There may be some kind of agreement that could be worked out, but there is not an existing access. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 57 of 94 Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, if -- Bruce scared me, so -- it caught me off guard here as I was formulating a response for you. But, essentially, when that development to the west went in there was a DA provision for that landscape buffer to be put along that buffer. So, to Sonya's point, there would have to be some coordination between that industrial user and the owner of that common lot to allow that access to occur. Just more -- more history for you to digest. There is a lot happening in this area as you know. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I will make a motion that we close the public hearing on H-2022-0073. Cavener: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Good difficult conversation. Difficult site. We all -- we all want to get into what this is or could be, but for today it just seems to be clear what it's not and this application is just what it's not. For the reasons stated by the public and the staff and the staff report and fellow Council Members have all hit on the same concerns that this requested modification and the CUP that goes with it just doesn't work. As presented it's not in the best interest of the city. So, I'm going to make a motion that we deny H- 2022-0073. Cavener: Second. Simison: Motion and a second with the attorney weighing in. Nary: I think -- I think there is enough on the record, but, basically, what I heard was the -- if the maker of the motion was basically denying it because, again, the -- the site cannot be developed into this form either, so it wasn't because of the original agreement as we discussed earlier, but because this one doesn't work either for this size of the parcel, the location, the safety, all of that -- is that what I understood? Borton: It includes — Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 58 of 94 Nary: That's what the record -- Norton: That's correct. Nary: Okay. Borton: Thank you for pointing that out. Nary: And Mr. Johnson did have to step out, Mr. Mayor, so I don't know if you wanted to call the roll on the motion. Cavener: Yes, he does. Simison: I didn't know that was my -- one of my other duties as assigned, as the case may be. I have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion on the motion? If not, I will call the roll. Roll Call: Hoaglun, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Perreault, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea. Simison: So, that is six ayes, zero no's, and the motion to deny is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Simison: Okay. Staff, best of luck in working with the owners and neighbors to try to come up with something that makes sense for this area or maybe we can get ACHD to stage a couple of snow plow trucks there with a facility if they need to purchase some more land for that in the community. Be a great location. 11. 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. Simison: Okay. I digress. So, moving on. We will move to Item 11, public hearing for Millwood Subdivision, H-2022-0089. We will open this public hearing with staff comments after Councilman Borton makes a comment. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 59 of 94 Borton: This is an application I have not seen, know nothing about, but I know that I am recusing myself from it. Certainly won't be participating in any part. Haven't from day one and will remove myself from it. So, thank you. Simison: Thank you. With that we will turn it over to Sonya for staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 4.11 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and it's generally located south of East Victory Road and east of South Locust Grove Road at 1975 East Victory Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre. Annexation of 4.74 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district for the development of 16 new single family residential detached homes and retention of the existing home at a gross density of 4.14 units per acre consistent with the medium density residential future land use map designation. This property is part of a larger in-fill area surrounded by city annexed land that has not yet redeveloped. The existing home is required to connect to city water and sewer service within 60 days of service becoming available and disconnect from private service in accord with city code. The existing home will also need to be re- addressed, since access will no longer be provided from Victory Road. All access -- excuse me. All accessory structures will be removed from the site. The proposed preliminary plat as shown there on the left consists of 17 building lots and two common lots on 4.11 acres of land and the R-8 zoning district proposed lots range in size from 4,245 square feet, which is .10 acre to 6,799 square feet, .16 of an acre, with a 34,706 square foot or .8 acre lot where the existing home was proposed to remain. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. Access is proposed via an extension of East Richardson Street, a local street, planned to stub to the west boundary of the site with development of Teakwood Subdivision. ACHD is requiring right of way to be dedicated, but the street not constructed for the future extension of Richardson from the east side of Tamayo Court to the east property line with future redevelopment of the property to the east. And that is this road right here. Access for the existing home should be taken solely from Tamayo Court. Access via the easement from Victory should terminate, except for emergency vehicle access only and bollards should be installed across the driveway to prohibit public access. So, just a little more information on that. This property, as you can see here from the maps, does not have any street frontage on Victory Road. They do have an access easement that exists across the neighboring DeChambeau property. Because this site is below five acres in size, UDC standards for common open space and site amenities do not apply. However, the applicant is proposing a total of .55 of an acre or 13.5 percent of common open space for the development consisting of .18 of an acre of common area with a tot lot along the west boundary of the site, with a pathway that stubs to the west boundary and the landscape plan here on the right shows that area right here. And this common lot abuts common area planned in Teakwood Subdivision to the west. Staff is recommending the applicant coordinate with the developer of the adjacent property to not erect a fence in that location, so that the common areas can be joined to form a larger overall area. A Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 60 of 94 segment of the city's multi- use pathway system is required along the northeast boundary of the site, along the Eight Mile Lateral, consistent with the pathways master plan. The Parks Department recommends the off-site bridge across the lateral is widened or a separate pedestrian bridge is constructed to accommodate the ten foot wide pathway with NMID's consent -- within their easement with their consent. Excuse me. So, the property where the lateral is located along the northeast boundary there is within an easement and it is also owned fee simple by the irrigation district. Six conceptual building elevation photos were submitted as shown that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like. A mix of single story and two-story homes are proposed with a mix of building materials, including stone veneer accents and architectural elements. The Commission recommended approval of the proposed application and I will go through a summary of the commission hearing. Todd Lakey, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. No one testified in opposition. Specifically Mary DeChambeau did testify on the application. I won't make an opinion whether it was in opposition or commenting. She can speak for herself. She's here tonight. Written testimony was received from Delaine McLafferty. Key issues of discussion were traffic concerns related to the proposed development. The access easement that exists across the DeChambeau property to the east. Objection to the existing home remaining on the property, because it doesn't fit with the surrounding neighborhood. Request for the pathway along the east side of the development to be fenced off from the waterway and the property to the east. The height of the homes along the east boundary of the development don't fit with the rest of the neighborhood and concerns pertaining to light impacts from the development on the property to the east. Key issues of discussion by the Commission. Transitional lot sizes on the west and south boundary. Continued use of the vehicular bridge as a pedestrian bridge. Relocation or elimination of one lot taking access from the common driveway in the southeast corner of the development. Commission changes to the staff recommendation were as follows: At staff's request they included a provision in the development agreement for construction traffic for the redevelopment of this property to access the site via the future extension of Richardson Street from the west. Access via the existing easement from East Victory Road across the DeChambeau property is prohibited. At staff's request include a preliminary plat condition of approval for the final plat to be amended consistent with the lot configurations depicted on the revised common driveway exhibit in the staff report. At the applicant's request the Commission included a development agreement provision to limit the homes on the southern lots to single story only. Commission struck Condition 2-A removing the requirement to lots along the west and south -- southern boundaries as recommended by staff. And they modified Condition 10, which required coordination with the Parks Department to determine if the existing bridge can be used for a pedestrian crossing. There are no outstanding issues for Council tonight. A member of the Parks Department is here tonight — he was here. Is he still? Maybe online. He might be available online to comment on the -- on the bridge. Thank you. Written testimony has been received since the last hearing from Monty Morgner and Mary DeChambeau. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions for staff? Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 61 of 94 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Given this late hour I apologize to ask -- for asking this, but would you mind going over the key issues of discussion by the Commission and the changes that they recommended using the slides that you referenced and, actually, show us the locations, so I get it in my mind's eye. Because it's just a little more than usual for us to discuss if we choose to discuss these recommendations. Simison: And, Sonya, before you do that — Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I apologize for interrupting, Councilman Perreault. Mr. Mayor, something has come up and if it's okay with you I would like to be excused from the meeting. Simison: Please go take care of yourself. Thank you. All right. Allen: That was the Commission changes to the staff recommendation? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Specifically I would like to have you show me — I struggle to see where the pedestrian bridge location is and, then, the lot that was recommended to be removed on the south side -- southeast corner. I didn't identify which lot that was. I looked at all of the drawings, but couldn't figure it out. And, then, Commission change number two to the staff report, they — let's see. They -- they want to include a preliminary plat condition of approval for the final plat to be amended consistent with the lot configurations depicted on the revised common driveway exhibit. So, if you could bring that exhibit up next and show -- show us specifically where that is. Allen: Yes. This is the common driveway exhibit right here. Bill may need to help me with this. He actually presented to Commission on this. There was -- if I recall, Bill. Correct me if I'm wrong. There was four homes adjacent to the common driveway and those needed to be reconfigured. On the plat I believe. Is that correct? Thank you. And, then, it -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, Sonya, this -- this rendering that we are looking at here for the common driveway exhibit, those four lots are -- there is a suggestion that those do not stay in that configuration. Is that what I'm understanding? Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 62 of 94 Allen: I apologize. This is the amended drawing that's before you tonight. So, it's been handled. It always gets a little discombobulated sometimes when we tag team on these, so apologies. So, let me back up here. I was just trying to look at my conditions originally. I had requested that they remove a lot from the west boundary and the southern boundary and I was trying to remember if I asked for that to be in a certain location. It doesn't say I did not. So, the intention there was just to provide a little larger lot sizes there to better transition to the existing neighborhood to the south and the neighborhood that has been approved to the west. And, then, the pedestrian bridge. So, there is an existing bridge right here, if you can see my pointer, that provides access from the access easement across the DeChambeau property that I mentioned earlier to the existing home. So, the pedestrian bridge would either be there with the vehicular -- I personally don't think that the bridge is wide enough to accommodate vehicles and pedestrians and I believe that was the opinion of the Parks Department and so they had also said that it could be a separate pedestrian bridge, but they may be available online. Simison: Garrett's here right now. Allen: Oh. He's back now. Thank you. So, was -- did I cover everything, Council Woman Perreault, or did I miss something? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. Yes, mostly. Just two more quick clarifications. So, that I understand whether you removed the recommendation or the Commission's one recommended -- striking condition. The applicant did not remove a western or southern lot; right? Allen: This is the original plan. Perreault: Okay. Allen: They did not, no. Perreault: Okay. And, then, the pedestrian bridge existing that you pointed to, that is not on the subject property. Allen: It is not, Ms. Perreault. It is on -- the adjacent property that I mentioned earlier is owned by the NMID irrigation district, so -- it's kind of funky. You know, there is -- mostly those properties are in an easement, but this is in an easement and a -- and a separate property. So, this — this requirement for a pathway, I just might mention, is not intended to encourage trespass on the adjacent property and I know that is a big concern and, you know, I would maybe recommend Council add that condition of Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 63 of 94 approval, that if it's approved tonight that the applicant install a -- you know, this pathway ends here. No trespassing beyond this point sign, something to that effect, might assist in that. It's meant to extend in the future when and if their property redevelops, but won't be for a while. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Then would the applicant like to come forward? Lakey: Mr. Mayor and, excuse me, Council Members, for the record Todd Lakey. Address 141 East Carlton, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. So, let me make sure I can go up and down here. Okay. Good. Mayor and Council Members, would like to -- I guess just start out by thanking staff for their analysis and their recommendation of approval. We — Sonya did a good job especially with Council Member Perreault's questions. I'm kind of walking through it all. I will just emphasize a few more things and we do have our engineer here tonight in case you get out of the attorney zone and need to go into the engineers zone on some of the technicalities. We do ask that you concur with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. We appreciated their recommendation of approval and their modifications and I will talk a little bit more about that. But the main one being -- with us not being required to utilize open space, we incorporated the 13 plus percent open space into our design and the only response we received from the owners to the south was to not include two story homes on that southern boundary, which we asked to be incorporated into the recommendation as far as conditions. So, that was included. And, then, we have the developer that is just in the process of doing their project to the west and didn't have any objection from them regarding lot size or configuration. So, I think that was the basis for their decision not to require us to remove two lots. Going down. Council Members, the — the Comprehensive Plan, as was mentioned, calls for medium density in this location and that's three to eight dwelling units per acre. We are proposing 16 new, but 17 total residential lots on 4.11 acres. So, that's 4.16 dwelling units per acre. So, we are at the low end of what the Comprehensive Plan calls for for medium density and I think that was another aspect of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision not to require us to remove lots, because we already are at the low end of the Comprehensive Plan designation, in addition to the open space and the other things that I mentioned. So, we can -- we can conform with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. We are also essentially an in-fill project on kind of an odd shaped lot. That -- that is supported as staff analyzed and recommended and your Comprehensive Plan. We are also compatible with the surrounding zoning. We are immediately adjacent to Teakwood, which is R-8. We are proposing R-8 and there is clearly other R-8s and some R-4 in the area. Teakwood is 33 lots on 7.4 acres. So, they are 4.6 dwelling units per acre. So, again, we are just less dense than the Teakwood Subdivision. And we will be connecting, as was mentioned via Richardson Street. Last I looked at the Google Map it looks like their streets are in. I haven't driven out there recently, but those -- those streets I think are ready for connection. And we will be dedicating the additional right of way requested by ACHD for that future development to the east. There I think you can -- but, Council Members, there is that Teakwood Road and, again, this is a little bit older photo from the assessor's office where we will connect and there is the subject property. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 64 of 94 We will be — get this to go down. Well, it's not wanting to go down. I will just talk until it makes up its mind. We will be keeping some of the mature landscaping that you can see there from the aerial photo. That existing home that occupies the four plus acres, had some nice mature trees on it and we will be maintaining some of those trees and removing the old outbuildings that don't comply with the setbacks to make sure that it all fits. And if there is any mitigation that's required for our taking some of those trees out on your landscaping plan, we will do that. It's still not going down. Council Member, you saw the — the renderings of our — our homes that we are proposing. They are an example of the quality type design we will be using and, as I mentioned, we won't be having any two-story homes on the southern boundary. Just to mention a couple of things. The — oh, there it goes. So, just to talk a little bit more about that connection. There is Richardson. And get the mouse to go there. Richardson Street, that's the additional dedication. It won't be built to ACHD and we will be utilizing a license agreement if we have any landscaping in that portion of the right of way that's dedicated, but will not be constructed until it's ready to actually be extended. And, then, we have just below that, that dark area, that's the emergency vehicle connection there to be existing access for the larger home. There is the bridge that was discussed. So, that's your access connection. That's another common lot just to the north of that, so we are right next to a common lot as far as the location of that access. That will be a 20 foot wide emergency vehicle access. The bollards will go about 30 feet off of Victory to make sure people aren't using that road regularly, just simple for emergency vehicles. The pathway there along Eight Mile Creek will be the ten foot pathway with five foot landscaping strips on each side. It does stop here at that bridge and that emergency access. The pathway plan doesn't require us to extend it any further, so it's shown here, but that won't actually be pathway. We will have perimeter fencing, four foot open vision along the pathway and, then, six foot closed vision around the perimeter of the remainder of the project. Just to talk a little bit about that bridge. Council Members, that's an existing bridge. It's -- we heard testimony either 19 or 20 feet wide. Our desire not to have to build an another bridge was the fact that -- as was mentioned earlier we don't own that property, it's owned by the irrigation district. They generally aren't fans of folks constructing additional things in their facilities and with that bridge being 20 feet wide, 19 feet wide, and only used for emergency vehicles, it would be really easy for pedestrians to be able to use that. You won't have emergency vehicles coming unless their sirens are going on and the bollards are down. So, it seems like that's something that could be shared. And the — the condition with the Planning and Zoning Commission was to try to work with the parks on that. But there are some unique circumstances to that bridge. It's outside of our area of control in it -- it is pretty wide currently. The common lot space there down on the corner. Sonya mentioned that. We will be aligning that with the common lot space to the west and there is the pathway that goes through there. And, then, just to let you know the driveway for the existing home will be here up at the top portion of that lot for the existing home, about three -- three quarter acre lot. So, with that, Mayor and Council Members, again, we would ask for your approval of the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. I would be happy to answer questions if you have them. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant? Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 65 of 94 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Good to have you here, Senator Lakey. Lakey: Mayor and Council Member, just Todd tonight. Or -- Perreault: So, my question is about the relationship with this property and the Teakwood development to the west. Did I hear you say that -- that this is the same developer or same owner? I thought I heard you say there was a connection between the two in some capacity. Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Perreault, the connection being a physical one. We are not the same property owner-developer. The connection I was referring to is this -- our common area here will match the common area and connect there -- the staff was asking for an opening in our fencing to connect those two. So, there is kind of a mutual amenity. That's what I was referring to. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I apologize. I didn't hear that correctly. So, it's unfortunate, though, that these didn't work together, because it would be nice to not have two cul-de- sacs and two subdivisions side by side and to have had a through street, since it seems like the cul-de-sacs are stopping it right about the same place on the south side of their properties. Did -- was there -- has there been any conversation -- so, Teakwood is not completed -- is not completed yet and there is not an HOA that has been a board that has been signed yet; is that correct? Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Perreault, I believe they were -- I think it was final planted in November, but I — I can't say that they don't have an HOA. I don't -- I don't know. Perreault: Okay. So, you haven't had a conversation with any of the neighbors about that fencing and whether it's, you know -- it doesn't -- I don't think we can condition it necessarily. So, that's kind of what I'm trying to get at. Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Perreault, we were simply agreeable to staff's suggestion to leave an opening in the fence there that would coordinate with the — the property to the west that has been developed. I don't think there is any homes or anything there at this point. But we are -- we were just trying to be amenable there. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the application? Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 66 of 94 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Lakey — I struggle with the Todd piece. It's nice having you here. I know this came up at Planning and Zoning. I think some members of the Planning and Zoning Commission -- I'm one of them on the Council that -- I love common drives. I think the -- the juice is often not worth the squeeze there. So, talk to me a little bit about kind of circulation of the sub where you have got kind of the -- the large house on Block 2. Is there any proposed parking mitigation to stop people from parking, accessing -- and a quick look on the Google Map, it looks like that there is some access from that cul-de-sac and I'm just -- I'm trying to understand how this is all built that people are going to park and if there is a Super Bowl party, birthday party, cul-de-sacs I think are great until the whole bunch of people want to get together and they can be really, really problematic. Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Cavener, so, again, we — we are dealing with kind of an odd-shaped site. Thus the -- the common drives. Recognize that, you know, there -- that they are there. That location -- I guess one of the positives about that is the fact that we are locating that home -- that existing home on the portion there — if I can get the mouse to work. You can see where it is. That existing home there on the east side of Tamayo -- there aren't a lot of additional driveway accesses that if folks needed to park there that they would be blocking and, then, we also have the common area there on the other side of that cul-de-sac, which also wouldn't involve any blockage of driveways or accesses. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Lakey, kind of sticking with the theme of cul-de-sacs -- and I have seen in some neighborhoods in south Meridian -- I think of kind of the Bear Creek they have a lot of these very similar common drive, cul-de-sac with maybe some homes that are more packed in. They have actually designed their cul-de-sac to be a little bit larger and create some parking in the middle. Is that anything you and your -- your clients had -- had comprehended as a potential solution or do you feel like you have got enough — I know you have got parking to meet code and that's there. Sometimes code requires and what is really needed sometimes aren't always the same. Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Cavener, I don't know that we have really talked about that. I can ask my client. I think kind of what, you know, I described before where we don't have lots -- a lot of lots abutting the driveway near that — or abutting the cul-de- sac with driveways, there really does kind of help facilitate additional parking along that side where we just stick, you know, two or three more spaces in the middle of a cul-de- sac. We are kind of getting that with parking beside the road not having driveways accessing there. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 67 of 94 Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Just -- just to comment on that, because our -- my home and my in- laws home are the same thing, existing homes now in the middle of a subdivision. Although we are not on a cul-de-sac, straight street, our neighbors love it, because they know if they are going to have lots of people over they can park in front of our house, because it's a large property, both of them, and they are not blocking anybody. Our houses are setback, so it's not like they are right in front of our house or anything. So, that -- that definitely is an advantage to have that extra space there, because it — it allows people to park and you are not interfering with anybody. So, it's just a unique -- unique feature. You are fortunate to have that. Lakey: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Hoaglun. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: One more, Mr. Lakey, and, then, I won't ask any questions. So, the existing home, does it take access, then, from that -- the bridge or would they take access through -- now the neighborhood and, then, come in and park in their home through that cul-de-sac? Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Cavener — see if I can get the mouse to behave. So, currently it does utilize that access that goes out across the bridge and onto Victory. As part of the approval and the conditions of approval we have to limit that use across the bridge to just emergency only and, then, where the driveway will be located — if I can get the mouse to cooperate. Essentially it will just go and run along the northern boundary of that larger lot where the home is located. So, it pulls it out of the cul-de-sac and puts it along that northern boundary. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: There were two letters that came in today of public testimony. Just wondering if you had had a chance to review those and, if so, I believe one of the letter writers is here and we will probably hear from her. I'm guessing. But I'm curious if you have any comments on those, because all three of the letters we received were filled with neighbors' questions regarding effects on their specific properties. If you would like to speak to any of those. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 68 of 94 Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Perreault, it might be more appropriate for me to wait. I haven't had a chance to use those. I was familiar with -- I am familiar with some of the comments that were made at the Planning and Zoning Commission from some of the same individuals and a lot of those comments related to historic problems with previous owners of the property and that access, which we no longer will be using. But I'm happy to address them in rebuttal. