The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-06-25 Regular C I T Y C OUNCI L R EGU L A R M EET I NG AGENDA C ity C ouncil C hambers 33 East Broadway Avenue M eridian, Idaho Tuesday, J une 25, 2019 at 6:00 P M (Called to Order 6:12pm) 1. Roll-C all Attendance X A nne L ittle R oberts J oe B orton X Ty P almer X Treg B ernt X Genesis Milam (left @7:49pm) X L uke C avener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. P ledge of Allegiance 3. C ommunity Invocation by Larry Woodard of Ten M ile C hristian Church 4. Adoption of Agenda – Item 10 vacated from the agenda 5. Announcements 6. F uture M eeting Topics - P ublic Forum (Up to 30 M inutes M aximum) Si gni ng up pri or to the start of the meeting is requi red. Thi s time i s reserved for the public to address thei r el ected officials regardi ng matters of general i nterest or concern of public matters and is not speci fi c to an active land use/development application. By l aw, no deci si ons can be made on topi cs presented under this public comment secti on, other than the Ci ty Council may request that the topic be added to a future meeti ng agenda for a more detailed discussi on or action. The Mayor may al so di rect staff to further assist you in resol vi ng the matter following the meeti ng. 7. Action Items Public Heari ngs for Land Use Applicati ons follow this process: Once the Public Heari ng i s opened, City staff will present their report. Following the report, the applicant i s allowed up to 15 mi nutes to present their application. Members of the public are allowed up to 3 mi nutes each to address council regardi ng the application. If a person is representi ng a l arge group such as a Homeowner's Associ ation, indicated by a show of hands, they may be allowed up to 10 mi nutes. Following all public testimony, the applicant i s then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to comments. Once the public heari ng is closed, no additi onal testimony will be recei ved. The Ci ty Council may move to continue the item for additional information or vote to approve or deny the item with or without changes as presented. The Mayor is not a member of the Ci ty Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public heari ng items, unl ess to break a tie vote. A. P ublic Hear ing on Proposed New F ee: T he C ompliance Engine Administration Fee B. Resolution No. 19-2148: Adoption of New Fee - T he C ompliance E ngine Administration F ee - Approved C. F irst Amendment to Agr eement with Brycer, LLC for the C ompliance E ngine - Approved D. P ublic Hearing for T hree Corners Ranch (H-2019-0006) by Sweet L and D evelopment, Inc., L ocated at 1890 E . Dunwoody C t. – Continued to July 16, 2019 1. R equest: A nnexation and Z oning of 31.06 acres of land with the R -4 zoning District; and, 2. R equest: A P reliminary P lat consisting of 45 building lots and 9 commons lots. E. P ublic Hear ing Continued from J une 11, 2019 for 2019 UD C Text Amendment (H-2019-0049) by City of M eridian P lanning Division – Partial Approval 1. R equest: A Text A mendment to update certain sections of the UD C pertaining to notification of violations and def initions in C hapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in C hapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualif ied open space and variance processing in C hapter 3; specif ic use standards f or educ ational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-f amily development and restaurant in C hapter 4; public hearing, f ees, variances and alternative compliance in C hapter 5 A ND other miscellaneous sections, by City of Meridian P lanning D ivision 8. Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 19-1831: An Ordinance Amending M eridian C ity C ode As C odified At Title 11, To Create A New Residential S elf- Storage Use T hat Includes A Definition; S pecific Use Standards And Specifies C onditional Use Approval In T he R-15 And R-40 Zoning D istricts; And P roviding F or A Waiver Of T he Reading Rules; And Providing An E ffective Date. – Continued to July 9, 2019 9. F uture M eeting Topics 10. E xecutive S ession per Idaho S tate Code 74-206(d) to consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 1, title 74 – Vacated from the Agenda Meeting Adjourned at 10:23pm Meridian City Council June 25, 2019. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:12 p.m., Tuesday, June 25, 2019, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Ty Palmer, Luke Cavener, Genesis Milam, Anne Little Roberts and Treg Bernt. Members Absent: Joe Borton. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Stephanie Leonard, Warren Stewart, Scott Colaianni, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X__ Anne Little Roberts __ _ Joe Borton X__ Ty Palmer X__ Treg Bernt __X___Genesis Milam __X___Lucas Cavener __X__ Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: And thank you for your patience. We apologize for starting a few minutes late. But thank you for joining us this evening. For the record it is Tuesday, June 25th. It's 12 minutes after 6:00. We will start with roll call attendance, Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the pledge to our flag. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Larry Woodard of Ten Mile Christian Church De Weerd: Item 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Larry Woodard. Larry is with the Ten Mile Christian Church. We appreciate you joining us. I would ask that you join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Welcome. Woodard: Our Dear Heavenly Father, we ask you to guide the thoughts and wishes of this Council tonight. May the decisions this Council reaches serve the best interests of our community and its residents. We read weekly about the increasing number of new residents moving to this area from California and we certainly feel this growing population pressure. Guide this Council as they consider new building permits and other changes in our community. As we drive around this community we see new construction going up everywhere. May the workmen be safe as they dig trenches and raise new facilities. May Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 5 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 2 of 77 the decisions made tonight be thoughtful and helpful as our community expands. Be with the planners, the engineers, and other professionals who have a hand in this process. Thank you for blessing Meridian in ways we could have never believed a decade ago, in Jesus' name, amen. Item 4: Adoption of Agenda De Weerd: Thank you, Larry. Okay. Item 4 is adoption of the agenda. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Don't see any changes being requested, so I move we adopt the agenda as published. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as publish ed. Mr. Cavener, is that to also remove Item No. 10? Cavener: If Council's amenable to that, I'm fine with striking Item 10. I guess I left it on there and if we felt that we needed to go back in, then, we could immediately adjourn, but it doesn't matter to me. I'm seeing lots of stare s. So, yeah, Madam Mayor, my motion did mean to strike Item 10 from the agenda. De Weerd: Okay. And second agrees? Milam: Agree. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And I have a motion and second to adopt the agenda as changed. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Announcements De Weerd: Under Item 5, Announcements, I do want to remind Council that we have our city's picnic on the 27th, which is this Thursday. Already. It's the end of June. It starts at 5:30 at Kleiner Park. Also a reminder that July 2nd the meeting -- City Council meeting is canceled and to our public that City Hall will be closed on July 4th for Independence Day. So, with that I -- oh, and to invite everyone to our celebration of Independence Day at Storey Park and fireworks at 10:00 p.m. This is in partnership with the Meridian Speedway. Always a great show. Council, any other announcements? Very good. Item 6: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 6 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 3 of 77 De Weerd: Item 6. Mr. Clerk, any sign-ups for Item 6? Johnson: Madam Mayor, there were three people signed in, but they indicated they were here for a later project. I have spoken to them and there were no additional sign-ins. Item 7: Action Items A. Public Hearing on Proposed New Fee: The Compliance Engine Administration Fee De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Chris. Item 7 under Action Items. We start with the public hearing on the new proposed fee for the Compliance Engine Administration fee. This is a continued conversation and I will turn this over to our Deputy Chief Joe. Bongiorno: Thank you, Madam Mayor and City Council. So, this is a -- what you have before you is the public hearing for a modification of a contract that we have -- currently have with the Brycer -- with Brycer, who manages the Compliance Engine and as you all have known by now, we use the compliance engine as a third-party vendor to track fire sprinkler systems, hood cleanings, hood suppression systems, paint booth suppression systems, all of the important things that keep our citizens safe when they are out in the city visiting our commercial businesses. So, along with this we have -- are requesting a contract change from 15 dollars and -- what the current fee is to 30 dollars and talking with Council and -- sorry -- with our attorney and with Finance, the contract change constitutes a fee and so that's a new fee and so that's why I'm here standing before you today is to I guess introduced this new fee that would be part of that contract change with the Brycer company. So, again, this would be a partial cost recovery for the fire department. It's the first endeavor that we have been -- had with that. Talking with Todd from Finance, they -- they agree that this is an acceptable amount to collect . It's in the packet in front of you for the Compliance Engine fee. Out of that fee we would collect $13.05 per inspection. So, it would roughly be about 29,000 dollars a year. So, it would be a partial cost recovery. I know Council Member Milam had asked about what the full recovery costs -- full recovery costs would be an additional -- it would be 28 dollars and I think that would put us way out of line with what the rest of the valley is doing , the other fire departments. Boise fire, Kuna fire, Eagle fire, Star fire, have all adopted the Compliance Engine at the 30 dollar fee. So, this is going to be a consistency thing. So, it's the same throughout the valley. When I took the job as the fire marshal that was one of my goals was to keep us consistent in the valley, so we didn't have, well, Boise does this, Meridian does this, Kuna does this. We are all trying to get on the same page. So, we did do some open houses. Chief -- Chief Gervais from Boise fire and I had some open houses to talk about the -- the fee increase with people. We did have one visitor that showed up for one of our open houses. We did a couple presentations before large groups. We got some feedback on that. With that we did change the number of inspections. We narrowed it down a little bit and combined a couple of them to lessen the impact on the people that would actually be paying this fe e and, then, we also sent a letter to a couple different groups. The building -- BOMA -- the Building Owners and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 7 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 4 of 77 Managers Association, looking for feedback from them and we did not receive any feedback from them. So, with that I will answer any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Bongiorno: Thank you. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Thank you, Joe. Question for you. Bongiorno: Yes. Bernt: We spoke about before in regard to combining, you know, multiple inspections, maybe they are year inspections, along with their five year inspection, make that one inspection to save them money. Were you able to accomplish that? Bongiorno: Yes, we did. We changed in our groups -- again, consistency. So, Boise fire and Meridian fire both have the same inspection plan -- Bernt: Right. Bongiorno: -- laundry list and with that we did combine some items to lessen that impact and, then, we also -- we also agreed for like the hood cleanings, because most restaurants have to -- are required every six months to have their hoods cleaned. What Romeo and I agreed to was just -- they just have to submit once a year that shows that the hood's been cleaned and, then, during the off year if we happen to go in for an inspection, we can just ask them can you provide me the invoice for -- so, that, again, it has the amount of what we would have been doing. So, we -- we worked with it to lessen the impact on -- on our business owners. Bernt: Thanks, chief. De Weerd: Any other questions or comments? Thank you. Bongiorno: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing on proposed new fees. Mr. Clerk, is anyone signed up? Johnson: Madam Mayor, there were no signups. De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone who wishes to provide testimony on the item? Okay. Thank you. Council, there are -- any further information needed from Chief Bongiorno? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 8 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 5 of 77 Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, hearing no more comments, I move we close the public hearing. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Resolution No. 19-2148: Adoption of New Fee - The Compliance Engine Administration Fee Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: If we can move on to Item B, I move that we approve Resolution 19-2148 with the adoption of the new fee for the Compliance Engine. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Resolution 19-2148. Any discussion? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Briefly. Chief, appreciate your work on this. This is one that kind of caught us all a little bit off guard. Appreciate you and the Finance Department going back to -- you know, I struggled for a minute about this being a partial fee recovery. There is a certain element of life safety here that I think is appropriate that our taxpayers are having to cover some of that cost, but I do think for us as a body it does move to the conversation as this Council progresses about having more larger philosophical conversations about what is appropriate for total fee recovery, a partial fee recovery, no fee recovery. Help with our new work session that that's something that we can really start to wrestle with in the coming weeks and months. So, I'm suppo rtive of the motion. I appreciate your good work on that, chief. Bongiorno: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 9 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 6 of 77 De Weerd: Yes, thank you, chief. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. First Amendment to Agreement with Brycer, LLC for the Compliance Engine De Weerd: Also related is Item C, which is the first amendment to the agreement with Brycer. Any comments from Chief Bongiorno? Bongiorno: Madam Mayor and City Council, this is just the approval for the Mayor to sign the contract. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the amendment to the agreement with Brycer for you to sign. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-C. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: We are now in the public hearing section for land use items. If anyone is new to our process this evening, I would like to just give you an idea what to expect. First, we staff -- we start with staff comments and they will introduce the application that is in front of Council for a decision. Following that the applicant has an opportunity to comment on their development application. They have 15 minutes to do so. At the tail end of that we will ask for public comment. There is a time limit of three minutes per person , unless there is a spokesperson for the HOA, they have ten minutes and there is a little note -- or a little box on the monitor that shows you your time and so you can also keep track of that. I will ask you to summarize if you are still testifying and, then, give you a few -- a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 10 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 7 of 77 few seconds to -- to wrap up your comments. After public testimony we will ask the applicant to come forward and -- and do any wrap up comments. In addition to answering any questions that might have been raised during the testimony. Council will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff, the applicant, and any of those that testified. As well I would like to note that Council