Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-09 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, April 09, 2024 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Doug Taylor Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilman Luke Cavener Councilwoman Liz Strader Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PROCLAMATIONS \[Action Item\] 1. Week of the Young Child Proclamation PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS \[Action Item\] 2. Election of City Council President Motion to nominate Councilman Luke Cavener as Council President made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for The Oaks North No. 1 (Lots 11 and 12, Block 7) (H-2024-0004) by Kyle Prewett, Toll Brothers, located at 5662 W. Daphne Dr. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0004 A. Request: Vacation of the permanent easement for public utilities, pressure irrigation and lot drainage over the five (5) feet adjacent to the interior side lot lines of the pre-adjusted Lot 11 and Lot 12, Block 7 of The Oaks North Subdivision No. 1. Motion made to approve by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 4. Public Hearing for Keep West Subdivision No. 2 (H-2023-0047) by Jarron Langston, located at 2625 E. Lake Hazel Rd. and 6519 S. Raap Ranch Ln. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0047 A. Request: Annexation and zoning of 16.25 acres of land from RUT to R-2 (low density residential) zoning district B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 22 buildable lots, one existing home and 5 common lots on (16.25 acres of land) in the R-2 zoning district Motion made to approve by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilwoman Strader Voting Nay: Councilman Cavener 5. Public Hearing for Rosalyn Subdivision (H-2023-0056) by Givens Pursley, LLP, located at 200 E. Rosalyn Dr. Continued to May 14, 2024 Applicant Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0056 A. Request: Annexation of a 0.014-acre of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district, including the remaining portion of E. Rosalyn Street cul- de-sac right-of-way. B. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.733 acres in the R-8 zoning district. Motion to continue to May 14th, 2024 made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader EXECUTIVE SESSION per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(d): To consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code. Motion to enter executive session made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader Into Session: 8:00 PM Out of Session 8:34 PM FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 8:35 PM Meridian City Council April 9, 2024. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:08 p.m. Tuesday, April 9, 2024, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Liz Strader, John Overton, Anne Little Roberts and Doug Taylor. Also Present: Tina Lomeli, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Stacy Hersh, Linda Ritter, Shawn Harper, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE _X_ Liz Strader (vacant) Anne Little Roberts _X_ John Overton _X_ Doug Taylor _X—Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call this meeting to order. For the record it is April 9th, 2024, at 6:08 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular 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: Today's community invocation will be delivered by Rabbi Mendel Lifshitz. If you would all, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Lifshitz: Thank you. Before I begin I would like to take a moment to personally thank the City Council and the City of Meridian. A number of months ago you graciously donated a stock of protective vests and I really want to thank the body here for authorizing that and for allowing that to be used for -- in a public private-partnership. It's really beautiful when the city joins together with nonprofits. Thank you for donating those to our organization and you should be proud that it has reached its destination for people in need. Almighty God, we stand before you at a critical time for our country, our state and our city. Your guidance, wisdom and grace is ever more crucial. We recognize that alone we cannot succeed. Almighty God, look favorably upon the Mayor and Honorable Members of the City Council of the great City of Meridian. Bestow upon them the joy of life, good health and prosperity. We beseech you merciful God to Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 2 of 36 extend your kindness to these distinguished individuals, who have been chosen to make laws and ordinances for the citizens of this city with understanding and compassion and their noble pursuit of justice and equality. Assist them to embody and encourage a spirit of mutual cooperation respect and peace. Give them guidance so that they will always be conscious of your presence and will strive to enact laws with honesty and integrity and in accordance with the values of your universal and moral code. As the cold and sometimes harsh winter recedes we look at the promising spring bloom and we look toward you our Creator. We stand in awe and appreciation of the masterful and beautiful world you allow us to partake of. We stand committed to partnering with you to tend your garden and to safeguard your creation. Grant this august body the wisdom to turn adversity into opportunity and to transform the hard challenges we face today into the seeds from which will sprout the growth of tomorrow. Bless the City of Meridian that it may serve as a beacon of light to our great state of Idaho and for people of all faiths and walks of life. May the leaders and citizens of Meridian blossom as the flowers of the season and realize the goal so powerfully stated in our nation's Pledge of Allegiance that we just recited, so that America is truly one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. May God bless all of us and God bless America. Now let us say amen. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you. Okay. Next up will be adoption of the agenda. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PROCLAMATIONS [Action Item] 1. Week of the Young Child Proclamation Simison: Next up will be proclamation for the Week of the Young Child. Is Lorena here? If you wouldn't mind joining me at the podium. So, Council, we will go ahead and read this proclamation for the Week of the Young Child and, then, turn it over to Lorena for some comments. Whereas the City of Meridian, in conjunction with the Idaho Association for the Education of Young Children, are celebrating The Week of the Young Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 3 of 36 Child April 6 through April 12, 2024, and whereas Idaho AEYC is working to promote and inspire high quality early childhood experiences for our state's youngest citizens that can provide a foundation of learning and success for children in Meridian and whereas teachers and others who work with or on behalf of young children from birth through age eight make a difference in these lives and deserve thanks and recognition and whereas public policy supporting early learning for all are crucial to young children's futures to the prosperity of our society and whereas this is a time to recognize the importance of children's earliest years in shaping their development, to recommit ourselves to ensuring that each and every child experiences a type of environment at home, at childcare, at school and in the community that will promote early learning. Therefore, I, Mayor Robert E. Simison, proclaim April 6 through 12, 2024, to be the Week of the Young Child in the City of Meridian and encourage all citizens to work to support the efforts of the Idaho AEYC and NAEYC in support and invest in early childhood in our community. Dated this 9th day of April 2024. Lorena: Sorry. I wasn't expecting it. I just want to thank the city -- City Council, Mayor. Thank you all for the proclamation and just for thinking of helping support children and families throughout the state of Idaho. I think it's incredible work and extremely exciting and we know that everyone can help make a huge difference in the life of a child. So, thank you. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Next item up is public forum. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up under the public forum? Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No one has signed up. DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS [Action Item] 2. Election of City Council President Simison: Okay. Then with that we will move on to Item 2, which is Department/ Commission Reports. Election of City Council President and I will turn this over Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Fellow Council Members. This is an important business decision that we have to make today as a Council. I -- I know we still have one Council seat that is open, but I think it's really important for us to elect a City Council president, because we have a lot of critical processes that need to move forward, including the budget. After many conversations I would like to nominate Luke Cavener. I think he is the right leader for us at this time of transition and I'm very grateful for him that he is willing to make the sacrifice of a significant amount of his extra time to help us move forward as a group. That means a lot to us. He has my full support. I think we should rally around Luke and that way we can have a successful year. Simison: Thank you. I have a nomination. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 4 of 36 Overton: Second. Simison: And the second. Is there a further discussion on the topic or further nominations from the body? Okay. Then all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and, Councilman Cavener, you are now Council President. Would you like to do a speech, a coronation, gala? What's your preference? Cavener: No -- no speech, no gala, no coordination. We have got important work ahead of us. So, appreciate the nomination and the vote. Enjoy working with all of you. Thank you. Simison: Thank you very much. All right. So, moving on to the rest of our action this evening. The first item up is Item 3, public hearing -- Cavener: Just for clarification, do we need to take an action on the vice-president role? Simison: No. It's existing. Cavener: Okay. Great. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for The Oaks North No. 1 (Lots 11 and 12, Block 7) (H- 2024-0004) by Kyle Prewett, Toll Brothers, located at 5662 W. Daphne Dr. A. Request: Vacation of the permanent easement for public utilities, pressure irrigation and lot drainage over the five (5) feet adjacent to the interior side lot lines of the pre-adjusted Lot 11 and Lot 12, Block 7 of The Oaks North Subdivision No. 1. Simison: Okay. Next item up is Item 3, public hearing for The Oaks North No. 1, Lots 11 through 12, Block 7, H-2024-0004. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Ritter: Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Linda Ritter, associate planner for the City of Meridian and tonight we are here for The Oaks North No. 1, Lots 11 and 12, Block 7, H-2024-0004. The applicant is requesting to vacate five feet of a public utility pressurized irrigation and drainage easement located along the interior lot lines of a Lot 11 and 12, Block 7, of The Oaks North Subdivision. A property boundary adjustment application PBA-2023-0015 was approved in November of 2023 to reestablish the easements. So, these properties that I have mentioned are located at 5662 and 5684 West Daphne Drive and they are located on 0.156 and 0.14 acres of land that is zoned R-8. There are currently no structures located on this property at the time. The applicant was proactive to make this happen before the homes were built and so at this Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 5 of 36 time -- so, staff is asking for approval of this proposal and so at this time I will take any questions that you may have and the applicant's representative is here if you have questions. Simison: Thank you, Linda. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and make any comments? Okay. Applicant waives. Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a couple people signed up, but they did not mark that they wish to testify. Do you want me to call -- Simison: If you would read their name and we will see if they want to come up. Lomeli: Kris Moncapa. No? Simison: The applicants. Okay. Lomeli: Hank Boeger. Simison: He is also saying no. There was only two? Lomeli: That's the only two, yes. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present in the audience or online who would like to provide testimony on this item? If you are online use the raise your hand feature on the Zoom call and we can bring you in. Seeing no one raising their hand online and no one walking forward -- the applicant waive final comments? Applicant waives final comments. Council, what's your direction? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: This seems like a pretty straightforward vacation request and if there is no further public comments, I move that we close the public hearing. Little Roberts: 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. Oppose nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 6 of 36 Overton: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2024-0004 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of April 9th, 2024. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and second to approve Item 3. Is there discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 4. Public Hearing for Keep West Subdivision No. 2 (H-2023-0047) by Jarron Langston, located at 2625 E. Lake Hazel Rd. and 6519 S. Raap Ranch Ln. A. Request: Annexation and zoning of 16.25 acres of land from RUT to R-2 (low density residential) zoning district B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 22 buildable lots, one existing home and 5 common lots on (16.25 acres of land) in the R- 2 zoning district Simison: Next item up is Item 4, public hearing for Keep West Subdivision No. 2, H- 2023-0047. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Ritter: Thank you. Again Linda Ritter, associate planner for the city. So, tonight we are here to -- for a request for Keep West Subdivision, H-2023-0047, for annexation and preliminary plat. The site consists of 16.25 acres of land, zoned RUT and it's located south of East Lake Hazel Road. So, the property itself is -- the comprehensive -- the future land use map is low density and medium density residential and since the property is designated with two land use designations, the plan allows the flexibility to float the more dominant designation. The applicant has chosen to apply the low density designation across the entire property. Again this is the annexation of 16.25 acres of land from RUT in Ada county to R-2, low density residential zoning district, and a -- and a preliminary plat consisting of 21 new buildable lots and one existing home and eight common lots for a total of 15.76 acres of land. The density is 1.4 dwelling units to the acre, which is consistent with the LDR designation. The proposed building lots range in size from 12,008 square feet to 38,274 square feet. The subdivision is being proposed to be developed in one phase. Again there is an existing structure that is on the property and there are several other structures on the property, but the existing home is proposed to remain. All the other structures are proposed to be removed. So, prior to Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 7 of 36 the city engineer's signature on the final plat all the existing structures that don't comply with setbacks of the district shall be removed. A new address will be required for the existing home and the lot number for the existing home will need to be changed to 35 and the renumbering of the remaining lots in that location. So, this proposed plat complies with the dimensional standards of the district. So, again, the -- again the proposed subdivision is required to comply with the design improvement standards of the UDC. The face block on the west side of the north and south street segments exceed 750 feet. However, the code allows a block length up to a thousand feet when the pathway connects to the common space open area and the applicant has provided a connected pathway to the open space to allow the extended block. And also per the UDC the Council may approve a dead-end street up to 750 feet in length where the emergency access is proposed or where there is a physical barrier, such as a steep slope, railroad tracks, an arterial roadway or a large waterway that prevents or makes impractical extensions and a pedestrian -- pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. The code for the proposed plat -- it was greater than 900 feet, which exceeded the maximum approval allowed by the City Council of 750 feet in length. The applicant revised the plat map to shorten the length of the cul-de-sac and submit the revised plat map 15 days prior to this meeting. So, access to this property is proposed -- is proposed via East Wickham at the east boundary of the site, which terminates on to South Netherfield Way. Direct -- direct access is not proposed or allowed from East Lake Hazel Road, except for an emergency access. There are two common driveways proposed for lots 22, 23, 20 -- and, then, 27 and 28. There are two waterways along the boundaries of this proposal. The Farr Lateral existing on the western boundary, which is within a 50 foot easement and the Grimmett Lateral along the eastern boundary -- the east boundary, which is within the 40 foot easement. The UDC requires irrigation easements wider than ten feet to be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20 feet wide outside of a fenced area, unless modified by the City Council at a public hearing with notice to the surrounding property owners. The applicant proposes to place the Farr and the Grimmett Laterals within common lots as required. However, the applicant will be requested a modification of this and they will present that to you at the time they do their presentation. Other irrigation districts crossing the site that aren't being improved as a water amenity or linear open space as defined by the UDC shall be piped or otherwise covered as set forth in the UDC, unless otherwise waived by the City Council. Again, the applicant has been working to tile a portion of the Grimmett Lateral and has been working with the Boise Project Board of Control for approval. The Farr Lateral will remain open. If tiled the Boise Project Board of Control will not approve any landscaping, other than gravel, within its 25 foot easement. Staff has asked the applicant to work with the irrigation district to leave the Grimmett Lateral open in a natural state to avoid the area being improved with gravel only. There is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer that is required along East Lake Hazel Road, which is an arterial and it measures from the back of the sidewalk. A buffer is depicted on the landscape plan that appears to meet this requirement. So, this is the landscaping along East Lake Hazel Road. The buffer has been depicted on the plat in a common lot as proposed within the landscape and per the standards of the UDC. Common open spaces and amenities. The applicant is proposing about 1.37 acres of open space consistent at 50 percent of Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 8 of 36 the street landscape buffered along East Lake Hazel Road, six foot wide parkways, pathway along the emergency access and open grassy areas. The applicant provided 9.41 percent, which is 59,596 square feet or 1.37 acres of open space, which exceeds the eight percent that is required. Per UDC for each five acres of gross land area one point of site amenity is required. As the property is 15.76 acres, a total of three amenity points are required. The applicant is proposing a covered pavilion, which is a picnic area and that's for two points. A sports court for pickleball, which is four points, as these amenities total six amenity points, which is -- which exceeds the requirement. Several building conceptual elevations of homes were submitted and as shown. Building material consists of a variety of stone, brick, veneer accents and stucco. At The Planning Commission meeting there were no oppositions to this subdivision -- proposed subdivision. We did have people making comments at the hearing and we had one written testimony and the concerns that were key issues were the proposed street connectivity that -- because they felt it would bring additional traffic to the existing neighborhood. Go back to a previous slide. This is the connection that they were concerned with. And the only discussion of key issue by Commission were that they were -- were required to bring the cul-de-sac into compliance prior to the City Council meeting, which they did. There were no changes recommended -- no changes to the staff recommendation -- recommendation and there were no outstanding issues to bring before the City Council. And at this time I will stand for any questions that the City Council has regarding this application. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Linda, thank you so much for your presentation. I reviewed the file a while ago and I did not see a letter from the West Ada School District. I also did not check the agency reports today. So, just wanted to check have we received a letter from West Ada or are we in communication with them? Ritter: I have not received anything from them. It did go out to them, but I have not received anything. I don't know if it's too small of a subdivision, but I have not received anything. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: And I apologize, because that wasn't meant to trip you up or anything, it's just we have been expressing our desire to hear from the West Ada School District and this particular annexation opportunity is in very close proximity to another one that we have reviewed recently. So, I felt like -- I guess I'm a little surprised that they haven't taken that opportunity to provide that information here, although I understand it is not a huge Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 9 of 36 subdivision, it still seems important to hear from them. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Linda, I appreciate you have got this -- this image up and as I was -- and you are doing a good job going through the staff report and keeping us up to date on -- on history. I appreciate that. I noticed that the exhibit of the open space looks a little bit different than the preliminary plat that's in the staff report. I'm not sure if that is because of the -- the cul-de-sac piece or if the -- if the plat is showing what appears to be maybe some -- some pathways. The reason why I'm bringing this up is that one of the parcels that I think is kind of near the open space -- I believe the existing home, I'm trying to figure out how that -- the parcel of land that's right just to the left of your arrow -- down a little bit. Right there. Yep. How somebody's getting there. Is it -- is it a common drive in and exit? In the staff report it looks like a pathway, but I'm not -- I'm not quite clear. Ritter: Council Member, so that's actually a panhandle lot and that particular lot has to provide a fire turnaround because of the length of it and we have -- we relayed that to the applicant. Cavener: Okay. Thank you and I appreciate it. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Ritter: Oh. And before the applicant speaks -- so I -- this is different from what is in my staff report. I didn't get a chance to change it out, so -- but that's why I made sure that I put the correct ones up here for the hearing. Simison: Good evening. It's nice to see a representative of the Borton Lakey law firm here, right, Council? Lakey: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Short the Borton, but still in the name. Mayor, Council Members, appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. For the record my name is Todd Lakey with Borton Lakey Law here on behalf of the applicant Jarron Langston. Council Members, I will be brief. Hit some of -- some of the high points on this project, but we do appreciate the recommendation of approval and the work that staff's done on this and also the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and if you do have any particular technical questions we have Ted Burke, our engineer, here as well to answer questions. Council Members, as noted in the staff report the application meets the requirements of your zoning ordinance, your subdivision ordinance and we conform with the Comprehensive Plan. We are a little bit less dense than those things that are around us and this is phase two of The Keep Subdivision. I imagine you are Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 10 of 36 familiar with that project. That's -- this -- this will be a continuation of that project, the same quality, the same caliber of development. It's really a project that the City of Meridian can be proud of. Our request is for low density R-2 zoning and, as I said, that's the same or less dense than the surrounding zoning and our adjacent subdivisions. We have R-4, R-2, R-8 and R-15. Twenty-two lots with just about a 20,000 square foot average lot size and staff mentioned the gross density at 1.46. We exceed -- meet or exceed the open space requirements with our pathways, our covered pavilion, the sport court and the grassy areas and also exceed the amenity points required by the city and that's in addition to the larger lots that we have that people are going to be able to use and recreate on their own property in addition to those amenities in the subdivision. The three accesses for the property will be closed, with the exception of the emergency access that we will be providing onto Lake Hazel and that access will meet city requirements, but also provides pedestrian connectivity to Lake Hazel from the project. We will have the 25 foot landscape buffer along Lake Hazel and we are, as was mentioned by staff, trying to leave open the irrigation facilities that border this project. It's an odd shaped parcel as you can see, so it took a little bit of creativity to -- to make this project work and from our perspective -- I think from staff's perspective and some of our neighbors' perspective, they wanted to keep those irrigation laterals open and make them really more of an amenity than simply a long wide -- what looks like a gravel road separating two projects. So, that was our effort with the irrigation jurisdictions and we are keeping the Grimmett Lateral open to the north of that East Wickham Street. That's what we worked out with them and, then, the Farr Lateral along the side with the Apex Subdivision will be open in its entirety. We do agree with the conditions in the development agreement. The recommendations of approval. As requested by staff we did reduce that distance for the cul-de-sac to 750 feet, so we fit with the Uniform Development Code. We do that because we have that emergency access and, then, we are also providing that connectivity from that street to the other pedestrian facilities, particularly along Lake Hazel and, then, widened that access -- that continuation -- or extension of that cul-de-sac back to that open area common space, so it's a little bit wider to provide that additional pedestrian connectivity. With that, Mayor and Council Members, again, appreciate the efforts on staff's part. Ask for your approval. Be happy to answer questions if you have them. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I appreciate you laying some of that out. Maybe continuing Council Member Strader's question for staff, have you or your client engaged and had any conversations with the West Ada School District about -- not so much about student generation, I don't anticipate this development would generate a lot of students, but particularly about where they would be slated to attend school. Lakey: If you would give me just a moment I can maybe talk about the specifics of that. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 11 of 36 Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Maybe while that's occurring, Mr. Parsons, do we have an idea when the school district plans to start transmitting letters on the ones that they have yet to do while -- while we are moving forward? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't have a specific date, but I know it's -- it's imminent based on the discussions that -- the joint meeting that you had with them. What I can tell you is based on some of the a-mails that I have seen on this topic, the school district plans on providing letters for developments that are 45 or more lots and so in these types of situations you may not get any comments from the school district because they are under that threshold. So, I just wanted to let Mayor and Council know that, there will be a threshold moving forward with -- but, yeah, we can start expecting to see more and more letters in the near future. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Lakey: Mayor and Council Member Cavener, I appreciate the question. We did not have any specific conversations with West Ada and appreciate the comments from staff on kind of their threshold. I will say -- or we will note this is a smaller project at 22 lots, but I think it's also worth noting this is a type of project that's going to be well above your homeowners exemption and contribute more than your typical standard subdivision from a property tax standpoint to the school district. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Lakey: Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. Simison: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Lomeli: Mr. Mayor, we have no one signed up. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present that would like to provide testimony on this item, either in the room or online? If you are online use the raise your hand feature. I see no one coming forward and no one raising their hand. Would the applicant like to make any additional comments? So, Council, we will turn this back to you for further dialogue. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Mr. Lakey, I just got to tell you that it's a little refreshing to have a project in front of us with this low of a density, because that's not what we tend to see anymore Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 12 of 36 and when I first saw this I had to read it twice to make sure I wasn't seeing a typo. I think it's perfect for that area as a phase two of The Keep. It's already there. It looks beautiful. I think this will be like the missing puzzle piece going next to it and won't add a lot of traffic trips onto Lake Hazel because of it. I think it looks like a really well done project and it's going to be a great addition to our community. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I really like the estate lot products. I think it's a nice addition to Meridian and does help us, you know, provide something a little bit different. The only area I am struggling -- and it's not actually something that the applicant can solve, but we do have concerns about school overcrowding in another development that is close by this area and I think it is going to be important for us to find some sort of a consistent philosophy and how we are approaching that issue. I do take a lot of comfort from our joint meeting with the West Ada School District where we asked them directly what do you need from us and they felt confident that they still had all the tools available to try to manage the student population. I expect them to rise to the occasion and do that. I think the -- the answer for some of these where it is really overcrowded is less density and you have already got that, so that gets me comfortable with this one. I don't have any major concerns. But, again, it's more of just a philosophy kind of conversation about how we are going to be approaching these in this area, particularly where Mountain View is extremely overcrowded and we have some other issues like that. You know even with the student generation rate, which I don't even think this would probably reach of, you know, even half of a student per unit, it's a very manageable number. So, again, I'm okay with this one, but I think getting that feedback from West Ada really closely on these going forward is going to be important for us. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: This one to me is a little bit of a -- for me going to be an exercise of discipline for The Keep game changer for South Meridian. Appreciate you being forward thinking and investing your dollars to bring something to South Meridian that many in our community have been asking for. I love driving past it. Hope one day maybe I could live there and I -- to Council Member Overton's point, it is refreshing to see something that's different. We talk a lot about diversity and oftentimes diversity means density and it's nice to see something that is less dense. I struggled a little bit with kind of location of open space and the alley load side, but given the really unique geographical challenges I think you have really put together something that works with a very limited canvas. Being up front, where I'm struggling is that Mountain View High School, Victory Middle School, are over capacity and I have no doubt that if this is built will help alleviate in terms of providing extra funding to the district long term. That's a school that has been really challenged for a long time and continues to be challenged and I can't Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 13 of 36 get frustrated about high density products that are putting students into an overcrowded school and say, well, this is not as many, so it kind of makes it okay. So, I wish we had the magic wand to solve the challenges that are going in the schools. These are challenges that are not your making, but you are kind of at the tail end of being forced to address. I am not going to be supportive this evening and it's not because I don't want this and I don't want more of this, it's that for me I don't think it is the right time given the challenges that our school district is currently faced and it -- frankly, it pains me, because I want to encourage more of this particularly in South Meridian. Simison: Council, any additional questions, comments? Close the public hearing? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: If there is no more public testimony, I move we closed the public hearing. Simison: Motion to close the public hearing. And a second? Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Thank you. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend -- to approve File No. H-2023-0047 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 9th, 2024. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item 4. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll Roll Call: Cavener, nay; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea. Simison: Four ayes. One nay. The item is approved. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. 5. Public Hearing for Rosalyn Subdivision (H-2023-0056) by Givens Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 14 of 36 Pursley, LLP, located at 200 E. Rosalyn Dr. A. Request: Annexation of a 0.014-acre of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district, including the remaining portion of E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right-of-way. B. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.733 acres in the R-8 zoning district. Simison: Next item up is Item 5, public hearing for Rosalyn Subdivision, H-2023-0056. We will open the staff hearing -- or this public hearing for staff comments. Hersh: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. The applicant is here to present their project for Rosalyn Subdivision. The applications that were submitted our annexation and combined preliminary/final plat. The site consists of 0.733 acres of land, a small portion of right of way that is currently zoned RUT and the larger piece of the property is zoned R-8 and it's located at 200 East Rosalyn Drive. History on the property. There was a short plat that was approved and a right of way -- right of way vacation instrument number. The Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation is low density residential. This designation is intended to allow for the development of single family homes on large estate lots at a gross density of three dwelling units or less per acre. This property was annexed in 2005 with an R-8 zone and granted approval for a step up in density, which was allowed under the previous Comprehensive Plan. This policy was removed from the Comprehensive Plan in the 2019 update. The applicant is proposing to annex 0.014 of an acre of land with an R-8 zoning district, including the remaining portion of East Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right of way. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included with the application. The property is within the city's area of city impact boundary. The applicant proposes a six lot subdivision for six single family residential detached homes. Since the majority of the property is already annexed and zoned with an R-8 district, staff must analyze the project based on the merits of the governing zoning district regardless of the proposed density. The proposed preliminary plat consists of six building lots and one common lot on 0.733 acres of property in the existing R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 4,060 to 5,219 square feet. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. An existing home on the property is proposed to be removed from the site. Any outbuildings located on the site should be removed with the development of the property. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in the UDC. The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district and per the UDC lots taking access from a common drive do not require street frontage. Access is proposed from East Rosalyn Drive and a common driveway on Lot 6, Block 1. The interior Lots 3, 4, 5 and 7, Block 1, are proposed to take access via a common drive to East Rosalyn Drive meeting the street access requirements of the UDC. Common driveway shall serve a maximum of four dwelling units and in no case shall more than three dwelling units be located on one side of a driveway. The applicant is proposing six dwelling units, with four taking access Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 15 of 36 off the common drive -- driveway. Three dwelling units are also located on one side of the driveway in accordance with the UDC requirements. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accordance with the standards listed in the UDC for single family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. There are no street buffers required along local streets per the UDC table. The applicant has provided a landscape plan and that actually is not required per the UDC. East Rosalyn Drive is improved with an existing five foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accordance with the UDC standards. All fencing is required to comply with the UDC standards and according to the submit -- submitted plans the applicant is not proposing fencing with this project at this time. Two conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like. Variations that appear to be single story and two story detached homes with a two car garage are proposed. The submitted elevations depicts several different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding, different colored accents, roof profile, stone and front porches. The summary from the Commission hearing. In favor was the applicant from Givens Pursley. In opposition was Jan Larrea, Paul Pelletier, Ken Freeze and Nick Nauslar. Commenting again is the applicant from Givens Pursley. Written testimony -- multiple letters of written testimony were submitted and can be found in the record online and key issues discussed at the Commission public hearing. The Comprehensive Plan depicts the property as low density residential in the future land use map. There are too many lots proposed within the subdivision. Lot -- lots smaller than 5,000 square feet should not be proposed for a development this small. Concerns with additional traffic and noise. Key issues of discussion by Commission were none. Commission changes to staff report is none. Outstanding issues for City Council are none. And written testimony since the Commission hearing. We received a letter from Robin Hatcher with concerns with increased traffic and the density proposed on the lot. And that concludes staff's presentation and I stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions for staff? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Stacy, just to make sure I understand correctly, when it comes to sidewalks it lists East Rosalyn Drive is improved within the existing five foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site. The only sidewalks going in are the ones abutting this actual site. We are not improving the roadway of Rosalyn out to the west of Meridian Road. Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, yes, that is correct. So, that -- that sidewalk is existing and none are required along the common drive and no roadway improvements are being -- are happening with this project. The applicant is annexing the cul-de-sac that is in the area on the plan. Maybe I can't -- it's not on the plan here. That was basically left to be a cul-de-sac at one time, but that didn't happen for that -- for those projects that were developed in that area. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 16 of 36 Overton: Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Question for you, but if you are unable to answer it, the applicant hopefully could address it, but help me zero in on what part of the property is already annexed and what part of the property is not. I think that's going to be really important tonight. Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, so I don't have a really good picture. believe the applicant -- she does in her presentation that you can see the cul-de-sac to the south. So, this whole area on this plat that's proposed is already annexed as R-8. It's just a little piece of right of way that ACHD owned that was supposed to be a cul-de- sac that is no longer taking place. So, we asked them to annex that piece and to clean up the GIS map and zoning, so that wasn't left in the county. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, when the Rosalyn Subdivision was originally annexed was this a preliminary plat that came through and was reviewed by Council at that time and were there six dwelling units at that time? Or help me understand -- sorry. It's kind of a convoluted question. What I'm getting at is -- just to be very upfront, I don't like step- ups in density. I was very happy that that policy was eliminated in our Comprehensive Plan update and so I'm hesitant to do those, unless I'm told legally we are forced to, but I just want to understand if I'm looking at this property like, which you -- what were -- what was kind of approved in their original annexation? Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, so that original annexation I believe was approved in 2005. I'm not a hundred percent sure. But that piece of land -- that whole area, actually, including the other subdivisions surrounding it, were all stepped up to R- 8. So, they are completely surrounded by R-8 subdivisions. If you look at the FLUM designation in the center, that entire area where those medium density residential homes are are low density on the FLUM designation. But if you look to the zoning, every one of those lots is zoned R-8, so they that entire area asked for a density bump up -- bump up and prior to the comp plan changes in 2019 where we no longer have that. However, we did make UDC changes to the code in 2016 to remove the density requirements for each residential zone. So, there are no density requirements attached to each residential zone in our UDC code. However, it's based on dimensional standards. Can the applicant meet the 4,000 square foot lot and the street frontages. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 17 of 36 Strader: If you don't mind -- and I, apologize because I'm sort of taking us down a rabbit hole, but at -- before -- we don't have density standards now, but we did before, so help me understand what the dense -- because I feel like -- what I'm worried about is I don't want to have a -- like have your cake and eat it too situation where the applicant is relying on the most advantageous parts of zoning and grandfathered in under step up, but at the same time avoiding the requirements that would have existed at that time. Are -- and I'm sorry, because it's kind of -- if you want to get back to me later in the hearing totally fine, but my curiosity is just what would have been the density requirement at that time? Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader. So, that entire area, including the slot, were zoned R-8, so densities are three to eight units per acre. Strader: Three to eight. Hersh: Yes. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Anything you want to add? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, just a little bit more context. So, on this particular property -- so, if you -- if Stacy being -- had that aerial there. I can't see it on my screen, so I apologize, but if you see this particular property and, then, the three lot -- the common drive and the three lots to the east, that annexed in in 2005 as one big a lot. So, as part of that it was just one home on one lot the way you are seeing it and, then, in 2018 the previous owner subdivided even more and added the three lots and we went through a short plat process that this Council approved and now we are left with this even smaller piece that is in front of you tonight to even subdivide it even further. Stacy also looked at the density for Council tonight and I believe that Larkspur came in at about 4.75 dwelling units to the acre, so that it did fall well within that density range of three to eight as requested with the step up. I just -- we just wanted to give you that context that this is -- it was one lot, then, went to four lots and now this one lot is going to six lots. But it's still -- based on some of the discussion at the Commission hearing as well, these lots are fairly compatible to the adjacent lots around this development and we were able to verify that with the Commission as well. So, just at least wanted to let the Council know that as well. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Stacy, you made a comment I want to make sure that I heard it correctly, which is that the annexation element of tonight's application is because the city asked the applicant to annex that piece highway district land in with their application. Is that Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 18 of 36 what I heard correctly? Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, that is a hundred percent correct. We wanted to clean up the map and they also needed it in the southwest corner to complete their configuration. So, their allotment -- the dimensional standards -- one of their lots. And so ACHD agreed with them to allow them to obtain that piece. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I think just kind of for me at least the crux of the issue -- if the Council were to recommend -- if the Council were to deny the annexation request, because the bulk of the land already has an annexation and zone that's been granted, they could build what is proposed. The only difference is we wouldn't clean up some of this highway district business. Is that -- is my reading of your staff report and your presentation accurate? Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, so if you do not grant the annexation for that little piece -- that sliver, one of the lots will not meet the dimensional standards for the front yard or the garage layout, so I'm not sure if they are able to reorientate those -- that house to make it work or not. Cavener: Okay. Hersh: So, that's the main reason. Simison: Maybe to ask that a different way, would they only be allowed, then, to do five lots potentially, if that was the case? Hersh: Mr. Mayor, that would be correct. They would probably have to lose a lot, because they couldn't meet the dimensional standards of the R-8 zoning district. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: What is the ACHD property that's being annexed currently used for or is it just sitting there? Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Roberts. So, again, it was just -- it's just sitting there. As you will see it on the applicant's presentation, she blows it up nicely where everyone can actually get a look at what that -- we are talking about. It -- it's basically carved out as a roundabout, but was never made a roundabout. It's just a regular local road. So, there is just a piece that are sitting on people's properties that ACHD owned. Little Roberts: Thank you. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 19 of 36 Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Sorry. Just one more. Help me understand the not proposing fencing. How -- does that violate our policy? I wasn't really clear on whether that's like a violation of our policies or if you are just noting that. Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I was just noting it. They didn't propose any, but if they do in the future with the building permits they need to meet the UDC code. Strader: Okay. So, it was just noting that at that time they would have to. Got it. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. Good evening. Koeckeritz: Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. Elizabeth Koeckeritz, with Givens Pursley. 601 Bannock. Am I controlling or -- all right. Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Koeckeritz. I am here on behalf of the applicant team tonight. I am land use counsel with Givens Pursley. Hear with me tonight is Julie Bingham, who is one half of the applicant team. It's just a husband and wife. But Bingham is a local vet in the area and so this is sort of their first foray into buying this in-fill lot and deciding to do something with it. They are the owners of the project. They are not career developers, but they felt like this was a great location and something that they wanted to look at doing. So, let's go right into it. Let's -- so, this is the vicinity map. This goes so fast for me. As you can see this really is surrounded by development by the City of Meridian on all sides, except for there is a small portion that's completely directly to the west that's completely -- that is still Ada county, but the Ada county piece is completely surrounded by Meridian. If you look here this is the exhibit -- this is the annexation. Rosalyn Subdivision is a replat of a portion of the San Gorgonio -- I think is maybe -- I have no idea how to pronounce it -- Subdivision. It was approved by the Meridian City Council in 2020. There is three homes to the direct east of this plat where it was made very clear on the plat that this was the -- sort of the original parcel, the original home is standing there. I don't know who carved it off, but the three homes were then built along the eastern boundary of it and this larger lot remained with the original home on it. The area highlighted in yellow is .01 acres, which is approximately 600 feet. It was the former ACHD right of way when this was intended to be a cul-de-sac that actually, I believe, didn't go at the time through out to the main street, but rather it dead ended. Right there was the intention, but that little portion was ACHD right of way that then has been -- now they went through -- the applicant went through the vacation process with ACHD, who was like we didn't even know that we owned this small portion, because Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 20 of 36 they have been taking care of it and it has been landscaped and it's just part of the streetscape there and so this was recently vacated and so, then, when you look at it what the city asked us to do, in addition to the 600 square feet, was also just to clean up the whole cul-de-sac area to make -- just to clean up these boundaries and annex the larger area into it. As mentioned, the main property was annexed into the city in 2005 and for unknown reasons the vacated property was not included in the annexation at the time, so that is why we are here today with the annexation request for that 600 acres. One other thing -- I actually want to backup, because I always start by thanking staff, because this truly, for being six lots, has gone rounds and rounds and rounds with coming in, meeting with Bill Nary, talking to staff, realizing we had to get ACHD for a vacation, coming back, meeting with staff, not realizing until the last minute that this tiny sliver had not been annexed, adding an annexation, having another neighborhood meeting, proposing attached dwelling units, meeting with the neighbors and, finally, settling on detached single family neighborhood and so we have worked really closely with Bill and Stacy and legal counsel and all sorts of people here to get to where we are. It was originally zoned -- annexed and zoned into the property going on to the bigger parcel as R-8. If you look at this parcel you can see that what's directly to the north, to the east and to the south is also zoned R-8 and this does meet all of the R-8 dimensional standards. This site is ideally situated for a small housing development. It does help meet the city's goal for housing. There is the sidewalk already existing along the road that was put in when the San Gorgonio Subdivision was originally approved in 2020. That's why there are no additional street improvements that are required to be made at this point in time. Based on the feedback, as I mentioned, originally there were seven lots proposed, including duplex or townhomes along the back, but that has been now reduced to just the three homes along the back, three in the front. There is fencing -- there currently exists fencing around the back of the property and also to the eastward abuts into those other three homes in the San Gorgonio Subdivision. There is fencing there and that fencing is intended to stay. There were discussions about using that hammerhead, then, as emergency access through. That started getting very complicated and so it's just been with this layout we can leave it as is with the fence right there. It meets multiple goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including that it's in-fill development, it's prioritizing the development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels. All your public facilities are available. There is -- the infrastructure is already in place and it does help support diverse housing throughout the city. I'm looking at the preliminary plat. It does qualify, because it is small. It qualifies for the preliminary and final plat process. The dimensions meet all city -- city code standards for the R-8 as set forth in the code. One note and comment to Council Woman Strader's comment is that with -- I don't believe if the annexation were denied if this exact plat could be approved. However, with a small shift over to the right of the private drive this -- a very similar plat could be approved that would be almost identical to what's being presented here, it just would be without that 600 square feet of annexed property. There is public financial capability to support the project. They will be paying all the required impact and other fees. There is property tax revenue coming from this. Overall it's not a burden on the city, it really fits in well with all of the surrounding project. The traffic impacts are so small that ACHD's comment letter said we have nothing. We did not receive a school letter. The schools here are Sienna, Victory and, then, Mountain View, which I do know Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 21 of 36 are some of your more crowded schools here. The final plat is in conformance with the preliminary plat. All the requirements for the UDC for a final plat and all the engineering, architectural and surveying and required standards -- everything is being met here. They are looking at doing a high quality site and architectural design that does complement the surrounding neighborhood. They have craftsman style architecture, front porch areas facing the street, complimentary landscaping and each home is actually -- they are looking at doing one and a half, which is -- stories, which is really primarily two and three bedrooms on the main floor with a bonus room upstairs and one of the things that the Binghams developed this for is they do have their older grandmother, they are looking at being able to live here in one of these units and not have to worry about stairs. Their sewer and water -- we just have some aerial pictures here. Sewer and water is available. In speaking with the trash collection they do -- because of how this hammerhead is made they will be able to go in and collect trash inside. The trash bins should not need to be all drug out to the street and, then, we just did receive approval for the location of the mailbox, which will be right at where the hammerhead comes in. The access and parking. It meets all of the requirements. There is two car garages, plus a parking apron for two cars for each one of these, for a total of four. So -- yeah. And with that we have reviewed the staff report and we are in agreement with all of the conditions of approval and so we are requesting approval for annexation and the combined preliminary and final plat and I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Elizabeth. Council, questions? I will go and take a crack at questions, since I won't be voting tonight one way or the other. So, when you look at the -- what I thought I heard staff say was the -- while everything -- the surrounding is R- 8, it's really about density of 5.96; is that correct? It was in the surrounding neighborhood. What? 4.75. You know, the fact that this isn't even on one acre -- again if you just -- if you just extrapolate the numbers -- I mean you are putting -- you are pretty much on a one -- eight homes per acre if you were to take this all the way up to an acre, compared to the surrounding, which seems a little -- more than the surrounding neighborhoods and I think if you use the three homes to the east, those three homes would almost take up this entire place where you have six, but if you use the four homes to the north you can fit those four and maybe one more. I guess my kind of just looking at round numbers and look at this -- five seems to be like the right size number based on the dimensional standards, based upon the surrounding area. Why would five not be a good fit for this location? Koeckeritz: Mayor, that is a great question. One is because it actually -- it can have more and it does really nicely fit in -- one of the things when you are dealing with the density -- let me find this picture. Oh, I went past it. This is so twitchy. Is that you look at some of these other developments that came in much larger that have the roads going through them, that have public roads, they have got open space, things of that nature start taking away and making the density less, but if you were to just take this red square and slide it right up -- directly up, you would actually have one, two, three, four -- It looks like eight houses on there. So, it really is matching into really almost identical as to what is being directly to the north. There really is no difference in the density in Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 22 of 36 how it looks and feels, because this -- because of the small size of it it's not required to have those other amenities and things. It doesn't have the public road going through it. They wouldn't have been required in a larger development, but in this case when you just move that red square up, you can really see the size of the lot surrounding it and, then, all of those green numbers are all lot sizes that are 5,000 square feet or less surrounding it. Simison: I would bet you lunch that it doesn't fit. It would be more than an acre for those eight straight above it. You could maybe in that -- in that direction get six, but if you want to put money on it, I will be happy to take the free lunch from you, because it won't fit. That's -- that's more than an acre on those other to get eight -- the next eight. It's wider and it's taller. But point being the four to the north are definitely a different size than the three to the east, which goes back to my point is you got a wide variety of product in this area that averages out to well below the dimensional standard. Really, if you proportionate it out, the six is close to eight per acre that you are -- that's what the number comes out to, compared to the rest of the -- everything around you, which is closer to five per acre. They have a lot more space to work to average that out, but, you know, setting a point -- I don't know if it's the -- just the .733 or plus the annexation puts it up the .738, but just -- just doing math -- math and looking at pictures, that's all I'm doing, and trying to understand that that -- the six, when you got to shoehorn a house in sideways, to me says, well, are we really doing what we would normally do on a project like this. On a cul-de-sac, yes. On stuff that's not a cul-de-sac it just seems a little awkward. Like we are trying to make something fit that doesn't really fit. I have said my piece. There is no -- you can respond if you want, but there is really no question, it's just a blanket comment for consideration. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Elizabeth, thanks for the presentation and especially -- I always appreciate when -- when staff asks for something you try to be responsive and so I think you have heard at least some initial deliberation there is some real challenges I think for some Members of the Council on this and so I assume you forecast that there was a little conversation about this at Planning and Zoning. Is your client seeking that annexation request. You are ambivalent to it? If -- if the request is granted that's great. If not, it's no big deal. Help me kind of understand your motivation around that. Koeckeritz: Mayor Simison, Council Member Cavener, our client would like to have the property annexed, because it's actually -- I believe it's with -- inside their current fence and they have been taking care of it for years -- or for as many years as they have owned the property, which is just a couple of years. But also it helps square up the corners. I believe we still could come back with the dimensional standards for six on a pre-plat, that it would still work without this property, but it does make it easier by squaring that corner up. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 23 of 36 Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I know we have got some public that are going to provide some testimony, so I'm just going to queue this up for you. I'm not going to be supportive of the annexation request with six units. So, I think that's a fair question for you to at least take back to your -- your client say one Council Member is not going to be supportive this way and that will give you guys some opportunity to discuss before you come back for closing comments. I know that some other Council Members who wants to share their thoughts, but just try to be fully transparent with you where I'm going to be sitting tonight. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Elizabeth, thanks for the presentation. Just in terms of the -- considering the -- I would say product type -- the types of homes being presented here, high marks for creativity, though, and fitting six units in a space like this. Would you -- can you just answer maybe two questions. Would you consider these almost like a patio home and what sort of the approximate square footage we are looking at. Because you mentioned stairs maybe for a bonus room only, but how would you sort of describe the type of home it is and kind of the square footage? Koeckeritz: Mayor Simison, Council Member Taylor, I would -- they are very similar to a patio home and they are -- the estimated size is between 1 ,500 and 1,800 square feet. So, really just the single floor, a bonus room upstairs, something for newer couples, older retirees, a place that you can lock and go. I mean it's smaller yards. It's a really convenient in like the location there. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, a quick follow up. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Speaking of just sort of -- there is no fences between homes, is this going to be something where people would take care of their home or they would have a -- part of the HOA would take care of the home -- or the landscaping? What's the intent? Koeckeritz: Mayor Simison, Council Member Taylor, I believe the intent is there will be an HOA, but I believe the intent is for the individuals to take care of their own homes. There will certainly be -- and there already is -- they do intend on fencing these units. No fencing plan was required as part of this application. So, none was provided. But there already is the standard -- the taller fence along the back and on the east and they will be doing some sort of lower sort of neighborhood friendly fence between these units. Taylor: Between the units. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 24 of 36 Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Thank you, Elizabeth. Mr. Clerk, who do we have signed up on this? Johnson: I apologize if I mispronounce it. Jan Larrea. Simison: Good evening. If you would, please, state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for three minutes. Larrea: Jan Larrea. 