The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-06-20MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 6:00 PM 1. Roll-Call Attendance __X__Lisa Holland __O__Andrew Seal __X__Rhonda McCarvel __X__Reid Olsen __O__Ryan Fitzgerald __O__Bill Cassinelli __X__ Jessica Perrault - Chairperson 2. Adoption of Agenda - Adopted 3. Consent Agenda [Action Item] - Approved A. Approve Minutes of May 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public H earing 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 for Rackham Subdivision (H-2018-0126) by BVA Development, Located at 1020 S. Eagle Rd. – Recommend Approval to City Council. Scheduled July 16, 2019 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district B. Public Hearing for Silver Springs (H-2019-0058) by Tall Timber Consulting and Todd Campbell Construction Inc., Located at 1035, 1157, 805 & 905 E. McMillan Rd. – Continued to July 18, 2019 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.19 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 57 Building Lots and 6 Common Lots on 19.74 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District. C. Public Hearing for Caldera Canyon (H-2019-0062) by Vanessa Klaus, Located at 1294 E. Leigh Field Dr. – Recommend Approval to City Council, Scheduled July 23, 2019 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat Consisting of Sixteen (16) Building Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on 2.83 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District; and 2. Request: Modification to an Existing Development Agreement for the Purpose of Removing the Subject Property from DA Instrument #106064914 to be Placed in a New, Separate Agreement Meeting Adjourned at 7:58 PM All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing should contact the City Clerk's Office at 208-888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 20, 2019. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 20, 2019, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Jessica Perreault. Members Present: Chairman Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Lisa Holland, and Commissioner Reid Olsen. Members Absent: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Andrew Seal. Others Present: Charlene Way, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Stephanie Leonard and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X____ Lisa Holland ___X___ Reid Olsen ______ Andrew Seal _______ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Rhonda McCarvel _______ Bill Cassinelli ___X____ Jessica Perreault - Chairman Perreault: Okay. Good evening, ladies and Gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on June 20th, 2019. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Perreault: Thank you. Next was the adoption of the agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda for June 20th, 2019? McCarvel: So moved. Olsen: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3; Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of May 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 4 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 2 of 38 Perreault: Next on our agenda this evening is the Consent Agenda and we just have one item, the approval of minutes for the May 16th, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Olsen: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with a staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After they have finished we will open for public testimony. There are iPads in the back if you would like to sign up to speak. Each person testifying will -- will come forward and be allowed three minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to respond if they desire. Then we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have a chance to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Rackham Subdivision (H- 2018-0126) by BVA Development, Located at 1020 S. Eagle Rd. 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C -G zoning district Perreault: So, at this time we will open our active items this evening. We will start with the public hearing for Rackham Subdivision, H-2018-0126. Let's begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 51.59 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and is located at 1020 South Eagle Road. This property was annexed in 1995 and a development agreement was recently approved. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use regional. A preliminary plan is proposed, consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. The subdivision is proposed to develop in at least three phases as shown on the phasing plan. Primary access exists to this site via South Silverstone Way, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 5 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 3 of 38 a collector street at the southern boundary of the site. And that is right here where you can see my pointer. And a secondary access is available via South Rackham Way, a local street, at the southwest corner of the site. And that is right here. All lots within the proposed subdivision are subject to the cross-access and parking easement. The Idaho Transportation Department submitted a letter to the city recommending the developer construct a second right turn lane at the eastbound off ramp prior to commencement of phase three or exceeding 668 p.m. peak hour trips as mitigation in lieu of mitigating for impacts to the northbound left turning movements at the westbound ramp and this is an off-site improvement and isn't required as part of this application. Staff is just merely telling you the input that ITD had on this application. So, although this mitigation would provide some relief to the overall operations of this interchange, which ITD feels is reasonable to offset the developer's impacts, because this is an off-site improvement staff does not recommend it's required with the plat. However, it may be considered with the upcoming development agreement modification that will soon be submitted for this project. A 55 -- excuse me -- 50 foot wide landscape street buffer containing a pathway is required along I-84 and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along Silverstone Way a collector street. Rackham Way stubs to the site at the southwest corner as I mentioned and a shared cross-access driveway is proposed along and adjacent to the southern boundary between this property and the property to the south. There has been no written testimony received on this application and staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions. Perreault: Do Commissioners have any questions for staff? Thank you, Sonya. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Wardle: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Geoffrey Wardle. My address is 251 East Front Street, Boise. Suite 200. I'm counsel for the applicant BVA, dba Eagle View, which is the owner of this property. Okay. We are in agreement with the staff report. I want to highlight and identify just a couple of issues that we -- that we want to go through and recognize that this application hasn't been before you, so we are going to give you a little bit of the background that we gave to the City Council when we got the development agreement approved a couple months ago. Eagle View Landing is the 51 acres that formerly was a farmstead. It was previously owned by the Idaho Elk's. This is a site that DVA Affiliates have worked on for several years, as we have worked through this and with the extension of Silverstone as part of Rackham and the improvements on Rackham as part of Norco's project this is now developable. However, this property has a long history, because it was annexed into the city for a large retail center in 1995. Originally in the 1995 approval it was zoned C-G, the city's most intensive commercial use, for a large retail center that would have been approximately 70 acres. It contemplated 700,000 square feet of retail around a rather significant parking field. Now, since then the -- the property has been divided. There are currently two owners. You had other applications in front of you relating to the Norco and Kissler properties to the south, as well as this one. We -- throughout the time that we have been working on this -- and, like I said, I personally have worked with Tommy Ahlquist on this almost six years as was the first time that we had it under contract and did the evaluation for what it could be utilized, we recognized that retail of this intensity is unnecessary and not conducive to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 6 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 4 of 38 what Meridian's Comprehensive Plan is seeking to do. That this really should be an employment center bringing quality jobs closer to the residents that we have and we should be promoting uses that are complimentary with respect to their times and traffic flow. So, what do we propose? We propose a mixture of office, retail, commercial, medical, hospitality, entertainment with seven of the acres in the southeast corner designated for future development that will be some mixture of office, commercial, or multi-family, but that will be subject to a future application and as we talk about phasing, that will make more sense in a moment. This is the preliminary plat with the buildings on it as -- as previously contemplated in the development agreement. It has always contemplated three significant office buildings located in this location, a mixture of hospitality and retail uses down here. The other possibility of either hospitality or office here, with medical office out at this location and, then, a future entertainment facility up here. When we talk about those properties in the southeast corner as part of phase three, it's this seven acres right here. The phasing plan was previously approved as part of a development agreement and as we have been working on infrastructure planning with staff and with Public Works, as well as dealing with market conditions, we are going to be making an amendment to that development agreement that we have been coordinating with staff on, so that this preliminary plat and that development agreement modification end up at the City Council at the same time. It's not a modification of structures, it's not a modification of any placement of buildings, it's just how do we get through the phases and what elements come first. So, this was the approved plan. The first building that we are working on and that documents are in applications for the CZC, design review, and building permit, are in for the ICCU building, which is right here. We contemplate a second office building here, which was originally intended to come forward this summer, but due to demand and due to configuration of how these are going to be, we are actually going to start with this area down here in these buildings, so that the whole western portion of the site will come in together. But we are not modifying the -- the location of the retail, we are not modifying the location of the structure here or these improvements here, it's just an issue of timing. So, as we have worked with staff on the phasing plan for infrastructure, the first phase involves and includes the construction of the main drive in, as well as all of your primary site infrastructure and utilities, which will be here in the central part of it and that's why we have proposed this phasing plan where phase two will happen in -- depending upon market conditions, just because that infrastructure is already in. So, we will have the infrastructure that's in the table to do that as we do part -- as we do phase one. And this is the exhibit that Sonya had shown with -- with that phasing overlaid onto the -- onto the preliminary plat, with the caveat that all of this infrastructure that's necessary to be extended upon the private drive that extends north from Silverstone Way, is located in this location. So, we are generally in agreement with the conditions of approval. I want to just talk about four things in our conversation with staff. We want you to be aware of it and we want to put it on the record, but it's stuff that we believe that we will be able to clean up in the next few weeks with staff before we get to the City Council. Those deal, first of all, with the buffer on the Silverstone right of way. Second, the Jewel Subdivision connection. Third, the water connection. And, then, finally, the ITD requirement that Sonya -- or ITD request that ITD -- that ITD had forwarded that Sonya shared. Silverstone Way is a public street that dead ends at this property. In our discussions with ACHD, it's been determined that as long as we build a mini roundabout Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 7 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 5 of 38 at this location that the site can be served with private access drives and that's the intention. So, we will provide the buffer that staff talks about, but we just want to be clear that when we talk about that -- the roundabout here is the terminus of Silverstone Way and so all of these areas immediately here -- immediately adjacent to this will comply with both ACHD and the City of Meridian's requirements, but it is not a public street to the north and I think staff and our engineering team -- everybody is in agreement and ready and able to work through that, it's just we wanted to be clear as to what our interpretation was and from my conversation with Sonya I think we are all on the same page. Next there is a requested condition that we provide a cross-access easement to the south in Jewel Subdivision. Now, Jewel Subdivision is a large lot rural subdivision that was platted in Ada county in the '60s or '70s and if -- we have all been doing this long enough we see these designations pop up on plats for future road easement. Ada county required them. Ada County Highway District does not recognize them and many of the property owners don't recognize them and this is something that we find with some degree of regularity in the rural areas of Ada county for plats that were recorded in the '60s or '70s. We had originally approached these property owners about the utilization of this designated 50 foot wide future road easement as a secondary emergency access and had a negative response from those owners, so we went and solved that problem elsewhere. We are fine with a cross-access requirement, but it needs to be predicated on the fact that we will reserve it and preserve it, but, obviously, we are not going to grant it and open it until some point in the future when those properties redevelop and those owners make that available. It wouldn't be a public street, because, obviously, there is not a public street that it would connect to, but we recognize the importance of connectivity and support that. So, unless and until the Jewel owners, you know, grant the reciprocal right and open it, we -- we agree with the condition, but we just want to be clear that we are not telling the Jewel property owners that they are having to open their property as part of this condition. It's a condition that your staff has recommended. There was a discussion of -- in the staff report about the water connection and, obviously, this is a big site and requires extension of water facilities through it. We understand that the issue that has been raised by Public Works is we had shown a stub of the water here to the eastern boundary. It's important to note that here on the northeast corner where the future recreational area will go, their water access and their need for where they would take their water would be on that northwest side. So, we contemplate that, yes, there would be a looping of the water through the site. The sole reason, though, that we show that stub is that at some point when Rolling Hills redevelops and water needs to be extended to Rolling Hills, we need to do that. So, I think it's just an issue for Public Works and our engineering team to work through that the reason we stubbed that to the east wasn't just to, then, stub it to the north, it's just to provide that future connection to the east to Rolling Hills when that redevelops and we don't perceive that to be a problem, because as I indicated, the water service for this parcel here is going to be up here on the northwest portion of that and that's where the water is. So, ultimately, you're going to be able to loop it up like that with an extension here to the east for a future connection. Now, the last thing I just want to comment on is we have had a lot of discussions with staff about ACHD's requirements. We are in agreement with them. ITD issues -- we have a lot of meetings and discussions with those as well and we recognize there are significant traffic impacts of Eagle and Overland and at the interstate. Originally -- originally ITD had requested that we improve Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 8 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 6 of 38 the northbound turning movements coming off the westbound ramp by constructing a third lane and our objection to that was none of the turning movements created by this project relate to a northbound turning movement on that westbound lane. It's off site. It's not related to the traffic. It's not related to traffic that we generate. They came back and requested that at the third phase or 668 p.m. peak hour that we consider a second access -- a second right turn lane here on the eastbound off ramp and that may satisfy some of those constitutional requirements, but there is -- anytime we talk about an off-site improvement there is always a concern with is the impact proportionate to what the property and the project is causing and is there actually a nexus between them. We do not deny that there are significant traffic issues out there. The issue that we see, though, is a lack of consistency in ITD's requests of municipalities, that ITD needs to get out front of these issues. We are willing to participate with our proportionate share. We always are. We are even willing to take the lead in doing it. But you can't just stick a large application with an impact that relates to improving an overall system that has been neglected by the -- the transportation planners. So, ITD needs to engage -- future developments in this area need to participate. We are more than willing to cost share, but we will work through that with staff. So, conclusions, we generally support the staff report. We will work with staff on those items and we appreciate staff's characterization of ITD's request, because we do agree that that's something that can and should be addressed in the future. And with that I will stand for any questions you might have. Perreault: Do the Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Is there anyone here to testify this evening for this application? Way: We do not have anybody further to testify. Perreault: Okay. Is there anyone here in the room that would like to come forward and testify on this application? Okay. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Madam Chair, before we close the public hearing I would like to ask staff a question. Are you in agreement with all of the points the applicant brought up at the end? These four additional things? Allen: Madam Chair -- McCarvel: The applicant referred to that they -- they have been in contact with you and you're in agreement. I just want to make sure that's the case. Allen: While we are in agreement I believe on the -- after I clarified the street buffer requirement on Silverstone, we are in agreement on that. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 9 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 7 of 38 Allen: Mr. Wardle brought up several things that are more development agreement related that aren't necessarily the subject of this application. We are in agreement that we are not requiring any off-site improvements as mentioned in the ITD report. There is not a requirement in the staff report to provide a cross-access easement aligning with the access easement from the subdivision to the south -- McCarvel: For Jewel? Allen: South boundary. Yeah. There is -- there is not a provision in the staff report for that. So, that is something that I mentioned in the staff report that we may be considering with the development agreement modification though. But not with this application, so -- McCarvel: Then the Eagle View Landing water? Allen: I am not sure on that. That was a Public Works condition. So, any modification of that would have to be run through them. So, I would suggest the applicant make contact with them before the Council hearing. Wardle: Madam Chairman, Commissioner, just to clarify about the water loop issue there. We have had those discussions. We are designing -- the recommendation of Public Works was if you're going to stub it to the east end, then, go ahead and run it all the way down Rolling Hills and we are just like that's not necessary and it's not the time for that. We are stubbing it so we can do that, but we will loop it back to the northern property boundary, it just isn't showing right now. So, we will get that solved and I don't disagree with Sonya that these are development agreement issues, it's just the fact that since this is piggybacked with a development agreement application that will come in next week, we have been trying to sort out as many of these issues as possible with staff at the same time. McCarvel: But I did have one more question for you. Do you have -- the only access in there is not really coming along where the current Norco building is, it's -- Wardle: So, there are two points. There are two public streets that dead end. McCarvel: Okay. Wardle: There was Rackham here on the west -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Wardle: -- which is a constrained right-in, right-out off of Overland and, then, you have Silverstone Way, which comes up here past the Norco building, which is a five lane collector with a signal at Overland. So, those are the two points of public contact. And, then, in our negotiations with Norco there is going to be a shared private drive that connects those two with an easement benefiting both of those properties for circulation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 10 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 8 of 38 McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Any additional questions? Commissioner Holland. Holland: So, just looking at, you know, the transportation plan and how people would be coming in and out of this site for the proposed entertainment, recreation facility on Phase 2-B, would they be going through the roundabout and straight through that or would they be cycling in the roundabout and to the east and up? What's your thoughts there on how traffic would flow? Wardle: So, Madam Chairman, Commissioner Holland, the way that this is being engineered and designed and the way it will be constructed is that we have this southern access -- shared access drive across here with a -- essentially a secondary vehicular access here and a secondary one over here and, then, it loops around. So, we -- as we have designed this and worked with our transportation team -- and this was -- this is what has taken so long with this application is sorting through with ACHD exactly how this mini roundabout works and, then, how the internal circulation works and so our traffic study has been designed -- and this has been designed so that you're going to be able to go through -- you're going to be able to go right, you're going to be able to go left and there are going to be various points of access to get back there. Now, obviously, internal circulation becomes an issue of signage, but if we provide enough alternative access points through the site, we think that helps to dissipate traffic and it helps to keep the traffic moving at an appropriate speed, because the intention is that this is a single lane through here with retail fronting on it with angled parking, so that it is intended to slow those vehicles down. Holland: Thank you. Perreault: Are those all the questions? Wardle: Thank you. Perreault: Thank you very much. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Rackham Subdivision, H-2018-0126? Olsen: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Rackham Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 11 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 9 of 38 Perreault: Who wants to start our conversation? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I -- I think it shows a lot of promise and I like the mix of uses there, instead of just all being retail. The flow of traffic I don't see being concentrated at any one time, which I think will help things through there. Rather than having all one use in having something try to go on that corner seems like it's been a long time in the making, but I do like the mix of uses on this, instead of all the retail. Perreault: Any other thoughts? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: If Commissioner Cassinelli was here I think he might be happy to see all the parking. The one thing that's always a challenge for me is it's good to have enough parking, but I also don't want to see Meridian become a sea of asphalt either and so it does look like a lot of parking for -- for this application. I don't know that that's something we necessarily need to change, but certainly would have -- for something that needs this much parking I would have liked to have seen maybe a parking structure of some sort. Again, I don't know that we really have control over that, but just a thought I wanted to voice out there. Overall I like the mix of uses there. I think it's smart to have a blend of office, medical, entertainment, retail and some potential multi-family or other commercial in the future. No big concerns on the -- the general mix. Always like to see more green space when it's possible, but I think with the plan it looks like they have got a pathway that kind of goes around the site. There is, obviously, an entertainment option that's coming in the top right corner there that would be kind of a recreational amenity that might help offset that a little bit. But those are some of my thoughts. Perreault: Thank you. Commissioner Olsen, anything to add? Olsen: No, I see no reason why we can't approve this. Perreault: Okay. I agree with Commissioner Holland. I -- it felt very great asphalt intense -- intensive. I guess if you're going to have a project with this much parking that's the location to do it right there along a main area. I don't -- I don't love that much parking, but there wouldn't be a different location where -- where that would suit that I can think of. So, other than that I agree with my fellow Commissioners on the variety of actually what will be there, the variety of services that are offered to the public, and it will be nice to -- it will be nice to see something go in there. So, if there are no other comments or questions, can I get a motion? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 12 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 10 of 38 McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council for file number H-2018-0126, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 20th, 2019. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just one question. Do we -- and maybe this is a question for staff. Do we need to mention anything about the four items we talked about? I know a lot of those are in the development agreement conversations, but since there was mention of those things in the staff report, especially the Public Works one, I don't know if we need to mention that. That they would work with Public Works staff to find something that would work for them. Allen: Commissioner Holland, I don't -- I don't know that any changes are necessary to the staff report, unless you're changing a condition. McCarvel: Than I will second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to approve the application for Rackham Subdivision, H-2018-0126. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Silver Springs (H- 2019-0058) by Tall Timber Consulting and Todd Campbell Construction Inc., Located at 1035, 1157, 805 & 905 E. McMillan Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5. 19 Acres of Land with an R- 4 Zoning District; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 57 Building Lots and 6 Common Lots on 19.74 Acres of Land in the R- 4 Zoning District Perreault: Next we will open the public hearing for Silver Springs application, H-2019- 0058. Let's start with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 13 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 11 of 38 consists of 19.74 acres of land. It's zoned R-4 and RUT in Ada county, therefore, it's already in the city and it's located at 1305, 1157, 805 and 905 East McMillan Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is McMillan Road and single family residential properties in Saguaro Canyon and Larkwood Subdivisions, zoned R-4 and RUT in Ada County. To the west are single family residential homes zoned R-4 in Copper Basin Subdivision. To the east is a home and landscape business, zoned RUT in Ada county. And to the south are single family residential homes in Havasu Creek Subdivision and an elementary school, zoned R-4. A little history. This property was previously platted as Lots 1 through 4, Crestwood Subdivision. Lots 1, 2, 3 were annexed into the city in 2006 with R-4 zoning. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential, which is three or fewer units per acre. Staff has revised the staff report about an hour ago based on some -- a determination by legal counsel. So, I just want to make sure that you do have the correct staff report in front of you. The one that I e-mailed -- I think it was right at 5:00 o'clock or right there abouts today. So, apologies for that lateness and I will go over the summary of the staff report. First, the annexation and zoning is requested of the eastern 5.19 acres of the site with an R-4 zoning district. There is an existing home on the property and a landscape nursery is currently operating on this site and was recently approved through Ada county to operate for an additional five year period of time. The applicant is requesting this business is allowed to continue operation in the city temporarily with a sunset date of December 31st, 2022, at the latest in order to sell off his existing inventory. This use is classified as a nursery, an urban farm, and a contractor's yard in the UDC, which is a prohibited use in the R-4 district. However, because the landscape business is currently legally operating in the county, it would be considered a nonconforming use in the city. As such the use may continue if deemed appropriate by City Council, as long as it remains lawful is not expanded or extended per the standards for nonconforming uses and that is the section that was revised in the staff report. Staff had previously interpreted that it was -- it would be a prohibited use if it was brought into the city and legal determined that it would actually be a nonconforming use, which is allowed to continue if -- if Council determines annexation of the property is appropriate. So, just to clarify that. And, then, they are proposing a preliminary plat consisting of 57 single family residential building lots and six common lots for the development of detached homes at a gross density of 2.89 units per acre, consistent with the low density residential future land use map designation. The subdivision is proposed to develop in two phases as shown, with the last phase developing once the landscape business use ends. There are four existing homes and accessory structures on this site that are lots in the proposed subdivision. All other accessory structures are proposed to be removed. One public street access is proposed via East McMillan Road, an existing stub street, North Mooney Falls Way, at the south boundary of the site, is proposed to be extended with development and a stub street is proposed to the east for future extension. All of the existing homes will take access from local streets within the development, except for one. The property at 1035 McMillan Road, which is Lot 12, Block 3, is proposing to retain their two driveway accesses via McMillan and that is a picture of the home here and, then, the red arrows here pointing out the existing driveway locations. Council approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A3 is requested for these accesses to remain. ACHD is requiring the west access to be closed. So, that would be this one right here. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along McMillan Road, containing a five foot wide Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 14 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 12 of 38 detached sidewalk and this is a copy of the landscape plan that the applicant submitted and it does show several of the existing trees on the site. The ones with the X's through them are the ones that are proposed to be removed. This is the children's play equipment that's proposed. A minimum ten percent qualified open space is required to be provided with this development. The qualified open space exhibit shown depicts area that does not qualify and that is this small area right here at the west end of the property. Staff is recommending a revised exhibit, plat and landscape plan, is submitted prior to the Council meeting that complies with the minimum standards. A minimum of one site amenity is also required. A children's play structure and micro path to the school site to the south are proposed as amenities in accord with UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single family residential homes as shown. Written testimony has been received from Dave Yorgason, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report and he will go through his requested changes. Staff is not in support of the existing landscape business use continuing operation in the city as a nonconforming use for the following reasons: First, the use is commercial and industrial in nature and is not an allowed to use in the R-4 zoning district. Second, the use is not compatible with the proposed residential uses. Third, any code enforcement issues would be the responsibility of the city. Fourth, it's difficult to track sunset clauses in development agreements and if the use is not concluded by the sunset date, it becomes the city's responsibility for enforcement. Therefore, for these reasons staff recommends denial of their proposed annexation of this parcel as it's staff's opinion that it is not in the best interest to the city to annex the property at this time. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat request per the conditions in the staff report. Staff recommends if the Commission and Council determines it is in the best interest to annex the property at this time, as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending the project is continued to a subsequent hearing date in order for staff to prepare recommended development agreement provisions related to the existing use and for the applicant to submit a copy of the site plan approved by Ada county. As is, if the landscape business comes into the city, they are no longer tied to the terms of the conditional use permit that was approved in the county. So, without a development agreement and provisions related to the use, which would probably include the specific use standards for such uses in the city, they wouldn't have any regulations associated with it. If Council -- if Commission and Council agrees with staff's recommendation, staff is recommending the project is continued to a subsequent hearing date in order for the applicant to submit a revised preliminary plan that excludes the subject annexation area and if that happens, their access from the south here would not be feasible as a public street at this time. However, there does appear to be adequate room for a 20 foot wide emergency access for secondary -- secondary access for the site. So, those are the issues we are looking at. Staff will stand for any questions. Perreault: Do the Commissioners have any questions for staff? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 15 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 13 of 38 McCarvel: Sonya, does maybe a sunset date of December 31st of this year help at all? Allen: That would be a question for the applicant. McCarvel: Okay. I mean as far as staff is concerned for the complications on the city side of it and enforcement and all that kind of good stuff. Allen: If we bring them in and we annex them, then, it becomes the city's responsibility. McCarvel: Okay. Allen: If we say that -- and this was the way it was written in the original staff report is probably what you're referring to, but originally I had said staff would support annexation if the business terminates within six months and the six month clause was before the property was annexed, meaning it would conclude before the development agreement was signed. So, then, it would not be an issue for the city for enforcement. If that helps. Perreault: Okay. Are you finished with the staff report? Allen: Yes. Perreault: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward. Allen: Dave, I will get your presentation up there. Yorgason: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Dave Yorgason. For the record my address is 14254 West Battenburg Drive in Boise. And I'm here on behalf of myself, as well as Todd Campbell Construction. We are the two developers of this development. We are master planning together. And appreciate staff's thorough analysis. This is a complex site and the -- so, it's not uncommon to have in-fill sites be difficult. So, I will just keep moving into the project here. As you see the -- the layout, we have -- we have worked through various issues, but let me give you a quick summary of this. First of all, the Silver Springs development is two developers working together to master plan the community, which we think it is better to master plan than piecemeal this development. It will be a total of 57 homes, four existing and 53 new homes, all of which are within the compatible size and homes in the surrounding area. It's four parcels in total -- totaling about 20 acres, three of which were mentioned were previously annexed into the city as R-4 and one parcel as an existing parcel in the county, requesting the same zoning. We are not requesting rezoning of the other three parcels. It will be custom homes or semi-custom homes. Again, consistent with the surrounding area. We are also providing the pedestrian access -- an additional one for the school site, as well as a children's tot lot play area. This is in-fill development, which always seems to have challenges. So, if I can move here -- here we go. What are those challenges? First of all, we have access issues. We have a challenge with designing around existing homes and competing with a substantial number of trees -- existing trees -- try to preserve as many as we can, as well as the existing landscape business operations that were Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 16 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 14 of 38 referenced earlier. A quick summary as ACHD staff report did come in late, though, it should be in your most recent packet I understand. We agree with all the conditions of approval of ACHD. We don't have any objections to them and it's a staff level and so it's complete. With regard to the city staff report, this latest version I will try and refer to that one as I think that's what we are talking about today. I have made some adjustments to my presentation in the numbering sequences and just have a few proposed hopeful changes to the staff report. Let me hit the big one that was discussed earlier and that was the existing landscape business. Out there there are actually three existing landscape businesses that operate in that area. Ours is being included in this development is one of the three. It is by far the least intensive of the three landscape business operations. They have recently went through the process. He is a pretty good rule follower. I have actually been very impressed with his efforts. The other two I don't want to disparage, but I haven't seen the same efforts, where this gentleman currently renews his conditional use permit with the county and it was recently approved a couple weeks ago with no opposition and the same -- virtually the same conditions as before. However, he is not a full-fledge contractor where he's bringing lots of trees and a heavy contract use, where some contractors adjacent are doing. He is not bringing anymore inventory in. He's actually more of a tree farmer and the bulk of the one thousand trees on the property are existing trees in the ground and you can't just pull them up and haul them off and go plant them, but he tries to estimate how many trees, based on the work that he has in front of them, and you have to, then, dig them up when they are dormant and that's how the business works for him. He doesn't have a lot of staff. It's not a retail operation. It's a very small operation, which is very different than the two other adjoining parcels. As a side note, he has been recently approached by one of those operators that if this property is not annexed into the city would you, please, sell to me so he could expand his business even further. So, I would agree with staff that this type of use is not appropriate in a residential area. However, I also believe it is in the city's best interest to get them under the control of the city, so that these types of operations don't expand even further and have a greater impact on the residential areas. So, with that in mind I do believe that adequate timing is needed and so our request, when we get to that point with the development agreement with annexation of the site, is that the city does annex the property with a condition for the sunset clause, as well as to make sure that he doesn't expand the business further and maybe more or less comply with similar conditions that are already in place, but put upon him by the county. The landowners, as I approached him today, as I said, well, yes, I could probably live with the date that staff had mentioned, the June -- I think June -- Sonya, looking it up for a second. It's June 2022 is what was originally discussed. There is -- there is a fear of the market. You just never know where it's going. Recognizing really his -- his preference would be to be allowed to have the currently allowed five years and so the June 2024 is the seller's request. This is an old condition, but I will just highlight it, recognizing it may come up as we get to the development agreement. There is consideration of expanding and adding sidewalk across the entire frontage of the development. There is no problem with the first three parcels that will be developed in phase one. However, with this eastern parcel there is a problem and several facts to it. First of all, this homeowner -- he lives there and he doesn't just travel back and forth, he actually lives there with those nursery trees in the back and he has substantial landscaping with a waterfall for privacy and sound buffer that would Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 17 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 15 of 38 have to be removed in order to put the sidewalk in the location ACHD would require it to be. So, the hope is -- and he -- well, I will say it this way: The other concern would be is we install it where the approximate locations for the berming, there is still technically access points that he currently utilizes, two for the construction business and one for the -- for the home, with the sidewalk behind one point and low down another point is that accommodates existing driveway accesses. Those areas have got to be torn out. So, it would just be a waste of money to put those sidewalk pieces in. And, lastly, again, with those two landscape businesses further to the east, this would -- and I hate to say it, but it really would be a sidewalk to nowhere. There is no intentions or plans for those two businesses to turn into a type of use that would allow or require a sidewalk to be in place. So, we are not saying we won't put sidewalk in, we are just asking we put it in at the same time as the rest of the phase two development improvements go in. That would be our request. Now, this is an important concern of ours. It's listed in the current staff report as A.1.b. There is a requirement for the cul-de-sac length on the western side. We were working with an existing access problem for the site. There is an easement that was recorded in the first phase of the Copper Basin development on Red Horse Way. On our western boundary it's a 50 foot wide ingress-egress access. However, it's an easement, not a public right of way. And the city and ACHD have asked that we approach the Copper Basin HOA and see if they would cooperate and be willing to utilize this as a public right of way and short answer is never would that be allowed and ACHD legal research didn't determine they cannot require that upon this developed as well and so with that in mind we are very restricted in our design options with the site. To show this illustration here, the yellow arrow is where that 50 foot wide access easement is, but it's not for a public right of way and public use and this red arrow points to the cul-de-sac of concern. It's approximately 50 or 60 -- about 60 feet longer than -- than the 450 that's desired by the city standards. We have looked at a lot of variety of options and alternatives how to design this. Every time we come up with something that's more inefficient, but still the same length of cul-de-sac. Our ask is that this condition be waived and deleted and allow the slightly longer cul-de-sac for this development. Just a couple of minor items. Staff had mentioned allowing the existing access for 1035 East McMillan to retain their current access. We wrote this response to the city prior to receiving the ACHD staff report. I have talked to the owner at 1035 who will stay in this home by the way. He is -- he is the first owner of the home. He has lived there since the '70s and just a couple of key points. ACHD does support one single access as it aligns with the Larkwood Street, which is the key point there, and so we are requesting -- I don't know if this commission can make this determination or if it's by Council, but we are asking that the City Council grant this waiver that's been -- we know it's been allowed in a few other locations in the city, but either delete the condition A.1.d as written or modify the condition to allow the existing access until the property redevelops and there is the arrow pointing to that access. Lastly, real quickly, there is condition A.1.e and A.2.e, the request for a common area -- additional common area pathway to McMillan on the eastern portion of the development. We are requesting that not be in place and the reasons why our as follows: First of all, we met with city staff to identify the pedestrian and street connectivity from the development. There was an initial request to have pedestrian access to McMillan. As we worked through the access issues we were -- we were determined that the only way to have the vehicle access is, of course, to assume access on McMillan. So, now we are providing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 18 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 16 of 38 both pedestrian and vehicle access with the new entrance. We are not aware of any comp plan requirements for spacing. We think it's more of a nice to have, not a true requirement to have secondary pedestrian access, frankly, requires to do this to design a lot of existing trees -- we will probably have to lose another lot with the development to accommodate this and there is -- there is plenty of interconnectivity within the neighborhood adjacent to the east when that gets developed as well. So, our -- our ask is that a second access -- a second pedestrian access not be required or just allow the main entrance, which would include pedestrian access suffice for that request. Therefore, we asked that condition A.1.e and A.2.e be deleted. In summary there is two developers working together trying to do a master plan for development. It will be a quality development with -- compatible with the adjoining surrounding areas. It's an in-fill development which has several challenges as listed and request approval to the changes as I note here with regard to the annexation of the five acre parcel and allow the business operations to continue, as well as delete the conditions as listed and, then, grant that waiver for a single access for the home on 1035 McMillan. Thank you for your time. I will stand for any questions. Perreault: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? Okay. I have one for you. Has there been any conversation about -- about you purchasing -- the developer purchasing that eastern parcel, holding onto it, leasing it back to the tree farmer and, then, you know, doing a modification to the development agreement at the time that he is done selling everything and going from there? Yorgason: Madam Chair, actually, yes, and he said no. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Yorgason: You're welcome. In fact, he asked me if I would put an offer together and I spent time doing it and, then, he said no. Not because of value, but because he changed his mind. Perreault: I see. Thank you. Any additional questions? Thank you very much. Yorgason: You're welcome. Thank you. Perreault: Is there anyone here signed up to testify? Way: There was no one signed up to testify. There were two that signed up just as a neutral, so I don't know if they -- Perreault: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to come forward and speak on this application? Please state your name and address for the record. Reed: I'm Jennifer Reed. 4989 North Larkwood Place and I am the HOA president for our subdivision for Larkwood. I'm new to the board, so coming to this meeting is a little bit new for me to figure out exactly what I'm supposed to be doing and understanding, but Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 19 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 17 of 38 the neighborhood does have a -- quite a concern for the traffic and it having only one access to -- in and out of all those homes where we already have major traffic problems getting in and out of our neighborhood with sight -- line of sight and accidents that happen on the road, because we only have one access and we have to stop for pedestrians and, then, we have to stop for the traffic. A left turn currently is not very easy, especially during the high traffic hours between 3:30 and 6:00 o'clock. So, having to stop again for more traffic with the neighborhood coming with only one access, they could be turning right, so, then, therefore, we have to watch again for more traffic from Saguaro, which is where we used to be able to, which is the light. It would now be right by our subdivision, having to -- not even have access to go to the left and traffic is continuing to increase upon McMillan, so our major concern throughout the neighborhood is that the traffic is going to increase exponentially. It's already increasing just with the city -- the general traffic and stuff that we have. So, having a subdivision there with the two lane road in and out is already a big problem for our subdivision. So, that's our major concern with that many houses and only having one access and it's straight onto McMillan is a big concern of ours and I don't know if they mentioned with the application the size of the -- the lots that will be going there and so we didn't know the size of the families and cars and how much traffic will be coming in and out there is kind of -- one of our big concerns. Perreault: Where is the entrance to your subdivision? I'm sorry. Is it to the east or the west of the -- the light on Copper Basin? Isn't there a light there? Reed: Yes. There is -- there is the one at the light at the Copper Basin. We are to the west side? The Locust Grove side. I don't know my east and west. We are between the light at Locust Grove and the Copper Basin. Perreault: Okay. Reed: We are right across from the home that is -- that is trying to only have the one driveway come. Their initial driveway it comes right out of our subdivision. So, the home that is existing has a rounded driveway where they go in one way and come out the other and our subdivision is right across from -- from -- Perreault: On the south side of the road? Reed: Yes. Yeah. Perreault: Okay. Reed: The north side where the -- yeah. Perreault: Okay. Are you -- are you across McMillan from them or -- Reed: Uh-huh. Perreault: -- are you -- okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 20 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 18 of 38 Reed: Yeah. Perreault: All right. Any questions for -- Reed: Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak on this application? Please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Graham: Laird Graham. 1215 East Green Haven Street, Meridian. So, the comments that I have have to do with irrigation water and I guess I might ask does the Commission want to hear about this or do I have the wrong forum? Perreault: It depends on what your concerns are. Graham: Okay. All right. So, the applicant's properties are served by the Parkins Nourse irrigation lateral, which is part of the Settlers Irrigation District, as is our property. Our property flood irrigates and we take -- there is multiple issues here. Number one is I haven't heard anything about where they are going to get their irrigation water. Perhaps they are going to get it out of this lateral and, then, I would be curious to know what the system they are going to use to assure -- to deliver irrigation water to the homes. They have an issue with -- this is the third subdivision and the one coming next on your agenda will be the fourth in Crestwood Estates and we have an issue in Kingston where they take their water for their homes out of the ditch and they need continuous delivery, but we flood irrigate and we take all the water out of the ditch for a period of time, thus they can't give continuous delivery, because we take it all for a period of time when it's our turn, so to speak and they didn't make a provision for that and that created a conflict that we have kind of had to work through. We are in a period of plenty -- plenty of water in the last few years and so it hasn't been -- it was resolvable, but if it was short of water we would probably have a bigger problem than we do. Also the water that serves these four properties needs to stay in that lateral. We don't need -- at the time we don't need all that water, but we need the volume that it creates, so that we can flood irrigate our properties. Also the water is coming at these properties and they need to make a provision to drain it, because if it doesn't drain it backs up and floods those of us that are going to flood irrigate and so I would be curious to know how they propose to handle that. I assume it's going to be by a drain and it needs to be properly sized so it takes it all, otherwise it backs up and we have had some issues with that in the past. Perreault: Is that everything? It looks like the three minutes is up or close to it. Graham: That's my concerns. Perreault: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, if there is no one else here to testify and you have no other questions for staff, we can close the public hearing. Can I get a motion? McCarvel: We need the applicant to come up. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 21 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 19 of 38 Perreault: Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. Please come back forward. Excuse me. Yorgason: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Dave Yorgason for the record. Not a problem. Happy to answer all the questions. I heard a couple of questions, one from Mrs. Reed about the access and traffic and lot sizes. Lot sizes are consistent with the R-4 zone in the surrounding areas. I think the minimum for that zone is 8,000 square feet, all of which we exceed that. The homes, again, will be consistent -- or similar. Not the same as, but similar to the surrounding homes. Not theirs, because that's -- that's an old county subdivision with large lots, but all the other urban subdivision houses. If we go to access and traffic, she's right, I wish I could have access to Red Horse Way. That is by far the best solution to this development. It's not an option. And so we are -- we put it in the location that ACHD told us to put it in and so that's why this development complies with ACHD's conditions and so, unfortunately, you may not like that answer, but -- but the reality is is to -- to develop this site that's where this will be and -- and yet it's also spaced adequately to provide better -- better safety than just somewhere else. Secondly, Mr. Graham had asked some questions about irrigation. We have had several conversations with the irrigation district -- a couple with Settlers Irrigation. Also with a gentleman who has been serving, though I don't know if he currently still is, with regard to the irrigation board with the Parkins Nourse Lateral. He is also a resident of the Heritage Common Subdivision. So, he kind of dual serves in those roles. We have had several conversations with him as well and we have looked at a couple of different options. I agree with -- with Mr. Graham as far as the rotation of water is not ideal. It is very problematic. In fact, I know Kingston has a greater problem than we do, because their rotation is much shorter than ours. They are one five acre parcel, we are four, and so, in essence, we have four times the amount of water that they do. So, we have already been working through a solution on that and we -- we actually have two different alternatives, one of which will be tested later this summer, which if -- if it satisfies all of the users, including Mr. Graham, then we will actually look at some -- some alternatives for point of diversion changes. If that's not satisfactory, then, we will just deal with the water that we have coming to the site. We have several private wells that are on site that are ample, including the landscaper who uses it for irrigation, that we use as backup water and supplemental water for this development. So, based on our analysis we have two options of how to irrigate this -- the site. The other question was asked regarding wastewater and we plan on piping it, just like it traditionally does. The water historically came from the east and flow to the west. These four parcels are the last four parcels in the line of water and once it hits the end it goes to the north to McMillan to the large canal on the north side of McMillan and we will just dispose of the water where it did traditionally. So, no changes there also. I think that answers the questions, Madam Chair, but I will stand for any questions you might have. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just out of curiosity, what was the reason on why Red Horse Way wouldn't be an option? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 22 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 20 of 38 Yorgason: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, the easement is not for public use. It was -- it was just an access easement for an adjoining parcel. If you read the language it's vague on the plat. It's unfortunate it wasn't dedicated for public use. It wasn't a -- more importantly dedicated as a public right of way. So, that's the first part of it. So, we are required as landowners to approach the adjoining neighbor to see if they would be willing to grant it as public right of way and, honestly, that's -- in my over 20 years of doing this probably one of the most, if not the worst, most difficult homeowners association meeting I have ever attended. The way I was talked to. And that's okay. That's part of my job. So, I did as I was asked to do to try to sell it and try to show how this is better for everyone, but at the end of the day I was without common sense and didn't have care for children and so forth and so we tried, but legally we cannot make it happen. Holland: Okay. Thank you. Yorgason: You're welcome. Perreault: Anymore questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Yorgason: You're welcome. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Before we -- we move to deliberation, I almost want to make the recommendation that we keep the meeting open during deliberation, because there has been a lot of concerns from staff about wanting to possibly continue this, so it might be good to just keep it open while we deliberate. Just a suggestion. McCarvel: I agree. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: I guess we will start with the annexation in general. I do think the sooner we can get it annexed probably the better and, then, that will at least allow these to develop as they need to as they can -- you know, as far as this plat, but agree that if we do annex it -- we need to give staff time to word it properly and get the agreements in place. I do think probably given this area and how developed it is all around it, I would -- I would say the sooner getting it into the city is probably the better, even with the sunset clause. I'm not sure that it should be up to 2024, but -- I don't know -- I don't know if there is a whole lot of things in here to look at. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 23 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 21 of 38 Holland: I would tend to agree with the statements that I think that we might need to allow the applicant and staff to work together on that five acres, because I feel like extending it to allow them to be there until no later than June 2024 leaves quite a bit of room for longevity, but maybe there is some sort of middle ground that they could work on, whether it's six months or whether it's a year, because I understand that if you have got a business, especially when it's landscaping, you have got lots of trees to move and it's not just as easy to uproot them and move them, they would need some time to kind of close out operations and understand staff's concern that once it's R-4 it's not an allowed use. So, maybe if we were to make a recommendation for continuation I would just ask that staff would work on what date they would feel comfortable with, if they were to let that be grandfathered in, until a certain point in time and, then, we can make that recommendation to Council. Looking at the other conditions they asked for, they requested to delete the condition that the applicant install the sidewalk in front of McMillan at the 1157 East McMillan. Certainly understand their concerns there, but I know it's always challenging, because if you don't put sidewalks in when development processes are going through they don't come back in later. But I think their request is that they would still would put in the sidewalk, they just didn't want to do it at the beginning part of the development. McCarvel: Right. Holland: So, I don't know that I have a concern with phasing of it, as long as it gets put in there at some point. So, I guess I'm kind of neutral on that one overall. Allow the western cul-de-sac to be allowed. Again, I think that's a staff and ACHD item of concern, because I don't know what's allowed in code and I know they can only make so many exceptions on some of those things. But, again, I'm kind of neutral on that one, too. And, then, they also asked us about the existing residence at 1035 East McMillan, granting a waiver. That's not up to our discretion, that's up to City Council, because we don't have the right to give that waiver. But we can certainly make our comments known. I don't have a concern with them keeping one access point, but I think having two accesses on the driveway probably is more than they need. So, that's where I'm at. McCarvel: Madam Chair, didn't they say ACHD has already said they can only have one. Holland: Right. McCarvel: That is the one to the east I think. Holland: The only other thing they asked us about was to not require the common lot pathway and, you know, I don't know what our -- what our pathway master plan shows in that area, but if they want to have a pathway that is connected with the rest of the system I would say we encourage that, because there needs to be more pathway connections in Meridian. Those are my thoughts for now. Perreault: So, it's my understanding that the owner of that eastern property asked for the five years, but the applicant had originally stated three years in their application. So, I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 24 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 22 of 38 think that's what -- and that's what the applicant is requesting is to have five and, then, of course, the staff had -- had mentioned something along the lines of six months that goes along with the schedule of development, so that the city would not have to police the situation. So, it sounds like the applicant looked for three years if -- if it's something that we recommend to City Council that they be permitted to proceed with annexation. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I guess I have less heartburn over it being that it's not retail, but it is pretty much just trees being grown there and dug up when they are dormant. So, kind of in the offseason anyway. It's not as if they are -- you know, it's commercial going in there amongst the residential, it's just watering trees pretty much. So, I guess I am -- I am leaning a little bit towards -- I mean I think that in and of itself lends itself to go ahead and get it annexed and get the plans in place. But I'm open to having the applicant and staff work that date out. But I don't think it needs to be 2024. Within -- somewhere between six months ago and like two years at the most. Perreault: That leads me to a question for the applicant. Mr. Yorgason, would you mind coming forward again. Is there a possibility of creating an agreement with that landowner that if the trees are not removed within the time period decided that -- that, then, that would be your opportunity to purchase the property from him within a given period of time? Do you think he would be agreeable to that? Yorgason: Madam Chair, we have a -- just to be full disclosure here, our contract is to purchase the property as we -- as we go. So, we are, obviously, purchasing the portion of phase one within days after the approval by City Council and we have the option to purchase phase two already. It's just a matter of as soon as the trees are gone. As I was leaning over talking to one of our partners over here, we are going to use as many of the trees as we can on our site. That's more efficient for us. Cheaper for him and for us. There is a lot of efficiencies with that. But, again, there is a little over a thousand trees. We can't use all of them on our site, as much as that might look really nice, that's a lot of trees for 53 houses and so -- so we will -- obviously, he has other customers he sells them off to and that's why I was comfortable with a three year time frame. Six months, two years, is not going to work, just because of dormancy and just all those trees won't disappear in one year, recognizing when the clock may start, but that's our goal to answer your specific question. If you want to put that condition in I don't know how you enforce it, but that is our plan. Perreault: Yeah. Yorgason: Just -- if you want to put it in there I'm not going to oppose it, probably, I just don't know how you enforce that if I can't -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 25 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 23 of 38 Perreault: I just wasn't sure if -- if you had a purchase agreement with him or if there was a closing -- if you had already come to an agreement on a proposed closing date of three years or if he was insisting on the five or how that was -- was working for you. Yorgason: And, Madam Chair, there is no hard closing date, only because we really kind of don't know when this gets approved and, then, he has an idea how often -- how many trees he uses per year and so that's kind of where that three year time frame came. But I recognize it could be two years. It probably won't be five, unless the market shifts pretty quickly, but one year is not infeasible. Hope that helps. Perreault: Just the point that you being in possession of the land makes a big difference; right? Yorgason: Madam Chair, that's -- I have offered it once, so I will offer it again. He will probably stay in the home. But even as of early as yesterday he's thinking I don't know if I will stay here any longer, because his business operation will get chewed up so quickly with our first phase that he might move quicker. I can't hold him to it. We don't have a contract that says that either. But he is understanding that this is not the right location for this type of use, especially as the homes get closer to return. Perreault: Okay. Thank you very much. Yorgason: I hope that helps. Holland: One more question. Yorgason: Sure. Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Would there be a chance -- and this might be a question for staff -- if they were to enter into some sort of formal contract with the landscaping company, would that help appease some of staff's concerns about transitioning out of that use? Allen: Madam Mayor, Commissioners, that's really a decision for the Commission and Council. Perreault: Thank you very much. Yorgason: You're welcome. As stated before, I will say it on the record, we are the purchaser of the whole five acres, just in two phases, and it could happen in two years. It's not going to happen in five. But it will happen as quick as we can. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Yorgason: You're welcome. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 26 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 24 of 38 Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I still feel like there might be some conversation needed to have between staff and the applicant about the dates and what would make staff feel more comfortable before I feel comfortable moving this forward, because we can make a recommendation and say three years, but I would still rather have staff feel more comfortable with that and maybe if they were to work out some sort of formal agreement before it comes back to us again, that could be something that helps mitigate that. That was why I brought up that suggestion. But, again, that leaves the city in charge of managing something that they don't want to manage, but, anyway, just a thought. I would love to hear my other Commissioners' thoughts on some of the other conditions, too, that we had requested of us. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I know you're in the middle of deliberations, but I think I -- just want to clarify for the record what our intentions are for the landscape business. So, as you know staff recommended denial of the annexation. In our presentation to you it wasn't for you -- it's not that we are not willing to work with the applicant. The intent is that it -- the Commission wants to recommend that use continue to City Council and we ask that you would continue the project out, so that we can bring back some DA provisions that you feel comfortable with. I think that's the intent, not staff -- it's not staff working with the applicant to be comfortable with the business, it's what you feel comfortable with as you make a recommendation to City Council and ultimately becomes a City Council decision. But we -- if that's the direction you want us to go, we need the time to come up with the DA provisions to support the annexation request. That's, really, the intent for the -- the continuance. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I do agree that -- with Commissioner Holland as far as the sidewalk. I would be comfortable with that in phase two. It doesn't make any sense to dig it all up and be doing stuff when it's not ready -- especially when the sidewalk doesn't lead to anywhere yet, but I do think the sidewalk needs to be there, but I would be comfortable with it in the phase when that part of the property is being done and with the cul-de-sac and the driveway, I think that was City Council's purview I believe. It doesn't seem too excessive, but I think that was -- Allen: Madam Chair? Excuse me. If I may. There is no condition of approval for the sidewalk to be constructed in phase one. That was in a previous staff report. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 27 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 25 of 38 Allen: So, please, make sure you're -- you're referencing the current staff report in any changes you might make to the staff report. With the removal of the development agreement provisions there is just the preliminary plat conditions now. McCarvel: Okay. So, those other -- Allen: Not an issue on that one. McCarvel: Those items that were listed on the summary page of the applicant's presentation we don't need to address. Allen: They were in reference to the previous version of the staff report. McCarvel: Okay. Allen: The timing -- if you -- like Bill referenced, if the Commission is leaning towards recommendation of the annexation, it's purely the Commission's purview on the timing for that to remain in effect. So, if you guys would make a decision on that then -- but a continuance so that staff can come up with recommended development agreement provisions. McCarvel: Okay. So, then, you want to address all those other items in the -- in the continued version and they don't -- we don't need to address those in a motion tonight, we just need to continue the whole thing. Allen: I'm not sure what other ones you're referencing. McCarvel: On the applicant's -- key record, applicant's presentation and last -- that summary page there, they were wanting a couple of items deleted. A.1.b, A.1.c, A.1 -- Allen: I believe those -- Dave, do those reference the previous version of the staff report? Yorgason: Madam Chair, if you like I could just help here for a minute. The conditions referenced are primarily, first of all, the pathway that goes to the eastern side. That's what those two conditions are, Sonya. A.1.e and A.2.e. A.1b -- now I am going from memory, but that's -- these are all new to the new staff report -- the new revised final staff report we are referencing here. If you go back up I will find it real fast. Allen: The requirement for the common lot with the pathway to the north to McMillan would be something that you need to make a recommendation on if you wish to vary from the staff report. So, Dave -- excuse me. Dave did include all the -- McCarvel: Okay. Allen: -- current -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 28 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 26 of 38 McCarvel: So, if we want a pathway to stay, that's the way it's written in the newest version and so we don't have to mention it at all. Allen: Right. McCarvel: Okay. Yorgason: Madam Chair, the other one was the western cul-de-sac, that A.1.b. That was the western cul-de-sac. Allen: And, Madam Chair, there is no provision in the UDC to vary from that maximum length of 450 feet. The variance doesn't apply and neither does alternative compliance. Perreault: In other words, that can't be waived. Allen: Unless city attorney has any recommendation on that. Pogue: No, I do not. Perreault: Is that clear to all Commissioners? Holland: Madam Chair, just to summarize what we just talked about. So, if we make a motion to continue this tonight, we would still need to address what I want them to talk about and it does in the staff report and, then, when it comes back to us we would make a motion to City Council if those things still hadn't been changed, if we wanted them changed in the next one. So, in my summary of what we have talked about so far -- and I would love to get your other thoughts, but we would want to continue it to let staff work on a new staff report and a development agreement application for that landscaping business, if we decided we wanted that five acres annexed as part of this application. The installing the sidewalk in front of 1157 East McMillan, we can make a recommendation that they remove the phasing requirement and the western cul-de-sac we can't change anything about, so we will just ignore that. And, then, granting a waiver for the existing resident for the transportation access probably isn't relevant at this point, because, again, we are not moving it forward to Council to make a recommendation for continuation and, then, there is the common lot pathway that we still need to address. It looks like staff has requested in condition A.1.f that they submit a revised qualified open space exhibit, because they need to do some -- some changes and modifications. So, I would say leave that in there. McCarvel: Yeah. Perreault: Sonya, I'm sorry, I'm a little unclear on where that proposed pathway would go. Their east boundary? Allen: Now I'm trying to remember if it was from here or from here. Just one second here. It was in the second phase. In the brown area. That's general location. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 29 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 27 of 38 Perreault: In between the lots? Lots 12 and -- Allen: Yeah. Anywhere there would be fine. Perreault: Okay. And is my understanding from reading the application that that landowner is not in favor of having a pedestrian pathway next to his property, just -- any other questions for staff or for the applicant? So, I think that with a motion we need to be clear whether we are intending on recommending approval of the annexation or agreeing with staff in denial of the annexation and, then, all of the items that we would request that the applicant to work on and our comments to state the -- each section of the staff report clearly. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I would support -- I think it is in the best interest to annex the property at this time and to allow this development to move forward in a reasonable manner, so I would -- I would be in favor of continuing it to allow the staff to put the verbiage in that it needs to have. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: I agree with that idea of continuing it to give them time to work through this. Perreault: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair, I would be happy to make a motion if everybody is ready for me to or if anyone else would like to they are more than welcome. All right. I move to continue file number H-2019-0058 to the hearing date of -- I'm going to pause for a second and look at staff for direction on when they would like to move that to. McCarvel: The 25th. Perreault: Do we want to -- do we need to close the public hearing, by the way, before we do this? McCarvel: No. Perreault: Oh, that's right. No, we don't. Holland: Does that give you enough time to work on a development agreement -- July 18th. I haven't made the whole motion yet. Sorry. All right. I move to continue file number H-2019-0058 to the hearing date of July 18th for the following reasons: That staff Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 30 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 28 of 38 would work on a development agreement for the application related to the landscape business operation and how those five acres would be transitioned in -- at the 1157 East McMillan and when they would be able to phase out of operation. That the applicant would work on a new revised qualified open space exhibit and landscaping plan that complies with the minimum open space requirements, but before that comes back to us. And I think that's all I need to include right now. Olsen: I would second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue file number H-2019-0058 to the date of July 18th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: So, we need to go ahead and make a motion to close that hearing then, correct, before we open the next one or are we -- Pogue: No. We are fine. C. Public Hearing for Caldera Canyon ( H- 2019- 0062) by Vanessa Klaus, Located at 1294 E. Leigh Field Dr. 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat Consisting of Sixteen ( 16) Building Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on 2. 83 Acres of Land in the R- 8 Zoning District; and 2. Request: Modification to an Existing Development Agreement for the Purpose of Removing the Subject Property from DA Instrument 106064914 to be Placed in a New, Separate Agreement Perreault: Just a little out of order from what we usually -- what we usually do. All right. Good. Okay. All right. So, now we will open the public hearing for Caldera Canyon, H- 2019-0062 and begin with the staff report. Leonard: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The last project before you this evening is for a preliminary plat and development agreement modification. The subject site is 2.83 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-8 and is located at 1294 East Leighfield Drive. To the north is residential zoned RUT in the county. To the south is East Leighfield Drive, which is a collector and a single family residential subdivision Quenzer Commons, which is zoned R-8. To the east is single family residential, zoned RUT in the county. And to the west is a single family residential subdivision, Quenzer Commons, which is also zoned R-8. This property was annexed and entered into a development agreement with Quenzer North Subdivision in 2005. It was final platted as Lot 2, Block 31, within Quenzer Commons No. 10 in 2006. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community, with a neighborhood center Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 31 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 29 of 38 overlay at the top. You will see that in the center map here. Tonight we are -- the applicant is requesting a preliminary plat consisting of 16 building lots and three common lots on 2.83 acres of land and a request to modify the existing development agreement to remove the subject property and to enter into a new development agreement. The applicant proposes to construct 15 single family residential detached dwellings, with one existing home to remain at the southeast portion of the site here, Lot 12, Block 2. The proposed gross density is 5.65 dwelling units per acre, while the net density is 6.91 dwelling units to the acre, which falls slightly below the mixed use neighborhood with a neighborhood center overlay target density of eight plus dwelling units per acre. Given the in-fill nature of the 2.3 acre site, staff feels that the proposed development is generally consistent with proposed designation and is supportive of the density. Lot sizes are consistent with a R-8 zoning district. One public street access is proposed from East Leighfield Drive here. It stubs to the north for future redevelopment of this larger RUT zone, zoned commercial here. The existing home is proposing to maintain its current access East Leighfield Drive. The driveway is right about here. East Leighfield is a collector road. The existing home is also going to maintain its current access there, via the existing driveway. The UDC requires that all subdivisions provide local street access to any use that currently takes access from a collector road. In accord with UDC standards staff is recommending that the applicant extend a local street stub to the east, somewhere over here to this RUT zoned parcel and also extend the driveway to the west to provide access to the existing home in lieu of the existing driveway. Council to vote on a waiver to UDC 11-3-A3 is requesting that the current driveway access to remain and to refrain from extending a local street to the east. If Council does not grant both access waiver requests, the applicant will need to redesign their plat to provide local street access to Lot 12, Block 2, the parcel to the east. There was a redevelopment plan that was a redevelopment exhibit that was submitted with the application, showing how this parcel would generally redevelop if the current land -- or current property owner were to move. Generally they are proposing one extra lot if that were to happen with a hammerhead driveway and also common driveways that was submitted showing four homes that will be taking access from the common lot. These two will be taking access from Heritage View Avenue, which is a public street that's being proposed. Conceptual building elevations were submitted and generally looking like this. It will be pretty consistent with other homes that are in the area, all single level. And with that -- oh. I guess written testimony was received from the applicant's representative Penelope Constantikes. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and we will stand for any questions. Thank you. Perreault: Do the Commissioners have any questions for staff? Would the applicant please come forward. Constantikes: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, Penelope Constantikes, Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 82701. As staff has indicated, the applications for before you this evening are for a subdivision and for a development agreement modification to remove the existing subject site from the Quenzer Commons No. 10 development agreement and implement a new development agreement. As you know, Caldera Canyon is an in-fill subdivision west of Locust Grove between Ustick and Middleton and it's your evening to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 32 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 30 of 38 deal with this general square mile of property that's almost fully developed. At least 90 percent of the square mile is fully developed. There is only about six parcels remaining that are large enough for more than one lot or up to a few lots, with the largest parcel being north of the subject site and we just saw four of those parcels with the Silver Spring Subdivision application. The lot sizes that are proposed will be comparative -- comparable with a variety of lot sizes in the vicinity and the architecture will complement the homes in the vicinity of the site. This subdivision does benefit from the existing road network and proximity to schools, public parks, and commercial services. Other than the street being constructed with the subdivision, no other road improvements will be required. Another benefit of this subdivision is it will position the parcel to the north with connectivity and services when development occurs on that parcel. So, I would like to just go directly to my comments regarding the staff's conditions of approval if that's okay. So, the first item is the shared driveway near the north boundary of the site that's going to serve the current four proposed lots. We provided some illustrations demonstrating that there could be one more lot or internal access for the existing residents and if you could put up the -- the one with the blue house that shows -- or the blue -- that's the second one. This one here. That's correct. So, there is really only two options. We can add an additional lot in the future or we can put in an internal driveway, which is the next one with the pink. There. So, if we were to do an internal access point for the existing home, there won't be any landscape buffer along Leighfield, because we will have to get into it in order to provide enough radius for people to get turned around and into the garage, so -- but with the -- the ability now for this home to be sold as a horse property, I don't anticipate that the additional lot is going to show up at the end of that shared driveway for some time to come. So, as I have discussed, the -- the ability to add an internal driveway to the property without deleting a lot to the east of the site of the existing home is just virtually impossible. Based on the most recent revisions to the ACHD policy for average trips on local streets, the threshold is 2,000 vehicle trips per day. With Leighfield classified as a collector, that ACHD threshold is even higher. Based on the most current counts there are 1,499 vehicle trips in a 24 hour period on Leighfield and that includes the trips that are generated by the existing residents. We are requesting a waiver from City Council to allow the existing residence to retain its access to Leighfield. It won't provide -- it won't generate any kind of an additional transportation burden, because those trips are already included in the existing trip counts. Since it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to provide internal access and Leighfield is not operating at even a local street threshold, we believe our request to retain that existing driveway is a reasonable one. The memorandum that I provided to staff and late -- thank you for accommodating me, Stephanie. Discusses the shared driveway comments. The paved area meets the fire department standard from length and that's 150 feet. The remaining portion of that common lot will be used as a stormwater detention location. In the event there is a local -- or an additional lot added in the future, a full hammerhead would have to be constructed and you have already seen that illustration. Access for Lots 7 and 11 can be accommodated without extending the pavement distance as shown on that shared driveway illustration that we submitted with our application. Another option if it's needed would be for Lots 10 and 11 and Lots 6 and 7 to have a short common driveway before they are separated to feed to the garages of those two lots. So, with the landscape buffer required between the driveways, we may need a waiver for that or submit an alternative Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 33 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 31 of 38 compliance application, which is -- we would be happy to do. We would be happy to entertain other options if someone can think of something and any that we would be happy to work with the fire department to try and resolve this somewhat minor question. The possibility of a stub street to the east was proposed by staff. The project team feels that this would create an unfair burden on the subject site, because at least one, if not two lots would be lost. In addition, since the city has designated the area surrounding the intersection of Locust Grove and Leighfield as a location for a neighborhood commercial, we believe that cross-connectivity between the subject site and the parcels at least would be less than ideal and would compromise the residential character of the subject development given that commercial development is likely to occur on the parcel to the east. Additionally, another stub street will produce density to an even more undesirable level and, finally, a stub street to the east would be blocked on the eastern parcel because there are three existing structures. The greatest distance from the property line is 118 feet and I don't know that a stub street could be put in to the east property and not wipe out at least one of those structures. So, we would really prefer to not have a stub street. I think it's combining residential traffic and commercial traffic is good to be avoided if at all possible. I also provided an illustration of the immediate vicinity of the site and anticipated traffic movement which -- there it is. Okay. So, what I did was I just put arrows to locate where -- along with our stub street where all the access points would be. So, we have got one stub street in Quenzer. The northern parcel already has access for these two, if not three to Glen -- Glen Haven and, then, the fourth would be our parcel. The eastern parcel -- the parcel just east of us has got about 492 feet of frontage on Leighfield. So, I think that there is enough room there for the eastern parcel to provide access with another connection to Leighfield and not violate a safety policy for offset between arterial -- and that's a minor arterial roadway and another street access off of a collector. So, we blanked it -- another connection on the eastern parcel would be reasonable, maybe in line with a street that is across from this eastern parcel on Leighfield. Mr. Graham, who spoke to you about the previous application, spoke to you about irrigation water and he is adjacent to us. He is the northern parcel. So, our project engineer has a very preliminary irrigation system design in mind. He is aware of the fact that we have some irrigation water delivery constraints that we need to deal with and I would suggest that Mr. Graham -- Derek Carter, who is the project engineer, and Dan Young, who is the owner of the eastern parcel, get together between now and our City Council hearing and come to a consensus on irrigation water and the delivery system. In addition, the existing home has a well, so we have a secondary source of water should we need it, along with domestic water. So, I think it's going to take Derek working with Mr. Graham and Mr. Young, which he is happy to do, on solving any irrigation constraints that we have. The landscape buffer is shown in a common lot -- or common lots on the plat and currently the frontage is planted with mature arborvitae. They are big and beautiful and it creates a solid visual buffer right now. Rather than removing some of the healthy plants that are there, as suggested in condition 3-A, we would propose that these plants -- as these plants reach their end of life cycle that they be replaced with trees and we could certainly add that to the development agreement. It just seems a shame to take out healthy plants for trees when we can make a commendation for future planting of trees when these arborvitae start to die out. In conclusion, we do request that the project be approved as proposed with the following changes to the site specific conditions of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 34 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 32 of 38 approval -- and I brought an extra copy with me for you all, so that you could have it to work off of. All right. So, item 2-B -- and that is the -- we request the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council that the existing access for 1294 East Leighfield be retained. Under Item 2-C, which requires a stub street to the east, we ask that that condition be removed. Item 2-F, the applicant will work with the fire department with regard to our shared driveway. In the event that if it's needed the applicant would like the option to provide shared access point off of a shared driveway for Lots 10 and 11 and Lots 6 and 7. Under Item 3-A, rather than removing the existing plants to add trees, we would request that this be changed so that when the plants reach their end of life cycle they can be replaced with trees at that point in time and that can certainly be added to the new development agreement. And, then, under Item 7, the shared driveway is exactly 150 feet deep, which is the limit of the fire department for a distance without having to have a hammerhead. So, in the event the fire department is not comfortable with the driveways has shown on the shared driveway illustration, which I have not put in front of you, but I will. The applicant request a waiver to allow a short shared access point for Lots 10 and 11 and 6 and 7, unless there is another alternative that I'm not aware of and we would be happy to entertain that. And the north neighbor, Mr. Graham, in attendance this evening and there is an item with regard to fencing along that north boundary line that we will sort out with Mr. Graham before we get to City Council. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Perreault: Any questions for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One question is if -- this area is designed to be created at some point of neighborhood commercial and there might be commercial uses on the east side. You talked a little bit about some of the arborvitaes that are there, but what kind of buffering is there going to be between those homes being constructed on the east boundary of the property line to transition into the commercial? Is there going to be -- Constantikes: There will be a fence. A fence. Yes. Perreault: Stephanie, can you bring up the shared drive exhibit, please. Leonard: Madam Chair, yes. Just a second. Sorry. Perreault: So, Lots 6 and 7, is it not possible to put those so that the -- the front is facing to the east and, then, put a common drive in between Lot 6, 5 and 4 to access the property to the south? Is there not enough width on that eastern boundary of the southern lot, Lot 12, to pull a driveway around on the east side? Does that make sense? Okay. Yeah. There is not enough -- yeah, I can see that. Okay. If there is no more questions for the applicant, is there anyone signed up to testify. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 35 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 33 of 38 Way: There is not anybody signed up to testify that signed up with the clerk. Perreault: There is no one signed up to testify? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward and speak? Okay. If there is no more questions for the applicant, could I get a motion to close the public hearing. Olsen: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Caldera Canyon, H-2019-0062. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: Madam Chair, one more question for staff. Could you pull up in the -- the future land use map again for this site so we can kind of look at how those parcels sit around it? Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, this is the future land use map here. So, it shows mixed use neighborhoods on this actual -- on this parcel and, then, the neighborhood center overlay is actually across all these. Holland: So, it -- I know you may not have another application in right now for any of the neighboring parcels, but could you give any direction to what you would advise future applicants to try and considering in some of those neighboring parcels around this? Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I think if future applicants were to come in specifically to the north or to the east we would try to encourage them to have maybe more of a mix of uses, something that would be more neighborhood serving. So, commercial would be good or a mix of housing and commercial. If when they came in it was big enough to annex and zone appropriately. So, there are a mix of zoning designations that kind of relate with -- with the future use map designation, but it depends on the project, obviously, too. Holland: And one more question on that. Are any of -- this specific property is already zoned R-8, they are just going through their preliminary tonight. Are any of those other parcels nearby, are those both zoned agriculture right now or are they zoned -- Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, they are both zoned RUT. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Since everybody else is jumping up and down to speak -- my only concern looking at this is overall looking at the future use map and having that be neighborhood Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 36 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 34 of 38 commercials that were -- it's kind of a funky parcel for future commercial with the L-shape that would be left around it. Obviously, this piece is already zoned R-8, so we can't really change that in the conversation, but that was just one of my observations. So, they asked us to consider several things. I really don't have a ton of concerns, except for how it transitions to some of that neighboring commercial and that's why I was asking about landscaping, too. I worry that a fence may not be much of a buffer if you have a neighboring commercial use come in there. So, I don't know if there is anything we want to talk about as far as -- if -- if there is any buffering that we need to have them do, but -- Perreault: I would assume that the applicant of that commercial project would be required to do the buffering, so -- McCarvel: Madam Chair, that's how -- that's how I'm remembering it as well is it's usually -- it's the commercial development that would have the responsibility to put in -- probably put a 25. Perreault: Depending on the application. Usually I try to make my comments last, but I will go ahead and -- a stub street to the east -- I initially had some concern about, but now knowing it's a possibility that that would not develop into residential I'm not as concerned and if they are able to take access off of Leighfield potentially across from the street that's on the south side to the south of the eastern property, then, that might line well for access from there for the future. And, then, as far as the -- as far as the shared drive, I'm not sure that that is something that's in our purview. Isn't that really for Council to decide? Do we need to make a recommendation on that? Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it's actually something that they would need to coordinate with the fire department. They are the ones that can kind of determine if that can be lengthened or -- or what kind of measures they would need to use to do something different. My main comments that I made in the staff report was that it was just a little bit odd of a configuration to have the driveways curving like that. So, I was just -- basically just mentioning that I want them to coordinate with the fire department to -- to figure out if they can link them in a little bit and if that would be okay without having to do a hammerhead or some other mechanism to make it turnaroundable. Perreault: Oh. Okay. Okay. So, really, we don't need to take into consideration the -- the redevelopment exhibit or the -- the -- those other options, because that's just something they will work out. Leonard: Madam Chair, yes. Those were mainly just so you could picture of what might happen in the future if it is to redevelop. As Penelope was saying, I don't -- I don't foresee it probably redeveloping. It's -- larger acre lots are in demand, so I can see most people might want to keep it that way. But it's just intended to be kind of a visual aid if it does happen. Holland: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 37 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 35 of 38 Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: If we were to modify those conditions on seven and 2-F that relate to the shared driveway and what the fire department requires, I think I would just make that a condition that they work with the fire department on items 2-F and seven before City Council to meet whatever fire department is going to require of them and that would leave that open to the fire department and the applicant to work on. Madam Chair, while I'm still talking I just want to go through the other ones they have. I don't see a concern with removing 3- A were rather than move the plant -- to modifying 3-A to say rather than move the plants replace them at the end of their life cycle. I know that gets a little bit tricky, too, how do you enforce that and when do you define when the end of a life cycle is of a plant, but if you can preserve vegetation I don't see a concern with that one. And, then, I agree with your comments about the existing access off of Leighfield and keeping that. And the same comments about -- I agree with you on your comments to the east. I don't see it necessary if it's going to be commercial that develops on the east side of the property. You need to have another stub street there. Perreault: I mean we don't know that for sure, but just the six blocks there. If that -- if that section was longer -- if there were more lots, then, I would be more inclined to recommend that that stay. Is that something that we can -- Stephanie, is that something that we can actually -- is that a code provision that can be waived, the stub street to the east? Leonard: Madam Chair, both of those conditions two -- let's see. Sorry. 2-C and 2-B, they are to be waived by City Council, so -- but your recommendation would be helpful to them, too, in their deliberation, so include that. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Stephanie, do we have any pictures of what that line looks like? Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner McCarvel, yes, I will pull that up. Hold on. McCarvel: Just my thoughts here. Once those go they go quickly and it -- are we maybe looking at -- go ahead and keep the -- oh, all on there. Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner McCarvel, one of the options, too, rather than including it in the DA would be to have the applicant seek alternative compliance with our -- as an administrative approval as well. So, that's another option. Just a reminder. Perreault: Stephanie, if they do that, then, they are -- then when these trees come to the end of their life, there is no longer a requirement to have anything there if they have got -- if they receive alternative compliance would those not have to be replaced? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 38 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 36 of 38 Leonard: Madam Chair, if they agree to landscape it in the way the alternative compliance it would have to be maintained that way, so if something were to die it would need to be replaced. Perreault: Okay. Leonard: The landscape that was approved. As I said, an alternative compliance with landscape on the plat. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Madam Chair, I would -- Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: -- be in support of basically all that's been discussed so far here in the very orderly manner as suggested by Commissioner Holland. Thank you for keeping the notes. Perreault: Commissioner Holland is a master at these motions. Holland: Happy to let someone else make this one, though. McCarvel: Huh-uh. Perreault: Commissioner Olsen, do you have anything to add? Olsen: No, I don't. That's it. Sorry. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Item 2-B in the staff report reads: Lot 12, Block 2, shall take access from North Heritage View Avenue in accord with UDC, unless waived by City Council. So, I just want to make sure if we include the change there, they want the existing access to be retained. That's what she had mentioned when she came up. Perreault: So, they are requesting a waiver for the access. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: For the record, for City Council I think I am supportive of that access to remain there. I don't think it's an overly busy road and that drive could probably stay there. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 39 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 37 of 38 Perreault: I agree. Holland: Do you want me to try and make a motion or does anyone else have -- Perreault: I'm just reviewing the staff report to make sure I have -- Holland: That's what I was trying to do, too. Perreault: Give us a second to review the staff report and make sure we have addressed everything with the right numbers and letters. So, 2-F, I don't think we specifically discussed that. Applicant shall clarify the alignment of the driveways to Lot 7 and 11, Block 2, with a common driveway and shall coordinate with the fire department. So, we want to leave that in the staff report as is? At least that's my -- Holland: I would agree. My -- Madam Chair? My comment was that the applicant would work with the fire department on items 2-F and item 7 on meeting whatever the fire department needs for requirements. We could leave those in the staff report. Perreault: So, we just won't change anything on those. Right? Holland: Yeah. All right. Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland, go for it. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0062, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 20th, 2019, with the following modifications: On 2-B that the existing access be retained. On 2-C that we strike the requirement -- or recommend that Council -- Perreault: Let me ask you really quickly. I don't think that we are -- I think instead of stating that we want a modification made on 2-B, we should just say that we are recommending that Council waive the requirement, because if we -- we are not technically trying to modify the staff report I don't think, so -- Holland: Okay. I'm with you. Okay. I'm going to restart. I will just start over with the -- I move to recommend approval to City Council that we would be in support of Council waiving the requirement and allowing the existing access to be retained with Item 2-B in the report. Looking at 2-C, that Council would consider allowing the applicant to not be required to have the east stub street. That the applicant would work with the fire department to meet their requirements for Items 2-F and 7 and 3-A, that rather than remove the plants and plant new ones, that the applicant would either seek alternative compliance with staff or that they -- Council would allow them to replace those plants at the end of their life cycle as requested. McCarvel: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 40 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 38 of 38 Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval to City Council for application number H-2019-0062. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: Madam Chair, before we conclude this evening, I did just want to let you know that Stephanie has accepted a position at the city of Boise. So, she will be with the city -- this probably her last time that she will be presenting to you as part of our team, but I wanted to let you know that we wish her the best and she's done an excellent job for us and I'm very proud of her for the job that she's done. Perreault: We were just getting you trained. Leonard: Yeah. I was just getting used to hear my voice on the microphone and everything and now I'm leaving. Perreault: Congratulations. Leonard: Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move we adjourn. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the hearing for June 20th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:58 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED �III9 J SSI, RREAULT - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK CDAHOIDIAN*,----- ��W,IZ„- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA June 20, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 A Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Approve Minutes of May 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Meeting Notes: NpprrovCCI 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 16, 2019 P lanning and Zoning C ommission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Minutes Minutes 5/24/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 3 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 �jQ/rEDAHO IDIAN?-- PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA June 20, 2019 Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Outline and Presentations Meeting Notes: Changes to Agenda: None Item #4A: Rackham Subdivision (H-2018-0126) Application(s):  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 51.59 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 1020 S. Eagle Rd. History: Property was annexed in 1995. A Development Agreement was recently approved. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. The subdivision is proposed to be developed in at least 3 phases as shown on the phasing plan. Primary access exists to this site via S. Silverstone Way, a collector street, at the southern boundary of the site; and a secondary access is available via S. Rackham Way, a local street, at the SWC of the site. All lots within the proposed subdivision are subject to a cross-access & parking easement. ITD submitted a letter to the City recommending the developer construct a 2nd right-turn lane at the eastbound off-ramp prior to commencement of Phase 3 or exceeding 668 PM peak hour trips as mitigation in lieu of mitigating for impacts to the northbound left turning movements at the westbound ramp which aren’t feasible. This mitigation would provide some relief to the overall operations of this interchange which ITD feels is reasonable to offset the developer’s impacts. Because this is an off-site improvement, staff does not recommend this is required with the plat; however, it may be considered with the upcoming DA modification that will soon be submitted for this project. A 50’ wide landscaped street buffer containing a pathway is required along I-84 and a 20’ wide buffer is required along Silverstone Way, a collector street. Rackham Way stubs to this site at the SWC; a shared cross-access driveway is proposed along & adjacent to the southern boundary between this property and the property to the south. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval 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- 2018-0126, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 20, 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-2018- 0126, as presented during the hearing on June 20, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0126 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4B: Silver Springs (H-2019-0058) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 19.74 acres of land, zoned R-4 and RUT in Ada County, located at 1305, 1157, 805 & 905 E. McMillan Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: McMillan Rd. & SFR properties (Saguaro Canyon & Larkwood Subs), zoned R-4 and RUT in Ada County West: SFR homes, zoned R-4 in Cobre Basin Sub. East: Home & landscape business, zoned RUT in Ada County South: SFR homes (Havasu Creek) & an elementary school, zoned R-4 History: This property was previously platted as Lots 1-4, Crestwood Subdivision; Lots 1-3 were annexed into the City in 2006 with R-4 zoning. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR (3 or fewer units/acre) Summary of Request: Annexation & zoning of the eastern 5.19 acres of the site with an R-4 zoning district. There is an existing home on the property and a landscape nursery is currently operating on this site and was recently approved through Ada County to operate for an additional 5 year period of time – the Applicant requests the business is allowed to continue operations in the City temporarily with a sunset date of December 31, 2022, at the latest, in order to sell off his existing inventory. This use is classified as a nursery/urban farm and contractor’s yard in the UDC, which is a prohibited use in the proposed R-4 district; however, because the landscape business is currently legally operating in the County, it would be considered a non-conforming use in the City. As such, the use may continue, IF deemed appropriate by City Council, as long as it remains lawful and is not expanded or extended per the standards for non-conforming uses. Preliminary plat consisting of 57 SFR building lots & 6 common lots for the development of detached homes at a gross density of 2.89 units/acre consistent with the LDR FLUM designation. The subdivision is proposed to develop in 2 phases with the last phase developing once the landscape business use ends. There are (4) existing homes and accessory structures on this site that are proposed to remain on lots in the proposed subdivision; all other accessory structures are proposed to be removed. One public street access is proposed via E. McMillan Rd.; an existing stub street (N. Mooney Falls Way) at the south boundary of the site is proposed to be extended with development & a stub street is proposed to the east for future extension. All of the existing homes will take access from local streets within the development except one (1035 McMillan – Lot 12, Block 3) which proposes to retain their (2) driveway accesses via McMillan; Council approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3 is requested for these accesses to remain - ACHD is requiring the west access to be closed. A 25’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along McMillan Rd. containing a 5’ wide detached sidewalk. A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided with this development; the qualified open space exhibit subm itted depicts area that does not qualify – Staff recommends a revised exhibit, plat & LP is submitted prior to the Council meeting that complies with the minimum standards. A minimum of (1) site amenity is also required; a children’s play structure and micro-path to the school site to the south are proposed as amenities in accord with UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed SFR homes as shown. Written Testimony: Dave Yorgason, Applicant’s Representative (response to the staff report - see letter) Staff Recommendation: Staff is not in support of the existing landscape business use continuing operation in the City as a non- conforming use for the following reasons: 1) the use is commercial/industrial in nature and is not an allowed use in the R-4 zoning district; 2) the use is not compatible with the proposed residential uses; 2) any code enforcement issues would be the responsibility of the City; 3) it’s difficult to track sunset clauses in Development Agreements and if the use has not concluded by the sunset date, it becomes the City’s responsibility for enforcement. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the proposed annexation of this parcel as it’s Staff’s opinion that it’s not in the best interest of the City to annex the property at this time. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat request per the conditions in the staff report. Staff recommends if Commission/Council determines it is in the best interest to annex the property at this time as proposed by the Applicant, Staff recommends the project is continued to a subsequent hearing date in order for Staff to prepare recommended Development Agreement provisions related to the existing use and for the Applicant to submit a copy of the site plan approved by Ada County. If Commission/Council agrees with Staff’s recommendation, Staff recommends the project is continued to a subsequent hearing date in order for the Applicant to submit a revised preliminary plat that excludes the subject annexation area. 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- 2019-0058, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 20, 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- 0058, as presented during the hearing on June 20, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0058 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4C: Caldera Canyon (H-2019-0062) Application(s):  Preliminary Plat  Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.83 acres of land, zoned R-8, located at 1294 E. Leigh Field Dr. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: SFR, zoned RUT in County South: E Leigh Field Dr (collector) and SFR sub. (Quenzer Commons) zoned R-8 East: SFR, zoned RUT in County West: SFR sub. (Quenzer Commons) zoned R-8 History: Annexed and entered into DA with Quenzer North Subdivision in 2005, final platted as Lot 7, Block 31 of Quenzer Commons No. 10 in 2006 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C with a N.C. Summary of Request: Request for a preliminary plat consisting of 16 building lots and 3 common lots on 2.83 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district; and request to modify an existing development agreement to remove the subject property and to enter into a new development agreement. The applicant proposes to construct 15 single-family, detached dwellings with one existing home to remain at the southeast part of the site (Lot 12, Block 2). The proposed gross density is 5.65 du/acre while the net density is 6.91 du/acre, which falls slightly below the MU-N with N.C. target density of 8+ du/acre. However, given the infill nature of the 2.83 acre site, staff feels the proposed development is generally consistent with the FLUM designation. One public street access is proposed to E. Leigh Field Dr. and is stubbed to the north for future redevelopment. The existing home is proposing to maintain its current access to E. Leigh Field Dr., a collector road, via an existing driveway. The UDC requires that all subdivisions provide local street access to any use that currently takes access from a collector road. In accord with UDC standards, staff recommends the applicant extend a local stub street to the east for future connectivity and extend a driveway to the west to provide access for the existing home in lieu of the existing driveway. Council approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3 is requested for the current driveway access to remain and to refrain from extending a local street east. If Council does not grant both access waiver requests, the applicant will need to redesign their plat to provide local street access to Lot 12, Block 2 and the parcel to the east. A common driveway is proposed at the northwest part of the site to serve as access for four of the proposed homes. The current driveway measures approximately 140 feet long, in accord with UDC standards. However, it measures 25-feet short of 2 building lots (Lots 7 and 11, Block 2), which has resulted in the driveways curving at an angle. Staff recommends the applicant clarify the alignment of the subject driveways with the common driveway, and if applicable, adjust the edge of pavement accordingly with approval from the Fire Dept. A redevelopment plan was submitted depicting how Lot 12 might redevelop should the current homeowner decide to move and subdivide the lot. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes within the development. Materials consist of stucco, hardy plank and board-and-batten siding with stone accents. Homes will be single-level and will complement existing homes in surrounding neighborhoods. Written Testimony: Penelope Constantikes, applicant’s representative Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions in staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0062, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 20, 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- 0062, as presented during the hearing on June 20, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0062, to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 20, 2019 Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Landscape Plan Preliminary Plat Conceptual Building Elevations for the ICCU Building Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Garage McMillan Rd. McMillan Rd. McMillan Rd. Preliminary Plat & Phasing Plan Proposed Access to Remain via McMillan Rd. Zoning Map Aerial MapFuture Land Use Map Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Common Driveway Exhibit Redevelopment Exhibit Conceptual Building Elevations �rE IDIZIAN*,----, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA June 20, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 A Project File Name/Number: H-2018-0126 Item Title: Public Hearing for Rackham Subdivision By. BVA Development. Located at 1020 S. Eagle Rd 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C -G zoning district. Meeting Notes: i�,2Corn�r�1- AperomI I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Rackham Subdivision (H-2018-0126) by B VA Development, L ocated at 1020 S. Eagle Rd. 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 6/14/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 85 of 155 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/20/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-A Project Name: Rackham Subdivision Project No.: H-2018-0126 Active: ❑ Page 1 of 1 Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=259 6/21/2019 City - Signature I Wish To Sign In Address State- For Against Neutral Name Testify Date/Time Zip 251 E Front Street Geoffrey 6/20/2019 Suite 200, Boise X X Wardle 5:51:46 PM Id Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=259 6/21/2019 Page 1 HEARING DATE: June 20, 2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0126 Rackham Subdivision LOCATION: 1020 S. Eagle Rd., in the southwest ¼ of Section 16, T.3N., R.1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district for Rackham Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 51.59 Future Land Use Designation MU-R Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land in development process Proposed Land Use(s) Mix of commercial, office, hotel, restaurants, residential (MFR), entertainment/recreation facility Current Zoning C-G Proposed Zoning NA Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 20 building lots/0 common lots Phasing plan (# of phases) 1 Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) NA Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: October 30, 2018; 13 attendees History (previous approvals) Annexed in 1995 (Ord. #719, Langly/Power Mall); H-2019- 0005 (new DA, Inst. #2019-037825) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 86 of 155 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Not yet (TIS was required and accepted by ACHD)  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 0.9 of a mile from Fire Station #4  Fire Response Time 3 minutes under ideal conditions  Resource Reliability 81% – does not meet the target goal of 85% or greater  Risk Identification 4 – Current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project (see Fire comments in Section VIII.C for more information)  Accessibility Meets all access requirements; fire lanes should be clearly marked  Special/resource needs An aerial device is required; the closest truck company is 7 minutes travel time (under ideal conditions) – Fire Dept. can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required; in the event of a structure fire, an additional truck company will be required which will require additional time delays as they aren’t available in the City; in the event of a haz-mat event, there will need to be mutual aid required for the development  Water Supply Requires 2,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours; may be less if building is fully sprinklered Police Service  Distance to Police Station 2.3 miles  Police Response Time Priority 3: 4.03; Priority 2: 7.10; Priority 1: 10.50  Calls for Service 819  % of calls for service split by priority See comments in Section VIII.D  Accessibility  Specialty/resource needs  Crimes 81  Crashes 56  Other Reports Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0  Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application information  WRRF Declining Balance 13.68 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 87 of 155 Page 3 C. Project Maps  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns No concerns, flows already committed. Water  Distance to Water Services 0-feet  Pressure Zone 4  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application information  Water Quality Concerns Yes - Current plan results in a 1,400 LF dead-end water main, which is a concern for water quality. This concern can be mitigated by looping the water main back to the 8" to the west or 16" to the north.  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns Applicant to change all proposed 10" mains to 8" mains. Eliminate long dead- end by looping back to either the 8" to the west or 16" to the north. Current configuration will result in water quality concern and increased cost of fire suppression system due to lower pressure at higher flows. Option also available to connect back to Overland via Rolling Hill. Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 88 of 155 Page 4 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: BVA Development – 2775 W. Navigator Dr., 4th Floor, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Idaho Central Credit Union/BVA Development – 2775 W. Navigator Dr., 4th Floor, Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Geoffrey M. Wardle, Spink Butler – 251 E. Front St., #200, Boise, ID 83702 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 5/23/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 5/28/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 6/7/2019 Nextdoor posting 5/28/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): This property is designated Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) on the City’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 89 of 155 Page 5 retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. See pgs. 30-31 of the Comprehensive Plan for more information. A. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site. Dimensional Standards (UDC Table 11-2B-3): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. The C-G district has no minimum lot size or street frontage requirements. Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in three (3) phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.A but the Applicant requests leeway for a few additional phases if necessary as shown on the phasing plan (i.e. a, b, c, etc.). Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): The primary access to this site is proposed via S. Silverstone Way, a collector street; another access is available via S. Rackham Way, a local street, at the southwest corner of the site. A cross-section/detail should be included on the plat for S. Silverstone Way. All lots in this subdivision are subject to cross-access and parking easements per the note on the plat in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Note: A 50’ wide future road easement abuts the southern boundary of this site on Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Jewel subdivision for access via E. Onyx St. but was never dedicated as right-of-way or improved. With submittal of an updated conceptual development plan with the upcoming Development Agreement modification application, the Applicant should provide a cross-access easement across the future land use buffer for interconnect upon redevelopment of the property to the south. An emergency access easement will also be required by the Fire Dept. to the east for access via S. Rolling Hill Dr. Traffic: The ITD submitted a letter to the City based on the findings of the Traffic Impact Study (see Section VII.K). Although this development is not taking direct access via the state highway, it will impact the Eagle Road interchange (Exit 46) due to the volume of vehicles generated by the development at full build-out in 2030. Per ITD’s letter, “ITD recommends to the City of Meridian that the developer construct a second right turn lane at the eastbound off-ramp prior to commencing Phase 3 of the ICCU Plaza or exceeding 668 PM Peak hour trips. This mitigation improvement is constructible and is in lieu of the more critical need for the developer to mitigate for impacts to the northbound left turning movements at the westbound ramp, which is not feasible or reasonable. ITD does not have any projects currently programmed to rebuild the Eagle Road interchange. This mitigation will provide some relief to the overall operations of this interchange and is a reasonable improvement to offset the developer’s impacts.” This will likely be a recommendation as a new provision in the amended Development Agreement application to be submitted for this project prior to commencement of Phase 3. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan does not depict any pathways on this site. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 90 of 155 Page 6 Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 17. Detached sidewalks are required along I-84, an interstate, and along S. Silverstone way, a collector street, in accord with UDC standards as proposed. 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 required for Class II trees unless root barriers are provided in which case the parkways can be reduced to 6 feet. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C- G zoning district in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide landscape buffer to adjoining residential uses is required with lot development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C as applicable. A 50-foot wide buffer is required along I-84, an interstate, and a 20-foot wide buffer is required along S. Silverstone Way, a collector street. The buffer along S. Silverstone Way should be depicted on the plat on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer maintained by the business owners’ association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2b. The proposed landscape plan included in Section VII.B should be revised as follows: 1) the 50-foot wide street buffer along I-84 needs to be extended along the west boundary of the site and the Landscape Requirements table updated accordingly (1 tree is required per 35 linear feet); the Landscape Requirements table also needs to include calculations for the buffer along S. Silverstone Way. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): No waterways cross this site. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. Fencing is not depicted on the landscape plan. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development as proposed. The New York Irrigation District has the water rights to this parcel which is delivered by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed ICCU building as shown in Section VII.C. Final design of all structures proposed on the site is required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and those in the Architectural Standards Manual. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 91 of 155 Page 7 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat per the conditions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat (dated: 5/3/19) & Phasing Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 92 of 155 Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 93 of 155 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 94 of 155 Page 10 B. Landscape Plan (date: 11/1/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 95 of 155 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 96 of 155 Page 12 C. Conceptual Building Elevations: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 97 of 155 Page 13 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division 1. All development shall comply with the terms of the Development Agreement (Inst. 2019- 037825) and any future amendments to that agreement as applicable. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.A, shall be revised as follows: a. The buffer along S. Silverstone Way shall be depicted on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer maintained by the business owners’ association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2b. b. Depict a street section/detail for S. Silverstone Way. The minimum width of the parkways along S. Silverstone Way planted with Class II trees is 8 feet unless root barriers are provided in which case they may be reduced to 6 feet. c. Add a note referencing the recorded cross-access easement and instrument number for the shared driveway with the property to the south along the southern boundary of the site west of S. Silverstone Way. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.B shall be revised as follows: a. Extend the 50-foot wide street buffer (and pathway) adjacent to I-84 along the west boundary of the site in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C; update the Landscape Requirements table accordingly. b. Include the calculations for the street buffer along S. Silverstone Way in the Landscape Requirements table. 4. Development of subdivision shall be generally consistent with the phasing plan included in Section VII.A. 5. If the City Engineer’s signature has not been obtained on the final plat within two (2) years of the City Council’s approval of the subject preliminary plat, the preliminary plat shall become null and void unless a time extension is obtained as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 6. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer’s signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 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 Applicant to change all proposed 10" mains to 8" mains. Eliminate long dead-end by looping back to either the 8" to the west or 16" to the north. Current configuration will result in water quality concern and increased cost of fire suppression system due to lower pressure at higher flows. Option also available to connect back to Overland via Rolling Hill. 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 98 of 155 Page 14 three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 99 of 155 Page 15 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 100 of 155 Page 16 surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169332/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169491/Page1.aspx E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) No comments were received F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169498/Page1.aspx G. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/173003/Page1.aspx H. NEW YORK IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=169239 I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169389/Page1.aspx J. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169452/Page1.aspx K. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/173150/Page1.aspx L. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) Comments have yet to be received from ACHD. IX. FINDINGS Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 101 of 155 Page 17 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 substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 102 of 155 Eagle View Landing/Rackham Subdivsion H-2018-0126 Eagle View Landing Development Agreement Application •51.59 acres •Mixed use commercial project •Zoning and annexation previously approved in 1995 Eagle View Landing 1995 –Annexation Large Retail Center Zoned C-G Included Eagle Commons property Eagle View Landing 700,000 square feet of retail proposed Eagle View Landing •Office •Retail •Commercial •Medical •Hospitality •Entertainment •Future 7 Acres – Multifamily/Commercial/Office Eagle View Landing Proposed •Twenty Lots •One Block •Private Access Drives •Connection -Rackham and Silverstone –Jointly Coordinated with Owner to South Eagle View Landing Eagle View Landing •Phasing Plan previously approved with Development Agreement H-2019-0005 Amendment to Development Agreement will be forthcoming due to infrastructure considerations Eagle View Landing Approved Plan Eagle View Landing Modified Plan –No Change to Project Elements Modification to Timing Eagle View Landing Eagle View Landing Phase 1 – ICCU Building – Lot 7, Block 1, plus portions of lots adjoining primary access drive Phase 2 Phase 2A – Medical Office and Office Building – Lots 1 - 3, Block 1 Phase 2B – Outdoor Entertainment Facility – Lot 20, Block 1 Phase 2C – Commercial, Retail and Hospitality– Lots 4-6, 9-14, Block 1 Phase 2D – East Building– Lot 8, Block 1 Phase 2E – South East Office Building – Lot 15, Block 1 Phase 3 – Future Multifamily/Commercial/Office Parcel – Lots 16-19, Block 1 Eagle View Landing Conditions of Approval Generally Agree Four Concerns Silverstone Buffer Jewel Subdivision Water Connection ITD Requirement Eagle View Landing Silverstone Buffer We will Eagle View Landing Jewel Subdivision –Easement/Connection Approximately 600’ East of Silverstone Neither ACHD nor these owners acknowledge Eagle View Landing Jewel Subdivision –Easement/Connection If required to provide access, then it should not come into existence Unless and Until Jewel Owners Grant Reciprocal Right Eagle View Landing Water Connection Stubbed to Eastern Boundary for future Loop and location is an issue of timing Rolling Hill Connection premature NE Quadrant has less demand with use We will work with Public Works on this Eagle View Landing ITD Requirement Phase 3 or 668 PM Peak Hour Trips Second Right Turn Lane at Eastbound Eagle View Landing ITD Requirement Offsite Improvements •Nexus Concern •Proportionality Consistency Eagle View Landing ITD Requirement ITD needs to engage Require participation More than willing to Cost Share Eagle View Landing Conclusion Generally Support Staff Report Will Work with Staff on Silverstone ROW design Water Loop Jewel connection Object to ITD requirement unless it is imposed equitably on others C IDIAN*,----.