does have the public record. They do have the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission. They have agency comments and they use all of this in their consideration for any action that they might take. D. Public Hearing for Three Corners Ranch (H-2019-0006) by Sweet Land Development, Inc., Located at 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 31.06 acres of land with the R-4 zoning District; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 45 building lots and 9 commons lots. De Weerd: So, with that said I will go ahead and open this public hearing for Item 8-D, H-2019-0006 with staff comments. Leonard: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. The project before you this evening is for Three Corners Ranch, annexation and preliminary plat of 31 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county and located at 1890 East Dunwoody Court. To the north is single family residential subdivisions, Bristol Heights to the east, zoned R-1 and R-1-C and Fuller Ranchettes here to the north. To the south is a single family residential subdivision, zoned R-4, Vienna Woods, and a single family residential subdivision zoned R-1-C in Boise, which is Bristol Heights as well. To the west is a single family residential subdivision, zoned RUT in the county, Dunwoody Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this area is low density residential. The applicant is requesting to annex 31 acres of land. The R-4 zoning district, consistent with the LDR future land use designation. The preliminary plat consists of 45 building lots, one -- one of which is an existing home here on Lot 19. The applicant received private street approval from staff on this with gates at the entrances to the subdivision at East Barclay Street here and East Dunwoody Court here. The subject site is 31 acres. It's an in-fill property and it's located among several existing Meridian, Boise and Ada county subdivisions as noted earlier. The site has five abutting stub -- stub streets that were installed with the development of previous subdivisions, with the intention of future extension. The site also has 50 foot frontage along East Dunwoody Court here to the west. With so many potential stub streets connectivity and points of access have been greatly discussed by residents, city staff and Ada County Highway District throughout the process. ACHD commission did hear this project on March 27th and approved the plan that's before you this evening. Lot sizes range from approximately 11,000 square feet to 96,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 22,000 square feet, which is approximately half an acre. The gross density is 1.45 dwelling units per acre, which is at the low end of the low density residential target density and the applicant is proposing to include a 1.26 acre neighborhood park here with a basketball court and some pocket parks throughout. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 11 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 8 of 77 They are also providing micro paths and pedestrian paths to the surrounding subdivisions. The applicant is proposing access via West Barclay Street here and to East Dunwoody Court here with a private street and it will be gated at least 50 feet back from both entrances. Public street access is not proposed with this plan. However, residents and visitors will be able to access the subdivision via these two entrances. The applicant is proposing to extend two of the five stub streets, North Sweet Valley Road, to connect to Shandee here at the northwest part of the site with a public street, which is West Guinness Street. Shandee Drive provides access to the Fuller Ranchettes Subdivision, which is that subdivision here, which currently has access to Chinden or State Highway 20-26. Right here it has full access. That access is going to be restricted to right-in, right-out when Chinden is expanded to five lanes and, then, later It will be completely -- or access will be prohibited once it's extended to six lanes. The extension of this roadway does provide access to the Fuller Ranchettes Subdivision. The closure of the existing access point to Chinden would result in a dead-end loop with one point of access for Shandee coming up here. Staff originally recommended an extension of West Guinness Street to North Stafford Place to create an additional access point for residents and to increase connectivity. The Commission did strike that condition. The Commission also modified staff's recommendation to extend a private north-south street from East Commander Lane to the north here -- to the north to be installed upon closure of Shandee Dr. -- so, Shandee Drive to Chinden. The Commission is recommending approval with the conditions that are in the staff report and then -- I'm not sure if in the interest of time if you want me to go through all the folks that signed in opposition or f avor or neutral to -- there were quite a few that signed in. De Weerd: It's all part of the public record, so -- Leonard: Quite a few folks also commented and provided some verbal testimony. Some of the issues that they brought up were support of ACHD's approved plan, opposition to staff's recommendations. Concern related to safety and congestion resulting from increased traffic through Three Corners, the Ambrose School, and Dunwoody Court and concern regarding access via Dunwoody Court related to the unimproved roadway and the rural nature of the road and extension of existing stub streets in general. Key issues of discussion by Commission. Location and turnaround at the western boundary gates. They