100 East Rosalyn Drive. I am the owner of the five acres to the west of this property and I am the one that has always mowed the cul-de-sac. That used to be a cul-de-sac. There was four houses on this road and that was the end of the cul-de-sac. It didn't go any further. I take care of it, because I mow all along the road along my pasture and now they are talking about not putting a fence between them and my pasture. So, they are going to have a barbed wire fence and electric fence on most of the houses there. It's too dense. I don't care if people want to build stuff on their property, but this is just too many houses. It will fit four houses or three houses real nicely and they will still come out ahead and that's -- and I had to give him permission to even annex that, because I own all that other property and you are setting the precedence. I have five acres across the street. There is five acres undeveloped. We are Ada county. So, when I die and the kids get the property they can put 30 houses there. Five times, you know, six. So, you are kind of setting the precedence. think it's a poor one for that area. That is not the kind of area that we want. That's it. Any questions? Simison: Council -- Larrea: And the sidewalk was there from 2005 when Ron did all of the development behind there. I have been there since '75. Simison: Council -- I think we do have a question for you, Jan. Councilman Overton. Overton: Thank you, Jan. Larrea: You are welcome. Overton: I have lived here since '77 and I remember the Larrea family living on Rosalyn Drive since then. Since 1975. Larrea: Right. Overton: That is still an unapproved road; correct? Larrea: Correct. Overton: No gutters. No sidewalks. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 25 of 36 Larrea: No. Overton: No streetlights. Larrea: No. Overton: All the way from where this project would be all the way to Meridian Road. Larrea: Correct. That's my land. Overton: And did you just state that you would be more open to a development that was either three or four houses? Larrea: I would. They have a right to do with their property. I mean everybody wants that; right? They have a right to do that. I don't want to stop that. This is just too much. It's too much for the neighborhood. Put it down to three or four. Overton: Thank you, Jan. Larrea: You're welcome. Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Ken Freeze. Mr. Mayor, Ken is representing an HOA. Freeze: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. I'm speaking on behalf of the -- and Lord help me trying to pronounce it -- the San Gorgonio HOA. That's about as close as I can get. I do have a PowerPoint to present to you that I'm going to contradict a lot that was said here. Can we get that up there? Thank you. So, I think this -- this current project as it's laid out is bad for a number of reasons. One, the development is not in line with Meridian's own Comprehensive Plan and future use -- land use. Too many units for the current zoning and it's out of character with the street -- with a street. Now, I have heard a lot about the Comprehensive Plan. I have read a lot of -- a lot of it and, you know, it sort of strikes me that it was talking about it's an effective vision and source document for the general public. We all want Meridian to be a premier place to live. I think everybody wants that and a key component for the Comprehensive Plan and the development that occurs is the future land use map. Now, we have already seen it, here it is again. X marks the spot where 200 Rosalyn is. Future land use -- future land use has this is low density and if you look right now these lots basically match that zoning. These lots are all large lots. So, lots right directly across the street. They are putting another high density housing, trying to put as many as you can cram into a piece of property is not going to fit. That's actually a step backwards for the plan. Medium high density. I was looking at some of our neighbors, Ada county R-8, lot size minimum is 5,000 square feet. Eagle is 5,000 square feet. Nampa has a -- kind of a hybrid. It's an 8.5. It's 8,500 square feet. And Boise jumps from 9,000 square feet for a Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 26 of 36 home down to 3,500 feet for condos. Why -- why did Meridian opt for 4,000 square feet? Well, you know, it gives developers some more options. I'm sure you have seen a lot of plans come across here -- there are some weird shaped properties and they have some weird things going across them and trying to get that worked in with eight units per acre can be a real challenge. Here is a plan that was approved -- let's see. It was last year I believe and if you look there you will see that minimum lot size is 4,300 square feet, but the average lot size is over 6,000 square feet. Right there. It's 6,000 square feet. Now, this is going to be put -- assuming that you approve the annexation -- .733 acres, with each one having, according to the code, a minimum of 4,000 square feet. I -- I believe -- and granted this isn't chiseled any place -- that the use of the 4,000 square foot lots in a lot that's less than an acre is really kind of an abuse of that 4,000 square foot when you look around and see everybody else has got 5,000 square foot. I think it's very appropriate for a larger development of several acres, especially when they are a weird shape, but I don't think it's appropriate in this particular project. If you look on the street, all these homes in green are over 5,000 and most of them are over 6,000 and the three lots that are directly across the street vary from 12,000 to 16,000 square feet. So, trying to cram high density housing in that lot on this street I think is the wrong place to do it. The other thing they have is this hammerhead, which I think is a real safety issue and what I would propose for, again, safety, for fire, emergency vehicle, is that they put three homes on that property. This gives adequate space for homes, for backyards, for front yards. It becomes a -- much easier for the Fire Department to access, for emergency vehicles to access. Don't have to worry about a fire taking place and somebody had parked on that hammerhead, which I have to wonder who is going to keep that hammerhead policed to make sure there is no parking on it 24/7, because that's what it's going to take if you want to get an emergency vehicle in there at 3:00 a.m. in the morning. I think this system here of three homes will be much better. You can see it practically mimics the property lines directly across the street from it. I think three homes on this street would fit in very nicely. It would -- it would add to the street and it wouldn't be another one of these -- let's see how many homes we can cram into a lot type of development. The HOA is not against the development. Six homes just -- it's just -- just too many. Too dense. We would not be opposed to fewer homes as I showed. I think three homes fits in there very nicely and it's very appropriate for the neighborhood. Fewer homes that fit into the surrounding homes would really be a nice addition to the neighborhood. During this whole process I have talked to a lot of people in the neighborhood and I assured them that their voices will be heard. However, this is some of the comments I got from a lot of people. Can't fight city hall. It's useless to try to do anything. The city only listens to developers. I really hope that that is not the case tonight. Thank you. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Freeze: Do you have any questions for me? Simison: You are going to probably have questions. Councilman Overton. Overton: Ken. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 27 of 36 Freeze: Yes. Yes. Overton: I have stood where you are standing for my HOA multiple times before I ever got on this Council and I have always found previous councils to listen to what people had to say. Freeze: That's what I have been telling people. Overton: Okay. I just want to make sure I have that -- Freeze: I -- I have come to a lot of Council meetings. I -- I hear what goes on and I was assuring them, look, let the Council -- write your letters. They will listen. Overton: And, Ken, can I also assume that the number of homes that you would like to see on that lot is three homes? Freeze: Yeah. I think -- I think three would be very nice there. Overton: Thank you, sir. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Ken, we always think folks who represent HOAs. It's a hard gig. I also just want to appreciate your role on HPC and you have been vocal on some stuff with that as well. So, you have spent a lot of time at City Hall and I appreciate you kind of share both sides as you meet with the public. Ken, has the -- has the HOA discussed if they would want this proposed development if approved to be part of your existing HOA or has the homeowners association said we want them to be their own separate HOA? Freeze: The homeowners association hasn't expressed that either way. Right now Amy Wessel, who is the president, she does everything. They don't have a -- a service or anything like that and she's trying to save money and it's just -- it's just the three homes that are -- that are there now. Personally I think they could get some synergy by adding three more homes to it. I'm not sure Amy would want to do that. Unfortunately, she couldn't be here tonight. She got tied up with work. It would be easy to just turn around and ask her about that, because she -- she really is the HOA. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks. So, Ken, because -- because you have been to a lot of these meetings -- I know you have been involved in our community is kind of maybe why I'm Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 28 of 36 asking a more direct question, which is this property is -- already received its annexation and zoning. They have entitled rights to develop within the zoning that's already been applied to them. Really the big discussion for the Council tonight is this small strip of land that's being proposed for an annexation. Help me understand -- I mean what I'm hearing from you is opposition to the totality of the development. Freeze: Correct. Cavener: So, somewhat that decision has already been addressed. We have got a plat that's before us and there is limited basis for denial of a plat. So, again, it's back to this small strip of land that's an annexation request. So, does the HOA have an opinion about where the Council should be on that -- on really what is the decision before us, which is approve or deny the small tenth of an acre annexation request? Freeze: Well, I would say if it prevents six homes from being built there, then, yes, we would be against it. But you are right on one level. They do have a right to build there. But you as a Council have a responsibility to the people of the city to make sure that it's all done responsibly and I think six homes on this piece of property in this area is not a responsible option. I think three homes, as I -- as I showed would -- would fit in very nicely there and I think they could still make their profit, because that's -- that's what this is all about and I don't blame -- I don't blame people for wanting to make money. We all need to make money. I just want something to be done responsibly, that fits right with a neighborhood and the neighborhood being that street. Cavener: Thank you, Ken. Freeze: Thank you. Anything else? Simison: Thank you very much. Freeze: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone else signed up? Johnson: That was everyone who signed up. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody else present who would like to provide testimony on this item, either in the audience or online? If you are online use raise your hand feature. If you are in the audience if you want to come forward. Okay. Seeing no one raising their hand or coming forward, would the applicant like to come forward for any final remarks. Koeckeritz: Mayor, City Council, Elizabeth Koeckeritz. Givens Pursley. So, I have had an opportunity to speak with the applicant and at this point in time we do want to go forward with the annexation. That's something that they had worked very closely with the city on based on the dimensional standards with or without that portion. It will just Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 29 of 36 require a simple lot line adjustment on the northern boundary of that corner lot is what it looks like and they would still be able to get the six lots on this subdivision, which is what they are really looking at doing. They originally had looked at seven lots. They had had to detach -- they have had attached homes. They have made some real concessions based on working with the neighbors, talking more to the city, because it did actually work with -- there is enough property here to get seven lots that all meet the dimensional standards on this piece of property. At this point in time it is a good little in- fill development. The services are all available to the development and so we are asking for approval of the annexation and the preliminary plat at this time. Preliminary and final plat. I will stand for any more questions. Simison: Council, additional questions for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks, Elizabeth. So, it sounded like this is your client's first development in the City of Meridian. I guess just to share some perspective, you could legally move forward without annexing that piece of property, so you are right. However, I would personally encourage you to think about being a good neighbor as part of your consideration and think about a continuance to evaluate whether you could make it work with five units. You know, it's a partnership and the city and developers and neighbors have all been partnering together for a long time. The most successful developers that I have seen long term in the City of Meridian do try to make these compromises to get a better outcome for everybody. I think that we get a much better outcome for everybody when we try to seek that kind of compromise. So, that's just a piece of perspective. You know, again, you could certainly try to move forward without that annexation of that little piece and see if you can manage to fit six lots. You might be able to and you might not. I don't have a piece of graph paper to sit here with you to evaluate whether that's possible. I do feel like on the one hand this was annexed, that that decision was made. On the other hand, it's been a long time and we have changed the direction that we are going as a city since before I think you got involved here. With our Comprehensive Plan update we no longer allow step ups in density. So, there has been a big change in philosophy in the City of Meridian and how we approach these properties. If this was a brand new annexation for me I would really struggle with approving it and I do feel like we have a little bit of opportunity to make a decision here and, unfortunately, for the neighbors -- and they need to understand that the outcome could be -- if there was a denial it's very possible that the developer will simply try to push forward. They may very well find a way to fit those six lots under what is legally allowed, but I do agree that at the end of the day the citizens of Meridian need to rely on their City Council to make the best decisions holistically for the city and I don't feel like this is an appropriate transition for the surrounding neighborhood. The math that I am doing -- I know Councilman Cavener is doing on his phone -- works out to be over eight units per acre. That's kind of what I'm struggling with. You know, I feel like you are getting some of the benefit of the previous zoning and Comprehensive Plan, but maybe Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 30 of 36 not owning all of the restrictions that would have come with it at that time. So, that's just some feedback. You know, I'm likely a no tonight and I am sad about that, because I would hope that, you know, you might seek a continuance and you might find a way to change your business plan a little bit and come back and be successful with everybody kind of in partnership. So, that's just some feedback. Koeckeritz: Mayor, Council Member Strader, based on that feedback and Councilman Cavener's, we would request a continuance just for a few weeks just so that we can talk with the whole client team versus just part of it being here. Simison: Okay. Do we have a time frame from which we want to look at that? Two weeks? Three weeks? Koeckeritz: Do you mind if I grab my phone? Simison: Not at all. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: While the applicant's doing that I would still like to get some more comments on the record tonight before that continuance. Simison: Well, why don't you go ahead and make some great comments. Overton: Mr. Mayor, I'm kind of looking at this a little bit differently I think than most of the folks tonight. Maybe similar to some of the residents on Rosalyn. But one of the things that was very important to me when I came onto this Council was traffic safety and transportation and I just cannot in good conscience approve a development that's going to be an R-8, that's going to be driving on low density residential roads out to Meridian Road. There just -- for bicycles and pedestrians there is not a sidewalk, there is not a streetlight, there is no safe way for them to get down that roadway and yet we are here tonight being asked to approve that. You are going to use a low density residential road -- I think we have heard it loud and clear. I think it needs to be built to low density residential lots. We have heard from the residents close that they would go with three or even four and I think that's as much as I would ever get a yes vote for on this project. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Just a question that came up to me for our Fire Department. Mr. Bongiorno, when I'm looking at this hammerhead and, Elizabeth, maybe you can help answer this question. So, the -- the way that this common driveway is I'm kind of concerned about Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 31 of 36 that public safety access in there a little bit and the reason I say that is I know there is a two car garage and, then, there is a parking apron for four cars, but I have a two car garage and there is no cars in it. I have got two cars. I got a third car that I just bought for my teenage daughter. And I got a 15 year old doing driver's ed who is going other directions with sports. I'm thinking there is going to be four cars there really quickly. Next to it my neighbor has got five cars. Street allows it, but it gets pretty crowded. But I also live -- right across the road are a lot of patio homes and there has been -- the fire department in that community every few months -- there is elderly people there and so as I'm looking at the product type, maybe might find more elderly people occasionally in a smaller location, but did you -- did the department look at that and have you considered sort of that access in there? Because there is three homes that you have to access through this drive where there could be -- you know, it doesn't look too big and if you have cars on each side can you stick a fire truck down that? I'm actually kind of concerned. But have you looked at that and what would you -- how would your response be to that? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor, so the gentleman that spoke earlier about the hammerhead is correct. You cannot park on it. Period. It would be considered a fire lane. Taylor: On the access from Rosalyn you cannot park on that? Bongiorno: No, you cannot. That is fire lane. Taylor: Okay. Bongiorno: So, it would be for fire, police and EMS to access the houses into the back. So, that's why I was kind of chuckling to myself when I saw the renderings, because it showed cars parked on there and that's a no no. So, they would be signed no parking fire lane. I had messaged Stacy to tell her, hey, by the way, make sure that they sign that no parking fire lane, because they can't park on it. Because that's one of my -- when I became the fire marshal seven or eight years ago or however long it's been, that's what I all of a sudden became is the parking guy and -- and the problems that we have is people don't put cars in their garages anymore. They put junk in their garages and their stuff. So, we -- if you have five cars -- okay? I was in your same boat. I had two teenage daughters and so we had five cars. It doesn't work. The math doesn't work. Two in, two out, plus a third -- where are you going to put them? And that's always a concern for me with some of these bigger projects to make sure that we have adequate parking and, then, you throw a holiday in there, now you have grandma, auntie, whoever coming over to visit, where are they going to park? Well, they are going to park right on the -- in the hammerhead where it's not allowed and so to answer your question again about who is going to police that, it's going to be the HOA is going to have to police it and, unfortunately, our police officers -- Lieutenant Harper here is going to have to stick somebody on them, because if it is posted no parking fire lane, we can ticket against it. There you go. So, very much of a concern. Hammerheads, common driveways, are always a problem, because as soon as they see common Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 32 of 36 driveway, the person that buys those houses that's now automatically their boat parking area. It -- they don't realize that, no, that's for fire, police and EMS and so it -- I don't like them, because they turn into parking places. Taylor: Yeah. And I think that's -- I appreciate you clarifying that, because that was kind of a missing piece for me. Maybe I will just add some of my thinking, so as you are -- the continuance for a few weeks. I look at this -- there are some things I like and there is some things I'm concerned about. You know, you have checked all the boxes in terms of what you are allowed to do. So, there is no real legitimate reason to say you can't have that. I liked that they are smaller product, like smaller homes. I think that's beneficial. You know, the price point would reasonably be less than maybe some of the surrounding homes. I think that helps add some diversity. But I do think the public safety component of it really does concern me. I think -- like I said, I have -- I have some -- my neighbors are some patio style homes. Now, we have good access, it's not a problem, but, you know, just this week my elderly neighbor, the fire department had to come and help her out, take care of her. If those back three homes -- you know that common driveway is going to have people parking on it and so I actually think there is a really legitimate public safety concern for people who live in the back. So, I would probably -- my thinking is that -- I actually share my council member's concern about the density here and I'm especially concerned about the public safety at the back. It seems to be a bit of a challenge. Otherwise, I -- you know, a lot of it like I really like, but I am concerned about that as well. Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional comments? Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Elizabeth, thank you so much for requesting the continuance. I hope that that will really give you and your team an opportunity to take in all that we have considered and I realize that you have stayed within the parameters, but I don't feel in this case it's the best fit after what we have seen, what's around it, especially five acres, that doesn't seem like it's going to change anytime soon. It just seemed like this area, especially with the concern of parking and density and the hammerhead, just seems like it's not a good fit and I hope that you can come back with something that works for everyone, because I think that we would like to see that little sliver annexed in and have something as a whole that fits more into that community area. Simison: Okay. And, Council, I know you have been -- Councilman Cavener, you have been talking to the Clerk, you know, to share dates. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's like you are reading my mind this evening. So, Elizabeth, three dates for you to maybe look at. Both the 23rd and 7th are our next two Council meetings. Want to be upfront. Those are somewhat already full agenda items, although, depending on where you come back this may be relatively quick, it may take a Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 33 of 36 while, so I will leave that to you. The other option is the 14th, which is currently wide open. Koeckeritz: Of May. Cavener: Of May. Yes, ma'am. Koeckeritz: So, I know I can't do the 23rd. I have a hearing that night. The 6th is -- we will take the May day. Cavener: May 7th or May the 14th? And, Mr. Mayor, I see -- I see Bill reaching for his mic. I want to be sensitive to vacation requests of our staff as well. As much as they love this, they also want to spend time with their friends and family. Parsons: We love spending time with Mayor and Council. It's always a pleasure. But do appreciate the discussion tonight, but I do want to close the loop on a few topics that were brought up this evening. One was setting a precedent. We are not -- we are not setting a precedent. Simison: Bill, can we get the dates before we -- Parsons: I just want to just -- yes, please do that and, then, we will -- but the dates are fine for staff, too. Simison: Thank you. Koeckeritz: May 14th. Cavener: May 14th. Okay. That's good to know. And, Mr. Mayor, a couple of thoughts and I think staff's got some things to wrap up and so, Elizabeth, thanks for that request and -- and I want to thank the Binghams -- I know they are sitting back -- making an assumption. I try not to make assumption. Ms. Bingham sitting back there. As I have kind of tried to look at this issue and our role is somewhat to be fair and I certainly can appreciate if a -- if a resident looks at our future land use map, sees low density and if you are someone who wants to invest in real estate and do development and you see R-8, this application -- you can come to the same conclusions looking at -- at this particular piece of dirt. So, I don't fault the applicant for trying to do what they believe could be accomplished within the zoning. I don't fault our neighbors for saying, hey, that -- that's too heavy handed here and I think that's ultimately our role as Council is to listen to both sides, look at the map, look at zoning, what's been entitled and make a decision about what is best for our community, because from everything I have read about Binghams they care about our community just as much as the neighbors that are going to live next to it and I think have that desire to get it right, not just for them, but for the people that are going to be living in these homes as well. So, that's -- that's my two cents. Mr. Mayor, I think staff did have a couple of clarifications they wanted to make before I will make a motion. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 34 of 36 Simison: Mr. Parsons. Parsons: Thank you. Appreciate that, Mayor and Members of the Council. Just -- just clarify the record. I mean the Council would not be setting a precedence here. As we mentioned in our presentation to the Council, this was afforded R-8 based on a previous comp plan. So, we have already established zoning is in place. In the case of the adjacent county acreage, they are LDR or low density residential. If they want to do something similar they have to go through a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. So, there is another level of review in order to get to that three to eight, because -- or those properties are going to develop at three or less and I imagine with them being fronted on Meridian Road I don't anticipate they are coming in with LDR. Someone is going to probably do something different on that, given the transportation corridor. Councilman Overton, I appreciate those comments on the roadway. I think staff and the Commission were tasked with when zoning is in place -- I think Councilman Cavener hit on it, too. We are looking at does it comply with the zoning code. With us already granting that zoning, the comp plan kind of loses some of the weight in the discussion and we have to focus on does this meet the code and that's what we have done and I believe that's -- and that is what the Commission has done. So, I wanted to put that in context. To Councilman Cavener's request, what if we denied the annexation. I would strongly urge against that as well and the only reason is we should have annexed that right of way when it all came in in 2005 and we missed that opportunity. The Binghams have purchase that property. So, essentially, if we do not annex that in we are going to have a small enclave in the county that we may never get in the city and we don't want to create that and the Comprehensive Plan does not support that. So, we have got to be -- we got to tread a little lightly when we make that decision, but you are absolutely right, if that was pulled and they could still meet the dimensional standards, we would still have to support the project. So, I just at least wanted to let you contemplate that as we go through the continuation process with the applicant and I do appreciate the time. Thank you. Simison: It may maybe just for one -- couple items, because -- so, on that -- when these are considered, can they be split out or is it one land use decision by Council in the future date? The annexation versus the preliminary and final plat. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean it's one application, so it really -- at this juncture we couldn't split it out and if you -- if you were to deny the annexation -- I think the problem you have on this one is it doesn't fit. The plat won't fit anymore. I think what Ms. Koeckeritz has said is they would, then, redraw it without that in it and so -- Simison: I guess if Council chooses to deny in the future, we could come back with a friendly annexation and do a city-initiated annexation for that piece of property to -- we can't do that? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, the Binghams own that piece of property. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 35 of 36 They went through ACHD and bought it and purchased it, so they -- clearly they own that sliver now. Simison: Well, yeah, I mean -- but we could still go through and annex them for them outside of the application process. It's less than five acres. They could do a city- initiated annexation to bring it in. I'm just trying to get to the -- get the Council to the point moving forward. Hopefully it doesn't come to a point where they don't have to decide to vote yes on something that they don't want to, because of annexing a small piece of property, which we have another mechanism to do if it's that important. That's all I'm saying. We can talk about that offline. But my understanding of the law is we -- we could do that. Maybe, Elizabeth, you did agree or disagree, but we don't need to worry about that now. Just trying to set the framework, so -- so, with that do I have a motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener into his microphone. Cavener: Dean appreciates that. Mr. Mayor, I move we continue Item 5, application H- 2023-0056 to May the 14th. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing to May 14. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is continued until the 14th. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(d): To consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code Simison: Council, next up is Executive Session. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move we go into Executive Session pursuant to Idaho State Code 74- 206(1)(d). Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to go into Executive Session. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea. Meridian City Council April 9,2024 Page 36 of 36 Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and we will go into Executive Session. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (8:00 p.m. to 8:34 p.m.) (Motion to come out of Executive Session: Cavener. 2nd by Little Roberts.) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON 4-23-2024 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 4-23-2024 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Week of the Young Child Proclamation � ^I 44 ppp I� - .. +L ` . . •�� a - I I Obow �'h • u kkk •• wee{ Of Iry V"q IDIAN wE, N IDAHC The Office of the Mayor PRO CaLA491ATION WHEREAS, the City of Meridian in conjunction with the Idaho Association for the Education of Young Children (Idaho AEYC ) are celebrating the Week of the Young ChildTM , April & 12 , 2024 ; and, WHEREAS, Idaho AEYC is working to promote and inspire high- quality early childhood experiences for our state ' s youngest citizens , that can provide a foundation of learning and success for children in Meridian ; and, WHEREAS, teachers and others who work with, or on behalf of young children from birth through age eight, make a difference in these lives and deserve thanks and recognition ; and, WHEREAS, public policies supporting early learning for all are crucial to young children ' s futures and to the prosperity of our society; and, WHEREAS, this is a time to recognize the importance of children ' s earliest years in shaping their development and to recommit ourselves to ensuring that each and every child experiences the type of environment — at home , at child care , at school , and in the community — that will promote early learning . THEREFORE, I , Mayor Robert E . Simison, proclaim April 642 , 2024 to be The 'We e k of the young ChiCd in the city of Meridian and encourage all citizens to work to support the efforts of Idaho AEYC and NAEYC and support and inve early childhood in our community . Dated this 9`h day of April, 2024 Robert . Si ison, Mayor Liz Strader, City Council Vice-President Luke Cavener, City Council • John Overton, City Council Anne Little Roberts City Council IDIAN�- I DAFf` AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Election of City Council President E IDIAN;--- /hl R 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 Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date . Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic . Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum : • DO NOT : o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals , business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3 - minute time limit ( you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed is for this forum ) Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline Changes to Agenda: Item #3: The Oaks north No. 1 (Lots 11 & 12, Block 7) - H-2024-004 Application(s): Size of property, existing zoning, and location: 5662 and 5684 W. Daphne Drive, in the SW ¼ of the W ½ Section 28 T.4N. R.1W. located on 0.156 and 0.184 acres of land zoned R8. History: Oaks North RZ-13-015, PP-13-0014, MDA-13-015, DA Inst. #11030974, PBA-2023-0015 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: Request to vacate the five-foot (5’) public utilities, pressurized irrigation and drainage easement located along the interior side lot line of Lots 11 and 12, Block 7, of the Oaks North No. 1 Subdivision. A property Boundary Adjustment application (PBA-2023-0015) was approved in November of 2023 to re-establish the easements. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval of the proposed Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 9, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2024-0004 as presented during the hearing on April 9, 2024 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0004, to the hearing date of April 9, 2024 (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #3: Keep West Subdivision (H-2023-0047) Application(s): Annexation and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 16.25 acres of land, zoned RUT, located on the south side of E. Lake Hazel Rd.; west of S. Eagle Rd. History: In 2013 Ada County approved the Raap Ranch Subdivision. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density and Medium Density Residential (Since this property is designated with two land use designations the Plan allows the flexibility to “float” the more dominate designation.) The applicant has chosen to apply the low-density designation across the entire property. Summary of Request: Annexation and zoning of 16.25 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2 (low "density residential") zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 22 new buildable lots, one existing home and 8 common lots on 15.76 acres of land in the R-2 zoning district. Density is 1.46 dwelling units to the acre consistent with the LDR designation. Proposed buildable lots range in size from 12,099 square feet (s.f.) (or 0.28 acre) to 27,957 s.f. (or 0.64 acre). The subdivision is proposed to be developed in one (1) phase. Existing Structures: There is an existing home and several other structures on the property. The existing home is proposed to remain on Lot 36, Block 1, all other structures are proposed to be removed. Prior to the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat, all existing structures that don’t comply with the setbacks of the district shall be removed. A new address will be required for the existing home. Dimensional Standards: The proposed plat, complies with the dimensional standards of the R-2 district. Subdivision Design & Improvement Standards: The proposed subdivision is required to comply with the design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. The block face on the west side of north/south street segment exceeds 750 feet. However, the code allows a block length up to 1000 feet when a pathway connects into a common open space area. The applicant has provided a connecting pathway to an open space to allow an extended block face. Per UDC 11-6C-3B4, the City Council may approve a dead-end street up to seven hundred fifty (750) feet in length where an emergency access is proposed; or where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope, railroad tracks, an arterial roadway, or a large waterway that prevents or makes impractical extension; and where a pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. The cul-de-sac for the proposed plat is greater than 900 feet which would exceed the maximum approval allowed by City Council of 750 feet in length. The applicant needs to revise the plat map shortening the length of the cul-de-sac and submit a revised plat map 15 days prior to the City Council meeting. Access: Access is proposed via the extension of E. Wickham Street at the east boundary of the site, which terminates onto S. Netherfield Way. Direct access is not proposed or allowed via E. Lake Hazel Road, except for an emergency access. A common driveway is proposed for access to Lots 22 and 23. Waterways: The Farr Lateral exists along the west boundary (within a 50-foot easement) and the Grimmet Lateral along the east boundary within a 40-foot wide easement, measured from centerline). The UDC (11-3A-6E) requires irrigation easements wider than 10 feet to be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20-feet wide outside of a fenced area, unless modified by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. The applicant proposes to place the Farr and the Grimmet Laterals within common lots as required. All other irrigation ditches crossing this site that aren’t being improved as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11- 1A-1 shall be piped or otherwise covered as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B.3, unless otherwise waived by City Council. The applicant is proposing to pipe the Grimmet Lateral and has been working with the Boise Project Board of Control for approval. The Farr Lateral will remain open. If piped, the Boise Project Board of Control will not approve any landscaping other than gravel within its 25-foot easement. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the irrigation district to leave the Lateral open in a natural state to avoid the area being improved with gravel only. Landscaping: A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Lake Hazel Road., an arterial street, per UDC Table 11-2A-6, measured from back of the sidewalk. A buffer is depicted on the landscape plan that appears to meet this requirement. The buffer has been depicted on the plat in a common lot as proposed with landscaping per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.3. Common Open Space & Site Amenities: The applicant is proposing 1.48-acres of open space consisting of 50% of the street landscape buffer along E. Lake Hazel Road, 6-foot wide parkways, pathway along the emergency access, and open grassy areas. The applicant provided 1.48 acres of open space (9.41%) exceeding the 8% (54,920 sf or 1.26 acres) requirement. Per UDC 11-3G-4, for each five (5) acres of gross land area, one (1) point of site amenity is required. As the property is 15.76 acres, a total of 3 amenity points are required. The applicant is proposing a covered pavilion (picnic area – 2 points) and sports court for pickle ball (4 points) as amenities which totals 6 amenity points. Building Elevations: Several conceptual building elevations of homes were submitted as shown. Building materials consist of a variety of stone/brick veneer accents and stucco. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: ii. In opposition: iii. Commenting: iv. Written testimony: v. Key Issue(s): Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\] Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend to approve of File Number H-2023-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 9, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2023- 0047, as presented during the hearing on April 9, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0047 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Rosalyn Subdivision (H-2023-0056) Application(s):  Annexation  Combined Preliminary/Final Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.733 acres of land, a small portion of ROW-zoned RUT, and the larger piece of property is zoned R-8, located at 200 E. Rosalyn Drive. History: Short Plat H-2023-0092; ROW Vacation Instrument #2023-034331 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low-Density Residential (LDR) This designation is intended to allow for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. This property was annexed in 2005 with and R-8 zone and granted approval for a step-up in density which was allowed under the previous Comprehensive Plan. This policy was removed from the Comprehensive Plan with the 2019 update. Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to annex 0.014 of an acre of land with an R-8 zoning district, including the remaining portion of the E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right of way. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in with the Application. This property is within the City’s Area of City Impact boundary. The Applicant proposes a 6-lot subdivision for six single-family residential detached homes. Since a majority of the property is already annexed and zoned with the R-8 district staff must analyze the project based on the merits of the governing zoning district regardless of the proposed density The proposed preliminary plat consists of 6 building lots and 1 common lot on a 0.733-acre property in the existing R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 4,060 to 5,219 square feet (s.f.) (or 0.093 to 0.12 acres). The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: An existing home on the property is proposed to be removed from this site. Any outbuildings located on this site should be removed with development of this property. Dimensional Standards: The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Per UDC 11-2A-3B.3, lots taking access from a common drive do not require street frontage. Access: Access is proposed from E. Rosalyn Drive and a common driveway on Lot 6, Block 1. The interior Lots 3, 4, 5, and 7 Block 1 are proposed to take access via a common drive to E. Rosalyn Drive, meeting the street access requirements of UDC 11-3A-3A. Common Driveways: Common driveways shall serve a maximum of four (4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three (3) dwelling units be located on one (1) side of the driveway. The Applicant is proposing six (6) dwelling units with four (4) taking access off the common driveway, three (3) dwelling units are also located on one (1) side of the driveway in accordance with the UDC requirements. Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. Landscaping: There are no street buffers required along local streets per UDC Table 11-2A-6. The applicant has provided a landscape plan. Landscaping is not required per the UDC. Sidewalks: E. Rosalyn Drive is improved with an existing 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accord with UDC standards. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is not proposing fencing with this project. Building Elevations: Two (2) conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like. Variations of that appear to be single-story and two-story detached homes with a two-car garage are proposed. The submitted elevations depict several different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding, differing color accents, roof profiles, stone and front porches. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: vi. In favor: Elizabeth Koeckeritz, Givens Pursley vii. In opposition: Jan Larrea, Paul Pelletier, Ken Freeze, Nick Nauslar viii. Commenting: Elizabeth Koechkeritz, Givend Pursley ix. Written testimony: Multiple letters of written testimony were submitted and can be found in the record online. Key Issue(s): a. The Comprehensive Plan depicts this property as low-density residential on the future land use map. b. There are too many lots proposed within this development. c. Lots smaller than 5,000 square feet should not be proposed for a development this small. d. Concerns with the additional traffic and noise. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. None Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Robin Hatcher – Concerns with the increased traffic and the density proposed on the lot. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2023-0056, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 9, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2023-0056, as presented during the hearing on April 9, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0056 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) h2 City Council MeetingApril 9, 2024 Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 ZoningAerialFLUM ZoningAerialFLUM ZoningAerialFLUM w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for The Oaks North No. 1 (Lots 11 and 12, Block 7) (H-2024- 0004) by Kyle Prewett, Toll Brothers, located at 5662 W. Daphne Dr. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0004 A. Request: Vacation of the permanent easement for public utilities, pressure irrigation and lot drainage over the five (5) feet adjacent to the interior side lot lines of the pre-adjusted Lot 11 and Lot 12, Block 7 of The Oaks North Subdivision No. 1. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : April 9, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME . The Oaks North No . 1 ( Lots 11 and 12 , Block 7 ) ( H - 2024 - 0004 ) 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 (v 3 W s K 5 Pr, � 0 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 i 12 I 13 14 STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING April 9,2024 Legend DATE: Project Location R-4 TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2024-0004 w The Oaks North No. 1 (Lots 11 and 12, a Block 7) -VAC R-8 LOCATION: 5662 and 5682 W. Daphne Drive, in the L A i T WestyT SW 1/4 of the W %2 Section 28 TAN. W- AN-AN RD suul f:O R.1 W. � - F I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to vacate the five-foot(5')public utilities,pressurized irrigation and drainage easement located along the interior side lot line of Lots 11 and 12,Block 7, of the Oaks North No. 1 Subdivision. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Kyle Prewett,Toll Brothers—3103 Sheryl Drive, Suite 100, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Ryan Hammons—Toll Brothers Southwest LLC, 3103 W. Sheryl Drive, Ste 100,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE Per UDC Table 11-5A-2,vacation of a utility easement falls under"all others",which requires approval from City Council at a public hearing. Page 1 IV. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 3/24/2024 Radius notification mailed to 3/22/2024 properties within 300 feet Next Door posting 3/24/2024 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant requests approval to vacate the five-foot(5')public utilities,pressurized irrigation and drainage easement located along the interior side lot line of Lots 11 and 12,Block 7, of the Oaks North No. 1 Subdivision. The beforementioned easements have been re-established as a result of the approved Property Boundary Adjustment(PBA-2023-0015) and subsequent recording of a quitclaim deed,which formally established a new property boundary. The vacation of these easements will allow for the construction of a single-family residential home. A legal description and exhibit map of the portion of the easement proposed to be vacated and relocated is included in Section VI below. The Applicant submitted relinquishment letters from all impacted utility companies consenting to the partial vacation of easement as proposed. Letters were received from Settlers Irrigation District, Century Link/Lumen,Idaho Power,Intermountain Gas Company,Millennium Networks, LLC and Cable One Inc. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the vacation of the public utility easement as proposed by the Applicant and as agreed upon by the easement holder. Page 2 VII. EXHIBIT Legal Description&Exhibit Map of the Public Utility Easement Proposed to be Vacated and Relocated ESE CONSULTANTS ENGINEERING - PLANNING • SURVEYING ENVIRONNENTAL NEW LOT 11 PUBLIC UTILITY, PRESSURE IRRIGATION, AND LOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATION THAT PORTION OF NEW LOT 11,9LOCK 7,RECORD OF SURVEY NO,14169,RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 2023-OW382, SITUATED IN THE SDUTH EAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF SECTION 28,TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH,RANGE 1 WEST,B.M,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,JDAHO,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED A5 FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT A 1/2"IRON PIN MARKING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NEW LOT 11,FROM WHICH A 1/2"IRON PIN MARKING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NEW LOT 11,BEARS S00'4316211W,A N5TANCE OF 123.55 FEET; THENCE SW43'02"W,ALONG THE EA57 LINE OF SAID NEW LOT 11.A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE N89'2 2'55"W,A DISTANCE OF 5A0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THE NICE CONTINUING N8922'55"W,A DISTANCE OF 5-00FEET, THENCE SOO"43'02"W,A DISTANCE OF 99.53 FEET; THENCE S89"16'58"E,A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE NOD'43'02"E,A DISTANCE OF 98.54 FEET TOTHE POINT OF BEGINNING. pL L 4!) L� b a 904 j4 - V 41 CONTAINS:493+/-50,FT-(0.11+f-ACRES) DEL�P�i ESE Consultants,Inc. 3103 W.Sheryl Drive • Suite100 Meridian,ID 83642 (209)424-0020 Page 3 ESE CONSULTANTS ENGINEE.PM6 - PLANNING - SURVEYIN-8 ENVIRONMENTAL NEW LOT 12 PUBLIC UTILITY, PRESSURE IRRIGATION, AND LOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATION THOSE PORTIONS OF NEW LOT 12,BLOCK 7,RECORDOFSURVEY NO.24269,RECORDED UNDERRECORDING NUMBER 2023-06M82, SITI,IATEV IN THE SOUTHEAST 114OF THE 5OLITHWEST 114 OF SECTION 2a,70WN5-HIR 4 NORTH,RANGE 1 WEST,&M,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY.IDAHO,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS- EASEMENT NO.1 COMMENCING AT A 1/2"IRON PIN MARKING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NEW LOT 12,FROM WHICH A 1/2"JRON PIN MARKING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID WW LOT 12,BEARS SW43'02"W,A DISTANCE OF 123.46 FEET; THENCE SO0'43'02"W,ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAJD NEW LOT 11,A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEETTO A POINT, THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE N89'22'55"W,A❑ISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N39'2255"W,A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE 500'43'02"W,A DISTANCE OF 9J3.S3 FEET; THENCE S99'16'58"E,A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE NOO'43'02"E,A DISTANCE OF 98.54 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH; EASEMENT NO.2 COMMENCING AT A 1/2"IRON PIN MARKING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SMID NEW LOT 17,FROM WHICH A 112"IRON PIN MARKING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NEW LOT 11,BEARS SW4T02"W,A DISTANCE OF 123.46 FEET; THENCE SW*43'02"W,ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NEVV LO'r 12,A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE N89'22'55"W,A DISTANCE OF 55-DO FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N89'22'55-W,A DISTANCE OF 5-00 FEET; THENCE 500'43'02"W,A DISTANCE OF 98.36 FEET; ESE Consultants,Inc. 3103 W.Sheryl Drive Suite 100 - Meridian,ID$3642 (209)424-0020 Page 4 ESE CONSULTANTS ENGMEEI AO PL2,NNilY4-SUIIMEYIN¢-iMYIAONMENTAL THENCE S99•L6'59"E,A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE NOO'43'02"E,A DISTANCE OF 98.37 FEET TO iH E POINT OF 18613INNING. EASE MEW NO. 1 AREA CONTAINS;492+f-SQ.FT.(0_11+/-ACRES) EASE M E NIT No-2 AREA CONTAINS:492+f-M FT.[D.l T+I-ACRES) O L S P 904 OF� �JDFL 2 Page 5 � �. Mmm"M i IR, ox 417,pw lnEi 7Yi5'w 'W"r,6w S7P 3W I muffle MM OF M=—1Y S.W.$41i wFr 5 wwe unnr, � �na1�oL I LLI I 1 Oh�wX � I1u lM DlWlli¢E�1RlE]rt If r I MOYSdQE mAt J1 Ach3-61= I ' 2 ILL [ = --] E 0904 � sam 410 Of W. WHINE DR. ,a ewcwKn rwaaaT ESE CONSULTANTS PUBLIC U7 PRESSURE EMEN710A1, AFIO RW�w• walla•=pVt'VDM F"ROWrWrAL LOT dT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ama w.aiw,i ary.aw,o�o. .ioaw.,a LOT 11, BLOCK 7 THE OAKS NORTH 1.ao&u+-0v2u kCUM 6 0 1 1 uo,nr on7wu� wmr�.'zs'w csoo _ NAws]'ffiw Riop ,QqO _as naw,�[ wnw� s9a wow T aA w MBr[e,ZTN' I WL7[117. �,• � � � rcw,OT 1s � � A9fE� o 13 2 rcCOwo w W��1nq �pgy..nss7p � I padae or sUAE'r u,a � I I sma-noew —— qa004 ne R nc `4 sirw non OF W.a OILins �r ESE CONSULTANTS PUBLIC UnL71Y, PRESSURE iIUN, AND LOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOT 12, BLOCK 7 THE OAKS NORTH T.Aw-44i-0LQO YEfd�U1L� M y = Page 6 V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Keep West Subdivision No. 2 (H-2023-0047) by Jarron Langston, located at 2625 E. Lake Hazel Rd. and 6519 S. Raap Ranch Ln. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0047 A. Request: Annexation and zoning of 16.25 acres of land from RUT to R-2 (low density residential) zoning district B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 22 buildable lots, one existing home and 5 common lots on (16.25 acres of land) in the R-2 zoning district PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : April 9 , 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4 PROJECT NAME . Keep West Subdivision No . 2 ( W2023 - 0047 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 4 �T/ rZ V-6 v LOAJ� �j AA 112 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 4 14 STAFF REPORT C� fE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING April 9,2024 Legend DATE: ;,•��;.., r,. Project Location r: TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ,, SUBJECT: Keep West Subdivision—AZ, PP H-2023-0047 LOCATION: 2625 E. Lake Hazel Rd. and 6519 S. - Raap Ranch Ln.,in the NE 1/4 of Section 5,T.2N.,R.IE. (Parcel#R7317670010 and R7317670020) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and zoning of 16.25 acres of land from RUT to R-2 (low"density residential")zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 22 buildable lots, one existing home and 8 common lots on 15.76 acres of land in the R-2 zoning district for Keep West Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage Annexation 16.25 acres/Preliminary Plat 15.76 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR)and Low Density Residental(LDR) Existing Land Use Rural Urban Transition(RUT) Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family detached dwellings Current Zoning Rural Urban Transition(RUT)in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-2(Low Density Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 23 building(1 existing)/3 common/2 irrigation easement lots Phasing plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 23 single-family detached units,including one existing home of units) Density(gross&net) 1.46 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total[%]/ 1.30-acre(or 8%)consisting of street buffer and open space area. buffer/qualified) Amenities NA Physical Features(waterways, The Farr and Grimmet Laterals run along the west&east boundaries of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) site. Pagel Neighborhood meeting date 1/4/23 History(previous approvals) Raap Ranch Subdivision recorded in 2013 B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no • TIS(yes/no) No(not required) • Level of Service(LOS) Better than"D"at PM peak hours,which is an acceptable LOS for a 5-lane principal arterial(Lake Hazel Road). • Existing Conditions There are three existing driveways serving the existing homes via E.Lake Hazel Road. • CIP/IFYWP Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)/Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Cloverdale Road to Eagle Road and is under construction with a completion date later in 2023. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg,5-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 6-lanes on the west leg,and signalized in 2024. Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Two(2)accesses exist via E.Wickham Street and S.Netherfield Way,local Hwy/Local)(Existing and streets. The existing acees from E.Lake Hazel Road will be residential access Proposed) will become an access for emergency vehicles only.No direct access is proposed via E.Lake Hazel Road. Proposed Road Improvements Fire Service This project currently falls in an area where we don't have total response times for an effective firefighting force to meet NFPA 1710 standards or current City of Meridian adopted standards. The first due station is Fire Station 7. This fire station is approximately 1.0 mile from the project which is good for the first due engine. See attached comments (https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=330404&dbid= 0&repo=Meridi an Ci tv) Police Service No comments received West Ada School District No comments received Wastewater Effl- ' • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Sewer Shed • Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See application • WRRF Declining Balance • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns Flow is committed Page 2 Water • Distance to Services Water is available at site • Pressure Zone • Estimated Project Water ERU's See application • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend Project Location nProject Location @� tom® 7p� It tl FA C � . ®® CIYIG i Medium Density Reses a tial Low Density_ .J Residential r 9 ; e Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R 2 � Legend � � �� Project Location R._ —EM ® Project Location ��.. l City Limits llli i ®F"r R�15 R 8 R-15` �® —Planned Parcels YR-40 C-CLA R-8 ` ^^ �� in R-8 R-4� R-8 _-' ® ®� R-8 '1 _R 2 - R 5 }, 8 ®® RUT R-4` - . 00 RR—RUT RR�}; R1 M1 t - , e •�; Page 3 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jarron Langston—9563 W.Harness Drive,Boise,ID 83709 B. Owners: Brian D. and Mary L. Affleck—6519 S Raap Ranch Lane, Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Ted Burke,EDM Partners—2815 E 3300 S, Salt Lake City,UT, 84109 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 2/20/2024 3/25/2024 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 500 feet 2/16/2024 3/22/2024 Public hearing notice sign posted 2/24/2024 3/27/2024 on site Nextdoor posting 2/26/2024 3/25/2024 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Low Density Residential(LDR),which allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 dwelling units per acre; and Medium Density Residential (MDR),which allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan allows an adjacent, abutting designation,when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a development application,to be used. Over half of the property has a future land use designation of low density residential,the applicant has proposed to continue that use for the entire development as allowed in the Comprehnsive Plan. The Applicant proposes a 23-lot subdivision for single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 1.46 units per acre,which meets the comprehensive plans desire of larger lots in the LDR designation. The property is surrounded by single-family residential homes zoned R-2 and R-4 (Low Density Residential),R-8 (Medium Low-Density Residential), and R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential)indicating a mix of low and medium density residential zones. Staff has considered multiple factors,including the surrounding mix of low and medium density residential zones,the presence of irrigation ditches on the east and west sides of the property, and the proposed gross density of 1.46 units per acre. In light of these considerations, staff is supportive of the applicant's request to zone the property as Low Density Residential(LDR) for the proposed 23-lot subdivision. TRANSPORTATION: The Master Street Map(MSM) does not depict any collector streets across this property. Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in ACHD's Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP)to be widened to 5-lanes from Cloverdale Road to Eagle Road and is under construction with a completion date later in 2023. The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP Page 4 to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg, 5-lanes on the south, 7-lanes east, and 6-lanes on the west leg, and signalized in 2024. Lake Hazel Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes (one in each direction) and has no curb,gutter or sidewalk. ACHD's Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan(BMP) identifies Lake Hazel Road as Level 3 facilities that will be constructed as part of the aforementioned Lake Hazel Road IFYWP ACHD project. 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 offers a mix of home and lot sizes that should contribute to the variety of housing options in this area and within the City as desired. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices." (3.07.01A) The proposed site design with larger lot sizes abutting similar size lots to the east in the Keep Subdivision and smaller size lots to the west in the Vertex Subdivision No. I and 2 will provide a good transition in density and lot sizes to abutting parcels. Although the FL UM designation for the proposed preliminary plat is MDR and LDR, the applicant has chosen to move forward with LDR as it is located between two irrigation ditches (Farr and Grimmet laterals) and will be similar to the existing Keep Subdivison to the east. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed and existing adjacent uses are all single-family detached residential homes, which should be generally compatible with each other, thereby reducing conflicts and maximizing use of land. • "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) Development of the subject infill property will not negatively impact abutting existing development due to the similar lots sizes and density proposed. The property is separated from the adjacent developments by irrigation ditches on the east and west side of the property. The density is similar to the existing Keep Subdivision to the east. • "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, including the existing home, will connect to City water and sewer Page 5 systems with development of the subdivision;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) Per ACHD's staff report, Lake Hazel Road is currently being improved to 5-travel lanes, vertical curb, gutter, 4-foot wide permable pavers, and a 10 foot wide concrete sidewalk abutting the site. Sidewalks are proposed throughout the development along the proposed streets. The sidewalk along E. Wickham Street will provide a pedestrian connection to the development to the east and along S. Netherfiled Way to the west. Currently there are no pedestrian pathway stubs to this property from adjacent 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." With redevelopment of the site, the existing home is required to connect to City water and sewer service and the existing septic system and well should be abandoned. • "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management,and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity."(6.01.02B) There are three(3) access points on E. Lake Hazel Road for this property(and an irrigation access). With development, this access will be closed and access will be provided internally from within the subdivision via the extension of E. Wickham Street and S. Netherfield Way. There is will an emergency access where the existing access for the remaining home is currently located. • "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 16.25 acres of land with an R-2 zoning district and develop 15.76 acres of land with single-family homes at a gross density of 1.46 units per acre,this is consistent with the LDR FLUM designation as discussed above in Section V. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area and property is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with twenty-two(22)new single-family residential detached dwellings and retention of the existing home(see Section VIII). Page 6 Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-2 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-2 zoning district. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the subject property develops as proposed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IX.A. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 22 building lots and eight(8) common lots on 15.76 acres of land in the proposed R-2 zoning district as shown in Section VIII.C. Proposed buildable lots range in size from 12,099 square feet(s.f.) (or 0.28 acre)to 27,957 s.f. (or 0.64 acre). The subdivision is proposed to be developed in one(1)phase. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and several other structures on the property. The existing home is proposed to remain on Lot 36,Block 1, all other structures are proposed to be removed. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, all existing structures that don't comply with the setbacks of the district shall be removed.A new address will be required for the existing home. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat, existing home and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I1-2A-6 for the R-2 zoning district. The proposed lots comply with the minimum dimensional standards. The existing home shall comply with the setback requirements of the district. Subdivision Design&Improvement Standards: The proposed subdivision is required to comply with the design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. Dead End Streets: Per UDC 11-6C-3B4, the City Council may approve a dead end street up to seven hundred fifty(750) feet in length where an emergency access is proposed; or where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope, railroad tracks, an arterial roadway, or a large waterway that prevents or makes impractical extension; and where a pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. See diagram below. The cul-de-sac for the proposed plat is greater than 900 feet which would exceed the maxium approval allowed by City Council of 750 feet in length. The applicant needs to revise the plat map shortening the length of the cul-de-sac and submit a revised plat map fifteen days prior to the City Council meeting. Page 7 Physical Barrier Pafhway Connection, Typical 500'Maximum J i s d Lot,Typical 750`Maximum With Council Approval Access: There are three(3)access points on E.Lake Hazel Road, an arterial street, for the existing homes and structures. The Irrigation District takes accesses to the property via the parcel to the west. The driveway for the existing home will remain and be utilized as an emergency access only. Access is proposed via the extension of E. Wickham Street at the east boundary of the site,which terminates onto S.Netherfield Way. Direct access is not proposed or allowed via E. Lake Hazel Road. A common driveway is proposed for access to Lots 22 and 223 An exhibit for the common driveway was submitted as shown in Section VIII.D that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D.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.A copy of such should be submitted with the final plat for City Engineer signature; or,a plat note could be included on the plat that includes this information. Landscaping: A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Lake Hazel Road.,an arterial street,per UDC Table 11-2A-6,measured from back of the sidewalk. A buffer is depicted on the landscape plan that appears to meet this requirement. The buffer has been depicted on the plat in a common lot as proposed with landscaping per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.3. There are several existing trees on the site,where possible existing trees should be retained. Mitigation is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-IOC.5; calculations demonstrating compliance with the aforementioned standards should be depicted on the landscape plan. Page 8 Common Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-3): The applicant is proposing 1.48-acres of open space consisting of 50% of the street landscape buffer along E. Lake Hazel Road, parkway,pathway along emergency access, covered pavilion, sports court and grassy areas. The applicant provided 1.48 acres of open space(9.41%) exceeding the 8%(64,589 sf or 1.48 acres) requirement. Per UDC 11-3G-4, for each five(5)acres of gross land area, one(1)point of site amenity is required. As the property is 15.76 acres, a total of 3 amenties points is required. The applicant is proposing a covered pavilion(picnic area—2 points)and sports court for pickle ball (4 points) as amenities which totals 6 amenties points. The amenity points are in excess of the required three (3)points. Staff recommends a provision to the Development Agreement requiring the installation of the amentities as proposed. Pathways: All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-8.A 10-foot wide sidewalk is required along the northern boundary of the site in accord with the Pathways Master Plan.A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required for the pathway (see Park's Dept. comments in Section IX.G),unless ACHD requires with the construction of the Lake Hazel road widening project. Sidewalks(I1-3A-17): Ten-foot wide detached multiple-use pathways (MUP)is required within street buffers along arterial streets. Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided for each home based on the total number of bedrooms per unit as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. Waterways: The Farr Lateral exists along the west boundary(within a 50-foot easement) and the Grimmet Lateral along the east boundary within a 40-foot wide easement,measured from centerline). The applicant shall submit documentation from the Irrigation District verifying the easements and any restrictions within the easement. The UDC (11-3A-6E) requires irrigation easements wider than 10 feet to be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20-feet wide outside of a fenced area,unless modified by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. The applicant proposes to place the Farr and the Grimmet Laterals within common lots as required. All other irrigation ditches crossing this site that aren't being improved as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11-1A-1 shall be piped or otherwise covered as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B.3,unless otherwise waived by City Council. The applicant is proposing to pipe the Grimmett Lateral and has been working with the Boise Project Board of Control for approval. The Farr Lateral will remain open. If piped,the Boise Project Board of Control will not approve any landscaping other than gravel within its 25-foot easement.No variances will be given. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11- 3A-7, as applicable. The landscape plan depicts existing fencing along the north boundary of the site. A 6-foot tall privacy fence is depicted along the west, south and east boundaries of the site. A 4-foot tall privacy fence is proposed along internal common lots. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The existing home is 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. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Page 9 Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-1 S. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. A Geotechnical Report was submitted with this application. Building Elevations: Several conceptual building elevations of homes were submitted as shown in Section VIII.G. Building materials consist of a variety of stone/brick veneer accents and stucco. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures. 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&Zoniniz Commission heard these items on March 7, 2024. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annextion and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing a. In favor: Todd Lakey,Barton Lakey Law representingthe he applicant,Jarron Langston,Luke Gilbert,property owner b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Jeff Lucky, Jeff Brown,Andrew Williams,Danny Blau,Melina Newell d. Written testimony: Jeff LuckeX e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parson,Planning Supervisor f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Concerns with the proposed street connectivity that will bring additional traffic to the existing neighborhood(The Keep)to the east 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Bringproposed cul-de-sac into compliance prior to the City Council hearing. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstanding issue(s)for City Council: a. None Page 10 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Property Description and Exhibit Map 1 LAND SIJRVEY1NO FLLC Client:,Jarron Langepan Land Develgpfnenl *y' Date;February 22.2023 ■c" .� Job No.:6323 I �� e a � PROPERTY DESCRIPTION �i' A pargel of land bei�bg a portion of the W la NE 1 A of Section 5,Township 2 North,Ra nge 1 East Eoise Meridian,City of Meridian.Ada flaunty,Idaho,more particularly dascrihed as folkwea! Carnmen,HN at a fecund Aluminum cap mampad-PLS"3 1-niarldng Ilia NE earner of Sam NlE 114,(aacHen inner common to Sections 4 and 5 of Tewnshlp 2 North, RDnge 1 East,and Sections 32 and 33 of Township 3 NorM.Range 1 East).aid comer bears.SAV5,8'45'E..a distance of 26%.14 feat from a found Brae6 Gap marking the NW comer of said NE 114,(North 14 ogmer); Thence along the ND*em boundary of said NE 114,N.11;6°66'45"W.,a dlmnee of 15P2,85 feet to a found 519 inch dlarncfcr Iron pin wim an illegible cep; Thence leaving sold Northern boundary,S. 14'l6'S2"E„a distance of 25:52 feet 10 the POINT OF MEC,IMNING,Said point rnonumented with a found 5J8 inch diamerer iron pin stamped`PLS 14221' Thence S.t '35'S1"E.,a di stance of 5M-33 I'm to a point; Thence S.W23'31"E ,a distance of 1213 70 feet to a found 518"diameter Iran pin stamped°PLS 14221"; Thence S.OV22'25'E„a distance of 45.93 feet to a point on the centerline of the Farr Lalefar, Said point baara S-DO'22'25'E-,.a d isldnoa of 45.93 From a frund 5J$inch diamQlar irgn pin witness FPrrrar 54amped "PLS 14221'; Thgnig 21ong the Centerline of 6eid Farr Lateral the folk wing Gcuroas and Ui5wnc3e5; Thence N.49°5937'W..a distance of 27.51 feet to a point Thenoa N-22130'247 W.,0 distant$of 1 b1$.71 feel to n print; Thence cwdntrltfg,N-25°12'14"W a dicta ncs of 135.17 feet to a point marling the beglnning of a la ngant curve io the left; Thence a distance of 153-60 feet along the arc of said curve to the left,hawing a radius of 200.00 feat,a central angle of 44'00'0r,the I4ny Qhgvd QfwhiCh War,,H.47'12'21"W,a distance of 149 n feet to a pc4nt; Thence N-69'12'33'W.,a distance of 194.7$feet to a p4inl; Thence leaving said Farr Lateral,rJ.X*09'59'W..a dlstanea of 40.74 foot to a found 54 inch diamatar Iran pin stamped"PL$4$$JU"; Thence N 00'10'55'E..a distance of 38.42 feet to a found 519 inch dia motor bent Iron pin wlthout a cap on the Southern RighFaWYey of East Lake Hanel Road; Thence along said Southern Rlght-f-Way,S-89'H'57'E„a distatica of 853.33 feet to the POWrOF r3EGfNNAU This parrel contain$15,7t�erre6 more 4r pgss,. $1 BVFCT TO.-All uxi5ting rights of way and ea%ement5 of rgrrrd gr irr1pliad appearing on the above- described parcel of land, 623 ]l ih Ave,South,Nampa,lD 93651 -T-(208)442-0115 -C"(208)608-2510-tgray-cIs ftmail.ram Page 11 r w x S Sir C} 'wa r, * raep ranch boundary osure 212212023 Scale: 1 Inc =212 Feet e: ra ap ranch boundary closure 02222023.rkdp red e, 1c ure:niluzmw CLOI I I IFZ41010.PeOrneWAMVt 1 sO.9651 6i6.93 10 rAD.1065r 3U2 17 2ago.M1:1211.70 1+s 9,5GS7e 5333 !D02226e 45.99 n49.5957w 77.51 n22.302dw 1618.71 9.25.121Aw 135 17 i�r-20DW,d2m=W.00M.thord.nd7.122fw 149M nEe.1233w 194.76 Page 12 B. Annexation Description and Exhibit Map fPA r "NDSURVbYlhio PLLC v4L4�L C090L Jarron Langston Land Development Dale: February 22.2fl23 Job No..0323 Q � S_ ANNEkATION DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a por tlon of the vy 112 N E 114 of Section 5,Township 2 North,Range 1 FaA a Merldlan,Oltyind Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,more particularly described as follows; Commencing at a found AJuminum cep stamped"PLS 4431'marking the HE corner of said FEE 114,(Section Corner common to Sections 4 and 5 of Township 2 North, Range 1 East,and Sections 32 and 33 of Township 3 North, Range 1 East),aid comer bears S.89"56'45"E..a distance of 2659.14 feat from a fou nd Brass Cap marking the NW comer of Bald HE 1f4.(North 114 caner); Thence along the Northern boundary of said NE 114,N. 99°5645'W.,a distance of 1522.95 feel to the POINT OF BEGINNING.so id point moeumentcd with a found 5 r8 inch dlanwter Won pin WJIh err l llegibta cap; Thence leaving said Narmern boundary,S, IV10'52"E.,a distdnrre of 25.52 feel to fount 5M inch diameter Iron pin stamped'I LS 14221''; Thence S-09W51`E„o dlsta3nce of 540.33 feet to a point; Thanes S-00°2373V E„a distance of 1213.70 feet to a found 518 inch diameter iron pin stamped"PL9 14221"; Thence 5 W22°25'E„a distance of 45.93 feet to a point on the centerline of the Farr Lateral. Said paint bears S.00°22'25'E„a distance of 45.93 from a found 5f8 inch diameter iron pin witness corner stamped 'PLS 14221"; Thence along the centerline of said Farr Laterai the following Courses and Di stances; Thence N.49°59'57"W.,a distance of 27.51 feet to a point; Thence N.22`30'24"W„is distance of 1518.71 feet In a poln4 Thence continuing,N_25'12'14*W_,a dJmanoe of 135.17 feel to a point marking the bergi�rning of a tongerFt curve to the heft; Thence a distance of 153-60 feet aipag ti,g ark 4f Sa id V "t4 the left,ha'+iriq a radius of 200.00 feel,a Central angle of 44'00'08",the 14rtg chard of which bears N.47°12'21"W„a distance of 149,86 feet to a point; Theme N.69.12'33"W.,a distance of 194.76 feet to a poinl- Thence leaving said FaFr Lateral, N 00"09'S5"W. a distance of 40 74 feet in a found 5M inch drarneter iron pin stamped"RLS M A8' Theme N.00`1d'55"E„a distance of 38.42 feet to a found S18 inch diameter beat iron pin wfthout a cap on the SouMarrr Right-of•Way of East Lake Hazel Road; Thence N.W25'38"E„a distance of 25.16 fast to a found 518 inch diameter bent Iron pin wrthout a cap an the Northern bvunda ry of said NE V4; Thence along said Na lhern boundary,S_89'-%'45"E..a distance of 848_59 feel to the POINT OF BEGIUN1NO. This parcel conlalns 16.25 acres more or less. 67JW907"TO:All exleling rights of way And eawments of reoard or implied appearing on the above- de9Crlted parcel of land. 623 11 th Ave.SotAk Nampa.1D a3651 •T.(2 A)442-0115'C-(208)608-2510 v rgmy.als@pmA.com Page 13 a 6� o <r e P y J 4 Q] 4� s A 1� Raap Ranch Annexation Closure 21 r2023 Scaie; 1 inch=221 feet File: Raap Ranch ArnnexaUon Closure 0 222023.nd Trod 1.1C2532 Acres,airsu e.M9.9224w b.b1 tL vwls 05F,Perlmemr-Asw tL 01 810_1952e 25.52 1U n06.0S%N 40.7d 02sOUSSie 546.33 11 nOb.W55a 39.42 03 a6U2b31a 1213.7 12 nob.2S36e 2S.l6 04a06" a45.93 13sW.564Se B18.59 05 n19.M7w 27.51 06 n22.3R24w 1518.71 07o25.1214w t35.17 M LA,rn200.DD,aama-G"AOM,cwps=n47_r221w TOM Page 14 C. Preliminary Plat(dated: 2/15/24) PRELIMINARY PLAT - - KEEP WEST SUBDIVISIONK.,.�tl. ro T. gubdhid— R w.uw�.....ww..... •�.....�=:-mot:..���`�.�. — ®� '. p,•.,,,,�,,.n.,� �.a.... ammesarn� pp-4qowau•,xu �r Page 15 D. Common Driveway Exhibit(dated: 2/15/24) COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT KEEP WEST SUBDIVISION yy ]01lHHIRiMO6iH,AA[+G8]BAHT ICl11'OP]19Y1�GNi M..COLMY.HHiILUEL0.� P -------------- _____ .rrxw.awa_ - wn e� I I I PAYEYEHi$E[nCM TMLE 9cr 'eTdti# C3—p _ KCCpW- ! � w,,,, @1EIPPIP � 1 I I MI -2 Page 16 E. Landscape Plan(dated: 1/9/2024) ---- _---- ------------------------ ---------- ----- � AREA 1 I I I — �•. LA FORT _ I.—.—.—- m V Rwu � - a -i---------------------- L_ n 1� 1, I 1`. — 1 1' I I q .m i II I -user I ® fiLL��y ______________________________________ Page 17 I - :, ------ r ----------;* ------ � II \ l LAN�SEAPE REOIIPEMENR: � l•� 1'. I rvwrswEoum T-- I I I ' I _ I I ME43&4 i I L102 INI .' . T._.. ... ..,..,.....�..w ......,�..... �.. .ate s�ncK a .,.....,,..:..............me.µ. .. ..���,®...�..» .. ..,..�,.... �� ,.._ m�r..os z...... .� I S LOSES NSIOH FEHC£ �. :4I.Ji... m. 5: . D—DAMEN-FEFEREHLE IMAGE...... �EfAILS G L150 Page 18 F. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 2/15/24) OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT KEEP WEST SUBDIVISION a 1.1 ii14 o _ � -..�ti":'fr`. ..J_-,� •= 1•L - rye`. �y '�•y g a� � �. sj �� [MLl511E EwKm I _ 9.bdma.. Page 19 G. Conceptual Building Elevations n• -f �fll�rlr n ■wok no{ m-NNW i Id s � j .ry t Page 20 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION I. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, common driveway exhibit, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. The applicant shall provide a covered pavilion(picnic area) and sports court for pickle ball as amenities for the Keep West subdivision as proposed in the preliminary plat. c. The existing home shall connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available and disconnect from private service, as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9- 4-8. 2. The final plat shall include the following notes and revisions: a. Lots 27, 30 and 39,Block 1 are non-buildable common lots and will be owned and maintained by the Keep No. 2 Subdivision Homeowners Association. b. Place the landscape buffer along E. Lake Hazel Road in a common lot. c. Identify the areas of the Farr and Grimmett Laterals and the common drive as common lots on the plat. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include mitigation information for all existing trees being removed from the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-IOC.5. b. Provide landscaping along both sides of the pathway per UDC I 1-313-12.0 c. Extend the pathway on Lot 34,Block I to the cul-de-sac instead of having it dead end at Lot 40,Block 1. 4. The common driveway for Lot 22 and 23, Block 3 shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D and the exhibit in Section VIII.C. 5. The address of the existing home shall change with development of the subdivision. 6. The Applicant shall obtain a Council waiver to allow the Farr Lateral to remain open in a natural state at the Council hearing,per UDC 11-3A-6. Written documentation from the Boise Board of Project Control approving the tiling of the Grimmett Lateral is required prior to signature on the final plat OR leave it open in a natural state if allowed.This document shall be submitted 15 days prior to the City Council hearing. 7. The applicant shall submit a revised plat map,fifteen days prior to the City Council meeting, showing the cul-de-sac does not exceed the required 750 feet in length. Page 21 8. Except the existing home located at 6519 S.Raap Ranch Lane, all other existing structures shall be removed from the site prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature. 9. Comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. 10. 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,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 https:llweblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=330390&dbid=0&redo=MeridianC hty C. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=330381&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC D. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinklDocView.aspx?id=330404&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:11web1ink.meridiancity.orglWebLinklDoc View.aspx?id=330749&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty F. ADA COUNTY https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinklDocView.aspx?id=331610&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinklDocView.aspx?id=330390&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https:llweblink.m eridia n c i ty.orglWebLinklDocView.aspx?id=331610&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n C ky Page 22 FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the 4pplicant's request to annex the subject property with R-2 zoning and develop single-family detached dwellings on the site at a gross density of 1.46 units per acre is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis in Section V. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed map amendment to R-2 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; 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 Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with the UDC and generally conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Page 23 — 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and 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) Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 24 w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Rosalyn Subdivision (H-2023-0056) by Givens Pursley, LLP, located at 200 E. Rosalyn Dr. Applicant Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0056 A. Request: Annexation of a 0.014-acre of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district, including the remaining portion of E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right-of-way. B. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.733 acres in the R-8 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : April 9 , 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5 PROJECT NAME : Rosalyn Subdivision ( W2023 - 0056 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes , please provide HOA name L(c AT 2 3 % l � 1 ::7 � s���j � , Vt e s 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT C� f1E IDIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING April 9,2024 Legend DATE: Project Location 0 �TO: Mayor&CityCouncil - .