- �WlIZ�J PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA .lune 20, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 6 Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0058 Item Title: Public Hearing for Silver Springs By Tall Timber Consulting and Todd Campbell Construction, Inc. Located at 1035, 1157, 805 and 905 E. McMillan Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.19 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district; and, 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 57 building lots and 6 common lots on 19.74 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. Meeting Notes: Cc)n+inu.e- - o ULJ, j [S I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for S ilver S prings (H-2019-0058) by Tall T imber Consulting and Todd Campbell C onstruction Inc., L ocated at 1035, 1157, 805 & 905 E . M cM illan Rd. 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 Revised S taff Report 6/20/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 103 of 155 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/20/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-B Project Name: Silver Springs Project No.: H-2019-0058 Active: ❑ Page 1 of 1 Signature Name Address City- State -Zip For Against Neutral I Wish To Testify Sign In Date/Time 6/20/2019 Jenn Reed Larwkwood X 6:03:29 PM Valerie Larwkwood 6/20/2019 X Nesmitg Subdivision 6:04:09 PM Go Back To List I Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=260 6/21/2019 Page 1 HEARING DATE: June 20, 2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0058 Silver Springs LOCATION: 1035, 1157, 805 & 905 E. McMillan Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation & zoning of 5.19 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district; and Preliminary Plat consisting of 57 single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 19.74 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 104 of 155 Page 2 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 19.81 Future Land Use Designation LDR Existing Land Use There are existing single-family homes & accessory structures on each of the existing lots and a landscape business on the far east lot Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential Current Zoning R-4 and RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-4 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 57 SFR building/6 common Phasing plan (# of phases) Yes; 2 phases Number of Residential Units (type of units) 57 (detached SFR) Density (gross & net) 2.89 units/acre (gross); 3.79 (net) Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) See Analysis, Section V.3 Amenities Children’s play structure and pedestrian pathway to school Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: April 2, 2019; 25 attendees History (previous approvals) Lots 1, 2 & 4, Crestwood Subdivision (platted in Ada County); AZ-06-029 (Ord. 06-1271, Silversprings – no Development Agreement), PP-06-029, FP-06-049 (plat expired); AZ-06-056 (Ord. 07-1295, Clearsprings – no Development Agreement), PP-06-054 (plat expired) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 105 of 155 Page 3 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 1.2 miles from Fire Station #3 (can meet the response time requirements)  Fire Response Time 3 minutes under ideal conditions  Resource Reliability 82% from Fire Station #3 – does not meet the target goal of 85% or greater  Risk Identification 2 (residential with hazards); see comments in Section VIII.C  Accessibility Meets requirements; see additional comments in Section VIII.C  Special/resource needs Doesn’t require an aerial device  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for 1 hour (may be less if building is sprinklered)  Other Resources NA Police Service  Distance to Police Station 3.7 miles  Police Response Time See comments in Section VIII.D  Calls for Service 485  Accessibility  Specialty/resourc e needs  Crimes 97  Crashes 34 West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Prospect Elementary – 0.6 mile; Heritage Middle School – 0.8 mile; Rocky Mountain High School – 2.2 miles  Capacity of Schools Prospect Elementary 650; Heritage Middle School 1,000; Rocky Mountain High School 1,800  # of Students Enrolled Prospect Elementary 733; Heritage Middle School 1,254; Rocky Mountain High School 1,800  Anticipated school aged children generated by this development 46 Wastewater Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 106 of 155 Page 4  Distance to Sewer Services 0-feet  Sewer Shed White Drain Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application  WRRF Declining Balance 13.68 MGD  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facili ty Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns Flows have already been committed. Applicant to ensure water and sewer services meet separation requirements. Water  Distance to Water Services 0-feet  Pressure Zone 2  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application  Water Quality Concerns None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns None Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0-feet  Sewer Shed White Drain Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application  WRRF Declining Balance 13.68 MGD  Project Consistent with WW Master Yes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 107 of 155 Page 5 C. Project Area Maps Plan/Facility Plan  Impacts & Concerns Flows have already been committed. Applicant to ensure water and sewer services meet separation requirements. Water  Distance to Water Services 0-feet  Pressure Zone 2  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application  Water Quality Concerns None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns None Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 108 of 155 Page 6 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicants: Tall Timber Consulting, LLC – 14254 W. Battenberg Dr., Boise, ID 83713 Todd Campbell Construction, Inc. – PO Box 140298, Boise, ID 83714 B. Owners: Leigh & Donna Brinkerhoff – 805 E. McMillan Rd., Meridian, ID 83642 Todd Campbell Construction, Inc. & Boos Homes, Inc. – PO Box 140298, Boise, ID 83714 Boyd Hill – 1035 E. McMillan Rd., Meridian, ID 83642 David Meyers – 1157 E. McMillan Rd., Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Dave Yorgason, Tall Timber Consulting, LLC – 14254 W. Battenberg Dr., Boise, ID 83713 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 5/31/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 5/28/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 6/7/2019 Nextdoor posting 5/28/2019 Zoning Map Planned Development Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 109 of 155 Page 7 V. STAFF ANALYSIS Per the Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 20), the purpose of LDR designated areas is to allow for the development of single-family homes on large lots where urban services are provided at gross densities of 3 dwelling units or less per acre. The Applicant proposes to develop the annexation area with 15 new single-family residential detached homes, in additional to the existing home, at a gross density of 3.2 units per acre. The overall density for the development is 2.89 units per acre consistent with the LDR FLUM designation. 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):  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes 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) The larger lot sizes and low density proposed within this development will contribute to the diversity in housing types in this area. Staff is unaware if the proposed units will be owner occupied or rental units.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The proposed development will provide housing options in close proximity to the employment and shopping center uses along the Eagle Rd. corridor to the east.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) Qualified open space is required to be provided in accord with the minimum standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3.  “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) The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to this development.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) One (1) public street access is proposed via E. McMillan Rd. along the project’s north boundary. One of the existing homes proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision proposes to retain its two (2) driveways via McMillan; a Council waiver to UDC 11-3A-3 is necessary for these access driveways to remain.  “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) A pathway connection is required to the school site to the south which will promote connectivity between the neighborhood and the school. A. ANNEXATION & ZONING The applicant requests annexation and zoning of 5.19 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district consistent with the Low Density Residential (LDR) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for this site. The Applicant requests a Development Agreement than encompasses the entire development area and not just the annexation area. This parcel is currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is platted as Lot 4, Crestwood Subdivision No. 1 and is at the east boundary of the proposed subdivision. The remainder of the site (Lots 1-3, Block 1 Crestwood Subdivision No. 1) was previously annexed and zoned R-4 in 2006 (#AZ-06- 029 and #AZ-06-054). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 110 of 155 Page 8 The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the west, south and northeast and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary (AOCI). A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A. There is currently an existing landscape business operating on this parcel, which is proposed to temporarily continue operations until such time as they can sell off existing inventory. The applicant recently received approval from Ada County on June 6, 2019 to renew their conditional use permit (#201900675 CU-MSP, David Meyers) to continue operating a “contractor’s yard of shop” in a residential district for an additional five years per the conditions of approval (see letter in Section VII.F). The Applicant requests Council approval of a provision in the Development Agreement that allows the use to continue temporarily until December 31, 2022, at the latest. The existing use is classified as a nursery or urban farm/contractor’s yard in the UDC, which is a prohibited use in the proposed R-4 zoning district; the existing residential use is an allowed use and is a principal permitted use in the City. Because the landscape business is currently legally operating in the County, it would be considered a non-conforming use in the City. As such, the use may continue, if deemed appropriate by City Council, as long as it remains lawful and is not expanded or extended, subject to the provisions listed in UDC 11- 1B-4A. As discussed with the Applicant at the pre-application meeting, Staff is not in support of the existing use continuing operation in the City as a non-conforming use for the following reasons: 1) the use is commercial/industrial in nature and is not an allowed use in the R-4 zoning district; 2) the use is not compatible with the proposed residential uses; 2) any code enforcement issues would be the responsibility of the City; 3) it’s difficult to track sunset clauses in Development Agreements and if the use has not concluded by the sunset date, it becomes the City’s responsibility for enforcement. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the proposed annexation of this parcel as it’s Staff’s opinion that it’s not in the best interest of the City to annex the property at this time. If Commission/Council determines it is in the best interest to annex the property at this time as proposed by the Applicant, Staff recommends the project is continued to a subsequent hearing date in order for Staff to prepare recommeneded Development Agreement provisions related to the existing use and for the Applicant to submit a copy of the site plan approved by Ada County. If Commission/Council agrees with Staff’s recommendation, Staff recommends the project is continued to a subsequent hearing date in order for the Applicant to submit a revised preliminary plat that excludes the subject annexation area. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat is a re-subdivision of Lots 1-4, Block 1, Crestwood Subdivision No. 1 and consists of 57 single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 19.74 acres of land in the (existing and proposed) R-4 zoning district. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are four (4) existing homes and accessory structures on this site that are proposed to remain on Lots 3 & 14, Block 1 and Lots 12 & 23, Block 3; all other accessory structures are proposed to be removed. Any structures that don’t meet the dimensional standards of the R-4 district in UDC Table 11-2A-5 will need to be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located; or, the plat will need to be revised to comply with the minimum setback requirements. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 111 of 155 Page 9 Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2A-5): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district. The street frontage for Lots 10, 14, 17 and 18, Block 1; and Lots 12, 22 and 24, Block 3 do not meet the minimum required of 30 feet as set forth in UDC 11-2A-3B; the plat should be revised accordingly (common driveways may be an alternative). Subdivision Design & Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): The proposed subdivision is required to be designed and improved per the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 which include but are not limited to streets, driveways, common driveways, easements, and block face. Cul-de-sac: The proposed cul-de-sac (E. Territory St./N. Legacy Woods Pl.) on the west end of the site appears to exceed 450’ in length which is the maximum allowed length; the plat should be revised accordingly. Block face: The face of Block 1 on the south side of E. Territory St. exceeds the maximum block length allowed of 750’; if a pathway is included in Lot 25, Block 1, the allowable block face may be extended up to 1,000 feet – revise landscape plan to include a pathway. Otherwise, the plat complies with the standards in UDC 11-6C-3. Common Driveways: An exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application(s) that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s) is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. Signage should be provided at the ends of the common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in 2 phases with the northern portion of Lot 4, Crestwood Subdivision No. 1 where the landscape business is located developing last. Access (UDC 11-3A-3)/Streets: One access is proposed for the development via E. McMillan Rd. North Mooney Falls Way, a local street, at the southern boundary of the site is proposed to be extended with development and a stub street (E. Territory St.) is proposed to the east for future extension. There is a 50-foot wide ingress/egress easement depicted on the Cobre Basin Subdivision No. 1 plat to this parcel from N. Red Horse Way across the common lot that abuts this site. However, ACHD is not requiring this access to be utilized because it was never dedicated to the public/ACHD and the Copper Basin Homeowner’s Association is unwilling to allow public access. Currently, the 4 existing homes all have direct lot access via E. McMillan Rd., an arterial street. All of the homes are proposing to take access internally from local streets within the proposed subdivision except for the property at 1035 E. McMillan (proposed Lot 12, Block 3), which proposes to retain their (2) driveway accesses and existing address on McMillan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 112 of 155 Page 10 (see aerial photo below). UDC 11-3A-3 requires all subdivisions to provide local street access to any use that currently takes direct access from an arterial street and requires access to be taken from the local street unless otherwise waived by City Council. Therefore, Council approval of a waiver is necessary to retain this access (es); otherwise, the access driveways via McMillan should be removed and access taken internally. If Council approves a waiver for access, the existing address should remain the same. Traffic: A Traffic Impact Study was not required by ACHD for the proposed development. A center turn lane is required on E. McMillan Rd. for the proposed public street. ITD submitted comments stating they have a project programmed to widen US 20-26 to mitigate existing congestion. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 with landscaping on either side of the pathway(s) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B- 12C. Staff recommends a pathway connection is provided to the sidewalk along McMillan Rd. on the in Block 3 on the east end of the development to provide more pedestrian connectivity; this can toward qualified open space. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along all collector and arterial streets; and minimum 5-foot wide attached (or detached) sidewalks are required along local streets as proposed. 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 internal local streets with Class I and II trees; Class I trees (i.e. skyline honey locust) are not allowed unless the parkway is widened Garage McMillan Rd. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 113 of 155 Page 11 to 10’ – a Class II tree should be substituted or the parkway should be widened to 10’ to comply with UDC standards. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Per UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district, a 25-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to E. McMillan Rd., an arterial street. Landscaping is required along each side of the pathway required on Lot 25, Block 1 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; the common lot should be widened an additional 5 feet to allow for trees to be planted outside of the easement area or alternative compliance may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5. In the Landscape Requirements table, include the total linear feet of parkways, minus 26’ for the curb cut area for the width of each driveway, as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.5c, and the required number of parkway trees along with the number of trees provided. Also, include the total square footage of open space/common lots and the required number of trees along with the number of trees provided. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Based on the overall development area which consists of 19.74 acres of land, a minimum of 10% or 1.97 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. A qualified open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.D that depicts 1.97 acres (or 10%) of open space consisting of half the street buffer along E. McMillan Rd., the large common area (125’ x 184’+/-) on Lot 6, Block 3, common area where a pathway will be provided on Lot 25, Block 1 and a small common area on Lot 13, Block 1. Because the common area on Lot 13, Block 1 is smaller than 50’ x 100’ in area, contains no amenity and is located at the far west side of the development at the end of a cul-de-sac and not central to the development, it does not qualify toward the minimum open space requirement. Staff recommends an additional 2,447.25 square feet of common area is provided elsewhere (i.e. added to Lot 6, Block 3 or Lot 25, Block 1) to comply with the minimum standards; Lot 13, Block 1 may be absorbed into the adjacent building lot (Lot 14, Block 1) or may remain. The Applicant should submit a revised qualified open space exhibit, preliminary plat and landscape plan that complies with the minimum open space standards prior to the City Council hearing. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided for this development based on the size of the development (i.e. 19.74 acres). The Applicant proposes a children’s play structure and micro-path to the school site to the south as amenities in accord with UDC standards (see detail of play equipment in Section VII.D). Existing Trees: Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4” caliper or greater (except for those noted that don’t require mitigation) that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Existing trees that are retained or Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 114 of 155 Page 12 relocated on site may count toward the required landscaping; mitigation trees are in addition to all other landscaping. There are many existing trees on this site that are proposed to be removed that require mitigation (i.e. 294 caliper inches) and also many that are proposed to be retained (i.e. 1,156 caliper inches). Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): There are no major waterways that traverse this site. Any irrigation ditches should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. Four-foot tall closed vision fencing with 2-foot slatted vinyl on top is proposed adjacent to the micro-path on Lot 25, Block 1 and the common area on Lot 6, Block 3. Six-foot tall vinyl privacy fence is proposed at the back edge of the street buffer along McMillan Rd., along the property boundaries of the existing home on Lot 12, Block 3 and along the east boundary of the subdivision. The existing fencing along the south and west boundaries of the site is proposed to remain. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. 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. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-family detached units as shown in Section VII.E. Building materials for the single-family homes consist of a mix of siding with stone veneer accents. Because the rear and/or side of 2-story structures on lots that abut E. McMillan Rd. will be highly visible, Staff recommends those elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop- outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends denial of the proposed annexation and zoning request; and approval of the preliminary plat per the conditions included in Section VIII.A per the Findings in Section IX. Further, Staff recommends the project is continued to a subsequent hearing date as discussed in Section V.A. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 115 of 155 Page 13 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 116 of 155 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 117 of 155 Page 15 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 2/28/2019) & Phasing Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 118 of 155 Page 16 C. Landscape Plan (date: 4/26/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 119 of 155 Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 120 of 155 Page 18 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit (dated: February 28, 2019) & Site Amenity Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 121 of 155 Page 19 E. Conceptual Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 122 of 155 Page 20 F. Approval from Ada County for Landscape Business Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 123 of 155 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 124 of 155 Page 22 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows: a. The street frontage for Lots 10, 14, 17 and 18, Block 1; and Lots 12, 22 and 24, Block 3 do not meet the minimum required frontage of 30 feet as set forth in UDC 11-2A-3B; the plat should be revised accordingly. b. The proposed cul-de-sac exceeds 450’ in length which is the maximum allowed length per UDC 11-6C-3; the plat should be revised accordingly. c. Graphically depict the 30-foot wide sewer easement on Lot 25, Block 1. d. The existing access(es) via McMillan Rd. for the property at 1035 E. McMillan (proposed Lot 12, Block 3) shall be removed and access taken internally from N. Morpheus Pl., a local street, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3 unless otherwise waived by City Council. If Council approves a waiver for access, the address should remain the same. e. Provide a minimum 15-foot wide common lot on the north Block 3 on the east end of the development for a micro-path connection to the common lot along E. McMillan Rd. f. Provide an additional 2,447.25 square feet of common area (i.e. added to Lot 6, Block 3 or Lot 25, Block 1) to comply with the minimum common open space standards; Lot 13, Block 1 may be absorbed into the adjacent building lot (Lot 14, Block 1) or may remain. The Applicant shall submit a revised qualified open space exhibit, preliminary plat and landscape plan that complies with the minimum open space standards prior to the City Council hearing. 2. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide pathway in Lot 25, Block 1 in order to comply with the block length standards in UDC 11-6C-3F.3a; landscaping is required on each side of the pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. An additional 5-feet shall be added to the width of the common lot to allow trees to be planted or alternative compliance may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5. b. Substitute the skyline honey locust Class I trees within the parkways with a Class II tree or widen the parkways to 10’ in accord with UDC 11-3A-17E. c. In the Landscape Requirements table, include the total linear feet of parkways, minus 26’ for the curb cut area for the width of each driveway, as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.5c, and the required number of parkway trees along with the number of trees provided. Also include the total square footage of open space/common lots and the required number of trees along with the number of trees provided. d. Provide an additional 2,447.25 square feet of common area (i.e. added to Lot 6, Block 3 or Lot 25, Block 1) to comply with the minimum common open space standards; Lot 13, Block 1 may be absorbed into the adjacent building lot (Lot 14, Block 1) or may remain. The Applicant shall submit a revised qualified open space exhibit, preliminary plat and landscape plan that complies with the minimum open space standards prior to the City Council hearing. e. Provide a minimum 15-foot wide common lot on the north side of Block 3 on the east end of the development that contains a micro-path for a connection to the common lot and sidewalk along E. McMillan Rd. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 125 of 155 Page 23 3. For lots accessed by common driveways, an exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. 4. Provide address signage for homes accessed by the common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 5. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 6. All existing structures on the site shall that are proposed to be removed shall be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat phase in which they are located. 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 to ensure adequate fire flow. 1.3 The street addressing of the existing structures to remain will change with the development of this subdivision unless City Council approves a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3 for the existing driveway access via McMillan Rd. for the property at 1035 E. McMillan Rd. to remain in which case the address should also remain the same. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 126 of 155 Page 24 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. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 127 of 155 Page 25 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 C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=168817&dbid=0 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/169489/Page1.aspx E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/169489/Page1.aspx F. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/169365/Page1.aspx G. SETTLER’S IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/169061/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 128 of 155 Page 26 H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/169384/Page1.aspx I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/169249/Page1.aspx J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/169432/Page1.aspx K. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/173128/Page1.aspx L. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/173932/Page1.aspx 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 a 5.19 acre portion of the subject property with R-4 zoning consistent with the LDR Future Land Use Map designation in the Comprehensive Plan. (See section V 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 contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. However, continuance of the non-conforming use is not consistent with the purpose statement (see Section V for more information). 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 low density residential uses should be compatible with adjacent existing and future similar density 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 School District has submitted comments, included in Section VIII.J that currently show student enrollment is above capacity for the elementary and middle schools and at capacity for the high school. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 129 of 155 Page 27 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City at this time for the following reasons: 1) the use is commercial/industrial in nature and is not an allowed use in the R-4 zoning district; 2) the use is not compatible with the proposed residential uses; 2) any code enforcement issues would be the responsibility of the City; 3) it’s difficult to track sunset clauses in Development Agreements and if the use has not concluded by the sunset date, it becomes the City’s responsibility for enforcement. B. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 130 of 155 Silver Springs: Project Summary 2 developers working together to master plan 57 homes (4 existing + 53 new homes) 4 parcels totaling 20 acres 3 existing parcels previously annexed (R-4) 1 parcel is an existing business with C-U-P Custom & Semi -Custom Homes Pedestrian access to school site & Children’s Tot Lot This is infill development with challenges…. Silver Springs: Challenges Access Design layout vs. existing homes and trees Existing business operation Silver Springs: Recommend Approval Agree with ACHD staff report Agree with City staff report with a few needed changes Request approval with changes to staff report (refer to applicant’s letter) Allow the existing landscape contractor’s business reasonable time to sell its existing inventory Approved C-U-P in Ada County through June 2024 Operations more similar to a tree farmer Not bringing in more inventory, not retail, small operation Need reasonable time to dig and sell trees, more than 6 months Trees removed when dormant Benefit to the City is to have it under City Control (not expanding) Suggest Annexation of 5 aces with a Development Agreement with conditions similar to conditions in the County. The existing landscape business operations at 1157 E. McMillan Road are allowed to continue until no later than June 2024. Request approval with changes to staff report (refer to applicant’s letter) OLD CONDITION Install sidewalk in front of 1157 E. McMillan at the same time as when the 2nd phase is developed Requires removal of substantial landscaping, waterfall, etc. that provides privacy and sound buffer Sidewalk most likely will be torn out or altered after final landscape berm is installed with phase 2 Sidewalk will not be used for several years (after phase 2) Suggest Delete condition Request approval with changes to staff report (refer to applicant’s letter) A.1.b: Allow the western cul-de-sac to be allowed per the design Working with an existing access problem Copper Basin easement ACHD and/or City did not require this to be Right-Of-Way ACHD cannot require connection and Copper Basin HOA unwilling to cooperate Required to reduce accesses on McMillan Alternative designs are very inefficient and produce similar results Suggest Delete condition A.1.b Request approval with changes to staff report (refer to applicant’s letter) A.1.d: Allow the existing resident at 1035 E. McMillan to retain his current access on McMillan ACHD supports keeping one access Aligns with existing street Larkwood Suggested change: City Council grant the waiver to keep the existing access and either 1.Delete condition A.1.d. or 2.Modify condition to allow the existing access until the property redevelops Request approval with changes to staff report (refer to applicant’s letter) A.1.e & A.2.e: Not require common lot pathway in the north east part of the development to McMillan Already providing access via main entry Not aware of spacing requirements in Comp Plan (ie “nice to have another access”) Requires designing around existing trees Expensive to lose 1 lot Inter neighborhood access is safer than on McMillan Suggest Delete condition A.1.e and condition A.2.e. Silver Springs: Summary 2 developers working together to master plan Quality & Compatible development Infill development with challenges Request approval with changes: Annex 5 Acre parcel with a Development Agreement with conditions similar to conditions in the County for the existing landscape business operations at 1157 E. McMillan Road to be allowed to continue until no later than June 2024 Delete conditions A.1.b, A.1.e and A.2.e. A.1.d: City Council grant the waiver to keep the existing 1035 E. McMillan access and 1.Delete condition A.1.d. or 2.Modify condition to allow the eastern existing access until the property redevelops Thank You! SETBACK LINE PARCEL BOUNDARY LOT LINE NEW SIDEWALK EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYROWROW EW EW EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTELECTRICAL BOX EXISTING WATER VALVEWOOD FENCE BUILDING FOOTPRINT SS SS 1/2" PIN5/8" PIN NEW SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOXEXISTING POWER POLE ROAD CENTERLINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE EXISTING WATER LINE NEW SANITARY SEWER LINE NEW WATER LINEWW PHASE LINE FOUND HUB TYPE I INLET CATCH BASIN T E HYD SS SS S 17.50' EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP EEP H Y D C W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N O R T H M O O N E Y F A L L S W A Y N O R T H R E D H O R S E W A Y EAST MCMILLAN ROAD SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS EW EW ESS ESS ESS ESS ESS ESS ESS ESS ESS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SS SS S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SS SS SS SS W W W W SS SS SS W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SS SS S S S S W W W W W W W W ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW EAST COPPER RIDGE STREET N O R T H T I P T O N A V E N U E PROSPECT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL B L O C K 1 B L O C K 1 B L O C K 1 B L O C K 3 B L O C K 3 B L O C K 4 B L O C K 3 P H A S E 2 H A V A S U C R E E K S U B D I V I S I O N N O . 2 H A V A S U C R E E K S U B D I V I S I O N N O . 3 H A V A S U C R E E K S U B D I V I S I O N N O . 4 C O B R E B A S I N S U B D I V I S I O N N O . 4 C O B R E B A S I N S U B D I V I S I O N N O . 4 C O B R E B A S I N S U B D I V I S I O N N O .1 C O B R E B A S I N S U B D I V I S I O N N O .1 2 5 .0 0 ' 182.87'196.14'141.50' 4.00' OF LAND TO BE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC FOR EAST MCMILLAN STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SS S S S S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W S S SS 8,964 S.F. 12,200 S.F. 9,557 S.F. 8,879 S.F. 12,227 S.F. 41,633 S.F. 2,487 S.F. 9,753 S.F. 8,451 S.F. 15,686 S.F. 10,895 S.F. 9,826 S.F.8,496 S.F.8,496 S.F.10,395 S.F. 16,740 S.F. 18,881 S.F. 13,342 S.F. 737 S.F. 10,778 S.F. 11,468 S.F. 11,597 S.F. 11,634 S.F. 22,613 S.F.11,582 S.F. 9,677 S.F. 9,057 S.F. 8,403 S.F. 12,832 S.F. 35,365 S.F. 10,576 S.F. 11,300 S.F. 10,633 S.F.8,732 S.F.8,732 S.F.10,638 S.F. 13,033 S.F. 10,988 S.F. 8,924 S.F. 10,226 S.F.17,027 S.F.11,078 S.F. 8,790 S.F. 8,732 S.F. 8,732 S.F. 10,706 S.F. 9,466 S.F.8,700 S.F.8,710 S.F.9,657 S.F.9,740 S.F.8,734 S.F.9,915 S.F.9,917 S.F.9,843 S.F.8,740 S.F.8,741 S.F.8,742 S.F.8,743 S.F.8,777 S.F. 11,675 S.F.20,225 S.F. B L O C K 1 B L O C K 3 B L O C K 2 S S S S S S W W W W W SS SS S S S S W W W S S S S W W W S S S S W W W S S S S S S W W S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W S S S S W W W S S S S W W W S S S S W W W S S S S W W W S S S S W W W S S S S W W W SS SS W W W SS SS W W SS SS SS W W SS SS SS W W W SS SS W W SS SS SS W W SS SS SS W W W SS SS W W S S S S S S W W W W W SS SS W W W W S S S S S S SS SS SS SS W W W W SS SS SS SS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W SS S S S S S S S S W W S S S S S S W W W W W S S S S S S W W W W W SS SS W W SS SS SS W W W SS SS W W SS SS SS W W SS SS SS W W SS SS SS W W W W W W SS SS SS SS SS W W W S S S S W W W S S S S W W W S S S S W W W S S S S SS SS SS W W S S S S S S SS SS W W W W W W SS S SW W 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 4.00' OF LAND TO BE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC FOR EAST MCMILLAN STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY 85.92'72.00'72.00'89.92' 1 0 7 .3 7 ' 1 2 1 .3 1 ' 9 0 .7 3 ' 9 3 .9 8 ' 7 5 .4 1 ' 7 6 .0 3 ' 7 4 .0 0 ' 25.00'112.01' 69.54' 8 9 .9 7 ' 8 1 .7 0 ' 7 4 .0 8 ' 1 1 9 .7 8 ' 2 3 7 .1 6 ' 2 5 .0 0 ' 198.36'132.01'145.45' 69.15'72.00'72.00'36.41' 47.29'74.00'74.00'74.00'74.00'30.00'83.36'84.00'84.00'74.00'64.55' 79.13'163.07' 34.88'100.00' 9 7 .1 3 ' 3 8 .3 5 ' 9 6 .8 7 ' 3 8 .0 6 ' 174.37'116.41' 133.48'175.40' 9 7 .1 3 ' 7 4 .3 1 ' 7 1 .5 0 ' 7 4 .0 0 ' 7 4 .0 0 ' 2 7 .8 2 ' 7 4 .3 1 ' 7 8 .1 2 ' 7 9 .8 0 ' 8 7 .0 0 ' 92.00'74.00'74.00'92.00' 175.40'156.61' 137.01'125.00'99.83'100.00'161.05'79.35' 9 2 .6 3 ' 1 1 8 .5 2 ' 7 8 .0 0 ' 7 4 .0 0 ' 7 4 .0 0 ' 9 2 .6 3 ' 4 7 .0 0 ' 1 1 7 .3 8 ' 80.24'74.00'74.00'83.55'50.00'71.38'74.00'84.00'84.00'83.36'30.00'74.00'74.00'74.00'74.00'74.00'75.44'115.52' 1 2 0 .1 8 ' 7 8 .0 0 ' 7 8 .0 0 ' 3 7 .7 4 ' 9 3 .9 7 ' 1 0 7 .3 5 ' 9 7 .1 2 ' 7 4 .0 0 ' 8 1 .3 0 ' 8 0 .0 0 ' 8 4 .0 0 ' 7 8 .0 0 ' 7 8 .0 0 ' 7 8 .0 0 ' 7 8 .0 0 ' 71.13'74.00'74.00'70.87' 331.30'293.69' 64.20'74.00'74.00'81.11' S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W-6 W-2 W-1W-3 W-4 W-5 E-1E-2E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 2 3 . 2 3 ' 8 0 . 5 0 ' 2 8 .8 9 ' 44.19' 20.13' 2 0 . 7 1' 6 6 .8 2 ' 2 3 .2 3 ' 8 1.21' 4 7 . 4 1 ' 2 0 . 3 2' 25.10' 35.44'27.05' 1 6 . 2 2 '1 6 .0 2 ' 1 8 . 6 6 '1 8 .4 3 ' 2 3 . 2 3 ' 6 9 .9 4 ' 2 0.1 2' 2 5 .2 7 '21.04' 1 0 3 . 7 4 ' 2 1 .1 2 ' 2 3 .2 3 ' 3 4.1 9' 7 1 .0 2' 3 3 .0 0 ' 2 5 .2 4 ' 59.72' 2 0.0 4' 2 7 . 1 7 ' 2 9 .8 2 '9.01'1 6 .5 0 ' 5.54'9 .3 0 ' 2 7 . 2 8 ' 1 3 . 2 4 ' 3,543 S.F. E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E S S E S S E S S E S S E S S E S S E S S E S S E S S E S S E S S E S S E S S 12.83' S S S EAST TERRITORY STREET N O R T H S A G U A R O H I L L S A V E N U E N O R T H L E G A C Y W O O D S P L A C E N O R T H M O R P H E U S P L A C E S89°49'09"W - 332.01' S89°48'22"W - 987.71' N 0 0 °1 4 '1 6 "E - 6 3 1 .6 9 ' N89°49'54"E - 1361.60' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 6 3 0 .5 4 ' S89°43'29"W - 374.63' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 9 4 .0 0 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 3 1 9 .4 1 ' S89°49'09"W - 152.57'S89°49'09"W - 112.01' N89°49'09"E - 112.69' N89°49'09"E - 155.95' S89°49'09"W - 135.48' S89°49'09"W - 319.85' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 1 1 8 .0 0 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 1 1 8 .0 0 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 1 1 8 .0 0 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 6 6 .2 8 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 6 6 .4 3 ' S 3 7 °1 4 '4 4 "W 4 4 .9 0 ' S 3 7 °1 4 '4 4 "W 4 5 .3 8 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W 4 3 .3 6 ' S89°49'09"W - 97.96' N89°49'09"E - 117.58' S89°49'09"W - 128.85' N 4 0 °2 8 '0 5 "E - 8 5 .2 8 ' N89°49'09"E - 85.08'S 4 0 °2 8 '0 5 "W - 6 7 .2 0 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 8 6 .3 8 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 2 1 .8 7 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 1 8 .1 6 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 1 8 .1 4 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 1 8 .1 3 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 1 8 .1 1 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 1 8 .0 9 ' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 1 1 8 .0 9 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 1 8 .0 7 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 1 8 .0 5 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 1 8 .0 3 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 1 8 .0 1 ' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 9 8 .3 1 ' N 0 0 °1 0 '5 1 "W - 1 1 7 .7 6 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '5 1 "E - 1 1 7 .6 3 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '5 1 "E - 1 1 7 .5 1 ' S89°49'09"W - 134.88' N89°49'09"E - 112.67' N89°49'09"E - 111.56' N89°49'09"E - 104.50' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W 5 4 .1 2 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W 5 4 .2 8 ' S32°47'56"E 20.27' S32°47'56"E 21.14' S89°49'09"W - 290.78' S89°49'09"W - 308.87' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 1 1 7 .9 6 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 1 1 8 .0 8 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 1 1 8 .2 0 ' S 3 9 ° 3 2'2 5" E 6 3.6 6' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 6 4 .2 4 ' S 3 9 °3 2'2 5 " E 7 2.7 6' S 5 1 °2 7 '3 6 "W 7 4 .7 5 ' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 8 1 .0 0 ' N89°49'09"E - 72.07' N 6 5 °1 6 '5 5 "E58.1 4 ' N89°49'09"E - 118.00' N89°49'09"E - 118.00' S89°49'09"W - 118.00' N89°49'54"E - 817.81' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 8 3 .9 7 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E 3 1 9 .3 0 ' N89°49'54"E - 475.82' S 4 5 ° 0 0 ' 1 9 " E 2 9 . 6 1 ' N89°49'54"E - 454.79' S 4 4 °5 9 '4 1 "W 2 9 .7 9 'S89°49'54"W - 796.81' S37°14'44"W 7.89' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 3 1 9 .2 3 'N89°49'09"E - 5.00' S89°49'09"W - 5.00' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W 4 4 .7 4 ' S 1 0 °0 2 '2 4 "W 4 4 .0 0 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 2 9 7 .8 1 ' S 4 5 ° 0 0 ' 4 1 " E 2 9 . 9 3 ' N89°49'09"E - 242.20'N 4 4 °5 9 '4 3 "E 2 9 .6 1 ' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 3 5 .4 8 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 1 3 4 .9 4 ' S 4 5 ° 0 0 ' 1 7 " E 2 9 . 7 9 ' N89°49'09"E - 290.01'N 4 4 °5 9 '4 3 "E 2 9 .6 1 ' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 1 7 1 .4 4 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 2 4 7 .3 2 ' S 4 5 ° 0 0 ' 1 7 " E 2 9.79' N89°49'09"E - 96.73' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 1 1 7 .0 5 ' N89°49'09"E - 1145.51' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 2 9 2 .0 9 ' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 1 4 1 .4 3 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 2 4 1 .2 8 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 4 8 9 .8 4 ' S89°49'09"W - 86.46' S89°49'09"W - 763.20' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 5 5 .4 8 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 5 5 .4 8 ' N89°49'09"E - 249.57'N 4 4 °5 9 '1 9 "E 2 9 .4 6 ' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E - 2 9 8 .5 5 ' N 0 9 ° 4 9 ' 2 3 " W 4 3 . 0 1 ' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "E 4 4 .9 0 ' S 45°1 0'34"E 2 7.81' N 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 9 8 .5 6 ' N 4 4 °4 9 '2 6 "E 2 7 .3 5 ' N89°49'09"E - 293.31' E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW W W W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W E W EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW E W E W E W E W E W S 1361.56'S00°10'17"W 33.00' N00°14'16"E 33.00' S89°49'54"W - 2632.46' 1270.90'N89°50'21"E - 2410.66'30 313631 25 30 31 32 30 29 NORTHWEST SECTION CORNER T-4-N / R-1-E - SECTION 31 FOUND 3-INCH BRASS CAP CP&F NO. 100075492 NORTH QUARTER CORNER T-4-N / R-1-E - SECTION 31 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP CP&F NO. 2014096192 NORTHEAST SECTION CORNER T-4-N - R-1-E - SECTION 31 FOUND 3-INCH BRASS CAP CP&F NO. 111098263 12' N O R T H H E R I T A G E W O O D S P L A C E N O R T H M O O N E Y F A L L S W A Y N89°49'09"E - 142.37' S89°49'09"W - 148.45' S89°49'09"W - 148.91' S89°49'09"W - 149.38' 7 .3 0 ' S 0 0 °1 0 '1 7 "W - 1 1 8 .0 0 ' N89°49'09"E - 75.11' 9 5 8 11 6 18 17 4 10 7 2 5 10 17 16 7 14 4 3 2 Park 13 3 8 12 209 21 15 11 22 1914 16 18 28 4 24 25 26 1 2 1 27 33029232826272224 13 19 23 20 15 12 21 1 1 6 25 P H A S E 1 P H A S E 1 P H A S E 1 P H A S E 1 P H A S E 1 P H A S E 1 24.00'37.32' 21.71' 36.75' R48.00' R59.00' B A C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s , S u r v e y o r s & P l a n n e r s 5 5 0 5 W e s t F r a n k l i n R o a d B o i s e , I d a h o 8 3 7 0 5 V o i c e : 2 0 8 .3 4 3 .3 3 8 1 F a x : 2 0 8 .3 4 2 .5 7 9 2 W e b : h t t p ://w w w .b a e n g i n e e r s .c o m NORTH AB SCALE: 1-INCH = 60-FEET 0 12060 L O C A T E D A T 8 0 5 , 9 0 5 , 1 0 3 5 A N D 1 1 5 7 E A S T M C M I L L A N R O A D , B E I N G L O T S 1 T H R O U G H 4 O F C R E S T W O O D S U B D I V I S I O N N O . 1 , S I T U A T E I N T H E N O R T H H A L F O F T H E N O R T H E A S T Q U A R T E R O F S E C T I O N 3 1 , T O W N S H I P 4 N O R T H , R A N G E 1 E A S T , B O I S E M E R I D I A N , C I T Y O F M E R I D I A N , A D A C O U N T Y , I D A H O PREP S i l v e r S p r i n g s S u b d i v i s i o n 1.THIS PROPERTY IS NOT IN A FLOOD PLAIN AREA. 2.SANITARY SEWER SERVICE IS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN. 3.POTABLE WATER IS TO BE PROVIDED BY MERIDIAN WATER. 4.PROPERTY LIES WITHIN THE MERIDIAN CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT. 5.PROPERTY LIES WITHIN THE SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT. 6.EXISTING IRRIGATION FACILITIES TO BE CONTINUED TO THEIR HISTORIC DISCHARGE POINTS. 7.EXISTING USE: RESIDENTIAL AND RURAL. 8.CONTOUR ELEVATION DATUM: NAVD 88. CONTOUR INTERVALS = 1-FOOT. 9.THIS DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATES USING SUBSURFACE STORM WATER DISPOSAL IN COMMON LOTS OF STORM WATERGENERATED FROM THE LOCAL ROAD SYSTEM AND LANDS TRIBUTARY TO THE SYSTEM. 10.PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE TO BE PROVIDED FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDERS FROM JOINT TRENCH ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC ROADS. SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA WILL BE MET DURING THE CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL PHASE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. 11.THE FOLLOWING TAX PARCEL NUMBERS ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION: R1608650010, R1608650020, R1608650060AND R1608650090. 12.ALL WATER LINE SIZES SHALL BE 8" TO FIRE HYDRANTS AND 6" PAST FIRE HYDRANTS. 13.SURFACE IRRIGATION FACILITIES THAT EXIST ON THE SITE WILL BE CONTINUED THROUGH THE PROPERTY. THE SUBDIVISION WILL USE SURFACE IRRIGATION WATER VIA A PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION SYSTEM USING SETTLERS IRRIGATION WATER. 14.ALL LOTS SHALL HAVE 1) A 10-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY AND STREET LIGHT EASEMENT ADJOINING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS. 2) A 5-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT ADJOINING ALL INTERIOR LOT LINES AND 3) A 10-FOOT WIDE REAR YARD IRRIGATION EASEMENT. NotesVicinity Map Zoning TableManhole Table DAVE YORGASON TODD CAMPBELL CONSTRUCTION, INC. 14254 WEST BATTENBERG DRIVE BOISE, IDAHO 83713 (208) 850-1070 DYORGASON6@GMAIL.COM Owner/Applicant PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE RUT TO R-4 EXISTING ZONE RUT AND R-4 AFTER REZONE ALL LAND WILL BE R-4. Scale: 1-Inch = 300-Feet PROJECT LOCATION AB Legend 3" ROLLED CURB PER SD-702. CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE - 4" MINIMUM THICKNESS UNDER CURB 5.0' Roadway Concrete Construction ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT 6" MINUS AGGREGATE SUB-BASE COMPACTED SUB-GRADE MINIMUM 95% COMPACTION 3/4" MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE 2.5"4.0" 79.00' 5.00'8.00'16.50'5.00'8.00'16.50' 14.0" 6.00' 10.00' 6.00' 10.00' Pavement Cross-Section TYPE "A" 5-INCH THICK CONCRETE SIDEWALK FRONT (GARAGE):20 FEET FRONT (LIVING):15 FEET REAR:15 FEET SIDE YARD: 5 FEET Proposed Setback Table 8.0' Land Use Calculations DESCRIPTION AREA (AC.) PERCENTAGE PROJECT 19.74 100.00% RESIDENTIAL LOTS 15.03 76.14% COMMON LOTS 1.39 7.04% ROADWAY 3.32 16.82% RESIDENTIAL LOTS 57 OPEN SPACE 1.974 10.00% SEE SHEET "OPEN SPACE MAP" FOR DEFINITION RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 2.89 PER ACRE CENTER CROWN BETWEEN CURBS SIDEWALK PUC EASEMENT PUC EASEMENT SIDEWALK 47.00' ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYEASEMENT EASEMENT33.00' ROADWAY BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB 59.00' BACK OF WALK TO BACK OF WALK 2%2%2%2% Typical Street Cross-Section Scale: Not To Scale WEST SIDE NO.DEPTH W-1 7.89' W-2 7.18' W-3 4.65' W-4 4.08' W-5 3.35' W-6 4.89' EAST SIDE NO.DEPTH E-1 10.10' E-2 8.91' E-3 7.22' E-4 7.96' E-5 9.74' E-6 9.52' E-7 8.36' E-8 8.20' 5-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT - TYPICAL OF 4 SPECIAL SEWER CONSTRUCTION IS REQUIRED FOR LOTS9-16, BLOCK 1. LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE INGRESS / EGRESS EASEMENT TO BENEFIT LOT 12, BLOCK 3 jQ/rE IDIZIAN*,----DAHO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA .lune 20, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 C Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0062 Item Title: Public Hearing for Caldera Canyon By Vanessa Klaus, Located at 1294 E. Leigh Field Dr. 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 16 building lots and 3 commons lots on 2.83 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district; and, 2. Request: Modification to an existing Development Agreement for the Purpose of removing the subject property from DA Instrument #106064914 to be placed in a new, separate agreement. Meeting Notes: 4 ,eco,onm,enat R l I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for C aldera C anyon (H-2019-0062) by Vanessa Klaus, L ocated at 1294 E . L eigh Field Dr. 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 6/14/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 131 of 155 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/20/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-C Project Name: Caldera Canyon Project No.: H-2019-0062 Active: ❑ There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 of 1 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=261 6/21/2019 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 6/20/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0062 Caldera Canyon LOCATION: 1294 E. Leigh Field Dr., in the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 31, Township 4N., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a preliminary plat consisting of sixteen (16) building lots and three (3) common lots on 2.83 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district; and request to modify the existing development agreement to remove the subject property and to enter into a new agreement. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 2.83 Future Land Use Designation MU-N/N.C. Existing Land Use One (1) Single-family residence Proposed Land Use(s) SFR subdivision Current Zoning R-8 Proposed Zoning R-8 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 19 total (16 bldg./3 common) Phasing plan (# of phases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units (type of units) 16 SFR units Density (gross & net) 5.65 du/acre gross; 6.91 du/acre net Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: April 15, 2019; 7 attendees History (previous approvals) Annexed with Quenzer North Subdivision (AZ-05-063, DA Inst. No. 106064914; PP-05-063); final platted as Lot 7, Block 31 of Quenzer Commons No. 10 (FP-06-020) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 132 of 155 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) One (1) point of access to E. Leigh Field Dr. (collector) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access One (1) stub street proposed to the north Staff recommends a driveway extension to the west to provide access to Lot 12, Block 2 and provision of a local street stub to the east for future interconnectivity. 7 Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers Five-foot attached sidewalk along E. Leigh Field Dr. Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) ¾ mile to Champion Park ~ 1 mile to Settlers Park Fire Service 20  Distance to Fire Station +/- 0.4 miles from Fire Station No. 3  Fire Response Time 2 minutes (under ideal conditions)  Resource Reliability 82% (does not meet target goal of 85% or greater)  Risk Identification 1=residential  Accessibility Project meets all required access, road widths and turnarounds. The common driveway will need to be signed “No Parking Fire Lane”. Coordinate with addressing technician for common driveway sign.  Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device.  Water Supply 1000 gal./minute for 1 hour required Police Service 22  Distance to Police Station 3 miles  Police Response Time 3-4 minutes (under average response time in Meridian)  Calls for Service Between 4/1/2018-3/31/2019 PD responded to 485 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 No issues with proposed access  Specialty/resource needs None  Crimes 97  Crashes 34 (41% injury related) West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Prospect Elementary: +/- ¼ mile Pathways Middle School: +/- 1/3 mile Rocky Mountain High School: +/- 1.65 miles Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0 Ft.  