recommended that it be moved back further to the east. Extension of West Guinness Street to the east to connect with North Stafford. Extension of a north-south private street from East Commander Lane to replace this pathway. Concern regarding safety on Dunwoody Court. Closeness of the UCC commission decision. Request for further discussion regarding amenities with staff . Provision of a third access point to alleviate amount of traffic on East Dunwoody Court and the need to work with Dunwoody neighbors specifically related to irrigation and safety concerns. Commission did change some conditions. They struck the conditions regarding extension of West Guinness Street to the east to connect with North Stafford. They modified condition A-3-D to include a provision that deeded a north-south private street to be constructed on the closure of the current access point from Shandee to Chinden and they added a condition to require that the gate on the westbound -- or the west entry over here be moved further east to allow for more of a turnaround. Outstanding conditions for you today are that the applicant was Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 12 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 9 of 77 required to modify the plat for the recommended changes and it has not presented that to staff yet. The Council also needs to grant a partial waiver as the applicant proposes to locate a portion of the Karnes Lateral here within buildable lots and the applicant did meet with Dunwoody residents regarding the Dunwoody Court safety concerns and, then, also irrigation. So, since the Commission hearing there have been ten records of written testimony, most of which were received from the Dunwoody -- or from Dunwoody residents in relation to concerns regarding safety and overall traffic mitigation. A couple of neighbors in Bristol Heights did voice their -- were in favor of the ACHD plan and in favor of gates, elimination of cut-through traffic by providing access via North Stafford Place, so general agreement with them. Commission's recommendations. And, then, comments from David and Luane Dean regarding their interest in pursuing a lower density subdivision to add to Meridian and working with neighbors. So, with that staff will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Stephanie. Council, any question? Cavener: Not right now. De Weerd: Thank you very much. Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Clark: Good evening. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. Representing the applicant. And I do have a little presentation here. Thank you , Stephanie. Well, it's good to be back in front of the Council. This is an interesting project as Stephanie showed you. It's -- it's one that has some kind of interesting questions about the connectivity issue. This is not your typical developer situation as well. This is a -- this is a developer who actually lives in -- the husband and wife who actually live in this northwest corner here. So , they care a great deal about this project. It's very personal. They want to make sure that it's done right. And that led to many of the decisions that we are going to talk about tonight, including the density. As Stephanie mentioned, there are 44 new residential lots that are being proposed with this application. Most developers wouldn't do that. They would probably try to double that. And in this case they did not. They tried to transition from the Dunwoody neighbors to the west to match the Barclay neighbors on the east . These homesites do blend with the neighbors. I do think that it's useful to look at a little bit of the history of the lot. This is called Three Corners Ranch, but you might be able to call it Dunwoody Two. This lot was one of the original lots within the Dunwoody Subdivision. While it wasn't developed with the original subdivision , the lot has always been identified for future development and, in fact, this is from the Dunwoody CC&Rs. The CC&Rs specifically identified Dunwoody Court as being a future access for this lot once it developed. In terms of the pathway that we took to get to the design that's before you tonight, as I mentioned, this is a unique property. Six potential stubs. It's not something that I have seen on a property this small. This raised a very real concern with the concept of cut-through traffic and you can see here that this entire -- you don't actually see it in this picture, but it's something that I will talk about through -- throughout the evening. Within this square mile block there is no collector network . Other than Bennington, we are talking about local roads through the entire thing. There are also no commercial uses Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 13 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 10 of 77 or parks that can be accessed from the internal roadways, so there can be access via pedestrian means. There are only front facing local streets other than Bennington Way. As we discussed this with the agencies, there was a concern that this could very easily turn into a mid mile collector with a straight shot all the way from Locust Grove to Eagle. Again, with the exception of Bennington Way, these roads are all local. They should not function that way. So, to address that issue, this is where the gates came from and this is why I wanted to address this with you up front. Those gates are located at Dunwoody and Barclay. They would end the temptation for folks outside of this square mile to use this as a cut through. That doesn't appear to be a controversial issue at this point . ACHD was in favor of