Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-05-16
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:00 PM Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance __O__ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ Andrew Seal __X__ Reid Olson __X__ Ryan Fitzgerald __X__ Lisa Holland __X__ Bill Cassinelli __O__ Jessica Perrault - Chairperson Item 2: Adoption of Agenda - Adopted Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] - Approved A. Approve Minutes of May 2, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Grace Child Care (H-2019-0044) by Ruta Ruzoreza & Godefroid Ntawuyamara, Located at 4374 N. Heritage Ave. Item 4: Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned city planner. Following Staff's report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they may be allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the public's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. A. Public Hearing Continued from April 4, 2019 for Three Corners Ranch (H-2019-0006) by Sweet Land Development, Inc., Located at 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct. – Recommend Approval to City Council. Scheduled June 18, 2019 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 31.06 acres of alnd with the R- 4 zoning District; and 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 45 building lots and 9 commons lots. B. Public Hearing Continued from May 2, 2019 for 2019 UDC Text Amendment (H-2019-0049) by City of Meridian Planning Division - Recommend Approval to City Council. Scheduled June 11, 2019 1. Request: A text amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections, by City of Meridian Planning Division Meeting Adjourned at 10:13 PM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 16, 2019. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 16, 2019, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Andrew Seal and Commissioner Reid Olsen. Members Absent: Chairman Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel. Others Present: Charlene Way, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Stephanie Leonard and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X____ Lisa Holland ___X___ Reid Olsen __X___ Andrew Seal ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald ______ Rhonda McCarvel ___X___ Bill Cassinelli _______ Jessica Perreault - Chairman Fitzgerald: Good evening to you all. Welcome to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of -- what did I say? May 16th. And we will start with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda . Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Cassinelli: So moved. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as presented for the hearing date of May 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of May 2, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Grace Child Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 4 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 2 of 81 Care (H-2019-0044) by Ruta Ruzoreza & Godefroid Ntawuyamara, Located at 4374 N. Heritage Ave. Fitzgerald: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the agenda, the approval of minutes for the May 2 nd, 2019, Planning and Zoning meeting and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Grace Childcare H-2019-0044. Was there any changes or could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Olsen: Move to approve. Holland: Second. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a multiple seconds. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thank you all for being here. We have got a full crowd and I know this is -- everybody is interested in this first item on the agenda. Just to get you guys started, at this time we will kind of talk through how the -- how our hearing process works. We each -- we open each item. We have a staff report. Then we have the -- the applicant come forward and they have 15 minutes to present their -- the project and the application for our consideration. Following that, because tonight we have lots of different communities in place, we are going to shift gears a little bit. We are going to have the HOAs come up and who are representing the HOAs tonight and speak. So, just so we are all aware, if you -- your HOA comes up and talks and you're part of that HOA, we are going to have a show of hands on who they are speaking for, because they are going to get ten minutes versus the three minutes individuals get. So, if you don't want to be included in that HOA, don't raise your hand. But we would like to try to get all the issues out through the HOAs if possible, because we got a big crowd and we are going to go over the same issues several times and we are going to try to move this thing forward and make sure everybody's comments get included in the record and we get to hear them , so -- but that being said -- so, we will have the applicant to come forward, then, our HOAs will come forward. Then we will open it up to the broader community for three minutes each and, then, after that the applicant will have an opportunity to come back, answer questions and close the -- the application and, then, we will have a chance to deliberate. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from April 4, 2019 for Three Corners Ranch (H-2019-0006) by Sweet Land Development, Inc., Located at 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 5 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 3 of 81 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 31.06 acres of land with the R4 zoning District; and 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 45 building lots and 9 commons lots. Fitzgerald: So, with that I'm going to turn it over -- and we will start -- and open the public hearing on H-2019-0006, Sweetland Development, Three Corners Ranch. Ma'am. Stephanie, go right ahead. Leonard: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Tonight before you the project for annexation and preliminary plat for the Three Corners Ranch. This project was continued from April 4 -- the April 4th meeting in order for the project to be heard by the ACHD commission and for the applicant to submit a revised concept plan based on their recommendation. The site consists of 31 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada county. It's located at 1890 East Dunwoody Court. To the north are single family residential subdivisions, zoned R-1 in the county and R-1C in Boise. Those are Fuller Ranchettes and the Bristol Heights Subdivisions. To the south is a single family residential subdivision, Vienna Woods, zoned R-4. To the east is a single family residential subdivision zoned R-1C in Boise, Bristol Heights. And to the west is a single family residential subdivision zoned RUT in the county and that is Dunwoody Subdivision here. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this area is low density residential. The applicant is requesting to annex 31 acres of land to the R-4 zoning district consistent with the LDR or the low density residential future land use map designation. A preliminary plat consisting of 41 -- or 45 building lots, one of which will encompass an existing home is proposed. The applicant also received private street approval with gates to the entrances to subdivisions at West Barclay and East Dunwoody Court. The subject site is a 31 acre in-fill property located among several existing Meridian, Boise and Ada county subdivisions. The site has five abutting stub streets that were installed with the development of previous subdivisions with the intention of future extension. The site also has a 50 foot frontage along East Dunwoody Court here to the west. With so many potential stub streets connectivity and points of access have been greatly discussed by residents, city staff, ACHD and the applicant. ACHD commission approved the plan that's been presented tonight with -- at their March 27th hearing. The applicant is proposing access via West Barclay Street and East Dunwoody Court, with a private street that will be gated 50 feet back -- or at least 50 feet back from the entrances here and here. A public street access is not proposed. However, residents and visitors will be able to access the subdivision. The applicant is proposing to extend two of the five stub streets via North Sweet Valley Road here connecting to North Shandee Road at the northwest part of the site, with a public street which is named West Guinness Street. Shandee Drive provides full -- provides access to the Fuller Ranchette Subdivision, which is the Ada county stub to the north here and the Fuller Ranchette Subdivision currently has full access to Chinden or State Highway 20-26. However, this success will be restricted to right-in and right-out with the Chinden expansion to five lanes in 2020 and it will be prohibited to be used upon expansion to six lanes per comments received from ITD. Although this extension of roadway provides access to the Fuller Ranchette Sub, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 6 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 4 of 81 the closure of the existing access point to Chinden would result in a dead end loop with one access to the Fuller Ranchette Sub. The closure -- excuse me. Staff believes and extension of West Guinness Street to North Stafford Place will create an additional access point for residents and will increase connectivity for the northern part of this area. Without this connectivity residents will be forced to access the state highway, Chinden, or an arterial roadway, Locust Grove. Staff recommends the applicant also extended a private north-south street from East Commander Lane within the proposed sub providing means of ingress and egress to the north for future residents. This would also break up the block length should West Guinness be extended to the east. Staff has actually prepared a little bit of a graphic to provide kind of an idea of what activity will look like if each of the stub streets -- or if the stub street that we are recommending is connected. So, let me see if I can get this to pull up. Okay. So, you will see here that the -- the yellow line is with the current full access. It's available at Shandee if, for example, a family wants -- that lives over in this neighborhood wants to visit a friend or family that lives over here and wants to drive there, they would have to travel north and, then, to the east, north, east and, then, go over to Chinden, take a left out onto Chinden and, then, take another left into Shandee Drive to get to their friends here. Once that full access is closed and it's just a right-in and right-out, they will be required to go along this general path, along -- taking a left out onto Chinden, left onto Locust Grove and, then, a left into the Three Corners Ranch Subdivision here to get to their friends or -- or family. With the proposed extension of the road that would be the travel distance for a vehicle to get there. So, just to kind of provide a little bit of a graphical -- an illustrative example of what that might look like. Lots range in size from approximately 11,000 square feet to 96,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 23,500 square feet, which is about a half an acre. The gross density is 1.45 dwelling units per acre, which is the low end of the low density residential designation. The applicant is proposing to include 1.26 acre neighborhood park -- pocket parks and several micro paths connect within the subdivision and to other subdivisions in the area. Staff is recommending the applicant replace the currently proposed mic ropath along the northeast part of the site. So, here. With the extension of West Guinness Street, should they be required to do so staff does recommend they provide sidewalk along both sides of the road to provide pedestrian connectivity in that area. The Kerns Lateral crosses across the site right about here. It's proposed to be piped. Staff requests that the applicant provide information regarding the width of that lateral . TVC requires that any irrigation easement larger than ten feet be located in a 20 foot common lot. So, we would like to discuss that tonight. Written testimony was received from 45 individuals from both before and after the issuance of the staff report last week . Each record has been added to the public record for this project. To kind of summarize that testimony, I have done so grouping them into the neighborhoods and I apologize if I have missed anything or if it's not complete based on what you have all submitted. The Dunwoody Subdivision to the west has signed a petition in opposition to an entrance via Dunwoody and I believe that was done before the staff report was issued. Concerns related to the nature and condition of the existing county roadway, East Dunwoody Court, and potential negative impacts related to increased traffic, safety, pedestrians and children. Bristol Heights Subdivision to the east raised concern regarding an entrance via Barclay Street specifically in relation to construction traffic and as the primary entrance to the subdivision. Concerns regarding increase in traffic, many residents noted that the Bristol Heights Subdivision was already Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 7 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 5 of 81 used as a cut through for vehicles traveling eastbound on Chinden through their collector roadway that you can probably see right here. Bennington. Some expressed desire for stub streets to be extended to spread the amount of traffic throughout this proposed subdivision. Three Corner Subdivision to the northwest here raised concerns regarding creating a full access road between the existing Three Corners Subdivision and the Ambrose school, specifically related to added congestion and traffic and potential impact on the safety of students, faculty, and pedestrians in the area. Concern regarding pass- through traffic from adjacent neighborhoods created by locating an entrance at North Sweet Valley Drive. Current traffic congestion resulting in traffic stacking on Locust Grove and blocking the neighborhood entrance. A letter was also provided from the HOA board in opposition to the staff's current recommendation. The Fuller Ranchette Subdivision, which is right here, signed a petition -- a petition expressing support of the proposed plan from the applicant in opposition to staff 's recommendations. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions. That West Guinness Street be extended to the east to connect to North Stafford Place. An extension of the north-south private street to align with North Shandee Drive to increase connectivity and to break up the block length for West Guinness Street. Provide five foot sidewalks along both sides of West -- West Guinness Street here and provide a ten foot common lot with landscaping buffer to the through lots that are existing here and that will be created if this road is to be extended and that's because we don't want the houses to be abutting both roadways. So, create a little bit of a buffer for them there. With that staff will conclude our presentation and we will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Are there any questions from the Commission? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have a question on the -- on the gated access. Is that -- are those -- are they decorative? Are they going to remain open? They mentioned visitors and -- and I guess workers and whatnot to be able to access that . What's the -- what's the plan on those gates? Are they -- are they decorative? Are they going to be open or are they going to be closed? Leonard: Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, the gates are intended to secure the private streets and they are meant to be used just for residents or visitors of the homes within the subdivision. It's a requirement of our -- our city code, actually, to have gates within private streets for single family residential subdivisions, so -- Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record, please, sir. Clark: Certainly. Members of the Commission, My name is Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. Representing the applicant. This is an -- an interesting situation. It's kind of unique in my experience because of some of the different dynamics that are going on here. One thing I wanted to talk about first is a little bit of background about the project and about the applicant. This is not your typical developer situation either . This -- the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 8 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 6 of 81 applicant that's before you actually lives in the triangular lot that's there on the -- on the northwest. This is an applicant that does care about the neighborhood , because the applicant intends to stay in the neighborhood and that is very much informed a lot of the decisions that have been made with regard to the planning. Here is an example. There is 44 lots that are proposed. Stephanie -- Stephanie went over the densities that -- that are proposed. The density is about half of what would be permitted on this site and as you look at the -- the -- at the site layout, you can see that you have the larger lots on the west and -- that transition into Dunwoody and, then, you have some smaller lots on the east that transition into Bristol Heights. Site amenities -- it's a small subdivision that includes active play areas. There is a basketball court. There is climbing boulders. There is a sitting area and significant walking paths and something I want to emphasize on that point is that as part of the ACHD discussion the applicant did commit that all of those walking paths, all of those sidewalks, would be fully accessible by the public. So, Commissioner Cassinelli, we will talk a little bit more about this gate piece, but I would do -- I do want to emphasize that pedestrian and bicycle traffic will be flowing through this area without regard to the gates. Another point that I wanted to make -- because I think this brings up some -- some context for this development. This lot was actually originally Lot 16 in the Dunwoody Subdivision to the west. While it wasn't developed with the original Dunwoody Subdivision, it's always been anticipated and identified is eligible for future development and one thing I do want to point out is that the CC&Rs for Dunwoody Subdivision specifically identified Dunwoody Court as being an access for this lot when it develops. So, this is not something that was unexpected. I do want to say with regard to Dunwoody Court, I think it's important as well to confirm what ACHD's findings were on that and that is that it's a -- there is a roadway section there with two travel lanes and 30 feet of right of way. ACHD found that no improvements are required in connection with this application, that it can accommodate the proposed traffic and what will that traffic be? Well, it's about -- it's 44 new homes. There is 45 lots, as Stephanie mentioned. In discussing this with our traffic engineer, they anticipate that most of the traffic will be split 50-50 going west and going east out to Eagle or out to Locust Grove. So, what you're talking about in terms of practical impact is about 22 homes going west , about 22 homes going east. So, let's talk about the -- the gate. As we discussed this with our traffic engineer one of the real concerns that we had was to make sure that this -- while we were concerned that this would very easily turn into a de facto collector that would operate like a mid mile collector, but only -- with only local roads in place. As you can see on the map here it would be a very -- pretty much a straight shot going all the way from Locust Grove to the east, if this was put in without any sort of restriction on folks from the outside being able to go across. These roads, again, are all local and they shouldn't function in that way. So, to address that issue we introduced the gates as a solution. The gates will be key carded. Individuals who are -- want to come to visit residents would be able to call the residents and emergency service providers would be able to flash through . It would be a modern gate system that would function in that way. The gate system does not appear to be a controversial issue with the other service providers and, again, all the pathways are fully accessible to the public for bicycle and pedestrian. So, with that in mind there are -- I believe there is really just the two items that are up for significant discussion tonight. I'm sure there will be other questions and those are conditions 3-C and 3-D and as Stephanie mentioned, 3-C is the question whether there is a public road Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 9 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 7 of 81 connection that would continue from along Guinness from Shandee to Stafford Place and, then, the other question is related and concerns whether there would be a north-south private street connection that aligns with Shandee Drive and that was staff's condition 3- D. So, let's start first with this Stafford Place connection. What we are talking about is here on the northern portion of the property and the question is whether that public road should continue from Shandee Drive over to Stafford Drive or if it should be a pedestrian path as we have proposed and as the ACHD commission has approved. Now, remember, this property is a pinwheel. I have -- I don't think I have ever seen six stubs into a 30 acre property before. It's -- it presents some pretty unique -- unique circumstances. You know, the question is one of connectivity. We all think connectivity is a good thing, but in this case it illustrates where too much of a good thing can also be a bad thing. The consensus -- well, where we started -- and I think I should start there. The initial application showed a ring road that did try to connect everything and no one agrees that that is the appropriate route here. Everyone thinks, no, connecting all six isn't the right way to go. The consensus among the applicant -- many of the neighborhood associations that you will hear from tonight, the ACHD commission and city staff is that we don't need to connect all of them, it's just a matter of figuring out which ones that we should connect. So , let's -- I think it's -- it's -- it's a -- it's a good way to start to talk about what happened at ACHD. So, when -- when this went to -- went to ACHD there were, essentially, three options that were on the table. There was the original application with the ring road. That one was out. The other two options that were on the table were what you see before you and, essentially, the city staff recommendation with the connection at Stafford. What you see on your screen is what the ACHD Commission approved and so I think there is probably going to be a lot of people that say we want the -- the ACHD plan and so when we say the ACHD plan just to avoid any confusion, that's really what we are talking about here. So, the ACHD commission -- this is an excerpt from their findings and they specifically state that do not extend Stafford Place for vehicles. They do want it extended for pedestrian, bicycle access -- that's the second bullet -- but do not extend Stafford Place for vehicles and why would that be? Well, this square mile block is unique in that it was built without a local collector -- without a collector network. Really all you have, except for Bennington Way up in the northwest corner, is all local -- local roads. That was a big deal, especially to Commissioner Hansen. But even if there were an internal collector network, there are no other uses to connect to on this block on the ex terior. The square mile is, essentially, all residential. The businesses at the corners -- there are businesses at the corners, but none of them have a connection to the internal block . You actually have to go out to the -- to the arterials to be able to access them by vehicle. There is a park on the southeast corner. It only has pedestrian connections. There is no vehicular connections there as well and the Ambrose school on the northwest is a regional school, meaning most of its students are going to be arriving by vehicle, so because there is no internal collector network, the risk of local streets being turned into cut-throughs is real and this is what ACHD staff had to say on the topic . They also were concerned about east-west cut through traffic. Again, we propose the gates as a way to avoid that most direct cut through, but what -- if you connect at Stafford, we are concerned that you're going to create a nearly direct cut-through route for folks. That's what we have got illustrated on this map. So, we agree with the ACHD commission, with the -- with four of the neighborhood groups that have weighed in, that the appropriate route here is not to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 10 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 8 of 81 connect Stafford. In addition to the reasoning that's been identified by the ACHD commission, this -- this -- the proposal we have put before you essentially leaves the existing roadway networks intact, along with their current traffic patterns. That's what a lot of the neighborhoods actually want. It resolves the issue for -- the folks on Shandee Drive, because, as Stephanie mentioned, ultimately that access onto Chinden is going to be removed. You know, we -- we would urge ITD to retain emergency bollards up there at Chinden, but this allows them to have more than just that access and I would -- I would point out with regard to Stephanie's -- the Google Earth drawing, I would hope if somebody on Stafford wants to visit somebody on Shand ee that they would walk. So, hopefully, that would kind of -- that would hopefully encourage that. So, again, the emphasis here should be on getting people out of the block, not providing a cut through. This is not a mixed use area. The non-residential facilities all have pedestrian access that will improve with this pedestrian connection. Our -- our belief is that the best solution is to leave the current road connections as we have suggested and as was approved by the ACHD commission. Which leads to the -- the second item, which was the north-south connection to Shandee Drive. Again, that connection -- that recommendation I think is based largely on lot length, so I would urge the commissioners to consider removing that condition as well. For one, if condition 3-C is removed, then, three -- this requirement is no longer needed, because the block length issue disappears at that point. But there is other reasons to consider removing it. For one, we think it would be unlikely to be used by the -- by our folks, because as you look here if they were to come out of three -- out of our subdivision up to three -- three -- up through Three Corners, they would be going about twice the distance, they would be going through a school area and they would be coming up pretty close to the Locust Grove-Chinden intersection, where it could be backed up. We think folks are going to be more likely to take the more direct route and come out where they should, which is much closer to the -- to the mid mile. And, then, finally, even if these issues were not -- weren't addressed, the Council does have the ability to waive that under unique circumstances and we think that this certainly qualifies. So, I will wrap up. These issues are certainly critical to this developer, who, again, lives in the subdivision. They want a good situation for the subdivision. They understand that the connection to Shandee is something that's important. You know, there -- that's going to go right in front of their house. They need this -- they see the need for that and they are willing to do that, even though it's in that location. At least as I understand it four neighborhood groups are here in support of the ACHD plan that we have put before you. This is the plan that ACHD commission approved and we would ask for your recommendation of approval with the two conditions that I have identified removed and with that I would be happy to answer any questions. Fitzgerald: Are there any questions for the applicant? Mr. Olsen. Olsen: Yes. In our packet we have a letter from West Ada School District. I assume you're familiar with it. Clark: Uh-huh. Olsen: Do you have a comment or a response to it? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 11 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 9 of 81 Clark: I do, Commissioner Olsen. The school -- you know, we know that the schools are doing the best that they can to keep up. We are definitely supportive of the schools. The school district's letter I think, if I'm frank, kind of puts the city in a tough position with the demand in the way that they have -- they have put it. Essentially the school is suggesting something like a moratorium, which, of course, is not in place at this time. It wouldn't be practical for there to be a moratorium given the housing -- the housing needs that are affecting the City of Meridian. It's very difficult for folks to keep up with all the people that are coming here and beyond that it's a -- it's a condition that would exist regardless of whether this subdivision goes forward or not . It's an existing condition and so requiring this applicant to take that on all -- all by itself I think is asking a little bit too much. We are more than happy to continue working with the school district to try to ensure that they have the funding that they need, but to say no development I think is -- is something that they can't necessarily ask for and it's a tough position that they put the city in. Olsen: Thank you. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Mr. Clark, can you elaborate on -- on some of the -- on the open space common lots and amenities that we are -- this is pretty much all about the traffic flow and not about some of that. Clark: Yeah. Commissioner Cass -- excuse me. Commissioner Cassinelli, there is about three plus three -- three plus acres of open space. One and a half -- or one and a quarter so is devoted to the basketball court, the sitting area, the micro pathways and the climbing boulders. Those would be HOA amenities. Again, the pathways and sidewalks would be open to the public. Cassinelli: Follow up question on that. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: In a -- in a neighborhood with larger lots most people -- I think most kids are, you know, basketball hoop in a driveway is pretty common. Why did you -- I'm curious why the basketball court and maybe not something -- these are going to be probably a little bit higher end homes I'm guessing in there. Why not something that -- you know, and even some of the -- the homes may have their own pools. But why not think about a pool or maybe some higher end type of amenities? Clark: Commissioner Cassinelli, we actually went through a similar analysis. These are larger lots and so a lot of the -- we think the recreational amenities are probably going to be within those lots themselves. The basketball court appeared appropriate to us and the climbing rocks appeared appropriate to us, because we think things like a tot lot and that kind of thing is probably going to be done on individuals ' properties. With regard to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 12 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 10 of 81 whether a basketball court is the most appropriate amenity, you know, we are happy to listen to the Planning and Zoning Commission's thoughts and suggestions on that. We are, obviously, still in the pre-plat process and so if you do have specific thoughts on that we would be happy to take that into consideration. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One question for you, Mr. Clark. If you wouldn't mind going back to that map you showed us that related to condition 3-D about the traffic. Clark: This one? Holland: That one right there. So, if 3-D remained and they extended the road to connect up with Shandee, wouldn't they also have access to go through Shandee to connect to -- to Chinden to do it right-in, right-out. Clark: Commissioner Holland, temporarily that -- ITD is ultimately going to be cutting that off. So, that -- that -- as a long-term solution that wouldn't be there. Only in the short term. Holland: Are they eliminating that access completely or are they just limiting the right-in, right-out there? Clark: It's phased. It will be right-in, right-out and, then, gone completely. Holland: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have another one. Was there -- I know we are -- I think we are going to be hearing and I -- and I did see comments from folks that were in Vienna Woods , but was there ever consideration for -- maybe in the -- in the first one with a permanent road, but was there any consideration here for -- for a third access point through Vienna Woods? Clark: Commissioner Cassinelli, there was consideration that -- our review of the traffic data and working with our traffic engineer sugge sts that most of the traffic is going to be going east and west and they are going to want to get to Eagle and Locust Grove as quickly as possible. That's not going to be the -- in the -- going south is not going to be as large of an intent and, you know, based on the reviews with ACHD, they approved it without that connecting through there. So , we have considered it. We have -- we have ultimately landed on not having a connection there and that's what I understand the Vienna Woods folks are in support of as well. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 13 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 11 of 81 Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Thank you very much. Clark: Thank you. Fitzgerald: So, I think we have got three HOAs at least that -- somebody want to raise their hand and start this process off ? Again, what I want to -- what our goal is tonight is to not duplicate. We have sat here in the evenings until 2:00 o'clock in the morning listening to the same comments over and over again. So, if you guys can try to -- to keep our -- we want to hear everybody's thoughts and we promise we want to take them all into account, but after a while we started getting to sleep. So, if -- we will start with -- who wants to kick us off? Anybody -- is that an HOA hand? Come on up and we will kick this thing off. Sir, what -- yeah. So, what HOA are you representing? Grandvall: Vienna Woods. Fitzgerald: Can the Vienna Woods folks all raise your hand, let us know who you are. And are you willing to give up your time to him to speak on your behalf ? Okay. Okay. So, the challenge we have is he either gets ten minutes or he gets three minutes and you guys get to talk on your own. So, that's the balance we are going to strike tonight. Does that make sense? Does everybody get what we are saying? So, everybody wants to speak individually? Okay. Could I have you sit back down for a second and we will bring you back up in a minute. So, let's start with Three Corners. Who is the HOA representative for Three Corners? Okay. Do I have a show hands of who she is representing? Is everybody willing to give her your time? Is that -- okay? Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Ma'am, please, state your name and your address the record, please. Neely: Hi. I'm Kendra Neely and my address is 1800 East Golden Oak Court in Meridian. I'm the president of the Three Corners Homeowners Association and we -- the board sent you a letter on behalf of the homeowners -- the -- the board sent you a letter on behalf of the homeowners that I hope you had a chance to read and digest. So, I'm going to try to not repeat a lot that was in that letter, but the staff sites that the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan -- or the south side -- it cites the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan as the basis for its recommendation to m ake changes to the ACHD approved plan . That document states the purpose of the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan is to integrate the concerns and expressions of the community into a document that guides the city on how to grow and develop. This is an unusual situation, because staff is recommending changes that do not integrate the concerns and expressions of this community. Staff is thereby violating the purpose of the document that they are citing as their authority to propose these changes. When we tried to ask staff about this they stated that this -- that they believe that the ACHD approved plan had 50-50 support at best. We did not believe that to be the case. So, we conducted a survey and found that 89 percent of our homeowners -- homeowners supported the ACHD approved plan, which is the plan that the developer presented. It's clear that our surrounding communities found similar results when they conducted their own polls. Including ours, there is four subdivisions Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 14 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 12 of 81 that support the ACHD plan and those four subdivisions account for 860 out of 875 residences. That's 98 percent of the stakeholders involved. I'm not surprised that staff got the wrong impression. If you think about it, it's intuitive to show up and fight for something you're not happy about, but it's not intuitive to show up and say something about something that you're completely happy about. We respectfully request that you keep this in mind as you consider all of the testimony you have received and you hear tonight. Next to each person who opposes this plan or who has turned in testimony you need to imagine 19 or 20 people standing up here speaking with as much conviction , passion, and most importantly worth to support the plan. Luckily for you you don't have to listen to all 800 of us, but our vote and our consideration is no less important . Finally, I wanted to point out the opposition to the project does not equal support for the staff -- staff recommendations and the recommended changes does not necessarily mean they are addressing community concerns. When we asked the people who oppose the ACHD approved plan why they didn't approve it, the only answer we received is we don't want more traffic in our subdivision. So, we showed them staff's recommended plan. It has been extremely clear in each and every case that when the ACHD approved plan was presented alongside staff 's recommended plan, a hundred percent of people chose ACHD's recommended plan. On the other hand, none of the concerns that we saw enumerated in, for example, the dozen Dunwoody residential letters would in any way be addressed by the staff recommended plans to the road changes. This community , an entire square mile, came together and made their concerns and expressions very clear. That is something that's very rare this -- this day and age to get that many people to agree on something. I feel that this is something that should be honored and that the purpose behind the Comprehensive Plan should be honored as well. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Do we have any question? Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just a quick question on the 89 percent. How many people were surveyed on that? Neely: I think we ended up at 38 out of 49. Seal: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any other questions? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: You just see me going for the -- follow up on that question. Out of that were those all -- did you do that just in the Three Corners HOA? Neely: Yeah. Correct. Cassinelli: But you didn't -- you weren't looking at Dunwoody residents, you weren't looking at Bristol Heights, you were just looking at -- at those in your -- in your HOA? Neely: I'm only speaking to our percentage. The other HOA boards had different percentages. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 15 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 13 of 81 Cassinelli: Correct. But as far as -- as far as the way it -- what you want to see, the overwhelming response of the Three Corners residents was to go with the ACHD; is that what you're saying? Neely: Yes. Yeah. And my understanding is that there -- the other three had the same similar response to this. Fitzgerald: Is your -- was there more folks that were -- was it school related or traffic related? Because I know there was a safety question for their kids walking to school and people parking in places they are not supposed to park. So, did you get a sense from your community -- Neely: Yes. Fitzgerald: -- what the difference was? Neely: Yes. So, on the top -- we gave examples of concerns and, then, said or describe your own and so that -- so, we broke it out as safety or traffic to try to kind of distinguish which was and safety was the number one concern and how that came across -- how that's come across to the board, like the number one complaint to the board has been safety in terms of kids darting across the road. I don't know if you had a chance to look at the drone video, but the reason why we sent that is you can see how close all four campuses are and that that Three Corners Road comes out right smack dab in the middle of these big four campuses. The Ambrose -- their campus is going to be divided, right, between that road and already you have people parking on one side of the street and , then, running across and so when that becomes the second half of their campus it's only going to be worse, where people are going back and forth. So, when they say safety, it's the fact that the campus is divided and there are kids going back and forth all -- all the time. Yes, there are people within the neighborhood walking there, but we have -- we have taken -- we have a lot of pedestrian paths and we have added some gates to try to make it so that kids don't have to go out on the street to get to Ambrose school. It's mostly just the nature of having a street go right down the middle of a campus . Cassinelli: Appreciate it. Fitzgerald Any other questions? Commissioner Seal, go ahead. Seal: Quick question. Looking at the map that's up here right now and -- I mean you living in the neighborhood, can you tell me where you would go in and out of this subdivision if it were you? Neely: Oh. Seal: What's -- what's going to be your primary access in and out? Neely: Well, it would depend where I'm going. Is that what you mean? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 16 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 14 of 81 Seal: No. If you -- if you lived in this subdivision where -- where would you go in and out of it mainly. And I ask this question, because I know what Locust Grove looks like and I know what Chinden Boulevard looks like. Neely: Well, I mean I -- because the way I go to work I have to go to Eagle Road. So, at least twice -- I'm going to be going there twice a day that way. But I also drop my child off going to Locust Grove. So, I think for me personally -- in the morning I'm going to be going to Locust Grove. In the evening I'm going to be coming home from Eagle. Seal: Okay. Neely: But I know -- I know for other people it totally depends on where you are, yeah. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much, ma'am. We appreciate it. Neely: Yeah. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Is the Dunwoody Estates HOA representative -- are they speaking tonight? Yes, ma'am. Is there a group of folks that she's representing, if you can raise your hand. You guys are willing to give up your time? Tippets: I'm not sure they all are. Fitzgerald: Well, can you give me a group that is? Yes. Yes, sir. Keep your hands up, please. Just want to make sure we understand it. Thank you. Ma'am, please, state your name and your address for the record. Tippets: Okay. My name is Mona Tippets. I live at 1938 East Dunwoody Court. Dunwoody Court is a very unique road in the fact that there are -- is one of the only stub streets to have access to this. The other one is Shandee. It is the only one that does not have -- along with Shandee -- there are no sidewalks. There are no streetlights. There are no right corners. It is a winding road. There are several blind corners on Dunwoody Court. It is hard to see cars. It is hard -- definitely hard to see children. You can be turning around a corner and there is a child there. We do not have sidewalks and so people walk in the street. Our biggest concern with Dunwoody being the main entrance, which we believe that people would take the shortest route to a main street and that wo uld be Dunwoody Court and to go to work, go to wherever they are going, Dunwoody Court would be the choice and where would our kids walk? There are 16 children living on the street 16 years old and younger. School buses do not come onto Dunwoody Court to pick kids up, so they are walking on the street. It's also very dark, so safety is our number one concern with this plan. There are some inconsistencies with the ACHD report. If you look at this plan I don't see a turnaround for the gate on the plan on the Dunwoody Court side. So, I don't know where cars would turn around once they see that it's a gated community. The other stub street, Vienna Woods and especially Sweet Valley Avenue and Three Corners Subdivision, they have been built to accommodate that area. They all have sidewalks. They have streetlights and -- and we are wondering why there couldn't Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 17 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 15 of 81 be a third access. If you took Sweet Valley Avenue or went through Vienna Woods, the entrances from those subdivisions onto Locust Grove are wider, they are better lit, they could accommodate cars better than our tiny Dunwoody Court. We have measured several places in Dunwoody Court. There is 27 to 29 feet of pavement on our street. That ACHD report said 50 feet and that is incorrect. It also said that Lot 16 had 82 feet of frontage road on Dunwoody Court, which is also incorrect. I'm not sure where they are getting those measurements. A few other things. We would request that because we are affected heavily by the plan that Dunwoody Court and Bristol Heights, that you would weigh our opinions a little higher, because Three Corners Ranch and Vienna Woods are not affected as far as traffic goes by this plan at all. I also wanted to point out that we are a small subdivision of 15 houses and all of those signed the petition , except for two and those two homeowners were out of town. We also were told that the Ambrose school is building a parking lot that will have 64 parking stalls and so that would help alleviate the traffic problem and the parking problem before and after school at Ambrose. And I think that's all. Any questions? Fitzgerald: Any questions for -- Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Tippets: Yes. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, was it Melly? Tippets: Mona. Cassinelli: Mona. I'm sorry. Tippets: Yeah. It's okay. Cassinelli: Would -- as far as Dunwoody, if -- if -- if there were just a third access point, either through Three Corners or through Vienna Woods, what's the overall consensus of those in Dunwoody? Would they be in support of a third? Tippets: Yes, they would. Yes, they would. A third. Yes. And, actually, can I bring up one other point I forgot to in the AC -- ACHD report it specifically mentioned that Mr. Dean did sign that a stub road would go from Three Corners to this new development and he said that it would be allowed. I'm not sure why they put in this stub street, but didn't have it access the new subdivision. That's a question I have, but -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland -- Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, again, I don't know that the applicant would be -- be interested in this, but if the applicant was willing to put up some traffic calming measures or help with lighting for your section of the street leading into this neighborhood , would that changed some of the conversation for you as well? Tippets: Potentially. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 18 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 16 of 81 Fitzgerald: Do the gates make any impact for you guys? Tippets: We are in support of the gates. We, obviously, don't want the cut-through traffic. I just -- we just don't feel like our road is meant for that amount of traffic , especially with no sidewalks. I mean that's the biggest thing. No sidewalks, blind corners, it's windy, it's curvy, you can't see kids and that's, yes, our biggest concern is just the safety issue with little ones. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Tippets: No. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am, very much. Tippets: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: We appreciate your time. Okay. We have Fuller Ranchettes and Bristol Heights. Fuller Ranchettes? Come on up, sir. Is there a group of people that he's speaking on their behalf? We got hands? Anyone? Kneadler: None of my neighbors came? Fitzgerald: Fuller Ranch -- the Fuller Ranchettes. You can have some -- we will give him some time, yes. Your neighbors gave you -- all their trust is in you tonight. Kneadler: Yeah. No pressure. Fitzgerald: Okay. Kneadler: Not willing to give up time? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir. Kneadler: Okay. Mr. Commissioner, Members of the Commission, thank you. My name is Ben Kneadler. I live at 6020 North Shandee Drive. My property actually borders the proposed subdivision south into my subdivision, north in the proposed. Fuller Ranchettes does not have a formal HOA, so the HOA becomes boots on the ground walking and talking. Fuller Ranchettes started with 30 lots. Over the last several months ITD has been buying up the lots along the frontage, so we are down to 28. I was able to speak over the last week with 25 of the 28 and 25 of the 28 homeowners that I spoke signed a petition, which is in your public record in support of the plan that's proposed. Leaving Shandee as an access point to Sweet Valley and not -- not the staff recommendation. From the general concerns of the subdivision, traffic, obviously, is the topic of the evening, with ITD making Shandee a right-in, right-out only, the connection to Sweet Valley will provide us east-west access, which is, obviously, important. We do not see the -- but nobody -- nobody on our street sees the value in connecting eastbound to Stafford. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 19 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 17 of 81 Essentially we see that as just a cut-through opportunity for those folks on the west side of Bristol Heights. With Shandee being a long straight drive, we already have people that look down there and think that it's an opportunity and end up turning around in my driveway. So, the cut-through activity already starts, but it stops at my house. So, we prefer just to have the plan as designed. For the sake of the staff recommendation and the connection into the gated community, I can -- I can appreciate -- you know, nobody wants additional traffic on their street. I don't see the benefit of adding the third gate for 44 lots if -- we see it as a detriment to our community, because it doesn't provide the Shandee folks any benefit, because we can't go through the gated subdivision to go southbound, it would just add additional traffic on our street and we face the same thing, our street is narrow, no sidewalks and it's straight. We don't have the curves that naturally slow folks down. We did want to say that we are also in support of the subdivision for the sake of what this could be. We could be standing before you with 98 lots and all roads being connected and I can't even imagine that everybody would fit in the room. So , we are appreciative of the developer. He has taken in a lot of the consideration of the neighbors, transitional zoning, lot sizes, quality of homes, walking paths and I would agree with -- we probably wouldn't take the yellow path to go around to Stafford , we would just walk, and we appreciate the fact that within a gated community that the -- the sidewalks would be accessible to all of our kids. So, with that I will take any questions and thanks for your time. Fitzgerald: Mr. Kneadler, can you tell me has ITD told you guys what your options are when they close that road? Where does it -- where do you guys go after the fact? Was there a discussion around that? Kneadler: What they have told us as of today is when they start the road construction next year it will be a right-in, right-out. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Kneadler: As a part of their CFI plan that they have all the way to Caldwell, they -- there will -- the plan shows sometime in the future that we will be a cul-de-sac. There will be just -- there will be a cul-de-sac and we will be required to egress out Sweet Valley. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, that's the connection point that they are looking for. That's the -- Kneadler: Yes. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Kneadler: Okay. Fitzgerald: Or buy somebody's house and make a connection somewhere else. Kneadler: I guess. Yeah. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 20 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 18 of 81 Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any questions -- other questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Kneadler: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Do we have a Bristol Heights person? Sir. Please, state your name and address for the record. Mr. Chairman, I'm Bristol -- Fitzgerald: Oh, one second. Could I get a show of hands who we are -- you guys good with donating your time to this gentleman? Okay. Thank you. It looks like you just got elected as president. That was a full crew. LaGue: Mr. Chairman, I'm Joe LaGue. I live at 14435 West Guinness Drive in Boise. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission and all present, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the assembly here tonight. I will also be offering my full testimony in writing , so that it may be part of the written public record. I am president of and representing the Bristol Heights Neighborhood Association. In attendance is one of my -- one of my three board members Mr. Ted Dawson. Our other member was unable to -- Scott Phillips was unable to attend tonight. Ours is a board of significant responsibility and we are committed to protecting the best interest of our community association and those of our members. Also present, most importantly, is a notable representation of residents of Bristol Heights. At the conclusion of my testimony -- not right now -- I will acknowledge those Bristol Heights residents present and ask for show of hands of those supporting the position and remarks I am presenting. Please allow me to recognize and appreciate the extraordinary work of the City of Meridian. The City Council, you the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the city's planning staff, particularly Stephanie Leonard -- we realize that the work that you will often present -- that often present new challenges and the pursuit of building a great city. So, please, allow me to make the observation that these proceedings that -- while they may show signs of passion, concern, and even differing views, we are here to address business among the many stakeholders in Three Corner Ranch. Accordingly, it is desirable that collectively we experience a productive evening of deliberation and reasonable outcome. The city has posted in excess of 40 individual pieces of written public testimony with regard to this project from a broad constituency. This is prudent and appropriate, as this in-fill area has neighbors that warrant equitable representation regardless of municipal borders. The written testimony represents compelling arguments. We recognize the impact to the existing streets of East Dunwoody Court and our own West Barclay Street. With regard to Dunwoody, the problem of lack of sidewalks and other concerns can, hopefully, be ameliorated. The full scope of the decision before you tonight is particularly with regard to unrestricted public street connectivity is one of permanence. This is an important distinction. On May 13th Bristol Heights Neighborhood Association convened a special meeting of its members and adopted this resolution in part. Whereas we reviewed the particulars of Sweetland Development's proposal to build the Three Corners Ranch Subdivision and as currently submitted to the City of Meridian by applicant. Be it resolved, therefore, that we are in Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 21 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 19 of 81 support of the Three Corners Ranch plan as it was approved by ACHD. We respectfully oppose the City of Meridian planning staff recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which as planning recommends, would include a public road extension of West Guinness Street from Shandee Drive to North Stafford Place. Furthermore, we asked the board of directors of Bristol Heights Neighborhood Association to represent this position to the City of Meridian on behalf of the association. Those in attendance overwhelmingly, 98 percent, supported the above position. Connectivity of public streets versus cut through is the simple issue. The Meridian proposal is expected to enable traffic through numerous Bristol Heights residential streets that will be adverse and unacceptable. The ACHD approved plan, however, mitigates that potential. For all the surrounding neighborhoods and residents to city and others, there is no perfect solution for this in-fill development. In fact, as part of the supportive plan there is a level of compromise on behalf of Bristol Heights to accept West Barclay Street being stub connected to the gated east entrance of Three Corners Ranch. This will add some traffic to our community. Yet it is considered to be reasonable and acceptable. Active members of Bristol Heights neighborhood and other surrounding neighborhoods have worked to pursue an acceptable street configuration with the developer. It is believed that this has been achieved by exemplary neighborhood developer cooperation. What is curiously atypical in this case is rather than residents being versus the developer at this hearing, is that this constituency now needs to persuade the City of Meridian that those that live here have the knowledge, the experience and the vested interest, desire to see the developer's plan approved. These are our homes and we have a strong opinion. Bristol Hearts is a -- Bristol Heights is a large community of 544 homes. By extrapolation right here right now tonight we are representing 533 of those homes with the position I just stated , not including West Barclay Street, which is acknowledged will likely experience the bu lk of the Three Corners Ranch traffic flow. There are seven residential streets. Guinness, Battenberg, Stockwell, Heathrow, Royal Park, Daimler and Stafford that will be directly impacted by planning's recommendation. As recommended by staff, the North Stafford connection would directly affect 81 residences on residential streets with facing -- with their street facing front doors and driveways. Bristol Heights has invested several hundred hours of members' time related to Three Corners Ranch development and, additionally, the financial expense to secure a consensus contains a comma. This is an important investment in our community's future and we are here anticipating a favorable return on that investment. I will now ask my friends and neighbors, fellow members of Bristol Heights, if they would like to stand or at least raise their hands and show support of my remarks and our position. Thank you very much, folks. The pace of growth in -- of Meridian and the Treasure Valley at large is nearly leading the nation. We live in a very attractive place, all the more reason for us to vet and exercise our options to the best of our collective abilities. We believe this may be one of the best opportunities to in-fill these 31 acres. We are your cities, you are -- we are your constituents. You are our agencies and municipalities. Please make us proud. Thank you. I will take any questions. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Holland: Mr. Chairman? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 22 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 20 of 81 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: Just one question. On the gated entrances were you opposed to those or were you -- you're in favor of having the gated entrances? LaGue: We are in favor of the gated entrances -- Holland: Thank you. LaGue: Obviously. Mitigate traffic. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: On the -- the city recommendations, 3-C is -- seems to be the sticking point of all this and connecting basically Stafford and Shandee with -- with Guinness, but on the 3-D extending that something north out of the subdivision onto Shandee in order to basically have everybody share the load from the subdivision are you opposed to that? LaGue: We didn't directly address that. The observations and discussion side in -- in a more informal have been what purpose does it serve. Ultimately right now Bristol Heights is one-on-one negotiations with Idaho Transportation Department regarding the expansion of 20-26, Chinden Highway. We will be eliminating some of our common area. As it extends past Shandee initially they will leave that open for a right turn. They will at some point, on expansion, then, close that area. That's their intention. So, it becomes sort of a superfluous street perhaps that doesn't necessarily add value to the community. I would have to agree with Mr. Clark's position as he stated earlier on that particular part of it. But, absolutely, the main sticking point for Bristol Heights, without a doubt, is the connection of Stafford and enabling public traffic to flow effectively all the way from Eagle across to Locust Grove. Seal: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Thank you, sir, very much. LaGue: Thank you. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. I think we have covered all the HOAs that are willing to give up their time to the individual person speaking; correct? Am I -- okay. So, we are going to start down the list and see if we can get through this quickly. Deb ra Jurgens. Thank you, ma'am. Anthony Andinolfi. Kendra Neely. Thank you. Trina Buckalew. Tyler -- and, Tyler, you didn't give us your last name. Live on Karen Drive. Lewis: Yeah. Sorry about that. Fitzgerald: It's all good. We still like you. Please state your name and address for the record, please, sir. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 23 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 21 of 81 Lewis: My name is Tyler Lewis. I live at 6059 North Karen Drive, Meridian. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of you guys today. I live at 6059 -- which, if you look at your map is -- I guess I will use this cursor to show you. I have 250 feet of what will be road frontage. So, I own this property from, essentially, here to down around this corner. So, that's why I was not willing to give up my time . I just wanted to speak to the fact that with cut-through traffic, if we -- if we connect these roads from the Stafford Place to Three Corners there is -- driving and going through, there is not a significant amount of turns to make a cut through from Eagle Road to Locust Grove. I only bring this up, because I am living on that. I definitely am not in favor of the ACHD plan. There is a compromise here. There is a road frontage that I will have to deal with, 250 feet of it. I do believe in staff 's plan. They addressed some setbacks on the south side and not the north side for the residents to that side, but I think it's been a -- it's been a compromise and I bring this up only because cut-through traffic. I dedicated my career currently to public safety and I'm dealing with this exact cut through problem with the community that I serve. I don't know if you guys are familiar with -- you guys are familiar with it, because you have -- you have dealt with the south side of the road. I deal with the north side of the road and the north side would be Fred Meyers, which is in Eagle's jurisdiction. Currently between Plaza -- or between Linder and Meridian Road we didn't see this piece coming on our piece and we connected those via what is called Tempe Lane. This has become a huge problem with cut-through traffic. We thought we had enough turns in this piece. It is similar to this project. It's become the 45 mile an hour out of Fred Meyer zone until the other side and we come to an agreement of that. So, I only bring this because I'm very passionate about this cut-through thing. I have seen this happen before and so my testimony is mainly to the cut-through piece, being able to go from Eagle Road to Locust Grove, especially between -- I have one other neighbor next to me , so between me and my neighbor, obviously, when you purchase there you're expecting growth and development , I know that's coming and so just being able to limit it and come to a compromise and speaking of the compromise piece, the developer has been -- the original plan was a ring road -- got reference as a ring road. There was a lot of opposition to that. By connecting that road and Sweet Valley Ranch, all we did is took and move the ring road from the east side to the north side of this development. So , we would have just shifted what was originally opposed by everybody in the group and just shifted into a smaller voice. Unfortunately, to our side of the piece. So, that was -- that's the big deal with cut-through traffic, our concerns there. I do believe -- I do believe that the traffic has been equally divided. There is -- like we said, there is 28 homes eventually that will have to go through Sweet Valley. So, if you put that 28, plus you put another access piece to this neighborhood down Sweet Valley, that's the other half of that traffic that will be going that way. This has been if you put 40 homes there , our -- I put it at 20, unfortunately, when I did my math, so I didn't come to houses right. At 40, 20, everybody's taking a quarter of this development and where it's going. So, it looks like my time is up. I appreciate the time to be able to speak in front of us tonight. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just -- just for clarity. So, I mean, essentially, you're -- are you in favor or against the staff's recommendation? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 24 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 22 of 81 Lewis: So -- so, we are in favor of the ACHD approved plan and opposed to the city's recommendations. Seal: Are you opposed to 3-D as well that extends from the subdivision into Shandee? I'm guessing that would be -- Lewis: Yeah. We would be opposed -- opposed to that one as well, only because of the amount of increased traffic that will push -- not only our neighborhood behind -- directly behind us, but, then, the entire piece of that neighborhood directly and the other piece of that is it's in staff's report to help eliminate through -- what they call through road, correct, and -- and we would be, essentially, that. I have a road in my front yard, a road in my backyard at this point, so as much of that as we can control of the share of the traffic for this development I would be opposed to add ing that additional street on that side as a -- Seal: Were you opposed to the -- connecting the Sweet Valley over to Shandee as well? Lewis: No. I'm in favor of that piece, as approved by ACHD, so -- Seal: Okay. Because that's -- I mean that's the same thing. I mean everybody -- Lewis: Yeah. Seal: -- in that divisions is going to -- Lewis: Absolutely. And the reason that I can say that I'm in favor of that is because trying to find a compromise here a piece. I understand that I'm giving up and still having a road in my backyard, trying to limit the amount of traffic to that piece is -- is kind of the reason there. So, I understand we -- it was kind of a piece of the compromise of understanding I'm not going to stop development, we will have a road in our backyard and trying to say, hey, you know what, we will own our piece of traffic to be able to give us a way out of there. It's just having another half of that neighborhood coming that direction would be -- would make that very difficult with road frontage on both sides and having to deal with that piece. Seal: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Matthew Hands. Cindy Breckel. Richard Jackson. Kelly Barbour. Barbour: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you very much. My name is Kelly Barbour. I live at 2482 East Autumn Way in Meridian. I'm here tonight in my capacity as administrator for the Ambrose school. So, I think all the cases that need to be made with regard to the stance of Bristol Heights and Fuller Ranch as well, I think we -- the school would definitely support those, 300 families, 540 students, we are very concerned about potential additional traffic caused by a cut through. I think back to a young -- as a young kid growing up here, figuring out ways to cut through neighborhoods to get something -- to get somewhere quicker and not having things like apps that would even show me Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 25 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 23 of 81 exactly how to do that and I think it's just exacerbated and I think we can all recognize that and I do think there is certainly value in making sure that we are trying to be intentional about the way that we do developments and I think it's been great to see in this case Mr. Dean and the developer -- developer -- the development folks that he's working with come up with a good solution that's best for everyone . There certainly are compromises that have to be made and I think everyone's been -- tried to be very reasonable on that front and we certainly appreciate that. I would just reiterate briefly the concern about the cut through, again, if we are saying that we are trying to figure out ways to alleviate traffic on major arterials by providing a way that's going to get folks through subdivisions, hopefully, we can all recognize that that's very problematic. So, if that's not the intent, then, I'm glad to hear that. I would say that's an unintended consequence then and so if we can recognize that that is going to be a consequence I hope that we can make a good intentional decision about that. So, we would support, again, the ACHD approved plan and reject the staff recommendations and thank you for your time. Fitzgerald: Any questions? Thanks, Mr. Barbour. Appreciate it. Joe LaGue. Oh, you already spoke, so you're on top of it. I thought you were elected president. I -- Jeff Lowe. Mr. Lowe, come forward and state your name and address for the record, please. Lowe: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Jeff Lowe. I live at 14132 West Chadford. That's in the Bristol Heights Subdivision. After tonight's testimony I will probably be kicked out, but we will just go with that. I'm not opposed to the development before you tonight. I think we should all be highly cognizant that when we see an open field with stub streets abutting something is going to happen. The square mile that this development is located within is comprised of eight subdivisions and their various phases and are designed with stub streets. The first subdivision platted was in 1962 with a stub street abutting the subject property on its northern boundary. The planning for connectivity in the square mile has been going on for over 50 years and during those years both Meridian and Boise and the developers did a good job in this regard. This diagram that you see, the blue dots or circles represent all the stub streets that were planned when these various subdivisions came in and the red lines delineate all those connections through this square mile. So, all Vienna Woods, Bristol Heights, the other subdivisions, they are all connected. So, connectivity is a two way street and the pun is intended. Residential streets serve multiple and at times competing needs . Of course, as a neighborhood we expect the place is relatively quiet that connects rather than divides the neighborhood and where we can walk along and cross the street easily and safely and where vehicles move slowly and we have other users, including emergency service providers, school bus drivers, trash collectors and the Amazon guy, all of whom look to safely and efficiently access and maneuver to perform their jobs. The point here is that every one of us travels in some form of another along public stree ts through various neighborhoods to shop, to go to school, to visit friends, et cetera. In this square mile there are 12 connections to the arterials that border this area and as time goes on these arterial roadways become more constricted with turning movements. Eagle Road, except for one traffic light, is restricted to right-in, right-out -- or right-in, right-out turns only. Soon Chinden will have no left turns out. These conditions make connectivity within the square mile all the more important. Without internal connections we will have longer trips , divided Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 26 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 24 of 81 neighborhoods, limited alternative routes and traffic that begins to be concentrated on the select number of streets, instead of being spread out across the entire street network. The subject property is the last area to be developed and is vital to keeping the existing connectivity intact. To develop this section with no public roadways, the opportunity to provide a fully interconnected square mile will be lost. I would ask the Commission to consider objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, the development code and accept the Meridian staff recommended conditions of approval, including the need for a public street connection. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Any questions? We appreciate it. Thank you. Mark Miller or Elizabeth Miller. Miller: My name is Mark Miller. 1906 East Dunwoody Court. I have come here in opposition to the plan with a couple things that I wanted to talk about. First of all, in general want it to be noted that the developer or the owner of all the land , including Ambrose school, the connection between and the new section, is all owned by the same person, which could have been developed in a much more easy way, so that there wasn't traffic through the Ambrose school. They had control of this all along and now they have kind of created a problem. Now it's a question of safety. Do you protect kids walking along a nonsidewalk street or do you protect kids that are crossing in a crosswalk that can all be protected or they could build a bridge over the top , they didn't have to spread the campus out around a street, they could have built it a different way. The other thing to note that was already mentioned -- and I wanted to quote from the -- the -- sorry. The Ada county commissioners meeting. See if I can find my quote here. The commissioners -- do you know that the commission only voted three to two. This was not an overwhelming Ada County Highway Commission like agreement to this. It was a split decision. One of the commissioners said Dunwoody is a small road, not up to the standard of a regular local road. The other thing that was mentioned at the comm ittee meeting with the gentleman Hethe that was up here before, the Commissioner of the ACHD said: The gate that comes off of Dunwoody, will that be offset from the public street far enough that people can pull in and turn around . The response from Hethe was: Do we know the alignment and said the staff is reminding me that that is the ACHD policy. You will notice in the picture that there is no turnaround and it is impossible to have a turnaround at the gate at Dunwoody, unless you steal land from the people that own the properties at the sides. There is only probably 35 feet of road up to the gate. I don't know what people do when they get up to the gate and try to turn around , but that's ACHD policy that there has to be a turnaround and at the meeting he promised and said that there would be, but there is no proposal to fix the problem. That creates an issue with the privatization of this road, instead of -- and I propose or suggest that because the owner of the property signed a form that's an agreement that the property would have the traffic from the internal property pass by the house -- instead of just one street, the entire subdivision should at least have access to travel out through th e north -- northeast corner and not put all the burden -- I think you can see that the burden is on Dunwoody. A couple other things that I needed to mention. I wanted to put up a picture. There are open space lots and since -- I think there is a responsibility here of maximizing land use in the -- in the -- in this region. People are forgetting and not talking about four other acre plots that can Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 27 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 25 of 81 -- can and have been designed for subdivision or designed for development . Do you have that picture up? I don't know if you have it up. The one with the four boxes. Oh . I can tell you that that one right there -- this is adjacent and those four subdivisions -- those four open space lots are slated for development by -- and have been approved by the Dunwoody Homeowners Association. You will notice that if this happens that will landlock those four acres and with the current need that the actual gentleman up here said about need for housing in Meridian, you're going to limit the land use of places that already are slated for potential development and homes. In addition, if you privatized the streets you landlock these people and we have asked the subdivision -- the developer to, please, meet with us. We have made a proposal to try to include ourselves into -- into this development to make the best land to use and have been basically ignored. But I wanted to propose that, that those -- that the city's required stub streets into his -- into his land, why would you not require them to at least make access to th ese lots, so that we can actually have that opportunity to develop those and use the land appropriately, as Dunwoody was an agricultural subdivision, but you can see very clearly what's happening. It's not a sub -- an agricultural subdivision anymore. I -- my lot is the one that's closed -- that has the most frontage and the other thing -- if you put up the other -- the other one. This is an individual issue for me. We have a barn and pasture where we cut hay at times and we have to have access. By privatizing that road I'm concerned the fact that I won't have accesses and I'm asking for a conditional approval if you do decide to approve , that the access road be access to our property -- our property, as you can see, wedges onto Dunwoody Road and it was initially meant to be an agricultural lot. We have a barn, we have farm animals, and we have orchard and a very large garden and we need -- and we have always accessed the farmland through those side streets -- streets and, obviously, if there is a private road and gate that potentially limits it and the lot behind me is also potential for development. So, I request that as a condition of approval. Also that the open space lots have access and road connecting to them, so that they can be developed for appropriate and maximum land use, which is I believe the responsibility of this commission. I also request that, of course, that -- that at that point over here to the right of the blue -- the arrow that there are irrigation issues that they have not proposed or told us that we have irrigation, but we want to make sure that the condition of approval is that they will connect to the irrigation that exists and, obviously, we -- also the four landowners there need access to the irrigation canal. How do we do that if it's a gated community and you can't get in. That's the way -- only way we can get to the -- to our irrigation systems that run these large -- the larger -- larger lots that are agricultural. So, I ask for a condition of approval that that -- the access be provided to those and any irrigation change that they make also allow for a continuation of the current agricultural and -- also the last one is that there is a tree and -- if you look at their plan there are -- Fitzgerald: Sir, I need you to wrap it up. Miller: Okay. That there is trees along the -- already along the road. I don't know if they are planning on putting more trees in, but ask that you also, please, make a condition that they keep the trees that are large there and not move those out. So, those -- those are my concerns. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 28 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 26 of 81 Fitzgerald: Thank you. We appreciate it. Miller: Thanks. Questions? Fitzgerald: Stephanie, question. Are those platted lots? Are they -- are they different lots behind -- the rear of their property. Those look like just five acre lots that are not sub -- Miller: They are separate parcels. They are separate tax parcels. Fitzgerald: I know that two or three of them are, but the -- the one in the middle next door to you doesn't look like it's -- it looks like a single lot. Miller: Yeah, I'm not -- Leonard: Mr. Chairman, I don't have my -- Fitzgerald: Can you go to the picture above it, because it -- the lot line -- there is no split on that -- that third -- or that one right there. Miller: Just maybe missing one. I don't know. Parsons: Mr. Chair, I can answer the question. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir. Parsons: I'm looking at that currently. I had my GIS open, but I pulled up the subdivision with the Ada County Assessor's Office and those are, indeed, open space lots that were required as part of the subdivision back in the '70s, that they had to remain as open space as part of that development and they had a 15 year restriction. We are beyond that 15 year restriction, so they -- there is a potential for them to redevelop in the future. Fitzgerald: Okay. Parsons: But we are not landlocking them if -- there is a road above them that -- well, I don't know if -- do you own the lot behind you, sir? Miller: Yeah. But that would affect -- Parsons: So, all of those homes -- all of you that -- all of you that butt up against those lots you own those, correct, as part of your -- your deed. Miller: Yes. Parsons: So, you have the ability to further subdivide your property in the future and provide access through Dunwoody. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 29 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 27 of 81 Miller: Right. But if you look at the entire overall perspective , they are putting acre lots behind us. We have acre lots in front and, then, you want us to divide it up into smaller lots. I'm not sure exactly how that would work along a little strip . But we have asked to, please, be involved in -- at least a reasonable plan to make sure that those acre lots kind of transition appropriately over and it would just take moving one street over. We actually proposed a plan for the middle that would -- that would distribute the traffic more evenly through all the other subdivisions, but that's not my -- I guess my point to propose what should happen, but -- Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. Thanks. Any questions? Thank you very much. Jon Ostlund. Please state your name and your address for the record, please, sir. Ostlund: Hi. My name is Jon Ostlund. I'm at 2106 East Mozart Street in Meridian in Vienna Woods. I'm here simply just to state a concern . I mean -- well, first, I am in support of the ACHD proposal and my concern is if there are changes to that proposal that Dvorak, the stub point that is pointed out there on the -- on the charts, would, then, create flow through Vienna Woods. In my -- on my particular address -- I actually live on probably one of the busiest streets on it. It was pretty heavy flow of traffic. Stop sign in front of my house that is -- I would say more than 50 percent ignored and oftentimes fully ignored. So, we have tremendous concern that the traffic flow and the increased traffic flow is going to continue to cause further hazard for Vienna Woods and particularly for my particular address, because just backing out of my driveway right now because of the through traffic from that route is a hazard. It's very -- you have to be very cautious coming through and I just wanted to make sure that that point is voiced. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Any questions? Thank you. Troy Bergstrand. Thank you. Martha Bergstrand. Bergstrand: My name is Martha Bergstrand and I live in Dunwoody. 1970 Dunwoody. So -- and my kids go to Ambrose school, so they get to walk and it is -- Fitzgerald: Use the microphone, ma'am. Yeah. There you go. Bergstrand: Okay. So, it is dark in the winter. It's very very dark. My kids go with headlights and when I open that window to let them go I can see a light. That's all that I can see. So, that's what the traffic is going to be. So , we are not opposed to the traffic, but we are opposed to the 50 percent of traffic going that way. There is no sidewalks. Everybody walks on the street. That street is not regularly maintained by the city. If there is snow there are some neighbors that they get their machines and they clean it. So, I live 11 years in Vienna Woods, so we can see the difference and we kind of like it, but at night it is dark. In the early morning -- I mean you can see the stars. If you want to go camping you can go there. It's dark. It is -- it is not same comparison of having the streetlights and the sidewalks. We are not opposed to the traffic. We appreciate our kids actually go through the Three Corners, because it has sidewalks. So, they walk through -- Mr. Dean has left some space so that they can walk through there, so we appreciate that. But they -- we send them that way so they can use some part of sidewalks. So , Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 30 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 28 of 81 walking, yes, we are a small neighborhood, only 12 families, but I'm concerned two things and when I saw the picture is when I decided to come in . The picture with the stops. I don't know if you guys can pull it up again. The one the person that presented the connection. Yes. There was a picture with a lot of stops with the circles. Yes. That one. So, then, I had a question. If we take only Dunwoody to Locust Grove and eventually -- right now Dunwoody is two lanes. Don't -- I mean Locust Grove. There is not a space -- I mean there are no sidewalks all the way on both sides of the street , so sometimes even for riding bikes we get the kids to crossing and cross back, so we can reach the sidewalks. So, my question is eventually if Locust Grove -- I would expect is going to grow to double lanes and eventually I would think that compared to other neighborhoods, such as Vienna Woods, is more likely that Dunwoody is going to be a right-in, right-out and if we do that, then, you look at the lots, what kind of people of this new subdivision is going to do to go south. Right? When Locust Grove expands. If there is no exit to Three Corners, there is no exit to Vienna Woods, what is going to happen if somebody has to go south. They will have to go to the Bristol Heights and try to go all around. So, I think that are just consideration. We are not opposed to the plan of doing a neighborhood there, we just wanted to make considerations of distributing the flow of the traffic around. I think that's our only request. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate it. Doug Racine. John French. Come forward, sir, and state your name and address for the record and if you have a question. French: Yes. My name is John French and my address is 2230 East Handel, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. The question I have is there was a gentleman that was going to be representing the Vienna Woods Homeowners Association that came up earlier. Is he going to be speaking still or will this be kind of doubling up? Fitzgerald: Everybody put their hands down and didn't want to give up their time to be able to speak, so that was why we -- you have to do one or the other. So , I think everybody's taking the chance -- French: Well, we are here, so let's -- Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. French: Okay. Basically what it amounts to is we already have a really severe traffic problem with cut through traffic in Vienna Woods and I have first-hand knowledge of this, because where we live we have people speeding down our street. We ask them to slow down. Sometimes they do, but other times they will shout profanities, throw trash out a window, whatever to let you know that, you know, they don't agree with you asking them to slow down. I went to an ACHD meeting that was in regard to this and I want to voice my opinion against the development the way it was proposed with the access on Dvorak and when I went there I was pleasantly surprised to see that a new plan had been brought up that terminated and did not have Dvorak as a through street, which eliminates a lot of the additional cut-through traffic. So, anyway, personally I am fully supportive of the current plan. I think it makes a lot of sense and it's very res pectful of the people in the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 31 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 29 of 81 neighborhood. It's not Vienna Woods, but Edinburgh is impacted, we have -- you know, if you -- collectively over a thousand homes that will be impacted if they open up that little access on Dvorak. It won't help the people that are actually living in the proposed community, as much as it will just provide another way for people to cut through. Anyway, that's my opinion. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Okay. Yeah. Sir. The gentleman that wanted to speak on behalf of Vienna Woods, do you want to come back up real quick. Oh, not -- we are good on your side. Thank you. Sir, please, state your name and your address for the record and love to hear your thoughts. Grandvall: Sure. Good evening. My name is Brian Grandvall. 1741 East Sabalious Street and that's in Vienna Woods. I come to you tonight as representing the HOA for Vienna Woods. I'm the treasurer and sit on the board of Vienna Woods. We have the second largest community that's a stakeholder surrounding this proposed property. We have 226 households. If -- as you can see, I'm glad you have this chart up, because this is the one I was going to have you pull up anyway regarding cut-through traffic. You can see this is the Dvorak access point. We already have significant cut-through traffic from the east that comes through past Mr. French's house along Mendelson here and along Handel, Mozart, out through Strauss to Locust Grove. In addition, we also get significant cut-through traffic from the south to Edinburgh and Austin Creek, which are down below us here and neither one of those HOAs I believe are represented here tonight, but they are -- they are secondarily impacted by the opening of that -- that cul-de-sac. We are in -- as a representative for the HOA we are in approve -- or in -- we agree with the developer's plan with the current ACHD recommendation. The other thing I would like to mention is that along our frontage on Locust Grove , which you can -- you can see here, ACHD has a setback, an easement that goes back some 56 feet, I believe. So, there is a sidewalk right now that runs in front of -- of our property that the -- the ACHD easement goes from Locust Grove passed that sidewalk. There is a -- currently a fence -- an expansion fence that ACHD has put up at the north end of the property adjacent to this vacant lot, which I believe is part of the Dunwoody Subdivision as well. So, the easement should continue all the way through to ameliorate the concerns of the young lady that was up here earlier about sidewalks on the front of that. And, finally, just a question of clarification for me personally, but regarding the sidewalks and streetlights and things like that, Dunwoody is a county road, if -- if I'm correct and so wouldn't ACHD, if they felt that those were safety hazards and put those in the plan to ameliorate that concern for the residents of that street. Fitzgerald: And I think we will have the applicant address that when they come back up, but I think that was in the ACHD report. Grandvall: Right. Fitzgerald: So -- Grandvall: Okay. Any questions for Vienna Woods folks? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 32 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 30 of 81 Fitzgerald: Any questions? Grandvall: And to address Commissioner Cassinelli's comment earlier, we just found out about this situation here a few weeks ago and , otherwise, we would have submitted a written testimony as well. Fitzgerald: We appreciate you guys being here. Thank you very much. So, my formal list is done. Is there additional folks who would like to testify? Ma'am, let's start with you. Thank you for being here. Please state your name and your address for the record, please. L.Lewis: Hi. I'm Lori Lewis and my address is 2000 East Dunwoody Court. Okay. So, what I would like to do is first I would like to urge the Council to really think longer term in terms of what your decision is, right, beyond -- and really look at, you know, as these communities that we are talking about are going to last well beyond any one of us in this room; right? And so to take into account the material planning considerations that have been presented today, as well -- especially those which affect the community as a whole and especially in terms of safety versus those that are in the best interest of individuals. This evening as staff illustrated the routes that people would have to take if it -- for example, from Shandee, you know, to go over to someone just one street over and just how complicated that is and how -- how it really -- the lack of connectivity really does impact the community as a whole and -- and though the -- and then -- and though the developer responded and said, well, you know, those people should walk -- you know, not only is that disrespectful, but it's actually also really short sighted, because I think what we should be considering is really the opportunity that this one mile piece of parcel has to offer from a community building standpoint . The developer mentioned that this was very unique and that it had six -- had six stub roads on it, so it's much like a pinwheel and -- and, actually, in my mind that actually is a really -- a real benefit, because it offers connectivity of all of those communities which surround it, which if you look at this here, this, you know, picture here it looks like that was probably, you know, part of the master design, which, then, leads me to the -- to the fact that it doesn't seem to really make sense to have a gated community right in the middle of where you could have some -- have something that could connect all of these communities and especially if you think about what Locust Grove, Chinden and Eagle are going to look like ten, 15 years from now, trying to have people connect with their neighbors by going on those roads would be ridiculous; right? And so it's much better if people can connect with one another through the subdivisions and get to one another easily at -- whether they are walking, riding their bikes, or in their -- in their vehicles. Now, should -- should they -- you do want to -- I mean because, actually, when I think -- when I think about that as a -- this gated community, it actually acts more of a point of constipation, if you will, versus something that could really flow -- allow people to flow back and forth from a community standpoint and as I think about what -- really what Meridian wants to achieve from an overall planning perspective is you want to build communities of people who are connected and -- and who care about one another and can easily access each other and -- and visit and so forth, so -- so it -- however, if you do decide that a gated community is okay, then, at least what I would recommend is that you make sure that there is access points on every one -- north, south, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 33 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 31 of 81 east and west, not just east and west, and that as you decide where those access points should be, you take a look at the infrastructure of those connection points and if you look at Dunwoody, for example, it is one connection point -- one connection point that has, again, no sidewalks gutters, no streetlights, no -- and even the road is not wide enough for -- you know, from a safety perspective when people are -- are walking. So, I think just to -- Fitzgerald: Ma'am, I need you to wrap it up, please. L.Lewis: I know. I saw that in your eyes. Fitzgerald: Thank you. L.Lewis: So, just -- just, again, I just urge you to think long term, because the plan today that's presented is very very short sighted and I think it doesn't at all represent what the City of Meridian wants to -- to create long term. We appreciate it. Thank you so much for your input. Ma'am. J.Johnson: Thank you to the committee. I appreciate you letting me speak. My name is Jeanette Johnson and I represent the irrigation districts or the lateral -- Fitzgerald: Can you state your address for the record. J.Johnson: 7905 West Colt Drive, Boise, Idaho. 83709. Fitzgerald: Thank you. J.Johnson: Kerns Lateral is the lateral that is affected by this development. They have done a great job of working with the developer within the development, but the issue is is that they didn't take into consideration anyone else. Mark Miller is going to be locked out of his irrigation. He shouldn't have to ask permission to have his water. He has been there. This is a right. He has had this property and now he's going to be locked out and he's come here to say can I get my irrigation water. That's not acceptable. Okay. There is three other people that are in the same situation. That water doesn't just go to him, it flows on down and affects other people. Once again, as the lady before me, you know, continuity and continuation wasn't thought of. Only this little community was thought of. A gated community. It locks out somebody that's right there. It may have landlocked his property. So, yes, they did a great engineering job. I saw it. I watched it being developed. But the people around it weren't taken into consideration. So , how is he going to be able to get to his water? How is he going to be able to turn his water on? Does he have to go ask permission to get the gate unlocked each time he needs water? These are things that need to be taken into consideration when plans are put in place , when engineers develop these plans, and this needs to be considered, because it hasn't been. How is he going to get his water? I would like an answer to that. This is something that you guys need to decide, because this plan can't go into effect when farmers and people down the road on an irrigation ditch need their water and right now we have a community that's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 34 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 32 of 81 going to be locked and I need to explain to my people on that ditch , I'm sorry, they have a locked community, I can't get to your water. They locked the gate . And, you know what, we need to turn the water on, but the gates are locked, because the Meridian Planning and Zoning approved these plans. Fitzgerald: Ma'am -- and Mr. Miller -- I will take responsibility for not responding to you. As a development they have to continue the water. There is no way that they can lock you out of your water. That is part of the responsibility that -- the staff does an exceptional job. Our Public Works does an exceptional job of ensuring that you always have access. The water is required to continue to who it is -- you have state water rights. That doesn't go away. And so there is nothing happening to the water. Mr. Miller will get his water. All those folks down that ditch line will get their water. You will also have access to clean that ditch out whenever you want to . Access head gates whenever you want to. So, that's not a problem. We -- that's a requirement of the city when they come up with an application. So, Mr. Miller, I apologize for not addressing that when we were looking forward, but that's absolutely something that is a requirement on the application. J.Johnson: But the plans don't address that. Fitzgerald: It's something they have to do before they get their plat signed off on . So, that's something that will absolutely be taken care of. J.Johnson: Yeah. Okay. Right now on the plans it's not and there is people asking that question that are affected by this and they are not there. You know, the p lans don't address that, because they are right now looking at this saying, okay, we need to find out. We need to know what's going to be done, because if they were looked at right now and said, okay, this is not in there, it's not being addressed. Fitzgerald: We will have the applicant touch base on that, too. J.Johnson: Okay. All right. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. J.Johnson: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you so much. And, Mr. Miller, I apologize I didn't touch base on it earlier. Additional hands? I had one more here. Sir, please, come up and state your name and address for the record, please. Jurgensmeier: Darin Jurgensmeier. I live at 1778 East Dunwoody Court. I appreciate you guys taking careful consideration of this issue. A few things I just want to emphasize. There is a lot of great comments. At the ACHD committee meeting there were three commissioners who voiced significant concerns about the proposed plan . Two voted in dissent and one said in the end I don't know that we can come up with a good plan and he voted for the plan. But three had concerns. As you see on this global view of this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 35 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 33 of 81 area, the three entrances to Locust Grove that are visual here are Dunwoody Court, the entrance to Vienna Woods and the entrance to Three Corners and with the expansion OF Dunwoody is slated to be a right-in, right-out. I don't know what the expansion -- what's going to happen to the entrance to Vienna Woods and to Three Corners, but I would assume that as they are entrance -- they are collectors that they would be not just a right- in, right-out. So, that brings the question that if Dunwoody's a right-in, right-out and it becomes one of the main entrances, as anybody who is in this neighborhood Three Corners Ranch, if they need to go north or if they need to go west, they are going to come through Dunwoody. Otherwise, going north they would have to go down Eagle Road turn a U-turn and head up to back north. So, they are all going to come -- anything north and west they are going through Dunwoody. Additionally, with Shandee being locked off as a cul-de-sac, you're putting those extra 30 homes right now -- the only option, then, they would have is to go through into Three Corners. So, for emergency access to get back in there you have to come in passed Ambrose and come clear around up to the cul-de- sac. That's their only option. So, I would just ask you to consider the future development of Locust Grove and consider that some of these communities were developed with collectors in place, such as Bristol Heights. Barclay is a collector. Coming through Vienna Woods there is a collector system that's designed to develop -- accept this traffic. With references to Dunwoody and if they do use this as one of the main entrances -- and the responsibility of who is to place streetlights or who has to play for sidewalks, it's not mentioned in the ACHD report. They said there is no improvements required for this development. When we have spoken with the developer about this they said that's not our responsibility. You guys could talk amongst yourselves about how you would place a sidewalk or where you would place a sidewalk. Although they would be benefiting from advertising we are going to sell these properties with this access through Dunwoody by using our -- our road that we had purchased, knowing that it was a dead end cul-de-sac and so significant changes and if they were to accept that I think they should have some responsibility in changing the infrastructure. Fitzgerald: Okay. Any questions. We appreciate it. Thank you so much. Sir. Davis: Andrew Davis. 