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Lakey: Thank you. Allen: Mr. Mayor, if I could real quick, please, clarify something that I said to Council Woman Perreault. You asked if they -- my -- my recommendation to remove the two lots were in a specific area. They actually were in a specific area and that is in Condition 2-A on page 19 of the staff report and it was in the areas between Lots 6 and 8 along the southern boundaries between these three lots right here and one lot -- let's see. Between Lots 11 and 14. So, that was this one, this one, and -- sorry. It's kind of between the -- these right here. So, anyway, just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we have two people signed up. First is Monty Morgner online and, Monty, you can unmute. Morgner: This is Monty Morgner. Can you hear me? Simison: Yes, we can. Morgner: So, my name is Monty Morgner. My address is 2015 East Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho. So, I'm one of the owners of the property immediately to the east across the canal and also on that side of the canal and you -- members of the Council and Mayor, have to realize that this property is unique in the fact that Nampa-Meridian owns the property. It's not like most places in -- in Ada county and other places that they -- that they have -- they own that property and this project will be accessing their property and once our property -- our old property comes -- which is near the existing house, we own the property and we own the canal. I mean Nampa already has an easement at that point. So, it's very unique. So, my concerns is, first of all, you say you are going to put in pressurized irrigation, but as existing now it has to cross our property. I'm kind of shocked that this is actually at this stage, because the easement, all these other things have never been addressed with us, even though we have been there for years and years. No one's ever come and talked to us about use of the easement or any other condition. So, one of the things regarding the easement is that the easement cannot adjoin another road. So, you -- you are advocating that the fire department is going to use this easement for access, but under state law they can't do Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 69 of 94 that. The easement cannot adjoin -- intersect with another road. That's just a condition for easements and this one particularly. Another thing you brought up is this pathway across the canal. So, where is this pathway going to go? Across the canal is either a little bit of Nampa-Meridian's property, which they don't allow anybody on their property and the rest of it's ours. Why would you even propose having pedestrians cross a bridge to come to private property? You say you are not condoning trespassing, but you are -- you are advocating trespassing for this position and so even if the -- the fire department decides that they are going to use this easement, they cannot block the easement. It's our property and there would have to be some kind of agreement with us to make any kind of blockage on that easement, nor can they restrict our use of that easement, because there was something they are proposing — the bridge could be no parking on that. That can't happen. And, then, you are running into a problem that this bridge -- it doesn't meet their code. Their code says it has to be 20 feet. The bridge is not 20 feet. You know, I know Mr. Lakey is saying that it's 19, 20. Well, it isn't 20 feet and that's required by the City of Meridian fire department to have that much area. The other thing I have a concern with is houses that are two stories along the canal. You are accommodating the people in the subdivision to the south, but you are not accommodating us. It's going to be intrusive onto our property. There is going to be light issues and not only that, the other people in this subdivision are now going to be looking at houses that are two story and it blocks their view and doesn't seem to be a very community friendly thing. And the other thing that concerns me is that this fence, because Mr. Lakey -- or -- if I'm pronouncing it right. Hopefully I'm pronouncing his name right. Says that the fence will end at that road. Well, to me this is one of the most dangerous crises and most likely this subdivision, because it's -- it's -- it's more -- more affordable for people is going to have kids. A bridge. There is a dam there in the canal. It's a very -- and, then, it becomes a cement ditch -- is a very dangerous thing. This whole subdivision needs to be fenced off from the canal for safety reasons. I mean you required it everywhere else. There should be no way for anybody to have access to that canal bank just for safety reasons. And my final problem is that this subdivision and the other subdivision and the one that's already an existing, has, I believe, 77 houses. So, you are going to create what -- per your things that each house can have two cars. You could have 154 cars hitting one exit onto Locust Grove at one time. Technically you could be that good and you also have a new roundabout going in at Locust Grove and Victory, which is going to limit -- there is never going to be a nice stopping the flow of traffic and now you have up to 154 cars hitting one exit. I mean it's -- your -- your planning on this thing is just -- I don't know. It just seems to be like something -- somebody dropped the ball here, you know. Your — all — all your conditions are -- Simison: Monty, if you can wrap up, please. Morgner: Okay. All your conditions are to push all the traffic across to our place. Well, we have no plans on developing and I find it ironic that you are putting pathways and roads and everything into our place without involving us in the planning stages. So, anyway, I appreciate your time. Thank you. I hope you consider what I have talked about. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 70 of 94 Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Mary DeChambeau. Simison: Good evening. DeChambeau: Mary DeChambeau. 2015 East Victory Road. I live on the property. Last, but not least. I know you guys are all tired. I'm tired and I'm exhausted. One of the reasons we are so confused -- and, please, forgive me, but we didn't get some of our answers until this morning. 8.00 o'clock. We have been e-mailing quite a bit and I'm surprised at some of the -- our comments have not been included. When he talked about historical problems, the historical problems are still there, because they were some conditions of approval on that easement road that never got completed. Okay? I have been to Planning. I mean Ada county developers over the years, over and over again, asking for the engineer sign off, for the drainage, for the irrigation, because there is a reason there is a weed patch there, like I said before, is because we haven't been able to get any irrigation, because the easement road is blocking our ability to get irrigation water. They never put the street signs up, you know, this kind of thing. So, now they want to use it as a fire lane. They want to put this chain in the -- down by my house 30 feet in from Victory. They also said in the plan that it was used by the Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District. They are not authorized to use that road. They have -- they can use their own canal and what my brother was trying to explain on the other side — it would be the southwest side of their house, their fence line -- we actually own a little sliver in there. The ditch goes across and the most — and most of these trees are on my property, they are not on theirs. Okay? And what happens is the Nampa-Meridian property kind of goes at an angle and, then, it comes into our property. So, there is just a little sliver there. One of the reasons they did have the pathway there -- and originally I thought they were supposed to have the pathway within their own property on that corner and, then, connect up to Tuscany and years ago we sold off the corner of our property so they could put a pathway and what did Tuscany do, they built a hole and put a pond back there. Now, they could grade it down there and connect it back in there. I mean if they wanted to put the pathway on their side of the fence, but they would lose more property for a house. I understand that. But it would connect and, then, draw all the people back into Tuscany. So, you might have to do some adjustments on their little pond back there, but the thing that -- you know, the usage of that easement road we found out through the years were never — it was never legal. They didn't do it correctly. So, we are -- there is an Idaho statute law that says that if you have Parcel A, connects to Parcel B, you cannot piggyback to Parcel C and that's exactly what we have here. So, our property has been burdened all these years with this easement and now they want to run another road and burden our property with another out? Because let me tell you, when Tuscany went in I went and said -- I was complaining about the outs to the south of my property with the rest of my farm and originally it was supposed to be one out. I ended up with three outs in the back of my property. They put an out to Patterson's place down on Locust Grove on the other side of Tuscany and, then, I went in and I said, well, aren't you going to put an out on the back of the Richardson's place? No, he didn't want one is what I was told. So, I don't know. So, the problem is if you -- Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 71 of 94 if they would have put -- like one of you I believe you brought it up. If they had put the road out the back none of these problems would have happened and I brought it to the attention of the Planning and Zoning staff, but, once again, nobody -- they just ignored me. And so sure enough I pulled up an old -- an old map that somebody had thrown on my property and I looked at it before Planning and Zoning last month and, sure enough, they had that bridge going across the Eight Mile and I thought in 2003 and yet Tuscany hadn't even been built yet. So, I think this is not an accident. Simison: Mary, if you can wrap up. DeChambeau: I know. I realize. I'm trying to -- it's late at night and you let everybody else talk for a long time. Simison: I did. I will let you go for a couple more minutes. DeChambeau: You know, there is a lot of legal issues that these guys have not taken care of and we are going to have to -- I don't know what the DA is going to say. I don't know what the conditions -- because if the fire department -- I don't believe the fire department can use that easement for their purposes, because they all have things like no parking and everything and we use it on a daily basis and we parked on it all the time. So, there is a real problem there and a lot of the comments and things I have been kind of confused about. I have to look up the code. I am — I am trying to figure out are they referring to which easement? Which access road? Is that ours or is it the one that they are going to put out by the Richardson place going along the canal. Also one last final thing. I have been in talks with Greg from Nampa-Meridian and he doesn't know anything. He says I haven't seen any plans or anything. They haven't reached out to them at all. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, you said that you are the resident that will -- that will -- that's part of this property that — that you are -- you would now be on 8/10ths of an acre. Did you say that you are the resident that's on this subject property that we are discussing or that you are a neighbor? DeChambeau. I'm the one where they are putting the bridge over to. I'm the one that owns the real property of the easement road. Perreault: On the east side of this development? DeChambeau: Yes. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 72 of 94 Perreault: Okay. DeChambeau: Yes. And that runs with the property. However, there were prior conditions of approval that were never met. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Those prior conditions that you believe weren't being followed was through the county, though? DeChambeau: Yes. Cavener: And you touched on — Mr. Mayor, if I may. A couple more. It sounds like that you -- you have tried to bring these concerns to the county and they just -- they haven't been receptive to your concerns or the -- their answers you are not satisfied with. Help me understand that piece. Because I'm -- I know that this is something that's very real to you that you have dealt with on a daily basis and I'm getting a snapshot of it. So, I'm just trying to connect the dots. I think that maybe you are making sense in your head, but I'm not smart enough to follow along. DeChambeau: No. No. No. It's fine. The actions taken against me in the last six years have been atrocious. Cavener: I'm sorry. DeChambeau: It's hard for me to even leave my house. We have gone to court. I have been thrown in jail. I have been beaten. This has gotten way out of hand. And, like I said in Planning and Zoning meeting, that if -- I don't like to talk about it, because that's not what we are here to talk about. But if they would have just put that out in the back -- I have three -- this will make four outs and this road that comes through really doesn't serve our property at all. It's all for the benefit of this property and I have been told that they now want to take the easement that exits out for that little parcel onto Victory. They are going to take that away. That's the plan. The rumors, you know, people indicate, you know. I never thought things would get so crazy. The other thing that I want to -- before I forget, you know, they are suggesting we put signage up. Well, prior and present owners have removed all my signs on that road, because the easement road that goes by my house is 19 to 18 feet away from my bedroom window. It's not like it's clear across. It's right there. And so, you know, I put signs up and professional signs made because of all the strangers that just come in. We are concerned about -- I already have had 657 trespassers on my farm. One drowning and one five year old near miss. If I hadn't been on the Ridenbaugh jumping up and down and a guy looked at the crazy lady, we would have lost a five year old. He was able to nab him. So, I do Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 73 of 94 know that there is problems with canals. I spend a good share of my time telling kids they can't be there and the problem didn't get better until 1, the property owner, was thrown in jail and if you are frowning you should hear the rest of the story. It makes a great John Grisham novel and, you know, it's disturbing. It's -- I mean the whole thing that's happened to me has just been disturbing. Because I used to throw great big parties up there a lot and, you know, I have become sort of an expert on easement law now, but if there is a private road you can only have 19 trips. That means eight cars, you know, that kind of stuff, which is nonsense, but they don't ever abide by it. And another thing the staff has recommended, is they don't use the easement road for their construction equipment, well, they have been using it quite a bit for the last six months. It's hard to tell what is a service person or their construction vehicles. I don't know what else to tell you. I just -- they were not supposed to be given a permit until everything was taken care of before they built that house up there. One of the things that -- you know, there was all these things — irrigation-drainage water should not be impeded by any construction on site. It was supposed to be verified by the county engineer. It never was. This is the one thing I asked over and over from Ada county development. And when I went in there a month ago they told me, well, Mary, we have to sacrifice one -- one parcel. But here is the deal. They have been enjoying their parcel for all these years and we still haven't even been able to use ours for what we bought it for and, to tell you the truth, we bought it to save the historical oak tree, which is now so damaged and so trimmed, that it will never look pretty again. But it's one of those -- what -- it's a survey tree and if you don't know what an old ancient survey tree is, but they used to put them on the survey lines back in the day and I -- we figured the tree is at least 200 years old. I have had it looked at by Idaho Power and they said it comes from the Appalachian Mountains. Had to go all the way back there to figure and get it identified. And that road runs right on its base. Simison: You had your— okay. DeChambeau: Okay. Simison: Council, any other questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Just a clarification so I understand and I'm trying to grasp where your house is in relation. I see the bridge currently that crosses Eight Mile and the road that goes up — it looks like right next to your house. Who owns the land on the other side of that road? DeChambeau: I own both sides. Overton: You own on both sides of that road? Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 74 of 94 DeChambeau: And I own the land on -- the real property on the east. Overton: Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Thank you, Mary. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody else signed up? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody else present or online that would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Garrett, would you mind coming forward and at least addressing the pathway -- master path plan? White: Sure, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. So, the future -- or the master plan for the pathways does depict a proposed pathway to cross the Eight Mile right there on a bridge; right? Whether it be pedestrian or the vehicular bridge. It's Park's, you know opinion that it should be on the pedestrian — on the vehicular bridge there and just get it widened to where you can have a ten foot path. One reason for that is -- any kind of bridge -- pedestrian bridge that goes across the irrigation district's property we have to own after that. So, we would have to get an agreement with the irrigation district that we would own that bridge at that point. We don't know what the integrity of that bridge is. We haven't researched it. Haven't checked it out, those types of things. I don't know if fire has, if it -- if it's an access there, but that's -- that's kind of the Park's opinion on the -- on the bridge by itself. But it's just a proposed pathway at this point that goes through there as -- per the master plan. So, with that I will stand for questions if need be. Simison: So, why not stay on the west side and follow it up to Victory and, then, if you need to be on the east side you would cross over at Victory -- I assume you are -- I assume it's going to continue on the path or is it going someplace else that I'm not remembering? Was going into the subdivision on the streets separately? White: Mr. Mayor. So, if I understand correct, it -- from that -- the vehicle bridge -- I don't know if the mouse is working yet or not, if you can see it. I don't see the mouse. But the proposed future vehicle bridge to the north there, it would go up to Victory. Simison: Right. White: From the south it originally looked like it was going to possibly go on the west side of the canal there, Eight Mile, to kind of go down and connect into the lower future connectivity for the lower subdivision. Looking at the space there wasn't enough room for it to get through there. So, it got kind of projected to get -- put more to the east side of that canal with a pedestrian bridge or vehicular bridge there, if that answers your question. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 75 of 94 Simison: So, are you -- so, you are saying it's going to go north and south from that bridge. Any particular reason why it can't stay on the west side? Again, I'm -- you are going to -- you are going to hit the -- within ten feet or 20 feet up at Victory if you were to stay on the west side. I'm just -- is that a specific reason? White: To my understand it was spacing just on that -- on the west side there from the property owners to that -- to the canal. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just looking at this, it looks like that residence along Victory -- along the Eight Mile Canal or lateral, that's their drive -- it becomes their driveway. Is that the issue of not continuing that on the west side of the pathway to Victory. So, when you talk about spacing is that where we are talking about? Simison: Their driveway is hidden by trees. So, it's not in — it's not at the canal location. It's to the west 50, 75 feet. It may come close to that house, but it -- we typically -- my point is we typically run our pathways within the easements for Nampa-Meridian, so it should not impact any addition -- any property owner in that regards if it's in the easement per our master agreement with them. I just don't know if that doesn't apply in this case because of the type of facility or not. White: Mr. Mayor, I honestly don't know that answer. I believe it is supposed to go there and it could go east and kind of south there. That's why they wanted to cross it there and there was already a proposal bridge, so it was just an easier way to get across. If that answers that question. Simison: It answered a question. You know, I think ultimately my -- my two -- two thoughts on this process is that there is an easement -- is an access to this location. If it's not going to be a planned regular road into this location does it make sense to exist in this easement for the future? Secondary access for the property aside, but that's my -- my two cents. I mean I have -- I assume that the bridge is adequate to put a fire engine over. I'm -- I don't know that for a fact. But as -- but that's why the deputy chief is on if he wants to speak to that point. But it's -- long term I'm going -- again I'm — I guess I could be in a voting situation tonight, but the long-term access of this to this location to me does not make a lot of sense from an easement, a road or, frankly, even a path. I think there is other ways to handle the crossing in this area where you don't have to even have the bridge there, but I understand it's also part of our pathway master plan, but that's just my two cents of -- Council, additional questions at least for Garrett? He is not going to go far. I know that. He doesn't want to go home. The family might be asleep. Maybe not. White: They are already asleep. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 76 of 94 Simison: All right. Thank you, Garrett. Is there anybody else -- Deputy Chief, do you -- do you want to weigh in on this at all? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Council, I'm happy to. I — I have driven that road. I have been across the bridge. I met with the homeowners of that large house in the southeast corner there. We met and we looked at the -- they were concerned about access to their house. And, oh, gosh, this was probably pre-COVID. And so I have — I have driven back there. I have driven the road. I have driven the bridge. I actually took my tape measure out and measured parts of it. Some of it is not 20 feet wide. I think the narrowest spot was maybe 16. 1 just had asked them to keep the branches cleared on the trees up at — at Victory to make sure we could get through there. But other than that I was -- I'm fine with everything. So, you know, I would be comfortable sending an engine across that bridge. Like I said, I have driven it. This is -- again, this is secondary access -- emergency access only. Are we going to need it? Hopefully not. So, you know, in the future when this -- the neighbor's property develops, then, this is going to go away anyway. Happy to answer any other questions. Simison: And maybe a question for the applicant when they come back up. The standards to which the bridge was built. I'm just curious. You know, is it built to a roadway standard? Is it built to -- you know. Yeah. I mean if there is any information you have on the bridge just for long-term viability, that would be very interesting to hear from my perspective. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I can help you out on that, having helped my father-in-law over Five Mile building a bridge -- rebuilding a bridge from wood to concrete. It's built to milk truck standards. So, a full milk truck can go over without falling through. So, that's how we built them. Simison: Fair enough. Okay. Well, would the applicant like to come forward? Lakey: Mayor, Council Members, again, for the record Todd Lakey. 141 East Carlton Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. So, I will try to hit some of the points and, then, be happy to -- to answer questions. So, again, in regard to the property history, my clients have owned the property -- purchased the property in the last year, so they have not been part of any of the historical problems with the neighbors. They have been nothing but gentlemen as they have pursued this application and owned the property. Council Members, we are using an easement. There is an easement that exists for access to and from that 4.11 acres. We are actually decreasing the burden on that easement. By eliminating it to emergency vehicle only. The dominant estate still consists of the 4.11 acres. So, I don't see any issue with the easement itself. The pathway -- that's been discussed. Mayor and Council Members, we are trying to comply with your plan and that's not our plan, it's your plan, and that was put together I assume with lots of public input and assistance with your planning staff. So, we are designing the pathway in accordance with your standards and the location you request. It doesn't go any -- it doesn't connect to anything right now. As far as further to the north there isn't a pathway. We are building it for the future for the city's benefit. We have been accommodating, as I said, to the property owners to the south. That was the comment Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 77 of 94 that they requested, that we not have two story homes. The property owners that testified don't represent those folks. That was our discussions with them. As far as the bridge itself, it looks like -- we can't -- I'm not sure exactly when it was built. It's not ancient. Perhaps when the home was built, maybe in the '90s, 2000s, would be our guess from our engineer. But, again, I would rely on the -- the Fire Department in looking at that. Also the Meridian — Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District knowing that was for vehicular access wouldn't have allowed something substandard that might create liability for them and their property. Council Members, I -- as I said, I can't really comment on the lady's comments about the interactions with law enforcement and -- and her perspective on her history there. I don't know any of it. We weren't involved in any of it. Didn't initiate any of those arrests or anything like that. The pressurized irrigation, we don't need to do anything with the property to the east. Our pressurized irrigation is going to come through Teakwood. So, we don't need any permission, any access, we don't need anything from the properties to the east and we are staying out of Nampa-Meridian's irrigation easement and respecting that in accordance with their requests. Mayor and Council Members, I think we are going the extra mile in regards to the emergency access. It was utilized for that existing home. If the bollards need to be moved because they utilize it, that's -- that's fine. We can accommodate that where ever the most appropriate location is for those bollards. I think they were initially requested to be put out on Victory to keep people off the road and so we are -- we are happy to put those where ever the city deems most appropriate. The development agreement will include the conditions of approval. Our challenge we are trying to do our best with the bridge. Our challenge is, as we described before, it's over Nampa- Meridian's property. We don't control that and it is limited to emergency access. So, we hope that it can be used for both. But we are a little concerned about having to build something off our property for a plan and it's something that we don't control, particularly if it needs to be owned by the city in the future. With that, Mayor and Council Members, I would just refer back to the Planning and Zoning Commission decision and staff's analysis. We meet the requirements for approval of this application based on its Comprehensive Plan designation, the proposed zoning, the design of the project we meet all the city standards. We would ask for your approval. I would be happy to answer questions if you have them. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Lakey. Question -- I don't know if this is for you or for Deputy Chief as well. There is an existing secondary emergency access off a Victory that comes in off of Arno in the -- essentially where the other subdivision ends and the one that's Teakwood is under construction. Is that accurate, Deputy Chief? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Council, yes, that is. Simison: So, is this other emergency access necessary under code? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Council, it — it is, because the problem is once you get past that point we are past 30 lots and, basically, fire code says you -- if you are past 30 — if you are past 30 lots. Sorry. Brain is still a little fuzzy from COVID. If you're past 30 lots, then, you have to have secondary access. So, the other way around this is we would Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 78 of 94 have to condition that the entire subdivision be fire sprinkler -- all the homes have fire sprinklers in them. Simison: So, essentially, the Teakwood access -- secondary access you can't have more than 30 after that secondary access? Am I interpreting what you are saying? Bongiorno: Correct. Yes, that is correct. Simison: And how many are in Teakwood; do you know — anybody off the top of their head? Bongiorno: Let me look. I thought it was like 22. 1 can't remember. That was in -- Lakey: Teakwood? Let me go grab my notes. I think it's 33. Bongiorno: Yeah. Maybe -- I thought it was 22, but I could — I could be wrong. Simison: Well, if it's 33, then, what you said to me doesn't seem like it would meet code. Bongiorno: Yeah. In that secondary access -- again, because we -- I knew that there was more coming and so I wasn't too concerned with it at the time, Mr. Mayor. I mean a couple houses isn't going to make or break us. Lakey: Mayor, I do have -- in my notes anyway 33 lots in the Teakwood — Bongiorno: Okay. Lake: -- project. Bongiorno: I'm not sure if all those are homes, though, because I don't count empty lots. The common lots. Lakey: There, again, we are -- we are happy to make that easement available for emergency vehicle access and, as was stated, you know, once that property to the east, which is opened, develops, then, it -- Simison: And I'm hoping to go the opposite way, to see if there is a way that you can vacate -- if the property owners were to vacate the access altogether. In order to -- not need it from that standpoint. That's what I was trying to see if there was already a secondary access in the area. And so that's -- that's my mental thinking is annexation give up access -- Lakey: Sure. Simison: -- in the area. That's -- so that's -- that's my mental thinking is annexation, give up access to that and it doesn't sound like and it doesn't sound like it's something Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 79 of 94 that your -- the development needs, you know, if the fire department feels like it would be otherwise compliant, but I'm also curious, Mr. Nary, if we can -- you know, I know — what is it 30 -- is it 30? Is that the hard number? Does he have -- does Deputy Chief have the ability to waive the number or is it -- are there 30 residential lots and three common lots that equals the 33? Do you have any idea? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe it's 30 residential lots. So, it is the residential lots that count. Simison: That's the number. Nothing else in this case that would trigger it. Okay. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor and Council, I — I do have in the county over off Sandy Court a whole subdivision that was added and what we did there was we conditioned -- or the county conditioned that said that any new construction had to have fire sprinklers put in them and the builder was amenable to that and they -- they built all of the houses with fire sprinklers in them. So, that -- that could be an option here. We could put fire sprinklers on all the homes, less the existing home and, then, do away with that easement and I would be okay with that. Simison: Thank you. Lakey: Mr. Mayor, if I might respond there. I think our preference is certainly just to be able to utilize that easement. I — I have certainly had mixed reactions I guess from clients on sprinkler systems and whether they are usable and maintainable and things in the future. Certainly that would drive up the cost, which would be passed on, but it -- anyway, we would simply prefer to be able to use the access easement. Nary: Mr. Mayor, I have the face sheet of the staff report from Teakwood up and it shows on the final plat -- this is back from April 13th of 2021, it says final plat consists of 22 building lots and four common lots. So, I don't know where that 33 number comes from. Bongiorno: I thought it was 22. Nary: It says 22 building lots and four common lots according to this staff report from planning. Lakey: If we can avoid the secondary access that would be great. Not to do the sprinklers. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Looking at Google Earth I counted 35, but maybe those houses up there don't count. But I don't understand from Deputy Chief Bongiorno -- you know, if we have a Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 80 of 94 secondary access -- let's say whatever it is -- 33 lots on this one and we have an access off of Victory that comes in at the point you were referring to and, then, takes in the new property, so there is -- if the access on Locust Grove is blocked off, they can come in off of Victory, I don't -- because all — all we are doing is moving it further west, as opposed to come -- having the secondary off of -- between the property of Ms. DeChambeau to come across there, so I'm not -- I'm a little lost on why that is an inadequate secondary access. Chief, do you have any thoughts on that? Are we on the same page of where we are looking at for that secondary access? Bongiorno: So, Mr. Mayor and Councilman, the -- the way I look at secondary access is the problem is that if you go all the way back to Locust Grove, that initial subdivision that's out on the corner has more than 30 lots in it and it did not have secondary access. So, that was pre me and probably pre Chief Palmer. So, that particular subdivision, if you pull up your Google Map and go all the way back to the corner, that additional lot -- yeah. That initial sub has more than 30 in it. So, when Teakwood came along that access was there, but nobody ever finished it. So, as part of Teakwood's approval I said, okay, well, we need to -- we need a secondary access out to Victory and so the problem is is I use the crashed airplane scenario. If you crash the airplane right there at that emergency access that goes right out to Victory from — let me pull up the map here. From Arno, if you plot -- if you crashed their plane right there you need that access to the west that we are proposing for this subdivision to get in. Accesses have to be half the diagonal of the property apart -- you know, they have to be separated and so if the plane crashes at Arno and, then, emergency access, we have no way to get to these subdivisions if grandma is having a heart attack or if one of these buildings is on fire, the only way we are going to be able to get to it is via this access that I have requested stay open for the subdivision. Are you following me now? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Deputy Chief Bongiorno. Yes, I am. Bongiorno: Okay. Hoaglun: So, you need that access off of the DeChambeau easement we will call it that comes up -- Bongiorno: Correct. Hoaglun: -- to that area, so -- okay. I see what you are talking about now. Bongiorno: We need that — we need that eastern most access to get us in the back door so to call it -- Hoaglun: Okay. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 81 of 94 Bongiorno: -- because that one access kind of sits right in the middle of everything. Hoaglun: Okay. Thanks for clarifying, chief, Mr. Mayor. Bongiorno: Certainly. Simison: Now, Deputy Chief, I just have one — one additional question. I know -- if the code says 30 the code says 30. Is that intended from a distance standpoint as a typical rationale that you are an R-4 and 30 homes and it's going to be -- take you so far in -- and I say this because 22 — this could -- this piece of property that we are talking about -- me personally I have got a -- when I look at this I'm like I'm baffled at how many units are being proposed for this space because it seems so tight with the existing home. That's just a mental picture. But this is -- this is like one of the smallest drive aisles that I have seen to surround so many homes. You know, we have got a couple homes off of common drives. One giant home. Does distance make -- that's my point. Does distance make a difference or is it just this pure residential number that is the most -- the more important factor in your mind? Bongiorno: For me it's -- it's a number. The number is, because that's what code says. Code says 30 residential lots. And, then, the exception -- the number one exception under that is -- Simison: Sprinklers. Bongiorno: Excuse me. If -- unless they are sprinklered. Simison: Yep. Okay. All right. I'm -- I'm off my soapbox, but thank you. Bongiorno: Sure. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Just thinking through conditions and emotion at some point. So, I want a clarification from you. The Commission changes that were -- the Commission changes that were recommended to staff, the first one being that there is a sign regarding construction traffic. I just want clarification that you -- the applicant will be amenable to that. Or if you don't feel it's necessary why -- why not? Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Perreault, we are happy to put up whatever sign you would like. Perreault: Okay. I imagine you discussed that with them, but I just like to always make sure I get it on the record before we finalize things. And, then, are you comfortable Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 82 of 94 working with the Parks Department on a potential new location for the pathway potentially on the west side, as the Mayor mentioned, prior to final plat recording? The staff report says east side. Perhaps that's something that there is a discussion with staff about. I don't -- I don't -- I want to be able to specify that condition this evening, but I also don't want to keep it the way it is in the staff report. So, I think we need to get clarification on that tonight before we were to make a motion. Lakey: Council Member Perreault, I'm not sure -- I mean I -- the path is located on the west side of the canal, the east side of the subdivision. Here where the mouse is. Perreault: Uh-huh. Lakey: So, I'm not sure what we are referring to. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I just pulled up the staff report and if I'm reading it correctly, the condition is to have that pathway along the east side of the -- of the lateral. Staff can clarify if I'm not understanding. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I was just trying to find the exact condition. Yeah. The -- the master pathways plan does depict the pathway along the west side of the lateral — if you can see my pointer here -- up until this point and, then, it is planned to crossover with redevelopment of the property to the east, if and when it redevelops and, then, continue on to the south on the east side of the lateral. I'm just double checking my condition right now. Perreault: My apologies. I had a different screen up. Can you go -- can you show me that again with your pointer? Allen: Yes. So, this is the lateral here. This is the subject property. The pathway will be on the west side of the lateral here and, then, it will cross over in the approximate location of the bridge, either at the bridge or another pedestrian bridge and, then, it will -- with redevelopment of the property to the east, if and when it redevelops, then, the property -- or, excuse me, pathway will continue on to the south on the east side of the lateral. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: That makes more sense. Thank you. Perreault: Okay. Then -- so, I misunderstood the Mayor's comments, then, regarding the — a suggested new location for the pathway with —with the -- Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 83 of 94 Simison: That's because it was implied that it was going to be on the other side. So, it's on the right side in my opinion, because this is where the development is occurring now -- Perreault: Okay. Simison: -- if that explains -- that explanation. So, we were both not clear. Perreault: Okay. So, we are good. Awesome. Great. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Just some clarification -- and this may be staff, fire chief, and the applicant. Is it common that we have an emergency access that we, the city, don't have any control over that runs through the middle of a county parcel? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, Council, I wouldn't say it's common. I -- it's not a desired thing for sure. I did talk to Ms. DeChambeau about it and I did ask for a copy of the easement. I don't believe she was able to provide that to me. And the only reason -- it's not my business to review it necessarily. I just -- I wanted to have our legal take a look at it to see what that easement entitled them -- you know, if -- if it allowed emergency vehicles, if it was specific to that resident or -- or what. But I don't have that information to answer that. Overton: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: If we don't have a legal decision on where that easement stands, are we in a position we could face where we approve this with an easement that legally we could find out we don't have it and now we have put these houses in violation of Deputy Fire Chiefs 30 house rule and now we don't have that secondary access, because we would never did the homework and got the legal finding on the easement. Is that a concern, Mr. Nary? Nary: Well, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Overton, it's a little bit of a concern, because without us knowing -- obviously, we are not the benefactors of that easement. It's the -- it's the property owner to the -- that's the existing house; right? That's their -- that's essentially their roadway easement through that road to Victory across that bridge. So, without us being the benefactor of it, then, technically, we can't just use it to use it for a firetruck, even if it's usable. But Deputy Chief Bongiorno -- he should probably weigh in -- said there are -- there could be other alternatives that could work if we can't use that road, but that -- that would be more in line for him. But, yeah, I would agree with you, Councilman Overton, without us being the benefactor of it and us Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 84 of 94 knowing what the specifics of that easement are, yeah, I wouldn't be comfortable and say just use it, so -- Overton: Thank you. Bongiorno: So Mr. Mayor? Simison: Deputy Chief. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor and Council, and, I'm -- I'm not a property rights person. That's more in Mr. Nary's logs, but I do know that typically -- to answer your first question, any easements that we have for emergency access do go through an easement process and, you know, they are signed off by, you know, all the appropriate people, because I do approve easements for emergency access. I -- in this particular case I also have not -- I don't know anything about the easement. But, yeah, it would probably behoove somebody to find out exactly what this easement says to see if we are legally able to use it and if we can't, Bill Nary— or Mr. Nary had talked about other access -- I mean the only other option would be to utilize the canal road and typically -- not always, but most of the time the ditch company frowns upon 80,000 pound fire engines running up and down the side of their ditches. So, that would be the other option. And, then, it just goes back to, you know, the houses have to be fire sprinklered period. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, I was just going to add one thing and I don't know if Mr. Lakey knows more about this, but my assumption is is that although we -- we aren't a party to this easement. That is our only way to get to the existing house. So, if that house is on fire that's the only way we can get there currently, because that's the only road that goes to the house that I can see. So, there may be something in the easement that gives some right to access from the emergency, because, otherwise, police and fire couldn't get there. Lakey: Mr. Mayor, what I might suggest is either condition us being able to use that easement and providing that and demonstrating that to the city that it is usable or, if not, the fire sprinklers option. So, you could do it either way. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Lakey, is that something you can -- do you need some time to look at? Can we just continue this hearing to allow some research and — Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Hoaglun, I'm -- I'm fine with an alternative condition worded in that way. Hoaglun: So, Mr. Lakey, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 85 of 94 Hoaglun: And — and those conditions, again, if -- the alternative condition -- one is utilizing that easement as a secondary access or — Lakey: And demonstrating the city's ability to use it. Hoaglun: Okay. Lakey: Or complying with fire code requirements for sprinklers. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Just to clarify, Council President Hoaglun, the -- utilizing the easement as a secondary access -- wasn't that already a condition in the report and so that's not an alternative; correct? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, yes, it's something that was already approved and we are going to utilize, but now this gives us -- okay, what if, you know, we can -- then if that is truly not the case, which I think the property owner has had this easement from '90s to 2000, there should be evidence or legal process there that shows that. Now, I don't know if splitting the property now creates any other dynamics for that, but if there does, then, we -- they can demonstrate to us the city's ability to use, that is an issue, or the final alternative would be to put in sprinklers, so -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I'm just trying to understand why a copy of the legal description for that easement wouldn't have been included in the application materials to staff. It runs with the property. It's -- it's of record I assume. Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Perreault, I -- I assume as well that it's part of the title package. I don't know that that was submitted as part of the application. Obviously, it wasn't if the city was still looking for it. So, we will find it, we will get it to the city and we will go from there. Allen: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Sonya. Allen: May I make a suggestion, please, regarding the access easement. There is a condition number seven in the staff report for access for the existing home to be provided solely from internal local streets. The existing driveway via Victory Road shall Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 86 of 94 be used solely for emergency purposes or emergency access. I would suggest you just maybe add to that condition. You know, if there is a legitimate access easement there, otherwise, the property should be -- or the property should be sprinklered. Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: To be clear, if they have to sprinkler the homes, Mr. Lakey, the existing home has to get sprinklered, too, because all of them in the subdivision have to be, then, sprinklered. So, is that what your client's willing to do? Lakey: If it's over the 30, yep. I mean if it's over the number it's over the number. So, yeah, we have to comply. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: In that case, then, would number seven be removed from the staff report and replaced by the requirement to sprinkle — to sprinkler properties, so, then, we are no longer discussing secondary emergency access? Allen: Mr. Mayor, I would like to retract my comment. Sorry. I'm really tired. I was looking at that condition and it doesn't really apply to this, so it doesn't make any — Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: So, as I understand it then -- seven. Access for the existing home shall be provided solely from internal local streets. The existing driveway via East Victory Road shall be used solely for emergency access. If that becomes -- is no longer available through documentation -- that the applicant will demonstrate the ability -- or the -- if there is an issue -- I'm trying to think how to get this right. Lakey: As -- if applicable at the end of that condition. Hoaglun: Yeah. Access for the -- shall be solely used for emergency access if applicable. And, then, we would require to demonstrate that ability to use if it's not applicable -- applicable or sprinklers would be -- would be used. Lakey: Correct. Hoaglun: Okay. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 87 of 94 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. So, to clarify, Council President Hoaglun, you are recommending a -- to proceed with staff's recommendation unless there — unless there is findings that once we have the legal description — staff has legal description of the -- of the access -- or recording of the current easement they find an issue with access, then, the applicant has an alternative method that they can choose to go forward and not necessarily make it either/or in the conditions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Perreault, yes. Correct. Perreault: Okay. Hoaglun: That gives them the option to still move forward in the next -- in the next steps. Simison: And can I throw another wrench into it? We had testimony from an applicant -- from one of the property owners that basically -- even if you feel like you have the right, then, maybe there -- if there is a legal challenge -- because under our understanding of state law that says you cannot do A to B to C, so you may look at the easement and say we have it and have a -- if there was a legal challenge to come forward what would happen then. Is there an expectation that if you are legally challenged and you lost the access because it's no longer set up the way it was, that we would, then, also expect sprinkling to be done and what if that comes six years from now? Because the courts aren't going fast. Lakey: Sure. Mr. Mayor, I think my -- my wording was demonstrate to the city the city's ability to use it. So, I guess it would have to meet Mr. Nary's approval that the city legally can use it. I suppose anybody can challenge anything anytime, but -- Simison: Yeah. Because I'm just saying it's demonstrated, but, then, the court says, no, now it's been undemonstrated from us and you have got ten homes built or 16 homes built -- and that's where I'm just trying to -- you know, how do we -- how do we get to a point in time where we all feel comfortable if Ms. DeChambeau's interpretation of the law were to be found correct down the road. That's -- down the easement with -- Overton: Mr. Mayor? Nary: Mr. Mayor, I -- I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think what would likely happen six years from now if somehow it was challenged, somehow that was upheld, somehow the access went away and we didn't have it, we would not issue a building permit to exceed that number. So, they couldn't build another house, because they would have been building houses -- I see where you are going. They are going to Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 88 of 94 build houses and they are not going to put sprinklers on them and five years from now somebody says that access is gone. We wouldn't let them build anymore houses. Simison: But they would all be built -- at that point in time we just eat it if that's what's been — Nary: Potentially. Simison: I want --just want that to be on the record, Deputy Chief, everyone — Nary: Yeah. I would say, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, that's probably true. Probably the same rationale we lived with the fact that corner parcels only had one access for many years. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: What would make me most comfortable is for the applicant to find any recorded documents related to the easement -- legal descriptions related to the easement. Have that conversation with staff and just continue this until we have that. I just think that to me it makes sense. It shouldn't be comp -- if it's recorded this shouldn't be that complicated. Unless I'm missing something. If there isn't -- if the easement is not -- has not been recorded and has been being used in that capacity all this time then -- then there is different regulations regarding that that we don't need to discuss here. But if we really want to solve this problem, we continue it, we give a couple weeks, let them go find the document — the documentation associated and, then, we move forward. And that might save our applicant a significant amount of cost. So, just --just - - the applicant can comment on whether that's an option they are interested in. Parsons: Mayor, Council -- let you get your thoughts out and, then, I had a suggestion as well. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: My -- my biggest concern is I believe this variance to this property existed prior to these -- the applicants being owners and we don't know how long and how old that variance is and if it had a clause in it that said if at any time you subdivide your property your variance is no longer any good. I mean there is all sorts of stipulations that could be in that document. If the applicant wants to just say, well, if it doesn't happen I have — here is Plan B, I want to sprinkler all the houses, I'm okay with that. It's a Plan B, but we have to know that before I can proceed. Parsons: Mayor and Council, if I can just interject a couple of technicalities here and I don't want to -- appreciate the dialogue. I'm sure we are all looking out for the best interest of the community. But to your point, Councilman Overton, that's some of the Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 89 of 94 concerns we have is when some gets further developed and that easement is no longer in effect, so we need to see that language. Two, this is annexation and right now if I'm the planner and Sonya and I here -- I would recommend that you lean towards you shall sprinkler the homes unless you can demonstrate the easement, because, then, you have got it in place. There is -- if he doesn't have the easement, then, you at least know you got the sprinkler component done. You have that -- you have that right there. If it doesn't happen it's there and conditioned. The other part of is there is only 22 houses to the west. So, technically, the applicant would only have to sprinkler, what, eight -- eight of the homes to get constructed before sprinklers were required. I don't want to make that a technicality here, but that would be our preference that it would be put in the DA that you shall sprinkler the homes unless you can demonstrate to the city -- and if they can come back and do a DA mod and we have another conversation. At least we get another bite at the apple with a DA modification and not have a plat condition, because once the plat gets recorded it's going to be tough to unravel that condition. Overton: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: That's not a very good point and if the Deputy Chief is still on -- Simison: He is. Overton: -- can we -- can we work the math that way? If there is only 22 homes in the other development, are we only looking at everything over 30 once we get to this one? Simison: Well, that's where I was trying to go earlier with my comments even about common driveways. Can we count them as one? Because it's really -- but that's a different issue. Deputy Chief, I will let you weigh in, since you have unmuted. Bongiorno: Thanks. Mr. Mayor, excuse me, and Council, it -- I would hate to play the numbers game saying, well, okay, who gets to pick who gets sprinklers or not. I would just make the whole subdivision be sprinklered. It's easier that way. That way when the water lines are run they will run the appropriate lines to each property and, honestly, it's extremely expensive to retrofit houses for sprinklers. So, I would be okay with that existing home not being sprinklered, but the rest of them -- anything new would be sprinklered. Lakey: Mr. Mayor, if I might respond. Appreciate that comment. We certainly would be happy with that and I think staff's phrasing is a little more artful. We are okay with that. If you say shall be sprinkled unless, we are okay with that. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 90 of 94 Hoaglun: So you switched up on me. So, we are going to keep condition seven. Existing -- access for the existing home shall be provided solely from internal local streets. The existing drive to East Victory Road shall be used solely for emergency access and -- and utilize -- and if applicable -- or the applicant will demonstrate their ability to use the existing drive for emergency access or the subdivision shall be sprinklered. We had removed that shall be sprinklered -- or that phrase earlier, so — so, I think -- are we just doing utilize if applicable or sprinkler? Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Hoaglun, I think if applicable period. And, then, I think the way staff worded it was the -- the subdivision will be sprinkled unless applicant demonstrates the city's ability to utilize the easement for emergency vehicle access. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: To use that easement in perpetuity or some sort of statement that it's -- that it can be used permanently. I don't know if we need that clarification. I think it would make sense to -- unless there is just an assumption in every one of these conditions that that's the case. But because it's possible, I assume, that there could be a legal challenge to take that access away -- that secondary access away from the subject property, we probably should make sure to clarify that in the condition. Parsons: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate you trying to wordsmith that, Councilman Hoaglun, but you really need to add a new DA provision that says the home shall be sprinklered, except for the existing residence, and then -- or the applicant shall demonstrate they have the right to use that easement. Lakey: That's what I was trying to — Parsons: In perpetuity. Lakey: -- get to in condition seven. Where ever you want to put it is fine. Parsons: We want it in the development agreement. We certainly don't want it as a plat condition. It's going to be easier for us -- we can -- if something happens in the future and we need to reconvene the body and talk about this issue, then, the best method is to do a development agreement modification and bring it up. Nary: Mr. Mayor? To respond to the Council Woman Perreault's comment. I think -- I think the easement has to remain as long as it's necessary, because as that DeChambeau property may develop at some point in the future, there may be different accesses into this property. So, it just needs to be able to remain as long as it's needed, so -- Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 91 of 94 Lakey: Correct. There may be a secondary access when the property owner sells their property and someone else's designed -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: If I could propose this. I think -- I think we are close. I think we need a five minute recess to put some heads together and come up with that language to make sure we are all on the same page and not try to do a motion and start and restart and come back and try and fix it again. So, if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Mayor, is that acceptable? Simison: Yes. We will take a five minute recess. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. (Recess: 10.43 p.m. to 10.49 p.m.) Simison: All right. We will come back from recess. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I would like to give this a try for this application. After considering all staff, applicant -- Simison: We close the public hearing. Hoaglun: Oh, yes. Let's close the public hearing first, shall we? Overton: Second. Hoaglun: Excited. Move we close the public hearing. Perreault: Second. Simison: Motion and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 92 of 94 Hoaglun: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2022-0089 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 21 , 2023, with the addition of a DA provision, Item E, which reads. The applicant shall fire sprinkle all new residences or demonstrate that the existing access can be utilized for emergency access only with the final plat application. Overton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I don't know if the staff updated the report after the Commission hearing, but it looks like we need to make sure that Condition 2-A was struck and clarify if Condition No. 10 was already modified by staff or if that also needs to be addressed. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I see 2-A as being struck and Item 10 -- it does have the addition the applicant shall coordinate with the Parks to determine if the existing bridge can be used as a pedestrian crossing, so -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Council President Hoaglun. Also staff requested that there be a provision in the DA regarding construction traffic signs. Does that need to be added as an additional condition? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, it's already in there. Simison: All right. Cavener: Call the question. Simison: The question has been called. Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Hoaglun, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Perreault, yea; Strader, absent; Overton, yea. Simison: All ayes. Zero nays. Motion is agreed to and the item is approved. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 93 of 94 FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Councilman Cavener, anything under future meeting topics? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Be great if you and the Council President can work to find a future workshop day for a presentation from staff on PUDs. Thank you. Simison: Duly noted. Anything else under future meeting topics? EXECUTIVE SESSION 12. Per Idaho Code 74-206 (d) To consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in Chapter 1, Title 74, Idaho Code Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: We are not done yet. I move we go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 74-205(d). Cavener: Second. Simison: Motion and second to go into Executive Session. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Hoaglun, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Perreault, yea; Strader, absent; Overton, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carried and we will go into Executive Session. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (10.52 p.m. to 10.58 p.m.) Hoaglun: Move we come out of Executive Session. Cavener: Second. Simison: Motion and second to come out of Executive Session. All in favor? All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council March 21,2023 Page 94 of 94 Hoaglun: Move we adjourn. Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor? We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:58 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Settlers Park Subdivision Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement No. 1 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Trent Tripple 2023-016450 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=9 VICTORIA BAILEY 03/22/2023 09:15 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE ESMT-2023-0033 Settlers Park Subdivision Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement No. 1 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASE THIS Easement Agreement, made this 2�Stday of March 2023 between Alturas Ustick,LLC and Brighton Ustick,LLT'Grantor")and the City of Meridian, an Idaho Municipal Corporation ("Grantee"); WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of- way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantor does hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement REV.01/01/2020 THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees that Grantor will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the right- of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that Grantor has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that Grantor will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. THE COVENANTS OF GRANTOR made herein shall be binding upon Grantor's successors,assigns, heirs,personal representatives,purchasers, or transferees of any kind. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. [END OF TEXT;SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW] Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement REV.01/01/2020 GRANTOR: ALTURAS USTICK,LLC an Idaho limited liability company By: Travis Bafney, Manager STATE OF IDAHO :ss. County of Ada y On this the ° day of February,in the year 2023,before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Travis Barney,known or identified to me to be the Manager of Alturas Ustick,LLC, the limited liability company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company,and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in the certificate first written above. Seal Notary Public for Idaho ','��N�u�hhto, .``� L A EA ,,�. My Commission Expires: b� �0"0 A.•7 %-140TAR), fi pUBLXC ? of"9,�,, GRANTOR: BRIGHTON USTICK, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company By: Robert L. Phillips, Manager STATE OF IDAHO y :ss. County of Ada } On this S day of February, in the year 2023, before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Robert L. Phillips, known or identified to me to be the Manager of Brighton Ustick, LLC, the limited liability company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first written above. 1 , SHARI VAUGHAN Notary Public for Idaho -1 Notary Public-State of Idaho My Commission Expires:. ',t7a Commission Number 20181002 My Commission Expires Jun 1, 2024 r• GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert E. Simison, Mayor 3-21-2023 Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 3-21-2023 STATE OF IDAHO, ) . ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 3-21-2023 (date) by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk,respectively. Notary Signature My Commission Expires- Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement REV.01/01/2020 • IDAHO 9955 W Emerald St SURVEY Boise, ID 83704 ISG GROUP Phone: (208) 846-8570 Fax: (208) 884-5399 EXHIBIT A Settlers Park Subdivision Parcel A City of Meridian Utility Easement Boundary Description Project Number 22-221 March 6, 2023 An easement situated in Parcel A of Record of Survey 13511, records of Ada County, Idaho, in the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the southwest corner of Section 36,Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian; Thence S88°42'42"E,2078.70 feet along the south line of Section 36; Thence N01°17'18"E, 232.66 feet, more or less,to the southerly boundary of Parcel A, the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence N00°24'04"E, 94.70 feet; Thence S89°32'56"E, 30.00 feet; Thence S00°24'04"W,48.20 feet; Thence S89°32'54"E, 35.50 feet; Thence N67°17'08"E, 67.98 feet; Thence N22°42'52"W, 10.00 feet; Thence N67°17'08"E, 12.00 feet; Thence S22°42'52"E, 10.00 feet; Thence N67°17'08"E,46.30 feet; Thence S89°32'54"E,245.34 feet; Thence N00°27'21"E, 29.82 feet; Thence S89°32'39"E,20.00 feet; Thence S00°27'21"W, 29.82 feet; Thence S89°32'54"E, 72.80 feet; Thence N00°27'06"E, 10.00 feet; T Thence 589°32'54"E, 12.00 feet; � Thence S00°27'06"W, 10.00 feet; T1 34 Page 1 of 2 ,r� 1�2-3 �j qrE OF ctiq£C S ��� IDAHO 9955 W Emerald St SURVEY Boise, ID 83704 15G GROUP Phone: (208) 846-8570 Fax: (208) 884-5399 City of Meridian Utility Easement Parcel A continued... Thence S89°32'54"E, 19.70 feet to the west right-of-way line of N.Venable Avenue; Thence S00°27'21"W, 20.00 feet along the west right-of-way line of N.Venable Avenue; Thence N89°32'54"W, 104.50 feet; Thence S00°27'21"W, 26.18 feet; Thence N89°32'54"W, 20.00 feet; Thence N00°27'21"E, 26.18 feet; Thence N89°32'54"W, 241.24 feet; Thence S67°17'08"W, 126.28 feet; Thence N89°32'54"W,39.58 feet; Thence S00°24'04"W, 26.50 feet, more or less,to the southerly boundary of Parcel A; Thence N89°32'54"W,30.00 feet along the southerly boundary of Parcel A to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described easement contains 0.34 acres, more or less. �D 11 4 Page 2 of 2 � q� of � 'El S �y N � cn N Linder Rd. 0 (n o N csl A 0 Woodburn West no CD Univlatted Subdivision No. 2 � L_ 0 I N II 00 PO 0 O m D i0 O 7 7 _ 7 — 7 to °0 94.70' N01'17'18"E.._........ ` N 00_24'04"E 232.66' r " L221 L2 G) J � C a I ` D �< Un O < 0 N 48 m 6, oN co aD� Nam, co � OJ oo�fn 4h. o 0NI �N nj I R C (gyp C Q � N c�i ti j R R7 z (A 00 70 I� 00 a (D CD C N ' \IIINP to 1 U l � n \ I p m X K I CD Q S I� + ' PRE c cn m c m °: o w -k a� ya s Leo I Ls CD o �y 'yo S O IQ CAI cn cn , o C� r rn Unplatted L17 ; Sa 0 N`Q N _ - - N. Venable Ave. NO �0 �O c, N. r� r r r r r r r r N p CD CJ V Q) u I W N � Q Z Z m Z Z Z w W tD O M O m N M N p) W O m f O V N V N V cD O CD W W N Gi ^ N ° � UJ V/ l C U) N W N O Ln (T O Ln Ln O X Da ? _ cD _ CO N W N W m k to fTl `Z fTl m f'l mfTl MfTl fTl 0 '= N cND O cD Obi O N O C7) m O W W O M W O O O tD U) N O r O N O N O O O O W O O O S r (7 - m N 1 4- N N r r r� r� r V Q r N m m W N N O tD OD ) Ln -4 W CD;Om iM n d$ o m O W Z m0 W W W 0Z Y m CD O co (O O fWD O (WD O W ~ n N N N N V V W N W J (D V N V N U) O U) N Ln N N (n O U O OLT (D E O W cWD O ON) O O N O o Ln i z » C7 I O O O Co O C O O O O O S o 1 A_ m �. N co X < PROCD 0 nm S ° o j C m T /yam— r \ m 5 C cn -n a � v W o cn S. 153 :3 Q v 1 a o. ° ° Q 0 ° m N c CD 0 o 3 CCD m c W �O D•o 1 f N� O` Q 0 0 �`' z N O z O " c N E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Sagecreek Subdivision (SHP-2023- 0001) by Mason and Associates, located at 1554 S. Labrador Way CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW C�f[EFI DIAN:-- AND DECISION&ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Short plat to subdivide an existing commercial lot(R8257510090) into two(2)building lots on approximately 0.929 acres of land in the C-C zoning district,by Mason &Associates. Case No(s). SHP-2023-0001 For the City Council Hearing Date of: March 7, 2023 (Findings on March 21, 2023) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7,2023,incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7, 2023, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7, 2023, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7,2023, 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 City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified as Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 17,2019,Resolution No. 19-2179 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 Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(SAGECREEK SUBDIVISION-SHR2023-0001) - 1 - 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7,2023, 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 City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Short Plat is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7,2023, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Short Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat(UDC 11-613-7A). In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two(2)years,may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval(UDC 11-6B-7B). Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A,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 Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension,the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again(UDC 1I- 6B-7C). E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(SAGECREEK SUBDIVISION-SHR2023-0001) -2- G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7,2023 FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(SAGECREEK SUBDIVISION-SHR2023-0001) -3- By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 21 st day of March 2023. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOHN OVERTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Robert E. Simison 3-21-2023 Attest: Chris Johnson 3-21-2023 City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 3-21-2023 City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(SAGECREEK SUBDIVISION-SHR2023-0001) -4- EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 3/7/2023 R6 R=8 Legend I_� DATE: Project Location C=C Rl TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner =RUT I-L RUT I_L 208-884-5533 C-G L-O C-G SUBJECT: SHP-2023-0001 c=G B B Sagecreek Subdivision SHP � R-8 ® c-c L-o LOCATION: 1554 S. Labrador Way 9 ��4 R-8 RR I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Short Plat request to subdivide an existing commercial lot(R8257510090) into two (2)building lots on approximately 0.929 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Angie Cuellar,Mason&Associates—924 3`d street South Suite B,Nampa, ID 83651 B. Owner: Soo Young Properties,LLC— 1403 Mace Road,Eagle,Id 83616 C. Representative: Will Mason,Mason&Associates—924 3'Street South,ID 83651 III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 2/19/2023 Radius notice mailed to property owners within 500 feet 2/17/2023 Posted to Next Door 2/17/2023 Page 1 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to subdivide Lot 4,Block 2 of Swindell Subdivision into two(2)building lots. The perimeter landscaping was installed with the previous subdivision improvements. Lot 2,Block 1 is developed with a new 5,595 two-story office building and associated site/landscape improvements(A-2022-0023). Once subdivided,the remaining lot will accommodate a future office/commercial use and requires CZC and DES approval before commencing with construction on the new lot. To ensure there is adequate parking for the site and shared access is provided, staff recommends the applicant add a plat note granting cross access and shared parking between the two lots. Further, direct lot access is prohibited to E. Overland Road in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed short plat for compliance with the criteria set forth in UDC 11-6B-5 and the required zoning regulations of the C-C zoning district and deems the short plat to be in compliance with said requirements. V. DECISION Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed short plat with the conditions noted in Section VII of this report and in accord with the findings in Section VIII. B. The Meridian City Council heard these items on March 7,2023.At the public hearing.the Council moved to approve the subject Short Plat request. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: David Morehouse,Applicant Representative b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: David Morehouse d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Stacy Hersh.Associate Planner f Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. None. Page 2 VI. EXHIBITS A. Short Plat(date: 01/03/23) S.+kQ�OR�E1i SUBDMSION NcTr cLn.mw Awr O:P UE sc J e ABM awo ems'+wsrrte A PART % r.i Si TR SE f/6 ]4L3A ,F. r n w.x fnn wad w�lP'+ �APA�ni p exm nY+r w1`wal' i mn IPzm lN`K XS+rS•� � Wwt-- —__—.. -- o lit p .0 ehe ran ` � 4■ "G @ "`°"' `�`.�,,.d� u h•'a' �fi'ae i _._._._._. Kam'_ `.:1` a w�iu��x•ur rnxenvr �� h - .�^'lry-1H�•-�MVLIk" .fir �� weCG% .�vsnR.xnx�a � � � ` fY1850f7 Fy, i l I mr ��Su — —�._._ ..—..—..�_-----�• rr _.—_.�_-y,yK-�._.—. SN FEf i of Y Page 3 B. Existing Approved Landscape Plan(dated: 4/19/22) ----------------- -------------- --- r--------- ----- --- --- � I i Page 4 VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS&CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: 1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development: AZ-15-010;RZ-15-011;PP-15-013;FP-2016-0109; DA Inst. #2016-045074; DA Inst. #2018-000750; CZC,DES A-2022-0023. 2. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained within two(2)years of the City Council's approval of the short plat,the short plat shall become null and void unless a time extension is obtained,per UDC 11-6B-7. 3. The Applicant shall obtain final approval from Ada County Surveyor's office of the proposed subdivision name prior to City Engineer's signature on the final plat. 4. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature,have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 5. The short plat prepared by Mason&Associates on 1/3/23 by Darin Holzhey, included in Section VI.A shall be revised as follows: a. Graphically depict the cross-access easement and shared parking on sheet 1 of the plat dated 1/3/23; or depict the recorded instrument numbers for the cross-access easement and shared parking agreement on sheet 1 of the plat dated 1/3/23. b. Add a new note: "stating the subdivision is subject to the existing Development Agreement and include the DA instrument number(DA Inst. #2018-000750)." c. Revise note#9: "Lots shall not be reduced in size without prior approval from the health authority and the City of Meridian." d. Add a new note: For any utility easement(s) and include the recorded instrument numbers (s). e. Include a new note: "Direct lot access via E. Overland Rd. is prohibited." 6. Prior to building permit submittal for any new commercial building on Lot 1, Block 1, Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review approval shall be obtained. 7. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer,the applicant shall provide a letter from the United States Postal Service stating that the applicant has received approval for the location of mailboxes.Contact the Meridian Postmaster,Sue Prescott,at 887-1620 for more information 8. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the previous approvals noted above does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Sewer requires 20ft easement. 2. Ensure no permanent structures (trees, bushes, buildings, carports, trash receptacle walls, fences,infiltration trenches,light poles, etc.)are built within the utility easement. 3. The City's GIS records do not show an easement for the existing water stub to the southeast corner of the site. Applicant to provide proof of existing easement or provide a new 20' easement for the water stub that extends 10'beyond the end of the stub. Page 5 4. There is an existing 10" stub from Overland Rd to the southeast corner of the site. GIS shows an existing meter there(possible for irrigation).If this is not used it must be abandoned per the City requirements. General Conditions: 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. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. All improvements related to public life,safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing, landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non-health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. Page 6 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-413. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the prof ect. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 19. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x I I" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round Page 7 source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. VIII. REQUIRED FINDINGS FROM THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE In consideration of a short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Unified Development Code; The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as Mixed Use Community(MU-C) and the current zoning district of the site is C-C. Staff finds the proposed short plat complies with the short plat standards listed in UDC 11-613-5. Future development should comply with the dimensional standards for the C-C district listed in UDC Table 11-2B- 3. B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided and are adequate to serve the proposed lots. C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvements program; Staff finds all required utilities will be provided with lot development at the developer's expense. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services as services are already being provided in this area. E. 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. F. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with short platting the structure on this site. Page 8 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approval of Sole Source purchase of Allen Bradley Products from Consolidated Electric C� fIEN MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda From: Keith Watts Meeting Date: 3/14/2023 Presenter: N/A Estimated Time: N/A Topic: Approval of Sole Source purchase of Allen Bradley Products from Consolidated Electric. Recommended Council Action: Approval of Sole Source purchases of Allen Bradley parts & equipment from Consolidated Electric. Background: The City SCADA standards dictate that all Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) hardware and associated electrical components shall be Allen-Bradley products. This is also true for our current install base of PLC equipment. Every distributor for Allen Bradley equipment is assigned a specific geographic territory in which they are designated to sell Allen Bradley products. They are prohibited from selling outside that assigned territory and risk being terminated as a distributor should they "sell or attempt to sell these products outside their Territory". Columbia Electric Supply,a partner of Consolidated Electric,with their Idaho branch,is an exclusive distributor of Allen Bradley products for the Idaho Treasure Valley region. *Please see attached the attached letter from the manufacture dated December 20,2022. Therefore the Public Works Department is seeking a sole source per Idaho State Statute 67- 2808(2)(a)(ii) Where compatibility of equipment, components, accessories, computer software, replacements parts, or service is the paramount consideration. PURCHASING AGENT W IDIAN% 33 East Broadway Avenue C> Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: 208-888-4433 Fax: 208-887-4813 CITY OF MERIDIAN SOLE SOURCE FORM Date: 03/09/2023 Item or Service: Allen Bradley products / Electrical ❑ Sole Source: Item is available from only one vendor. Item is one-of-a kind item and is not sold through distributors. Manufacturer is a sole distributor. Refer to instructions on 2nd page for completion. JUSTIFICATION: (Attach additional pages if needed) The City SCADA standards dictate that all Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) hardware and associated electrical components shall be Allen-Bradley products. This is also true for our current install base of PLC equipment. Every distributor for Allen Bradley equipment is assigned a specific geographic territory in which they are designated to sell Allen Bradley products. They are prohibited from selling outside that assigned territory and risk being terminated as a distributor should they "sell or attempt to sell these products outside their Territory". Columbia Electric Supply, a partner of Consolidated Electric, with their Idaho branch, is an exclusive distributor of Allen Bradley products for the Idaho Treasure Valley region. *Please see attached the attached letter from the manufacture dated December 20,2022. CERTIFICATION: I am aware of the requirements set forth in the City's Purchasing Policy&Procedures Manual for competitive bidding and the established criteria for justification for sole source/sole brand purchasing. I have gathered technical information and have made a concerted effort to review comparable/equal equipment. I hereby certify as to the validity of the information and feel confident that this justification for sole source/sole brand meets the City's criteria and is accurate. Council Approval Marshal Latham Date: 3-21-2023 Requestor(Print Name) Purchasing Approval: Department Manager Signature Purchasing Manager Rockwell Automation PNW Territory Office 15375 SE 30th Place Bellevue, WA 98007 Rockwell Automation December 20, 2022 City of Merdian Attn: Marshal Latham, Scada Administrator Public Works 3401 N. Ten Mile Road Meridian, ID. 83646 Re: CES Marshal, This is to confirm that CES is currently the only distributor appointed and authorized to sell Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley Standard Controls, Drives, PLC/MMI, Software and service offerings in the geographic area in Meridian, ID. As a matter of Rockwell Company policy, full factory product and sales support is made available only to the local authorized distributor, and it is Rockwell Automation's practice and policy to always promote and recommend the use of that distributor to customers in that geographic area. Rockwell Automation discourages the use of other non-authorized sources, including distributors who may hold a Rockwell Automation/Allen- Bradley appointment in another locale. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact either Brett Haworth, at 208.809.1922 or myself, Doug Jorgensen, at 971-226-4968. Very truly yours, Doug .lo-ge*we Senior Channel Account Manager Rockwell Automation cc: Nate Laing, CES Division Manager • E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Agreement for Use of Kleiner Park for Capital Church Community Egg Hunt C� fIEN .D L4,, MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda From: Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney Meeting Date: March 21, 2023 Presenter: Bill Nary, City Attorney Estimated Time: .5 minutes Topic: Agreement for Use of Kleiner Park for Capital Church Community Egg Hunt Recommended Council Action: Approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor's signature. Background: This agreement establishes the terms and conditions of Capital Church's use of Kleiner Park for its Community Egg Hunt large-scale special event on April 8, 2023. AGREEMENT FOR USE OF KLEINER PARK FOR SPECIAL EVENT This AGREEMENT FOR USE OF KLEINER PARK FOR SPECIAL EVENT ("Agreement") is made this 21A day of March, 2023 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho (hereinafter"City"), and Kenneth G. Wilde, on behalf of Capital Christian Center, Inc., a religious corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho (hereinafter"Organizer"). WHEREAS, the respective governing bodies of City and Organizer are mutually interested in enhancing the Meridian community's quality of life by providing and supporting special event opportunities for members of the Meridian and greater communities; WHEREAS, City and Organizer recognize that publicly-held facilities are resources requiring heightened stewardship and protection; WHEREAS, Organizer has agreed to be responsible for any costs incurred by City in the course of the large-scale special event hosted by Organizer at Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park("Park"), located at 1900 N. Records Avenue, in Meridian, Idaho, on April 8, 2023; and WHEREAS,the Meridian City Council finds that it is fiscally responsible and in the best interest of the community to enter into a contractual agreement establishing the terms and conditions of Organizer's use of Park; NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and in consideration of the recitals above, which are incorporated herein, City and Organizer agree as follows: I.PERMISSION GRANTED. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, City hereby grants to Organizer permission to utilize Park at the time, place, and manner set forth in this Agreement and in City of Meridian Temporary Use Permit no. TUP-23-0006 for a large-scale special event known as "Capital Community Egg Hunt" ("Event"). II.OBLIGATIONS OF ORGANIZER. A. Reasonable use. Organizer shall employ best efforts to ensure that its use of Park and Park facilities, amenities, infrastructure, and/or vegetation are appropriate and reasonable. Where Organizer's use of Park and Park facilities, infrastructure, and/or vegetation causes disproportionately excessive damage to same, Organizer shall reimburse City for the cost or proportionate cost of necessary repairs and/or replacement. Organizer shall exercise best efforts to see that any and all use of Park, to the extent reserved by Organizer, is in compliance with all laws and with City's policies regarding use of City parks and/or facilities, including, but not limited to, policies be adopted or enacted by the Director of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. B. Permitting. In addition to compliance with all terms and provisions of this Agreement, Organizer shall separately obtain and comply with each and all of the following permits, as required by law: AGREEMENT FOR USE OF KLEINER PARK FOR SPECIAL EVENT PAGE I OF 7 1. City of Meridian Temporary Use Permit for Large Scale Special Event; 2. Any and all applicable licenses,permits, inspections, and/or certifications from the Federal Aviation Administration; 3. Any and all applicable licenses,permits, inspections, and/or certifications from the Ada County Highway District; 4. Any and all applicable licenses, permits, inspections, and/or certifications from the Central District Health Department; 5. Any and all reservations, permits, and inspections required by the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. C. Fees. By noon(12:00 p.m.) on Friday, March 24, 2023, Organizer shall remit to City four thousand, nine hundred and forty dollars and thirty-four cents ($4,940.34), which amount includes: $1,590.00: Fee for reserving Park for one day $ 720.00: Fee for Meridian Parks and Recreation personnel to provide facility maintenance and janitorial services before, during, and after the Event, from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (4 staff @ $20/hour x 36 staff hours) $1,296.24: Fee for Meridian Police Department personnel to provide public safety and traffic control services before and during the Event, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (4 officers @ $54.01/hour x 24 staff hours) If additional staffing or extended hours are required for the protection of public safety or maintenance of Park, Organizer shall reimburse City for all staffing costs within fourteen(14) days of City's invoice for such costs. If Organizer fails to timely reimburse City pursuant to such invoice, the City may decline to provide extra-duty personnel staffing, decline to reserve City facilities, release existing reservations of City facilities, or decline to allow the subsequent use of City facilities for Event or any iteration thereof. D. Time and place. The permission extended under this Agreement shall apply to the areas of Park detailed on the event site plan approved by City under City of Meridian Temporary Use Permit no. TUP-23-0006, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, April 8, 2023. E. Manner. The permission extended under this Agreement shall be subject to all terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement, in City of Meridian Temporary Use Permit no. TUP-23-0006, and in any applicable laws and policies, including, without limitation, the Meridian Parks and Recreation Event Planners' Handbook. Such terms and conditions shall include, but shall not be limited to,the following: 1. The public must have general access to all areas of Park at all times, so long as such access does not unduly interfere with Organizer's use of Park for Event. 2. Driving or parking vehicles on non-designated driving or parking surfaces shall be prohibited, except at the direction of Meridian Parks & Recreation Department staff. Further, Organizer or his designee may operate one (1) golf cart at Park during event, so long as such operation may be undertaken safely. 3. Where activities or equipment related to Event damage or destroy turf, landscaping, sprinklers, or other Park infrastructure or facilities, or otherwise require City to incur additional expenses, AGREEMENT FOR USE OF KLEINER PARK FOR SPECIAL EVENT PAGE 2 OF 7 Organizer shall reimburse City for all costs of repair, replacement, or expense within fourteen (14) days of City's invoice for such costs. 4. Organizer shall make every effort to provide and maintain access to Event for persons with disabilities. 5. No smoking shall be allowed in Park, except in designated parking areas. 6. Used water, grease, charcoal, and other materials and supplies must be carried out of Park at the conclusion of Event, and may not be disposed of at Park. 7. Organizer is authorized to post signs for the purpose of identifying, promoting, advertising, or directing patrons to Event as represented and approved in City of Meridian Temporary Use Permit no. TUP-23-0006. Organizer acknowledges that the permission extended by City under this Agreement to post signs shall extend only to the locations approved in City of Meridian Temporary Use Permit no. TUP-23-0006, and that it is unlawful to post a sign identifying, promoting, advertising, or directing patrons to Event without the permission of the owner of such property. Organizer shall remove all signs identifying, promoting, advertising, or directing patrons to Event by dusk on Saturday, April 8, 2023. 8. Organizer shall offer for public use four(4) shuttle buses to transport event attendees to and from designated parking areas and the Event, and shall publicize the availability of such buses. 9. Organizer shall provide an adequate number of volunteers to staff the inflatables, egg fields, designated parking areas, the crosswalks between the Meridian Village and the Park, and the temporary crosswalk between the designated parking area on Records Road and the Park. 10. Organizer shall provide a medical services station at Event. Such station shall be staffed by at least two (2)personnel trained and certified to provide first aid. Such station shall be clearly marked and accessible to all Event participants. 11. Organizer shall provide and install temporary "no parking" signs adequate to prevent parking in the bike lanes on Records Road. 12. Organizer shall provide eight(8)portable toilets at Event, including one (1) for use by disabled persons. F. Skydiving. Pursuant to Meridian City Code section 13-2-6(B)(2), the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department hereby orders that Organizer may feature skydivers at the event subject to the following conditions: 1. The skydivers may land only on the designated landing area, and Organizer shall ensure that the designated landing area is clear and safe for Event attendees and the skydivers. AGREEMENT FOR USE OF KLEINER PARK FOR SPECIAL EVENT PAGE 3 OF 7 2. This permission extends to Organizer's use of Sky Down Skydiving, LLC and its employees and agents only, and shall not be transferrable or assignable to any other entity. Sky Down Skydiving, LLC and all its employees and/or agents shall be properly licensed and certified. 3. Sky Down Skydiving, LLC and all of its employees and agents shall follow all local, state, and federal laws and regulations. 4. Premises used under this permission are offered on an as-is basis. 5. This order is subject to immediate revocation or modification at any time where such revocation or modification would serve the best interest of the City of Meridian. 6. Insurance. As required by Meridian City Code, Organizer shall submit to City proof of an insurance policy issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in Idaho protecting Organizer, Organizer's employees, and Organizer's agents from all claims for damages to property and bodily injury, including death, which may arise during or in connection with Event, including Event set-up and tear-down. Such insurance shall name City as additional insured, and shall afford at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00)per person bodily injury, one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence bodily injury, and one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence property damage. The limits of insurance shall not be deemed a limitation of the covenants to indemnify and save and hold harmless City as set forth in this Agreement or any permit. If City becomes liable for an amount in excess of the insurance limits herein provided due to the actions or omissions of Organizer or any Organizer employee, agent, contractor, official, officer, servant, guest, and/or invitee, or any participant in or observer of Event or related activities, Organizer covenants and agrees to indemnify and save and hold harmless City from and for all such losses, claims, actions, or judgments for damages or liability to persons or property. 7. Primary Source of Contact for Organizer. Organizer shall provide City the name, e-mail address, and telephone number of specific personnel (hereinafter"Organizer Contact") who shall serve as Organizer's primary contact between Organizer and City for all day-to-day matters regarding set-up, operation, and tear-down of in Park. Organizer Contact for Event shall be: Organizer Contact: Mark Thornton E-mail: mark@capitalchurch.co Phone: 208-888-1060, ext. 4 Ill.OBLIGATIONS OF CITY. A. Facility operation. Except as otherwise set forth herein, City shall provide general maintenance, mowing, irrigation, and custodial services with regard to Park facilities, infrastructure,and vegetation. City shall provide all necessary utilities and services to Park facilities, including, but not limited to, electricity, potable water, sewage service, and/or typical waste and refuse removal. City shall cause the repair and/or replacement of any and all Park facilities, infrastructure, and/or vegetation that are physically damaged by acts of nature. To the extent that the cause of damage is attributable to Event activities, Organizer shall be responsible for the cost of repair or replacement. B. Primary Source of Contact for City. City shall provide Organizer the name, e-mail address, and telephone number of specific City personnel (hereinafter "City Contact") who shall serve as City's AGREEMENT FOR USE OF KLEINER PARK FOR SPECIAL EVENT PAGE 4 OF 7 primary contact between City and Organizer for all day-to-day matters regarding set-up, operation, and tear-down of in Park. City Contact for Event shall be: City Contact: Skyler Cook, Recreation Coordinator, Sports & External Events Meridian Parks and Recreation Department E-mail: scook@meridiancity.org Phone: 208-888-3579 IV.GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Notice. Communication between Organizer and the City Contact regarding day-to-day matters shall occur via e-mail or telephone. All other notices required to be given by either of the parties hereto shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when personally served, or mailed in the United States mail, or via e-mail, addressed as follows: City: Organizer: City of Meridian Kenneth G. Wilde, President Attn: City Clerk Capital Christian Center 33 E. Broadway Avenue 2760 E. Fairview Ave Meridian, Idaho 83642 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Either party may change its address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other in the manner herein provided. B. Public park. The parties hereto expressly acknowledge that Park is a public space, the management and scheduling of which shall at all times be within the sole purview of City. City shall have the right to allow the use of Park, and close all or any portion of Park, for any and all purposes and under any and all conditions. C. No right to exclude conveyed. Any exclusive use granted to Organizer by this Agreement shall include neither the right to exclude any law-abiding person from Park where such person is not interfering with Organizer's use thereof, nor the right to interfere with any person's concurrent, lawful use of Park where such concurrent use does not conflict or interfere with Organizer's use. At all times Organizer shall be on an equal footing with the general public regarding its use of Park. Organizer shall exercise any exclusive use granted by this Agreement only in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and in accordance with any and all applicable laws and City policies. D. Force Majeure.No Party will be liable for failure to perform any duty under this Agreement where such failure is due to or made impracticable by unforeseeable causes beyond the Parties' control and without the fault or negligence of the Parties, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or the public enemy, fire, flood, natural disaster, epidemic, strike, or order of any court or authorized agency. E. Assignment. Organizer shall not assign or sublet all or any portion of Organizer's interest in this Agreement or any privilege or right hereunder, either voluntarily or involuntarily, without the prior written consent of City. This Agreement and each and all of the terms and conditions hereof shall apply to and are binding upon the respective organizations, legal representative, successors, and assigns of the parties. AGREEMENT FOR USE OF KLEINER PARK FOR SPECIAL EVENT PAGE 5 OF 7 F. No agency. Neither Organizer nor Organizer's employees, agents, contractors, officials, officers, servants, guests, and/or invitees shall be considered agents of City in any manner or for any purpose whatsoever in their use and occupancy of Park. G. Indemnification. Organizer and each and all of Organizer's employees, agents, contractors, officials, officers, servants, guests, and/or invitees, including any and all participants in Event or related activities, shall indemnify and save and hold harmless City from and for any and all losses, claims, actions,judgments for damages, or injury to persons or property and losses and expenses caused or incurred by Organizer or any Organizer employee, agent, contractor, official, officer, servant, guest, and/or invitee, or any participant in or observer of Organizer programming, at or in its use of Park or any lack of maintenance or repair thereon and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City. H. No warranty. City makes no warranty or promise as to the condition, safety, usefulness, or habitability of the premises; Organizer accepts Park for use as is, both at the Effective Date of this Agreement and throughout the course of Event and all related activities. I. Compliance with laws. In performing the scope of services required hereunder, City and Organizer shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of Federal, State, and local governments. J. Attorney Fees. Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement,the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted,to court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. K. Time of the essence. The parties shall fulfill obligations described in this Agreement in a timely manner, as set forth herein. The parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to this Agreement, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a default of this Agreement. L. Termination. 1. Grounds. Grounds for termination of this Agreement shall include, but shall not be limited to: an act or omission by either party which breaches any term of this Agreement; an act of nature or other unforeseeable event which precludes or makes impossible the performance of the terms of this Agreement by either party; or a change in or occurrence of circumstances that renders the performance by either party a detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare. 2. Process. Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing twenty-four(24) hours notice of intention to terminate. Such notice shall include a description of the breach or circumstances providing grounds for termination. A twenty-four (24) hour cure period shall commence upon provision of the notice of intention to terminate. If, upon the expiration of such cure period, cure of the breach or circumstances providing grounds for termination has not occurred, this Agreement shall be terminated upon mailing or e-mailing of notice of termination. AGREEMENT FOR USE OF KLEINER PARK FOR SPECIAL EVENT PAGE 6 OF 7 M. Breach. Any act or omission by either party which breaches any term of this Agreement may provide grounds for termination. In the event of breach, the City may also decline to provide extra- duty personnel staffing, decline to reserve City facilities, release existing reservations of City facilities, or decline to allow the subsequent use of City facilities for Event or any iteration thereof. N. Construction and severability. If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other part of this Agreement so long as the remainder of the Agreement is reasonably capable of completion. O. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other agreements or understandings, oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. P. Applicable law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho. Q. Approval required. This Agreement shall not become effective or binding until approved by both Organizer and by Meridian City Council. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties shall cause this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers to be effective as of the day and year first above written. ORGANIZER: w B Kenneth G. Wilde President, Capital Christian Center Incorporated CITY OF MERIDIAN: Attest: BY: Robert E. Simison, Mayor 3-21-2023 Chris Johnson, City Clerk 3-21-2023 AGREEMENT FOR USE OF KLEINER PARK FOR SPECIAL EVENT PAGE 7 OF 7 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Memorandum of Agreement between the Idaho Transportation Department and the City of Meridian for Meridian Police Department's Use of Department of Motor Vehicles Motor Vehicle Registration Information C� fIEN .D L4,, MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda From: Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney Meeting Date: March 21, 2023 Presenter: Mike Tanner, Software Engineering ManagerEstimated Time: .5 minutes Topic: Memorandum of Agreement between Idaho Transportation Department and City of Meridian for Meridian Police Department's Use of Department of Motor Vehicles Motor Vehicle Registration Information Recommended Council Action: Approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor's signature. Background: This MCA establishes the terms and conditions of MPD's use of motor vehicle registration information for law enforcement purposes. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Between THE IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT And THE CITY OF MERIDIAN PURPOSE: This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is entered into by and between the Idaho Transportation Department, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)and the City of Meridian(CITY). The purpose of this MOA is to allow for the sharing of DMV motor vehicle registration information in order to assist CITY with the following: 1. To allow CITY's Police Department to access motor vehicle registration information pursuant to and in accordance with its official functions and duties. 2. To allow CITY's Parking Services to access motor vehicle registration information based upon license plate information obtained by Parking Services pursuant to and in accordance with its official functions and duties. 3. To allow CITY's Department of Finance and Administration to access registration information for parking compliance pursuant to and in accordance with its official functions duties. AUTHORITY: Idaho Code sections 67-2327, 67-2332, 67-2333, and 67-2339, Idaho Code section 49-203, and any other provisions of state law or regulation directly pertaining to this MOA. RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. DMV Shall: a) Provide CITY a copy of the active and inactive motor vehicle registration records in the DMV's vehicle registration database on a weekly basis via a Secure File Transfer Protocol(SFTP)file. 2. CITY Shall: a) Restrict use of the information provided solely to carry out the CITY's functions as described in the"PURPOSE"section of this MOA. b) Keep the information contained in the ITD databases confidential and restrict the use of the information to internal departmental use only. CITY shall not release the information to vendors or to the general public. Any compact disc or physical or electronic files provided by DMV shall be destroyed when no longer needed by CITY. DATA USEAGE AND SECURITY: • CITY shall access DMV data through the SFTP data file delivered by DMV. • CITY shall limit access and usage of DMV data to CITY authorized personnel requiring the information to perform the duties of their position. MOA Between DMV and CITY OF MERIDIAN Page 1 of 4 • With the exception of disclosures permitted pursuant to Idaho Code 49-203(4), (6), and(7), CITY shall not release DMV data to a third party without prior approval from DMV or use the data for marketing, solicitations, or surveys. • Both parties shall comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations governing the confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information(PII)that is the subject of this MOA. • CITY shall electronically log data access occurrences into DMV systems by CITY staff to include information viewed, time viewed, and the identity of the employee who accessed the information. • DMV has discretionary authority to perform audits of processes and logged data required to be kept by CITY. • CITY shall provide security audit reports to DMV upon request. At a minimum, security audit reports shall cover the security topics addressed under this MOA. • Whenever practicable, DMV shall notify CITY of any change that will affect access to DMV data ninety(90)days prior to that change taking effect. • CITY shall make appropriate changes to their systems to accommodate any DMV-initiated data access change. • CITY shall be permitted to view the following data fields through the SFTP: Vehicle Registration Data Fields REG-TYPE REG-SUBTYPE PERSONALIZED-OPTION HANDICAPPED-OPTION CENTENNIAL-OPTION EXPIRATION-DATE-MM ExpirationYear ISSUE-COUNTY IssueMonth IssueYear VIN PLATE YEAR-CC YEAR-YY Make MODEL BODY COLOR-TOP COLOR-BOTTOM VEHICLE-DESCRIPTION RESIDENCE-COUNTY NAME SECOND-NAME THIRD-NAME-OR-ADDRESS MAILING-ADDRESS City MOA Between DMV and CITY OF MERIDIAN Page 2 of 4 State ZIPS ZIP4 DL1 DL2 TranDate StatusCode FullMake FullModel LIMITATIONS: Nothing in this MOA between DMV and CITY shall be construed as limiting or expanding the statutory or regulatory responsibilities of any involved individual in performing functions granted to them by law; or as requiring either entity to expend any sum in excess of its respective appropriation.Each and every provision of this MOA is subject to the laws and regulations of the state of Idaho and of the United States. LIABILITY: Nothing in this MOA shall be construed as expanding the liability of either party. In the event of a liability claim, each party shall defend their own interests.Neither party shall be required to provide indemnification of the other party. TERMINATION: Either DMV or CITY may terminate this MOA with or without cause by submitting to the other party a written notice of termination. Termination shall be effective thirty (30) days from the date of the notice of termination. EFFECTIVE DATE AND AGREEMENT PERIOD: This MOA shall become effective upon signature of the DMV Administrator and the signing authority of CITY. It shall remain in effect for three(3)years from the most recent signature date,unless terminated by either party as provided above. AMENDMENTS: Amendments to this MOA shall become effective upon mutual agreement and written approval by the DMV Administrator and the signing authority of CITY. MOA Between DMV and CITY OF MERIDIAN Page 3 of 4 CONTACTS: DMV and CITY shall maintain and share a list of emergency contacts and their telephone numbers. If a change occurs with a contact person or telephone number, the affected agency must immediately update the other. SIGNATURES: IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT By Lisa McClellan, DMV Administrator Date CITY OF MERIDIAN By Date 3-21-2023 (Title) Robert E. Simison, Mayor Attest: Date: 3-21-2023 Chris Johnson, City Clerk MOA Between DMV and CITY OF MERIDIAN Page 4 of 4 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 23-2378: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian Approving City Council President's Appointments of Meridian's Representatives to Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho and its Executive Board; Providing an Effective Date; and Affirming Other Appointments CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 23-2378 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, OVERTON, PERREAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN APPROVING CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT'S APPOINTMENTS OF MERIDIAN'S REPRESENTATIVES TO COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO AND ITS EXECUTIVE BOARD; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND AFFIRMING OTHER APPOINTMENTS. WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting on March 21, 2023, City Council President Brad Hoaglun did make appointments of elected officials, City staff, and community members to represent the City of Meridian at the meetings of the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho ("COMPASS") and its executive board, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, by this resolution, the City Council of the City of Meridian seeks to effectuate and memorialize these appointments; NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY,IDAHO: Section 1. That the appointments made by City Council President Hoaglun to COMPASS and its executive board, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, are affirmed, and such persons are directed to fulfill the duties of such functions on behalf of the City of Meridian. Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. Section 3. That this Resolution shall supersede Resolution no. 23-2365 only as to the appointments to COMPASS and its executive board, and Resolution no. 23-2365 shall otherwise remain in full force and effect. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 21't day of March, 2023. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 21't day of March, 2023. APPROVED: ATTEST: Mayor Robert E. Simison By: Chris Johnson, City Clerk RESOLUTION EFFECTUATING COMPASS REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENTS PAGE I OF 2 EXHIBIT A MERIDIAN CITY REPRESENTATIVES Interagency Boards, Primary Alternate(s) Committees and Initiatives COMPASS John Overton, Council Steve Siddoway, Parks &Rec Member Director ssiddoway@meridiancity.org Charlie Rountree, Community Member Bruce Freckleton, Community Development Director bfreckleton@meridiancity.org Caleb Hood, Planner Manager chood@meridiancity.org Bill Nary, City Attorney bnary@meridiancity.org COMPASS Executive Mayor Simison Bill Nary, City Attorney Board bnary@meridiancity.org Bruce Freckleton, Community Development Director bfreckleton@meridiancity.org RESOLUTION EFFECTUATING COMPASS REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENTS PAGE 2 OF 2 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. i i CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: March 21, 2023 Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum: • DO NOT: o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed inappropriate for this forum) Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Proposed Summer 2023 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: March 21, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 PROJECT NAME: Proposed Summer 2023 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BORTON,CAVENER,HOAGLUN, OVERTON PERREAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice in the Meridian Press on March 12, 2023 and March 19, 2023, according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on March 21, 2023 the City Council of the City of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council,by formal motion, did approve said proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO: Section 1. That the 2023 Summer Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the fees adopted for the 2023 Summer Activity Guide shall remain in effect as to those classes until such classes are concluded, at which point the fees set forth in Exhibit A hereto shall supersede any and all fees for the enumerated services previously adopted. Section 3. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Mar. 2023. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Mar. 2023. APPROVED: Robert Simison, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE I OF 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 21, 2023, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding proposed new and amended fees as set forth below. Further information is available at the Parks &Recreation Department at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at the public hearing. Written testimony is welcome; written materials should be submitted to the City Clerk. All testimony and materials presented shall become property of the City of Meridian. For auditory, visual, or language accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (208) 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. Proposed new or amended fees: EXHIBIT A 2023 Summer Activity Guide Class Fees: Semi-Private Swim Lessons $190.00 Private Swim Lessons $140.00 Individual Swim Pass $45.00 Family Swim Pass $160.00 Skyhawk Sport Camps $219.00 - $249.00 Motions Classes $12.00 - $50.00 Just Kids Multi Sport Camp $180.00 Real Dill Pickleball $50.00 Sport-Tastic Adventure $50.00 Youth Golf $80.00 Amazing Athletes $75.00 Little Pallet Art Classes $20.00 - $100.00 Introduction to Rock Climbing $225.00 Martial Arts for All Ages, Beginning& Intermed. /Advanc. $40.00 Kendo: Japanese Fencing $70.00 Lego Camps $70.00 - $85.00 Introduction to the sport of Fencing $120.00 Belly Dance $50.00 Disc Golf For Beginners $80.00 Bigfoot Cartooning &Anime Classes $18.00 - $165.00 CPR/AED $50.00 Outdoor Adventure Camp $135.00 - $225.00 Tiny Tots Tennis Lessons $31.5 - $63.00 Junior Tennis Lessons $31.5 - $63.00 Camp Mer-IDA-Moo $75.00 - $125.00 Young Rembrandt Art Classes $65.00 - $125.00 Yoga-All Levels $50.00 ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 OF 4 Yoga—Gentle Yoga $50.00 Yoga—Unlimited Yoga $70.00 Somatic Yoga& Gentle Stretch $50.00 Yin Yoga Workshop $15.00 Fermenting 101 $60.00 Jazzercise $69.00 Pickleball 101 $80.00 Line Dancing—Beginner $24.00 Line Dancing—Intermediate $24.00 Line Dancing- Improver $24.00 Line Dancing—Choose your dates option $57.00 Intermediate 2-step $20.00 - $50.00 Intro to Dance $20.00 - $50.00 West Coast Swing $20.00 - $50.00 Couples Social Dance- Optional Days $85.00 15 Day Reboot with Cherished Soul $129.00 Digital Photography $75.00 The Photographers Eye $75.00 Adult Day Trips $10.00 - $100.00 Flag Football $650.00 DATED this day of , 2023. Chris Johnson, CITY CLERK PUBLISH on March 12 and March 19. ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 3 OF 4 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 23-2377: A Resolution Adopting the Summer 2023 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 23-2377 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BORTON,CAVENER,HOAGLUN, OVERTON PERREAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice in the Meridian Press on March 12, 2023 and March 19, 2023, according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on March 21, 2023 the City Council of the City of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council,by formal motion, did approve said proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO: Section 1. That the 2023 Summer Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the fees adopted for the 2023 Summer Activity Guide shall remain in effect as to those classes until such classes are concluded, at which point the fees set forth in Exhibit A hereto shall supersede any and all fees for the enumerated services previously adopted. Section 3. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 21 st day of Mar. 2023. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 21 st day of Mar. 2023. APPROVED: Robert Simison, Mayor Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY OF MERIDIAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 21, 2023, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding proposed new and amended fees as set forth below. Further information is available at the Parks &Recreation Department at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at the public hearing. Written testimony is welcome; written materials should be submitted to the City Clerk. All testimony and materials presented shall become property of the City of Meridian. For auditory, visual, or language accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (208) 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. Proposed new or amended fees: EXHIBIT A 2023 Summer Activity Guide Class Fees: Semi-Private Swim Lessons $190.00 Private Swim Lessons $140.00 Individual Swim Pass $45.00 Family Swim Pass $160.00 Skyhawk Sport Camps $219.00 - $249.00 Motions Classes $12.00 - $50.00 Just Kids Multi Sport Camp $180.00 Real Dill Pickleball $50.00 Sport-Tastic Adventure $50.00 Youth Golf $80.00 Amazing Athletes $75.00 Little Pallet Art Classes $20.00 - $100.00 Introduction to Rock Climbing $225.00 Martial Arts for All Ages, Beginning& Intermed. /Advanc. $40.00 Kendo: Japanese Fencing $70.00 Lego Camps $70.00 - $85.00 Introduction to the sport of Fencing $120.00 Belly Dance $50.00 Disc Golf For Beginners $80.00 Bigfoot Cartooning &Anime Classes $18.00 - $165.00 CPR/AED $50.00 Outdoor Adventure Camp $135.00 - $225.00 Tiny Tots Tennis Lessons $31.5 - $63.00 Junior Tennis Lessons $31.5 - $63.00 Camp Mer-IDA-Moo $75.00 - $125.00 Young Rembrandt Art Classes $65.00 - $125.00 Yoga-All Levels $50.00 ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 OF 4 Yoga—Gentle Yoga $50.00 Yoga—Unlimited Yoga $70.00 Somatic Yoga& Gentle Stretch $50.00 Yin Yoga Workshop $15.00 Fermenting 101 $60.00 Jazzercise $69.00 Pickleball 101 $80.00 Line Dancing—Beginner $24.00 Line Dancing—Intermediate $24.00 Line Dancing- Improver $24.00 Line Dancing—Choose your dates option $57.00 Intermediate 2-step $20.00 - $50.00 Intro to Dance $20.00 - $50.00 West Coast Swing $20.00 - $50.00 Couples Social Dance- Optional Days $85.00 15 Day Reboot with Cherished Soul $129.00 Digital Photography $75.00 The Photographers Eye $75.00 Adult Day Trips $10.00 - $100.00 Flag Football $650.00 DATED this day of , 2023. Chris Johnson, CITY CLERK PUBLISH on March 12 and March 19. ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 3 OF 4 E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 City Council Meeting March 21, 2023 Item #9: Sagarra AERIAL MAPZONING MAPFUTURE LAND USE MAP Preliminary Plat & Planned Unit Development– LegendLegendLegend \[\[\[ Project LocationProject LocationProject Location RUT R-8 C-CC-3 R-4R1 CHINDEN CHINDENCHINDEN MUMU C-N C-C R-15 C-G MU-C C-C LINDER LINDER LINDER OfficeMedium Density RUT R-4 R-8 L-OResidential MU-N RUT Civic Previously AgreementIn Development Concept PlanApproved Example of another PUD (Paramount Director 5.5. units/acre)– Preliminary Plat (Number of buildable lots stayed the same; 2 common lots were added) Landscape RevisedPrevious Plan Proposed Reductions 8 Setbacks (REVISED)-to R R4,66111,79651,4531,5321,690 1,0704,000 s.f.Lot Size1010540012Rear10751001010Street Side555NA555Side20NANA40020Garage102510010Front(orange)family-Single(pink)CondosCourtyard(red)(MFR)Boulder Flats(purple)TownhomesMiddle Three(blue)(attached)pk Townhomes -2(green)Ribbon Townhomes8 Setbacks- Revised Common Space Exhibit Common Open Previous Open Space Exhibit Site Amenity Exhibit RevisedPrevious Vehicular & Pedestrian Circulation Plan Parking Diagram RevisedPrevious Conceptual Building Elevations RevisedPrevious SingleTownhomesFamily Attached - MultiFamily/Condos-MultiFamily- Amenity Buildings WorkshopCommunity ClubhouseCommunity Item #10: 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 (revised)Proposed Development Development Agreement Qualified Open (REVISED)Space Exhibit Conceptual Building Elevations Item #11: Millwood AERIAL MAPZONING MAPFUTURE LAND USE MAP Annexation & Zoning and Preliminary Plat– Preliminary Plat & Landscape Plan Common Driveway Exhibits Conceptual Building Elevations Changes to Agenda: None Item #9: Sagarra (H-2022-0027) Since the last hearing, the Applicant submitted revised plans (i.e. preliminary plat, landscape plan, open space exhibit, site amenity plan, parking diagram, setback diagram and concept elevations for the single-family residential units), to address items of discussion at the previous hearing. Changes to the plans include the following: two (2) common lots have been added; three (3) buildings with nine (9) multi-family units have been removed and two (2) single-family attached units have been added for an overall reduction of seven (7) units resulting in a decrease in density from 8.35 to 7.95 units/acre; removal of on-street parking where the road curves; and updated elevations for the single-family homes that represent a better architectural quality. The reduction of units increased the qualified open space by 0.11- acre. With the reduction of 7 units and reconfiguration of parking, a total of 25 extra off-street vehicle parking spaces are proposed; and with the removal of on-street spaces on the curves, a total of 76 on-street spaces are available. The updated setback diagram depicts the portions of buildings that are nearest the property line where reductions to setbacks are requested through the PUD application & the standard R-8 setbacks required by the UDC. Overall, the proposed project exceeds the minimum parking, open space & amenity standards and is consistent with the density desired in the MDR & MU-C FLUM designations and with the minimum density required in the DA of 6 units/acre. In summary, Staff is supportive of the proposed changes to the plan and overall PUD as we believe it provides an opportunity for exemplary site development that allows for innovative design that meets the purpose and findings required for a PUD. Application(s): Preliminary Plat & Planned Unit Development Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 17.49 acres of land, zoned R-8 & C-C, located at on the south side of W. Orchard Park Dr., west of N. Fox Run Way & east of N. Linder Rd. History: This property was annexed in 2019 with the requirement of a DA, which was later modified in 2021. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mostly MDR with some MU-C on the west end Summary of Request: A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 114 building lots & 16 common lots (including 3 private street lots) on 17.49 acres in the R-8 & C-C zoning districts – to develop in two phases. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 146-unit residential community containing a mix of SFR detached (32), SFR attached (38), townhome (38), and multi-family (38) units with a reduction to the setback requirements in UDC Table 11-2A-6. Because multi-family is proposed as part of the PUD, compliance with UDC 11-4-3-27 is required. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with a mix of residential uses consisting of single-family detached and attached homes, townhomes, and multi-family apartments/condos at a gross density of 8.35 units per acre consistent with the density desired in MDR and MU-C designated areas and in the development agreement (Comp plan allows you to round down to the nearest whole number). Access is proposed via the extension of two existing local public streets, N. Arliss Ave. and W. Director St., and N. Bergman Ave. Two (2) local public street accesses (i.e. N. Bergman Ave. and N. Arctic Fox Way) are proposed via W. Orchard Park, a collector street. Private streets are planned for internal access off the public streets; an application for such will be submitted with the final plat application. A revised common open space exhibit has been submitted that depicts a total of 3.43 acres of qualified open space which exceeds the minimum standard by 0.69-acre. Amenities consist of 12’ wide multi-use pathway along the south & east boundaries of the site, a swimming pool with changing rooms & restrooms, tool library/community workshop, dog washing stations, outdoor activity complex, fire pits, BBQ area with tables and shade structures. All units are required to provide 80 square feet of private open space, unless otherwise approved through the alternative compliance process. The uses within the PUD are proposed to be interconnected through a system of local and private streets and pedestrian pathways. A revised off-street parking exhibit was submitted that demonstrates compliance with UDC standards and exceeds the minimum standards by 16 spaces – an additional 122 on-street parking spaces are also available. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed residential structures. A mix of 1-, 2- and 3-story structures are proposed in a variety of construction materials and styles. Final design of the structures must adhere the design standards in the ASM. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Michael Slavin, Tony Tseng ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Doug Jones, Chris Eastman, Sally Reynolds, Julie Duran, Shane Nye and Jennifer Card, Lisa Metcalf, Kelly Carpenter, Justin Carpenter iv. Written testimony: Michael & Linda Arnold, Leah Balecha, Daniel Briggs, Julie Duran, Matt Mueller, Scott Fuller, and Shane & Julia Duty; Lorraine Howe, Jennifer Card, Jennifer Lytle, Sally Reynolds v. Key Issue(s): a. Request for denial of the project as currently submitted due to the following reasons: 1) project isn’t consistent with the MDR FLUM designation and would be more appropriate in the MHDR designation; 2) the proposed parking isn’t sufficient for the proposed development and will result in substantial on-street parking that will contribute to congestion and make traveling through the community difficult; 3) the proposed contemporary modern design of the single-family homes are not harmonious with the design of existing single-family homes in the adjacent Paramount subdivision; 4) on-street parking along Bergman should not be allowed due to the curvature of the street which will not allow two vehicles traveling in opposite directions to easily pass one another if there are cars parked on either side if the road on the curve; and 5) belief that too many residential units are proposed in this area, which will not complement the existing neighborhood and will negatively impact the community’s livability. b. Increase traffic, density and on-street parking on N. Bergman Ave. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Update the parking plan to ensure the project is adequate parked per UDC standards. ii. Update open space exhibit to ensure the project meets the open space standards. iii. Code complaint fencing along the south and east boundary of the proposed development. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. The Commission required pedestrian lighting to be installed along the pathway along the south and east perimeter boundaries of the subdivision; ii. The Commission directed the Applicant to coordinate with ACHD on installing “no parking” signs on the public streets where the “s” or 90-degree curves are located (i.e. N. Bergman Ave., N. Arctic Fox Way & N. Arliss Ave.); iii. The Commission directed the Applicant to continue working with abutting neighbors on repairing the existing fencing that was damaged during tiling of the North Slough. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0027, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 21, 2023: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0027, as presented during the hearing on March 21, 2023, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0027 to the hearing date of _______ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #10: Meridian OZ Apartments (H-2022-0073) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification  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 with an R-40 zoning district 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. 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, a total of 14,416 s.f. (or 0.33-acre) is proposed exceeding the minimum standard (by 916 s.f.). 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. Commission Recommendation: Approval (CUP) Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jorre Delgado (Applicant’s Representative) ii. In opposition: iii. Commenting: Ann Witherell & Lynzey Uechi iv. Written testimony: Travis Perrin (representing Intermountain Wood Products) – in opposition v. Key Issue(s): Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Intermountain Wood Products that exists 3 parcels to the south has safety concerns due to the proximity of the proposed access via Locust Grove to the Locust Grove/Franklin Rd. intersection and 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 safety and trespassing from future residents on their property. ii. Relocating the trash enclosure from the southwest corner of the development. iii. Privacy fencing along the southern boundary. iv. Public safety concerns with this development surrounding an ACHD drainage facility. v. Limited access from Locust Grove Road. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Commission modified DA provision #1a. to encourage Council to determine if the proposed density was appropriate for this property. ii. Commission modified DA provision # 1d. to have the applicant explore other fencing options along the west boundary and the ACHD drainage facility to mitigate impacts from the industrial uses and the existing barbed-wire fence around the ACHD property. iii. Commission modified condition #8n. to relocate the trash enclosure in the SWC to a more appropriate location as determined by Republic Services. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Jorre Delgado (Applicant’s Representative) – In agreement w/the conditions in the staff report. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0073, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 21, 2023: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0073, as presented during the hearing on March 21, 2023, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-007387 to the hearing date of ___________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #11: Millwood (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) at a gross density of 4.14 units/acre consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. This property is part of a larger infill area surrounded by City annexed land that has not yet redeveloped. The existing home is required to connect to City water & sewer service within 60 days of service becoming available and disconnect from private service in accord with City code. The existing home will also need to be re-addressed since access will no longer be provided from Victory Rd. All accessory structures will be removed from the site. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 17 building lots and two (2) common lots on 4.11 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 4,245 s.f. (0.10-acre) to 6,799 s.f. (0.16-acre) with a 34,706 s.f. (0.80-acre) lot where the existing home is proposed to remain. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. 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. ACHD is requiring ROW to be dedicated (but the street not constructed) for the future extension of Richardson from the east side of Tamayo Ct. to the east property line with future redevelopment of the property to the east. Access for the existing home should be taken solely from Tamayo Ct.; access via the easement from Victory should terminate except for emergency vehicle access only and bollards should be installed across the driveway to prohibit public access. Because this site is below 5 acres in size, UDC standards for common open space and site amenities do not apply. However, the applicant is proposing a total of 0.55-acre (or 13.5%) common open space for the development consisting of a 0.18-acre common area with a tot lot along the west boundary of the site with a pathway that stubs to the west boundary. This common area abuts common area planned in Teakwood Subdivision to the west. Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate with the developer of the adjacent property to not erect a fence in that location so that the common areas can be joined for a larger overall area. A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is required along the northeast boundary of the site along the Eight Mile Lateral consistent with the PMP. The Park’s Dept. recommends the off-site bridge across the lateral is widened or a separate pedestrian bridge is constructed to accommodate the 10’ wide pathway with NMID’s consent. Six (6) conceptual building elevation photos were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like as shown. A mix of single-story & 2-story homes are proposed with a mix of building materials, including stone veneer accents, and architectural elements. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Todd Lakey, Applicant’s Representative ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Mary DeChambeau iv. Written testimony: Delaine McLafferty v. Key Issue(s): traffic concerns related to the proposed development; the access easement that exists across the DeChambeau property; objection to the existing home remaining on the property because it doesn’t fit with the surrounding neighborhood; request for the pathway along the east side of the development to be fenced off from the waterway & the property to the east; the height of the homes along the east boundary of the development don’t fit with the rest of the neighborhood; and concerns pertaining to light impacts from the development on the property to the east. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Transitional lots sizes on the west and south boundary. ii. Continued use of the vehicular bridge as a pedestrian bridge. iii. Relocating or eliminating one lot from taking access from the common driveway in the southeast corner of the development. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. At Staff’s request, include a provision in the DA as follows: “Construction traffic for the re-development of this property shall access the site via the future extension of Richardson Street; access via the existing easement from E. Victory Rd. is prohibited.” ii. At Staff’s request, include a preliminary plat condition of approval for the final plat to be amended consistent with the lot configurations depicted on the revised common driveway exhibit in Section VIII.D.” At the applicant’s request, the Commission included a DA provision to limit the homes on the southern lots iii. to single story only. iv. Commission struck condition 2A removing the requirement to lose lots along the west and south boundary. v. Modified condition #10 - Coordinate with the Parks Department to determine if the existing bridge can be used for a pedestrian crossing. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since the last Council Hearing: Monty Morgner & Mary DeChambeau Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0089, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 21, 2023: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0089, as presented during the hearing on March 21, 2023, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0089 to the hearing date of March 21, 2023 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from February 14, 2023 for Sagarra (H-2022-0027) by Accomplice, located on the south side of W. Orchard Park Dr., west of N. Fox Run Way and east of N. Linder Rd. Application Materials: https:Hbit.ly/H-2022-0027 A. Request: Planned Unit Development for a residential community containing a mix of single- family detached, single-family attached, townhome and multi-family units with a reduction to the setback requirements in UDC Table 11-2A-6, and two private streets.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 114 building lots and 16 common lots (including 3 private street lots) on 17.49 acres in the R-8 and C-C zoning districts. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: March 21, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 9 PROJECT NAME: Sagarra (H-2022-0027) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name Kto' O'n-vr Ay I j", 2 � � v 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING February 14, 2023 Legend o Grp DATE: 0 DProject Location TO: Mayor&City Council 1 FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner ® � 208-884-5533 - SUBJECT: H-2022-0027 Sagarra—PUD,PP (aka Linder Village) ®® LOCATION: South side of W. Orchard Park Dr.,west of N. Fox Run Way, east of N. Linder o ee Rd.,in the NW 1/4 and NE 1/4 of Sectio ° 25,TAN.,R.1W. (Parcels #R5262501800,R5262502100 & ' #R6905540100) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat(PP) consisting of 114 building lots and 16 common lots(including 3 private street lots)on 17.49 acres in the R-8 and C-C zoning districts; and a Planned Unit Development(PUD)for a residential community containing a mix of single-family detached, single-family attached,townhome and multi-family units with a reduction to the setback requirements in UDC Table 11-2A-6. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 17.49-acres Existing Zoning R-8(Medium-Density Residential)&C-C(Community Business) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU-C)&Medium Density Residential(MDR) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(attached&detached units)(SFR)&multi- family residential(MFR) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 114 buildable lots& 16 common lots(including 3 private street lots) Phasing Plan(#of phases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units(type 146 units(32 SFR detached units,38 SFR attached,38 townhomes&38 of units) MFR units) Density(gross/net) _ 8.35(gross)/16.30(net) Common Open Space ik 4.34 acres(24.8%) Site Amenities 12'wide multi-use pathway along the south&east boundaries of the site, a swimming pool with changing rooms&restrooms,tool Page 1 Description Details library/community workshop,dog washing stations,outdoor activity complex,fire pits,BBQ area with tables and shade structures Physical Features(waterways, The North Slough crosses this property. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date 1/27/22 1 History(previous approvals) H-2017-0088(AZ,PP,VAR)(Development Agreement Inst.#2019- 02837 ;H-2021-0034(MDA,Inst.#2021-102392);FP-2020-0004 7 B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway or District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was prepared by Kittleson&Associates,Inc. in es/no 2017. Access Access is proposed via the extension of existing local streets,which connect to (Arterial/Collectors/State W. Orchard Park Dr.,a collector street;private streets are planned for internal Hwy/Local)(Existing and access to some of the units. Proposed) Traffic Level Of Service Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service "SH-20126 0-feet Expressway 1,406 N/A Chinden Boulevard Linder Road 0-feet Principal 924 Better than"E" Arterial Fox Run Way 0-feet Collector 105 Better than"D" Orchard Park Drive 1,935-feet Collector NIA Better than"D" "Arliss Ave 50-feet Local NIA NIA "Bergman Ave 960-feet Local NIA NIA "Director Street 52-feet Local 65 N/A Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is"E"(1,780 VPH). Acceptable level of service for a two-lane collector is"D"(425 VPH). ""ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for State Highways or Local Roadways. Stub N.Arliss Ave.,W.Director St.and N.Bergman Ave.,existing local streets,stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cros to this site from the south and east and will be extended with development. s Access Existing Road Network W. Orchard Park Dr.,a collector street,exists between N.Linder Rd.,an arterial street,and N.Fox Run Way,a collector street. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are no arterial streets that abut this site. Buffers Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)l Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Improvements • Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes and enhanced with pedestrian and bicycle improvements from Chinden Boulevard to State Street in the future. • Linder Road is scheduled in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes from Chinden Boulevard to State Street between 2026 to 2030. • Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to receive three bridge replacements over the Boise River,Eureka Canal,and the Phil lis Canal in the future. • Fox Run Way is scheduled in the IFYWP to receive bicycle corridor improvements from Pine Ave to Temple Drive in the future. • Cayuse Creek Drive is scheduled in the IFYWP to receive bikeway signage in 2026. Page 2 Description Details West Ada School District No comments were received from WASD • Distance(elem,ms,hs) • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled • Predicted#of students generated from proposed development Police Service • Distance to Police 5.6 miles Station • Police Response Time 4:37 minutes in an emergency(meets the goal of 3-5 minutes) • Calls for Service 2,465 within a mile of the site between 5/1/20 and 4/30/22 • Accessibility If climate controlled hallways are proposed in multi-family structures,PD requests further discussions with developer on plans for emergency police access. • Specialty/resource needs None—MPD can service this development&already serves this area. • Crimes 330 within a mile of the site between 5/l/20 and 4/30/22 • Crashes 128 within a mile of the site between 5/1/20 and 5/30/22 • Other For more info, see Section VIILD Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services • Sewer Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns Water • Distance to Water Services • Pressure Zone • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns Page 3 1 1 1 millifill a►���� �I�.r =uunum . I• �■ ���i■■�"�il�lllllllll\►,.��i, = ' �_ - r.r•IP�',�. CHINDEE '—T_ C INDE ♦��'�' �1 'G� . '��- nlpti lulu- ♦ LU -ollnnll■u000 oa*♦ �11 �■ rnllnul■:S'J -■nunnlm 1 11■ 1 ♦ %r •+;atn ruxul ul►` O - hill - • D - wrnm■nrr - rlumlunr�� = •=��� • " � ♦ �i Ip�y �INIIIIIIIIr- %��-`.• ♦ ♦+ ♦ ,r��Or+mil ,L !r;1111u■ ♦♦fllllllllSO'p ♦♦�i��i�i�♦♦ ♦♦♦ �i 1;. r ■llll■ll►y J�/IIIIIIIII�r�i♦♦i �•i��i�i�♦♦♦��i♦Q♦♦ - 11111111 . ■ �11111111 ♦rye _ ♦ ♦•i4 _ ♦��■ Ilgir�:��lp r11r1a►►per Ilry��a���1�r11r1a►p • 1 . �� 'l/+rmul � ,:i=_= C_ I rr hull ,■, ■r- __ IIIIIIIIIit .-�^ ' • -• •• _111111111�, ■,����-_ _ • ,� ��-� ■11111111111: ■� c�11111 11 �'� ?11111111111 ■� _■■�1111 1 ���� 11111111111_ ■ =11111111111. ■ _ i.*���`1111111111{\ ��� - ■,1OMNI T�/1111111111r1,.��.,� a1 ■■ i,,,i,iii, ,jinni mile ♦ O�j r IS •�i♦�{{�Ir�I L 'e= ttHN_nnm �+♦t�♦i a�►0� '-�� ._��'��lrl=1111 ♦f���=\��� �: r■.��111 11-1r oil IIg111r 11 �� -J� ■ IR♦ �l��•- r ,1"I��'�n■1■r■Ila r�ir��■��a1�♦�r :114♦♦i-,,�+■4_Z - moon uouo mf�♦■� . 1♦9f ■�w uuunu�J _munnml o■uur n1�D♦�r r1�.�•s•�•+:rr; �4011111n-�� ��1111111111q■11■IIp■■IIl♦ ♦ r♦a f; f1 w■Illlr■111\` R� Illlllllr • Vn \� gllnnu_or111 li r ►��i ♦i ■- rrluu■m - �rti+♦i♦i 4 i• ♦41 q - - ♦♦i♦i ♦ � rq v �■ C- �- ♦ ♦•Ilrpi ♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦I .1,7: rNn u ■= -I �-I� ♦ •♦♦ ♦♦ I�Yljl ainu■lu■� I■■1 ��p�♦cur►♦ �i♦ ♦♦ err ;•tJ hrrnmrm J I-i]ri� ►��-�r♦i♦ ♦♦♦�����♦♦��♦♦�jl#.U► Muunu■. �I■■1 % �-�:�.♦��O��♦♦O♦♦ It• CSC I � +_. ♦p �♦ ♦♦ y R ril�m n*� �■ f11111111�-r ♦pOO�i���I♦rN rlrllnu na�r fllllllll�C.-i �i�i�i♦i♦♦♦,�♦;i + ♦j .•• �psi��� ♦�� ♦ Q■�■ _■■�+9j -.. 1♦ p� i�♦ ♦♦ ♦ ;w r\ -- JI11111111r1►�►i♦ ♦ �i♦i4�♦♦♦�i♦1 r• ■uw l�►r ��IIIIIIIIII� •i♦♦i �•♦pips••♦•���p♦f �• Irro I�b i � •�4 p G♦ ���i p♦ full• ■ �I ♦fi 4 �i�i �i0♦i♦•to{ff. m■■n.�� � �♦���i�O� �i♦p��♦�♦��� ■r■r■■■r\� ♦ ♦♦j I� ♦ ♦I I�♦♦♦♦� rrr■■�79 �►I��il� ♦ � I♦��♦1�♦�♦�C�� ■•iiiii 'e°� 1��i��i�r�♦`♦ ,I,♦,��♦i♦♦�♦,���?I IIIIr■e'_f -/+�4����'♦i� ,♦♦♦�04��,'+• - �1111■�=er -= �i♦�♦I� ♦��'= ��_rinlr■� �II�` _�,l��i♦jI ♦�4 i��1�__- ■■■11■r� ■11� � ♦ii���♦�♦ i�4�i�i �C= IIIna ��i♦i�♦j ii�4ii�ii,��i llll■R _ ��� ♦j q�ip�ii�i— 11 i /_ r •i r ' it � i r .1 III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 11/16/2022 1/29/2023 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 11/10/2022 1/26/2023 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 11/2/2022 1/19/2023 Nextdoor posting 11/10/2022 1/30/2023 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) Land Use: The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates the majority of this site as Medium Density Residential(MDR)with some Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) on the west end. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. The 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 have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to(up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted in Figure 3C. Transportation: ACHD's Master Street Map doesn't depict any collector streets planned across this site. Valley Connect 2.0 identifies a future express bus route on Chinden Blvd. and secondary bus route on Linder Rd. The higher density is supportive of future transit service. A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was prepared by Kittleson&Associates,Inc. in 2017. Proposed Development: The Applicant proposes to develop the site with a mix of residential uses consisting of single-family detached and attached homes,townhomes, and multi-family apartments/condos at a gross density of 8.35 units per acre consistent with the density desired in MDR and MU-C designated areas and in the development agreement. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Urban services are available to be provided upon development. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."(3.07.00) The proposed residential development should be compatible with existing adjacent residential uses. The proposed site design, which provides a transition in density and single-family detached homes with a 35 foot wide linear common area between the proposed development and the existing development with single-family detached homes, should minimize conflicts. Page 5 • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.0213) The proposed development will provide housing in close proximity to the MU-C designated area to the north where a mix of uses are planned, which will reduce vehicle trips and enhance overall livability and sustainability. • "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A) The proposed site plan depicts a linear common area with a pedestrian pathway along the south and eastperimeter boundaries of the site, which will connect with pedestrian facilities to the north in the mixed-use development. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available to this site and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response times for Police and Fire Dept. fall within established response time goals. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities." (2.02.01A) Safe pathway connections should be provided from the proposed development to the mixed-use development to the north. Usable open space and quality amenities are proposed. • "Encourage the development of high quality, dense residential and mixed-use areas near in and around Downtown,near employment, large shopping centers,public open spaces and parks, and along major transportation corridors, as shown on the Future Land Use Map."(2.02.01E) The proposed residential development is located in close proximity to employment, shopping, restaurant and civic uses to the north and near US 20-26/Chinden Blvd., a major transportation corridor. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban infrastructure as noted is required to be provided with development in accord with UDC standards. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area per the analysis above and with the existing development agreement for this site. Page 6 V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 2,Block 2 and Lot 1,Block 3,Linder Village Subdivision and Lot 1,Block 2,Paramount Point Subdivision. The plat consists of 114 building lots and 16 common lots(including 3 lots for private streets)on 17.49 acres of land in the R-8 and C-C zoning districts. Note:ACHD has provided written consent for the right-of-way for N. Bergman Ave. to be included in the proposed plat. The Applicant proposes to develop the project in two(2)phases with the western portion of the site first, followed by the eastern portion of the site, as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.A. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing street buffer along W. Orchard Park Dr. on this site consisting of an 8-foot wide parkway and 5-foot wide detached sidewalk with grass on the back side of the sidewalk; street trees are provided within the buffer. The C-C zoned lot(Lot 8,Block 4)was fully landscaped with Paramount Point Subdivision(SHP-2020-0082),the commercial development to the north. North Bergman Ave.has been extended through this site. There are no existing structures on the site.Note: The Applicant's narrative incorrectly states a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway exists along W. Orchard Park Dr. Dimensional Standards: Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district.A reduction to the setback requirements in UDC Table 11-2A-6 is requested with the PUD request(see below). The final plat should graphically depict zero(0) lot lines on internal lot lines where single-family attached and townhome structures are proposed(i.e. where structures will span across lot lines). Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 unless otherwise modified through the proposed PUD. Access(UDC 11-3A_3): Access is proposed via the extension of two existing local public streets,N. Arliss Ave. and W. Director St., and N. Bergman Ave. Two(2)local public street accesses(i.e.N. Bergman Ave. and N.Arctic Fox Way) are proposed via W. Orchard Park, a collector street. Private streets are planned for internal access off the public streets; an application for such will be submitted with the final plat application. All private streets shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. The Applicant should work with ACHD and the Fire Dept. on traffic calming measures to slow traffic on Bergman Ave. and W.Bacall St. as noted in the Development Agreement.Details of such should be included with and depicted on the final plat. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan doesn't depict any pathways across this site.A 12-foot wide asphalt access road/pathway is proposed within the linear common area along the south and east boundaries of the site in accord with the development agreement. Several micro-paths are proposed for internal connectivity and access to the sidewalk along Orchard Park Dr. and to the pathway along the south and east boundaries of the site; micro-paths on private building lots should be depicted in public use easements on the plat.Internal pedestrian pathways are also proposed within the multi-family portion of the development. The Applicant plans to propose two(2)crossings across Orchard Park Dr. for connectivity between the proposed residential development and the mixed-use development to the north with one or both being Page 7 smartwalks. The first is proposed just south of the library and the second just west of Bergman with the intention of connecting the residential development to a pathway to the east of The Barn and to the west of the live/work units to create an animated north/south pathway bringing life to the live/work units as well as a connection to the promenade connecting The Collection Library plaza,north promenade of The Barn and continuing through the east 13.7 acre proposed mixed use site (see pedestrian connectivity exhibit in Section VII.G). The Applicant should work with ACHD on the location and design of these crossings. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): A detached 5-foot wide sidewalk exists along W. Orchard Park Dr., a collector street, along the northern boundary of the site.Attached sidewalks are proposed along local streets. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A street buffer exists along W. Orchard Park Dr., a collector street,that includes an 8-foot wide parkway, detached 5-foot wide sidewalk and landscaping on the back side of the sidewalk with street trees. Enhanced landscaping should be provided within the buffer in accord with the updated standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and additional area added if needed to provide a minimum 20-foot wide buffer. Street buffers are required to be maintained by the property owner or business owners' association. Landscaping is required to be installed along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-12C. Landscaping is required in common open space areas in accord with the updated standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5B.3,which requires a minimum of one deciduous shade tree for every 5,000 square feet of area with a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover. The Landscape Requirements table on the landscape plan and the Site Amenity Plan should be updated to reflect compliance with the updated standard. There are no existing trees on the site to be removed or that require mitigation. Common Open Space(UDC 11-3G-3B): A minimum of 15%qualified open space is required in the R-8 district to be provided within the development per UDC Table 11-3G-3 that meets the quality standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3A.2. Based on 16.79 acres,which excludes the 0.70-acre C-C zoned common lot(Lot 8,Block 4), a minimum of 2.52- acres of qualified open space is required. A total of 4.34 acres of open space is depicted on the open space exhibit included in Section VII.C; however, some of these areas(lots-blocks) do not qualify toward the minimum standards as follows: • 1-1, 1-3 and 2-4(multi-use pathways 11-3G-3B.3b): The referenced code section pertains to buffers along collector and arterial streets—these common area lots are along the south&east perimeter boundaries and are not street buffers. The correct code section is 11-3G-3B.Ie(linear open space), which requires the area to be landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B in order to qualify.No trees are allowed within this area due to the irrigation easement that encompasses the area. In order for this area to qualify, an additional 5-feet would need to be provided outside of the easement area for trees and shrubs would also need to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. This isn't feasible due to an IPCO easement that runs alongside the irrigation easement,which also presumably doesn't allow trees. This area cannot be counted unless otherwise approved through alternative compliance. * 9-1, 39-5, 26-2, 28-2, 10-5, 11-5, 18-5 and 19-5 (micro-pathway&landscaping): 26-2 doesn't have a minimum width of 20-feet,therefore,it doesn't qualify; 10-5, 11-5,28-2, 18-5 and 19-5 are all private building lots,which don't qualify—the pathways should be placed in public pedestrian easements and should be a minimum width of 20-feet in order to qualify. (only 0.071-acre qualifies: 9-1 &39-5) • 1-2,2-5 and 1-4(landscape buffer along collector road): the collector street buffer can only be counted if it meets all of the enhanced buffer requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.3; otherwise it Page 8 does not qualify. A 5-foot wide detached sidewalk was constructed in the buffer—unless this is replaced with a 10-foot wide pathway and enhanced landscaping and amenities are provided per the aforementioned standards,this area cannot be counted. * 8-4 (landscape common lot greater than 50' x 100' in area): This area is not integrated into the development, therefore,it doesn't qualify. * 7-2 (micro-path connection): this 0.04-acre area qualifies. • 3-5 (parking): the parking area does not qualify but the tool share/bike station/dog wash does qualify. • 24-5 (clubhouse/pool/grass play area/parking): this 0.48-acre area qualifies. The common open space exhibit is not approved as submitted and should be revised to comply with the common open space standards prior to the City Council hearing; or an application for alternative compliance to these standards may be submitted if the proposed design includes innovative design features based on"new urbanism", "neotraditional design",or other architectural and/or site designs that promote walkable and mixed use neighborhoods(see UDC 11-5B-5 for more information). Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-4)• A minimum of three (3)points of site amenities are required based on 17.49-acres of development area from the Site Amenities and Point Value Table 11-3G-4. A linear open space area is proposed along the south and east boundaries of the site with a 2,309-foot long multi-use pathway(4 points),which meets the minimum standards. Other site amenities are proposed within the multi family development(see analysis in Section V.B below). Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-IS): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Geotechnical EngineerinRoo rt for the subdivision. Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-I I C. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. This property lies within the Settler's Irrigation District boundary. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Street lights shall be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances/ Waterways(UDC It It The North Slough crosses this site and was relocated and piped along the south and east boundaries of the site;the easement for such is depicted on the plat. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B.3,unless otherwise waived by City Council. This project is not within the floodplain. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. There is an existing wood fence around the perimeter of the development that is proposed to remain; this fence should be protected during construction. B. Planned Unit Development(PUD): A Planned Unit Development(PUD)is proposed for a residential community consisting of a total of 146 dwelling units on 17.5 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Page 9 A request for a reduction to the setback requirements for the R-8 zoning district in UDC Table 11-2A-6 is included with the PUD application(see table below and full exhibit in Section VILE). Dimensions listed as minimum;however,the typical dimension will be greater. Deviations to the setbacks may be approved with the exception that along the periphery of the development,the applicable setbacks as established by the district shall not be reduced per UDC 11-74A.1.Because common lots are proposed around the periphery of the development, deviations from setbacks are allowed for adjacent building lots. SETBACK INFORMATION N-eluuo xEYuesT1 pNovoseo NOYes: alaeou Towxuoues ouIN nulu s a oul' ors msAcx oFccuuoN LOTuwlcNnm cxoNr eecx eFcuRe - MooLe—-N... NwoMcs 6 AMIM NIN aMu1x AUIN sraeEr sloe sereAcx esau utu[ri warm 1 sTReeT a�TracAcram MIN - 4GbIL0iAFV.FS d'I"NIN WP fi'MIM lV" I. - GONittYARp1HEAWJATEA LON-0O6 R' WP 6 r ttr TNEREARE5GARAEf SPACEG AT iNE NGOWA IFAGgVpO LOGIWN W/5'S£!@4[M - SIN—FAMILY IIM 1P ]a' 6 d 17 The uses within the PUD are proposed to be interconnected through a system of local and private streets and pedestrian pathways as desired in UDC 11-7-4A.3 (see preliminary plat in Section VII.A and pedestrian connectivity exhibit in Section VII.G). Buildings are clustered to consolidate small open spaces into larger,more usable areas for common use and enjoyment in accord with UDC 11-7-4A.4. Private Open Space(UDC 11-7-4B): In addition to the common open space and site amenity standards in UDC 11-3G-3, a minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each residential unit.This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios,decks, and enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways do not count toward this requirement. Residential Use Standards (UDC 11-7-4C1: Typically,the UDC does not allow multi-family developments in the R-8 zoning district; however,multi-family dwellings may be allowed in the R-8 district when included in a PUD per UDC Table 11-2A-2,note#2 and UDC 11-7-4C.1. Single-family detached/attached and townhomes are listed as principal permitted uses in the R-8 district. A variety of housing types are proposed,including single-family detached(32 units), single-family attached (38 units),townhome(38 units) and multi-family(38 units)units. The gross density of the proposed development is 8.35 units per acre;the net density is 16.3 units per acre. A density bonus is not requested or approved; dedication of land for public use is not proposed. If some of the multi-family units are proposed to be condominiumized, a short plat shall be submitted where all buildings are constructed or have received building permits for construction as set forth in UDC 11-6B-5 Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-27): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff's analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: Site Design: 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.Lesser setbacks are proposed with the PUD(see Section VII.E for more information). 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 Page 10 screened from view from a public street. The plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should demonstrate compliance with this standard. 3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios,decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. Compliance with this standard is required. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space.Some of the parking areas in the multi family development were included in the common open space calculations and should be removed from the calculations and not be counted. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate,designated and screened area. The Applicant should comply with this requirement. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 shown below. Staff ryee,,..m end-x. M 964i e*hibit in Seetio n W. Use And Form N umber of Bedrooms(Per unit) Required Parking Spaces Dwelling,duplex and dwelling,single-family(detached,attached,townhouse) 1/2 2 per dwelling unit at least 1 in an enclosed garage,other space maybe enclosed or a minimum 10-foot by 20 footparking pad 3/4 4 per dwelling unit at least 2 in an enclosed garage,other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10-foot by 20-fo0t parking pad 5+ 6 per dwelling unit at least 3 in an enclosed garage,other spaces may he enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 footparking pad Studio 1 per dwelling unit Dwelling.multifamily 3(triplex,fourplex,apartments,etc.) 1 1.5 per dwelling unit:at least 1 in a covered carport or garage /3 2 per dwelling unit at least 1 in a covered carport or garage per dwelling unit at least 2 in a covered carport or garage Guest spaces 1 per 10 dwelling units cotes: the Me,of the garage or carport required for dwelling units shall be measured by exterior dimensnns and shall be at least ten(I o)feet by[very(20)feet for a one-space garage or carport and 20 feet by 20 feet for a two-space garage or carport. The parking pad shall be measured from edge of sidewalk or edge of paved travel lane(public street,private street,or alley)where no sidewalk exists.For alley accessed properties the parking pad is not required in front of the garage if the garage is located at the five-foot setback to the rear property line;the required parking pad must be provided along the side of the garage unless equivalent off-street parking,as determined by the Director,is provided in accord with SeMon 11-3C-5 Table 11-3C-5 of this Article. 