that. P&Z is in favor of that and I think most of the neighbors are in favor of that. But I do want to emphasize that the -- the sidewalks and the pathways are all going to be open to the public and that was a condition of approval of the ACHD commission action and something we were happy to agree to. So, pedestrian conductivity is not affected by those gates it just gets rid of the issue of the -- of the de facto collector. So, with that in mind I would like to talk about the P&Z recommendation and focus on a couple of elements and try to keep this kind of a focus conversation tonight. The first issue that we wanted to talk about was with regard to Condition A-3-A and that deals with the location of the Karnes Lateral. So, this picture shows you where it will be located. The current location is a little bit to the south , kind of angles below there as you can see. In doing its analysis staff rightly pointed out that the irrigation easement for Karnes Lateral would by code be required to be in a common lot, but that requirement can be waived by Council and so we wanted to have a conversation about that. We think a waiver would be appropriate and here is -- there is a couple reasons why. First you can see that on the east side, if that were to be placed in a common lot it would basically be -- it would be a dead end. In addition, these are very large lots that could easily accommodate this within an irrigation easement and not affect any building envelopes or building setbacks. So, our request, then, would be for Council to -- to grant the waiver on Condition A-3-A to permit those irrigation easements outside of the common lots. The next item was Condition A-3-D and this is the -- the north-south connection that I think will probably be discussed a fair amount tonight. Up front I believe -- I don't want to put words in staff's mouth, but as I understand it, staff originally made this recommendation out of a desire to break up the block face in the event that Guinness were to connect all the way over to Stafford. In other words, that block would have been too long. There needed to be a roadway in there to connect it in order to break that up. Again , ACHD rejected the condition -- or the connection all the way over to Stafford. P&Z recommended against including that connection to Stafford. So, it doesn't go all the way over anymore, which means that that block face is no longer long. There is no requirement to break up the block face anymore. So, at P&Z the discussion, then, became more about connectivity and why -- you know, if that north-south connection would add connectivity that would be useful for the subdivision. So, let's look at the language. This is -- what you have in front of you is what P&Z recommended. The specific language is to phase installation of a north-south gate, make that concurrent with closure from Chinden -- or from Shandee to Chinden. So, in a few years -- we don't know exactly when -- when Chinden gets widened, ITD is going to cut off access at Shandee and, as Stephanie mentioned, there will be emergency bollards there, but at some point that's going to happen. Under this condition that would trigger the requirement to put in the north-south connection if that make sense. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 14 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 11 of 77 So, that, obviously, raises a number of questions. A, we don't know when that would happen. If it's ten years out, is that an HOA obligation at that point? I mean we typically deal with these things up front. But even if we set that aside, I think we have to ask the practical use for it. So, what you have on the screen is our traffic engineer study of this trip distribution. This shows what we have proposed without the north-south gate and in that case traffic distribution is expected to be 30 percent less through Dunwoody, 70 percent east out Barclay. Now, remember this condition is proposed based on a closure of Shandee. So, what would that mean? That would mean that if you went out that north- south gate that you would be taking a circuitous route through Three Corners, through the school campus, and you would be coming out on Locust Grove at a location that probably might be backed up during the a.m. peak hours. Now, that is if they use this new gate. And so we asked the traffic engineer to review that and provide an opinion based on what -- on what the trip distribution would be after that's close d and based on his analysis only five percent of the trips would go out that north-south connection. Barclays trips remain the same. Dunwoody's trips are reduced by about five percent. So, it begs the question if it's only five percent that would be using it, is it worth the cost from a practical perspective. We do not think so and so we would ask for a deletion of that condition and the requirement of the north -south connection. And I would just add as an aside that if Council is in agreement with that, the findings regarding the private road would also need to be updated and staff I'm sure can point you to that issue. But it would be finding -- the Roman IX-CB and C. Okay. Last one. This is conditions A-3 -- and actually it's A-3-D and 4-A. So, this condition talks about sidewalks on both sides of the public street. So, what we are talking about when we have the public street -- there is only one, it's Guinness on the north side of the development and this kind of illustrates what we are talking about here. You can see that this -- where the sidewalks would go is this short section of road, the Guinness connection from Sweet Valley to