Sewer Shed White Drain Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application for detail  WRRF Declining Balance 13.68  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 133 of 155 Page 3 Description Details Page  Impacts/Concerns Flow commitments have been added (1,840 GPD avg. sanitary flow; 59 GPD avg. infiltration flow). Ensure that water and sewer service stubs meet the minimum horizontal separation requirements. Water  Distance to Water Services 0 Ft.  Pressure Zone 2  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application for detail  Water Quality Concerns None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns Water main size must be notated on the construction plans. Water main in common drive must be eliminated and replaced with water services to serve the homes off of the common drive. What is proposed for the "Not-A-Part" lot 12 and how will it ultimately be served for water? C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 134 of 155 Page 4 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Vanessa Klaus 1294 E. Leigh Field Dr. Meridian, ID 83646 B. Representative: Penelope Constantikes, Riley Planning Services, LLC. P.O. Box 405 Boise, ID 83701 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 5/31/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 5/28/2019 Radius notification published on 6/7/2019 Nextdoor posting 5/28/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The development agreement modification proposes to remove the subject property from the terms of the existing development agreement (Inst. #106064914, AZ-05-063 Quenzer North Subdivision) and enter into a new development agreement for the proposed development. The applicant requests to enter into a new development agreement as this property is going to be developed independently from the Quenzer Commons Subdivision, in which it was originally annexed, zoned and platted. A legal description and exhibit map will need to be submitted that incorporates the overall Caldera Canyon development prior to the City Council hearing. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 135 of 155 Page 5 The proposed preliminary plat consists of sixteen (16) building lots and three (3) common lots on 2.83 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district. The subdivision includes one (1) existing home and is proposed to develop in one (1) phase. A. Future Land Use Map Designation (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N) with a Neighborhood Center (N.C.) overlay – The purpose of the MU-N designation is to assign areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. N.C. overlays are intended to create a centralized, pedestrian and service-oriented focal point for neighborhood scale development. N.C. areas are conceptual and are intended to identify a maximum walking distance of ¼ mile from the core of a neighborhood center. The proposed development was originally annexed, zoned and platted as Lot 31, Block 7 of the Quenzer Commons No. 10 Subdivision. Although the proposed development is only 2.83 acres in size it proposes to extend a grid-like street to the north, which will provide an opportunity for the property to the north to fulfill characteristics of the MU-N/N.C designation. Since the parcel was already zoned R-8, is providing an opportunity for surrounding properties to redevelop and reflects a similar design and layout to the original Quenzer Commons No. 10 subdivision to the west, staff finds the proposed subdivision is consistent with the FLUM designations for the area. Further, there is an existing five acre parcel on the east boundary that has not yet annexed into the City. With future development of this property the City will be requiring additional neighborhood serving uses and integrated land uses as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed gross density is 5.65 du/acre while the net density is 6.91 du/acre, which falls slightly below the MU-N target density of 6-12 units/acre and the N.C. target density of 8+ units/acre. Given the infill nature of the 2.83 acre site, staff is of the opinion that although the density is slightly lower than the target density, the proposed development is generally consistent with the MU-N, N.C. FLUM designation 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.  “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets).” (3.03.02O) The applicant proposes to stub the local street bisecting the subject property to the north for future extension. Staff’s recommendation to extend the driveway from Lot 12, Block 2 and add a stub to the property to the east would further enforce this acti on item and would increase interconnectivity among developments.  “Encourage infill development.” (3.04.02B) This site was originally platted as part of the Quenzer Commons No. 10 subdivision and is located adjacent to several existing residential subdivisions. The applicant’s proposal includes similarly sized lots and will complement existing subdivisions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 136 of 155 Page 6  “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 extending north/south through the development with five-foot attached sidewalks to increase vehicular and pedestrian connectivity to future developments. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is one (1) existing home on this site that is proposed to remain and is located on Lot 12, Block 2. The existing structure meets the required setbacks of the R-8 zoning district; any additions to the lot will be subject to R-8 zoning district dimensional standards. Any remaining structures aside from the home and ancillary structures on Lot 12 shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. The applicant has submitted a concept of possible redevelopment for the site should the property owner leave the premises in the future (see Exhibit VII.E). If the site does redevelop, the common driveway length shall be approved by the Meridian Fire Department in accord with UDC 11-6C- 3D3. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes to construct fifteen (15) single-family detached dwellings with one (1) existing home to remain at the southwest portion of the site (Lot 12, Block 2), with three (3) common lots, one (1) of which is a common driveway. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. E. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): This development is subject to the R-8 zoning district dimensional standards in UDC Table 11- 2A-6 (see below). Buildable lots range in size from approximately 4,032 square feet to approximately 5,372 square feet, excluding the existing lot at 34,668 square feet, complying with the UDC minimum dimensional standard of 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 137 of 155 Page 7 F. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): A public street is proposed to extend to the north from E. Leigh Field Dr. and will be stubbed to the property to the north (parcel #R1608650331) for future extension should redevelopment occur. UDC 11-3A-3A.3 requires all subdivisions provide local street access to any use that currently takes access from a collector road. The existing home on Lot 12, Block 2 proposes to retain their direct access to E. Leigh Field Dr. as part of this project. Staff recommends that the applicant extend the driveway from Lot 12, Block 2 to N. Heritage View Ave. and extend a stub street to Ada County parcel to the east. The applicant is seeking a council waiver to allow the existing home to maintain access and to refrain from extending a stub to the east in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. If Council does not grant the access waiver for both requests, the applicant shall redesign their plat to provide local street access to Lot 12, Block 2 and the parcel to the east. NOTE: If the streets are extended as recommended by staff, this may require the applicant to lose several lots which reduces the density even further than what is desired in the MU-N designated area as noted above. G. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The five-foot attached sidewalk adjacent to E. Leigh Field Dr. was constructed with the development of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10. The applicant proposes to construct five-foot attached sidewalks within the development along the local street extending north (N. Heritage View Ave.) in accord with UDC standards. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 138 of 155 Page 8 H. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-2A-6 requires a 20-foot landscape buffer along E. Leigh Field Dr. There is an existing landscape buffer that was installed with Heritage Commons No. 1. The 20-foot landscape buffer was placed in an easement with the approval of Heritage Commons No. 1. In accord with UDC 11-3B-7, the applicant proposes to place a majority of the landscape buffer within a common lot that is to be owned and maintained by the home owner’s association. A portion of the eastern part of the landscape buffer along E. Leigh Field Dr. is located within an easement; the landscape buffer shall be located within a common lot extended from Lot 1, Block 2, or the applicant shall be required to seek alternative compliance prior to final plat approval. Additionally, if the applicant is not granted a waiver for direct access to E. Leigh Field Dr. for Lot 12, Block 2, the applicant will be required to convert the frontage into a 20-foot landscape buffer located within a common lot in accord with UDC standards. The 20-foot landscape buffer currently includes mature arborvitaes, the applicant’s narrative proposes to include trees and vegetative groundcover in compliance with UDC 11-3B-7C-3 requirements. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include four (4) additional trees to comply with these requirements. 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 applicant shall coordinate with Elroy Huff, City Arborist to confirm mitigation requirements. I. Qualified Open Space/Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): UDC 11-3G-2 does not require open space or amenities for developments under five (5) acres in size. The subject property is 2.83 acres in size, as such, open space and amenities are not required. J. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): A six-foot vinyl fence is proposed along the north and east boundaries of the subject site; six-foot fencing constructed with Quenzer Commons exists along the west boundary. Proposed fencing complies with UDC standards. K. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3D): The applicant is proposing a common driveway for the development to provide access to four (4) of the sixteen (16) proposed homes in the development. The common driveway is proposed to be extended from a proposed local public street (N. Heritage View Ave.) from the east. Common driveways shall be a maximum of one-hundred-fifty feet (150’) in length unless otherwise approved by the Meridian Fire Department. The proposed length of the driveway measures approximately 140’ in compliance with UDC standards. However, the current edge of pavement measures approximately 25-feet short of two (2) building lots accessing the common driveway at the west part of the site (Lots 7 and 11, Block 2). The common driveway exhibit (see Exhibit VII.C) depicts the driveways of Lots 7 and 11, Block 2 curving at an angle, which do not appear to align with the paved area of the common driveway. The applicant shall clarify the alignment of the subject driveways with the common driveway and, if applicable, shall adjust the edge of pavement accordingly with approval from the Fire Department. For all common driveways, a perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of that easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 139 of 155 Page 9 Lots 5 and 9, Block 2 are not proposed to take access via the common drive, however are required to adhere to the common driveway requirements in UDC 11-6C-3D.5. All driveways for properties abutting a common driveway shall be on the opposite side of the shared property line, away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways shall be prohibited, unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscape buffer. L. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation (PI) system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. The current proposal depicts the PI pump station within a buildable lot (Lot 9, Block 2). UDC 11- 3B-6E requires that pressurized irrigation stations be placed on a lot solely dedicated to the pump station; the applicant shall reconfigure the lots to include a common lot for the pump station. M. 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. N. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the future homes within this development. Building materials consist of stucco, hardy plank and board-and-batten siding with some stone accents (see Exhibit VII.E). Proposed homes will be single-level and will complement existing homes in surrounding neighborhoods. Single-story homes are exempt from review from the Planning Division on those lots adjacent to E. Leigh Field Drive. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed development agreement modification and preliminary plat requests for this site with the modified development agreement provisions and conditions listed in Section VIII of this report in accord with the findings contained in Exhibit D. Note: The driveway access for the existing home via E. Leigh Field Dr. and current configuration of the plat in regard to the property to the east requires Council approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3, which limits access via collector streets when access via a local street is available. In this case, access is available via one (1) proposed local street (N. Heritage View Ave.). If a waiver is not approved, the plans submitted with the final plat application should be revised accordingly. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 140 of 155 Page 10 VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat (date: 4/11/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 141 of 155 Page 11 B. Landscape Plan (date: 5/10/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 142 of 155 Page 12 C. Common Driveway Exhibit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 143 of 155 Page 13 D. Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 144 of 155 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 145 of 155 Page 15 E. Redevelopment Exhibit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 146 of 155 Page 16 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A new Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of the request for a modification to the existing DA to exclude this property from the existing agreement (Inst. No. 106064914). A new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner, 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 approval. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall comply with the preliminary plat, redevelopment plan for Lot 12, Block 2, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Direct lot access to E. Leigh Field Drive is prohibited unless waived by City Council in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.A, shall be revised as follows: a. The applicant shall include the pump station within a common lot in accord with UDC 11-3B-6E. b. Lot 12, Block 2 shall take access from N. Heritage View Ave. in accord with UDC 11- 3A-3A.3, unless waived by City Council. c. The applicant shall provide a stub street to the property to the east (parcel #R1608650375) for future interconnectivity unless waived by City Council in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.3. d. Include a note stating ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the common lots. e. Include a note stating access via common driveway is restricted to Lots 6, 7, 10, and 11, and if applicable, a lot that may result from redevelopment of Lot 12. f. The applicant shall clarify the alignment of the driveways to Lots 7 and 11, Block 2 with the common driveway and, if applicable, shall coordinate with the Fire Department and adjust the edge of pavement accordingly. g. The landscape buffer currently depicted as an easement along E. Leigh Field Dr. shall be located within a common lot extended from Lot 1, Block 2 in accord with UDC 11-3B- 7C, or the applicant shall be required to seek alternative compliance prior to final plat approval. h. If the applicant is not granted a waiver for direct access to E. Leigh Field Dr. for Lot 12, Block 2, the applicant shall convert the frontage into a 20-foot landscape buffer located within a common lot in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.B shall be revised as follows: a. Four (4) trees shall be added within the street buffer along E. Leigh Field Dr. in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.3b. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 147 of 155 Page 17 b. The applicant shall coordinate with Elroy Huff, City Arborist, to confirm any mitigation requirements for trees proposed to be removed. The mitigation plan shall be referenced on the landscape plan submitted with a final plat application. c. The landscape buffer currently depicted as an easement along E. Leigh Field Dr. shall buffer be located within a common lot extended from Lot 1, Block 2 in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C, or the applicant shall be required to seek alternative compliance prior to final plat approval. d. If the applicant is not granted a waiver for direct access to E. Leigh Field Dr. for Lot 12, Block 2, the applicant shall convert the frontage into a 20-foot landscape buffer located within a common lot in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. 4. A legal description and exhibit map will need to be submitted that incorporates the overall Caldera Canyon development prior to the City Council hearing. 5. Depict fencing on building lots adjacent to common open space lots in residential areas to distinguish common from private areas as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A.7. 6. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s) shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. 7. All driveways for properties abutting a common driveway shall be on the opposite side of the shared property line, away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways shall be prohibited, unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscape buffer. 8. Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-8 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5. 9. Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 10. 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. 11. Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 12. Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 13. Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3B-11C. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 17. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 148 of 155 Page 18 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. 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. 21. 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. 22. The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C2. 23. 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. 24. 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 Applicant shall be required to establish a new water service directly to the existing water main in E. Leigh Field Drive for Lot 12, Block 2, and abandon the existing service from N. Heritage View Avenue per the Meridian Design Standards. Due to the size of the existing structure on Lot 12, Block 2, and the potential for increased demand on this lot, a one-inch single service/meter will be required. 1.3 Independent sewer and water services lines for each lot shall be required in the common driveway Lot, Block 2 in lieu of mainlines as proposed. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with Suez Water Idaho, and the Meridian Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public sewer mains outside of public right of way. The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 149 of 155 Page 19 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 may be necessary. 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, and road base approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to issuance of building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 150 of 155 Page 20 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, and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161916/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 151 of 155 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 152 of 155 Page 22 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/162994/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 153 of 155 Page 23 E. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169289/Page1.aspx F. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169385/Page1.aspx G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169451/Page1.aspx H. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/173000/Page1.aspx IX. FINDINGS Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. 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 substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 154 of 155 Page 24 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 20, 2019 – Page 155 of 155 In conclusion we request that the\projec a approved as proposed with the following changes to the Site Specific Conditi nss Approval: 1. Item 2. b: We request that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council that the existing access for 1294 Leigh Field be retained. 2. That Item 2. c. requiring a stub street to the east be removed from the conditions of approval. 3. Item 2.f.: The applicant will work with the Fire Department. In the event it is needed, the applicant would like the option of provide a shared access point off the shared driveway for Lots 10 and 11 and Lots 6 and 7. 4. Item 3. a.: Rather than remove the existing plants to add trees, we request this be changed so that as these plants reach the end of their life cycle they can be replace with trees. 5. Item 3.d.: A landscape buffer and an internal driveway are mutually exclusive. If the internal access is required, a landscape buffer will not be possible. 6. Item 7: The shared driveway is exactly 150 feet deep. In the event that the Fire Department is not comfortable with the driveways as shown on the Shared Driveway Exhibit, the applicant requests a waiver to allow a short shared access point for Lots 30 D SO 20 3U 60 SCALE IN FEET I. = 30' 1' 3:3 MAX. —� 5' WIDE, 5" THICK 510E WALK -� PER ACHD SUP.. 5D-709 3" ROLIEOCURR & GUITER PER ACHD SUPP. SD --R12 G 12 34,6686) PRELIMINARY PLAT I CALDERA CANYON SU, LOT 7, BLOCK 31 OF QUENZER COMMONS LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE TAN., R_1E., B.M,, ADA COUN 2019 CRFSTWOOD SUBDIVISION N0, I BOOK 28 PACE 1757 W I DANIELA.BMAaCAIA M. DARK aoBeN QpEi42Efl WAY F- I MEfliDE9µ ID 83696 � m 0 _�- I 589`44'33"E 40.00' 0 L — PA N ry P 3 1360/3 y , 260# � iaE J I I I 1' 3:3 MAX. —� 5' WIDE, 5" THICK 510E WALK -� PER ACHD SUP.. 5D-709 3" ROLIEOCURR & GUITER PER ACHD SUPP. SD --R12 G 12 34,6686) PRELIMINARY PLAT I CALDERA CANYON SU, LOT 7, BLOCK 31 OF QUENZER COMMONS LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE TAN., R_1E., B.M,, ADA COUN 2019 CRFSTWOOD SUBDIVISION N0, I BOOK 28 PACE 1757 I 3AIFpC4 MOfl r. GBPNAM 1236 E. GREFId HAVEN SE. MH9IDIAW 1083646 P/L— �e m i I qw � I I 4,3776f I wU I 2� N ry I PI PUMP i B1, PA 260# � iaE J I I I 10 � I r Pn PA I I 4,9986f I� 5,372E - I Li-4 IT ISI I I 1� I I I I I I I sp2e 2.5'OFASPHALT (5.-3,0.50 P/L , 41' OF 3/4" MINUS 25" OF ASPHALT (SP -3, 0.5D PERACHD SVP.. SD -]09 INCH(1/2 ) MIK' PG -58-281 1' 3:3 MAX. —� 5' WIDE, 5" THICK 510E WALK -� PER ACHD SUP.. 5D-709 3" ROLIEOCURR & GUITER PER ACHD SUPP. SD --R12 G 12 34,6686) PRELIMINARY PLAT I CALDERA CANYON SU, LOT 7, BLOCK 31 OF QUENZER COMMONS LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE TAN., R_1E., B.M,, ADA COUN 2019 CRFSTWOOD SUBDIVISION N0, I BOOK 28 PACE 1757 4'. OMINAGE MALE I I O I I I 4,280 f 4,032sf ! 4,031 f I----�.-----� I d l P/L—P/L -- BLOCK 2---- —rte DP I IF J T I /L 4 I —Pl-ad' _ — _ FI ae-1 — — �� 4O I _2- , a I I I � I a I 4,180E jL----ED---- I 3AIFpC4 MOfl r. GBPNAM 1236 E. GREFId HAVEN SE. MH9IDIAW 1083646 P/L— �i--------- I I i I S89°46'20"E 338.79' I O2 I I I 4,3776f I I 81 I 4,274 sf l I PI PUMP 33' B1, PA 260# � i i STATION I I I 10 In I Og I n '2f I� ISI I 4,9986f I� 5,372E - I Li-4 IT ISI I I 1� I I I I I I I 4'. OMINAGE MALE I I O I I I 4,280 f 4,032sf ! 4,031 f I----�.-----� I d l P/L—P/L -- BLOCK 2---- —rte DP I IF J T I /L 4 I —Pl-ad' _ — _ FI ae-1 — — �� 4O I _2- , a I I I � I a I 4,180E jL----ED---- I P/L P/L— �i--------- I I i I I I� I I O2 I I I 4,3776f I I 81 I 4,274 sf 1' LOT T 61 'TBMR _ IS83 46 20'W 378.88' FISTING ACHD —W 7� BASES OF BEAR/NG _�-f--- jw �nsEMEAN�r E LEIGH FIELD OR. , s s s s s s 6 s s plsL,-NRy '9vW - a/N�_• 3 �. aAW aiw� OIW'� 8 M'YP. U➢SH4W NDaMPNL 6 W£NDYMCQURE RIMMM .'� 2 3UOYN.B [HAI¢E6E 5TU0ER 3 "� 3%BN. pDEN2Eft WAV 3993N Hf6fMGf t1EWAV£ 33 939ELEWNFlELDOR. " MERIMAµ1D83646 \ ` MEaIDiAµ ID83646 a Z � M6PlpAµ IDffi646 4T' I I � I 7 23.5' I 4,274 sf 1' 3PIL 33' B1, PA qL r---------- I I Sas' las z• W N I 6 1% MIN. 1% MIN. 1' Imo— VWIDE,6"THICK I 4,229 11 yi MAX. - j I ... 6" OF 314" MINUS 3' WIDE, P/L 2.5'OFASPHALT (5.-3,0.50 P/L , 41' OF 3/4" MINUS 25" OF ASPHALT (SP -3, 0.5D PERACHD SVP.. SD -]09 INCH(1/2 ) MIK' PG -58-281 el' — — — — 3"ROLLED CURB&G1ITTER a"OF 3/4"MINUS 3 I I 1W' OF 6 - MINUS PIT PUN _ I I Q I - N 4,212 sf 4r I 33' I n LD L----------- N �-, P/ P!L M — — 81'— — --- 3 w I BLOCK 1 - m I ® I a 4,196E °Q I P/L P/L '..5' 23.5' N I Q I.-aL 4,1801 ;I I P L P/L I 2609 4,132 sf 3"L --- --__J LOT T 61 'TBMR _ IS83 46 20'W 378.88' FISTING ACHD —W 7� BASES OF BEAR/NG _�-f--- jw �nsEMEAN�r E LEIGH FIELD OR. , s s s s s s 6 s s plsL,-NRy '9vW - a/N�_• 3 �. aAW aiw� OIW'� 8 M'YP. U➢SH4W NDaMPNL 6 W£NDYMCQURE RIMMM .'� 2 3UOYN.B [HAI¢E6E 5TU0ER 3 "� 3%BN. pDEN2Eft WAV 3993N Hf6fMGf t1EWAV£ 33 939ELEWNFlELDOR. " MERIMAµ1D83646 \ ` MEaIDiAµ ID83646 a Z � M6PlpAµ IDffi646 4T' R/W P/L 20' 23.5' 1' 7.5' 3- 7.5' 33' qL Sas' las z• s' z' ` 1% MIN. 1% MIN. 1' Imo— VWIDE,6"THICK - 4%MAK. a%MAX. yi MAX. RIBBON NRB j ... 6" OF 314" MINUS 3' WIDE, V WIDE, 5"THICK SIDEWALK 2.5'OFASPHALT (5.-3,0.50 GTHICK VALIEY GUTTER 41' OF 3/4" MINUS 25" OF ASPHALT (SP -3, 0.5D PERACHD SVP.. SD -]09 INCH(1/2 ) MIK' PG -58-281 14- Of 6"MINUS PT RUN INCH(3/2")MIK, PG -5&281 3"ROLLED CURB&G1ITTER a"OF 3/4"MINUS 6" OF 3/a•' MINUS PER ACHD SUPP. 0.702 1W' OF 6 - MINUS PIT PUN N. HERITAGE VIEW AVE. SHARED DRIVE /n b QUENZER CONMONS SUBDIVISIDN N0. t0 m x m C BDOK 96 PAGE ft987 �Vv ao�s £ - o\ -� GEDAGEASGARLET GAMMW SHANNd.W28 N.&UENMR AY GLENN —..au BEmy �+o 4Olfi N. gDEN1EF WAY W28N.4W N.WENZERWAV \ �os M£RIDWN, IDR?666 � MNfIdAN, ID83646 j MERPJIAN,ID83666 \ 6 ® ""1 N00"35'27"E 267.30' -------------- 2 — .1111-- EG—n— (9 G EG 1 KELlt M. BELL 4052 N. gDEN1ERWAY MEI"dAN, ID 8360G °n m A m>� W <x T O O O NOO°35'27"E 65. --'-----IRR 65, PI .� 42' R W 52 52 2 RAN - 52, I- 52' R 52 R/W A MEMt , IDW"6 CRES27700D SUBDIVISION NO I a ISI I NO la lel I?I 1 a I oOw I•°a O I � n I� I - I- I I ~ J to �x I IL --- ----� mZoa O 2 i P/L P/L I I lad i �timo \ NO I Io a L P/ P/L IMIN. I ISI I I I I?I � I ISI I'. vl w I I ti I doL I a o0 @ I O I I I I a I I 191 I I I ISI ISI IQI i�l I: I' I I L---- --J I 45' I R W -- — S4' LISR I I 1 S3' R I I — — — — -� 54' R� N. HERITAGEVIEWAVE." w °n m A m>� W <x T O O O NOO°35'27"E 65. --'-----IRR 65, PI .� 42' R W 52 52 2 RAN - 52, I- 52' R 52 R/W A MEMt , IDW"6 CRES27700D SUBDIVISION NO I BOOK 28 PACE 1757 ISI I NO la lel I?I 1 a I oOw I•°a O I � n I� al ISI It I tiO I� _ ISI I �O I�1 I I ~ J to I I PI 52' 1 52', pl 500'34'31"W 332 z DANIEL P. YWNG & m REBE[LA L KlAUSYWNG 14.EL HMI D— MEMt , IDW"6 CRES27700D SUBDIVISION NO I BOOK 28 PACE 1757