+ / FROM: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner ---- - n 208-884-5533 kA c SUBJECT: Rosalyn Subdivision °j���' H-2023-0056 AMALIE LOCATION: 200 E. Rosalyn Drive (Parcel Ws z DR R7699020020 and R2114050060) o WH►TESPUR W ST W a FOR Y a- tn__ E EDMON� a 3 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 0.014 acre of land with an R-8 zoning district,including the remaining portion of the E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right of way; combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 6 residential building lots and one(1)common lot on 0.733 acres in the R-8 zoning district for Rosalyn Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.014 Annexation including the remaining portion of the cul- de-sac right of way;0.733 acres combined PFP Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR) Existing Land Use Single-family residential(SFR) Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family detached residential Current Zoning T R-8(Medium Density Residential) Proposed Zoning R-8(Medium Density Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 6 building lots; 1 common lot Phasing plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 6 single-family detached units of units) Density(gross&net) 6.87 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total [%]/ 0%,not required for developments under 5 acres buffer/qualified) Pagel Amenities None Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date 12/12/2023 History(previous approvals) San Gorgonio Subdivision SHP H-2023-0092(4-Lots);ROW vacation of the E.Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac Instrument #2023-034331. B. Community Metrics Description I Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires No ACHD Commission Action es/no • Existing E.Rosalyn Drive is classified as a local street already improved with curb, Conditions gutter,and sidewalk. • CIP/IFYWP Access(Arterial/Collectors/State E.Rosalyn Drive is classified as a local street. Access is existing and Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) improvements were constructed previously as required with Larkspur Subdivision No.2. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service No comments received Police Service No comments received. West Ada School District No comments received. Distance(elem,ins,hs) Capacity of Schools #of Students Enrolled Wastewater ' • Distance to Sewer Services Water available at the site • Sewer Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application—Additional 900 gpd committed to model. ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance WRRF decline balance is 14.62 MGD • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works' Site-Specific Conditions in Section B. Water • Distance to Services Water available at the site. • Pressure Zone 3 Page 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works' Site-Specific Conditions in Section B. C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend r � IIEJIIProject LocationProject Location '•' , m a 'o Resident al O�.7 0 `Oa�ay Low D4: y Reside::'`_ilLJ a- I E AMALIE a fly Z DR Cornm.ercial aye: WHITESPUR � W ST ¢ W V1 EDMON';P a m Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend V Project Location Project Location -R'i14 A ��� Y City Limits R-4 //� Planned Parcels �, �R;8 RUT C C-G WHIT BUR a W ST a a W DR T a 1-O Y} - DR Y} H EDMON�' a 3 Np`� a�a Page 3 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Brett&Julie Bingham,B-B Rosalyn LLC—P.O. Box 266, Meridian,ID 83680 B. Owner: Brett&Julie Bingham,B-B Rosalyn LLC P.O. Box 266, Meridian, ID 83680 C. Representative: Kristen McNeill,Givens Pursley LLP—601 W. Bannock Street,Boise,ID 83702 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 1/02/2024 3/24/2024 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 500 feet 12/29/2023 3/22/2024 Public hearing notice sign posted 1/5/2024 3/12/2024 on site Nextdoor posting 12/29/2023 3/25/2024 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Low-Density Residential (LDR)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation is intended to allow for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. This property was annexed in 2005 with and R-8 zone and granted approval for step-up in density which was allowed under the previous Comprehensive Plan. This policy was removed from the Comprehensive Plan with the 2019 update. The Applicant proposes a 6-lot subdivision for six single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 6.87 units per acre,which exceeds the density range intended in the LDR designation. Since a majority of the property is already annexed and zoned with the R-8 district staff must analyze the project based on the merits of the governing zoning district regardless of the proposed density. Below is staff s analysis on how the project meets other pertinent Comp Plan policies. Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed single-family detached dwellings with a mix of lot sizes will contribute to the variety of housing options in this area and within the City as desired.All existing housing in this area are comprised of single family detached dwellings on similar sized lots. Page 4 • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01G) This area consists primarily of single family detached dwellings surrounding the subject property, six single-family detached dwellings are proposed within this development. The proposed development offers lot sizes ranging from 4,060 to 5,219 square feet(sf.) consistent with lot sizes in the 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) The single-family detached dwellings contribute to the variety of residential categories within the surrounding area as desired. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed site design provides maximum use of the land with the proposed residential dwelling types. Staff considers the proposed development to be compatible with the existing developments on adjacent properties. The additional lots proposed for this site integrate well with the existing/surrounding residential dwellings. The proposed common drive exhibit appears to comply with the common drive standards outlined in UDC 11-6C-3D in Section VIII.E. • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities,irrespective of existing development." (2.02.02C) The proposed development would not likely have a detrimental impact on the existing abutting developments to the east, west, and south. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems with development of the subdivision;services are required to be provided to and through this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) A 5-foot-wide existing pedestrian sidewalk connection is located along E. Rosalyn Drive. The existing sidewalk provides a link between all subdivisions east of this site. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter, and sidewalks are already provided with the proposed development of the subdivision. Page 5 • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Development of the subject infill parcel will maximize public services. Based on the analysis above, staff finds the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION(AZ) The Applicant proposes to annex 0.014 of an acre of land with an R-8 zoning district,including the remaining portion of the E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right of way. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be developed with six(6)single-family detached dwelling units and 1 common lot. The proposed use of the development is consistent with the MDR zoning designation. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. There is an existing home on this site directly adjacent to E. Rosalyn Drive. The property owner intends to remove the existing home upon development commencing on the site. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Since the AZ request only includes remnant and existing right-of way,staff is not recommending a DA. B. PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT(PFP): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 6 building lots and 1 common lot on a 0.733-acre property in the existing R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 4,060 to 5,219 square feet(s.£) (or 0.093 to 0.12 acres). The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase as shown in Section VIII.C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: An existing home on the property is proposed to be removed from this site. Any outbuildings located on this site should be removed with development of this property. 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 are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Per UDC 11-2A- 3B.3, lots taking access from a common drive do not require street frontage. Access: Access is proposed from E. Rosalyn Drive and a common driveway on Lot 6,Block 1. The interior Lots 3,4, 5,and 7 Block 1 are proposed to take access via a common drive to E. Rosalyn Drive, meeting the street access requirements of UDC 11-3A-3A. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3D): Common driveways shall serve a maximum of four(4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three (3) dwelling units be located on one (1) side of the driveway. The Applicant is proposing six(6) dwelling units with four(4)taking access off the common driveway,three(3)dwelling units are also located on one(1)side of the driveway in accordance with the UDC requirements. Page 6 Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. Staff has concerns with overflow parking due to the number of units proposed within this subdivision. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): There are no street buffers required along local streets per UDC Table 11- 2A-6. The applicant has provided a landscape plan in Section VIII.D. Landscaping is not required per the UDC. Sidewalks(11-3A-17): E. Rosalyn Drive is improved with an existing 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accord with UDC standards. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances,if required Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is not proposing fencing with this project. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations: Two(2) conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like(see Section VIII.F). Variations of that appear to be single-story and two-story detached homes with a two-car garage are proposed. The submitted elevations depict several different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding, differing color accents,roof profiles,stone and front porches. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation, and combined preliminary plat/final 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 March 7,2024.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Combined Preliminary/Final Plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Elizabeth Koeckeritz, Givens Pursley b. In opposition: Jan Larrea,Paul Pelletier,Ken Freeze,Nick Nauslar, c. Commenting: Elizabeth Koeckeritz, Givens Pursley d. Written testimony: Multiple letters of written testimonoy were submitted and can be found in the record online. e. Staff presenting application: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony Page 7 a. The Comprehensive Plan depicts this property as low density residential on the future land use map. b. There are too many lots proposed within this development. C. Lots smaller than 5,000 square feet should not be proposed for a development this small. d. Concerns with the additional traffic and noise. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. None 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 8 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map Plofessianal Erigl am.Land Surveyors and Planners lam' r W4 3itl St.So.Nampa, ID 83651 � r r of a f -5 Ir 3 C t Ph (203)454�0256 e�+d i t:411u1 xt ey�rn ama o an d B KOC IB nes us FOR, B-3 ROSALYN LLC JOB NO..JY0323 FATE. December 6,2023 EXHIBT"A" ANNEXATION OF E.ROSALYN DR.COIL-DE-SAC Aparcel of land in the N W 1/4 SW I of Section 19.Towwhip3 Nortl4 Range I East,Boise Mcridian, Ada County Idaho.mDre padiculariy descrihed as follows- Commencing at the northwesl comer of the N W 1/4,said corner lying IC 00'37' 11"E.,2649.85 feet from the southwest gamer of the NW114, Thence S.0(r 37' 11"W.,2296.92 fact along,the west boundary of like Nw114; Thrncc N. WD 44'39"E.,620-97 feet to the northwest corner of Larkspur Subdivision No.2 in Book 97 of Plats,Page 12314-12317,recorded in the Ada County Recorder's Off'icc; Thence 5.00' l 7'40"E.,387.96 feet to southwest corner of Lot 1 Block l of San Gorgonio Subdivision and the POINT OF BEGINNIN , Thence a distance of 194.29 feet along the curve right,having a radius of45.00 feel,a central angle of 247'23' 42",the long chord of which bears S 33"23'00"W.,a distance of 74,V feet, Thence a distance of 23.52 feet along the curve left,having a radius of 20,00 feet,a central angle of 67° 22'30",the long chord of which bears N 56'36'25"W.,a distance A22.19 feet; Theme N 00' 17'40"W.,50.00 feet; Thence 890 42'2(Y"F_, 9.98 feet to the POIItiT OF BEGINNING. �6 QL 9 66 W Masc)rt !a{/6 � Aaaoci'a��s Profe5slonEl Enpineers,Land Surveyors and Planners HOti � Ike 1 or] Page 9 A PART AF THE NW i f4 SW f f4, SE'CTrON a 9, T. 3 H, R. I E„ 9,611, MEl4ZM, AQA ODMTY, t AHO PLS 77.29 !# r 2tl23 GP#+SST, Na 20f9—Oi5<7f 21 f9 N89*'M 6�0 S7` U O w aLa39W CFdF WST. No. 20 -T07,346 59.98` � 4 r. a a 2 Carve Table Curtin # Length RedNa Data o9oF4 P4rqGtbn Chof4 L-gkh C2 +9 �9 45. 2#7r2542- M3S" MOVE 74.87 C3 23_52 20.00 SM'30" M5d'39'25-xr 22.19 ANNEXATION OF E.ROSALYN DR. CUL-OE SAC B-B f�S�+�LYPti!tl.0 roe ma .rtaeaa ..� w err Mason , "a,�+w FP%W. rw.rS. .n,. ssoc�a es +"D " ON f CE?a Page 10 B. Preliminary Plat Legal Description and Exhibit Map Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners ma �I7 924 V St.So.Nampa,ID 83651 roc. Ph(208)454-0256 �.mnil dhol�cy�dmasomnnd��nc�e[tzus FOR: B-B ROSALYN LLC JOB NO.:JY0323 DATE: October 10.2021 SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY A panel of land being all of Lot 1 Block 1 of San Gorgonio Subdivision, in Book l 18 of Plats,Page 1N079-I SOS 1,recorded in the Arta County Recorder's Office and a portion of vacated right of way,in the N W 1 14 S W 114 of section 19,Township 3 North,Range l Cast,Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest comer of the N WIM said corner lying N.001 37' 1 t"E.,2649.95 feet from the southwest corner of the N W 114; Thence S.0011 37' 11"W.,2296,92 feet along the west boundary of the N W 114; Thence N.89144'39"F.,620-H7 feet to the northwest corner of Larkspur Subdivision No.2 in Book 97 of P lats,Page 12314.12117,recorded in the Ada County Recorder's Off ce; Thence S.00'17'40"E.,243.00 feet to northwest corner cif I.al 1 H1ock I of San Gorgnuio Subdivision and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N.99'44'39"E., 179.66 feet along the northerly boundary of Lot I to the norlheast corner of Lot 1; Thence along the easterly boundary of Lot I Block I of San Gorgonio Subdivision the following courses and distances; Thence S.06'2V 41"W.,60,40 feel; Thence S.08'33'3 5"E.,60,64 feet; as<3r? 6' Associa fcs 1 Professlonal Engineers,land Surveyors and Planners Page 11 Thence S- 130 15' W'E.,64-29 Feet to the southeast corner of Lot 1; Thence along the soutlierly boundary of Lot 1 and the vacated right of way thr following courxs and disranoes> 'E'hencx N. 80 53' 28"Wi, 121.88 feet Co the beginning of curve r&; Thrncc u Jislantc of 30.84 racl along the cuTvc rgghl,having n radius of 93.00 feet,a central angle of 19"00'03",the long chord of which bears N 790 2T 28"W.,a di slance of 30.70 feet; Thence K 70"32' ST'W.,46.54 leer; Thrncc N.00" 17' 40"W-, 15.30 Feel to ft muthwe-ki comer of I.ot I; Thcncc N.00' 17' 40"W., 142.46 feel.a3mg the westerly boundary of Lot l is the L'O1 NT OF BEGINNING. This parcel conlairrs 0.733 arcs murc or less, SUBJECT TO;All cxisLrog riglus of way and caarnxnts of rcconcl or implied appearing cm the above- described parcel of land, �I.A WrkT: EE 936 OF Mason . , ssocratr-s 1�� Professional Erkginea►s,L u A Surveyors ara Planners Page 12 C. Preliminary Plat/Final Plat(dated: 2/19/2024&2/19/2024) ' ...... woaaim aclaolwolw.l '��ih'•, ',^�•,�;, pr.<R!MlHZRY FLAT e�w.�++�+ i n<:. I a wla a ne'el�r axrirn.caa li x'°1 I e�i. •«- �,•—••,ter•.• J m ary a*_i wuwn.pw r T UAW— Era WwTwwm— _'- -- --- -- -------- --Y-----. �----- -•--. .._ a ...�M,....... i . ,.0 agg MOSAIYN SUBOMSfON i A17-r n 071 a ON 1 W adl""NO SUIPI s W t PMM ar VA4:AIM malr OF war A Pg,U�n4 W 1/i n r/+NO A AOF W 7K m r/a Sir rfb 9ECKR TK T.!Ltl4NN FICWIO' 1 1 IOIrP �r ----------- _ 1 I G141 p Nr• - I+ 1, 1 I 1 1 f1W�.� ■ .awa Ftiilw.,:Y�I��taVll RI I/Ya n'.mr rx 1 'ES.1Y rar«rrM ganswncG 3—�------- 1- I RRM 1 • 1 f ■! 1 I 1 1 1 1 .ouu or ao wuz._-um„ FF 1 �. wSnl,u�-?w,P 1 1 i � • 1. x�,l.ev 4�..woawnfd.xwd l-1w,.1 'o-V1 ' :_�_,_�II�■1,. _„. _ ----- emu» �37e �wvna ur. I��l-a--d-�C-r�l: .,cw ann� sar a�a BK.�PCB Page 13 D. Landscape Plan(dated: 2/21/2024) vm . .,..,... .....gym. _.�_._.....a . �----- .mow _ • pflL4ND5CAPE PLAN Y� 3 Page 14 E. Common Driveway Exhibit(dated: 2/19/2024) --Y-- iT ROSALYN 3L1 Bi]11(1910N � 1 ---' GOM MOIY DRIVE E]CFIi BIT �i.r�MW r.wLYx.1w��I�atO L0r1-1 W A M 7 W WW MOM WWO OF a1E$II W.M7EA.4ND AL IfE T.]R.4 I E.B W l tlh 4�IEFf]AK�L'WTi:Dirq 1 av=..- Map. Mim - --- .�, m .•6 a ,1 ^"ors.. m iLTiSMW 'MAW MWW-- 6LT8: Ai fir Page 15 Bin ham Hou5ing Development Imp- t IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. 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. 2. The final plat prepared and signed by Darin Holzhey with Mason and Associates on 2/19/2024 is approved as submitted. 3. The landscape plan prepared by Joshua R. Rennaker with Rodney Evans+Partners on 2/22/2024 is approved as submitted. 4. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 5. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat,all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district shall be removed. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 1 I- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. If fencing is proposed for the development,the applicant should include it on the site plan submitted with the building permit. Additionally, solid fencing adjacent to common driveways shall be prohibited,unless separated by a minimum five(5)foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs,lawn or other vegetative groundcover in accordance with UDC 11-6C-3D.5. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 10. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5,UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 12. The preliminary/final plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 20 obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS https:llweblink.meridianciV.oL-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=312023&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX C. FIRE DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=315578&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX Page 17 G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES(ACDS) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=315717&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) No comments were received from WASD. I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=313137&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity J. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocVie w.aspx?id=315718&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.ore/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=314790&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the Applicant's request to annex 0.14 of an acre, including the remaining portion of the E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right-of-way with R-8 zoning and develop single-family detached dwellings on the site are consistent with the R-8 zone and policies in the Plan in Section V.above, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment for the R-8 zoning for the 0.14 of an acre that encompasses the remaining portion of the E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right-of-way, should not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds 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. Page 18 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city if all conditions of approval are met. B. Combined Preliminary Plat/Final Plat(UDC 11-6B-4) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development should not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 19 C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation ROSALYN SUBDIVISION 0056-2023-H April 9, 2024City Council HearingCity of Meridian VICINITY MAP 2 HISTORY from ACHD in June 2023way -of-remnant rightApplicant acquired 3 ANNEXATION annexednot been previously -of-rightand the adjacent way -of-acquired rightincludes Applicant Annexation Area 4 ZONING 5 zoning of PropertyAnnexation Area to match existing 8 Zoning for -Requesting R8)-Medium Density Residential (R ARCHITECTURAL 6 SITE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE 7 2.01.01GCity. Diverse housing throughout the 3.03.03A, 3.03.03Fpublic facilities. Urban infrastructure; Critical 2.02.02, 2.02.02Cunderdeveloped parcels. development of vacant and development; prioritize infill negatively impact abutting, existing Infill development that does not PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT 8 FINAL PLAT 9 ELEVATION 10 AERIAL 11 AERIAL 12 REQUEST 13 Combined Preliminary / Final Plat•Annexation •We request approval for: THANK YOU 14 LANDSCAPE PLAN 15 MAILBOX CBU LocationApproved lots via the common driveable to service the interior confirmed that they are Republic Services approved by the USPSCBU Location was 16 TRASH SERVICELOCATIONS AND NEARBY 17 Nearby parcels under 5000 sf DENSITYSUBDIVISIONS / FUTURE LAND USE 18-Low MAP AERIAL 19 AERIAL 20 AERIAL 21