3 For condominium pmjIthe required number of parking spaces shall be determined by the Director based on the proposed development if the proposed development is similar to asingic,family develapment,such standard,shall apply.if the proposed development is similar to multifamily apartment complex,such standards shall apply. The required number of p,rking,p,c,,forth,residential portion of a vertically integrated project shall be in addition to that required for nonresidential uses as listed in s,b,,cl,n B of this section. i:q submi The proposed off-street parking complies with and exceeds the minimum standards by 16 spaces; an additional 122 on-street parking spaces are also available (see Section VIT F). 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. I A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) The site amenity plan included in Section VILD does not depict these items;a revised plan should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that includes these items. Page 11 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 10%of the gross land area for multi-family developments of 5 acres of more. The proposed development is exempt from this standard because a single-family development is concurrently proposed, which requires compliance with the minimum open space standards in UDC 11-3G-3 (see above analysis in Section VA). Common open space areas are also required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 27C.2,which state that open space areas must be integrated into the development as a priority and not for the use of land after all other elements of the development have been designed. These areas should have direct pedestrian access,be highly visible,comply with CPTED standards and support a range of leisure and play activities and uses—irregular shaped,disconnected or isolated open spaces do not meet the standard. Open space areas should be accessible and well connected throughout the development(i.e. centrally located,accessible by pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street). Open space areas should promote the health and well- being of its residents and support active and passive uses for recreation, social gathering and relaxation to serve the development. The proposed common open space meets these standards. All multi-family projects over 20 units are required to provide at least one (1)common grassy area of at least 5,000 s.f. in area that's integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages,which may be included in the minimum required open space. The area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the development as determined by the decision-making body. The Applicant proposes one (1) common open space area (Lot 8, Block 4) at the northeast corner of the development consisting of 30,384 sf. that meets the size requirement but is not integrated into the site design.Although the area is included in the proposed plat, it was developed with and appears to be part of the adjacent commercial development(Paramount Point subdivision). Therefore,Staff recommends a minimum 5,000 square foot common area is proposed that complies with this standard. In addition to the baseline open space requirement, a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area.All multi family units contain more than 500 square feet(sf.) of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.A total of 38 units contain between 500 and 1,200 s f of living area; therefore, a minimum of 9,500 sf. (or 0.22-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 contain more than 1,200 sf of living area. At a minimum, a total of 9,500 sf. (or 0.22-acre) of qualified outdoor common open space is required to be provided per this standard. This is in addition to the requirements in UDC 11-3G- 3C. Overall, a minimum of 2.74-acres of qualified open space is required that complies with the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B and 11-4-3-27C.A total of 4.34-acres of qualified open space is depicted on the qualified open space exhibit;however, some of these areas do not qualify as noted in Section VA above. The open space exhibit should be revised prior to the City Council hearing to only include qualified open space that complies with the aforementioned standards. 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 open space exhibit should be revised Page 12 to exclude areas that are not a minimum of 400 sf. and that don't meet the dimensional width and length standard. 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. An exhibit shall be submitted demonstrating compliance with this standard for each phase of development prior to the City Council hearing.If changes are necessary to the phasing plan to comply with this standard, a revised phasing plan should be submitted. 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) The street buffer along W. Orchard Park Dr., a collector street, was constructed with the previous subdivision (Linder Village) and does not include a berm; the buffer is included in the common open space calculations. Staff recommends the buffer is allowed to count toward the minimum standards if enhanced landscaping is provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.3 as recommended. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. (5) Dog park with waste station. (6) Commercial outdoor kitchen. (7) Fitness course. (8) Enclosed storage. b. Open space: (1) Community garden. (2) Ponds or water features. (3) Plaza. (4) Picnic area including tables,benches, landscaping and a structure for shade. c. Recreation: (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. d. Multi-modal amenity standards: (1) Bicycle repair station. Page 13 (2) Park and ride lot. (3) Sheltered transit stop (4) Charging stations for electric vehicles 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two(2)amenities shall be provided from two (2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20) and seventy-five(75)units,three(3) amenities shall be provided,with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy-five(75)units or more, four(4)amenities shall be provided,with at least one from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision-making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) A total of 38 multi family units are proposed; therefore, a minimum of three (3)site amenities are required, one from each category. Proposed site amenities consist of a swimming pool with changing rooms and restrooms; walking trails/pathways; a community workshop building that will allow for bicycle repair, woodworking, etc.; a dog wash station and related amenities for pet care; a BBQ area with tables and a shade structure; a dedicated open space area around the pool area for fire pits; and another dedicated open space area for bike parking, bench seating, tables, moveable planters and string lights, which exceeds the minimum standards. E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(Y)wide. b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches (24")shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict landscaping in accord with these standards. F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be installed with the subdivision plat as noted above in Section V.A. Landscaping is required to be installed along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-12C. The common area lot along the south and east boundaries of the site where a 12-foot wide access Page 14 road/multi-use pathway is proposed is encompassed by an irrigation easement that prohibits trees within the easement. Prior to the City Council hearing,an Alternative Compliance application should be submitted to relocate the trees required in this area to along micro-paths within the development, as proposed; shrubs and other plantings should be provided within this area if allowed by the easement holder in accord with UDC 11-3B-12C.2. Landscaping is required in common open space areas in accord with the updated standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5B.3,which requires a minimum of one deciduous shade tree for every 5,000 square feet of area with a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover. The Landscape Requirements table on the landscape plan and the Site Amenity Plan should be updated to reflect compliance with the updated standard. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 5-foot tall fence is proposed around the swimming pool; the fence is required to comply with the building code requirements for such. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed residential structures,included in Section VII.H. A mix of 1-, 2-and 3-story structures are proposed in a variety of construction materials and styles. To ensure quality of design for an exemplary development, Staff recommends final design of all structures comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual,unless otherwise approved through a design standard exception.The Applicant's narrative includes a request for exceptions to design standards#R3.IE and#R3.1F in the Architectural Standards Manual;these exceptions should be included with the Design Review application and are not approved with this application. A Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of all structures.A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application is required to be submitted for the multi-family structures along with the Design Review application; one(1)CZC may be submitted for the overall multi-family development if desired. In approving the planned development,the Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, additional conditions,bonds,and safeguards in conformity with this title that: 1. Minimize adverse impact of the use on other property. 2. Control the sequence and timing of the use. 3. Control the duration of the use. 4. Assure that the use and the property in which the use is located is maintained properly. 5. Designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property development. 6. Require the provision for on site or off-site public facilities or services. 7. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required in this title. 8. Require mitigation of adverse impacts of the proposed development upon service delivery by any political subdivision, including school districts,which provides services within the city. Because like uses (i.e. single-family detached homes) are proposed to existing abutting single-family detached homes in Paramount Subdivision and a transition in housing types and density is proposed along with a 35 foot wide linear common open space area as a separation and buffer, Staff is not recommending any additional conditions to minimize any adverse impacts of the use on adjacent properties. Page 15 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat and planned unit development with the conditions noted in Section VIII,per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on December 1,2022 and January 5,2023.At the public hearing on January 5',the Commission moved to recommend aqpproval of the subject PP and PUD requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Michael Slavin,Tony Tseng b. In opposition:None C. Commenting. Doug Jones,Chris Eastman, Sally Reynolds,Julie Duran, Shane Nye and Jennifer Card,Lisa Metcalf,Kelly CgMenter,Justin Carpenter d. Written testimony: Michael&Linda Arnold,Leah Balecha,Daniel Briggs,Julie Duran. Matt Mueller, Scott Fuller,and Shane&Julia Duty e. Staff presenting gpplication: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Request for denial of the project as currently submitted due to the following reasons: 1) project isn't consistent with the MDR FLUM designation and would be more gppropriate in the MHDR designation; 2, the proposed parking isn't sufficient for the proposed development and will result in substantial on-street parking that will contribute to congestion and make travelingthrough hrough the community difficult; 3, the proposed contemporary modern design of the single-family homes are not harmonious with the design of existing single-family homes in the adjacent Paramount subdivision; 4)on-street parking along Bergman should not be allowed due to the curvature of the street which will not allow two vehicles traveling in opposite directions to easily pass one another if there are cars parked on either side if the road on the curve; and 5, belief that too many residential units are proposed in this area,which will not complement the existing neighborhood and will negatively impact the community's livability. b. Increase traffic, density and on-street parking on N. Bergman Ave. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Update the parking plan to ensure the project is adequate parked per UDC standards. b. Update open space exhibit to ensure the project meets the open space standards. C. Code complaint fencing along the south and east boundary of the proposed development. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. The Commission required pedestrian lighting to be installed along the pathway along the south and east perimeter boundaries of the subdivision; b. The Commission directed the Applicant to coordinate with ACHD on installing `no parking" signs on the public streets where the"s"or 90-degree curves are located(i.e. N. Bergman Ave.,N. Arctic Fox Way&N. Arliss Ave.); C. The Commission directed the Applicant to continue working with abutting neighbors on repairing the existingfg that was damaged duringtiling iling of the North Slough. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 16 VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(dated: 9/19/22)&Phasing Plan PRELi MINARY PLAT FOR SAGARRA SLJ601VISION a w!lLnT of corm z_a of acoeK�.Aeao core.-3 Qo w�oe,c a,c.NOEw v°Lco.ce aa.aamelor+ -_ n MouwT Po•NT a�.ao�vlaior+ m�TunTlrJ IN Twe NW}nNo Nf_$aF m�GT1oN as.Tow,aewlP a N wTn.rss.kG!1 wlsT, saiaE M�•'�Ial-su,non eoY�eTv.fowHo � c�� ' Legend Notes X. 33147 Standard Local Street n 9 _, VRMFY map ® 25•PrWate Street(Phase 11 ��.---.f,•®•• I 17 ","`••.. 26•Prlvata Street 1Pheae 2J n ,•...•. :_:.._ _ ___ Kp W� YA 4 a .I I , Contacts �� r - __.�, � _f� __— _ _k - � __ -.v`sctvaa� �^. me�ou •,ow PRELIrA1NARY PLAT-PNASE 7 PP.7 � u Phasing Plan Parcels Included iW1Y... 1,,.1. '� _� t f.f •tom �I i I - _ -I.1��._.._. 494 `-y'�'� ! - ' � wva�.o.,�,-✓m+ ._.� ,gz- III bl _ PRELIMINARY PLAT-PHASE 2 _ I` PP.2 Page 17 PNORTH PARCEL#6 PARCEL#5 PARCEL#4 PARCEL#Z PARCEL#3 PARCEL#1 (INCLUDES EXISTING N.BERGMAN AVE. ROW) DEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MODIFY THE PHASING PLAN BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS Page 18 B. Landscape Plan(dated: 3/22/2022) -REVISED LANDSCAPE NOTES L..o^zL'rz CLAND CEAPEIREUUIIRREMEWS STACKo ROCK LANDSCAPE PLAN-OVERALL I I N LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN � .a�. AP- C3 r a_ a s I SC.4PE PLAN LANDSCAPE - LANDSCAPE PLAN , I� � �LANDS PLAN 1 ESCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN r LANDSCAPE PLAN -OVERALL I I L— ---------1------------ ------ ------ ------------ ------------J LD rT_C1 L100 Page 19 —r--------------------------------------------- l— I I f----- .,...._...,..,.�_._... I .®..��... ---------�— ...ems,.......1".. m-A 0 • • — I I C¢7 a • I I N ® I I __—_—___------•--------------- ____________ ae • 4 I ' � / I I I UNoscnPE I g,m,�J II I II I anN-nNEa2 I I o o _ L102 r----------------------------------------------------T- _ I I I I I I I I _ I I I � - • I i� m o I 0 I _ LANNSGAPE _J______________ 0 0 A—. L104 Page 20 C7 long® C07 a■■■® CO] a■■■� a■■■® ® a■■■MCCOMMIZE ova■■■� .`>'Yd�B; M�EEI Its i �A ®tea■®�o� -- ® a■■�� ova■■■� ®tea■■©� �a� o�■■■vim � •-- ` s: o�■■■vim . gloom v®a■■a® KI®a■■a® ®a■■■® ■ , G � � Y , � EO® ®a■■■® 1�`� 1N ► ova■■■� ' " �� ���_ ,s ®tea■®�� I r' _ `— . ®tea■■�� �I �� �:, , ,�: __. ova■■■� ..a 'i MEN��IIIGL. : . IIIEI ®®a■■ate " --� ova■■O® `T i'1 1 1 ' 11 '1�_ 1 1 r mmm 0�O■■O® — _ -s s o�■■■NM — — -- 0��■■■® ,. r�`.':s.::3t .a,„:, .r;_.: .._ii_.. .:. ,:e .r ..s._.3�_ . ,r�c..::...._iL!�n. --- ___ -- '- — -------------f-- __ ______________ I s7ncK NocK � I -- ---------- • _ I I • I � I o I ® I s I PUN ANEP 7 I ' I —Ll07 I I .. 0 I ..�....... 0 I 0 m I I _ I I —• I I o I I ® I I I ® e I I ¢ • I I e.. • � I � I I • _ I I o m. I I UNOSCAPE I I PUN-AREAS I I 0 f EO 0 L108 Page 22 A STAY. ROCK r�l BALLS BURLAP TREE PLANTING � lZ SHRUB PLANTING �® /3�PLANTER ISLAND DETAIL � 4:STEEL IAIJDSCAPE EGGING N C CD a JIB .�, Ll� �,.JI .,m DETAILS 1"'1 �51,5'POOL FENCE L150 Page 23 C. Common Open Space Exhibit(dated: 2/"�2 12/21/2022)—REVISED STAC oROCK OPEN SPACE SUMMARY PHASE 1 OPEN SPACE SUMMARY OVERALL OPEN SPACE SUMMARY PHASE 2_ . PATHWAY LEGEND: IM ' Q I i I _ __ __II __—__— _—___� _� -•.""�� -. T— - -_ __ .. -- _____ OPEN SPACE T �T EXHIBIT- OVERALLrLrLIZf� SEX-1.0 Page 24 OPEN SPACE SUMMARY PHASE 1: PAiHWAV LEGEND' . ��ao�=��� es I„ ' II_ I ______ ____ - O 7 — I . - I , SPACE F —BR- \� P-SE I 1YLTL�� �EX-1.1 W EN SPACE SUMMARY PHASE 2' ■ss ..aMum�ncu.m� .w oas m. � - . '�mwo�_®�o��_an \b nwcw exouP 3 F 1 �I I f Z ! / ——— N I � r�. I ' l 'I i � I i i 11 R—'Lr1 EX-12 Page 25 D. Site Amenity Exhibit LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS PI_ _ OPEN SPACE SUMMARY. .,'=R.E.am..c.m.ewwucmwz .e,�,,,x.mm,amw..n.we •�,••,"`•,•,:"C6 ago .o„-,G. n If 1110[I wa._..00...�. ..� LANDSCAPE MATERIALS LEGEND' �\ � o a Q Z 2 � € VJ co cc PUD SITEAMENITY pp5 PLAN T7 fZl—L�� L160 Page 26 E. Proposed Reductions to R-8 Setbacks PHASE a i a fill �'C i ij � I Development setback diagram era..cK INMR TION w ai—.E M f - ocu�ow.urn ..uiH wn s uw ov r u�N LL � coum�.wwxE.ew.TEacoHvos v w. a ,o .Hma.Hrso.«.cT SH.ces..�He Huow..eH�wlooiee.,wk wis sne.cH � — u .a,e .sriccu�:He...HOWH,Hisis�is.Eo.sTME��rviMW.HE nT�u�oi..«s�oHw�«BE aaE..Eq,�..«.His .rc,o ;�,� THE DO-EA.wrx He+ EP.caua*M NDO One VUO-Inrar---Roan--ERIHe—nrn1— o1 Page 27 F. Parking Diagram—REVISED Sagarra I Parking Analysis wan aoq'd nml emuided Req'd G.- Cmered Covered in T Covered in Packing Parking Parking PhaseI Phase ll Do radar Guest Total Provided Carport., Caw— u3 it Gesig nation Bed Cevnt Faller Factor factor IC.unq [[.wll Total ou, Requl,ed Required Total Required Gn511e Garage Garage Extra Spares Two Pack 1—h—, 2 2 OA 1.0 16 22 38 )6 ❑.0 ]6 ]6 3R 16 38 kibbo�Tawehomes 2 2 0.0 1.0 16 19 39 70 0,0 70 TO 35 10 35 M.ddle Thra.Tounhomes 0 2 t11 11 3 0 3 6 1 0 6 6 3 6 3 Multifamily-Headwater 1 T.5 DI 1.0 3 0 1 5 03 S S 3 — 3 Muklfamiiy-Headwater 2- 2 0.1 1.0 2 -0,. A 4 0.2 4 4 2 2 $FN GaragY Spacaal k/J4 4 G.0 - 13 ]9 32 in 12 -1 — 32 . 33 Total1 35 41 146 352 3,9 355 3111 1 146 2;41 108 Total Provided-OR We 372 o p 1 Total Reg utrad 355 47 76 Tot al AvailaMParking 493 I 'I I :I - CLPJJ - -- —�--E— — ----I '—_ — 1 — V. -- -- — — ---- _ --� I --1 -, Page 28 G. Vehicular&Pedestrian Circulation Plan HIGH DESERT DEVELOPMENT 1 1 28 NOVEMBER,2022 a I ---- CHINDEN IMPROVEMENTS PER . o . o STARS AGREEMENT—= -- — - 11I I H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I.......I..I I..I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- - J f fin uTI muwlllllh a IwE uu IDu"III � an`� ' ---- � °� ,[ uulnalnlnr 1- ° FUTURE OFFICEIRE TAILI MULTI FAMILY _ DEVELOPMENT = 1 ImIf 11 N+9 OjIf DI uu�nunnnnmuuP 7\ z z \�`J\++,llllllllllltll' G C- � d c� 1 '6 / 1 S� — CONNEC ION POINTTO C = ? ----+JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII' — ADJACENT PARCEL a r � w LOT 2 ; �Sa c _ Z a ° I�4-vIHInIIHHHI,,,J�IIr� nrr'n m Y.+++++a+\nlHnlutIHNNNnun+++p++ I. .._ - L-'�f-9 = _ \+``+``,+`++H,I��11�INn nnn N�NTNTN�N1�NNntIIHn NInfN Nnlnn Nninnlnnl+ - = ...I ( I I IIIII N IIIH FUTURE RESIDENTIAL =11111111n FUTURE RESIDENTIAL 1 Illi EXISTING RonowAv DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT o EXTENSION CONNECTION POINT TO _ _ - I11 I IIIII II I1111 I 1111 I IIIII I 'Illl lll� y llllll 1111 �n11L01111 \ '� .al Y ++\�+` 2 \\1t11111111 11 I lllll llllll)........—........... I Ill)llnlllllllllllllllll11......11ll+� AnJAGENT 1" _ - -- \1V\ �lI II llllll _ 1111#IIII ^ SUBDIVISION �� _ l+I HII#HHIHNTIII r__r \7 - I I I I I IIII I — _. -- -� �1111 11115111111111111111111111 IIIII 111111111111111111111 llllll = .11lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllll Erb, NEW STREET PER �EMSTING ROADWAY EXTENSION CONNECTIONI LEGEND L--- ACHDSTANDARDS POINT TO ADJACENT SUBDIVISION 1 111111111111 NEW VEHICOIAR FOALS 111111111111 PEDESTRIAN PATHSf SIDEWALKS �1111*EXISTING VEHICUW 11— Scale:1:100 CIRCULATION PLAN MDA I pg.2 Page 29 H. Coneeptual BuildingElevations Concept Elevations for Single Family Homes � 11R # II BuildingConcept: IF: T FE FE E 1, 7L — M El ICI Page 30 __�- -� �� �Illllllllllllll[IIIIIIII � -�- ' - _o-�= IIIIIII�1� __-����_■ � II�� �Imr,�,�' I-O-■_�._ __- I , ..�.: .:-1,_i�,.Illllllll�llllllllllllfi� ___-_--❑---=-II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIi��,,� ll RISEN mmu ■■■ ff ■ - FIR-11 1■■ It I - Building"D"Concept: F .. Building"E"Concept: �- A-� 5 --..... I _ ,.., _ - ■ ■ ■ '1 Page 32 Building"F"Concept: .. u _emu . Building"G"Concept: It I� 11 Page 33 ICI■'■ ■ != ■ 1 1 ��'LJ Building"H"Concept: �.:' - ®E--;-9m:�] I.F.I F I.F:VAM. FAR FJXVATW- RIGHT ELEVA7'IETIy 4 • "t r � Fxisting Single Family Residential-, 13 u� u = W New Single Family Residential K.s 08 Page 34 o 0 Two Pack TovmM1omea Location 6�agram owe xi_s Typo'A'-Two PackT hones�.n..i., Type'6'-Two Pack Trnvnhanve vxrxis Two Pack T-h.- � 8 ® ® PFP1 } JU El Lip Q M raaor cuvnnon _ AZ nrwn i -. � O 0 0 I un FFT M o o fl s c, 04 Page 35 •L y O Y EL WIN �,► , ��� ✓I� /,/,/ ,/�^[,!, ,a mar �:;F�..�� o 1■ FE—M-0 Ron ■1 Ems ■1 11 IF ■1111■111111 01111 LL ggg� 'L L '' © Q C J f AA Z n TL L O 7011 Oil a-r' 6. F ri c ■ ni ie 19 c � rS O ri I O W o : Amenity BuiWis�g Laceiionz srrc xis s` /�! / O Q O Community Wotkzhep.x.s Community Clubhouse s:.,.:.i... ■ , p i Bl sou.x ELEvnTlox 01 wesv e�vn.iox BR sou.x euvwnox p� �C m Community Waxkzhap-Ceneap!Elzvalianz su,e��r-�s Community CWbhnuzs-Canmpt Elavatlanz sine ys'-rs 09 Page 38 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION At least 15 days prior-to the City Getineil hearing, Staff reconunends the Applieant eomplete the following:Submit an appheation for Alternative Compliance to UDC 11 3B 12C,whieh re the south and east boundaries of the site to aleng mief:e paths within the development as pf:eposed on the!a-n ds,ape plan The Irrigation District allowed Class I trees and shrubs to be planted within their easement through an addendum to the license agreement(Inst. #2022-099262); alternative compliance is no longer needed or required. • S4mit a revised off stfeet paf-king exhibit that demonstrates eemplianee with the mifliffm sta-adafds list T-abk-4 4-3 C.66.See updated parking calculations in Section VII.F. The proposed parking complies with and exceeds the minimum standards by 16 spaces; an additional 122 on-street parking spaces are also available. • SHbmit a revised qualified open spaee exhibit that demanstreAes eemplianee with the mini qualified r-e"ir-ed to be provided. Areas tha4 don't fneet the lifie4ions should be_�emie_viedd 4 Rem the plan. The seale bar depieted on the plan should Ae be. An ineludes innovative design feat+wes based on ccnew » neatfaditional cc » , e or-ather- arehiteetur-al anEVer-site designs th4 promate walkable and miXed USe fieighbOrhOE)ds (see U_D�_ Il Il SB 5 for-more in f anti^^ `.A revised common open space exhibit was submitted, included in Section VII.C, that depicts a total of 3.43 acres of qualified open space, which exceeds the minimum standards by 0.69-acre. • In phased develepmen4s, eemmen open spaee shall be pr-evided in eaeh phase of the developm eensistent with the rvquir-emen4s for-the size and HUmber of d-welling tmits. An exhibit shall be submitted demoastFmiag eemplianee with this sta-adafd fof eaeh phase of development. if ehanges are neeessary to the phasing plan to eemply with this standard,a revised phasing plan should be s4mit4ed, The revised common open space exhibit, included in Section VII.C, depicts common open space that demonstrates compliance with UDC standards for each phase of development. Preliminary Plat: 1. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Graphically depict zero(0) lot lines on internal lot lines where single-family attached and townhome structures are proposed(i.e. where structures will span across lot lines). b. Depict traffic calming measures to slow traffic on Bergman Ave. and W. Bacall St. as allowed by ACHD and the Fire Dept. in accord with the Development Agreement. c. Graphically depict public use easements for the micro-paths that cross private/townhome building lots. 2. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Depict landscaping along all pathways asset forth in UDC 11-3B-12C.A mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover is required. b. Depict additional/enhanced landscaping within the 20-foot wide street buffer along W. Orchard Park Dr. in accord with the updated standards in UDC 11-3B-7C.3 and 11-3G-3B.3. Page 39 c. Update the Landscape Requirements table to reflect compliance with the updated common open space standards in 11-3G-513.3,which requires a minimum of one deciduous shade tree for every 5,000 square feet of area with a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover; shrubs and other plantings shall be depicted on the plan as required. 3. Future development shall comply with the minimum dimensional standards for the R-8 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 or as otherwise approved with the Planned Unit Development. 4. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B,unless otherwise waived by City Council. 5. A private street application shall be submitted with the final plat application for the proposed private streets within the development.All private streets shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F- 4. 6. 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. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if signed by the city engineer within successive intervals of two(2)years,may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with subsections(A) and(B)of this section, 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. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension,the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again (UDC 11-6B- 7) 7. Pedestrian lighting shall be installed along the pathway along the south and east perimeter boundaries of the subdivision. 8. The Applicant shall coordinate with ACHD on installing `no parking signs on the public streets where the"s"or 90-degree curves are located(i.e.N. Bergman Ave.,N.Arctic Fox Way&N.Arliss Ave.). 9. The Applicant shall continue working with abutting neighbors on repairing the existingfencing encing that was damaged duringtiling iling of the North Slough, Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development: 10. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi-Family Development and the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district is required,unless otherwise approved through the Planned Unit Development(see deviations to setbacks approved in Section VII.E). 11. The site/landscape plans included in Section VII shall be revised as follows: a. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. b. Depict the location of the property management office;maintenance storage area; central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access; and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.7. Page 40 c. Depict landscaping along all the foundation of all street facing elevations in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27E. d. Depict shrubs and other plantings adjacent to the pathway along the south and east boundaries of the site in accord with UDC 11-3B-12C as allowed by the Irrigation District within their easement. e. Update the Landscape Requirements table to reflect compliance with the updated common open space standards in 11-3G-513.3,which requires a minimum of one deciduous shade tree for every 5,000 square feet of area with a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover; shrubs and other plantings shall be depicted on the plan as required. f. Depict a minimum 5,000 square foot common grassy area integrated into the site design that allows for general activities by all ages that complies with the standard listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C.3. g. Depict landscaping along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.A mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover with a minimum of one (1) tree per 100 linear feet ofpathway. h. Provide bicycle parking spaces per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bike racks should be provided in central locations for each multi-family building and the amenity buildings. i. Provide off-street parking spaces for the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 and 11-3C-6B.1 per the analysis in Section VI. j. At a minimum, depict site amenities consistent with those proposed with the subject application. k. Minimum 7-foot wide sidewalks shall be provided where parking abuts sidewalks if wheel stops aren't proposed to prevent vehicle overhang in accord with UDC 11-3C-5B4; if 7-foot sidewalks are proposed,the length of the stall may be reduced to 17 feet. 1. A detail shall be included of the fencing proposed around the swimming pool that complies with building code requirements for such. 12. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.5. 13. All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of the document shall be submitted prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 14. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units in accord with UDC 11-4-3- 27C.6. 15. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each residential unit per UDC 11-74B. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways do not count toward this requirement. 16. The Applicant shall coordinate with ACHD on the location and design of the proposed crosswalks across W. Orchard Park Dr. 17. If some of the multi-family units are proposed to be condominiumized, a short plat shall be submitted where all buildings are constructed or have received building permits for construction as set forth in UDC 11-6B-5. Page 41 18. Future development shall comply with the vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan in Section VII.G. 19. A Design Review application shall be submitted for all structures within the development to ensure quality of design for an exemplary development. All structures shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual unless otherwise approved through a design standard exception. 20. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application shall be submitted for the multi-family structures concurrent with the Design Review application; one (1)CZC may be submitted for the overall multi-family development if desired. 21. A conditional use permit/planned unit development,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the city. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits/planned unit developments that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the city engineer within this two-year period. Upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with subsection(F)(1)of this section,the director may authorize a single extension of time to commence the use not to exceed one (1)two-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 this chapter(UDC 11-5B-6F). B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 No permanent structures (trees,bushes,buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls,fences,infiltration trenches, light poles, etc.) are to be built within the utility easement. See "WW Comments - Sagarra" for details. 1.2 Must provide access path per City requirements to existing manhole located on western end of site (Sheet CE.1)and existing sewer just south of Orchard Park Dr. (left side of Sheet CE.2). 1.3 SSMH-4E is outside the easement. Easement needs to by 20'and extend 10'beyond the manhole. Also need access path up to manhole per City requirements. 1.4 Do not have sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. This comment was made during the preapp also. There are a few areas that this is occurring. Ensure that this is corrected in future submittals. See "WW Comments -Sagarra" for details. 1.5 Sewer services must be installed at 90 degrees to a sewer main or connected to a manhole. See "WW Comments - Sagarra" for details. 1.6 Provide 10'separation between sewer main and infiltration trench. 1.7 To and through required to parcel R5262501200. 1.8 Flow is committed. 1.9 There is a gap in the water line along road 4. This needs to connect. 1.10 Have callout to remove blow-off valves. 1.11 Add valve on existing water line in Bergman Ave for a total of 3 valves on the crossing. 1.12 Add valve on existing water line in Road-1 for a total of 2 valves at the tee. 1.13 See Change Marks on"Public Utility Plan"pdf for additional details. 1.14 Streetlight plan will be required at time of development. Page 42 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(UDC 11-313-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. Page 43 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. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=277043&dbid=0&redo=MeridianCity D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancit .00rg/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=2 77044&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City Page 44 E. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) h yps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=278542&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City F. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT(SID) https://weblink.meridianciN.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=277091&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=278840&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City H. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=282445&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=276873&dbid=O&roo=MeridianCiU IX. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use and transportation. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section IV of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire,ACHD, etc.). (See Section VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 45 B. Planned Unit Development(UDC 11-7-5) 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 a planned development request,the council shall make the following findings: A. The planned unit development demonstrates exceptional high quality in site design through the provision of cohesive, continuous,visually related and functionally linked patterns of development, street and pathway layout,and building design. The Commission finds the proposed development demonstrates an exceptional high quality of design through the provision of integrated cohesive development that is linked together by vehicular and pedestrian connections. B. The planned unit development preserves the significant natural, scenic and/or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic and/or historic features that exist on this site. If any such features do exist, Staff recommends they be preserved. C. The arrangement of uses and/or structures in the development does not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed arrangement and/or structures in the development does not cause damage, hazard or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. The Council should rely on public testimony to determine this finding. D. The internal street,bike and pedestrian circulation system is designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles,bicyclists and pedestrians without having a disruptive influence upon the activities and functions contained within the development,nor place an undue burden upon existing transportation and other public services in the surrounding area. The Commission finds the proposed internal vehicular and pedestrian plan will provide a safe flow of vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians without an undue burden on existing transportation in the surrounding area. E. Community facilities, such as a park,recreational, and dedicated open space areas are functionally related and accessible to all dwelling units via pedestrian and/or bicycle pathways. The Commission finds the proposed open space areas are accessible to all residents via proposed pathways. F. The proposal complies with the density and use standards requirements in accord with chapter 2, "district regulations", of this title. The Commission finds the proposal complies with the density and use standards of the R-8 zoning district in UDC Table 11-2A-6. G. The amenities provided are appropriate in number and scale to the proposed development. The Commission finds the proposed amenities are appropriate for the proposed development. H. The planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The Commission finds the proposed PUD is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis in Section IV. Page 46 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll Meridian City Council Hearing March 22, 20230027-2022-Sagarra SUB/PUD H EXECUTIVE SUMMARY following actions:hearing we have taken the th 14Feburaryduring the Taking into account comments made by council homesUpdated example elevations for single family •Solution with ACHD to remove street parking•a decrease of 7 units–Reduced Density • WHY A PLANNED UNIT creating increased community open spaceallows for clustering, –Building Clusters •Working with existing irrigation easements•commercialFeathering of homes from residential to •Used for “Infill” sites• WHAT A PUD ALLOWS Private Drives•Multifamily Use•spaceClustering” and the creation of more open allowing for “Building –Zero lot lines •creating more open space–Smaller lot sizes •FOR? SETBACK DIAGRAM SETBACK ANALYSIS CHANGES WE’VE MADE curvesprocess to eliminate street parking on road spoken with ACHD about –Parking Solution •homesReplaced example elevations of single family •Reduced density by 7 homes•TH SINCE FEBRUARY 14 INCREASED OPEN SPACE 2 Acres increased open space and reduced density.We are including an additional 2 Acres resulting in THANK YOU 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 3 DATE: March 21, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 10 i 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 2 l 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E IDIAN*-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING March 21,2022 DATE: TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0073 —Meridian OZ Apartments—MDA, CUP LOCATION: 1475 E. Franklin Rd., in the NE 1/4 of Section 18,T.3N.,R.1E. (Parcel #S1118110051) 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-C) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land SEEN- 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 7/1/20 and 6/3/22) Page 2 Description Details • %of calls for service ofA3CFS %of P2 CF5 75.3% split by priority of PJ CF5 22.5% %of PO CFS 13% Response Time and Calls for Service(CFS)by Priority-Most frequent priority trill types: •Priority 3 calls most frequently involved Injury Crashes,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 most 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: https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/PDF]010817d448-60a3-4e76-99dc- 5243e49fabe8/280047 West Ada School District Approved MF units Projected Approved lots per per attendance Students from Enrollment Ca aci attendance area area Approved Dev. Meridian Elementary 454 650 47 454 44 Meridian Middle School 1078 1000 656 2947 164 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 C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jorre Delgado,Realm Venture Group— 1109 W.Main St., Ste. 700,Boise,ID 83702 B. Owner: Meridian Oz,LLC— 1109 W. Main St., Ste. 700,Boise,ID 83702 Page 4 - C. Agent/Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/30/2022 3/5/2023 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/13/2022 3/3/2023 Public hearing notice sign posted 12/4/2022 3/10/2023 on site Nextdoor posting 11/28/2022 3/7/2023 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(HTTPS://WWW.MERIDIANCITY.ORGICOMPPLAI�: 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:llwww.meridianciu.or /g coml2plan): 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 A7--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 IKA). 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: (Staff's 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 5 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 111 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 13,50A 14.416 square feet(or 94-1 0.33-acre, 13.6%) of common open space is proposed that includes one 5,000+ sf area, a 4-,1494,572 sf area, awl linear open space and enhanced street buffers along Franklin &Locust Grove Roads landcaped with da stream beds with boulders and a planter bed as depicted on the revised open space exhibit in Section VIII.DL which meets and exceeds the minimum standards. The u kfi a epee pace; short efth 0 of these buffers side ef the bftfftr aleng gFank4in that doesn't appear to be ineluded in the open spaee edle;q Page 9 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. 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-IOC.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 Page 10 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. 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. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on December 15,2022,January 19 and February 16, 2023.At the public hearing on February 16',the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject CUP request to City Council. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jorre Delgado b. In opposition: See written testimony below C. Commenting: Ann Witherell and Lynzey Uechi d. Written testimony: Travis Perrin(representing Intermountain Wood Products)—in opposition to the project. e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: Kurt Starman 2. Key issue(s) public testimony: a. Intermountain Wood Products that exists 3 parcels to the south has safety concerns due to the proximity of the proposed access via Locust Grove to the Locust Grove/Franklin Rd. intersection and 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 safety and trespassing from future residents on their property_ b. Relocating the trash enclosure from the southwest corner of the development. c. Privacy fencing along the southern boundary. d. Public safety concerns with this development surrounding an ACHD drainage facility. e. Limited access from Locust Grove Road. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Cross access with the County_properties to the south. b. Density differences between the current Comprehensive Plan of 6 to 15 dwelling units to the acre and the recorded DA which allows up to 40 dwelling units to the acre. c. Fencing along the perimeter of the entire development. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Commission modified DA provison#la.to encourage Council to determnie if the proposed density was appropriate for this property b. Commission modified DA provison# Id.to have the applicant explore other fencing options along the west boundary and the ACHD drainage facility to mitigate impacts from the industrial uses and the existing barbed-wire fence around theACHD property_ c. Commission modified condition#8n. to relocate the trash enclosure in the SWC to a more appropriate location as determined by Republic Services. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 11 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Previous Development Plan Approved with AZ-99-005 &CUP-99-005 and Existing Provisions F t : kr COBBLESTONE VILLAGE E RANK N ROAD 81iE: 6.15,iCRES Nil 0'b _ --, :1 20TW(3 MUiTI-FAMILY - •� ,�'y, i R-40 - .._.._.. BULDNCi 96 APARTMENTS ' •i MCI PARKNQ 192 SPACES p' 4 RANOICAP ACCESSIBLE , ' d OVOER.' STAMAS CORPORATIONS . •• 1u • • 0pC ARCNTECT.' „AMURApk ASSOCIATES Ixf -N.r •� O L RANI 9G1EDUlb W J Im wrv�.0 a 0 s Y • w w'o+rl PROPERTY AREA 1-0 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- a High Density Residents Di tz-ict: 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 bid 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.DA and 11-2- 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 eXists. 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 Indscape 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. 6.2.16Construct 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. 6.2.18Provide 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 prodded 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 C s le phi m � 3 Nl Dilijjp • ! i 2 9 as sib „ P � o€E xsee y b 5 o gof g CD R % 0 9 CD C CD j aa{ C N g Np rn N _ _ _ tv UQ �I J I r � �I #o I a, I C F LOGU5T GROPE ROAG c� �. �� � �€ a ° �p isl s°E ��;� j°!gg'4 I3l I�EII�il��9I•! a 0 0 o 0 0 0 "Oil CD CD CL NWT 0 CD CD CL ...... .... ... oil LOCUST GROVE ROAD = I.:s�l0I1475 E FRANKLIN gin 0 =Mill��� �� ���� �� | � §- /\ - L---- -- -- � \ \�--\ 7 f. . • • � . , . ; / CL a■ ; \ CD | i 7 0 CL @ �-� � �`-- • + . | $ % = _ LOCUST GROVEROAD § 7 | / � �\ � ; ! m! P| 147 N . , ' 7° 7 | )] E. Conceptual Building Elevations &Floor Plan 0 a SCHEMATIC ELEVATIONS o-Z7..TLPAN.PE<1 0=POLIH—ELPAT1 CONC— ©FIBERCEMEHTP0.NEL—EENWINOOW(-01Q ()PRO AHFR TEY QYINYLEST WINROWSIOOgiSINidCNk]IT4 0STEEL611A—AIL Q YIN 0 COMP—Y 000R W!FR05TED GIAZINC Q CONCRETE NAICONYWl STEEL6H0.NHRALL �i CCNG E]ITERIOR M0.TERI0.L4 1YOOYFItAMEO5T0.1R WI GONC lANO{NGS ER T R E KA RC H m, H UD@ AE CHC OWN xo1.4'EJRL'E w204 5FONANE WA 509 &1 A O S TpW000CLADOINGINEW EOHWOW' ROPEAN I a �T 1 t. I�- P SCHEMATIC VIGNETTES&MATERIALS STREET PERSPECTIVE TREKARCH,., ELLO@HNPAHC�M SMIXR�Etl20 PaKANEWAs�� .�. Page 20 6 An Y --------------- — ..o o- --- r- _ .Ra ate. ---�-------- ---- -- --- '-=tee -- - - d �: - - - -o SCHEMATIC ELEVATIONS EYPRE�Mn o araRecrwxTwauwrFRosTEocLass FIOER_EkT P0.HELBETWEEN WINWWVBL4CK1 0 vv SLOT GllaR—L YINYLE—NOOW56WOR5[ELAGK l GOMPE—Y—RWIFROSTE--, � Q CONC (,GR—..PATIG Wl CONC W0.LL8as—TGUARp L�WOOUFRAMEOST0.1R W1 CONC L4NEINGS N TREKARCHM qs°ixeoaxa`u7 77' NE,WA 50158300N IRGL—NT.INNI ��S F] f� �4PGeJ �S��tipTBG _� f1 OpY s g r 3 I I 1 P r SCHEMATIC VIGNETTES$MATERIALS STREET PERSPECTIVE T R E KA RC H TM -�LLO�TRENMCHCOM 1225 MCPJROE u2d4,SPaNANE,WA 5093154A'b .d a Page 21 9or 7ii ------------ L - -------------- UNIFF BREAKDOM El El ------ ------ v'f-t ---------- ----------- TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN(LEVEL 1-3) SCALE1/8'-1'-0" 2,8633FIFLOOR TREKARCH.. 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 bounndauy 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 pun and the POINT OF BEGINNING,thence coutmumg South 89°40'52" West a distance of 426.63 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pin on the Easterly boundary of Mediinont Subdivision No. 1 as shown in Book 75 of Plats at Page 7794 in the office of the Recorder,Ada County,Idaho: thence North 0058'1211 East along said Easterly boundary a distance of 378.91 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pun marking an angle point in said Easterly boundary;thence continuing along said Easterly boundary North 2014'5611 West a distance of 142.37 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pun, thence leaving said Easterly boundary North 89G46'00" East a distance of 58.37 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pun:thence South 83°23'59" East a distance of 70.65 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pun;thence South 2°14'32" East a distance of 390.37 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pun;thence South 89°28'49" East a distance of 283.06 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pin:thence South 0°31'11" West a distance of 118.23 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. RECORD OF SURVEY NO. _L_?2jaa._ —DIM e ] e FOR E.FRANKON ROAD W I] MERIDIANOZ, LLC A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NEi/4 NE1/4 NE.Bg� 'DD'E -sarzrsR OF SECTION N„ E.,BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, DIAIA N,ADA DA COUNTY,IDAHO R 2022 I E I al I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR �I 1 IS AN ADOVroTE IREPRESENTATOM OF 9JRVEY AS NADESD ME AID tl i IS IuCo DRultt w TMECDEFSPIERF£TVATDu µp FlLINC ACT I I D 16p1 I� COLLEEN MAARS LD.TORD n_{e 45 !W R I�� PZteex esT A.C.H.D.SIOWMMR DEIENTEN PiM'D I m CERTIFICATE OE COUNTY RECORDER I I a mswuAExr No.2nzns9lAxTe f 7 N 4 O aP STATE auurr'DZO)ss I CERTFY THAT T S INSTRUMENT WA LEOVFDR RECORD rt� I O T ME REWfST a NETIDI IAN02,LLC AT TS PAST rJ'E aCla' gM.,THIS 9T" oar aP fkdn,v� f�+n U pE tt RED�p� E Fl O CER oma�.E_ 8 I � 1 S.T818AST:. eR'08' f/1 ... PARCEL A �� IcrcNn E.HRA,R:ux ROnO —--— T PROPERTv 11u 1 M3BI8 DI Si guR 13 —OVER PRDPERtt UNE E SECTION L"E $ El ETA 6�w.1ENT �O��WND S/e'IRDN PIN " o TxEss ODRUER-FaND s/e"IRON ul T,/z-IR N w/PLAmc cAP MARRED Ls]Das NARRATIVE: o cALc Pqur ( ) REwRD DATA 11uSEo RTCWNCWAFLEiF�IHIST 91q E��xERFo111 E i0u0xiHG Al EI5[cnau Ia 0.5O S CF ADA MPI'JNFttoDA"' ms1,,sass e:iTaze,REcaH ,I INDEX N0.311-16-110-00-000 z REFEREu¢Is MADE To TUE FaLLDx+ND suawwslw Pur: MARKS LAND SUR4EVING, LLC MEDAICNT sueolN9T N�.1,BWK]9 Ci PIUAlTTS Ai PAGE6 Rnas • F OWM X ADA CWN%IDA"O. ] NRsti 50 0 25 50 100 COLLEEN MARKS,L.S.7045 I .89 N.COLS ROAU STE.M D THE PRCPLRTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R-b SCALE IN FEET BOISE,IOANO 83]OL Page 23 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Development Agreement Modification: 1. 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 VIII and the conditions of approval included in Section IX,unless Council determines less density is more apropriate for this site. 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. Other fencing options should be explored along the west boundary and existing ACHD drainage facility(if allowed)to buffer the residential development from the industrial uses to the west and improve public safety along the ACHD property 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. Page 24 7. All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 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 Msquare feet(or 0-31 0.34-acre)of common open space that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C and is consistent with the qualified open space exhibit in Section VIII.D, including the provision of enhanced landscaping(i.e. dry stream bed with boulders and a planter bed along Franklin&Locust Grove Roads),The qualoed-6pffi 0 is a 5 fibet widesh*on theseuth side of the buff-er along F-ffink4in that doesH't appeal,to be these areas, the total epen zspaee weuk4 be 14,092 sf (or 0.32 aere), whieh eenTlies with th 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-IOC 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. Page 25 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. 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 and the trash enclosure in the southwest corner shall be relocated away from the existing residence to minimize odor and noise pollution to this property owner. Relocation of these enclosures are subject to Republic Services approval. 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 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. 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 Page 26 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 11-3A-6. hi 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 http://www.meridiancioy.orglpublic_works.aspx?id=272. Page 27 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 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:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinklPDF10/0817d448-6Oa3-4e76-99dc-5243e49fabe8l280047 E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridianciV.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=282183&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=280818&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=283371&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https:llweblink.meridiancily.oL-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=286688&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr =1 I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.ore/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=281852&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX J. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=282866&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX X. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-513-6E) 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. Page 28 The Commission 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 Vfor more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission 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. 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water, and sewer. The Commission finds that essentialpublic 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. The Commission finds 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. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed 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. The Commission finds 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: March 21, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 11 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 i\2 9ilt-1 > 2 rj U L 3 J L k4 4 No &M 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT C�W IDIAN�-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING March 21,2023 Legend _ 0 DATE: 0 Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 0 208-884-5533 0 SUBJECT: Millwood Subdivision H-2022-0089 - LOCATION: 1975 E.Victory Rd., in the NW 1/4 of ®® Section 29,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel #S 1129223095) M" a ®E 22 ® 22 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 L 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(CIP). • 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(#S1129223005 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 Victory 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 '• MOVE •. •. •• MOVE r r r •ii son all, - • - • Raa ��r11���►111��1%� - • - • �al1111111��•jlj,1+�♦�1 1�4 nii Ii IIIIIn p� ag �1.•.••n1 / �NIf1 ••/■iiip�1111�� on 1 �ipill�nni� •IO��,��'�� ♦r♦ == ••: � ►!■ter:..-=--- p��i,� �III�f 11`II�i� fi..-I,._� ►� n mill - ; VICTORY— VICTORY 111111..Ginn aln�iG,� A � •• � - �� 111111 ��.1.1•n11���- •fb��,l ��111111 , ; IIIIIIr_-•1111111111-- �.•r,1••, , ,; IIIIIIr �, � .. li . 1111111�=lllllln OIIIIIIi�'..•- '/-. �Y�m. .� .. 4s:? nu��on`nnnn nnn� ��.. ♦��� �.11...1.•� �fIU � -. .- p nnnm.•inn• I o �.a t /• �� - � � r r ��1.11111■- ♦ •f1 \: :muo•7ni�1 L��• •� I♦ Ia i ��mm�unm nnn0 ��� ■�•�•�IIu... If 11 :pnnn•n•■IIIIIIgII ��� �•♦ • ■. ♦ 111 / r►mu numnnuO Im Irk �i\� �1 nll000m �I��+i��,•��,,�01 = - O��,ii♦ip,�iip,,,�ii,`��:i:,:�: uwi inn a k �,\s�s4-^ Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend 0 01 Project Location Project Location A �AYQ� -8 * City Limits $ ® — Planned Parcels IR-0 R-68 fL- ® ' RUT�RU T � RUT i 95� ® ®- -9��1- UILLLLII� ®® M � 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 3/5/2023 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 1/26/2023 3/3/2023 Public hearing notice sign posted NA(not required as the NA(not required as the on site property is not property is not adjacent to any streets) adjacent to any streets) Nextdoor posting 1/30/2023 3/7/2023 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.£) (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 and financial capabilities of future 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+ s.f. 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 I1-2A-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. a-ad to the no through LotT. 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-3D1: 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. ^ revised detail for-the eewAnefi driveways , !a-nds,.apif g anor-ief4atieft of the lots and s....,,.tufes 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 11-3G5B.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.S 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 I1-3A-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 6-foot tall open vision fence(wrought ) should be installed between the pathway and the lateral for public safety in accord with the Park's Dept. comments in Section IX.A detail(s) 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 Page 9 follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. A geotechnical report was submitted with this subdivision. Building Elevations: Six(6) conceptual building elevation photos were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like(see Section MILE).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. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on February 16,2023.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Todd Lakey(applicant's Representative) b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Mary DeChambeau d. Written testimony: Delaine McLafferty—opposed the project due to traffic concerns e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. None 3. key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Transitional lots sizes on the west and south boundary. b. Continued use of the vehicular bridge as a pedestrian bridge. C. Relocating or eliminating one lot from taking access from the common driveway in the southeast corner of the development. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. At Staff s request,include a provision in the DA as follows: "Construction traffic for the re-development of this property shall access the site via the future extension of Richardson Street; access via the existing easement from E.Victory Rd. is prohibited." b. At Staff s request,include a preliminary—plat condition of approval for the final plat to be amended consistent with the lot configurations depicted on the revised common driveway exhibit in Section VIII.D." C. At the applicant's request,the Commission included a DA provison to limit the homes on the southern lots to single story only. d. Commission struck condition 2A removingthe requirement to lose lots along the west and south boundary. e. Modified condition#10-Coordinate with the Parks Department to determine if the existing bridge can be used for a pedestrian crossing. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 10 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map -Revised 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 1/4 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 S.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 S,D0'01'15"W.a distance of 390.73 feet to a 5JS" iron pin; Thence N.73°02'04"W. a distance of 354.80 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; Thence N_00`01'30"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 S.37°58'06"E. a distance of 281.07 feet to a point; Thence continuing along said centerline 5.K'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 or less, and is subject to all existing easements and rights-of-ways of record or implied. G � t 15758 0 ��,�•f 3•���s OF {4' J. Ha Page 11 EXHIBIT B ANNEXATION FOR MILLWOOD SUB. PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF THE NW1/4, SECTION29, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO CP&F NO, NA91S OF BEARINGS 2021-040321 VICTORY ROAD 9yE 18 20 SB9'49'D0"E 2680.59' MIA 1 30 29 1000.4T 339.56' 134tl.3T w N 1/4 COR N :-v SECTION 29 CPkF NO. 2D21-D37427 oN a f Z \\\ UNPLATTEI3 SJ, y k�O9 I 73.18'`�• I `� a � si v� 3 N 4 0 N UNPLATTE0 SUBDIVISION TEAKWOOD O Z I d m i I4 a 15758 I t2 OF 4 N + in �J. ,5 �ry9 I I AYE 354,e �nS4� LESEND 7USCANY LAKES — — ANNEXA71ON BOUNDARY LINE 51.190I1ASION NO. 2 SECT,CN LINE GRAPHIC SCALE — PROPERTY UNE 75 0 37.5 75 150 300 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP ® FOUND 5/8 IRON PIN (IN FEET 1 1 50) 6 CALCULATED POINT-NOT SET YicA- R 611E OF__ $Y: Sf OF J.J. HOWARD 15,,:',�z 1�1 1 1 MILLWO4e sue. Wl oPn>tr1 ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT aslxmrr•xe,/w+WagMtl+rMov ," _ ,s o' CLS 220503 Page 12 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 2/10/23) Millwood Subdiv ision y sioc�ahmsm rvw�/aae,� bdirsKmozn,aomn n.p.a rva.n, , OHM DEVELOPMENT t M" I ----- �o� h, � Millwood ��� r" _. EP,� Subdivision ,E. ENGINE— Page 13 C. Landscape Plan(dated: 12/1/2022) _ _ STACK RPCK LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS __ e^ 9 \ L1.I UUJDSCAPE KZ AREA, PIANTSGHEDULE q \\ I O — °la� l (D 0� I _ I �I T2IANDSGAPEPLANAREA2 'J i ,..��.�... 77 — �L100 I t 4 a REQUIREMENTS -- -----�------------------- STA&K ROCK LANDSCAPE \ I PIANT SCHEDULE I \ I \ 9 I \ a \ I b I s z I � I m O �r \ ---- — —ij —L-- uNDscAPE � -------- I I - ---� o --� ---, PD�AREA, i �uoi I Page 14 I v iv LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS .Y L \\ a \I I ..o..o.°.. PLANTSGHEDULE I O o O .--° 01 I v I J I _. ® '7ZO ` I O I \y I \ / — � I > _ a IIIY v i-!••�� i � I � I I I I�.� I I I e� _ l /I lV— vaoscnPE %� i � L I° PIAN-ARFA2 --(—� L------- L102 ---------- ----------------- ------ I t'�y 1 BALL&BU-TREE PLANNNG SHRUB PLMRING ee.n PLANTERI-DDETAIL �1 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS ADJ LANDINGiT .. .. .p�...� rn `... z Lil S �6 GLOBEDVIGp-GEGLOSEDVISg-GE NOlE58 DETAllS L150 Page 15 D. Common Driveway Exhibit xn/vomrrtwre Millwood Subdivision O ee...�mmaNmees.rm,/a_.eS bdi ®_EPIC >m _ DEVELOPMENT S Itl y�y ..., _._._._-- ✓ L — '\ Millwood —� PAVEA1P1ff SERIgJ TA&£ =e I \' - Subdivis 3 II 9 MIDwood Subdivii ® O P ,rv�-aroma_2M—o,eS di is .... — EPIC .m.,.,. m.s DEVELOPMENT I � I � �\ PAVER ENI ERION TA&E — ..�,,,.�' 'k Millwood Egg— _- EXH-2 Note: If the common lot to the east of Lot 4,Block 2 is removed,a greater setback may be required if a wider easement is required along the subdivision boundary. Page 16 E. Conceptual Building Elevation Photos 71,i1r, ff I p �::• r� ���F+r.t Page 17 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions: 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. c. Construction traffic for the re-development of this property shall access the site via the future extension of Richardson Street; access via the existing easement from E.Victory Rd. is prohibited. d. The homes constructed on Lots 4-8,Block 1 shall be restricted to singlery only. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Remove a miaimttm of one(1) lot along the west bettadary in the area between Lots 6 9 where boundafy in the area between Lets 11 14 in order-to provide a beffer-tr-ansition in lot sizes 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. g_ Amend the plat consistent with the lot configurations depicted on the revised common driveway exhibit in Section VIII.D. 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). Page 18 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-IOC.5. e. Include calculations that demonstrate compliance with the common open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5B.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. j. Depict a 6-foot tall open vision fence(wrought iron) fence between the pathway and the lateral for public safety in accord with the Park's Dept. comments in Section IX.E. 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. (trickskmeridiancity.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 and shall be consistent with the exhibit in Section VIII.D. r4mit a Fetal' for-eaeh of the ee fl ffle driveways with the fiaa4 plat apphea4ion that depiets the sethaeks, feneing,biiildiag e1welepe (ifieluding pafk-ifig pad), !a-adseapiag and or-ientation of the lots a-ad stmetur-es that eemplies with the aforementioned standaMs.Make any ehanges neeessafy to the pr-eliminafy plat and landseape plan to eemply with these standards-. 10. The applicant shall cooridante with the Parks Department to determine if the existing bridge can be used as a pedestrian crossing. 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. Page 19 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. 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 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. Page 20 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping,amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.17 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed 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. Page 21 2.20 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.21 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=286468&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU&cr =1 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments were submitted. E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT-REVISED https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=289312&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=287221&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) No comments were submitted. H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=287891&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City&cr =1 I. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=287900&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX J. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDoeView.gypx?id=288769&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=288 763&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX Page 22 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; The Commission 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 4.14 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; The Commission 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; The Commission 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. 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 The Commission 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. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-611-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) The Commission 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 and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Page 23 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; The Commission finds 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; The Commission 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 The Commission 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) The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 24 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll 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