6014 North Stafford Place. My property is the southernmost property on Stafford that abuts the proposed development, so I am the exact example of the person who would have to travel the farthest around to meet my friend on Shandee and I assure you I will walk or I will take their longer route by vehicle to avoid having the cut-through traffic go passed my property. We have heard discussion here recently about the additional connectivity. It can be a positive. In this case it would definitely be a negative. I think we all know the main traffic needs to stay on those main arterials. Creating a cut through between Locust Grove and Eagle Road that goes pass through -- right passed my house on what is not a collector, t would be absolutely irresponsible. I really have to commend the developer. They came in with a plan originally that met a lot of opposition. They have gone a long way to comply with what they heard from the neighbors and come up with the plan that we all really like. It's a shame that staff didn't get the same message and is recommending the exact opposite of everything we have been asking them to do. The plan as approved by ACHD is absolutely the preferred plan and staff's recommendation is just really kind of cut the -- the entire purpose of the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 36 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 34 of 81 revisions that have been made and provide that -- that cut through that we were trying to avoid the entire time, so -- Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Any questions? Thank you so much. Davis: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Sir. Come forward, please. Stigile: John Stigile. 6294 Shandee. I talked with the state and they said we will be a cul-de-sac in the future and the road we have now to Locust Grove, I'm not opposed to it, but the peak hours you can't hardly get on and off there now with the school. All I ask is make us two ways out for fire and ambulance in the future , rather than the -- stick us in one hole with one way out. I realize you can't do everything for everybody. I just asked for the best we can get, even though I'm a country boy off Shandee. Thank you. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it, sir. Thank you. Parsons: Mr. Chair, I would like to make a comment on that. Fitzgerald: Bill, go ahead. Parsons: This gentleman's testimony. That was -- really that was the testimony or the analysis in our staff report and why we felt it was important that although we respect the decision of the ACHD commission, having 82 homes on a dead end street doesn't meet Fire Department code, doesn't meet our code, and that's why we try to do our best to come up with a solution where we thought we could cut down cut -through traffic. We understand there will be some cut-through traffic. But in order to preserve the public safety, knowing that that road will be closed off to Shandee, we do not want to approve a road that has 82 homes on a dead end street. So, that's why we are pushing for the north-south connection through the private street and providing additional public street connection. So, I just -- I just wanted to emphasize that for this commission tonight. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Additional hands? Yes, ma'am, in the back. Herrera: I was -- I wasn't sure if I'm allowed to speak for my parents. They are 90 years old and asked me to come. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Herrera: Okay. 5357 North Schumann. Herrera family. And basically -- Fitzgerald: Can you give us your name, ma'am. Herrera: Oh, yes. Ilse Herrera. That's my parent. Ilse Herrera. And so one of the things that -- my parents are 90 years old -- in the geriatric crowd to say -- proudly say. All Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 37 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 35 of 81 walking along their walkers and the only thing that they wanted to address is that opening up this connectivity versus cut through and just wanted to make us aware that there are parks in Vienna Woods, which is where they are at, and they are not only worried for the children, but their geriatric little walking areas and that is one of the issues that they wanted to address is the parks and they go to the park and the connect ivity versus the cut through, this seems to be what the issue always is and they feel that the traffic is already horrible where they don't hold -- they don't abide by a lot of the crosswalks and everything and literally I'm sure in our neighborhood they will attest to them walking around and that was their only concern that they wanted to address , that there are the parks and not only is it for the children's safety, but it's for the safety of the wonderful geriatric crowd there. That was it. Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else? Ma'am. After this I'm calling last call. Heiner: Hi. Linsy Heiner. 1778 East Dunwoody Court. So, I just wanted to make sure that you saw the pictures from the entrance to Dunwoody. I submitted that in written testimony in a letter. Just pictures I took with my cell phone that -- it shows that when cars are parked on either side of the street it becomes almost impassable right at the entrance of Dunwoody. We must take a stand for comm on sense and integrity. We all know the serious reservations of the ACHD commissioners during their hearing that such a proposal needed more consideration and it still does. Dunwoody, from a -- excuse me -- from a functional standpoint is much different from a more traditional neighborhood with sidewalks, straight roads, and perpendicular cross-streets and stop signs. Our Mayor's slogan is Do The Right. The proposal is not the right. The proposal disregards safety. It goes against common sense. And it goes against existing stub streets. Access points. Larger neighborhoods may support the plan as the existing stub streets in their neighborhoods designated for future expansion are not being used. So , yes, they -- they will support that. However, I ask you to remember that in America we don't trample on the minority. In this case a relatively small neighborhood. Thomas Jefferson said that the minority must possess the equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression. Community leadership, it's time to take a stand and I ask you to do what's right by further considering and not accepting this proposal. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Last call? Anybody additional? Okay. Would the applicant like to come and close. Mr. Clark, hopefully -- I think you got some questions to ask -- or to answer and to get through, so I will give you some time. Clark: Yep. Thank you. Again for the record Hethe Clark, 251 East Front Street. I do want to -- as I mentioned when I started, this was a unique experience and I have -- I can't say that I have had quite the dynamic that we have seen in this one that any -- in any hearing before. I do want to thank all of the folks who showed up , who came to testify. I want to thank the consultants and the Deans for the dozens and dozens of conversations and meetings that they have had with the neighbors. There really has been an effort to go above and beyond here. So, we will work back through some of these questions. So, with regard to some of the Dunwoody Court comments, I don't know where the comment about restricting Locust Grove to right-in, right-out comes from. One of our consultants Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 38 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 36 of 81 spoke with ACHD this morning. They were informed there is no intent to close off Locust Grove and that -- the access onto Locust Grove in that manner. I'm a little disturbed by the indication about the reservation with regard to the ACHD commission's decision. The commission was fairly straightforward in that decision. There was some discussion about whether they should take some more time to look -- to let folks comment on things more, but the commissioners were very direct and the ACHD commission action reflects that point. Now, with regard to the -- the Dunwoody Court access, I just do want to emphasize again -- as you can see here this property was platted with Dunwoody Sub and, again, the CC&Rs for Dunwoody Sub identify that this property would take access through there. Again, what we are talking about in this case is about 44 homes -- or is 44 homes. Excuse me. Forty-four homes. That's about half the density that this could accommodate. Again, I just want to make sure that that point is very clear. There were a number of comments about safety on Dunwoody Court. ACHD reviewed the status of Dunwoody Court. ACHD is the traffic authority. ACHD indicated that no improvements are warranted. Now, when you deal with ACHD -- and this is -- I'm sure you, as a commission, are very aware of this -- as a commission are very aware of this already. When you're dealing with ACHD and you're looking for roadway improvements, there is a warrant analysis that is -- is required as part of that discussion. They have to look at it and decide, okay, we -- we agree that there should be a pedestrian treatment here. There should be streetlights there. In this case the -- the commission's report was very clear in saying that no improvements are warranted at this time. Now, I do want to say that this applicant is more than happy to work with folks to revisit those questions in the future, to work with them, to help focus that conversation with ACHD and to be clear, what we are talking about when we talk about streetlights and sidewalks and those sorts of things -- those are system improvements. In other words, those are things that can be funded with impact fees that can go on to a capital improvements plan with ACHD. But, again, they have to be warranted and ACHD is the traffic authority in this case and they have not found that they are warranted at this time. With regard to the gate, the existing right of way is wide enough to accommodate a turnaround. It's about 50 feet on the area that goes off of Dunwoody Court. So in this area. There is more than enough room to accommodate it, it just needs to be engineered. We are still at the preliminary plat phase. That will be shown on future plans. With regard to the open space lots in Dunwoody, we understand those lots were identified on the plat as open space. That plat was done in 1990. It indicates that they would be open space for at least 15 years. The -- the folks who own them -- there is also -- there is also an ownership restriction, so if you own the lot in the front, then, you have to own the lot in the back. If those folks can figure out a way to do that under their current CC&Rs, it would be appropriate for them to do their own driveway to connect. As of now they -- they show on the plats as -- as open space. That's a cost that I think Mr. Miller is asking to push onto this applicant that actually should be something that's borne by the folks once they figure out if they want to have those additional lots, but that does raise in my mind another question that Dunwoody folks don't want to have something like 22 lots coming through their -- their property. I would be surprised if they wanted to have all those open space lots redevelop and, then, have that additional traffic as well. With regard to water, as Mr. Chair mentioned, water has to be delivered. No one is going to be locked out. I'm not sure where the information that was represented here came from. We have been in contact with the Kerns board. The Kerns board approved our plans on Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 39 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 37 of 81 February 7th. All three board members approved them. With regard to condition 3 -D, which was the gate to the north, it's my understanding that that is proposed to break up the lot -- the block face. Again, if Guinness does not extend all the way over, then, there is no reason for it to exist from a block face perspective. But, again, we are talking -- give or take somewhere -- somewhere in the range of 22 homes going each -- each direction and I just want to emphasize that that connection is in many ways materially worse than going through Dunwoody. Again, it is more distance, it goes through a school, and it ends up at Locust Grove, much -- in an area that's -- that would likely see cars backed up in that location. Same concern goes with regard to a connection on the south. If you go down to Dvorak, if you follow the -- the street pattern out, you're more likely to head east or west again and you're just going to end up in a connection -- or in a location similar to what we are proposing here. So, we think that those would be diminishing returns, especially for a small subdivision to operate that many gates I think would be -- I don't think it would be an efficient way of doing things. With regard to Bill's comments about Shandee Drive and the length, we have not seen anything from the fire department making that point and something that was left out is that our pedestrian path would function as an emergency access. So, there is an access point that breaks that up. If it, then, requires additional conversation with fire, then, we are happy to do that. In addition, we expect that there would be emergency bollards up at the -- at the top of Shandee at Chinden when that is cut off. That would -- that would only make sense. So, again, I will finish up. As I think a number of people have said, there is nothing against interconnectivity in this discussion. The question is really one of diminishing returns. Again, there is no internal collectors on this -- on this square mile and there is no mix of uses. It is all local roads. The concern is with cut through and we think that the plan that was overwhelmingly supported here tonight and the plan that was approved by the traffic authority ACHD is what we would ask for your recommended -- recommendation of approval on and with that I'm happy to answer any remaining questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Hethe. One -- or two questions, actually. So, in regards to emergency access, is that two -- down the south is that grasscrete you're putting in in addition -- or connecting to that -- that cul-de-sac at the bottom? Is that what we are talking about for emergency access for a secondary point or where are you referring to ? Clark: Yeah. Mr. Chair, we are talking about the pedestrian connection between Shandee and Stafford. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, you're -- that's rated for a -- for paramedics and fire trucks? Grasscrete? Clark: Yeah. You can -- it can be -- it can be built such that it's a pedestrian area, but can support emergency vehicles. Fitzgerald: Okay. Additional questions? Commissioner Seal, go ahead. Seal: As far as the turnaround, I mean I understand that the street's technically wide enough to provide a turnaround, but I mean if you get a couple cars going up in there that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 40 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 38 of 81 would definitely be a problem and knowing that the developer, essentially, owns that parcel of land that's connecting the two of these together, can a turnaround be built -- because the access to the owner's land is also right where a great place to put a turnaround would be. Can that be built into this? Clark: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Seal, I -- I believe you're referring to Mr. Miller, is that -- the property I think right in this location? Seal: No. I'm actually referring to the -- the developer's property. Clark: Uh-huh. Seal: So, if you look at where the access comes in, there is a driveway, basically, that provides access to that. Right there would be a great place to put a turnaround. Can that be built into this plan? Fitzgerald: Sorry. The gate's going to be closer to Dunwoody. Seal: And that's what I'm saying. Instead of putting the gate at Dunwoody, put the gate at the subdivision with the turnaround up there. That way -- Clark: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Seal, we are happy to explore moving it back to accommodate that. Seal: Okay. I think that would be responsible and eliminate a little bit of concern. I mean my concern as well, if there is a turnaround you don't want people to be making a , you know, four or five point turn to try and get around something. There is plenty of room to do it right there it looks like to me. Clark: That makes sense. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Commissioner Holland, go ahead. Holland: Mr. Chairman. One question just to play the -- the what if scenario. If -- if staff's concern is about the area that's to the north of this development, that you would be creating kind of one access point once Shandee wasn't able to access Highway 69 -- or access Chinden anymore, if you kept the condition of requiring the connection to North Stafford, but not the connectivity to this neighborhood -- does that make sense what I'm saying? If you were to keep 3-C, but not 3-D, that way you have got accessibility to the -- the other neighborhood on the east that could create another connectivity point for that north neighborhood and I don't know if that's maybe more of a question for staff, if that would be something that would be more -- you know where I'm going with that? Fitzgerald: A road instead of a common area. Holland: Right. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 41 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 39 of 81 Fitzgerald: Or a -- Leonard: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Holland, if you could just maybe elaborate. Are you saying that you would think the street should move further to the eas t to connect or -- Holland: Sorry. Let me start over. So, the -- right now one of the conditions of ACHD's report is to connect that west stub up in the northwest corner to Shandee on the -- the other one. And, then, there would be a pedestrian walkway between Shandee and Stafford. If they extended that roadway that connected Shandee right now over to Stafford, would that help ease your concerns about having more accessibility of more than one entrance for that northern neighborhood? Is that your biggest concern there? Leonard: Commissioner Holland, I think -- is that -- I think that's basically what we are recommending, right, with the extension of the road. Are you saying eliminating -- I might be misunderstanding you. Are you saying eliminating the road to the west. Fitzgerald: Keeping the road to the west and not going north -- north and south. Holland: Right. Not doing the north-south, but doing the east-west. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think it's -- yeah, eliminate the -- the additional private street connection to align with Shandee is what you're saying, but still connect public street to the east. The other thing that I wanted to mention to you as well as is right now it's -- so, we all know 20-26 is going to be right-in, right-out at some point, but when it goes to full cul-de-sac now we have a block length issue. We are violating city code, because now we have, essentially, a 2,000 linear foot cul-de-sac and our code doesn't allow for that and that's the other important reason to have some other connection going back to the east. We can't have that violating our city code in the future and so we are looking to the -- to the future. We are being cognizant of that and so that's why we are taking a hard stand on it. We understand the controversy behind it and, again, we understand ACHD's Commission's position on it, but we have to make sure that the development meets our city code and this is annexation, you know. If this isn't the time to develop this property, then, maybe we wait and determine whether or not we extend all the stub streets in the future and wait for a different plan. I mean that's the finding that you have to make with the annexation . Is this in the best interest of the city. We have a lot of people here that just want one street to connect. We are unsure on how these roads should connect. I agree with the applicant, we have a really unusual circumstance here. We -- we probably have the best connectivity to a piece of property in the City of Meridian at our fingertips and we don't ever see this and so it's hard -- we have got a conundrum here and we are trying to work with ACHD commission, work with the applicant and make the neighborhoods happy. So, we are trying to make it -- find a solution that meets code, satisfies our citizens and potential future citizens if they choose to annex into the city and work with the applicant. So, that was the compromise that -- that was the solution that we could find that was consistent with the comp plan and still allow us to recommend approval of the project. If that road doesn't go through I don't know how we can say we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 42 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 40 of 81 support this. We are going to end up with a cul-de-sac that's 2,500 linear feet or whatever the distance is. It's just -- it's not -- it's not good planning. Holland: Mr. Chair, one more follow-up question. I think that's kind of where I was getting to is is there some sort of middle ground where if you did the east-west connection, but not the north-south connection -- I know that it's not going to be a favorable option for a lot of people that have testified tonight, but just wondering if that changes what your perspective would be, if that gives better connectivity or if that still creates the same challenge. Parsons: Well, Madam Chair, Member -- or Madam Chair. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the intent for the north-south connection was to break up the block length. As Hethe had mentioned, there is a waiver through -- the City Council can waive that through a pedestrian connection. There is -- there is more flexibility there then I would say eliminating the extension of the private -- the -- the public street to the east. Clark: And, Mr. Chairman, can I jump in on that? Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Clark: So, I'm a little taken aback by the suggestion about is this the right time to annex and by some of the details there and Bill and I have worked together for a long time , so this is, obviously, with the greatest respect. This -- let's talk about first, you know, this is -- this plan, again, has -- is very well done, it has about half the density of what could go in there. If someone was -- if it's not going to get annexed now and it goes to some sort of batch developer later on, you're probably going to see 60, 70 lots and connections everywhere. Now, with regard to the connection on Shandee, I think that's all county property up there. The other point is -- that Bill is leaving out is -- is -- well, there is two points -- is that I think it's likely that ITD will have a bollard at the end of that cul-de-sac when it gets cut off , given the length of that street. That would address it. And, then, in addition, we have -- have committed to ensuring that the pedestrian walkway between Shandee and Stafford could support emergency vehicles. So, both of those issues are more than satisfied in my mind. So, with that I think that that -- that issue is something that is not as dire as I think it's been represented here. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more question for you that's -- that's unrelated to other conversation. Some of the questions and concerns from the Dunwoody Subdivision was around -- they are worried about traffic, they are worried about sidewalks, they are worried that they don't have enough lighting. Would the applicant be amenable to trying to work with them to do some sort of compromise there? I'm not expecting you to be able to put in sidewalk for all their neighborhood, but maybe some sort of lighting or -- assistance or traffic calming sign -- something. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 43 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 41 of 81 Clark: Commissioner Holland, so there -- it's -- it's a harder question than it sounds. So, when Dunwoody Sub was put in it was put in with waivers -- waivers of sidewalk and curb and gutter and all that sort of thing. So, there was a specific reason that that was selected and it's tough for me to, then, say that just because I decided to buy into a subdivision that doesn't have those amenities that no one else can use the public roadway that goes through that subdivision, unless they pay for -- to -- you know, directly pay to make those improvements. But, again, what I think is the most appropriate way to deal with this that those improvements would be system improvements and could be things that could be covered in impact fees once warranted. What ACHD has said to date is that those -- those improvements are not warranted. So, we need -- we need that -- the cart's before the horse to a certain degree. But we are willing to chair a committee and work with folks to -- to get that back on ACHD's -- you know, bring it to their attention if it does turn out to be something. But, again, at this point ACHD has determined there is not a warrant for those items. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: It was stated that the ACHD came to a three to two decision on that, yet your comment was it seemed to be that ACHD was -- was more unanimous. Was the decision -- was it -- was it three to two? Was it -- is that what their decision was? Was there a lot of a -- lot of concern and issues brought up by ACHD? Clark: Commissioner Cassinelli, I think there is two answers to that question and I think both are very important. So, as I recall, one of -- at least one of the commissioners didn't vote in favor because they wanted more time to look at the plan . It wasn't any specific issue that they had with the plan, they just wanted more time. The other three commissioners were fairly convincing when it comes to , you know, what the -- it seemed to me that they were very straightforward in terms of deciding what they wanted. Now, the question that that begs is you -- when -- if you guys vote four to one what is your decision, you know, or if you guys vote three to two, what is your decision? Your decision is what the decision of the majority is and it's reflected on the -- on your written findings and you don't create doubt or ambiguity in those findings, just because one or two of you might have voted against it. So, I hope that answers your question, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: It gave me the information I needed. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Follow up? Do you have any additional comments, thoughts? Commissioner Seal. Seal: I have got a question on just a different idea altogether. The -- the Sweet Valley connection to -- to Shandee in my mind kind of makes the least amount of sense in this whole thing, where if you connected Shandee and Stafford and left the connection out over to Sweet Valley, that would eliminate through traffic, as well as provide for what is needed in order to get Shandee Drive up to spec as far as emergency access and things Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 44 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 42 of 81 like that. So, it's something that would be -- something that would be willing to be talked about? Clark: Commissioner Seal, I'm -- I'm trying to envision what you're -- what you're describing here. Seal: Well, I mean, essentially, I'm looking at -- I'm looking at Sweet Valley Avenue as it goes over to Shandee. I mean -- Clark: Commissioner Seal, just -- it sounds like that -- the various options have been discussed with the neighbors and the folks at Shandee -- it sounds like their preference is to go west and so -- and that solves their -- their issue, again, when it's created, that it -- that the -- with the cut off at -- by ITD. So, I think what I would say in response to that question is that we would respect the -- the wishes of the neighbors when it comes to which direction that connection would be made . Fitzgerald: My guess is ITD doesn't want it going back into here, because it connects back in the Chinden. Clark: Uh-huh. Fitzgerald: That's -- Seal: Right. But I mean what -- what I can see right here is -- I mean all the people that, basically, live and come off of Sweet Valley, in order to avoid Locust Grove they are going to go up Shandee and hit Chinden. I mean if I lived there I wouldn't want to go to Locust Grove in the morning. No way. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Shandee -- they are going to end that pretty quick here. Seal: Right. But I mean that -- and that's what I mean. Shandee would go up and around. That would provide the emergency access for, though. So, essentially, they will still be able to, you know, have an access that goes up and out, it's just going to be through a different -- a different means, instead of going back and forth to Locust Grove. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Clark: Yeah. Commissioner Seal, I -- what I'm seeing would be a far more circuitous route for them. I think the Shandee folks would be better served by -- by going west and that's -- was the consensus when we discussed it with them. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Follow-up? Thinking about it? No? So, good. Thank you very much. Clark: Thank you, Commissioners. If it's helpful, I have the conditions that we had mentioned as removing, so I will give that to you just as a reference. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 45 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 43 of 81 Fitzgerald: Thank you. Any questions for staff before we have a motion to close the public hearing? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: So, I have a question that you may or may not be able to answer . When ACHD comes in and says we are going to do this, do they need to adhere to any kind of standards or policies that the city has or can they -- do they just have carte blanche to come in and just say we are going to do it, that's the way it is? Parsons: Commissioner Seal, in respect to what? Widening a road or -- Seal: Capping off Shandee. Basically making it a cul-de-sac. Parsons: Oh, you mean ITD? Yeah, they have that authority to do that, because that's the access to their roadway. So, yes. Now, we have staff that coordinates on those types of things and we give them our preference , but in this situation we all know Chinden is over overburdened and the way to have consistent traffic flow is eliminate access points to those roadways, minimize conflicts, and that's why both the city -- both the Comprehensive Plan and ITD have an access management and we like backage roads along our state highways and we also like to minimize access points to the mile and half mile points, typically with a collector road system, which this area lacks it. We all understand that and ACHD has made that very clear. The only collector road is that red line that you see minus the one to Dunwoody, but that red loop there is the only collector road in that whole section that's designated a collector road by ACHD. There is no other collector roads in the area. Seal: So, essentially, without it -- Parsons: So, ITD can close that off, but I don't -- again, that's -- that could be 20 years from now. But what I'm saying -- telling -- trying to -- share with you is that, yes, in those -- in the short term it works. In the long term there is going to be issues there and that's what we have to try to protect against. We have to make sure that we are doing -- trying to do what's best -- in the best interest of the public and having a long dead end cul -de- sac is not, in staff's opinion, the best interest of the public looking 20 years down the road or 30 years. Seal: So, is there an opportunity to work with the agencies involved, because essentially -- I mean what we have -- you know, what we have going on on the different roads here as far as -- if we don't take action right now on Shandee they can't do what they want to do with this road; correct? Because there is no access other than off of Chinden Boulevard. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 46 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 44 of 81 Parsons: That's correct. They are -- well, they are going to have to -- like -- as you said, they are going to have to come up with an alternative plan that's going to all cost taxpayer dollars, because they would have to find a different route. Seal: So, if they in turn looked at Dunwoody Drive and said we will spend a little bit of money right now if you guys help us spread some money around up here , so we can avoid that, is there an opportunity to have that conversation with them? Parsons: At this point -- Fitzgerald: I mean I think that it's possible, but I -- the likelihood of getting ITD to spend money on Dunwoody and to -- that's moving the legislature and that is not going to happen. Parsons: I don't see that happening either. Fitzgerald: That's -- I mean I think it's wishful thinking, but I think it's -- it would be great if we could get them to -- to widen Chinden to -- right now and we can't get them to -- they are going to leave it with a giant bottleneck in the middle anyway, which is crazy. But I will keep beating that drum for the next couple of years. I didn't mean to cut you off though. Seal: No. I completely understand we are all a victim of ACHD and ITD in this town, so -- Parsons: Yeah. Seal: -- that's the unfortunate part of this to me is there should be some opportunity to do that, because, again, if we don't take action on this and they want to do what they want to do with Shandee, they are going to have to spend money or find an alternate way to do it. So, in essence, they are reliant on us to take action in order to carry out their plan. Meanwhile, the report that reflected that Dunwoody doesn't need any kind of development in order to support this I think is a horrible idea. Fitzgerald: So, do we want to ask anymore questions or close the public hearing, so we can chat about this thing? Holland: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm happy to close the public hearing, but I'm almost wondering if we should deliberate with this one open, so that in case we need to bring someone back up we could. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 47 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 45 of 81 Fitzgerald: That's totally acceptable. Understand. So, does anybody want to start deliberating discussions? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: I mean what -- what I'm hearing here is, basically, everybody likes the lower number of homes and that -- that seems to be -- everybody that's come up and testified said they really liked the lower number of homes, as long as they don't drive through their subdivision. So, you know, when you have a whole bunch of subdivisions and you have a group of people up here trying to make a decision , now we have to try and make everybody happy. When you try and make everybody happy there is only one outcome, everybody is going to be miserable, because if you tried to make everybody happy you would go back to the original plan where you put in all these stub streets and everybody goes everywhere, but nobody wants the cross-connecting traffic. Again, I understand we are all victims of ACHD and ITD as far as their inability to provide adequate roadways. So, everybody tries to go through the subdivisions and that's -- that's unfortunate for all of us, you know, folks that live in Meridian at this point in time . Fast big growth is -- is great for us, great for our tax base, bad for roadways. We can't keep up. The one point that I would like to make about ACHD finding that the improvements to Dunwoody is not warranted at this time, I have lived in the community long enough to know that ACHD not thinking things are warranted, specifically I will cite an incident at Linder and Ustick when they put in the schools, they had -- there were -- it wasn't warranted to put in crosswalks or stop lights or anything there, even though that they had a school and kids walking on the other side until a kid was hit by a car. So, I don't put a lot of faith in ACHD saying if something is warranted or not. So, I just wanted that to be on the record. Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Commissioner Holland, go right ahead, ma'am. Holland: Mr. Chairman, you know, first of all, I always like to say I really appreciate the community involvement in this one. I opened every -- every single one of the 45 comments that were submitted tonight and it -- it helps us a lot to understand where the community is coming from, so we appreciate you taking the time to be here with us . I know this is a complicated one that has a lot of different facets to it, so as we deliberate we try to look at all the different scenarios and all the possibilities and that's why we ask so many questions, but we will try to do the best we can to, you know, move forward with this project. Overall it sounds like the -- the main comments that came from the audience tonight were in favor of the ACHD plan primarily. That being said , I can see where staff is coming from with their -- their comments of wanting to have that connectivity to the north, so we don't end up having a neighborhood that gets stuck in a transportation situation when some of Chinden ends up losing access. It's kind of a rock and a hard place trying to figure out what -- what the right path would be, because it's a gated community, having another access point to the north isn't going to necessarily help mitigate some of those traffic concerns, because they will be blocked at the access point coming through. So, that's why I asked the question of would it make sense to do an east Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 48 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 46 of 81 and west connection, instead of the north and south one, trying to see if there might be something there that could help. I do appreciate that they have worked trying to add pathway connectivity, you know, in the -- the plan that they have submitted that was approved by ACHD. I do like that there is a pathway connection that would connect -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: -- I can't remember the name of those roads there. Stafford to -- to Shandee. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: I think it looks like -- as far as a neighborhood goes, there could be a lot more density in this area. There could be a much higher use product. It's also kind of a unique situation when you have got a gated community in the middle of a block. So, we haven't really talked about that as a commission either of how we feel about having the private streets versus a public street there, but I think with the gates I'm leaning towards -- I would be okay with ACHD's recommendations. Maybe seeing if there was something we could do to come halfway between what the staff 's recommending and what ACHD is requesting, but that's just at least my starting points for comments. The only other note I have was related to Dunwoody. I would love to see -- I agree with -- with the comments made earlier that sometimes ACHD has the best of intentions, but they may not move forward on something until it becomes a real burden and if it's just 46 homes feeding into this Dunwoody Lane, they are probably not going to put Dunwoody Lane on the priority list in the future. I would love to see if there is a way that the applicant might be willing to do something with them. I know it's not fair to ask them to do sidewalk, curb, gutter, lighting, all the things that they would need, but maybe there is some concession where they could assist in putting in a few of the light poles and the neighbors would take care of the rest of it if that was one of the biggest concerns. Again, just a couple of comments for consideration. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I would have to agree with Commissioner Seal's comments about ACHD and development has gotten way out in front of infrastructure around here and they don't seem to realize that. I do not think Dunwoody can support 50 percent. I think that somehow putting in the third access point -- let me say some of the things I really like about the subdivision and what they are looking at is I like the number a lots. I like the size of the -- of the lots. Not wild about the basketball. I'd rather see something -- a tennis court, pool, something in there. So, I would like to kind of throw that out for the developer to -- to maybe change that up a little bit. But overall I like -- I like the subdivision and what's developed here. It's the -- it's the traffic flow, it's the access that everybody's -- everybody seems to be concerned about. Putting -- Vienna Woods is happy, because they are not being affected by what it -- by what it is laid out here. To the north they have got to get access somehow, so they are -- they are fine with that. I truly believe there needs to be a third access point. I don't think we need to connect all five or six, but I think a third one is -- is necessary. It is -- you know, that would take it down to 15 or less homes, if you Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 49 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 47 of 81 would, per -- if everybody goes out evenly. They are not going to, of course, but it will soften the blow a little bit. I just -- Dunwoody can't handle it. It is dark. I have driven there at night before in the winter and it is dark, without curb, gutter and sidewalk and I would have to say if this is part of -- if this was part of the original Dunwoody development, why can't we ask the developer -- condition the developer to improve Dunwoody if that's going to be one of their access points. It is part of that subdivision and they are putting in curb, gutter and sidewalk as required in this and I would say if -- if -- if we just go to two, then, we need to hold them with their feet to the fire an d have them do the improvements to Dunwoody, but I don't -- but -- but when you look at Dunwoody it is not wide enough to handle some of the traffic. At least it won't be through traffic with the gates, but I -- my comment is overall I like the subdivision. I would like to see a change in the amenities. They are only hitting ten percent, which I'm never a fan of, but, you know, it's -- I mean it's bare bones minimum. They are at 10.1 or something like that. But the lots are large, so there is -- I mean we are still going to retain a lot of green space I think with -- overall with the lots, so that's -- I'm okay with that. Those are my general comments. But, again, I -- I think we have got to have at least a third access point. Fitzgerald: So, when you're talking about a third access point, are you talking about going north-south and not -- because I -- I don't think east-west makes sense, but that's just me. Cassinelli: But when you're saying east-west, you're -- you're talking about going out -- Fitzgerald: The red line up here. Cassinelli: What's that? Fitzgerald: The red line up here. I mean if you're going to have the north-south connection through -- through Lot 13. Cassinelli: Yeah. If I was to go north-south I would -- well, I would bring it out -- I don't have the name of the street up there, but coming out by Ambrose -- Fitzgerald: Happy -- or Sweet Valley or whatever. Yeah. Cassinelli: Okay. Or go on south into -- south into Vienna Woods, which I'm not going to make anybody happy out there that lives in Vienna Woods by saying that , but, again, we are not -- we are talking about a gated community, we are not talking about a huge traffic impact, but the streets in Vienna Woods can handle it. Any new street going out there by Sweet Valley, those roads can handle it, but Dunwoody is not -- I don't believe Dunwoody is equipped to handle -- the road as it is now is equipped to handle, you know, what could be 60 percent, 70 percent of -- I mean whatever -- whatever decision people wind up in the -- you know, in the morning taken out and at home -- in the evening coming home, but even -- even dropping down through Vienna Woods it's not going to be -- we are not talking about hundreds of vehicles a day, we are talking about a relatively small number. But, again, the streets through Vienna Woods, the streets through Bristol Heights and, then, if you go up Sweet Valley there, they are all constructed to -- to standards to handle Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 50 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 48 of 81 a little bit more traffic and as you see one of those pictures that was shown to us with cars parking on both sides of the street on Dunwoody, it's -- it's -- I mean you have to -- you have to take turns getting one car through there . Can't -- you can't pass two cars at the same time. It is not up to current standard widths. Fitzgerald: So, in that comment you were -- were you suggesting that they would be adding curb, gutter and sidewalk to Dunwoody? Cassinelli: Well, if you do that, then, you -- then you even restrict the width even more. Fitzgerald: When I -- I mean it -- just because it was a lot that was eventually for further development without a development agreement , I -- you can't put that on that. There is no way. Not on that many lots. There is no way. That would be a -- I mean that's asking for -- I mean that's a huge, massive expense and -- and trying to get every one of those homeowners to sign off on what you are talking about. Cassinelli: Then what we are talking about is, then, we have a street that I don't think is is capable of handling -- Fitzgerald: I know we all don't trust ACHD, but they are the ones who are supposed to tell us this stuff; right? I mean that's -- that's my only challenge there, but I -- I hear what you're saying. Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: Yes. Fitzgerald: Tell us your thoughts, sir. Olsen: I think my main thought is the safety of Dunwoody. As -- you know, as we -- as we contemplate what needs to be done here. This is a good subdivision. I like the density, but I think we have to do something about Dunwoody. I just don't see that we can in good conscience pass without doing something, at least whatever is within our prerogative. It sounds like the third access point is the one . We are not going to get ACHD to provide for the curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Seal: I also think that the -- I mean the third access could be something we would provide. I'm -- surprisingly there has been -- Shandee seems to be okay with ACHD -- if -- if I lived on Shandee and I knew that they were going to open that up from Three Corners, I would be more concerned about that traffic than I would be by the traffic coming out of this subdivision, because, like I said, getting on and off of Locust Grove is a nightmare through that right now. So, I would imagine the majority of Three Corners folks are going to go out Shandee. That's just my opinion. Again, if I live there that's how I would do it, because Locust Grove is just a nightmare to come in and out of. So , if we try to tie in a north- south, Three Corners -- the Three Corners connection to Shandee seems to be something everybody is okay with. If we go north-south, then, that's going to add a little bit of traffic that's probably going to go through Shandee, because, again, I don't think anybody's going to go through Three Corners. So, is it fair to put that impact on Shandee Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 51 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 49 of 81 knowing that it's the same kind of road that goes through without the develop -- you know, without lights, without sidewalks and all that, you know, that I don't know. But it seems to make the most sense. I mean we have to -- you know, we are not spreading the wealth, we are spreading the -- you know, the ridership, I guess, or commuters that are going to be coming in and out of this subdivision. So, the north-south to me makes the most sense, since most folks are in agreement with tying Three Corners into Shandee. If that all makes sense. Cassinelli: The Shandee eventually will be cut off all together though. Fitzgerald: Yeah. So, they are going to go out Three Corners. Cassinelli: Correct. Holland: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: Just a comment back to Commissioner Seal's comment. I think in the short term I think you are -- you are correct, a lot of people would be going through Shandee, but in two to three years or whenever they decide to take away that access point , you're really just putting a bandaid on it if you're opening it back up for that -- that access to Chinden, because what would happen is if Shandee gets closed down, those neighbors would follow the road out to the west and come out by the Ambrose school . Again, just -- just barely north of where the access would be off -- Seal: Right. And that's -- doing a north-south I mean I think the idea was -- because Three Corners as developed has sidewalks, you know, it has the capability of handling that traffic. I think the idea is if there was going to be a north -south that's where people would go in and out of. But I think that short term people would go out -- you know, in and out Shandee, instead of going through Three Corners where it can handle the traffic. So, that's my concern with proposing something that's north -south, basically north out of the subdivision is the fact that Shandee can't handle it anymore than, you know, the other street that we are -- you know, that we are looking at as far as providing the west access. So, to me there is a similar safety concern on either -- either one of the roads short term. Holland: Mr. Chairman, one more -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: -- one more thought is -- I know we are, again, talking about a gated community and so I think the -- the pass through is not going to be really a situation once you get to this neighborhood, because you will have the traffic coming from this neighborhood, but, again, it's the -- the 45 lots that are there in here, whatever that is. Is it 46? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Forty-five. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 52 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 50 of 81 Holland: So, it's not a -- it's not a huge traffic generating neighborhood compared to a lot of the other ones that we see in the commission. That being said, if we need to find a third axis it's really between the option of going south or going to that north collector and I -- I think I agree with -- I don't see the need to connect both north and the east-west. I think it could be one or the other to try and help mitigate it, but I don't know that I see the justification for doing both of those. Fitzgerald: Agreed. Cassinelli: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go ahead. Cassinelli: For staff, Stephanie or Bill. Can you -- can you kind of -- do you have the diagram of -- of what you want to see out of here? Can you put that up? Fitzgerald: That's it. Cassinelli: Oh, this -- okay. Fitzgerald: They want to -- Cassinelli: Okay. You want to -- so, you want to connect all the way through Stafford, which will, then, go out -- you can -- you can get out to Eagle or -- or Chinden out that way and can you -- can you repeat some of the -- some of the conditions they are requiring that as far as emergency access and whatnot and what the requirements are of the city? Parsons: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Cassinelli, so as I alluded to earlier in the presentation -- and, really, what we have tried to lay out for you in the staff report as part of our analysis is we -- what we try not to do is we try to have -- we have block length standards, so we try to keep our block lengths at 750 linear feet. We realize with the extension of this roadway we are going to have a pretty long block face and so how do you break up a block face, you get a Council waiver or you provide a pedestrian connection and/or street connection. Two, our comprehensive plan tries to encourage connectivity with the neighborhoods . We realize this is a gated community, but we still would like to see some additional connections, so that we are not funneling people out to Locust Grove to get the kids to t he school, because people that -- their children -- people may live here and their kids may attend that school and I know we all want kids to walk to school, I'm in support of that, but the reality is people drive their kids to school, even when it's less than 300 feet away. I have seen it my neighborhood where I live by a middle school. So, kids aren't walking as much as they should be these days and parents are driving kids to school. The other issue is emergency access . So, under the fire code no more than 30 homes can be off a single access. Yes, that can be addressed through a secondary emergency access as the applicant testified. That's an accurate statement. But what we get concerned with is our code -- again, going back to our subdivision ordinance, it says when you -- you can't have a dead end street period. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 53 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 51 of 81 You want -- that's why -- I worked on Three Corners Subdivision and that's why we stubbed that road there is because currently we have 54 lots on a dead end street and it was meant to be extended and I worked closely with ACHD on making sure that Sweet -- that road at that boundary was extended to this property, so we didn't have all these homes on a dead end cul-de-sac, dead end street, in violation of our block length standards in the future. So, that's what we -- that's what Stephanie and I are tasked with. We have to look at surrounding developments as we make our recommendation to you to make sure how all these roads come in to make sure we don't create a block -- block length issue farther on down the road and having that information for ITD, it raised the concern to us that, yes, we will have, again, 82 homes on a dead end cul-de-sac if Shandee connects just to Sweet Valley and so, again, that's why we formulated our recommendation to have that public street connected. One , it allows neighbors to connect to neighbors, not necessarily cut through traffic, it's meant to -- as Jeff testified to, it's connecting neighborhoods. That's the goal here. That was one of the options that we had. And, then, the north-south portion was the one break up the block length and allow additional connectivity for this subdivision , so that they could drive up to and get children to school and/or any other event that may occur with the school. They own the commercial property at the corner as well and they have talked to the city about doing an event center at some point and having school activities there . So, I mean what a better -- why do you want to force people out onto Chinden and, then, Locust Grove to get into the school site where you can just go on a local street , drive by your neighbor's house and have safe access to the school without having to go on any of those roadways. So , that's really what we were thinking when we made that recommendation to you. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go ahead. Seal: So, I've got an idea about this. So -- and understanding -- thank you, Bill, for explaining the Sweet Valley connection to Shandee, that -- that makes a lot more sense. Would it be something that we could find agreement on to keep that connection, however, to not connect Shandee, to extend it from Shandee down to Stafford, however, provide a north -- a north access out of the gated community that goes up to Stafford, but doesn't connect to Shandee? That might serve everyone there. Therefore, that -- there is no cut through that will come through Stafford. Everybody's in agreement that Shandee and -- Shandee and -- gosh, I'm losing track of the -- Fitzgerald: Shandee and -- Cassinelli: -- Sweet Valley should be connected. But, basically, don't connect Shandee and Stafford, but provide access north out of the subdivision. Again, since it is gated to Stafford, that way it provides another way for people to get in and out, divides some of that traffic amongst all of the entrances and exits, cuts down on the traffic that you would see on Dunwoody. Is that something that -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 54 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 52 of 81 Fitzgerald: To me you outlined exactly what -- I mean you're -- the -- the challenge is I think -- is the Stafford piece -- they don't want it connected, because it's -- and I think we got to go back and look at this thing. As a person who sat on that side of the dais and looked this way, having neighbors -- this many neighbors in a room that actually agree with a developer is astounding. So, we appreciate that and the work that you guys have done. We do have some safety things and development requirements within our code that we have got to look at, too, but we do appreciate that piece and that's where I think this comes in, because that does get rid of -- if you take away the east-west connection, the inner -- or the cut through piece goes away and, then, everything is gated in here -- Cassinelli: I mean that would allow the emergency access. Fitzgerald: It does, because they have -- they have key cards or flashcards that they can use to get through the gate. So, they have more access there. They go out -- Cassinelli: So, it's just not a single point of access kind of in -- Seal: Well -- and more so it puts that traffic that's going to come in and out of the subdivision on streets that are made to handle that load currently -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Seal: -- and it eliminates anything else going on Shandee, which to me is as much of a concern as Dunwoody. I mean that street just isn't made for traffic anymore than Dunwoody is. So, trying to eliminate as much traffic as possible on those two is something that I would like to see us do. That seems like something that would -- could make that happen. Fitzgerald: Do we want to ask the applicant if they are willing to work with us on this or do we really care? Cassinelli: But we are still in open session, so -- Fitzgerald: The question becomes do we -- are you -- and this may be a question for the applicant, but you guys tell me what you think, but if we are going north-south is that going to be a gated part too? Holland: I think it would be. Cassinelli: I think we would have to make it. I mean we can't have the other gated and funnel everybody in and, then, they get back out -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- the same way. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 55 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 53 of 81 Seal: Because, then, they just have to turn around in the subdivision. Cassinelli: They can get out, but they can't get in. Seal: Right. Cassinelli: Hotel California. Fitzgerald: Exactly. Holland: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Do we -- do we want to talk at all about Dunwoody? I know we have -- there were a few of us that made some comments about that road , too, whether or not it's -- it's fair of us to ask them to -- my thought is maybe what we could do is condition that they would at least meet with the Dunwoody neighborhood to see if there is something that could come to agreement on, but that we wouldn't condition they do something specific, that they would have that conversation before Council, so they could see if there was some sort of compromise before then. Fitzgerald: With direction of what you're looking for? Olsen: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Mr. Olsen. Olsen: I believe he volunteered to do that with the -- head up a committee or so. Is that what you're talking about? Holland: Uh-huh. Fitzgerald: Yeah. But I think we can make it a condition if that's what you're looking for. Olsen: Yeah. Fitzgerald: With some direction of what you're seeking. Holland: Yeah. Fitzgerald: I think significant off-site work is -- puts a lot of burden on -- but I understand what -- you're trying to balance the point. Seal: On that also I mean in order -- if they could -- or they are extending, obviously, the -- the trees and the street and everything out to Dunwoody, if they could at least put Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 56 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 54 of 81 lighting on their piece of the road which connects to Dunwoody, put a light on each side of the road out there. At least that provides some light where people are going to be -- that's where the majority -- that's where all the traffic is going to come through. So, if you at least have that to where if anybody's crossing that street in that area , that would at least be well lit. And, again, I don't want all the burden of this to fall on the developer, because -- I mean if it were me moving into Dunwoody Court and I saw that it had, you know, a nice more country feel to the road and everything , that would be something I'm really excited about, not taking into consideration the fact that you live in the middle of the City of Meridian and eventually that country charm is going to be something that's more of a hindrance, more safety issue, then, you know, something that's -- that you want to have in your front yard. Fitzgerald: And the neighbors may not want lights right there , so -- I mean I think having the conversation is -- is appropriate. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Question for staff. Would that -- would that work by only having the -- the north-south and not -- not extending Guinness over to Stafford as far as meeting some of the safety requirements and -- Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yeah, technically that would work. But, again, staff's recommendation is -- is always going to be get -- get the connectivity and we will stand with our recom mendation this evening. I wouldn't guide you to -- it's your prerogative to strike that condition. But, again, our recommendation is that it connect. Fitzgerald: Make the call, sir. Cassinelli: Do we want to bring the applicant back up and -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. I think it would probably be appropriate. You want to come back up to the podium for a second. State your name and address for the record again. Clark: Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. Fitzgerald: Well, I think you get the gist of where we are kind of heading with looking at that north-south connection into the neighborhood. There is a couple questions that I will ask first and, then, you guys can fill in the blanks. One would we -- it would probably be another gate -- we have a third gate going north-south to keep the feel and look at that. Is that a problem first? I know that's not your ideal situation, but give us your thoughts around that second -- or that third gate and, then, what kind of impact that has on you guys. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 57 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 55 of 81 Clark: And, Mr. Chair, so we are happy -- you know, obviously, happy to consider anything that you guys identify. We have looked at that and we do feel like it's a diminishing returns situation where we think most of the traffic is going to go east and west. It's not going to be interested in going that direction and if it goes north it's going to go by the school and we don't think that that's a good outcome. So, I think a little bit like what Bill just said, I think, you know, we would -- we would ask for a recommendation of approval and, then, we can talk about that north-south connection. If -- if your recommendation includes that we would end up talking about that with the Council. Fitzgerald: Yes. Clark: I don't think we could agree to it at this point , again, for those concerns I have stated on the record. Fitzgerald: I think for our side it's a safety issue. I mean it's making sure Shandee gets the fire -- the trucks -- be able to have the access they need and interconnection, but not with regards to cross-traffic or cross-cutting through the neighborhoods. So, it's that balance point that we are trying to hit and -- and putting all of it on Dunwoody, because if -- I don't want to go east if I'm trying to -- I don't want to get to Eagle Road. That's the last place I want to go. So, I'm going to go out -- in my opinion would go to Locust Grove. So, having another access point hopefully would take some traffic off of there , especially if there is somebody going to school and that's kind of the balance point. I think we are -- Seal: Mr. Chair? And a point to that. If we put in the north-south connection that we are talking about where we are not extending Guinness all the way over to Stafford, if that north connector was made, no traffic would go by the school out of the subdivision. Clark: I'm sorry, Commissioners, I'm not understanding. Seal: So, essentially, what we would be -- what we would be doing is still take the connection from Sweet Valley to -- to Shandee. That would remain in place. But do not extend that connection all the way through to Stafford. However, come north out of the subdivision and connect to Stafford. Fitzgerald: No. Shandee. Seal: Go to Stafford. Holland: That's not what -- Fitzgerald: That's not what we are talking about. That completely defeats the purpose of cross-connect. Trying to keep Bristol Heights out of the mix, because that's when first connecting across crossways. Clark: It also -- if I may, Mr. Chair, it also doesn't address the -- the items that Bill mentioned about, you know, if -- if Bill is concerned about emergency access, it won't -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 58 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 56 of 81 it won't address that either and I just also want to say on -- with regard to Dunwoody, the -- it's -- the -- those streets are -- as identified in the -- in the ACHD report, they are 30 feet wide. That's wider than your typical ACHD approved street section on for local streets. So, we are not talking about extremely narrow streets. I understand it looks like they are -- there were some pictures there that had folks parked on both sides and on any local street with cars parked on both sides you are going to have a hard time getting through. That's why it's usually restricted, so -- Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Commissioner Holland, do you have questions about Dunwoody itself? Holland: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that we -- you have heard a lot of comments about Dunwoody and that's why we keep bringing it back up, but would you be amenable to at least meeting with the neighbors before Council to see if there is some sort of compromise that they would feel better about? Clark: Absolutely, Commissioner Holland. We have -- you know, we have had dozens of meetings and phone calls and conversations and we are happy to continue that. Holland: And I might ask also that you might be able to meet with Mr. Miller, who had some specific questions about irrigation and some of those challenges before the Council meeting as well. Clark: Happy to have another conversation. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, do you have additional questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Not -- not currently. Fitzgerald: Okay. Any additional -- thank you. We appreciate it. Clark: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Holland: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I would move we close the public hearing for H-2019-0006. Fitzgerald: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Olsen: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 59 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 57 of 81 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, do you want to lead off with your motion? Holland: I'm happy to attempt to make a motion here, but I want to make sure that before I do I meet all the needs of our Commission of what we have -- we have talked about here. What I have heard from most of us was that we -- we understand what staff's recommendation is and we would be open to having a north-south connection, which is Condition 3-D. That would be a north-south private street aligning with Shandee, but that we would be willing to strike Commission's -- or the staff report's condition of 3-C, which requires the connection from North Stafford to Guinness. So, that's -- that's the first piece. Number two, I heard that we wanted to request that the applicant mo ve the gate on the west boundary inward a little bit further, so that they can have enough room for a turnaround. Number three, that they would meet with the -- the Dunwoody neighborhood to see if there was something they could do and that they would meet with Mr. Miller to talk about irrigation questions before Council meeting. Is there anything else I'm missing? Fitzgerald: I think Commissioner Cassinelli was looking at viewing their basketball court options with staff. Cassinelli: Reviewing amenities. Holland: Reviewing amenities? Cassinelli: I would like to -- I would like to review amenities. Thank you. The other thing -- so, are you -- are you -- in the -- Fitzgerald: She's developing -- Cassinelli: She's the rockstar on the notes. Holland: Putting my notes down. Cassinelli: Are you going -- are you going to motion for a third access point? Holland: Commissioner, I think what I was stating was that we would strike 3-C, but we would keep 3-D, which would add a third connection point to the north -- Cassinelli: Okay. Holland: -- into where Shandee and -- I can't remember the name of that road. Fitzgerald: Sweet Valley. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 60 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 58 of 81 Holland: Sweet Valley. Cassinelli: And in doing that -- Holland: Connect over to Stafford. Cassinelli: Okay. But in doing that, even though it's gated, it still -- it takes away that -- the -- the number of homes on a -- on a dead end -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- that the -- that the city is -- that they are concerned that staff's concerned about. Fitzgerald: And it addresses the safety issue with the fire trucks or -- Cassinelli: Yeah. I mean there is -- there is through access for emergency vehicles coming in from multiple -- multiple access points. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: We -- we -- something that we kind of avoided and, then, we -- we closed up now, but there were those -- I guess those four lots that are kind of weird lots. Fitzgerald: For those that are -- that is the responsibility of those owners and there is access back through their own property or they can request access into this community at that time. But that -- we can't deal with an application that hasn't been submitted yet or even discussed -- thought through yet. That's -- we got to deal with this one where it is and take it as it is. Seal: And if they move the gate up to where the -- basically the hard left goes into the owner's own property then -- then they could bring a road down from -- Cassinelli: A drive down to there. Does that line up with the -- Fitzgerald: It's pretty close, yeah. There is access right there at the back of the property. Actually, it's to the back of Mr. Miller's property. Cassinelli: Looking at that, to move that gate up. Holland: Okay. Yeah. Cassinelli: Yeah. So, we would want to move that -- okay. They would come down the west side. It would split the -- Fitzgerald: So, if you're looking at -- I mean he's got -- that's all available land right there. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 61 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 59 of 81 Cassinelli: Okay. So, it would come down the west -- I mean you -- you could if you gated that -- if you had the gate there, then, it would -- you could bring a drive down on the west and split those four lots -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- with the -- with the current lots if you want to do that. Okay. And I definitely like the idea of moving that gate up to the driveway on that one. I think that makes the most sense if we did that. So, that I think that -- that touches on -- on some of the concerns that I had. Thank you. Holland: Any other requests to add in there? Seal: Well, I -- I think -- I mean I think adding the north connector going to Shandee, that basically shifts the safety concern we have of Dunwoody over the Shandee. So, I -- I just can't get behind that. I mean we are shifting that burden from, you know, one bad set of streets to another one, so -- Fitzgerald: I would -- I would argue that you're splitting them up between three -- three separate streets. Got to give them two. Seal: You are splitting it up, but I still think -- go ahead and connect Sweet Valley to Shandee, but if you're going to make a north-south connection make it only to Stafford. Don't -- don't connect Shandee to Stafford, but make a north-south that comes out over to Stafford out of the subdivision. That way it splits it up, it's all on streets that can handle it. You don't -- you don't provide a thoroughfare that people are going to try and come all the way through from Locust Grove to Eagle. Fitzgerald: The problem is it doesn't solve the Shandee emergency vehicle problem. That's the issue. Without taking it north-south. Or I mean without taking it east-west and connecting Shandee with Stafford and, then, you have a cross-connection problem. Seal: Well -- but you do have -- I mean you have the Sweet Valley connection over to Shandee. Fitzgerald: But that's the only -- it's a single access. That's it. You're dealing with all those homes having only one access for emergency vehicles. Plus you're using the emergency access that they are proposing to adapt to have in their plan. Holland: Mr. Chair? I think just to -- to what you're suggesting, I think if you were going to have them connect to Stafford you would be better off just doing what the staff's recommended change would be, rather than just a Stafford connection, because the point was that they are trying to avoid having this kind of silo where there is only one entrance into that whole neighborhood. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 62 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 60 of 81 Seal: Right. And I understand that, I'm just -- I guess trying to make everybody happy, which isn't going to happen, but if -- and, again, I mean if I'm -- I'm putting myself -- I try and put myself if -- if I lived on Shandee and I'm looking at this, you know, again, as soon as they open this up from -- from Sweet Valley, everybody's going to come from Sweet Valley over there to get on -- onto Chinden. Nobody's going to take Locust Grove and that's the majority of traffic that's going to be going there. So, that alone is going to load Shandee in my mind. You're going to put more people on that road already simply by doing that. Then you add a connection that's going to go north-south onto Shandee that's even more people that we are going to put onto it. So, that to me -- Fitzgerald: That's very temporary. Seal: Well, temporary in five, ten years. Fitzgerald: And this is happening in like two. Holland: Two. Fitzgerald: If not faster. Holland: Mr. Chairman, if I can make one more suggestion that might help. If we are asking them to meet with the Dunwoody neighborhood, maybe what we do is just ask them to hold another neighborhood meeting in general where they can talk with the -- the properties that are in the north and the properties on Dunwoody, so that they can -- I don't think they need to address the neighborhood to the -- to the east or the south at this point, but if they could address the Dunwoody and the neighborhoods up in Three Corners and the subdivision to the north, that could help with it, too, and, then, they can meet and see if there is specific requests on their roadways, too. Same thing we are asking to do for Dunwoody, if that would help. I think the goal of adding a third access point is that -- the challenge we have heard is that -- if you split it 50-50 we don't know that Dunwoody could handle 50 percent, but if you're splitting it between three access points, then, maybe you get 25 percent on Dunwoody and 25 percent to the north. It's hard to predict how people will use those traffic patterns, but it gives another option. I don't think we can make everybody happy. It's -- it's -- it's hard, because I wish we could. Seal: Yeah. And I agree, I just -- I mean the one thing that -- the one organization that this will make happy is ITD, so -- but it -- but it's going to make things unsafe for a while. Whether that's a year or two years or whatever -- again, I mean I'm -- after some of the things that have happened as far as -- and over traffic safety that to me is -- that's too long for that to be unsafe and I understand it's short term, but I mean even long term it has implications. Holland: So, may I make one more comment, Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 63 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 61 of 81 Holland: So, one other thought, too, is typically with building a development like this you are looking at a minimum of six months before you have got some of these houses even constructed and it's not likely that they will all be constructed at the same time. So , by the time that these houses are constructed and finished and have the amenities in place , it's likely that Shandee would be much closer to when ITD would take away that access point. Fitzgerald: They are already buying these properties. We are on the -- along Chinden. Holland: I can't say that with certainty, but I -- I know they are moving quickly with a lot of things on Chinden Road. One other thought we could do. You could condition that they would create that -- well, create the easement or the right of way to create that third access, but only engage it once you have that Shandee closed off. I don't know if that makes sense what I just said, but -- Fitzgerald: Like phase it? Holland: You could phase it and add that -- connect that third connection in once the Shandee connection to Chinden closes off, but that gets really technical. But you could do that. Seal: It does, but it -- that does help. I mean, essentially, you're not creating more -- I mean, you know, again, you're going to be creating traffic from coming over from Sweet Valley if you don't have to add it to -- you know, add on with Shandee, then, that helps eliminate some traffic that might be going there. Yeah. I don't know how you would word that. I mean that's kind of -- make it a condition. Holland: Yeah. Do we want me to try to attempt to do that? Fitzgerald: It would -- yeah. I don't have -- I have no problem with a phased approach to -- they are going to have -- provide that right of way and build the lots that way. Seal: I mean the biggest problem I have with this is I think ACHD is wrong. That's the biggest problem I have with this. I understand they are the governing body and what's warranted and all that good stuff, but I just think they are wrong and so, you know, we are a separate entity from ACHD or from ITD and when they get it wrong what do we do? Fitzgerald: I understand what you're saying. And we are the -- I -- I would agree we are the -- we are the land of use body, that we are recommending to City Council, not ACHD. So, that's why I think we are making the changes we are suggesting. Do you know how you would -- I would like to help you, but I can't make motions. Holland: That's all right. I think I have got it. Cassinelli: Have you added -- have you added all your comments? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 64 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 62 of 81 Holland: Mr. Chair, I think I have got enough that I will attempt to make a motion and see what happens here. Fitzgerald: Okay. Go for it. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 16th, 2019, with the following modifications: Number one, that we would strike condition 3-C in the staff report requiring the connection to West Stafford from Guinness and that we would adjust the staff report condition 3-D. That there would be a north-south private street aligning with Shandee, but that it would be conditioned to be engaged once the Chinden access to Shandee is removed. Fitzgerald: Clarify that it's a gated private street. Holland: That it would be a gated private street to tie in with the other two entrances to the neighborhood. Third, that the gate on the west boundary of the property would be moved back to align more with where the houses start, so that there could be a turnaround put in place for guests to drive in that -- that want to get back out of the neighborhood. That the applicant would meet with the neighbors of the Dunwoody Subdivision before the Council meeting to facilitate a conversation and see if there is some assistance they can provide in partnership with the neighborhood for lighting and /or traffic calming measures. That the applicant would also meet with Mr. Miller to discuss specific irrigation questions on his property that's next to this development and that staff would also have a conversation with the applicant about the amenities provided -- specifically the basketball court and if there might be other options to consider there before it comes to Council. Fitzgerald: Everybody understand the motion? Seal: I do. One -- one thing we may want to consider is -- I don't know that you can strike 3-C, because they still want to connect Sweet Valley to Shandee. So, instead of connecting Sweet Valley all the way over to Stafford, it still has to connect to Shandee. Holland: That remains still in the staff report and the ACHD approved plan that that -- Seal: I just wanted to make sure that that part wasn't -- Holland: That one still in there. Seal: Got it. Good. Fitzgerald: Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Seal: I second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 65 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 63 of 81 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve with conditions H-2019-0006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. Fitzgerald: Chair votes aye and the motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thank you all for being here. Sausage making in process. Hope you guys have fun at the next phase of this thing at Council. We will take a five minute break and we will reconvene in a second. (Recess: 9:06 p.m. to 9:19 p.m.) B. Public Hearing Continued from May 2, 2019 for 2019 UDC Text Amendment (H-2019-0049) by City of Meridian Planning Division 1. Request: A text amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 and other miscellaneous sections, by City of Meridian Planning Division Fitzgerald: Okay. We are going to give Commissioner Cassinelli ten seconds, but moving on, I'm going to open the public hearing -- or the continued hearing from May 2nd, 2019, for the 2019 UDC Text Amendment H-2019-0049 and I will turn to Bill and you got to talk really slowly so Commissioner Cassinelli can get back in. But I think this is a continuation. So, the majority of us are aware of kind of what has been worked on and we are looking for guidance on what is coming back. Parsons: Correct. So, thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you mentioned, this project was continued from May 2nd. Staff did prepare a memo based on some of the feedback and testimony that was given on the 2nd. I know we had a late evening. We went into midnight trying to deliberate on some of those changes. We had quite a few developers here who didn't like some of the proposed changes , but I can assure you that staff took your recommendation , went back to the drawing table, made Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 66 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 64 of 81 some of those edits and revised the table and I prepared a memo that shared with you what those edits entailed. So, I will go through that real quickly with you this evening and, then, we will -- I will stand for additional questions. So , the first item here, which is on page two in front of you -- basically we had some wordsmithing that we needed to do. In order just to avoid the confusion we felt it was just easier just to remove it from this table and just leave it the way it's currently written in code. It looks like we are in agreement with that particular change. The next item was one where we heard quite a bit of testimony from the irrigation district and they are here again this evening and went -- a lot -- a lot of back and forth on this particular item and I think we settled on what you see here. I know sometimes when we get attorneys involved they like to see a little bit more than what staff's willing to do, but I think from my perspective, if you can see the item that we -- that item D there in the blue font and it's highlighted in yellow, you can see that we went back to currently. What we have done is add the word slough, which was just a cleanup item to match other sections of code and, then, we removed some of the language that wasn't quite up to par with the irrigation districts comfort level and, then, down here at item D, we added the new language that was provided in conjunction . We wordsmithed it a little bit based on some of the feedback that we got from their attorney and so at this point we feel pretty comfortable with the language that we have proposed in item D. The irrigation district is here to add some additional comments on that for you as well. Next item I did go back to Google and verify that traveling spelling needed to change. So, yes, we did change that. Remove the L. It's now the American version. So, again, just a clean up item suggestion from Commissioner Holland. So, appreciate the feedback. This other item was the -- the -- Mr. Wardle had got -- got up and testified regarding age restricted parking and actually provided written testimony on that subject. We called him yesterday, had a nice conversation. He said at this point he's willing to let the code remain as is, felt comfortable with staff's interpretation that we could look at those unusual -- difference -- you know, if there is a unique project we could either review it through a PUD process and/or alternative compliance, as long as they provide that data with their application submittal. So, he was comfortable with that determination and proposed that we don't add any changes at this time to the parking. Fitzgerald: Kudos on the alternative compliance specifically on those special projects. That's a good call. Parsons: Yeah. I -- that's really what that is for us is for those unusual circumstances. Don't create one size fits all, but leave it market driven, allow the developer flexibility and don't be so rigid in the code and that's really what we try to do with alternative compliance. Next -- and probably the most contentious one -- item that we dealt with, not only through the hearing process, but also just getting feedback from our UDC focus group and stakeholders, was really the open space and so I went back to the drawing board. I think we all agree that this whole section needs to be revamped. We all understand the comp plan is underway and nearing halfway in the -- into that process and we all agree let's take a step back and leave it the way -- it is -- make these minor changes here that we propose, but, again, allow the buffers to count in the interim until we can revisit this with our stakeholders and come back with a more comprehensive solution to our open space and our amenities. I think that was a very good compromise and I think staff was very Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 67 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 65 of 81 amenable to that change. Again, a couple of these items were cleanup. Denise LaFever was concerned about the variance process and making sure that the City Council would make that determination as to what feasibility meant when it came to access to state highways and approve those modifications and, then, the last item that I remember being discussed was how do we measure having some bookends on what the measurement is between the indoor shooting range and the adjacent properties and so we -- we specified from property line to property line based on some of those -- that feedback. Staff did receive some written testimony today from Becky McKay. She reviewed -- she's one of our UDC focus group members. She's reviewed the changes. She was very comfortable with what we are presenting to you this evening. I just spoke with Mr. Conger, he is comfortable with some of the changes in the -- with the changes to the text and, then, the irrigation district may have a few more words for you, but with that staff's comfortable with this and we would ask for your favorable recommendation to City Council. I will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Any questions for Bill? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Do you know when I'm hitting my button over there? This -- Fitzgerald: Do you know how much time I spent at the legislature. Cassinelli: Based -- based on our recommendations tonight this still goes in front of -- this is approved by Council. Okay. I just want to -- I wanted to find out where we are with that. What's the -- what's the concern over the indoor shooting range and -- 300 feet property line or property line. That's pretty significant. Parsons: It is. So, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commissioner, Commissioner Cassinelli, it's not really -- we have one indoor shooting range in Meridian and I can tell you from my experience dealing with it, under the current code, without this being into effect, we would classify an indoor shooting range as an arts -- indoor arts and entertainment facility and that means those are principally permitted in our commercial zone. So , our C-C, C-G zone. So, you don't need a conditional use permit in order to have that. The one that's currently operating in Grammercy off of Overland has received numerous complaints from the adjacent residents that live in the multi-family complexes with the noise. They can hear the noise from the gun range and we have to -- code enforcement is constantly going out there telling them that there is nothing that we can do, because there is no -- there was no requirement for separation. There is no requirement for hours of operation, because they didn't abut that district and so this was something that the Mayor directed staff to look into. I did quite a bit of research and from what I found there wasn't -- there wasn't a community that really defined it the way we are. This is something that I kind of looked at other industrial use standards and said how can I come up with some standards that is consistent with other sections of our code, but still protect residential around these types of uses and I have also heard from adjacent commercial folks that said -- that they don't even want this in commercial districts next to their retail businesses, because it can be a little obnoxious. So, they told us to proceed with caution and they supported these changes that we only allow them in industrial zones and maybe a mixed employment Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 68 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 66 of 81 zone. So, we thought we should have a better definition and have so me -- better bookends on this type of use, so that we have more stringent rules on these types of facilities, so we are protecting those more sensitive land uses, like daycare, schools, residential properties, other commercial -- urgent care facilities, other more noise sensitive uses in commercial districts. So, that's -- that's really what's driving this is -- Cassinelli: Is the issue with the one in Grammercy, is it -- is it noise just from people coming and going or you can actually hear gunfire from outside? Parsons: My experience has been gunfire. You can hear the shots at -- Fitzgerald: Is that a building code issue? It's got to be an installation situation. Parsons: The building -- it's all met building code, but it's just -- Fitzgerald: Maybe instead of districts it is being built in, but building it differently. I mean instead of building it the same -- I have shot at impact a lot and you can't hear any firing from -- and that's in Boise. But that's -- that's just -- Parsons: These are just points that we have been receiving, so -- Fitzgerald: Wow. Parsons: -- that's my understanding of it and so building codes can have minimums like our code. If they meet the minimums they get occupancy and construct , so -- Fitzgerald: I mean school wise they can't -- federally they can't be close to a school or at least a school. They have to be a thousand feet away from a school literally. But that's -- know to much about guns. Do you have additional questions? Cassinelli: I do. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir. Cassinelli: While my mic is still on I get to go. While we are on the -- we are on the page that -- that -- that -- a couple questions I have. Restaurants. Is the parking enough? I know with some restaurants, if they are just a drive thru, you don't need that much, but for others I was -- you know, for -- for restaurants that have more sit down seating, indoor seating, is that enough parking, one space for every 200 square feet. You got all the employees, you know, in 250 square feet you can get, you know, several tables in that -- in that area and, you know, it's going to be a few cars per -- you know, that are bringing in people in 250 square feet. So, is it my -- my bottom -- my question is is that enough parking for restaurants? That's the first question. Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Cassinelli, I think that's a good ratio. I mean some cities are one per one hundred for restaurants in certain -- my Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 69 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 67 of 81 experience in dealing with restaurants is they are always going to have a certain park -- parking ratio that they need in order to go into a space and if they can't meet that, then, they usually don't locate there. Where we are really finding this issue and this is -- really our fire department's been dealing with it more -- is that where you had the multi-tenant buildings and you have tenants coming in and out, someone that has a retail use that has somebody with a sit down restaurant use , they are going to drive more clientele to that business. So, we felt -- yes, will this solve all the issues, not sure, but this was the buy in that we got from the UDC focus group. They thought 250 was a good number. Staff feels it's a good number and the fire department felt it was a good number and so that's where we landed compromise wise with everyone that was involved in the process. Cassinelli: Okay. And on this page, two down from that, the fees -- I know Commissioner Holland -- Holland brought up at the last meeting with regards to having Council have the authority -- the ability to look at that for -- I mean for economic development and, obviously, there is other reasons. I guess my question is why -- why strike that? Why not still let Council be the decision maker on that if somebody is going to apply for a fee waiver and why just, you know, black and white, cut it out? Parsons: Commissioner Cassinelli, I think we talked about that a little bit on the 2nd. Cassinelli: It was late. Parsons: This -- this fee waiver is really meant to waive planning department fees, so -- application fees. The -- the Council has the ability to waive other fees as part of an incentive package that aren't -- our fees are so minimal I don't think it's going to help the developer any, Jim may have a different opinion. He pays enough of them. But it's -- this is something that was, again, discussed with Mayor and Council and this is what we -- we were asked to remove this from our code. Cassinelli: Because these are just some of -- some of your nominal fees, these aren't impact -- Parsons: No. Nothing to do with impact -- this strictly deals with application fees that pay for staff. That's why they are -- Cassinelli: Fifty bucks here, a hundred bucks there kind of the thing, is that what you -- Parsons: Could be thousands, but, yeah, most of the time when I have seen fee waivers come along it's been for a conditional use permit, which is 1,369 dollars. It hasn't been an eight to ten thousand dollar application fee, it's been mostly churches asking for that or maybe a homeowner that wants to do a daycare, but can't afford that fee and usually what happens is they pay it first and they get reimbursed. But, yeah, we were instructed to remove that from code, the feedback that we received. Cassinelli: Okay. I think that's what I have right now. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 70 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 68 of 81 Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Commissioner Seal. Seal: I got a question on the -- on the restaurant. How much of an increase is that for the restaurant parking? Parsons: Commissioner Cassinelli, good question. So, basically, any new restaurant that comes in will -- will take -- that's -- basically for any new restaurant it's going to double the parking from what we currently have on the books, because it's one per 500 now and we are going to one for 250. So, we are getting more restrictive with those. So, the parking is all based on square footage of the building and, then, when a tenant -- a new tenant for -- and so for a multi-tenant building -- so, if I read -- if it's an office use, a real estate office, for example, they move out and a restaurant moves in, then, they are going to have to go through what we call a change of use process -- we call it certificate of zoning compliance change of use. It's a 133 dollar application fee and, then, they are going to have to provide us a parking calc with that submitt al to verify that they can still meet the parking for the tenants, plus the new restaurant use in that space. Seal: Okay. And the only reason I ask is -- not thinking of the larger restaurants, but thinking of more of the smaller mom and pops and, you know, I like to see those go up. I'm -- I'm a fan of eating there more than -- no chain restaurants and things like that. So, I just want to make sure that we are not inadvertently squeezing that -- the ability for that business to remain or to -- Parsons: Yeah. There is certainly possibilities of that happening. There is always going to be some circumstance that you -- Seal: Right. Parsons: -- you don't ever -- Seal: Absolutely. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more follow-up question to that. Could Council issue a waiver -- or a variance on that request if someone came in, like a mom and pop restaurant, for parking if -- if there was a special case? Parsons: Certainly. Mr. President, Members of the Commission, parking is always up for alternate compliance. So, yes, if they had shared parking with adjacent property owner or we denied their application, they could appeal that to City Council and follow that process. But, yeah, there is -- all of these things are -- a lot of our code there is a handful of things that are subject to alternative compliance and this is -- and parking is one of those. Holland: Thanks. I'm good. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 71 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 69 of 81 Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli, you have your light off. Would you like to -- Cassinelli: Just in case something comes to mind, but I'm good right now. Fitzgerald: Okay. Cassinelli: Oh, it just came to mind. Did you address -- unless you did it while I was -- while I was out of the room, the -- the lighting. Where -- I know that was brought up, but that was the tail end of -- of that night. Did you make any changes to the -- any of the lighting requirements? Parsons: I did not, no. What I'm -- what I had hoped before was that code enforcement would be here this evening and they didn't come. Unfortunately, I didn't invite Rich to come, but we are hoping if any -- there are any questions I'm certainly happy to take that back to them and share that with you and, then, we will have code enforcement join me with City Council. Cassinelli: Because I believe if I'm -- if I'm not mistaken, I think it was -- it was Mr. Conger that -- that had questions about how do I measure when -- when something is, you know, going a foot over into the wrong side of a property line and things like that, so -- and if we were going to address that. Parsons: Yeah. It's -- in the code we have a definition on how to measure it and that's why we reference it right at the -- if you can look at this exhibit here on -- we are going to remove -- so, the old figure is what was in code -- currently in code and, then, based on some research that our code enforcement division did , they came up and found this schematic. So, you're always going to have some -- potentially some light trespass on properties and what they are going to do is they have a meter -- they have a lumen meter and they can go out there and shoot the light and determine what that is and, then, that's further how you measure that is basically Item -- if I can find it here. Would be right here. Number three, if you can see my cursor here. it's under C-3. It talks about zero point foot candle measured 60 inches from the height above grade. So, that's the technical term. I'm not a lighting engineer, so I can't explain it to you either, but that was -- the intent is here is a graphic, but if you want to see how to measure it you go back to this definition to -- to determine what that is. We did tell them that it's pretty technical for us to try to explain to a resident when their neighbor's flood lights are shining in their backyard. But we have had some of those instances as well and that's why they want more specifics in code to say they go out there and measure that and say, okay, it might be a nuisance, but it's not -- doesn't meet -- it's -- it's -- it's not light trespass per our code or it is. Cassinelli: Is there a way with -- with this light -- with this issue that -- that -- that they know ahead of time -- if I'm putting up, you know, lighting, how it's -- you know. I guess my question is is will you know when you put that light up -- Parsons: Yeah. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 72 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 70 of 81 Cassinelli: -- that it's not going to -- I mean you have got to design that first. How do you know that -- you know, then you put it up and -- well, you know, I trespassed my light ten feet over. Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, yes, as part of their application submittal to the city they are required -- if they have bright lights and they have a certain whiteness to them they have to provide what we call a photo metric plan demonstrating compliance that they are not trespassing. So, that -- we get that quite often with our commercial development. Cassinelli: Commercials. Parsons: Yes. We don't see it with residential, so we don't require that with residential to residential. Cassinelli: So, there is a -- there is a way -- I mean ahead of time. Parsons: Yes. They have to provide that to us if their -- their lights are certain -- so, if their lights are really bright, then, they have to provide that. If it's commercial to commercial we don't require that typically, because no one's going to care if you're trespassing on some commercial properties. It's usually when we get in a situation when you buy a residential home -- district parcel that need to demonstrate that or they don't put lighting -- or they say their lights aren't going to be bright and -- bright enough to trigger that report. Cassinelli: All right. I'm good. Fitzgerald: Are there comments from the public? Anyone want to testify? Curtis: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Greg Curtis. I'm the water superintendent for Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. First off I want to say thank you for giving us the opportunity. My office is at 5525 East Greenhurst Road in Nampa. I just was going to ask if Bill could put that back up, so I could look at it. There is a lot more red language in this than the version I witnessed. Parsons: Yes. And I can explain that for Greg. So, when I -- when I prepared the memo for you and Greg and I were exchanging e -mails back and forth, based on the language that we were adding to D, I looked through code and I realized there was an additional E and F in the code. So, whenever we take code changes forward and we rename something, I have to make edits to that whole section. So, I caught my error, got it corrected and that's -- some of that stuff is already in code, all it's doing is renumbering it. It created a -- D became the language that we worked out with the irrigation district and all those other existing E and Fs in the code became F, G -- E, F and G. They just shift down; right? So, it's nothing new there. It's just cleaning it up for Sterling Codifiers when they print off new pages for us. But, really, the only new item being added to this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 73 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 71 of 81 is really the -- the old D shifts to E and the new D becomes a language on feedback from the irrigation district. Curtis: Again, the only thing I will add to that -- this is natural drainage courses. You will never get us to agree that Meridian has one. Every facility in this city is an irrigation facility. A lot of the drains in this area followed natural drainage courses, but when we introduced irrigation to this area a lot of the land around here become waterlogged. It wouldn't grow anything after we applied irrigation for the first ten years. So, in 1915 Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, along with the Bureau of Reclamation, went in and deepen these channels and turned them into drains and lowered the groundwater table. We deliver water out of these facilities. They call them natural and I know this is something that's been done. It just -- I would like to remind you we are going to have differences of opinions and I guess I will just have to wait until development comes and the only anything I would ask at this time -- please remember the safety aspect. There are times where you're putting subdivisions -- and I will give you a perfect example. The Franklins -- and now you have got Entrata Subdivision going in right next door. Our Kennedy Lateral runs right between the two of them. When Entrata first come and talked to me about development, they was going to buy the pipe and we was going to pipe that ditch. You got lots of families with small kids on each side. After platting the next thing I heard is they are not interested in tiling that ditch. I am scared you're going have kids -- I don't care how good the fences are, they are going to get in there and I'm going to find them under the railroad tracks. So, like I said, I just -- I hadn't seen all this below and I couldn't read it quick enough when it was popped up before, but I look forward to having more opportunities to discuss this with the city, members of Planning and Zoning, the City Council, so I just want to be able to deliver the water as efficiently as I can to all the taxpayers in the district. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair, question. Fitzgerald: Sure. Go ahead. Cassinelli: With regards to safety and tiling things, not leaving -- you know, staying away from the natural -- what would be -- would the changes here in what you're seeing, what would you want to see? Curtis: Bill did what I -- I shot him my first edit of this and paragraph D is pretty close to what I sent over. I would just like to -- I came back again after comments from our attorney and asked if there could be just a little bit more to ensure that the irrigation district, the drainage district, or even the water user association would be guaranteed that if there was a conflict that we would be given an opportunity to talk about that and, hopefully, the irrigation -- that you would understand the obligation of the irrigation district and why we are asking for a change. Bill didn't want to go that far and I understand. He has got -- he is caught in between us and you guys. It just -- you can't have enough language in here to recognize the operators of these systems. And, like I said, it goes to the fencing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 74 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 72 of 81 requirements. I'm the biggest proponent of fencing as well. But what Nampa-Meridian might want might be different than what somebody else wants, as I said before. So, it's just when I meet with a developer initially -- like I said, that was a perfect example. The best thing that was going to happen is that big canal was going to get piped . We was going to do the work. They was going to supply the materials. We got through and they got their plat submitted and next thing I know in the next meeting I had with them they are not interested in doing it. It just -- I was asking Bill a few minutes ago what -- I lost my app -- he said do it before the pre-platting. Well, I thought we was headed that way. So, I'm learning as we go along. I will try to include more things like this in some of my letters, but you got to understand sometimes they double back on me and I -- that was a golden opportunity there. That one really particularly scares me with as many young families you're going to have on both sides of that ditch. So, all I can ask is that I get the opportunity to continue to work with you guys and the city staff. So, this is more than what we had before and I recognize that. It just -- like I said, that -- the -- all the red language down below I couldn't read it quick enough earlier , so that's why I decided to come up here. Parsons: Mr. Chair, if I may ask Greg a question. Why -- why did you feel like you had to cave to the developer and not require him to tile the canal ? Curtis: I didn't feel like the irrigation district can force them. I rely on -- like I said before, it was my understanding that if a ditch could be piped in a 48 inch tile or smaller, that we had the backing, basically, of the city to address things like that for safety concerns. The Five Mile Drain -- Five Mile Creek whatever you -- we call it a drain. The city calls it a creek. We are not looking to tile all them. They are too big. They wouldn't function in a storm event like we have -- you know, the FEMA requirements that we are both saddled with that, but some of these other ones -- and like I said, that -- to add the name slough in here now -- I kind of chuckled on that. We keep having comments about certain developments. One of our ditches was named the North Slough and the South Slough. As you have seen in the earlier presentation, there was a South Slough that belongs to Settlers Irrigation District. They got confused. Everybody didn't know if they was talking Nampa-Meridian's South Slough or North Slough or Settlers. We changed the name several years ago, because they are truly irrigation facilities. Yes, they followed an old drainage channel, but, like I said, the South Slough down here in Meridian is the same ditch that runs through Kleiner Park. We worked together to tile all that. Otherwise, you would have had two maintenance roads, two ditches going through there it would have took up a lot of room for us to maintain the facility. Mr. Conger piped the portion of that ditch. They accommodated a new park in his development. There is good things that comes from it. So, don't get too wrapped up in the names. Try to look at what it can do for development. They will be good for the city. They will be good for the irrigation district. We want no more than what you guys do , keep development costs down and supply irrigation water to our taxpayers as efficiently as we can as well, because we don't stop at Meridian, it carries on to our taxpayers in Nampa. So, that's all I can ask, so -- okay. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 75 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 73 of 81 Curtis: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, what I communicated to Greg in an e- mail -- and I will share it on the public record -- is that as staff -- we are going to be more aware of the irrigation district's requirements and share that with our -- our customers or applicants at our preapplication meetings, so we are going to get them involved, let them know that, you know, you may want to leave it open or you may want to pipe it, but maybe with your application submittal if you are going to ask for that waterway to be open , get us something in writing that the irrigation district supports it or doesn't support it. I think that helps us determine whether or not it's a win -win for both of us. I think we can all do better. It's all about communication. I think that's the most important thing. We can sit here and write codes all day long, but it really is just -- when we are -- when we are talking with people just make sure that we communicate with them to talk with the right people and get the right answer from that entity before your application , so we all get the right information as we are deliberating and making recommendations. Fitzgerald: We appreciate your guys's coordination. Any additional comments from the -- yes, ma'am. J.Johnson: They are always taller than me. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Jeanette Johnson. I'm with Irrigation Consulting Services. My offices is at 7905 West Colt Drive in Boise, Idaho. I actually am here to represent the individual ditches. They are the districts. They are a portion of the water, but once the water leaves their canals, then, it becomes the responsibility of the homeowners on those laterals and the same thing is required. Communication. Just like the lateral that we heard about earlier, that's not a district. In fact, most of the water that we discuss isn't a district. They are only a portion of the water that runs through your city. A small portion in perspective to all of the ditches and laterals that your developments are taking in. A very small portion. Because these ditches are running -- I have one example. A developer in Garden City built a home on top of a ditch -- literally the crawl space and this was approved. We have a pipe that runs -- lift up their crawl space and there is the pipe for a ditch. I don't want that to happen again, because of the fact that those plans were not run by the lateral. They never saw them. Never. Didn't even know they existed. It's a priority that the plans -- these things are not necessarily -- the district -- they don't know anything about that lateral. They don't know how it's run. It's not part of their responsibility. It's the ditch. That individual lateral. So, if they don't see the plans, if they don't see these plats, if they don't see what's going on, then, how do they know? No one notified Mike about what was going on with that lateral on the Kerns until I gave him a call and said, guess what, you probably want to be at that meeting, because the way they changed that corner of the ditch at his property does make a difference how he gets his water. He didn't even know that. No one notified him. The developer stood right here and said , yep, we got ahold of everybody, we let everybody know. No, they didn't. They didn't let him know that there would be a change in how he would receive his water. Okay. But the district isn't informed of that, because it's not their ditch. That's the way most of these Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 76 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 74 of 81 developments are going to be. Very few of them affect these open spaces, because most of your developments are not on a district canal. The safety issue. I can -- I explained this when I was here last time. I can't tell you how important it is. Every one of these -- again, the district is only responsible for their canal and ditch. Okay? One of my ditches is nine miles long. It runs along three schools. Until recently they weren't even an organized ditch. Opened ditch. Nine miles of open ditch that runs along three grade schools. I hated it. Along those sections of the grade schools it's now tiled , but until the last three years it wasn't and we would find hats and gloves and all kinds of things along these grade schools and it's frightening, because kids don't understand and in some areas that ditch is four to six feet deep. So, safety. Great. I love that the districts are on top of this, but it's the ditches and the laterals that need to see these plans. They need to be involved on an individual basis in order to keep this safe. The kids don't go into and don't drown in the main ditch and canals, they fall into -- statistically into their little local ditch and, then, they end up in a main canal from their local ditch. So, let's start with where it actually happens and I -- I applaud those that have piped them, because I have worked with Jim on plans and piping and getting them closed off is -- is a major issue. I don't feel that this is working. It's got a lot of things that need to be fixed in it and it has not involved the main part of the waterways and they did not involve or ask anyone on an individual basis or anyone involved, they only worked with the districts. So, I would like to see more involvement with the main waterways and the most waterways before this is complete. So, thank you. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it, ma'am. Thank you very much. Holland: One question. Fitzgerald: Ma'am. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Chair. One question for you, too. A lot of these changes that are in here -- a lot of this is existing code that they are just -- J.Johnson: Right. Holland: -- making some modifications to. Certainly continue cooperating with staff if you have other requests. Was there one specific thing in here that you wanted to see changed tonight? J.Johnson: Well, the -- the lack of the fact that they didn't include the license agreements in -- they have taken the license agreement requirement out again and didn't put it back in and the license agreement is an issue that having a license agreement is almost imperative for when you are working with a district and you have any kind of tiling being done to make sure that that tile work is appropriate. The legal ramifications of putting in any kind of pipe, if you're not using the correct pipe that is under a driveway and , then, you have a fire truck drive across it and fall in , because you didn't have the appropriate legal documents to say, yes, this is -- this is what you have to do, this is how it's done, this is how many feet down, this is the correct type of, you know, pipe, this is what has to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 77 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 75 of 81 be under it, this is how it goes in. How are they supposed to know? And to require this from the people that know what they are doing and how to do it is, you know, just out there and you say, well, you know, we will just kind of willy nilly it. I don't find that acceptable, because we have had that in the past and it doesn't work. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: If I may. I think Bill can probably answer this, too, but my -- my understanding would be that they added condition D where it says that any improvements related to piping, fencing, or encroachment as outlined in Sections A, B and C of this section require written approval from the appropriate irrigation or drainage entity, which I think is replacing the language of needing the license agreement, but correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, on that. Parsons: Yeah. Commissioners, that's -- the written approval is the license agreement. We just didn't say -- we didn't specifically call it a license agreement. J.Johnson: So, written approval is -- I -- that's -- I -- I would disagree with not having a license agreement, though, because written approval could be, yeah, it's okay to -- and we have seen them. I mean go ahead and put your pipe in and sign and that's -- that's what you get. I mean, seriously, that's -- because there are districts that actually do that and so -- and they -- and you entail some of those districts you are in -- in this area. You don't just have, you know, Nampa-Meridian in Meridian, you deal with other districts and you deal with some small ones that don't necessarily have that requirement and they do -- I mean I have seen them recently, so that's why -- that have -- put them on -- one's on a napkin. Holland: Thank you. J.Johnson: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Thank you, ma'am. Parsons: Commissioner, if I could just add to some of that testimony. You know, it's -- the city doesn't want to be the gatekeeper for the irrigation districts, just like they don't want to be the gatekeeper for making sure that roads and lands caping gets put in. So, that's why we don't -- we don't require the developer to give us a copy of the license agreement with tiling of a canal, that's something that's worked out separately with that entity. They have their own board, they approve -- they have a whole different approval process than what we want to get involved in. That's why we left it -- yes, we under -- we understand the concern. We partner, we work with you, but you do your process, we will do our process and we will continue to communicate and I think that's important. I would like to give her my card, because I would be very curious as -- to get contact information of all these different ditch riders out there, because a lot of times we don't even know there is a two foot ditch on somebody's backyard either, because there is no easements, it doesn't show up in our GIS mapping, we don't know who it is and we call Nampa- Meridian and they are like not ours. We call Settlers, not ours. I don't know what -- there Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 78 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 76 of 81 is too many of them out there. We can't -- we can't capture all of them. That's the issue is there is just way too many to inform of what's going on. So, that's why we try -- again, we try to write code to let people know what the rules are. Like, hopefully, the developers and those who know what they are doing follow the rules and they go to the right place, they do their research and they figure out who they need to talk to and get the plans approved. I can tell you with subdivisions approvals we do require a written letter from the irrigation district saying that they have signed off on the plan. So, they are built into the process, but, again, we are not enforcing the rules, we are just helping the developer get in front of that body to make sure that they are following their rules. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Any additional comments? Mr. Conger. Conger: Mr. President, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger. 4824 West Fairview Avenue. So, I just have one little item -- really thank the Commission for stopping and letting everybody take a breather and removing some of the landscape items that really need to follow the Comprehensive Plan and -- and -- and Bill pulling those out. So, thank you all for taking that breather. Bill, if you could just go to -- probably your page 15. We just want one word removed on Item 1-E on the right-hand side of the column. So, 1-E, linear open space is 20 foot by 50 foot in width. I seem to have to argue more than staff wants me to argue with them when we come to open space, but what does width mean? Is it the 50 or the 20? If it's 50 one way it's good, is 50 the other way not good? Twenty one way is good, 20 the other way is not good. I don't need to do alternating compliance to figure out which the width is, but we like to 20 by 50, but the width shouldn't be there. I think if we struck width I won't be in front of you at least with one item, not debating for sure, which would be great for Bill and I. So, I was not -- not going to talk on irrigation. I will talk on irrigation a little bit. Greg Curtis is the Nampa-Meridian, the Settlers, the Project Board of Controls, all the professional -- which I will call the districts -- I believe we -- I pity the fool who didn't stay up to the word with Mr. Curtis next time he wants to do a project. I'm sure that's going to be miserable. So, one -- one should never do that, but -- but what Jeanette is talking about -- a majority is the user ditches. User ditches do not get license agreements. User ditches barely get a sign off. User ditches are ran by users who happen to be the three one acre parcels next to our development who are still offended that we got a development approved and they aren't going to sign off on anything. So, a requirement for user ditches to sign off on a final plat will mean you will no longer get final plats. I had Trilogy Subdivision No. 2 at Black Cat -- Black Cat and Chinden. I had Mr. Rod Wagner and one of my adjacent half acre neighbors are the district and before the city kind of massaged some of their rules on user ditches, I got held up 17 months trying to get a final plat signed, because they would not sign off on the user ditch. Shocking. So, those can't get signed. They will never get signed. The user ditches -- the only thing I would say, again, the professional districts are amazing. We have an amazing Valley. The user ditches, if they are so worried about people dying, I have never seen them pipe a couple ditches on their own. So , if we are waiting for development, that's why they are open and we are happy to pipe them. You have a city code that requires them. Most of them are 12 inch and 24 inch in 18 inch, they get piped, but I don't understand the concern of user ditches -- I have never seen them pipe one, but -- so, they must not be that concerned. Again, user ditches -- they are on our private property without Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 79 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 77 of 81 an easement, but we have a legal right -- or legal obligation to continue on the water. There is no -- I mean I'm talking -- I'm not talking about the NMIDs of the world, but -- not the districts. I'm speaking user ditches. We have a legal obligation to continue that on. We have private property. We can move that ditch. We can relocate it. We can better it. We can't worsen it, we can better it. We don't have to have people sign off on that in the user ditch world and NMID -- all day long. They have stringent rules. They have the pipe I can use. They have the bedding I can use . They have the head walls I have to use. They have a specifications book. User ditches don't have anything. So, I don't -- I mean I think we got off the rails with user ditches talking about plan approval , that really isn't what this UDC is doing, but I thought I would take and -- you know, you asked a very good question and kind of got on board with what you were hearing of signing -- needing to sign license agreements. The big boys, we sign them. The use -- the user ditches don't exist. We have a legal obligation and if we don't want sued we continue the water to -- I suspect that house in Garden City that Bill -- on a user ditch is -- is going to have a bad lawsuit. Thank you. So, I would like you to put one word. That's it. Respectfully. Cassinelli: Which word? Conger: The word is width. Width. Cassinelli: Okay. Conger: Yes, sir. Fitzgerald: Would it be in width or -- Conger: Twenty foot and up to 50 feet. Period. Comma. The width didn't make sense. Fitzgerald: And with. Okay. Conger: Yeah. Twenty by 50 foot. Not in width. But it's a great sentence. Cassinelli: Are you good with that, Bill? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think the goal with the word width was to say that it had to be a minimum 20 feet wide and it couldn't be any wider than 50 feet. So, that's why we said in width and that's what we are trying to say. We don't want -- put a cap on that. But that's kind of where we landed. I didn't want to -- it doesn't -- I'm open to any suggestion. It's not hard and fast it has to be that. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Oh. I was just going to say I don't see a huge concern of that, because I think it's still 20 by 50 feet, just the word's a technicality. So, I don't see a huge challenge with moving it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 80 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 78 of 81 Fitzgerald: Any additional comments? Questions? Commissioner Holland? Holland: Mr. Chairman, I would just say in general I think -- I want to say thank you to staff, you have done a great job of taking the comments we had from last time and working through all of them, giving us a great update. I'm in favor of pretty much all these updates with the condition requests we got from Mr. Conger and back to the -- the comment about the irrigation district, I understand it's a really sensitive topic, but I think I agree with staff's language that it's a written agreement and that most entities, if they are a larger irrigation district, would require the license agreement, but when you are working with a smaller entity that might just have one person representing them and doesn't have the legal capacity to put together some of those license agreements, it might be easier to have some flexibility there. So, I would -- I would probably side on staying with the language you have drafted there. But thank you for working with -- with the irrigation district on that language. Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Want to move to close the public hearing? Holland: Mr. Chair, I will move to close the public hearing for -- I'm not sure what this item is, but -- Fitzgerald: For H-2019-0049. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Cassinelli: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald; I have a motion and a second to close public hearing on H-2019-0049, the UDC text amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: I will take a shot. Any comments? I would agree with exactly what you said. I think the -- Bill, you did an exceptional job of taking the comments in . I agree with you on the -- on the written and not having a license agreement. These have to be in there and I have no problem with the change on the -- in width being removed. Seal: Ready for a motion? Fitzgerald: Motions are always in order. Holland: Are you going to attempt it? Seal: I will go for it. Holland: All right. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 81 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 79 of 81 Seal: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of the City Council file number H-2019-0049 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 16, 2019, with the following modification: That Item 11-3G-3B-1E strike the words in width. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval to the City Council of H-2019-0049. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. We appreciate it. Parsons: One last item that I want to -- want to bring up is I think last hearing or the hearing before that I had mentioned that we are trying to get January in order and so I haven't heard from any of the Commissioners about -- Fitzgerald: Is it January or July? Parsons: Excuse me. July. Excuse me. Fitzgerald: I was like, man, you're -- Parsons: I'm thinking ahead, guys. I'm already moving onto next year, but -- so July 4th is a P&Z hearing date, so we are curious as to whether or not you want us to have a special meeting on the 11th I believe or cancel it and see how we go from -- I don't have anything at this point that's scheduled for that date. So, again, I will put it out there. Look at your calendars, either e-mail me or we can figure it out tonight. What's your pleasure? Fitzgerald: Bill, I am not here that week, so -- Cassinelli: Nor am I. Holland: The 11th? Which week? The 11th? Fitzgerald: That week. The 11th. Cassinelli: Oh, the 11th. Fitzgerald: I'm in town the week of the 4th, but I'm not in town the week of the 11th. Olsen: How much time do we have to have in order to notice a meeting? Fitzgerald: How many days do you have to have to notice a meeting? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 82 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 80 of 81 Parsons: It's a minimum of 30 days time, so we are looking the beginning of June. So, we are coming up on it. I mean we are at -- our window is shrinking quickly. So, that's why I want to get it nailed down. Fitzgerald: So, I -- I can be there on the -- the week of the 4th, but I can't be there the week of the 11th. Parsons: So, that's what we said we -- I think we talked about having a special meeting on the 3rd or doing it on the 11th. So, just kind of curious as what everyone -- Cassinelli: I'm unavailable either of those dates. I'm in town that second week of July, but I'm just not available on the 11th. Fitzgerald: So, the 3rd or the 6th? Parsons: No. It's going to be the 3rd or the 11th. Cassinelli: The 6th would be a Saturday. You want to -- we could do it on a Saturday. Fitzgerald: Which June are we talking about here folks? Holland: July. Fitzgerald: Oh, July. Parsons: July 3rd or -- Fitzgerald: I'm losing my mind. Cassinelli: We are talking about the June after June. Fitzgerald: Yes. Seal: The 3rd I'm not available. Half the world's probably not available on the 3rd. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I'm not available on the 3rd either. Holland: Would it help to make it the 27th of June? Parsons: We can do that, too. So, I mean we have options. Or we just wait and see and load it up in July and -- Fitzgerald: You want to an e-mail out and say I need specific -- like a poll out -- Parsons: I can do that tomorrow morning. Absolutely. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 83 of 155 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2019 Page 81 of 81 Fitzgerald: A poll out, see which one works best. June 6th? Way: June 6th we have nothing on -- Fitzgerald: Which Bill is going keep nothing on; right? He told me he was going to add four or five things on tomorrow. Cassinelli: So, what's the -- are we just cancel -- is that -- Way: It's up to you guys. We won't have anything for that hearing. Parsons: At this -- at this time we are going to cancel, move the minutes to the next to hearing. Fitzgerald: We will cancel if there is nothing on the agenda. Cassinelli: Which would be great. Parsons: You can be here the 3rd now? Fitzgerald: That's not what he said. Okay. So, you're sending out a poll or an e-mail. Okay. Awesome. Holland: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Thursday, May 16th. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion passes. Good night. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:13 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED es I a ereault, Chairpers DATE APPROVED �QO(tP ED gVGv 0 ATTES�: oo � j = �s N!r L��/rE IDIIZANC-- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 A Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Approve Minutes of May 2, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Notes: uy APPROVED I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Approve M inutes of M ay 2, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Minutes Minutes 5/9/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 3 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 118 of 118 public, would consult some of the people who have testified here tonight and -- and share with them at least where we are going with some of these changes and understand that a little bit better, so -- Perreault: That would be great. That would be great. Thank you very much. Could I get one more motion this evening? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn. Perreault: Finally you make a motion. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for May 2nd, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:07 A.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED I Ilcl 14%0K^W DATE APPROVED CHR181OHNSON - INTERIM CITY CLERK eo AUGUST' V ('ity of ��►' �E IDIAN;� W CE IDIZ IAN*,----, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 B Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0044 Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Grace Child Care By Ruta Ruzoreza & Godefroid Ntawuamara. Located at 4374 N. Heritage Ave. Meeting Notes: M" APPROVED I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusions of L aw for Grace Child C are (H-2019-0044) by Ruta Ruzoreza & Godefroid Ntawuyamara, L ocated at 4374 N. Her itage Ave. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 5/10/2019 E xhibit A E xhibit 5/10/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 122 of 224 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2019-0044 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate an in-home daycare for up to eight (8) children for Grace Child Care, Located at 4374 N. Heritage View Ave. in the R-8 Zoning District, by Ruta Ruzoreza & Godefroid Ntawuyamara. Case No(s). H-2019-0044 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: May 2, 2019 (Findings on May 16, 2019) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 2, 2019, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 2, 2019, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 2, 2019, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 2, 2019, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 123 of 224 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2019-0044 Page 2 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of May 2, 2019, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for CUP is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of May 2, 2019, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of May 2, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 124 of 224 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of QGkA 2019. COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT, CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI COMMISSIONER REID OLSEN City Clerk VOTED VOTED G a VOTED VOTED VOTED vee. VOTED VOTED cdf/,„f Copy serv6d upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: A�" -Dated:_6 City Clerk's Ofce CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2019-0044 Page 3 EXHIBIT A Page 1 HEARING DATE: 5/2/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0044 Grace Child Care LOCATION: 4374 N. Heritage View Ave., in the NE ¼ of Section 31, Township 4N., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests a conditional use permit (CUP) for a group daycare for up to 12 children on 0.13 of an acre of land in the R-8 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 0.13 Future Land Use Designation MDR Existing Land Use Single-family home Current Zoning R-8 Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: March 3, 2019; 8 attendees History (previous approvals) N/A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 126 of 224 EXHIBIT A Page 2 B. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicants/Owners: Ruta Ruzoreza & Godefroid Ntawuyamara 4374 N. Heritage View Meridian, ID 83646 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 127 of 224 EXHIBIT A Page 3 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/12/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 4/9/2019 Radius notification published on 4/22/2019 Nextdoor posting 4/9/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests a conditional use permit to operate a group daycare facility for up to 12 children, in a 2,061 square foot home in an R-8 zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2A- 2. The UDC allows for up to 6 children in a family daycare with an accessory use permit in the R-8 zoning district; up to12 children are allowed in a group daycare but require conditional use permit approval in the R-8 zoning district. One of the main reasons for this requirement is the increased number of vehicle trips for the group daycare. There are specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 that apply to daycare facilities in which the applicant shall comply (see below). The applicant previously operated a daycare approved for the care of up to 6 children in Boise City and proposes to expand that existing business at their new residence in Meridian. The applicant proposes to care for children aged one (1) day to 14 years old and will operate from 6 AM-11 PM. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The proposed development promotes the following action items contained in the Comprehensive Plan: “Plan for and encourage services like healthcare, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C) Since the proposed group daycare is located within a large residential subdivision, the proposed facility will be within walking distance of a large number of residences. This application would allow for up to 12 children at one time, providing a service to surrounding neighbors. B. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility. A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group: 1. In determining the type of daycare facility, the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 128 of 224 EXHIBIT A Page 4 The applicant proposes to care for up to 12 children at any one time and therefore is classified as a group daycare in accord with UDC 11-1A-1. 2. On site vehicle pick up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. The home is located within the Razzberry Crossing Subdivision, on the corner of E. Star Dr. and N. Heritage View Ave. and has a two car garage and a concrete parking pad in front of the garage that fronts on Heritage View Ave. The garage will accommodate parking for the owner of the residence and will not be allowed for customer use. The dedicated discharge area is provided along the west side of the site; customers shall utilize the parking pad in front of the house or on-street parking when needed. The applicant plans to provide a pick-up and drop-off service for the majority of anticipated students. However, to guarantee safe discharge and pick-up, the applicant shall communicate where children are to be dropped off and picked up. 3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. A maximum number of 12 children are allowed to be cared for at one time. The proposed hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm, Monday-Sunday. The specific use standards allow the facility to operate between the hours of 6:00 am to 11:00 pm, unless otherwise restricted by the Commission. 4. Upon tentative approval of the application by the Director or commission for a daycare center facility, the applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The applicant shall submit a copy of the background check and complete an inspection with the Fire Department prior to operating the daycare. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be between six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant proposes to operate the facility between the hours 6:00 am to 11:00 pm. 6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district, the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-6C of this title. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record within one hundred feet (100') of the exterior boundary of the subject property. This standard is not applicable to this application. However, a neighborhood meeting was held for the subject CUP application in accord with the standards in UDC 11- 5A-6C. Notice was provided to property owners within 300-feet of the subject property. The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title, whichever is more restrictive. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 129 of 224 EXHIBIT A Page 5 The applicant shall not provide care for more than 12 children at any one time. B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot (6') non- scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The backyard to the home is enclosed with 6-foot privacy fencing, in accord with UDC standards. The applicant is not proposing to include outdoor play equipment at this time; however, these standard shall be observed, should they decide to install playground equipment for clients to utilize. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. The applicant is not proposing outdoor play equipment at this time. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. The applicant is not proposing outdoor play equipment at this time. C. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district apply to this site. The current residence is in compliance with these standards; the proposed daycare will not impact dimensional standards. D. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family dwellings in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. A two-car garage and space for two cars in front of the house on a parking pad currently exist at the residence. NOTE: The City has adopted a local amendment to the international building code (IBC) that does not require a change in occupancy of the home if it is to operate as a daycare facilities for twelve or fewer children. Because the occupancy of the home is not changing from residential to non-residential, the parking for non-residential uses does not apply. Since the arrival of children will likely be staggered and the applicants are planning to provide transportation for a majority of the children, the provided parking on site and along W. Torana Dr. should be sufficient. E. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The backyard to the home is enclosed with 6-foot privacy fencing, in accord with specific use standards for daycare facilities in UDC 11-4-3-9. F. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) A CZC application is typically required to be submitted to the Planning Division for staff level review and approval of the proposed use as set forth in UDC 11-5B-1B after the conditional use permit is approved by the Commission to ensure the applicant complies with the aforementioned specific use standards. However, because staff has already determined that the applicant is in compliance with those standards, a CZC is not required to be submitted. Once the findings are approved for the subject CUP application, the applicant is allowed to commence the approved use. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 130 of 224 EXHIBIT A Page 6 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Section VIII. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on May 2, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject Conditional Use Permit request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Godefroid Ntawuyamara, Applicant ii. In opposition: Ariel Rose; Seigfried Sendig; Dustin Daniels; iii. Commenting: Ariel Rose; Seigfried Sendig; Dustin Daniels iv. Written testimony: Garrett Fastabend, in opposition; v. Staff presenting application: Stephanie Leonard vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons b. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. Commercial daycare already established in neighborhood; ii. Concern regarding perceived unpredictability of hours and clientele of in-home daycares; iii. Concern regarding HOA management and overall condition of Razzberry Crossing Subdivision; iv. Concern regarding heavy volume of traffic for children and residents within the subdivision; v. Use of HOA maintained amenities by residents within other subdivisions; vi. Concern regarding proposed hours of operation (6 AM-11 PM); c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Hours of operation; ii. Number of clients; iii. Proposed transportation to be provided by the applicant to customers; iv. Playground and outdoor space provided for daycare; d. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Modify condition A.5 to specify a maximum number of eight (8) children at any one time. ii. Add a condition that drop-off and pick-up of children be restricted to the driveway of the residence. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 131 of 224 EXHIBIT A Page 7 VII. EXHIBITS A. Floor Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 132 of 224 EXHIBIT A Page 8 B. Aerial View Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 133 of 224 EXHIBIT A Page 9 C. Front View of Home and Parking Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 134 of 224 EXHIBIT A Page 10 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The applicant shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by Title 39, Chapter 11, Idaho Code, in accord with UDC 11-4-3-9, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 2. The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 for daycare facilities. 3. The applicant shall have a maximum of 24 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a time extension shall be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F prior to expiration. If a time extension is not requested or granted and the CUP expires, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. 4. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 5. The number of children cared for shall not exceed 12 8 children at any one time. 6. Drop-off and pick-up of children be restricted to the driveway of the residence. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Public works has no issues with this application. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. All daycares must pass an inspection using the criteria of the Idaho State Fire Marshal as set forth in Idaho Statute Title 39-1109. Prior to scheduling an inspection, the applicant must pay a fee of $20 for the cost of the inspection. The applicant has committed to scheduling an inspection with the Fire Department. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comment. E. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) 1. CDHD will require plans be submitted for plan review for any child care center. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 135 of 224 EXHIBIT A Page 11 IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-8 district (see Analysis, Section IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of MDR and is listed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11- 2A-2 in the R-8 zoning district. Further, The Commission finds the proposed use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed group daycare will contribute to the variety of services and childcare opportunities available to the surrounding neighborhoods. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the operation of the proposed group daycare should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently provided to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Republic Services and ACHD in Exhibit VIII. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, the Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 136 of 224 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 16, 2019 Zoning Map Aerial Preliminary Plat/Landscape Plan Staff’s Recommended Changes Extend W. Guiness St. to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. Replace pathway connection with private street extending north to south from E. Commander Ln. Changes to Agenda: Item #4A: Three Corners Ranch (H-2019-0006) Application(s): Annexation Preliminary Plat Private Street This project was continued from the April 4th meeting in order for the project to be heard by the ACHD Commission and for the Applicant to submit a revised concept plan. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 31 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 1890 E Dunwoody Ct. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: SFR subdivisions, zoned R1 in the County and R-1C in Boise (Fuller Ranchettes and Bristol Heights) South: SFR subdivision, zoned R-4 (Vienna Woods) East: SFR subdivision, zoned R-1C in Boise (Bristol Heights) West: SFR subdivision zoned RUT (Dunwoody Sub.) History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting annexation of 31 acres of land to the R-4 zoning district consistent with the LDR FLUM designation. Preliminary plat consisting of 45 building lots, one of which will encompass an existing home. The applicant received private street approval; with gates at the entrances to the subdivision at W. Barclay and E. Dunwoody. The subject site is a 31-acre infill property located amongst several existing Meridian, Boise and Ada County subdivisions. The site has five (5) abutting stub streets that were installed with the development of previous subdivisions with the intention of future extension; the site also has 50-feet of frontage along E. Dunwoody Ct. to the west. With so many potential stub streets, connectivity and points of access have been greatly discussed by residents, City Staff, ACHD and the applicant. The ACHD Commission approved the plan presented with the subject application at their March 27th hearing. The applicant is proposing access via W. Barclay St. and E. Dunwoody Ct. with a private street that will be gated 50-feet back from the entrances. Public street access is not proposed, however, residents and visitors will be able to access the subdivision. The applicant is proposing to extend 2 of the 5 stub streets, N. Sweet Valley Rd. connecting to N. Shandee, at the northwest part of the site with a public street (W. Guiness St.). Shandee Dr. provides access to the Fuller Ranchettes Sub. and currently has full access to Chinden/SH 20/26. However, this access will be restricted to right-in/right-out with the Chinden expansion to 5 lanes in 2020, and will prohibit access to Chinden when expanded to 6 lanes based on comments received from ITD. Although this extension of roadway provides access to the Fuller Ranchettes Sub., the closure of the existing access point to Chinden, would result in a dead end loop with one point of access. Staff believes an extension of W. Guiness St. to N. Stafford Pl. will create an additional access point for residents and will increase connectivity for the northern part of this area. Without this connectivity, residents will be forced to access a state highway (Chinden/SH 20/26) or an arterial roadway (Locust Grove). Staff recommends the applicant also extend a private north/south street from E. Commander Ln. within the proposed sub. to provide a means of ingress/egress to the north for future residents. This private street would also break-up the block length should W. Guiness be extended to the east. Lot sizes range from approximately 11,000 SF to 96,000 SF, with an average lot size of 23,500 SF, or roughly ½ acre. The gross density is 1.45 du/acre, which is at the low end of the LDR target density. The applicant is proposing to include a 1.26 acre neighborhood park, pocket parks, and several micropathways to connect within the subdivision and to other subdivisions in the area. Staff is recommending the applicant replace the currently proposed micropathway along the northeast part of the site with the extension of W. Guiness St. Should they be required to do so, staff recommends they provide sidewalk along both sides of the road to provide pedestrian connectivity. The Karnes Lateral crosses through this site and is proposed to be piped. Staff requests that the applicant provide informati on regarding the width of the lateral easement – the UDC requires any irrigation easement larger than 10-feet in width be located within a 20-foot common lot unless modified by the City Council. Written Testimony: Received from 45 individuals from both before and after issuance of the subject staff report. Each record has been added to the public record for this project. Dunwoody Subdivision to the west – Petition signed in opposition to entrance via Dunwoody. Concerns related to the nature and condition of the existing County roadway (E. Dunwoody Ct.) and potential negative impacts related to increased traffic, safety of pedestrians and children. Bristol Heights Subdivision to the east – Concerns regarding an entrance via W. Barclay St. specifically in relation to construction traffic and as the primary entrance to the subdivision. Concerns regarding increase in traffic, many residents noted that the Bristol Heights Subdivision is already used as a “cut-through” for vehicles traveling eastbound on Chinden. Some expressed desire for stub streets to be extended to spread the amount of traffic throughout the proposed subdivision. Three Corners Subdivision to the northwest – Concerns regarding creating a full-access road between the existing Three Corners Subdivision and the Ambrose School, specifically related to added congestion and traffic, and potential impact on the safety of students, faculty and pedestrians in the area. Concern regarding “pass-through” traffic from adjacent neighborhoods created by locating an entrance at N. Sweet Valley Dr. Current traffic congestion resulting in traffic stacking on Locust Grove and blocking neighborhood entrance. A letter was provided from the HOA board in opposition to staff’s recommendation. Fuller Ranchettes – Petition signed expressing support of proposed plan, opposition to staff’s recommendations. Staff Recommendation:. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: W. Guiness St. be extended to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl.; Extend a north/south private street to align with N. Shandee Dr. to increase connectivity and to break up the block length for W. Guiness St.; Provide 5-foot sidewalks along both sides of W. Guiness St.; Provide 10-foot common lot with landscaping to buffer “through lots” adjacent to W. Guiness St. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 16, 2019, 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-2019- 0006, as presented during the hearing on May 16, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0006 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) �i�E IDIZ IAN*,---- I DAHJ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 A Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0006 Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from April 4, 2019 for Three Corners Ranch By Sweet Land Development, Inc. Located at 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct. 1. Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 31.06 Acres of land with the R-4 zoning district; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 45 building lots and 9 common lots. Meeting Notes: 'W -Q�` c� I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from April 4, 2019 for T hree C orners Ranch (H-2019- 0006) by S weet Land Development, Inc., L ocated at 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 5/10/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 137 of 224 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 5/16/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-A Project Name: Three Corners Ranch Project No.: H-2019-0006 Active: ❑ Page 1 of 5 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=235 5/17/2019 I WishSign Signature City -State- In Address For Against Neutral To Name Zip Date/Time Testify 5/16/2019 1906E Meridian, Matt Howard X 3:3 Dunwoody Ct ID 83646 PM 5/16/2019 1746 e dunwoody Meridian debra jurgens X X 5:07:58 ct id PM 5/16/2019 14495 W. Boise, ID. Ted Dawson X 5:33:08 Battenberg 83713 PM 5/16/2019 Anthony 1805 E Golden Meridian, X X 5:39:08 Adinolfi Oak Ct ID 83646 PM 5/16/2019 Tricia trofast X 5:39:11 PM 5/16/2019 John trofast X 5:40:11 PM 5/16/2019 1800 a golden Meridian Kendra neely X X 5:40:15 oak ct id 83646 PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=235 5/17/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 2 of 5 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=235 5/17/2019 5/16/2019 Tori ans Deb 6060 N Sweet Meridian, X 5:41:54 Lewis Valley Ave Id 83646 PM 5/16/2019 14593 W Barclay Boise, ID Wilson Miller X 5:42:29 St. 83713 PM 5/16/2019 John stigile 6294 Shandee Meridian X 5:44:25 PM 5/16/2019 Trina 5516 N Meridian X X 5:45:23 Buckalew Mendelson Ave idaho PM Meridian 5/16/2019 Tyler 6059 N Karen Dr Idaho X X 5:45:34 83646 PM 5/16/2019 Matthew Boise ID 6033 N Stafford X X 5:46:23 Hands 83713 PM 5/16/2019 1962 a townline Meridian Tracy younger X 5:47:02 wayid 83642 PM 5/16/2019 Gregg 1939 east Meridian, X 5:50:27 bengtzen townline way id. 83646 PM 5/16/2019 5960 n rothmans Boise id. Cindy breckel X X 5:51:07 ave 83713 PM 5/16/2019 Richard 5960 N Rothmans Boise ID X X 5:51:38 Jackson Ave 83713 PM 5/16/2019 2482 E Autumn Meridian Kelly Barbour X X 5:52:54 Way83642 PM 5/16/2019 Joe LaGue 14435 W boise ID X X 5:52:54 (Lah-Gyoo) Guinness Dr 83713 PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=235 5/17/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 3 of 5 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=235 5/17/2019 Meridian 5/16/2019 Brett 1896 E Golden Idaho X 5:53:56 Aescbacher Oak Ct 83646 PM 5/16/2019 Boise id Jeff lowe 14132 w chadford X X 5:53:57 83713 PM 5/16/2019 1938 e dunwoody Meridian Mona tippets X X 5:54:59 ct id 83646 PM 5/16/2019 14360 w, Boise id Lisa kukuk X 5:55:05 stockwell st 83713 PM Mark Miller 5/16/2019 1906 E Meridian, and Elizabeth X X 5:56:01 Dunwoody Court ID. 83646 Miller PM 5/16/2019 Meridian, Jon Ostlund 2106 E Mozart St X X 5:56:11 ID 83646 PM Meridian 5/16/2019 Troy 1970 E Idaho X X 5:57:1283646 Bergstrand Dunwoody Ct PM 5/16/2019 Martha P 1970 E Meridian X X 5:57:13 Bergstrand Dunwoody Ct ID 83646 PM 5/16/2019 5600 n Meridian, Doug racine X X 5:58:30 mendelson ave id 83646 PM 5/16/2019 6050 N Stafford Boise, ID David Arnett X 5:58:31 PI 83713 PM 5/16/2019 6050 N Stafford Boise, ID Shelley Arnett X 5:59:11 PI 83713 PM 5/16/2019 Meridian, M83646 William Albert 2294 E Handel St X 5:59:24 ID PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=235 5/17/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 4 of 5 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=235 5/17/2019 5/16/2019 Meridian John french Juan2x@aol.com X X 6:00:28 Idaho PM 5/16/2019 Gary 1650 E Meridian, X 6:01:13 Collenboene Dunwoody Cy ID 83646 PM 5/16/2019 6294 N Sweet meridian Marilyn Bell X 6:01:52 Valley ID 83646 PM 5/16/2019 Renee 14473 W Barclay Boise ID X 6:02:15 Jessome st 83713 PM 5/16/2019 Donna k 14500 W Boise, ID. X 6:0 Wheeler Stockwell St 83713 PM 5/16/2019 1778 e dunwoody Meridian, Darin X X 6:03:04 ct id 83646 PM 5/16/2019 Brandon 1874 e dunwoody 83646 X X 6:03:32 wilding ct PM 5/16/2019 1778 e dunwoody Meridian Linsy heiner X X 6:03:35 ct id 83646 PM Meridian, 5/16/2019 2000 E Lori Lewis idaho X X 6:04:27 Dunwoody Ct 83646 PM 5/16/2019 6326 n Meridian, Doug Clark X 6:04:50 sweervalley pl id 83646 PM 5/16/2019 6014 N Stafford Boise, ID. Andrew Davis X X 6:05:22 PI 83713 PM 5/16/2019 Meridian M83646 Patrick pfeifer 2262 E Handel St X X 6:05:53 ID PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=235 5/17/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 5 of 5 Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=235 5/17/2019 5/16/2019 6099 north Boise,id Steve ryser X 6:06:44 heathrow way 83713 PM 5/16/2019 Carlos 14144 w Boise, ID X 6:07:11 Bittencourt battenberg ct 83713 PM Meridian 5/16/2019 6100 n sweet Geoff johnson idaho X 6:07:42 valley ave 83646 PM 5/16/2019 6020 N Shandee Meridian, Ben Kneadler X X 6:07:58 Dr 83646 PM 5/16/2019 1832 E Golden Kevin Krafft 83646 X X 6:08:35 Oak Ct PM 5/16/2019 1908 E Three Meridian, Sherry X 6:09:35 Corners Dr CA 93010 PM 5/16/2019 14525 W Boise, ID TJ Bliss X 6:09:37 Guinness Dr 83713 PM 5/16/2019 1741 E Sabalious Meridian Brian Granvall X X 6:11:19 St ID 83646 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=235 5/17/2019 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 5/16/2019 (Continued from April 4, 2019) TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0006 Three Corners Ranch LOCATION: 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct., in the NW ¼ of Section 29, Township TN., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and zoning of 31.06 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district; Preliminary plat consisting of forty-five (45) single-family residential building lots, and nine (9) common lots; and a private street application. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 138 of 224 Page 2 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 31.06 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential (LDR) Existing Land Use Single-family residence on approximately 2 acres and approximately 28 undeveloped acres Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential Current Zoning RUT Proposed Zoning R-4 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 52 (45 building/6 common, 1 private street) Phasing plan (# of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units (type of units) 45 SFR Density (gross & net) 1.45 gross du/acre; 2.01 net du/acre Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 3.11 acres (10%) Amenities 1.26 acre open space/park, basketball court, sitting area, micropathways Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) The Karnes Lateral bisects the site Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: October 23, 2018 - 18 attendees; October 29, 2018 - 44 attendees NOTE: The applicant has met with residents in the area on multiple occasions after the above noted dates to discuss different site layouts and to receive feedback regarding design iterations. History (previous approvals) N/A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 139 of 224 Page 3 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District Staff report (yes/no) Yes 39 ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Yes – Meeting held on March 27, 2019 Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Public access is proposed via N. Sweet Valley Ave. connecting to N. Shandee Dr. (N. Shandee Dr. will be limited to right-in, right-out access when E. Chinden Blvd. is expanded to four lanes; the access will be closed when Chinden is expanded to six lanes) Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Five (5) stub streets from existing residential subdivision are currently constructed; One (1) public street is proposed (N. Guiness St.) via one (1) of the existing stubs – N. Sweet Valley to the northwest, to connect to N. Shandee Dr. One (1) private street is proposed (W. Barclay Ln.) via one (1) of the existing stubs and utilizing the existing frontage to the Dunwoody Subdivision – E. Dunwoody Ct. to the west and W. Barclay St. to the east Two (2) existing stub streets are proposed to terminate – N. Dvorak Ave. to the south and W. Barclay St. to the east. Existing Road Network Proposed Road Improvements Construction of public road to connect N. Sweet Valley Dr. with N. Shandee Dr. Construction of a private road to provide access to all proposed homes from W. Barclay St. and E. Dunwoody Ct. Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) +/- 1.30 miles to Champion Park (~6 acres, Meridian Park) +/- 0.50 miles to Charles McDevitt Park (~39 acres, Boise Park) Fire Service 32 Distance to Fire Station +/- 1.25 miles from Fire Station No. 3 Fire Response Time 5 minutes (under ideal conditions) Resource Reliability 80% (does not meet target goal of 85% or greater) Risk Identification 1=residential Accessibility Project meets all required road widths and turnarounds. There shall be no parking allowed on either side of the proposed 26’ streets. All streets shall be signed “No Parking Fire Lane” per International Fire Code Sections 503.3 and D103.6. Curbing for any private street shall be painted red with “No Parking Fire Lane” stenciled in white paint. Electric gates shall have a Knox key operated switch in addition to opticom sensors. Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device. Water Supply 1000 gal./minute for 2 hours required Other Resources Police Service 36 Distance to Police Station 5 miles Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 140 of 224 Page 4 Description Details Page Police Response Time 6 minutes (2 minutes higher than average response time in Meridian) Calls for Service Between 1/1/2018-12/31/2018 PD responded to 111 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development. % of calls for service split by priority See PD comments in Section VIII. D Accessibility Emergency access will need to be provided using either a Key Pad Code, Opticom Sensor and/or Knox Box Specialty/resource needs None Crimes 368 Crashes 20 Other Reports All qualified open space provided in the development to include all amenities must be in an open area in order to allow for natural surveillance opportunities of public areas. Pathways and landscaping should not create hiding spots or blind spots to promote criminal opportunities. West Ada School District 38 Distance (elem, ms, hs) River Valley Elementary: +/- 2 miles Heritage Middle School: +/- 1.25 miles Rocky Mountain High School: +/- 2 miles Capacity of Schools River Valley Elementary: 650 Heritage Middle School: 1,000 Rocky Mountain High School: 1,800 # of Students Enrolled River Valley Elementary: 495 Heritage Middle School: 1,254 Rocky Mountain High School: 2,448 Other notes Current over enrollment at the schools this development would impact. Wastewater 29 Distance to Sewer Services +/- 93 Ft. Sewer Shed North Slough Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s 45 WRRF Declining Balance 13.56 MGD Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes Impacts/Concerns Fill will be required to maintain minimum cover on lines B, C and D. Finish grade has not been shown. Water 29 Distance to Water Services 0 Ft. Pressure Zone 3 Estimated Project Water ERU’s See Application Info. Water Quality Concerns None Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes Impacts/Concerns This development shall not connect across the pressure zone boundary to the north as proposed. Instead, the development will need to build a proportionate length of a future second connection to N. Locust Grove Road. Grocery Store +/- 0.80 miles to Albertsons on Eagle Rd. (Others)…. +/- 0.60 miles to Target on Eagle Rd. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 141 of 224 Page 5 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Sweet Land Development, Inc. 1990 S. Cole Road Boise, ID 83709 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 142 of 224 Page 6 B. Owner: David J. and Luane Dean 1890 E. Dunwoody Court Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: Marcel Lopez, Conger Management Group 4824 W. Fairview Ave. Boise, ID 83706 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/26/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 4/23/2019 Radius notification published on 5/5/2019 Nextdoor posting 4/23/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the northwest and south, is within the Area of City Impact Boundary, abuts Boise City limits to the east, and Ada County to the west. A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII. The subject site is a 31-acre infill property located amongst several existing Meridian, Boise and Ada County subdivisions (see Exhibit VII.F). The site has five (5) abutting stub streets that were installed with the development of previous subdivisions with the intention of future extension; the site also has 50-feet of frontage along E. Dunwoody Ct. to the west. With so many potential stub streets, connectivity and points of access have been greatly discussed by residents, City Staff, ACHD and the applicant. The ACHD Commission heard the Three Corners Ranch Project at their March 27, 2019 Commission hearing and has approved the plan presented with the subject application (see Section VIII.G). Although the subject application’s layout has been approved by ACHD, City Code and the Comprehensive Plan contradict aspects of the present layout. Staff has provided a list of recommended changes below, further analysis is available throughout this report. In accord with the Comprehensive Plan and several UDC policies, City Staff is recommending the following changes to the Three Corners Ranch Subdivision plat dated 4/16/2019: Provide additional connectivity by extending the proposed public road (W. Guiness St.) to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 143 of 224 Page 7 Extend a north/south private street that aligns with the N. Shandee Drive intersection to increase connectivity for the subject development and to break-up the block face. Provide five-foot sidewalk along both sides of N. Guiness St. Provide a ten-foot common lot with landscaping to buffer lots adjacent to N. Guiness St. to mitigate “through lots” (lots double-fronting roads). A. Future Land Use Map Designation (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Low Density Residential (LDR) – LDR designated areas allow for the development of single- family homes on large lots where urban services are provided. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of three (3) dwelling units or less per acre. The applicant is proposing 45 building lots and nine (9) common lots within the 31-acre site. The proposed gross density is 1.45 du/acre while the net density is 2.01 du/acre, which within the target density for LDR. Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the R-4 zoning district and proposed development is generally consistent with the LDR FLUM designation for this site and is appropriate for this site. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics): “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) Services to this area are available and can be reasonably provided since the MFD and MPD are already servicing the area. “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transpor tation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning.” (3.01.01J) This site is located approximately ¼ mile south of E. Chinden Blvd. (US 20/26), a heavily used state highway system. In an effort to decrease the number of single-family residences using this and other arterial roadways close to the development (N. Locust Grove Rd. and N. Eagle Rd.) the City and transportation authorities (ITD and ACHD) should work with the appli cant to preserve necessary transportation corridors by providing connectivity via local roadways. Staff’s recommendation to continue the public roadway through N. Stafford Pl. will further this goal by increasing interconnectivity and minimizing a direct cut-through route. “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) The proposed development includes pedestrian connectivity through four (4) internal micropathways and attached sidewalk along one (1) side of the proposed public road. Staff is recommending the applicant extend W. Guiness St. east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. which will eliminate the currently proposed micropathway along the north boundary of the development. However, public streets are required to provide sidewalk along both sides; as such, the extension of the public road would increase both pedestrian and vehicular connectivity. “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets).” (3.03.02O) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 144 of 224 Page 8 This development is an ideal candidate to utilize existing stubbed roadways to provide connections that are currently lacking in the area. The applicant is currently proposing to extend the existing stub at N. Sweet Valley Ave. to the east to connect with N. Shandee Dr. (W. Guiness St.). Staff is recommending the applicant extend W. Guiness St. to connect with N. Stafford Dr. to provide a westerly connection for the Bristol Heights neighborhood without requiring residents to access N. Eagle Rd. and/or E. Chinden Blvd. Although staff would prefer to see all five (5) stub streets extended, believes the connectivity added by extending the public road to N. Stafford Dr. will meet the intent of the UDC and Comprehensive Plan. With the extension of Guiness Street to the east, the proposed block face would exceed the 1,200 linear feet and would not be eligible for City Council waiver. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant extend a north/south private street that aligns with the N. Shandee Drive intersection to break up the block face in accord with UDC standards and to provide additional accessibility to the future residents of Three Corners Ranch. “Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow.” (3.03.03C) This site has the opportunity to connect various existing subdivisions located in the City of Meridian, Ada County and the City of Boise to the north, south, and east to enhance neighborhood connectivity and increase traffic flow by alleviating the need to access via arterial roads (N. Locust Grove Rd., E. Chinden Blvd., and N. Eagle Rd.). The proposed public road (W. Guiness St.) will only provide connection to N. Shandee Dr.; if W. Guiness St. was extended to the east to connect to N. Stafford Dr., residents within the area would be able to travel east and/or west without accessing E. Chinden Blvd. or N. Eagle Rd. This connection is especially important since two (2) existing stub streets to the east (W. Barclay St.) and south (N. Dvorak Ave.) are not proposed to extend. Further, if the roadway is not extended, connecting N. Shandee Dr. with N. Sweet Valley Ave. would create a long dead-end street between the Fuller Ranchettes and Three Corners Subdivisions when constructed at full build- out. UDC 11-3F-4A-5 prohibits private streets ending in cul-de-sacs to be longer than 450- feet. Extension of W. Guiness to the east would create an additional access point, eliminating the potential for a long dead end cul-de-sac on Shandee. “Encourage infill development.” (3.04.02B) This site is located amongst several existing and established residential subdivisions located in Meridian City, Ada County and Boise City. The applicant developed Three Corners Subdivision to the northwest of the subject site in 2007 and plans to continue a similar type of development into the subject site. “Consistent with the Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan, require all new residential neighborhoods to provide sidewalks, curb and gutters, and complete streets.” (3.07.02B) The applicant has proposed a public roadway through part of the north portion of the site and has proposed to construct five-foot attached sidewalk on the north side. Staff is recommending the applicant provide five-foot sidewalk along the south side of the public road to increase consistency with this action item and the requirements of the UDC. To mitigate the occurrence of through lots adjacent to W. Guiness St., staff recommends a 10 -foot landscape buffer in a common lot be required at the north boundary of Lots 8-15 and Lot 19, Block 1. “Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.” (3.07.02C) Pedestrian access is proposed via micropathways located throughout the central part of the site, connecting to the proposed park amenity. Sidewalk located along the proposed public Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 145 of 224 Page 9 road will allow residents within this and other subdivisions the option to walk to services or open space, such as the Charles McDevitt Park located approximately ½ mile to the south of the development. There is currently a micropathway proposed along the northern part of the site adjacent to existing subdivisions (Fuller Ranchettes Sub. and Bristol Heights); staff is recommending this pathway be replaced with a public road to further connect the aforementioned neighborhoods and residents. Staff is recommending five-foot sidewalk be provided along both sides of the public street, in accord with UDC standards, which will provide pedestrian connectivity where the current pathway is proposed. “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) Since this area is an infill piece, it is located in close proximity to many existing services, shopping centers and employment options. “Require common area in all subdivisions.” (3.07.02F) The proposed development includes a centrally located 1.26 acre open space/park, basketball court, sitting area, and micropathways. Common areas are accessible via several pathway connections throughout the subdivision. “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) With a gross density of 1.45 du/acre and an average lot size of ½ acre, the proposed development is providing large, estate lots not abundant in Meridian. The proposed development provides a choice not widely available but highly sought after for residents. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is one (1) existing home on this site that is not going to be removed and is located on proposed Lot 19, Block 1. The structure proposed to remain meets the required setbacks of the R- 4 zoning district; any additions to the lot will be subject to R-4 zoning district dimensional standards. Any remaining structures aside from the home on Lot 19, Block 1 shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes to construct 44 single-family detached dwellings with one (1) existing home to remain at the northwest portion of the site, with seven (7) common lots, one (1) of which is a private street. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-4 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The private street is proposed to serve all homes within the development and is gated more than 50-feet back from the two (2) proposed access points (E. Dunwoody Ct. and W. Barclay St.), in accord with UDC 11-3F-4A-4f. E. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): This development is subject to the R-4 zoning district dimensional standards in UDC Table 11- 2A-5 (see below). Buildable lots range in size from approximately 11,000 square feet to approximately 96,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 23,500 square feet, exceeding the UDC minimum dimensional standard of 8,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Lots 13-15, Block 1 have frontage on two (2) streets (W. Guiness St. and E. Commander Ln.); UDC 11-6C-3A.1 prohibits through lots. These lots shall be limited to one (1) street access via E. Commander Ln. Additionally, to alleviate the issue, a ten-foot common lot should be added to buffer the residences from traffic. If W. Guiness St. is extended to the east as staff is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 146 of 224 Page 10 recommending, the resulting block length will exceed that allowed by the UDC. To mitigate this, staff recommends the applicant construct a private street extending from E. Commander Ln. to W. Guiness St.; this road will also provide future residents within Three Corners Ranch an access to the north. F. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): This site has frontage to an existing Ada County subdivision via E. Dunwoody Ct. and has stub streets positioned at five (5) locations adjacent to the subject site: three (3) to the north via N. Sweet Valley Ave., N. Shandee Dr. and N. Stafford Pl.; one (1) to the east via W. Barclay St.; and one (1) to the south via N. Dvorak Ave. The applicant is proposing to extend one (1) of those stubs (N. Sweet Valley Rd.) with a public street (W. Guiness St.) connecting to N. Shandee Dr. The Fuller Ranchettes Subdivision (an Ada County subdivision) is currently served by N. Shandee Dr. which presently has full access to E. Chinden Blvd. However, N. Shandee Dr. will be restricted to a right-in/right-out access when Chinden is expanded to five (5) lanes in 2020, and will be closed when Chinden is eventually expanded to six (6) lanes. The extension of N. Sweet Valley Ave. to N. Shandee Dr. will benefit the Fuller Ranchettes Sub. in the short term, but staff has concerns that this road will become a dead end loop with Three Corners and the Fuller Ranchettes Subdivision upon closure of E. Chinden Blvd.; in violation of UDC 11-6C-3B.4. The applicant has proposed a private street (W. Barclay Lane) with gates to the east and west bisecting the subdivision and connecting with E. Dunwoody Ct. and W. Barclay Ln. This gated private street will limit the amount of cross-traffic and connectivity through the center of the subdivision and increases the need for a connected public street on the north boundary of the site. To increase connectivity of the proposed development with existing subdivisions to the north, staff is recommending the applicant construct a private street in lieu of a proposed micropathway, extending north from E. Commander Ln. to W. Guiness St. to align with N. Shandee Dr. This private street will provide an additional connection for future residents within the Three Corners Ranch subdivision and will also provide a break in block length if staff’s recommendation to extend W. Guiness St. to the east is required. G. Subdivision Standards (UDC 11-6C-3) Lots 13-15, Block 1 have frontage on two (2) streets (W. Guiness St. and E. Commander Ln.); UDC 11-6C-3A.1 prohibits through lots. With the recommended extension of W. Guiness St. additional through lots (Lots 8-12, Block 1) shall comply with these standards, the applicant is required to construct five-foot sidewalk and install a ten-foot wide common lot on both sides of W. Guiness St. in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. H. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4) Private streets are required to be constructed on a perpetual ingress/egress easement or a single- platted lot that provides access to all properties served by such private street; preferably a lot when the property is being subdivided as is the case with this application. The proposed private street has been included as a common lot (Lot 1, Block 1) to be maintained by the Three Corners Ranch Subdivision HOA in accord with UDC standards. A draft private road maintenance agreement has been submitted with the subject application. All drive aisles are required to be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed. In addition, if a curb exists next to the drive aisle, it shall be painted red. The proposed private streets are 26 feet in width as shown on the private road section shown on the preliminary plat site plan in Section VII.B. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 147 of 224 Page 11 The applicant is proposing to install two (2) gates to restrict vehicular movement to the private street to those who live within that area of the development. Proposed gates are subject to the design standards in UDC 11-3F-4A. The gates are proposed to be located approximately 50-feet back from the west entrance and approximately 80-feet back from the east entrance along W. Barclay Ln.; the submitted plan meets the design standards as listed in UDC 11-3F-4A. Staff recommends the applicant construct an additional private street from E. Commander Ln. extending north/south to connect with W. Guiness St. The entrance to that private street will be required to be gated, in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3F-4. Access to the gates for emergency vehicles shall be coordinated with the Meridian Fire and Police Departments. Compliance with all other Private Streets standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4 is required. As mentioned in Section F above, the current layout connecting N. Shandee Dr. with N. Sweet Valley Ave. would result in a block length exceeding that allowed by the UDC when N. Shandee Dr. is no longer able to access E. Chinden Blvd. Staff’s recommendation to extend W. Guiness St. to N. Stafford Pl. will eliminate that conflict. I. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Parking for single-family dwellings is required based on the number of bedrooms per unit. For 2-, 3- or 4-bedroom single-family units, a minimum of 4 spaces are required per unit with at least 2 of those in an enclosed garage, the other spaces may be enclosed or in a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad. All roadways within the development are shown as 26- or 27-feet of driveable surface. Per the Meridian Fire Department, there shall be no parking permitted on either side of the proposed streets. All streets shall be signed “No Parking Fire Lane” per International Fire Code. J. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Pedestrian micropathways are proposed throughout the development (Lots 11, 25, and the northern part of 45, Block 1) for internal connectivity and connectivity with adjacent developments in accord with UDC 11-3A-8 and the Comprehensive Plan (action item #3.03.03B referenced above). Landscaping is required along pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip is required along each side of the pathway consisting of a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover. A minimum of (1) tree is required per 100 linear feet of pathway. Landscaping within Lots 11 and 25, Block 1 is proposed in accord with these standards. The proposed pathway within the northern part of Lot 45, Block 1 appears to be substantially in compliance with these requirements; however the applicant should verify that 5-feet of landscaping is provided along the western side of the micropathway. K. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is proposed to be constructed along one (1) side of W. Guiness St., the local public street proposed to connect from N. Shandee Drive to N. Sweet Valley Ave. The applicant shall provide sidewalk on both sides of the proposed public street in accord with UDC 11-3A-17D. A revised plat and landscape plan reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Division ten (10) days prior to the City Council hearing. Staff is recommending the applicant extend the proposed public road to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl., if that extension is required, 5-foot sidewalk shall be required. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 148 of 224 Page 12 L. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A- 17E. Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along one side of the proposed private street bisecting the development (W. Barclay Ln.) within the development and are landscaped in accord with UDC standards. M. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscaping is required along pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip is required along each side of the pathway consisting of a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover. A minimum of (1) tree is required per 100 linear feet of pathway. The proposed landscape plan is in compliance with these standards. Common open space areas are required to be landscaped with lawn (either seed or sod) and a minimum of one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3E. The proposed landscape plan reflects these requirements. Parkways are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-G-3B.5. Mitigation is required for all existing healthy trees 4” caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100% replacement in accord with UDC 11-3B-10C.5. The landscape plan indicates all existing trees are volunteer species and do not require mitigation, the applicant shall coordinate with Elroy Huff, City Arborist to confirm. N. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10% (3.1 acres) qualified open space is required; a total of 3.11 acres (or 10%) is proposed consisting of a 1.26-acre neighborhood park, micropathways, and pocket parks. O. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required; the applicant has proposed several amenities from each of the three categories (i.e. quality of life, recreation, and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system) as follows: additional 20,000 open space (i.e. 1.26 acre park), a sports court (i.e. basketball), and internal pathways and micro-paths (See Exhibit C in Section VII.) P. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Karnes Lateral crosses this site and is proposed to be piped. The applicant shall coordinate with the Settlers Irrigation District and the Karnes Lateral regarding requirements (see Section VIII.I below). Per UDC 11-3A-6, any irrigation easement greater than 10-feet in width must be placed in a minimum 20-foot wide common lot unless otherwise approved by City Council. The plat indicates an easement adjacent to Lot 20, Block 1 and crossing through Lots 31, 32, 33, 36 and 41, Block 1. The applicant shall clarify the width of the irrigation easement during the Commission hearing May 16th and shall depict the easement on the preliminary plat prior to the Council hearing. Q. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Five-foot tall black wrought iron fencing and four-foot tall solid vinyl privacy fence is proposed along the rear of building lots and adjacent to common areas that are visible from the street in accord with UDC standards. The landscape plan uses the same symbol to indicate both fencing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 149 of 224 Page 13 styles, the applicant shall denote the different styles proposed for common areas and building lots with the revised landscape plan prior to the City Council hearing. R. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. 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. T. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required. In addition, street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. U. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the future custom homes within this development. Building materials consist of stucco, hardy plank and board-and-batten siding with some stone accents (see Exhibit E in Section VII.). Homes will be single-story and two-story in height, and will range in size from a minimum of 1,400 square feet and above depending on resident needs and preferences. V. Public Testimony Several residents in the vicinity have been expressing thoughts and concerns related to the proposed project from the time of application submittal in January 2019 via in-person and phone conversations and written testimony submitted to the public record. Written testimony was received from residents within the Dunwoody, Three Corners, and Bristol Heights Subdivisions. In an effort to communicate their concerns, staff has grouped and summarized written testimony received below: Dunwoody Subdivision to the west – Concerns related to the nature and condition of the existing County roadway (E. Dunwoody Ct.) and potential negative impacts related to increased traffic, safety of pedestrians and children. A couple of residents did express their desire for connectivity, specifically through the existing Three Corners Subdivision to the northwest of the proposed development. Bristol Heights Subdivision to the east – Concerns regarding an entrance via W. Barclay St. specifically in relation to construction related traffic and as the primary entrance to the subdivision. Concerns regarding increase in traffic, many residents noted that the Bristol Heights Subdivision is already used as a “cut-through” for vehicles traveling eastbound on Chinden. One resident did feel that there should be an opportunity for eastbound traffic via Barclay St., however did not feel the primary entrance should be through Barclay. Another family expressed their desire for the primary entrance to be through E. Dunwoody Ct., for a simpler traffic pattern with existing stub streets, and concern regarding the “closed island blockade” nature of the proposed development. Three Corners Subdivision to the north – Concerns regarding creating a full-access road between the existing Three Corners Subdivision and the Ambrose School, specifically related to added congestion and traffic, and potential impact on the safety of students, faculty and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 150 of 224 Page 14 pedestrians in the area. Concern regarding “pass-through” traffic from adjacent neighborhoods created by locating an entrance at N. Sweet Valley Dr. VI. DECISION A. Staff: The legal description submitted with the annexation application shows the boundaries of the property contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. The proposed density (1.45 units/acre) of the subdivision is consistent with that desired in LDR designated areas. Common open space and site amenities are centrally located within the development and meet the minimum required standards. Pathways provide pedestrian connections to the internal central common area through the development and to adjacent properties. Although the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC support extension of the five (5) stub streets, staff recommendations for additional connectivity, as noted above, meets the intent of the UDC and Comprehensive Plan policies. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ, PP, and PS applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 151 of 224 Page 15 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 152 of 224 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 153 of 224 Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 154 of 224 Page 18 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 4/8/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 155 of 224 Page 19 C. Landscape Plan (date: 4/17/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 156 of 224 Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 157 of 224 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 158 of 224 Page 22 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 159 of 224 Page 23 E. Staff’s Recommended Changes Extend W. Guiness St. to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. Replace pathway connection with private street extending north to south from E. Commander Ln. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 160 of 224 Page 24 F. Surrounding Subdivisions Bristol Heights (Boise) Fuller Ranchettes (Ada County) Three Corners (Meridian) Vienna Woods (Meridian) Dunwoody (Ada County) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 161 of 224 Page 25 G. Conceptual Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 162 of 224 Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 163 of 224 Page 27 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The existing home proposed to be retained on Lot 19, Block 1 shall hook up to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in UDC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. The street address of this home will change as a result of this development. 2. Site amenities shall be provided within the development per those described in Section VII.C. 3. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict the irrigation easement for the Karnes Lateral. If the easement is greater than ten (10) feet in width it shall be placed within a minimum twenty (20) foot wide common lot unless waived by City Council. b. Comply with private street standards per UDC 11-3F-4. c. Extend W. Guiness St. to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. d. Extend a north/south private street that aligns with the N. Shandee Drive intersection to increase connectivity for the subject development and to break-up the block face of W. Guiness St. Install a gate at least 50-feet back from the entrance at W. Guiness St. e. Provide five-foot wide attached sidewalk on both sides of the proposed public street in accord with UDC 11-3A-17D. f. Provide a ten-foot landscape buffer in a common lot at the north boundary of Lots 8-15 and Lot 19, Block 1. Ten (10) days prior to the City Council hearing the applicant shall submit a revised plat reflecting the proposed changes. 4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a five-foot wide attached sidewalk on both sides of the proposed public street in accord with UDC 11-3A-17D. b. Depict a ten-foot landscape buffer in a common lot be at the north boundary of Lots 8-15 and Lot 19, Block 1. c. Extend W. Guiness Street to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 164 of 224 Page 28 5. Any remaining structures outside of Lot 19, Block 1 should be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 6. Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-4 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5. 7. Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 8. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11 - 3A-15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 9. Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 10. Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 11. Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3B-11C. 12. Construct all parkways consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17E, 11-3G- 3B5 and 11-3B-7C. 13. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 14. Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 15. Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 16. 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. 17. All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3F1. 18. The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances. 19. The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a minimum height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the area. 20. The applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways. 21. The applicant has a continuing obligation to comply with the outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 22. The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all landscaping and constructed features within the clear vision triangle consistent with the standards in UDC 11-3A-3. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 165 of 224 Page 29 23. No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 24. The applicant shall complete all improvements related to public life, safety, and health as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. A surety agreement may be accepted for other improvements in accord with UDC 11-5C-3C. 25. The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C2. 26. The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years; or, 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 27. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Division staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 1.2 Each phase must be modeled as developed to ensure adequate fire flow. 1.3 Please make the following changes in regard to the water system design: 1. GIS shows existing water to south is 10-inch. Connect to the south with a 12- inch main. 2. Eliminate water main on Barclay Lane between Brigadoon Lane and Dvorak Lane. 3. Eliminate water main north of Commander Lane, but provide water main easement for potential future connection to N. Shandee Drive. 4. Construct 8-inch water main on Barclay Lane from Karen Lane to Dunwoody Court, and on Dunwoody Court from Barclay Lane 450-feet west on Dunwoody Court. (This development shall not connect across the pressure zone boundary to the north as proposed). 2 General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 166 of 224 Page 30 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 167 of 224 Page 31 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 168 of 224 Page 32 C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161277/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 169 of 224 Page 33 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 170 of 224 Page 34 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 171 of 224 Page 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 172 of 224 Page 36 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161912/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 173 of 224 Page 37 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 174 of 224 Page 38 E. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161616/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 175 of 224 Page 39 F. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161948/Page1.aspx G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164215/Page1.aspx H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161579/Page1.aspx I. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/162274/Page1.aspx J. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161764/Page1.aspx K. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161276/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 176 of 224 Page 40 IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission, the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Applicant is proposing to annex and develop the subject 31.06 acre property with R-4 zoning consistent with the LDR designation. (See section V above for more information.) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will provide for housing opportunities on larger lots consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential use should be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential 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 City services are available to be provided to this development. The Meridian Fire and Police Departments currently serve this area, however, the School District has submitted comments, included in Section VIII.I, that currently show student enrollment is above capacity. 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 developed with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. B. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 177 of 224 Page 41 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 CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. C. Private Street (UDC 11-3F-5) In order to approve the private street application, the director shall find the following: A. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The design of the streets meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3F-4. B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons, property, or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds that the proposed private road network will be a detriment to surrounding subdivisions (Fuller and Three Corners) if the north/south connection is not made to W. Guiness St., upon the anticipated full closure of N. Shandee Dr. when E. Chinden Blvd. expands to six (6) lanes. C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The proposed private street network does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan if the applicant extends the private street connection north/south to connect to W. Guiness St. and extends to N. Stafford Pl. The private street network has been supported by the ACHD Commission (see staff report in Section VIII.G). D. The proposed residential development (if applicable) is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10-1463, 11-3-2010, eff. 11-8-2010) The proposed development is a gated community in compliance with UDC 11-3F-4. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 178 of 224 Three Corners Ranch May 16, 2019 “Phase 2” of Dunwoody Sub “De Facto Collector” Staff Conditions •Condition 3.c –Requires a connection to N. Stafford Place from W. Guiness St. •Condition 3.d –Requires a north/south private street connection that aligns with N. Shandee Drive ACHD Commission Findings From ACHD Commission Action “Because this square mile was developed without a collector network, ACHD staff is concerned about east-west cut-through traffic.” “De Facto Collector” Condition 3.d North-South Connection to N. Shandee Dr.: –Not needed if W. Guiness Street does not connect to N. Stafford Place –Unlikely to be used as Three Corners Ranch residents should go out Dunwoody Court to the mid-mile point –Council has the authority to waive the block-face limitation and should do so under these unique circumstances Locust Grove Access Revisions to Staff Conditions •Delete Condition 3.c, which requires a connection to N. Stafford Place •Delete Condition 3.d, which requires a north/south private street connection that aligns with N. Shandee Drive Hethe Clark hclark@spinkbutler.com (208) 388-1000 Block Length “Phase 2” of Dunwoody Sub Article II of Dunwoody CCRs: “… By accepting a Deed to a Lot within Dunwoody Subdivision, each Owner… consents to the re- subdivision and development [of Lot 16 of Block 1] in accordance with the zoning ordinances then in force and effect and applicable to Lot 16 of Block 1, including such re-subdividing and/or development as shall require access to Lot 16 of Block 1 will be provided by the public right(s)-of-way within Dunwoody Subdivisions…” (emphasis added) Proposal Bristol Heights Vienna Woods t,- EIDIAN0*,,---� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 B Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0049 Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from May 2, 2019 for 2019 UDC Text Amendment By City of Meridian Planning Division Request: A text amendment to update certain section of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses, outdoor lighting; outdoor storage, traveling living quarters, landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi -family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections. Meeting Notes: �No�x Ski���� I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from M ay 2, 2019 for 2019 UD C Text Amendment (H- 2019-0049) by City of M eridian P lanning D ivision C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Memo 05-10-19 Cover Memo 5/10/2019 Revisions B ackup Material 5/13/2019 S taff Report S taff Report 5/1/2019 P roposed Table of Text Changes Cover Memo 5/1/2019 O pen Space 1 B ackup Material 5/1/2019 O pen Space 2 B ackup Material 5/1/2019 E agle I nterchange E xhibit 5/1/2019 Meridian I nterchange E xhibit 5/1/2019 Ten Mile I nterchange E xhibit 5/1/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 179 of 224 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 5/16/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-13 Project Name: 2019 UDC Text Amendment Project No.: Active: ❑ Page 1 of 2 Go Back To List Export To Excel http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=236 5/17/2019 I WishSign Signature In Address City -State -Zip For Against Neutral To Name Date/Time Testify 5525 E 5/16/2019 Greg curtis Greenhurst Rd 83686 X 5:48:00 PM Nampa Id Rachael 2000 E. 5/16/2019 Meridian, ID X Lewis Dunwoody Ct. 6:29:07 PM Nathan 6078 N Stafford Boise, ID. 5/16/2019 X X Schaff PI 83713 6:30:31 PM Jeanette Boise Idaho 5/16/2019 7905 Colt Dr X X johnson 83709 6:34:39 PM 5357 n 5/16/2019 I. Herrera Meridian X X schuman 7:04:01 PM Rafael and 14496 west 5/16/2019 83713 X michelle Barclay St 7:04:53 PM Matthew 2263 E Handel Meridian, ID. 5/16/2019 X X Hansen St. 83646 7:30:45 PM Melissa 6100 N. Sweet Meridian,ID 5/16/2019 X Johnson Valley Ave 83646 7:33:40 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=236 5/17/2019 May 10, 2109 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission CC: City Clerk, Bill Nary FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor RE: 2019 UDC Text Amendment Revisions (H-2019-0049) May 16th, P/Z Commission Meeting On May 2nd, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued this project to allow Staff to revise several sections of the text proposed with the subject application based on public testimony. Staff has updated the table and sent the revisions via email for additional feedback. The only comments received thus far were from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and further refinement has been made based on that feedback. Modifications to the table includes the following: 1. Staff is proposing to omit the changes to UDC 11-2A-3(B)(3); leave as currently written in code; 2. Added D. to UDC 11-3A-6 to stipulate that piping, fencing and any improvement requires approval from an irrigation district or drain entity; 3. Changed the spelling of travelling to the American version in UDC 11-3A-20; 4. Further discussions are needed for the addition of age-restricted parking. The applicant was informed of this request when the revised table was distributed for review. No changes to the parking standards in UDC Table 11-3C-6 at this time; 5. Staff is proposing to remove exclusion of arterial and collector landscape buffers from counting towards the qualified open space requirements in UDC 11-3G-3(B); 6. Added City Council will determine the feasibility of modifications to the standards when proposing access to a state highway in UDC 11-3H-3; 7. Specified indoor shooting ranges be measured from property line to property line in Chapter 4. For review and specifics of the proposed edits, staff has updated the revisions in the table by highlighting the changes in yellow and delineating the new text in blue font along with commentary for the changes. 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 1 Pr o p o s e d UD C Te x t Am e n d m e n t s UD C Se c t i o n To p i c Pr o b l e m / Q u e s t i o n / R e v i s i o n s Po t e n t i a l Fi x 11 ‐1 ‐11 Co d e en f o r c e m e n t Re c e n t l y a UD C vi o l a t i o n ca s e we n t to a co u r t tr i a l . Th e pr o s e c u t o r , de f e n s e co u n c i l an d ju d g e al l po i n t e d ou t th e UD C do e s no t sp e c i f i c a l l y ou t l i n e th e me t h o d s of se r v i c e wh e n se r v i n g a UD C vi o l a t o r no t i c e of a vi o l a t i o n . Th e MC C do e s ou t l i n e th i s pr o c e s s in 4 ‐2 ‐3 (C ) 1, 2 an d 3. B. In v e s t i g a t i o n : 1. Th e co d e en f o r c e m e n t of f i c e r sh a l l in v e s t i g a t e an y structure or use which he or she reasonably believes does not comply with the standards an d re q u i r e m e n t s of th i s ti t l e . 2. If , af t e r in v e s t i g a t i o n , it is de t e r m i n e d th a t th e st a n d a r d s or requirements of this title have been violated, a code enforcement officer shall se r v e a no t i c e of vi o l a t i o n up o n th e ow n e r , te n a n t or other person responsible for the condition. The notice of violation shall state separately ea c h st a n d a r d or re q u i r e m e n t vi o l a t e d ; sh a l l st a t e wh a t corrective action, if any, is necessary to comply with the standards or requirements; an d sh a l l se t a re a s o n a b l e ti m e fo r co m p l i a n c e . Th e notice shall state that any further violation may result in criminal prosecution and/or civil pe n a l t i e s . (O r d . 05 ‐11 7 0 , 8 ‐30 ‐20 0 5 , ef f . 9 ‐15 ‐20 0 5 ) 3. Th e no t i c e sh a l l be se r v e d up o n th e ow n e r , te n a n t or other person responsible for the condition addressed to the last known address of such pe r s o n . If no ad d r e s s is kn o w n , th e n no t i c e ma y be made by publication in the newspaper of record for the City of Meridian. The Code En f o r c e m e n t Of f i c e r wi l l re c o r d al l ef f o r t s ma d e to ef f e c t service in person or by mail as part of their investigative report. (Ord. 07 ‐1325, 7 ‐10 ‐ 20 0 7 ) . Me t h o d s of se r v i c e sh a l l be by an y of th e fo l l o w i n g : a. Pe r s o n a l se r v i c e up o n su c h ow n e r , oc c u p i e r , or pe r s o n in charge or control of the property; or b. Re g u l a r ma i l to su c h ow n e r , oc c u p i e r , or pe r s o n in charge or control of the property, at the address shown on the last available assessment ro l l , or as ot h e r w i s e kn o w n ; or c. Po s t i n g su c h no t i c e an d or d e r at a co n s p i c u o u s pl a c e on the property and publishing one notice in the official newspaper of the City that the pr o p e r t y ha s be e n po s t e d in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th i s ch a p t e r and ordering the owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property to re m e d y th e vi o l a t i o n by th e gi v e n da t e . 11 ‐1A ‐1 De f i n i t i o n Ad d ne w de f i n i t i o n of ac c e s s o r y us e , re s i d e n t i a l . AC C E S S O R Y US E , RE S I D E N T I A L : A us e or ac t i v i t y on a residential property that is secondary to the principal use. 11 ‐1A ‐1 De f i n i t i o n Se p a r a t e th e pe r s o n a l an d pr o f e s s i o n a l de f i n i t i o n . Th e y ar e se p a r a t e us e s in th e al l o w e d us e ta b l e s in Ch a p t e r 2. PE R S O N A L AN D PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S : Th e us e of a site for the provision of individualized services generally related to personal needs. Pe r s o n a l se r v i c e us e s in c l u d e , bu t ar e no t li m i t e d to , beauty and healthcare services such as salons, hair, nail and skin care, spa, and barbers; fi t n e s s tr a i n i n g an d in s t r u c t i o n ; lo c k s m i t h s ; an d re p a i r s such as footwear and leather goods, and watches. Professional service uses include, but ar e no t li m i t e d to : ar c h i t e c t s , la n d s c a p e ar c h i t e c t s an d other design services; computer designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; ph o t o g r a p h y st u d i o s ; fi t n e s s tr a i n e r s ; an d ti t l e co m p a n i e s . The term does not include healthcare and social service. PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S : Se e de f i n i t i o n of pe r s o n a l and professional services. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: ar c h i t e c t s , la n d s c a p e ar c h i t e c t s an d ot h e r de s i g n se r v i c e s ; compute graphic designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photography st u d i o s ; fi t n e s s tr a i n e r s ; an d ti t l e co m p a n i e s ge n e r a l offices. The term does not include healthcare and social service. 11 ‐1A ‐1 De f i n i t i o n Ad d ne w de f i n i t i o n of fo o t ‐ca n d l e . FO O T ‐CA N D L E : A st a n d a r d un i t of me a s u r e m e n t us e d to identify the intensity of light. A unit of illumination equal to that given by a source of on e ca n d e l a at a di s t a n c e of on e fo o t . Th i s is th e SA E / I m p e r i a l unit of measurement whereas Lux is the Metric unit of measurement. 11 ‐1A ‐1 De f i n i t i o n Ad d ne w de f i n i t i o n of an in d o o r sh o o t i n g ra n g e . IN D O O R SH O O T I N G RA N G E : A co n t r o l l e d ar e a of ac t i v i t y , specifically designed for the discharging of firearms at targets. The term does not in c l u d e ar t s , en t e r t a i n m e n t an d re c r e a t i o n fa c i l i t i e s . 11 ‐1A ‐1 De f i n i t i o n Ad d ne w de f i n i t i o n of li g h t tr e s p a s s . LI G H T TR E S P A S S : Li g h t em i t t i n g fr o m on e pr o p e r t y th a t crosses the property line of another property in excess of 0.1 foot ‐candle as measured at a he i g h t of 60 in c h e s ab o v e gr a d e in a pl a n e at an y angle of inclination. 11 ‐1A ‐1 De f i n i t i o n Ad d ne w de f i n i t i o n of lu m e n . LU M E N : A li g h t i n g in d u s t r y st a n d a r d un i t of me a s u r e m e n t used to measure the total quantity of visible light emitted by a source. 11 ‐1A ‐1 De f i n i t i o n Mo d i f y de f i n i t i o n of op e n sp a c e to in c l u d e li n e a r op e n sp a c e . OP E N SP A C E : An ar e a su b s t a n t i a l l y op e n to th e sk y th a t may be on the same property with a structure. The area may include, along with the na t u r a l en v i r o n m e n t a l fe a t u r e s , li n e a r op e n sp a c e s , parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community centers or ot h e r re c r e a t i o n a l fa c i l i t i e s . Th i s te r m sh a l l no t in c l u d e streets, parking areas, or structures for habitation. 11 ‐1A ‐1 De f i n i t i o n Ad d ne w de f i n i t i o n of pe r s o n a l pr o p e r t y . PE R S O N A L PR O P E R T Y : An y pr o p e r t y th a t is no t re a l property. Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 8 1 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 2 11 ‐1A ‐1 Re c r e a t i o n a l ve h i c l e Ad d th e te r m mo b i l e ti n y ho m e s to th e de f i n i t i o n . RE C R E A T I O N A L VE H I C L E : A ve h i c l e or po r t a b l e st r u c t u r e primarily designed as temporary living accommodation for recreational, camping, and tr a v e l us e . Th e te r m sh a l l in c l u d e , bu t no t be li m i t e d to, motor home, travel trailer, fifth wheel trailer, truck camper, fold down camping trailer, pa r k tr a i l e r , mo b i l e ti n y ho m e s an d tr a v e l tr a i l e r . 11 ‐2A ‐3( B ) ( 3 ) Mi n i m u m st r e e t fr o n t a g e s En s u r e co m m o n dr i v e w a y s pr o v i d e ac c e s s to an ab u t t i n g pu b l i c st r e e t . Re m o v e fr o m ta b l e . 3. Pr o p e r t i e s ta k i n g ac c e s s fr o m a co m m o n dr i v e w a y s do not require street frontage, but said common driveway shall connect to an abutting pu b l i c st r e e t . Ta b l e 11 ‐2A ‐6 Di m e n s i o n a l st a n d a r d s of th e R ‐8 Di s t r i c t De v e l o p e r re q u e s t e d th a t th e UD C sp e c i f i c a l l y ca l l ‐ou t se t b a c k s fo r si d e lo a d e d ga r a g e s in th e R ‐8 di s t r i c t . R ‐8 Standard Requirement Mi n i m u m pr o p e r t y si z e / d w e l l i n g unit (in square feet) 4,000 Mi n i m u m st r e e t fr o n t a g e (in feet): 40 Wi t h al l e y lo a d e d ga r a g e , side entry garage, or private mew lots 32 St r e e t se t b a c k 1 to ga r a g e (in feet): Lo c a l 20 Co l l e c t o r 25 Al l e y 5 St r e e t se t b a c k 1 to li v i n g area and/or side loaded garage (in feet): Lo c a l 10 Co l l e c t o r 25 Al l e y 5 In t e r i o r si d e se t b a c k (i n feet) 5 Re a r se t b a c k (i n fe e t ) 12 St r e e t la n d s c a p e bu f f e r 2 (in feet): Co l l e c t o r 20 Ar t e r i a l 25 En t r y w a y co r r i d o r 35 In t e r s t a t e 50 Ma x i m u m bu i l d i n g he i g h t (in feet) 35 Ta b l e 11 ‐2A ‐2 Al l o w e d us e s in th e re s i d e n t i a l di s t r i c t s Up d a t i n g ta b l e to re f l e c t th a t re s t a u r a n t us e s ha v e sp e c i f i c us e st a n d a r d s . Us e R ‐2 R ‐4 R ‐8 R ‐15 R ‐40 Re s t a u r a n t 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ A Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 8 2 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 3 Ta b l e 11 ‐2B ‐2 Al l o w e d us e s in th e co m m e r c i a l di s t r i c t s Ad d i n g in d o o r sh o o t i n g ra n g e to al l o w e d us e ta b l e in th e co m m e r c i a l di s t r i c t s . Us e C ‐N C ‐C C ‐G L ‐O M ‐E H ‐E Ho t e l an d mo t e l 1 P/C P/C P/C ‐ C P In d o o r Sh o o t i n g Range 1 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ C ‐ In d u s t r y , in f o r m a t i o n 1 P P P C P P Ta b l e 11 ‐2B ‐2 Al l o w e d us e s in th e co m m e r c i a l di s t r i c t s Up d a t i n g ta b l e to re f l e c t th a t re s t a u r a n t us e s ha v e sp e c i f i c us e st a n d a r d s ; sp e c i f i c a l l y di f f e r e n t pa r k i n g st a n d a r d s . Us e C ‐N C ‐C C ‐G L ‐O M ‐E H ‐E Re s t a u r a n t 1 P P P C A A Ta b l e 11 ‐2C ‐2 Al l o w e d us e s in th e in d u s t r i a l di s t r i c t s Ad d i n g in d o o r sh o o t i n g ra n g e to al l o w e d us e ta b l e in th e in d u s t r i a l di s t r i c t s . Use I ‐L I ‐H Fu e l sales facility, truck stop 1 C C In d o o r Shooting Range 1 P C In d u s t r y , heavy 1 ‐ P/C Ta b l e 11 ‐2C ‐2 Al l o w e d us e s in th e in d u s t r i a l di s t r i c t s Up d a t i n g ta b l e to re f l e c t th a t re s t a u r a n t us e s ha v e sp e c i f i c us e st a n d a r d s . Use I ‐L I ‐H Restaurant 1 A A Ta b l e 11 ‐2D ‐2 Al l o w e d us e s in th e tr a d i t i o n a l ne i g h b o r h o o d di s t r i c t s Up d a t i n g ta b l e to re f l e c t th a t re s t a u r a n t us e s ha v e sp e c i f i c us e st a n d a r d s . Use O ‐T TN ‐C TN ‐R Restaurant 1 P P ‐ 11 ‐2B ‐3( A ) ( 4 ) St a n d a r d s Cl e a n ‐up it e m . Re ‐nu m b e r i n g th i s st a n d a r d as it do e s no t pe r t a i n to a di m e n s i o n a l st a n d a r d . 4B . Ho u r s Of Op e r a t i o n : Bu s i n e s s ho u r s of op e r a t i o n within the L ‐O and C ‐N Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (1 0 : 0 0 ) P. M . Bu s i n e s s ho u r s of op e r a t i o n wi t h i n th e C ‐C and C ‐G Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P. M . wh e n th e pr o p e r t y ab u t s a re s i d e n t i a l us e or di s t r i c t . Extended hours of operation in the C ‐C and C ‐G Districts may be requested through a co n d i t i o n a l us e pe r m i t . Th e s e re s t r i c t i o n s ap p l y to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not li m i t e d to , cu s t o m e r or cl i e n t vi s i t s , tr a s h co m p a c t i n g , and deliveries. These restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring wi t h i n an en c l o s e d st r u c t u r e , in c l u d i n g , bu t no t li m i t e d to, cleaning, bookkeeping, and after hours work by a limited number of em p l o y e e s . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 8 3 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 4 11 ‐3A ‐6 Di t c h e s , la t e r a l s , ca n a l s or dr a i n a g e co u r s e s Am e n d th i s se c t i o n of co d e to re f e r e n c e th e de f i n i t i o n of a wa t e r am e n i t y in ch a p t e r 1 an d gr a n t th e de c i s i o n ‐ma k i n g bo d y on th e ap p l i c a t i o n th e au t h o r i t y to wa i v e th e ti l i n g of ir r i g a t i o n fa c i l i t i e s . Ad d ne w la n g u a g e as te s t i f i e d at th e pu b l i c he a r i n g . So m e te x t wa s ad d e d ba s e d on fe e d b a c k fr o m NM I D . A. Pu r p o s e : Th e pu r p o s e of th i s se c t i o n is to li m i t th e tiling and piping of natural waterways, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where pu b l i c sa f e t y is no t a co n c e r n as we l l as im p r o v e , pr o t e c t and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Sl o u g h an d Ja c k s o n an d Ev a n Dr a i n s ) as an am e n i t y in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fencing is proposed, th e fo l l o w i n g st a n d a r d s sh a l l ap p l y . B. Pi p i n g : 1. Na t u r a l wa t e r w a y s in t e r s e c t i n g , cr o s s i n g , or ly i n g within the area being developed shall remain as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or ot h e r w i s e co v e r e d . Se e al s o su b s e c t i o n C1 of th i s se c t i o n . 2. Ir r i g a t i o n di t c h e s , la t e r a l s , ca n a l s , sl o u g h s an d dr a i n s may be left open when used as a water amenity or linear open space , as defined in UDC 11 ‐1A ‐1, an d an y ne c e s s a r y ap p r o v a l s wh i c h ma y be required from an irrigation or drainage entity are obtained . See also subsection C2 of this se c t i o n . 3. Ex c e p t as al l o w e d ab o v e , al l ot h e r ir r i g a t i o n di t c h e s , laterals, sloughs or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being de v e l o p e d , sh a l l be pi p e d , or ot h e r w i s e co v e r e d . Th i s requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actual dr a i n a g e fa c i l i t y is lo c a t e d on an ad j o i n i n g pr o p e r t y . a. Th e ci t y co u n c i l d e c i s i o n ‐ma k i n g bo d y ma y wa i v e th e requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, if it finds that the pu b l i c pu r p o s e re q u i r i n g su c h wi l l no t be se r v e d an d public safety can be preserved and any necessary approvals which may be required from an ir r i g a t i o n or dr a i n a g e en t i t y ar e ob t a i n e d a li c e n s e ag r e e m e n t is executed with the Irrigation District . b. Th e ci t y co u n c i l ma y al s o wa i v e th i s re q u i r e m e n t fo r large capacity facilities. C. Fe n c i n g : 1. Fe n c i n g al o n g al l na t u r a l wa t e r w a y s sh a l l no t pr e v e n t access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger op e n wa t e r sy s t e m s ma y re q u i r e fe n c i n g as de t e r m i n e d by the city council, director and/or public works director. 2. Di t c h e s , la t e r a l s , ca n a l s , sl o u g h s an d dr a i n s do no t re q u i r e fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that sa i d di t c h , la t e r a l , ca n a l , sl o u g h s or dr a i n se r v e s as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity. Construction drawings and re l e v a n t ca l c u l a t i o n s pr e p a r e d by a qu a l i f i e d li c e n s e d pr o f e s s i o n a l registered in the state of Idaho shall be submitted to both the director and the au t h o r i z e d re p r e s e n t a t i v e of th e wa t e r fa c i l i t y fo r ap p r o v a l . 3. Ex c e p t as al l o w e d ab o v e , al l ot h e r op e n ir r i g a t i o n di t c h e s , laterals, canals, sloughs and drains shall be fenced with an open vision fence at least six fe e t (6 ' ) in he i g h t an d ha v i n g an 11 ‐ga u g e , tw o in c h (2 " ) mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal, sl o u g h s or dr a i n , wh i c h fe n c e sh a l l be se c u r e l y fa s t e n e d at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or bo t h si d e s of sa i d di t c h , la t e r a l , ca n a l , sl o u g h s or dr a i n . D. Ea s e m e n t s : In re s i d e n t i a l di s t r i c t s , ir r i g a t i o n ea s e m e n t s wider than ten feet (10') shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty feet (2 0 ' ) wi d e an d ou t s i d e of a fe n c e d ar e a , un l e s s mo d i f i e d by city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. Improvements re l a t e d to pi p i n g , fe n c i n g or an y en c r o a c h m e n t as ou t l i n e d in sections A, B, and C of this section requires written approval from the appropriate ir r i g a t i o n or dr a i n a g e en t i t y . E. Im p e d i n g Mo v e m e n t Of Wa t e r Pr o h i b i t e d : Fo r an y ir r i g a t i o n or drainage ditch not within the jurisdiction of an irrigation or drainage district, piping sh a l l no t im p e d e th e mo v e m e n t of th e am o u n t of wa t e r crossing the property prior to development or the amount of water delivered to downstream pr o p e r t i e s . Ea s e m e n t s : In re s i d e n t i a l di s t r i c t s , ir r i g a t i o n easements wider than ten feet (10') shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of tw e n t y fe e t (2 0 ' ) wi d e an d ou t s i d e of a fe n c e d ar e a , un l e s s modified by city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. F. Na t u r a l Dr a i n a g e Co u r s e s : Al l na t u r a l dr a i n a g e co u r s e s shall be left undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and ease of ma i n t e n a n c e of th e ch a n n e l . Re l o c a t i o n of na t u r a l sw a l e s is acceptable if the hydraulics and ease of maintenance are provided for. The term "natural dr a i n a g e co u r s e " sh a l l no t be de e m e d to ap p l y to mi n o r swales and depressions that are located entirely on the applicant's property and which serve a re l a t i v e l y sm a l l ar e a wh e r e ru n o f f is in f r e q u e n t . Im p e d i n g Movement Of Water Prohibited: For any irrigation or drainage ditch not within the ju r i s d i c t i o n of an ir r i g a t i o n or dr a i n a g e di s t r i c t , pi p i n g sh a l l not impede the movement of the amount of water crossing the property prior to de v e l o p m e n t or th e am o u n t of wa t e r de l i v e r e d to do w n s t r e a m properties. G. Na t u r a l Dr a i n a g e Co u r s e s : Al l na t u r a l dr a i n a g e co u r s e s shall be left undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and ea s e of ma i n t e n a n c e of th e ch a n n e l . Re l o c a t i o n of na t u r a l swales is acceptable if the hydraulics and ease of maintenance are provided for. The term "n a t u r a l dr a i n a g e co u r s e " sh a l l no t be de e m e d to ap p l y to minor swales and depressions that are located entirely on the applicant's property and which se r v e a re l a t i v e l y sm a l l ar e a wh e r e ru n o f f is in f r e q u e n t . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 8 4 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 5 11 ‐3A ‐11 Ou t d o o r li g h t i n g Th e cu r r e n t co d e do e s no t ad e q u a t e l y ad d r e s s li g h t tr e s p a s s . We ar e se e i n g ad v a n c e m e n t s in li g h t i n g te c h n o l o g y . Th e s e ad v a n c e m e n t s ar e ma k i n g li g h t i n g re t r o f i t s co s t ef f e c t i v e an d co m m o n . Wi t h th e re t r o f i t s co m e br i g h t e r li g h t s . Co d e En f o r c e m e n t is se e i n g an in c r e a s e in li g h t tr e s p a s s co m p l a i n t s . Th r o u g h a re c e n t in v e s t i g a t i o n , Ci t y At t o r n e y st a f f an d Co d e En f o r c e m e n t le a r n e d li g h t tr e s p a s s is no t en f o r c e a b l e wi t h th e la n g u a g e in ou r cu r r e n t co d e . Th e co d e al l o w s fo r an ex e m p t i o n of al l li g h t fi x t u r e s be l o w 1, 8 0 0 lu m e n s (e q u a l to an av e r a g e 12 0 wa t t in c a n d e s c e n t bu l b ) . On e of th e s e fi x t u r e s ma y no t be a pr o b l e m bu t th e cu r r e n t wo r d i n g of th e co d e al l o w s fo r an in d e f i n i t e nu m b e r of th e s e un r e g u l a t e d fi x t u r e s to be in s t a l l e d in a si n g l e li g h t i n g pr o j e c t . Th e ex e m p t i o n al l o w s sa i d li g h t fi x t u r e s to be co n f i g u r e d in an y wa y re g a r d l e s s ho w th e y im p a c t an ab u t t i n g pr o p e r t y . A Lu m e n is a un i t of me a s u r e ro u t i n e l y us e d by li g h t fi x t u r e ma n u f a c t u r e r s an d on l y pr a c t i c a l l y me a s u r e d in a la b o r a t o r y en v i r o n m e n t . Lu m e n ra t i n g s ar e pr a c t i c a l wh e n us e d in th e co d e fo r pl a n n i n g an d de v e l o p m e n t pu r p o s e s bu t lu m e n me a s u r e m e n t s ca n n o t be pr a c t i c a l l y ob t a i n e d in th e fi e l d . Th i s cr e a t e s a hu g e ob s t a c l e fo r Co d e En f o r c e m e n t wh e n in v e s t i g a t i n g li g h t tr e s p a s s co m p l a i n t s . Th e st a n d a r d un i t of me a s u r e fo r fi e l d ‐wo r k in th e Un i t e d St a t e s is th e fo o t ‐ca n d l e . Fo o t ‐ca n d l e me a s u r e m e n t s ar e ea s i l y ob t a i n a b l e fr o m re a d i l y av a i l a b l e in s t r u m e n t a t i o n . Th e fo o t ‐ca n d l e mu s t be re f e r e n c e d in th e co d e to ma k e li g h t tr e s p a s s en f o r c e a b l e . Lu m e n s in th e co d e sh o u l d on l y be us e d wh e n re f e r e n c i n g fi x t u r e sp e c i f i c a t i o n s as it ap p l i e s to pl a n n i n g . Fo o t ‐ca n d l e s sh o u l d be us e d in th e co d e to go v e r n li g h t tr e s p a s s on c e th e fi x t u r e is in s t a l l e d . Cu r r e n t l y , wh e n a pe r m i t t e d fi x t u r e is in s t a l l e d in a wa y th a t ca u s e s li g h t tr e s p a s s Co d e En f o r c e m e n t ca n n o t ta k e an y ac t i o n . Ho l i d a y li g h t i n g is cu r r e n t l y al l o w e d fo r 40 da y s an d is ex e m p t fr o m re g u l a t i o n . Wh i c h 40 da y s ar e no t id e n t i f i e d an d su c h wo u l d re q u i r e a da i l y in s p e c t i o n an d do c u m e n t a t i o n to pr o v e / e n f o r c e . Th e ex e m p t i o n al l o w s ho l i d a y li g h t i n g to be th e so u r c e of li g h t tr e s p a s s an d li m i t th e en j o y m e n t of ab u t t i n g pr o p e r t i e s . We ha v e se e n ex c e p t i o n a l l y br i g h t an d fl a s h i n g li g h t s th a t il l u m i n a t e a ma j o r i t y of an ab u t t i n g pr o p e r t y . Th e ch a n g e wo u l d el i m i n a t e th e 40 da y pe r i o d an d ha v e ho l i d a y li g h t i n g co m p l y wi t h li g h t tr e s p a s s st a n d a r d s . A. Th e fo l l o w i n g ty p e s of li g h t i n g ar e ex e m p t fr o m th e regulations of this section: (Ord. 05 ‐1170, 8 ‐30 ‐2005, eff. 9 ‐15 ‐2005) 1. Li g h t fi x t u r e s th a t ha v e a ma x i m u m ou t p u t of le s s than one thousand eight hundred (1800) lumens unless said fixture is the source of light tr e s p a s s in vi o l a t i o n of su b s e c t i o n C (3 ) of th i s ch a p t e r or is configured in a manner that impairs the vision of drivers and/or pedestrians in vi o l a t i o n of su b s e c t i o n B (6 ) of th i s ch a p t e r . (O r d . 11 ‐1482, 4 ‐26 ‐2011, eff. 5 ‐2 ‐2011) 2. Al l ou t d o o r li g h t i n g pr o d u c e d by th e di r e c t co m b u s t i o n of natural gas or other fossil fuels such as kerosene lanterns or gas lamps. 3. Te m p o r a r y hH ol i d a y li g h t i n g us e d fo r fo r t y (4 0 ) da y s or less per year that is not in violation of this section . 4. Ve h i c u l a r li g h t s an d al l te m p o r a r y em e r g e n c y li g h t i n g needed for fire protection, police protection, and/or other emergency services. 5. Al l ha z a r d wa r n i n g li g h t s re q u i r e d by fe d e r a l or st a t e regulatory agencies. (Ord. 05 ‐1170, 8 ‐30 ‐2005, eff. 9 ‐15 ‐2005) 6. Li g h t i n g wh e n us e d to li g h t a go v e r n m e n t a l fl a g in accordance with 4 USC 6(a); and provided, that the fixture used does not create light tr e s p a s s in vi o l a t i o n of th i s se c t i o n . 7. St r e e t li g h t s an d hi s t o r i c a l li g h t s in s t a l l e d an d co n f i g u r e d to the appropriate specification for the application as determined by the Co m m u n i t y De v e l o p m e n t Di r e c t o r or hi s / h e r ap p o i n t e e . B. Th e in s t a l l a t i o n , us e , or di s p l a y of an y of th e fo l l o w i n g types of lighting and/or illumination shall be prohibited: 1. Me r c u r y va p o r la m p fi x t u r e an d / o r la m p . 2. La s e r so u r c e li g h t or an y si m i l a r hi g h in t e n s i t y li g h t . 3. Li g h t i n g th a t ch a n g e s co l o r s , re v o l v e s , or mo v e s , in c l u d i n g searchlights shall be prohibited in all districts, except where approved for te m p o r a r y us e s un d e r a va l i d , cu r r e n t ci t y of Me r i d i a n temporary use permit. 4. Li g h t i n g , in c l u d i n g st r i n g s of li g h t s , on co m m e r c i a l or private tower structures that exceed the district height limit, except as required by re g u l a t i o n s of th e fe d e r a l av i a t i o n ad m i n i s t r a t i o n (F A A ) . 5. St r o b i n g , re v o l v i n g , or fl a s h i n g li g h t s . 6. Li g h t or il l u m i n a t i o n wi t h su c h br i l l i a n c e or so po s i t i o n e d as to blind or dazzle impair the vision of drivers and/or pedestrians. 7. Lo w pr e s s u r e so d i u m li g h t i n g . (O r d . 09 ‐14 3 6 , 12 ‐15 ‐2009, eff. 1 ‐1 ‐2010) C. St a n d a r d s : 1. Li g h t fi x t u r e s th a t ha v e a ma x i m u m ou t p u t of on e thousand eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall have an opaque top to prevent up l i g h t i n g ; th e bu l b sh a l l no t be vi s i b l e an d sh a l l ha v e a full cutoff shield. See figure 1 of this section. 2. Li g h t fi x t u r e s wi t h a ma x i m u m ou t p u t of on e th o u s a n d eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall be placed such that the effective zone of li g h t (a s do c u m e n t e d by th e ph o t o m e t r i c te s t re p o r t ) shall not trespass on abutting residential properties. See figure 2 of this section. (Ord. 11 ‐ 14 8 2 , 4 ‐26 ‐20 1 1 , ef f . 5 ‐2 ‐20 1 1 ) 3. Fl o o d l i g h t fi x t u r e s sh a l l be lo c a t e d in su c h a ma n n e r as to prevent direct glare into a street and to minimize impact on abutting properties. a. Fl o o d l i g h t fi x t u r e s sh a l l be se t to go on on l y wh e n triggered by activity on the property (sensor activated) and to go off within five (5) mi n u t e s af t e r ac t i v a t i o n ha s ce a s e d . b. Fl o o d l i g h t fi x t u r e s sh a l l be in s t a l l e d so th a t th e y do not tilt up more than forty five degrees (45°) down from vertical. Al l li g h t em i t t i n g fr o m an y pa r c e l sh a l l no t ca u s e th e light level along any property line abutting a residential use to exceed 0.1 foot ‐candle. Li g h t re a d i n g s sh a l l be me a s u r e d at a he i g h t of 60 inches above grade and in a plane at any angle of inclination. Any light exceeding 0.1 foot ‐ ca n d l e , wh e n do c u m e n t e d in th e ab o v e ma n n e r , and extending onto an abutting residential use constitutes light trespass. 4. Fl o o d l i g h t fi x t u r e s sh a l l be lo c a t e d po s i t i o n e d in su c h a manner as to prevent direct glare into a street and to minimize impact on prevent li g h t tr e s p a s s on ab u t t i n g pr o p e r t i e s . a. Fl o o d l i g h t fi x t u r e s sh a l l be se t to go on on l y wh e n triggered by activity on the property (sensor activated) and to go off within five (5) mi n u t e s af t e r ac t i v a t i o n ha s ce a s e d . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 8 5 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 6 b. Fl o o d l i g h t fi x t u r e s sh a l l be in s t a l l e d so th a t th e y do not tilt up more than forty five degrees (45°) down from vertical. 5. Up l i g h t i n g sh a l l on l y be al l o w e d in ca s e s wh e r e th e fixture and any light it emits are shielded from the sky by a roof overhang or similar st r u c t u r a l sh i e l d . 56 . In re s i d e n t i a l di s t r i c t s , th e he i g h t of a fr e e s t a n d i n g light fixture on private property shall not exceed six feet (6'). Streetlamps are exempt fr o m th i s he i g h t re s t r i c t i o n . 67 . Li g h t fi x t u r e s mo u n t e d on a wa l l ma y ex t e n d to th e full height of the structure, but no farther. 78 . El e c t r i c a l fe e d s to ou t d o o r li g h t fi x t u r e s sh a l l be underground, not overhead. 89 . If an ow n e r or ap p l i c a n t de s i r e s to ob t a i n an al t e r n a t i v e compliance from the provisions of this section, the procedure shall be in accord wi t h ch a p t e r 5 , "A d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , of th i s ti t l e . (O r d . 05 ‐1170, 8 ‐30 ‐2005, eff. 9 ‐15 ‐2005; amd. Ord. 11 ‐1482, 4 ‐26 ‐2011, eff. 5 ‐2 ‐2011) Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 8 6 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 7 11 ‐3A ‐11 Fi g u r e 1 Re p l a c e ex i s t i n g fi g u r e wi t h ne w on e Figure 1 EXAMPLES OF FULL CUTOFF SHIELDS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 8 7 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 8 Fi g u r e 2 Re p l a c e ex i s t i n g fi g u r e wi t h ne w on e FIGURE 2 LIGHT TRESPASS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 8 8 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 9 11 ‐3A ‐14 ( A ) an d (C ) Ou t d o o r st o r a g e as an ac c e s s o r y us e An ou t d o o r st o r a g e in v e s t i g a t i o n re c e n t l y we n t to a ju r y tr i a l . Du r i n g th e tr i a l it wa s ma d e ap p a r e n t th a t ou r cu r r e n t ou t d o o r st o r a g e la n g u a g e do e s no t in c l u d e “p e r s o n a l pr o p e r t y . ” Th i s be c a m e an is s u e wh e n de f e n s e co u n s e l as k e d th e in v e s t i g a t i n g of f i c e r to ex p l a i n ho w th e it e m s re f e r e n c e d fi t th e cu r r e n t la n g u a g e in th e co d e . Th e cu r r e n t la n g u a g e ea s i l y ap p l i e s to co m m e r c i a l pr o p e r t i e s bu t no t re s i d e n t i a l pr o p e r t i e s . 11 ‐3A ‐14 : OU T D O O R ST O R A G E AS AN AC C E S S O R Y US E : Ac c e s s o r y ou t d o o r st o r a g e sh a l l be al l o w e d fo r an ap p r o v e d use subject to the following standards: A. Al l ou t d o o r st o r a g e of ma t e r i a l , eq u i p m e n t , in v e n t o r y , personal property and/or supplies shall be conducted in an orderly manner. It shall be un l a w f u l to co n d u c t ou t d o o r st o r a g e of ma t e r i a l s , eq u i p m e n t , inventory, personal property and/or supplies in a manner that: 1. Cr e a t e s a pu b l i c nu i s a n c e , vi s u a l bl i g h t , or ac o u s t i c impacts by reason of condition, duration, and/or volume . 2. Bl o c k s , im p e d e s or ov e r l a p s an y si d e w a l k an d / o r vehicular traffic. 3. Ca u s e s th e si t e to be us e d as a "v e h i c l e wr e c k i n g or junk yard" as herein defined. B. Fo r pr o p e r t i e s in co m m e r c i a l an d / o r tr a d i t i o n a l di s t r i c t s , outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be in c o r p o r a t e d in t o th e ov e r a l l de s i g n of bu i l d i n g s an d site landscaping so that the visual impacts of these functions are fully contained and sc r e e n e d fr o m vi e w of ad j a c e n t pr o p e r t i e s , th e ra i l w a y corridor, and public streets by a solid fence or wall with a minimum height of six feet (6 ' ) . Su c h fe n c e an d / o r wa l l sh a l l be co n s t r u c t e d of co m p l e m e n t a r y or of similar design and materials of the primary structure. C. Fo r pr o p e r t i e s in re s i d e n t i a l di s t r i c t s , al l ma t e r i a l s , equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies, shall only be stored in the rear or si d e ya r d an d sh a l l be sc r e e n e d by a so l i d fe n c e , si x feet (6') in height. No outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, personal pr o p e r t y an d / o r su p p l i e s sh a l l be al l o w e d in th e re q u i r e d street yard, except as follows: On corner properties, such materials may be stored in th e st r e e t si d e ya r d wh e r e su c h ar e a is sc r e e n e d by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height; see section 11 ‐3A ‐7 of this article for fencing regulations in st r e e t si d e ya r d s . 11 ‐3A ‐14 ( D ) ( 2 ) Ou t d o o r st o r a g e as an ac c e s s o r y us e Cl e a n ‐up to pr o v i d e cl a r i f i c a t i o n to th i s se c t i o n of co d e . 2. Fo r pr o p e r t i e s th a t ad j o i n th e ra i l w a y co r r i d o r , in addition to the standards of subsection D1 of this section, outdoor storage of materials, eq u i p m e n t , in v e n t o r y , an d / o r su p p l i e s sh a l l be sc r e e n e d from the interior edge of the required street buffer a distance of one hundred feet (1 0 0 ' ) fr o m th e ed g e of ri g h t of wa y pa r a l l e l to th e ra i l w a y corridor. 11 ‐3A ‐20 Tr a v e l l i n g sl e e p i n g qu a r t e r s Th e cu r r e n t ti t l e an d th e de f i n i t i o n ar e in c o n s i s t e n t . Th e ti t l e re a d s in pa r t “… S l e e p i n g Qu a r t e r s ” an d th e de f i n i t i o n re a d s in pa r t “… l i v i n g qu a r t e r s . ” Th e ti n y ho u s e mo v e m e n t is gr o w i n g in po p u l a r i t y an d we ar e se e i n g th e m in Me r i d i a n . Mo b i l e ti n y ho u s e s ar e no t cu r r e n t l y de f i n e d in ou r co d e . As th e i r po p u l a r i t y in c r e a s e s , we ar e fi e l d i n g mo r e in q u i r i e s ab o u t Me r i d i a n ’ s st a n c e on th e m . Ch a n g e d th e sp e l l i n g of tr a v e l i n g to ma t c h th e Am e r i c a n ve r s i o n . 11 ‐3A ‐20 : TR A V E L L IN G SL E E P I N G L I V I N G QU A R T E R S : No motor vehicle or trailer including, but not limited to, travel trailers, fifth wheels, re c r e a t i o n a l ve h i c l e s , mo b i l e ti n y ho u s e s an d / o r mo t o r coaches, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters except within an approved re c r e a t i o n a l ve h i c l e pa r k . No re c r e a t i o n a l eq u i p m e n t , including, but not limited to, tents, tepees, yurts, and/or huts, shall be used as a residence or as li v i n g qu a r t e r s . 11 ‐3B ‐5( A ) ( 1 ) St a n d a r d s an d in s t a l l a t i o n Up d a t e th i s se c t i o n of co d e to re f l e c t th e ne w l y ad o p t e d tr e e pu b l i c a t i o n gu i d e fo r th e Tr e a s u r e Va l l e y . A. Ap p r o v e d Tr e e Sp e c i e s : 1. Th e pu b l i c a t i o n ti t l e d "Tr e a s u r e Va l l e y Tr e e Se l e c t i o n Guide For Streets And Landscapes Throughout Idaho " by the urban forestry unit of the Bo i s e pa r k s an d re c r e a t i o n de p a r t m e n t (l a t e s t ed i t i o n ) is hereby adopted by this reference as the city of Meridian's list of approved and pr o h i b i t e d tr e e sp e c i e s . Th e pu b l i c a t i o n ca t e g o r i z e s the trees by size as class I, class II, or class III trees. 11 ‐3B ‐9( C ) ( 2 ) La n d s c a p e bu f f e r s to ad j o i n i n g us e s Ad d fl e x i b i l i t y to th i s se c t i o n co d e so ap p l i c a n t s do n ’ t ha v e to su b m i t Ci t y Co u n c i l Re v i e w ap p l i c a t i o n to re d u c e th e la n d s c a p e bu f f e r s wh e n co m m e r c i a l an d in d u s t r i a l us e s ab u t a re s i d e n t i a l us e . Ex a m p l e of th i s is wh e n a co n d i t i o n a l us e pe r m i t is be f o r e Pl a n n i n g an d Zo n i n g Co m m i s s i o n an d th e Co m m i s s i o n do e s n ’ t ha v e th e au t h o r i t y to wa i v e th e bu f f e r ex c e p t th r o u g h th e Ci t y Co u n c i l Re v i e w pr o c e s s . 2. Mi n i m u m Bu f f e r Si z e : Th e wi d t h of th e bu f f e r is de t e r m i n e d by the district in which the property is located, unless such width is otherwise mo d i f i e d by th e de c i s i o n ma k i n g bo d y se t fo r t h in UD C Table 11 ‐5A ‐2 city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property ow n e r s . Th e ta b l e s of di m e n s i o n a l st a n d a r d s fo r ea c h district in accord with chapter 2 , "District Regulations", of this title establish the minimum bu f f e r si z e . A re d u c t i o n to th e bu f f e r wi d t h sh a l l no t affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of th e bu f f e r wi d t h re q u i r e d in th e ap p l i c a b l e zo n i n g district. Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 8 9 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 10 11 ‐3C ‐4( A ) ( 2 ) Pa r k i n g st a n d a r d s fo r si n g l e ‐ fa m i l y de t a c h e d , to w n h o m e s , se c o n d a r y , du p l e x an d si n g l e ‐ fa m i l y at t a c h e d dw e l l i n g s Th e am e n d m e n t wo u l d ca u s e th e UD C to re a d mo r e in li n e wi t h th e si m i l a r IS C 49 ‐45 6 . Th e UD C as it cu r r e n t l y re a d s al l o w s a ve h i c l e to di s p l a y an y cu r r e n t l y re g i s t e r e d li c e n s e pl a t e ev e n if th e li c e n s e pl a t e is re g i s t e r e d to an o t h e r ve h i c l e . Co d e En f o r c e m e n t Of f i c e r s ha v e ex p e r i e n c e d th i s oc c u r r i n g wh e n tr y i n g to ge t pr o p e r t y ow n e r s to co m e in t o co m p l i a n c e . Th e fr o n t li c e n s e pl a t e of cu r r e n t l y re g i s t e r e d ve h i c l e is of t e n pl a c e d on th e pu b l i c vi e w po r t i o n th e un r e g i s t e r e d ve h i c l e . 2. Ty p e s Of Ve h i c l e s ; Lo c a t i o n Of Pa r k i n g : On l y au t o m o b i l e s and motorcycles displaying license plates and assigned to the vehicle with current re g i s t r a t i o n ma y be pa r k e d in th e re q u i r e d st r e e t ya r d . All other vehicles, including, but not limited to, vehicles without current registration, ve h i c l e s wi t h o u t li c e n s e pl a t e s , re c r e a t i o n a l ve h i c l e s , personal recreational items, boats, trailers and/or other vehicles shall only be parked in th e re a r or si d e ya r d an d sh a l l be sc r e e n e d by a so l i d fence, six feet (6') in height. Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 9 0 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 11 Ta b l e 11 ‐3C ‐6 Re q u i r e d pa r k i n g sp a c e s fo r re s i d e n t i a l us e Mo d i f y pa r k i n g st a n d a r d s to ma k e it cl e a r wh a t pa r k i n g st a n d a r d s ap p l y to nu r s i n g ca r e fa c i l i t i e s an d ag e re s t r i c t e d ho u s i n g . Re q u e s t of th e UD C Fo c u s Gr o u p me m b e r s , th e y re q u e s t e d th a t 1 an d 2 be d r o o m un i t s ha v e th e sa m e pa r k i n g re q u i r e m e n t s . Fu r t h e r di s c u s s i o n s ar e ne e d e d wi t h th e de v e l o p e r . St a f f wo u l d li k e to mo v e fo r w a r d wi t h th e pr o p o s e d ch a n g e s an d be l i e v e s th e UD C pr o v i d e s th e fl e x i b i l i t y to th e de v e l o p e r th r o u g h th e al t e r n a t i v e co m p l i a n c e pr o c e s s . Us e An d Fo r m Number Of Bedrooms (Per Unit) Required Parking Spaces 1 Ag e re s t r i c t e d el d e r l y ho u s i n g (a t t a c h e d or de t a c h e d ) 1 0.5 per bed 2+2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad 2 Dw e l l i n g , du p l e x an d dw e l l i n g , si n g l e ‐fa m i l y (d e t a c h e d , at t a c h e d , to w n h o u s e ) 1 /2 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad 2 2/3/4 4 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad 2 5+ 6 per dwelling unit; at least 3 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad 2 Dw e l l i n g , mu l t i ‐fa m i l y 3 (t r i p l e x , fo u r p l e x , ap a r t m e n t s , et c . ) 1 1.5 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 2/3 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 4+ 3 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in a covered carport or garage Dw e l l i n g , se c o n d a r y 1 As set forth above for single ‐family dwellings as determined by the total number of bedrooms on the property Nu r s i n g an d Re s i d e n t i a l Ca r e Fa c i l i t y 1 0.5 per bed Ve r t i c a l l y in t e g r a t e d re s i d e n t i a l 4 1 1 per dwelling unit 2/3 1 per dwelling unit 4+ 1 per dwelling unit Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 9 1 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 12 11 ‐3D ‐8( A ) ( 1 4 ) ( f ) Si g n re q u i r e m e n t s In c l u d e a ne w fi g u r e to th e si g n or d i n a n c e si n c e th e r e is a ne w in t e r c h a n g e in th e Te n Mi l e ar e a . f. Pr o p e r t i e s wi t h i n si x hu n d r e d si x t y fe e t (6 6 0 ' ) of th e Interstate 84 freeway right of way and properties adjoining the Interstate 84 in t e r c h a n g e s , as de p i c t e d on fi g u r e s 1 , an d / o r 2 an d / o r 3 of this section are subject to the following standards: (1 ) Su c h fr e e s t a n d i n g si g n s sh a l l be in li e u of , an d no t in addition to, signs which may be permitted by the district provisions set forth in su b s e c t i o n s B th r o u g h H of th i s se c t i o n . (2 ) Fr e e s t a n d i n g si g n s wi t h i n si x hu n d r e d si x t y fe e t (6 6 0 ' ) of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way are prohibited in residential districts. (3 ) Th e ma x i m u m ba c k g r o u n d ar e a of an y si g n sh a l l not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. (4 ) Th e ma x i m u m he i g h t of an y si g n sh a l l no t ex c e e d forty feet (40'). (5 ) Pr o p e r t i e s ex c e e d i n g se v e n hu n d r e d fi f t y fe e t (7 5 0 ' ) of linear freeway frontage may be allowed an additional height allowance and ba c k g r o u n d ar e a al l o w a n c e . Su c h si g n sh a l l no t ex c e e d fifty feet (50') in height nor shall such sign exceed three hundred (300) square feet of ba c k g r o u n d ar e a . On l y on e su c h si g n sh a l l be al l o w e d per seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage. 11 ‐3D ‐8 Fi g u r e 1 Re p l a c e an d ad d ne w In t e r c h a n g e fi g u r e s . Figure 1 I ‐84 / M e r i d i a n Road Interchange (Replace existing Exhibit) Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 9 2 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 13 Fi g u r e 2 Figure 2 I ‐84 / E a g l e Road Interchange (Replace existing Exhibit) Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 9 3 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 14 Fi g u r e 3 Figure 3 I ‐84/Ten Mile Interchange (New exhibit) Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 9 4 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 15 11 ‐3G ‐3( B ) Qu a l i f i e d op e n sp a c e Mo d i f y th e op e n sp a c e st a n d a r d s to en s u r e th e Ci t y is ge t t i n g co n s o l i d a t e d us a b l e op e n sp a c e wi t h re s i d e n t i a l de v e l o p m e n t s . Ch a n g i n g th e op e n sp a c e st a n d a r d s ca n n o t be do n e wi t h i n th e tw o we e k ti m e l i n e . Fo r no w , st a f f is pr o p o s i n g to ch a n g e a fe w of th e pr o p o s e d ch a n g e s an d al l o w th e st r e e t bu f f e r s to co n t i n u e to co u n t to w a r d s th e qu a l i f i e d op e n sp a c e st a n d a r d s . On c e th e ne w Co m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n is ad o p t e d , th i s se c t i o n of co d e wi l l be re v i e w e d in it s en t i r e t y . B. Qu a l i f i e d Op e n Sp a c e : Th e fo l l o w i n g ma y qu a l i f y to meet the common open space requirements: 1. Ac t i v e Or Pa s s i v e In In t e n d e d Us e : An y op e n sp a c e that is active or passive in its intended use, and accessible by all residents of the de v e l o p m e n t , in c l u d i n g , bu t no t li m i t e d to : a. Op e n gr a s s y ar e a of at le a s t fi f t y fe e t by on e hu n d r e d feet (50' x 100') in area; b. Co m m u n i t y ga r d e n ; c. Po n d s or wa t e r fe a t u r e s ; or d. Pl a z a .; or e. Li n e a r op e n sp a c e ar e a th a t is at le a s t 20 fe e t an d up to 50 feet in width, has an access at each end, and is improved and landscaped as set fo r t h in su b s e c t i o n 11 ‐3G ‐3E of th i s ch a p t e r . 2. Ad d i t i o n s To Pu b l i c Pa r k : Ad d i t i o n s to a pu b l i c pa r k or other public open space area. 3. La n d s c a p e Bu f f e r as Op e n Sp a c e Fu l l Ar e a of Bu f f e r : The full area of the landscape buffer along collector and arterial streets may count toward th e re q u i r e d co m m o n op e n sp a c e if de v e l o p e d wi t h a 10 ‐foot wide segment of the City’s pathway system, and where the pathway provides a di r e c t ro u t e to an ad j a c e n t pa s s i v e or ac t i v e op e n space noted in B1 and B2 above . 4. Pe r c e n t a g e Of Bu f f e r : Fi f t y pe r c e n t (5 0 % ) of th e la n d s c a p e buffer along arterial streets may count toward the required common open space. 5 . Pa r k w a y s Al o n g Co l l e c t o r An d Lo c a l Re s i d e n t i a l St r e e t s : Parkways along local residential streets that meet all of the following standards may co u n t to w a r d th e co m m o n op e n sp a c e re q u i r e m e n t : a. Th e pa r k w a y me e t s th e mi n i m u m wi d t h st a n d a r d as set forth in subsection 11 ‐3A ‐17 E of this chapter. b. Th e pa r k w a y is pl a n t e d wi t h st r e e t tr e e s in ac c o r d with section 11 ‐3B ‐7 , "Landscape Buffers Along Streets", of this chapter. c. Ex c e p t fo r al l e y ac c e s s e d dw e l l i n g un i t s , th e ar e a for curb cuts to each residential lot or common driveway shall be excluded from the open sp a c e ca l c u l a t i o n . Fo r pu r p o s e s of th i s ca l c u l a t i o n , the curb cut area shall be twenty six feet (26') by the width of the parkway. 6. Pa r k w a y s Al o n g Ar t e r i a l s : Pa r k w a y s al o n g ar t e r i a l streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the common open space re q u i r e m e n t : a. Th e pa r k w a y is a mi n i m u m of te n fe e t (1 0 ' ) in wi d t h measured between edge of sidewalk and back of curb. Where ACHD is anticipating fu t u r e wi d e n i n g of th e st r e e t , th e wi d t h of th e bu f f e r shall be measured from the ultimate curb location as anticipated by ACHD; and (1 ) Th e pa r k w a y is pl a n t e d wi t h st r e e t tr e e s an d ot h e r materials in accord with subsection 11 ‐3B ‐7C, "Standards", of this chapter; or (2 ) Th e pa r k w a y co n t a i n s pl a n t e r be d s wh i c h me e t th e following requirements: A) La w n ar e a s ac c o u n t fo r no mo r e th a n fi f t y pe r c e n t (50%) of parkway. (B ) Ma s s e d sh r u b s wh i c h at ma t u r i t y pr o v i d e ve r t i c a l relief between minimum of one foot (1') and maximum of three feet (3') in height, cover at le a s t tw e n t y fi v e pe r c e n t (2 5 % ) of pa r k w a y ar e a during growing season. Shrubs must be planted as a continuous edge or in a distinct re p e a t i n g pa t t e r n to cr e a t e ve r t i c a l vi s u a l br e a k be t w e e n roadway and pedestrian areas (C ) Pl a n t e r be d s mu s t me e t mu l c h i n g an d ve g e t a t i o n coverage requirements listed under subsections 11 ‐3B ‐5H and N of this chapter. 6 7 . St o r m w a t e r De t e n t i o n Fa c i l i t i e s : St o r m w a t e r de t e n t i o n facilities when designed in accord with section 11 ‐3B ‐11 , "Stormwater Integration", of th i s ch a p t e r ma y co u n t to w a r d s th e qu a l i f i e d op e n space requirement if located within a passive or active qualified open space of at least tw e n t y th o u s a n d (2 0 , 0 0 0 ) sq u a r e fe e t an d is vi s i b l e from a public street(s) on at least two (2) sides. 7 8 . Op e n Wa t e r Po n d s : Ae s t h e t i c a l l y de s i g n e d op e n water ponds and holding areas may comprise up to twenty five percent (25%) of a required op e n sp a c e ar e a wh e n de v e l o p e d wi t h at le a s t on e (1) site amenity in accord with UDC 11 ‐3G ‐3C . All ponds with a permanent water level sh a l l me e t th e fo l l o w i n g st a n d a r d s : a. Th e po n d sh a l l ha v e re c i r c u l a t e d wa t e r . b. Th e po n d sh a l l be ma i n t a i n e d su c h th a t it do e s no t become a mosquito breeding ground. Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 9 5 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 16 11 ‐3H ‐3 Va r i a n c e pr o c e s s Le g a l ha s de t e r m i n e d th a t va r i a n c e ma y no t be re q u i r e d fo r Co u n c i l to ap p r o v e an ac c e s s to St a t e hi g h w a y s pe r St a t e St a t u e . Th i s mo d i f i c a t i o n to th e UD C is be i n g re q u e s t e d by th e Ci t y At t o r n e y ’ s of f i c e . Ad d e d th i s la n g u a g e ba s e d on fe e d b a c k fr o m th e pu b l i c he a r i n g . 11 ‐3H ‐3: PR O C E S S : St a f f sh a l l re v i e w al l de v e l o p m e n t ap p l i c a t i o n s fo r co m p l i a n c e with these standards. The City Council decision making body may consider and approve ap p l y mo d i f i c a t i o n s to th e st a n d a r d s of th i s ar t i c l e up o n sp e c i f i c recommendation of the Idaho transportation department or if strict adherence is not fe a s i b l e , as de t e r m i n e d by Ci t y Co u n c i l . 11 ‐4 ‐3 ‐14 Ed u c a t i o n In s t i t u t i o n Ad d sp e c i f i c cr i t e r i a fo r pa r k i n g . I. In al l co m m e r c i a l an d re s i d e n t i a l di s t r i c t s , ed u c a t i o n in s t i t u t i o n s shall provide one parking space for every four hundred (400) square feet of gross fl o o r ar e a . 11 ‐4 ‐3 ‐27 ( B ) ( 1 ) Si t e De s i g n Re c e n t l y , th e r e ha v e be e n so m e co n f l i c t s be t w e e n th e se t b a c k s in th e UD C an d th e bu i l d i n g co d e . Th i s ch a n g e is ne e d e d to ma k e it cl e a r th a t th e IB C ha s di f f e r e n t wa y s of go v e r n i n g bu i l d i n g se p a r a t i o n on a pr o p e r t y . B. Si t e De s i g n : 1. Bu i l d i n g s sh a l l pr o v i d e a mi n i m u m se t b a c k of te n fe e t (1 0 ' ) unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code . Bu i l d i n g se t b a c k s sh a l l ta k e in t o ac c o u n t wi n d o w s , en t r a n c e s , porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. 11 ‐4 In d o o r Sh o o t i n g Ra n g e Th e Ci t y ha s ap p r o v e d on e su c h fa c i l i t y in th e Gr a m e r c y de v e l o p m e n t . Th i s ha s ca u s e d is s u e s fo r co d e en f o r c e m e n t an d ot h e r se c t i o n s of ci t y co d e . Th i s us e is cu r r e n t l y de f i n e d as an in d o o r re c fa c i l i t y . Ad d e d th i s la n g u a g e ba s e d on fe e d b a c k fr o m th e pu b l i c he a r i n g . 11 ‐4 ‐3 ‐47 : IN D O O R SH O O T I N G RA N G E : A. No in d o o r sh o o t i n g ra n g e sh a l l be al l o w e d wi t h i n th r e e hundred feet (300’), measured from property line to property line, of a residential use or di s t r i c t , da y c a r e ce n t e r , ed u c a t i o n in s t i t u t i o n , ho s p i t a l , library or nursing or residential care facility. B. Ac c e s s o r y us e s in c l u d i n g , bu t no t li m i t e d to , re t a i l , eq u i p m e n t rental and restaurants are allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. C. Th e ap p l i c a t i o n sh a l l in c l u d e a so u n d st u d y pr e p a r e d by a licensed sound engineer that demonstrates how the proposed use will address the im p a c t of no i s e on ad j o i n i n g us e s . An y ad v e r s e ef f e c t s shall be mitigated through setbacks, buffers, sound mitigation and/or hours of operation. 11 ‐4 Re s t a u r a n t Ad d sp e c i f i c us e s st a n d a r d s fo r a re s t a u r a n t , sp e c i f i c a l l y to ad d r e s s pa r k i n g . 11 ‐4 ‐3 ‐48 : RE S T A U R A N T A. Pa r k i n g : 1. At a mi n i m u m , on e pa r k i n g sp a c e sh a l l be pr o v i d e d for every two and fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 2. Up o n an y ch a n g e of us e fo r an ex i s t i n g bu i l d i n g or tenant space, a detailed parking plan shall be submitted that identifies the available parking fo r th e ov e r a l l si t e th a t co m p l i e s wi t h th e re q u i r e m e n t s of this title. 11 ‐5A ‐6( G ) ( 5 ) Pu b l i c he a r i n g Ex t e n d th e ti m e pe r i o d wh e n th e Co m m i s s i o n ha s to fo r w a r d it s re c o m m e n d a t i o n to Co u n c i l . Ne e d to ma k e mo r e co n s i s t e n t wi t h th i s se c t i o n of co d e . 5. Th e de c i s i o n ma k i n g bo d y (s e e se c t i o n 11 ‐5A ‐2 , ta b l e 11 ‐5A ‐2 of this article) action shall be made within seventy (70) days after receiving all in f o r m a t i o n to ma k e a de c i s i o n or se v e n t y (7 0 ) da y s fr o m th e last meeting where the application is considered if additional information is not needed . Fo r ap p l i c a t i o n s wh e r e th e co m m i s s i o n is ac t i n g as a re c o m m e n d i n g body, the commission shall forward its recommendation to the council within se v e n t y fo r t y fi v e (45 7 0 ) da y s . 11 ‐5A ‐8( B ) Fe e s Re m o v e th e re q u e s t fo r fe e wa i v e r fr o m co d e . 11 ‐5A ‐8: FE E S : In th e ap p l i c a t i o n of fe e s fo r th e re v i e w of pe r m i t ap p l i c a t i o n s , the following rules shall apply: A. Ba s i s Fo r Ca l c u l a t i o n : Fo r an y re q u e s t e d pu b l i c he a r i n g in v o l v i n g more than one classification of a petition or application, the filing fee shall be ca l c u l a t e d on th e ba s i s of th e cu m u l a t i v e fe e fo r th e in d i v i d u a l application(s). B. Wa i v e r Of Fe e : No t w i t h s t a n d i n g an y of th e pr e c e d i n g fe e schedules, the city council shall have the authority to waive in whole or in part any ap p l i c a t i o n fe e wh e n su c h a fe e wo u l d pr e s e n t a ha r d s h i p . An applicant for a hardship waiver must present the request in writing to the city council, ou t l i n i n g th e de g r e e of su c h ha r d s h i p . C. Fe e s No t Re f u n d a b l e : Fe e s to be ch a r g e d fo r th e va r i o u s procedures stated above are not refundable, except where a petition or application is wi t h d r a w n at le a s t th r e e (3 ) we e k s pr i o r to th e da t e of it s scheduled public hearing, and then only after order by the city council. 11 ‐5B ‐4( B ) Va r i a n c e s Re m o v e th e ac c e s s to st a t e hi g h w a y s se c t i o n fr o m th e ap p l i c a b i l i t y se c t i o n ba s e d on re c o m m e n d a t i o n fr o m Le g a l . St a t e st a t u t e s do no t sp e c i f y ac c e s s to st a t e hi g h w a y s as pa r t of a va r i a n c e pr o c e s s ; ma y be in vi o l a t i o n . A. Pu r p o s e : Th e pu r p o s e of th i s se c t i o n is to es t a b l i s h pr o c e d u r e s for modification from the bulk and placement requirements of this title. B. Ap p l i c a b i l i t y : Th e pr o v i s i o n s of th i s se c t i o n sh a l l ap p l y to requests to vary from the requirements of this title with respect to lot size, width, and de p t h ; fr o n t , si d e , an d re a r se t b a c k s ; pa r k i n g sp a c e s ; bu i l d i n g height; all other provisions of this title affecting the size and shape of a structure or the pl a c e m e n t up o n pr o p e r t i e s ; an d th e pl a c e m e n t an d / o r nu m b e r of access points to state highways . If a means of alternative compliance is available, it sh o u l d be ex h a u s t e d be f o r e ap p l y i n g fo r a va r i a n c e . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 9 6 o f 2 2 4 05 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 17 Ta b l e 11 ‐5B ‐5 Al t e r n a t i v e co m p l i a n c e Cl e a n ‐up it e m to in c l u d e no i s e ab a t e m e n t st a n d a r d s in UD C 11 ‐3H ‐ 4( D ) ar e el i g i b l e fo r al t e r n a t i v e co m p l i a n c e . B. Ap p l i c a b i l i t y : 1. Th i s pr o c e s s is in t e n d e d to re p l a c e sp e c i f i c re q u i r e m e n t s as set forth throughout this title as follows: (Ord. 05 ‐1170, 8 ‐30 ‐2005, eff. 9 ‐15 ‐2005) TABLE 11 ‐5B ‐5 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE Pe r m i t Section Co m m o n dr i v e w a y 11 ‐6C ‐3 Co m m o n op e n sp a c e and site amenity requirements 11 ‐3G Fe n c e re q u i r e m e n t s 11 ‐3A ‐7 He i g h t ma x i m u m in co m m e r c i a l districts 11 ‐2B ‐3 He i g h t ma x i m u m in in d u s t r i a l districts 11 ‐2C ‐3 He i g h t ma x i m u m in TN ‐C district 11 ‐2D ‐5 La n d s c a p e bu f f e r fo r wireless communication facilities 11 ‐4 ‐3 ‐43 E La n d s c a p e re q u i r e m e n t s 11 ‐3B La n d s c a p i n g fo r ba s e of freestanding sign 11 ‐3D ‐8 Li g h t i n g st a n d a r d s fo r pathway along State Highway 55 11 ‐3H ‐4 C3 Ou t d o o r li g h t i n g re q u i r e m e n t s 11 ‐3A ‐11 Mu l t i ‐fa m i l y pr i v a t e usable open space standards 11 ‐4 ‐3 ‐27B3 No i s e ab a t e m e n t st a n d a r d s 11 ‐3H ‐4D Pa r k i n g an d lo a d i n g plan requirements 11 ‐3C ‐5 Pa r k i n g re q u i r e m e n t s 11 ‐3C ‐6 Pr i v a t e st r e e t st a n d a r d s 11 ‐3F ‐4 Pr o j e c t i n g si g n al l o w a n c e 11 ‐3D ‐8 E and F Si g n lo c a t i o n in th e O ‐T district 11 ‐3D ‐5 St r u c t u r e an d si t e de s i g n review standards 11 ‐3A ‐19 Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 9 7 o f 2 2 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: May 2, 2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2019-0034 2019 UDC Text Amendment PROPERTY LOCATION: City wide I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a text amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite #102 Meridian, ID 83642 B. Representative/Contact: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor Phone: (208) 489-0571 bparsons@meridiancity.org III. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: April 19, 2019 B. PSA distributed: April 16, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 198 of 224 Page 2 C. Next door posting: April 16, 2019 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5, the Planning Division has applied to amend the text of the Unified Development Code (UDC). For purposes of this application, both the Planning Division and the Code Enforcement Division have work closely to compile a host of changes and combine them into one application. The text amendment includes updates to multiple sections and the addition of new provisions that pertain to the following: Chapter 1: Notification of violations and definitions; Chapter 2: Residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables; Chapter 3: Ditches, laterals, canals and drainage courses, outdoor lighting, outdoor storage, traveling sleeping quarters, landscape standards, parking standards, qualified open space and variance processing; Chapter 4: Specific use standards for educational institutions, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant; Chapter 5: Public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance; And other miscellaneous sections to improve the administration of the code. All of the proposed changes to the UDC including the support documents are attached as separate exhibits. Commentary has been provided for each of the respective code changes and new additions that are proposed. Staff has highlighted the requested Code Enforcement changes in light gray to delineate their recommended changes. These recommendations are made in hopes of eliminating confusion for the public, addressing common issues, eliminating loopholes and making the existing codes enforceable. The changes being proposed by the Code Enforcement Division were not shared with the UDC Focus Group or the BCA as they do not directly impact development per se. These changes were vetted separately with City Council and fully endorsed. Staff has shared the proposed Planning’s Division changes with the UDC Focus Group and the BCA. Several members of the UDC Focus Group have expressed concerns with the open space changes (specifically removal of the street buffers from counting towards qualified open space) and believe they should be deferred until the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. At this time staff has not modified the document based on earlier conversations. Further, staff has not received any other recommendations to modify the current proposal. A separate memo prepared by staff was sent to the BCA addressing some of these concerns. The Commission should determine if it is in the City’s best interest to delay amending the open space standards until the Plan is adopted. In addition, the both NMID and SID shared their concerns with the City encouraging waterways to remain open and integrated with developments. Primary concerns were safety and maintenance. After discussing the issues with them, staff has modified UDC 11-3A-6 to include a requirement that the applicant execute a license agreement for the irrigation districts if a waterway is to remain open and public safety can be adequately addressed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 199 of 224 Page 3 Overall most of the proposed changes are supported by our Community partners. In summary, staff believes the changes proposed with this application will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable. V. DECISION Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV, modifications in Section VI and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 200 of 224 Page 4 VI. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text 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. Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s) when making this finding. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 201 of 224 03/08/2019 1 Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Problem/Question Potential Fix 11-1-11 Code enforcement Recently a UDC violation case went to a court trial. The prosecutor, defense council and judge all pointed out the UDC does not specifically outline the methods of service when serving a UDC violator notice of a violation. The MCC does outline this process in 4-2-3 (C) 1, 2 and 3. B. Investigation: 1. The code enforcement officer shall investigate any structure or use which he or she reasonably believes does not comply with the standards and requirements of this title. 2. If, after investigation, it is determined that the standards or requirements of this title have been violated, a code enforcement officer shall serve a notice of violation upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition. The notice of violation sha ll state separately each standard or requirement violated; shall state what corrective action, if any, is necessary to comply with the standards or requirements; and shall set a reasonable time for compliance. The notice shall state that any further violation may result in criminal prosecution and/or civil penalties. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 3. The notice shall be served upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition addressed to the last known a ddress of such person. If no address is known, then notice may be made by publication in the newspaper of record for the City of Meridian. The Code Enforcement Officer will record all efforts made to effect service in person or by mail as part of their investigative report . (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10- 2007). Methods of service shall be by any of the following: a. Personal service upon such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property; or b. Regular mail to such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property, at the address shown on the last ava ilable assessment roll, or as otherwise known; or c. Posting such notice and order at a conspicuous place on the property and publishing one notice in the official newspaper of t he City that the property has been posted in accordance with this chapter and ordering the owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property to remedy the violation by the given date. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of accessory use, residential. ACCESSORY USE, RESIDENTIAL: A use or activity on a residential property that is secondary to the principal use. 11-1A-1 Definition Separate the personal and professional definition. They are separate uses in the allowed use tables in Chapter 2. PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The use of a site for the provision of individualized services generally related to per sonal needs. Personal service uses include, but are not limited to, beauty and healthcare services such as salons, hair, nail and skin care, spa, and barbers; fitness training and instruction; locksmiths; and repairs such as footwear and leather goods, and watches. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; computer designers; consultants; lawyers; med ia advisors; photography studios; fitness trainers; and title companies. The term does not include healthcare and social service. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: See definition of personal and professional services. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; compute graphic designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photography studios; fitness trainers; and title companies general offices. The term does not include healthcare and social service. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of foot-candle. FOOT-CANDLE: A standard unit of measurement used to identify the intensity of light. A unit of illumination equal to that given by a source of one candela at a distance of one foot. This is the SAE/Imperial unit of measurement whereas Lux is the Metric unit of measurement. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of an indoor shooting range. INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A controlled area of activity, specifically designed for the discharging of firearms at targets. The term does not include arts, entertainment and recreation facilities. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of light trespass. LIGHT TRESPASS: Light emitting from one property that crosses the property line of another property in excess of 0.1 foot -candle as measured at a height of 60 inches above grade in a plane at any angle of inclination. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of lumen. LUMEN: A lighting industry standard unit of measurement used to measure the total quantity of visible light emitted by a sour ce. 11-1A-1 Definition Modify definition of open space to include linear open space. OPEN SPACE: An area substantially open to the sky that may be on the same property with a structure. The area may include, along with the natural environmental features, linear open spaces, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community centers or other recreational facilities. This term shall not include streets, parking areas, or structures for habitation. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of personal property. PERSONAL PROPERTY: Any property that is not real property. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 202 of 224 03/08/2019 2 11-1A-1 Recreational vehicle Add the term mobile tiny homes to the definition. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicle or portable structure primarily designed as temporary living accommodation for recreational, camping, and travel use. The term shall include, but not be limited to, motor home, travel trailer, fifth wheel trailer, truck camp er, fold down camping trailer, park trailer, mobile tiny homes and travel trailer. 11-2A-3(B)(3) Minimum street frontages Ensure common driveways provide access to an abutting public street. 3. Properties taking access from a common driveways do not require street frontage, but said common driveway shall connect to an abutting public street. Table 11-2A-6 Dimensional standards of the R-8 District Developer requested that the UDC specifically call-out setbacks for side loaded garages in the R-8 district. R-8 Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 4,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet): 40 With alley loaded garage, side entry garage, or private mew lots 32 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area and/or side loaded garage (in feet): Local 10 Collector 25 Alley 5 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 203 of 224 03/08/2019 3 Table 11-2A-2 Allowed uses in the residential districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40 Restaurant1 - - - - A Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the commercial districts. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Hotel and motel1 P/C P/C P/C - C P Indoor Shooting Range1 - - - - C - Industry, information1 P P P C P P Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards; specifically different parking standards. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Restaurant1 P P P C A A Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the industrial districts. Use I-L I-H Fuel sales facility, truck stop1 C C Indoor Shooting Range1 P C Industry, heavy1 - P/C Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use I-L I-H Restaurant1 A A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 204 of 224 03/08/2019 4 Table 11-2D-2 Allowed uses in the traditional neighborhood districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use O-T TN-C TN-R Restaurant1 P P - 11-2B-3(A)(4) Standards Clean-up item. Re-numbering this standard as it does not pertain to a dimensional standard. 4B. Hours Of Operation: Business hours of operation within the L-O and C-N Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Business hours of operation within the C-C and C-G Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C -C and C-G Districts may be requested through a conditional use permit. These restrictions apply to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, customer or client visits, trash compacting, and deliveries. These restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring within an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, cleaning, bookkeeping, and after hours work by a limited number of employees. 11-3A-6(B)(2) and (3) Ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses Amend this section of code to reference the definition of a water amenity in chapter 1 and grant the decision-making body on the application the authority to waive the tiling of irrigation facilities. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to limit the tiling and piping of natural waterways, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve, protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, Sout h Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fenc ing is proposed, the following standards shall apply. B. Piping: 1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a natural amenity and s hall not be piped or otherwise covered. See also subsection C1 of this section. 2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains may be left open when used as a water amenity or linear open space, as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. See also subsection C2 of this section. 3. Except as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals, sloughs or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped, or otherwise covered. This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actual drainage facility is located on an adjoining property. a. The city councildecision-making body may waive the requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved and a license agreement is executed with the Irrigation District. b. The city council may also waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 205 of 224 03/08/2019 5 11-3A-6(C)(3) Ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses Add the word sloughs to be consistent with section B. above. C. Fencing: 1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the city council, director and/or public works director. 2. Ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains do not require fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity. Construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idah o shall be submitted to both the director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. 3. Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains shall be fenced with an open vision fence at least six feet (6') in height and having an 11-gauge, two inch (2") mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 206 of 224 03/08/2019 6 11-3A-11 Outdoor lighting The current code does not adequately address light trespass. We are seeing advancements in lighting technology. These advancements are making lighting retrofits cost effective and common. With the retrofits come brighter lights. Code Enforcement is seeing an increase in light trespass complaints. Through a recent investigation, City Attorney staff and Code Enforcement learned light trespass is not enforceable with the language in our current code. The code allows for an exemption of all light fixtures below 1,800 lumens (equal to an average 120 watt incandescent bulb). One of these fixtures may not be a problem but the current wording of the code allows for an indefinite number of these unregulated fixtures to be installed in a single lighting project. The exemption allows said light fixtures to be configured in any way regardless how they impact an abutting property. A Lumen is a unit of measure routinely used by light fixture manufacturers and only practically measured in a laboratory environment. Lumen ratings are practical when used in the code for planning and development purposes but lumen measurements cannot be practically obtained in the field. This creates a huge obstacle for Code Enforcement when investigating light trespass complaints. The standard unit of measure for field-work in the United States is the foot-candle. Foot-candle measurements are easily obtainable from readily available instrumentation. The foot-candle must be referenced in the code to make light trespass enforceable. Lumens in the code should only be used when referencing fixture specifications as it applies to planning. Foot-candles should be used in the code to govern light trespass once the fixture is installed. Currently, when a permitted fixture is installed in a way that causes light trespass Code Enforcement cannot take any action. Holiday lighting is currently allowed for 40 days and is exempt from regulation. Which 40 days are not identified and such would require a daily inspection and documentation to prove/enforce. The exemption allows holiday lighting to be the source of light trespass and limit the enjoyment of abutting properties. We have seen exceptionally bright and flashing lights that illuminate a majority of an abutting property. The change would eliminate the 40 day period and have holiday lighting comply with light trespass standards. A. The following types of lighting are exempt from the regulations of this section: (Ord. 05 -1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of less than one thousand eight hundred (1800) lumens unless said fixture is the source of light trespass in violation of subsection C (3) of this chapter or is configured in a manner that impairs the vision of drivers and/or pedes trians in violation of subsection B (6) of this chapter. (Ord. 11-1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) 2. All outdoor lighting produced by the direct combustion of natural gas or other fossil fuels such as kerosene lanterns or gas lamps. 3. Temporary hHoliday lighting used for forty (40) days or less per year that is not in violation of this section. 4. Vehicular lights and all temporary emergency lighting needed for fire protection, police protection, and/or other emergency services. 5. All hazard warning lights required by federal or state regulatory agencies. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 6. Lighting when used to light a governmental flag in accordance with 4 USC 6(a); and provided, that the fixture used does not create light trespass in violation of this section. 7. Street lights and historical lights installed and configured to the appropriate specification for the applicat ion as determined by the Community Development Director or his/her appointee. B. The installation, use, or display of any of the following types of lighting and/or illumination shall be prohibited: 1. Mercury vapor lamp fixture and/or lamp. 2. Laser source light or any similar high intensity light. 3. Lighting that changes colors, revolves, or moves, including searchlights shall be prohibited in all districts, except wher e approved for temporary uses under a valid, current city of Meridian temporary use per mit. 4. Lighting, including strings of lights, on commercial or private tower structures that exceed the district height limit, ex cept as required by regulations of the federal aviation administration (FAA). 5. Strobing, revolving, or flashing lights. 6. Light or illumination with such brilliance or so positioned as to blind or dazzle impair the vision of drivers and/or pedestrians. 7. Low pressure sodium lighting. (Ord. 09-1436, 12-15-2009, eff. 1-1-2010) C. Standards: 1. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall have an opaque top to prevent uplighting; the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a full cutoff shield. See figure 1 of this section. 2. Light fixtures with a maximum output of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall be placed such that the effective zone of light (as documented by the photometric test report) shall not trespass on abutting residential properties. See figure 2 of t his section. (Ord. 11- 1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) 3. Floodlight fixtures shall be located in such a manner as to prevent direct glare into a street and to minimize impact on abut ting properties. a. Floodlight fixtures shall be set to go on only when triggered by activity on the property (sensor activated) and to go off within five (5) minutes after activation has ceased. b. Floodlight fixtures shall be installed so that they do not tilt up more than forty five degrees (45°) down from vertical. All light emitting from any parcel shall not cause the light level along any property line abutting a residential use to exceed 0.1 foot -candle. Light readings shall be measured at a height of 60 inches above grade and in a plane at any angle of inclination. Any light exceeding 0.1 foot- candle, when documented in the above manner, and extending onto an abutting residential use constitutes light trespass. 4. Floodlight fixtures shall be located positioned in such a manner as to prevent direct glare into a street and to minimize impact on prevent light trespass on abutting properties. a. Floodlight fixtures shall be set to go on only when triggered by activity on the property (sensor activated) and to go off within five (5) minutes after activation has ceased. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 207 of 224 03/08/2019 7 b. Floodlight fixtures shall be installed so that they do not tilt up more than forty five degrees (45°) down from vertical. 5. Uplighting shall only be allowed in cases where the fixture and any light it emits are shielded from the sky by a roof overha ng or similar structural shield. 56. In residential districts, the height of a freestanding light fixture on private property shall not exceed six feet (6'). St reetlamps are exempt from this height restriction. 67. Light fixtures mounted on a wall may extend to the full height of the stru cture, but no farther. 78. Electrical feeds to outdoor light fixtures shall be underground, not overhead. 89. If an owner or applicant desires to obtain an alternative compliance from the provisions of this section, the procedure sha ll be in accord with chapter 5, "Administration", of this title. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005; amd. Ord. 11-1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 208 of 224 03/08/2019 8 11-3A-11 Figure 1 Replace existing figure with new one Figure 1 EXAMPLES OF FULL CUTOFF SHIELDS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 209 of 224 03/08/2019 9 Figure 2 Replace existing figure with new one FIGURE 2 LIGHT TRESPASS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 210 of 224 03/08/2019 10 11-3A-14(A) and (C) Outdoor storage as an accessory use An outdoor storage investigation recently went to a jury trial. During the trial it was made apparent that our current outdoor storage language does not include “personal property.” This became an issue when defense counsel asked the investigating officer to explain how the items referenced fit the current language in the code. The current language easily applies to commercial properties but not residential properties. 11-3A-14: OUTDOOR STORAGE AS AN ACCESSORY USE: Accessory outdoor storage shall be allowed for an approved use subject to the following standards: A. All outdoor storage of material, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be conducted in an orderly manner. It shall be unlawful to conduct outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies in a manner that: 1. Creates a public nuisance, visual blight, or acoustic impacts by reason of condition, duration, and/or volume. 2. Blocks, impedes or overlaps any sidewalk and/or vehicular traffic. 3. Causes the site to be used as a "vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. B. For properties in commercial and/or traditional districts, outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and site landscaping so that the visual impacts of these functions are full y contained and screened from view of adjacent properties, the railway corridor, and public streets by a solid fence or wall with a minimum height of six feet (6'). Such fence and/or wall shall be constructed of complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary structur e. C. For properties in residential districts, all materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies, shall only be stored in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height. No outdoor storage of materials, equip ment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be allowed in the required street yard, except as follows: On corner properties, such materials may be stored in the street side yard where such area is screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height; see section 11-3A-7 of this article for fencing regulations in street side yards. 11-3A-14(D)(2) Outdoor storage as an accessory use Clean-up to provide clarification to this section of code. 2. For properties that adjoin the railway corridor, in addition to the standards of subsection D1 of this section, outdoor st orage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be screened from the interior edge of the required street buffer a distance of one hundred feet (100') from the edge of right of way parallel to the railway corridor. 11-3A-20 Travelling sleeping quarters The current title and the definition are inconsistent. The title reads in part “…Sleeping Quarters” and the definition reads in part “…living quarters.” The tiny house movement is growing in popularity and we are seeing them in Meridian. Mobile tiny houses are not currently defined in our code. As their popularity increases, we are fielding more inquiries about Meridian’s stance on them. 11-3A-20: TRAVELLING SLEEPINGLIVING QUARTERS: No motor vehicle or trailer including, but not limited to, travel trailers, fifth wheels, recreational vehicles, mobile tiny houses and/or motor coaches, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters except within an approved recreational vehicle park. No recreational equipment, including, but not limited to, tents, tepees, yurts, and/or huts, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters. 11-3B-5(A)(1) Standards and installation Update this section of code to reflect the newly adopted tree publication guide for the Treasure Valley. A. Approved Tree Species: 1. The publication titled "Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide For Streets And Landscapes Throughout Idaho" by the urban forestry unit of the Boise parks and recreation department (latest edition) is hereby adopted by this reference as the city of Meridian's list of approved and prohibited tree species. The publication categorizes the trees by size as class I, cla ss II, or class III trees. 11-3B-9(C)(2) Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Add flexibility to this section code so applicants don’t have to submit City Council Review application to reduce the landscape buffers when commercial and industrial uses abut a residential use. Example of this is when a conditional use permit is before Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission doesn’t have the authority to waive the buffer except through the City Council Review process. 2. Minimum Buffer Size: The width of the buffer is determined by the district in which the property is located, unless such width is otherwise modified by the decision making body set forth in UDC Table 11-5A-2 city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. The tables of dimensional standards for each district in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title establish the minimum buffer size. A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 211 of 224 03/08/2019 11 11-3C-4(A)(2) Parking standards for single- family detached, townhomes, secondary, duplex and single- family attached dwellings The amendment would cause the UDC to read more in line with the similar ISC 49-456. The UDC as it currently reads allows a vehicle to display any currently registered license plate even if the license plate is registered to another vehicle. Code Enforcement Officers have experienced this occurring when trying to get property owners to come into compliance. The front license plate of currently registered vehicle is often placed on the public view portion the unregistered vehicle. 2. Types Of Vehicles; Location Of Parking: Only automobiles and motorcycles displaying license plates and assigned to the vehicle with current registration may be parked in the required street yard. All other vehicles, including, but not limited to, vehicles without current registration, vehicles without license plates, recreational vehicles, personal recreational items, boats, trailers and/or other vehicles sh all only be parked in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 212 of 224 03/08/2019 12 Table 11-3C-6 Required parking spaces for residential use Modify parking standards to make it clear what parking standards apply to nursing care facilities and age restricted housing. Request of the UDC Focus Group members, they requested that 1 and 2 bedroom units have the same parking requirements. Use And Form Number Of Bedrooms (Per Unit) Required Parking Spaces1 Age restricted elderly housing (attached or detached) 1 0.5 per bed 2+ 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, duplex and dwelling, single-family (detached, attached, townhouse) 1/2 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 2/3/4 4 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 5+ 6 per dwelling unit; at least 3 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, multi-family3 (triplex, fourplex, apartments, etc.) 1 1.5 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 2/3 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 4+ 3 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in a covered carport or garage Dwelling, secondary 1 As set forth above for single-family dwellings as determined by the total number of bedrooms on the property Nursing and Residential Care Facility 1 0.5 per bed Vertically integrated residential4 1 1 per dwelling unit 2/3 1 per dwelling unit 4+ 1 per dwelling unit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 213 of 224 03/08/2019 13 11-3D-8(A)(14)(f) Sign requirements Include a new figure to the sign ordinance since there is a new interchange in the Ten Mile area. f. Properties within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way and properties adjoining the Interstate 84 interchanges, as depicted on figures 1, and/or 2 and/or 3 of this section are subject to the following standards: (1) Such freestanding signs shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, signs which may be permitted by the district provisions set forth in subsections B through H of this section. (2) Freestanding signs within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way are prohibited in resid ential districts. (3) The maximum background area of any sign shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. (4) The maximum height of any sign shall not exceed forty feet (40'). (5) Properties exceeding seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage may be allowed an additional height allowance and background area allowance. Such sign shall not exceed fifty feet (50') in height nor shall such sign exceed three hundred (30 0) square feet of background area. Only one such sign shall be allowed per seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage. 11-3D-8 Figure 1 Replace and add new Interchange figures. Figure 1 I-84/Meridian Road Interchange Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 214 of 224 03/08/2019 14 Figure 2 Figure 2 I-84/Eagle Road Interchange Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 215 of 224 03/08/2019 15 Figure 3 Figure 3 I-84/Ten Mile Interchange Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 216 of 224 03/08/2019 16 11-3G-3(B) Qualified open space Modify the open space standards to ensure the City is getting consolidated usable open space with residential developments. B. Qualified Open Space: The following may qualify to meet the common open space requirements: 1. Active Or Passive In Intended Use: Any open space that is active or passive in its intended use, and accessible by all residents of the development, including, but not limited to: a. Open grassy area of at least fifty feet by one hundred feet (50' x 100') in area; b. Community garden; c. Ponds or water features; or d. Plaza.; or e. Linear open space area that is at least 20 feet and up to 50 feet in width, has an access at each end, and is improved and la ndscaped as set forth in subsection 11-3G-3E of this chapter. 2. Additions To Public Park: Additions to a public park or other public open space area. 3. Landscape Buffer as Open Space Full Area of Buffer: The full area of the landscape buffer along collector and arterial streets may count toward the required common open space if developed with a 10-foot wide segment of the City’s pathway system, and where the pathway provides a direct route to an adjacent passive or active open space noted in B1 and B2 above. 4. Percentage Of Buffer: Fifty percent (50%) of the landscape buffer along arterial streets may count toward the required common open space. 5. Parkways Along Collector AndLocal Residential Streets: Parkways along local residential streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the common open space requirement: a. The parkway meets the minimum width standard as set forth in subsection 11-3A-17E of this chapter. b. The parkway is planted with street trees in accord with section 11-3B-7, "Landscape Buffers Along Streets", of this chapter. c. Except for alley accessed dwelling units, the area for curb cuts to each residential lot or common driveway shall be excluded from the open space calculation. For purposes of this calculation, the curb cut area shall be twenty six feet (26') by the width of the par kway. 6. Parkways Along Arterials: Parkways along arterial streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the common open space requirement: a. The parkway is a minimum of ten feet (10') in width measured between edge of sidewalk and back of curb. Where ACHD is anticipating future widening of the street, the width of the buffer shall be measured from the ultimate curb location as anticipated by AC HD; and (1) The parkway is planted with street trees and other materials in accord with subsection 11-3B-7C, "Standards", of this chapter; or (2) The parkway contains planter beds which meet the following requirements: A) Lawn areas account for no more than fifty percent (50%) of parkway. (B) Massed shrubs which at maturity provide vertical relief between minimum of one foot (1') and maximum of three feet (3') in he ight, cover at least twenty five percent (25%) of parkway area during growing season. Shrubs must be planted as a continuous edge or in a distinct repeating pattern to create vertical visual break between roadway and pedestrian areas (C) Planter beds must meet mulching and vegetation coverage requirements list ed under subsections 11-3B-5H and N of this chapter. 57. Stormwater Detention Facilities: Stormwater detention facilities when designed in accord with section 11-3B-11, "Stormwater Integration", of this chapter may count towards the qualified open space requirement if located within a passive or active qualified open space of at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and is visible from a public street(s) on at least two (2) sides. 68. Open Water Ponds: Aesthetically designed open water ponds and holding areas may comprise up to twenty five percent (25%) of a required open space area when developed with at least one (1) site amenity in accord with UDC 11-3G-3C. All ponds with a permanent water level shall meet the following standards: a. The pond shall have recirculated water. b. The pond shall be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 217 of 224 03/08/2019 17 11-3H-3 Variance process Legal has determined that variance may not be required for Council to approve an access to State highways per State Statue. This modification to the UDC is being requested by the City Attorney’s office. 11-3H-3: PROCESS: Staff shall review all development applications for compliance with these standards. The City Council decision making body may consider and approve apply modifications to the standards of this article upon specific recommendation of the Idaho transportation department or if strict adherence is not feasible. 11-4-3-14 Education Institution Add specific criteria for parking. I. In all commercial and residential districts, education institutions shall provide one parking space for every four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area. 11-4-3-27(B)(1) Site Design Recently, there have been some conflicts between the setbacks in the UDC and the building code. This change is needed to make it clear that the IBC has different ways of governing building separation on a property. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet (10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. 11-4 Indoor Shooting Range The City has approved one such facility in the Gramercy development. This has caused issues for code enforcement and other sections of city code. This use is currently defined as an indoor rec facility. 11-4-3-47: INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A. No indoor shooting range shall be allowed within three hundred feet (300’) of a residential use or district, daycare center, education institution, hospital, library or nursing or residential care facility. B. Accessory uses including, but not limited to, retail, equipment rental and restaurants are allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. C. The application shall include a sound study prepared by a licensed sound engineer that demonstrates how the proposed use will address the impact of noise on adjoining uses. Any adverse effects shall be mitigated through setbacks, buffers, sound mitigation and/or hours of operation. 11-4 Restaurant Add specific uses standards for a restaurant, specifically to address parking. 11-4-3-48: RESTAURANT A. Parking: 1. At a minimum, one parking space shall be provided for every two and fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 2. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space, a detailed parking plan shall be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with the requirements of this title. 11-5A-6(G)(5) Public hearing Extend the time period when the Commission has to forward its recommendation to Council. Need to make more consistent with this section of code. 5. The decision making body (see section 11-5A-2, table 11-5A-2 of this article) action shall be made within seventy (70) days after receiving all information to make a decision or seventy (70) days from the last meeting where the application is considered if additional information is not needed . For applications where the commission is acting as a recommending body, the commission shall forward its recommendation t o the council within seventy forty five (4570) days. 11-5A-8(B) Fees Remove the request for fee waiver from code. 11-5A-8: FEES: In the application of fees for the review of permit applications, the following rules shall apply: A. Basis For Calculation: For any requested public hearing involving more than one classification of a petition or application, the filing fee shall be calculated on the basis of the cumulative fee for the individual application(s). B. Waiver Of Fee: Notwithstanding any of the preceding fee schedules, the city council shall have the authority to waive in whole or in part any application fee when such a fee would present a hardship. An applicant for a hardship waiver must present the request in writ ing to the city council, outlining the degree of such hardship. C. Fees Not Refundable: Fees to be charged for the various procedures stated above are not refundable, except where a petition o r application is withdrawn at least three (3) weeks prior to the date of its scheduled public heari ng, and then only after order by the city council. 11-5B-4(B) Variances Remove the access to state highways section from the applicability section based on recommendation from Legal. State statutes do not specify access to state highways as part of a variance process; may be in violation. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish procedures for modification from the bulk and placement requi rements of this title. B. Applicability: The provisions of this section shall apply to requests to vary from the requirements of this title with respect to lot size, width, and depth; front, side, and rear setbacks; parking spaces; building height; all other provisions of this title affecting the size and shape of a structure or the placement upon properties; and the placement and/or number of access points to state highways. If a means of alternative compliance is available, it should be exhausted before applying for a variance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 218 of 224 03/08/2019 18 Table 11-5B-5 Alternative compliance Clean-up item to include noise abatement standards in UDC 11-3H- 4(D) are eligible for alternative compliance. B. Applicability: 1. This process is intended to replace specific requirements as set forth throughout this title as follows: (Ord. 05 -1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) TABLE 11-5B-5 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE Permit Section Common driveway 11-6C-3 Common open space and site amenity requirements 11-3G Fence requirements 11-3A-7 Height maximum in commercial districts 11-2B-3 Height maximum in industrial districts 11-2C-3 Height maximum in TN-C district 11-2D-5 Landscape buffer for wireless communication facilities 11-4-3-43E Landscape requirements 11-3B Landscaping for base of freestanding sign 11-3D-8 Lighting standards for pathway along State Highway 55 11-3H-4C3 Outdoor lighting requirements 11-3A-11 Multi-family private usable open space standards 11-4-3-27B3 Noise abatement standards 11-3H-4D Parking and loading plan requirements 11-3C-5 Parking requirements 11-3C-6 Private street standards 11-3F-4 Projecting sign allowance 11-3D-8E and F Sign location in the O-T district 11-3D-5 Structure and site design review standards 11-3A-19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 219 of 224 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 220 of 224 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 221 of 224 E FRANKLIN RD S E A G L E R D S E A G L E R D E OVERLAND RD §¨¦84 [ Legend Interch ange Sign Area Parcels 0 10.5 MilesPrint Date: 4/25/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 222 of 224 E OVERLAND RD S M E R I D I A N R D S E 5 T H W A Y S S T O D D A R D R D W OVERLAND RD S S T R A T F O R D D R S M A I N S T E CENTRAL DR §¨¦84 [ Legend Interch ange Sign Area Parcels 0 10.5 MilesPrint Date: 4/25/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 223 of 224 W O V E R L A N D R D S T E N M I L E R D S B L A C K C A T R D §¨¦84 [ Legend Interch ange Sign Area Parcels 0 10.5 MilesPrint Date: 4/25/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 224 of 224