Shandee. You can see on the east over here is the pedestrian pathway that we are proposing. What we would like to see is for that pedestrian pathway to have a crossing here at Shandee. Folks stay on the north side of that road and, then, connect into the existing neighborhood pathway. If we -- if we put sidewalks on both sides, what you would see is you would have a crossing here, you would have a sidewalk going along here and, then, you want folks to cross again to go up to that neighboring pathway. We think it makes a lot more sense in this circumstance to just do the sidewalk on the north side and, then, kind of direct that pedestrian traffic. So, the request there is to modify conditions A-3-E and 4-A to allow for sidewalk just on the north side. So, I will finish up. But I want to focus -- and I want to focus on answering your questions , but I do want to address one item that I'm sure you're going to hear about in addition to these items , which is just the safety of Dunwoody Court. Again, as I mentioned, the residents of Dunwoody bought subject to CC&Rs that did say that that road would be used for future access. Dunwoody Court is not a private cul-de-sac, it is a public road that is maintained at public expense. ACHD reviewed Dunwoody Court in connection with its approval of this plan. Those findings show that there is a 50 foot right of way with 30 feet of pavement. As you know, 30 feet of pavement is wider than the standard ACHD -- the current ACHD standard. ACHD looked at the project, looked back at the original approvals and stated that this was approved with a rural street section with two travel lanes and I want to point out and, quote, paved shoulders for pedestrians. In other words, the wider street section was Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 15 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 12 of 77 intended to help accommodate pedestrians and critically A CHD determined that no improvements are required in connection with this project. I also think it's important to look at this by the numbers. These are the numbers that are based on ACHD's trip generation figures. So, Three Corners lots -- or, excuse me, Three Corners Ranch with its 45 lots would send 128 vehicle trips per day through Dunwoody, because approximately 30 percent of that total traffic generation goes west. Dunwoody itself with 16 lots generates 151 vehicles per day. That in total is 14 percent of the capacity of a local street under the current ACHD standards. Now, we heard the -- the Dunwoody neighbors' concerns. As Stephanie mentioned we did meet with them last week to talk about it. Went out site. Marcel Lopez and I met with a group. You know, we -- if the Dunwoody neighbors would like to see sidewalks, then, we have offered to work with them on a task force to try to identify federal, local, state funds that might be available for that type of an improvement. But to be clear, there is no rough proportionality, no substantial nexus between this project and the need for off -site improvements and that was the conclusion that ACHD arrived at with regard to the streets. So , just to summarize. These are the items that we would ask the Council to -- to look at in particular with regard to a motion. Again, a waiver on the -- to allow the irrigation easements, rather than putting them in a common lot. To delete the condition with regard to the north-south connection and to modify conditions A-3-E and 4-A dealing with the attached sidewalk on Guinness. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions that the Council might have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any question? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Clark, appreciate you being here tonight. Speaking on your first bullet here, Condition A-3-A, how does the developer intend to educate the buyers about this impact to their lots? Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Cavener, so irrigation easements are -- are fairly standard within -- within plats, so they would show up on the plat. But I understand your -- your point about that. Most people don't look at the plat. In addition to that, we would -- I would suggest that those would be identified in the CC&Rs and that there would be a provision referencing those irrigation easements to help make sure that there is a belt and suspenders approach to that. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: A question for staff. Stephanie or Bill, we have had a couple of these requests come through in the past few weeks. I can't recall -- it's been a long week for me, so my -- my apologies. What -- what has Council recommended for those other two? I feel like we have had two projects in the past three or four weeks that have had something similar Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 16 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 13 of 77 and I hear what Hethe's saying, but I feel like that we have required more. I just want to make sure that if that's the direction we go that we are consistent. I apologize. Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, we recently were in front of you with the same applicant for the East Ridge Subdivision and they had a slope easement and they had an irrigation easement and you were informed that the irrigation district wanted their easement protected, of course, and, then, the applicant was here testifying that it would be in their CC&Rs and through that they would restrict sheds and landscaping, trees and those things being part of that. So, that's -- that was one outcome as part of that project. Cavener: Thank you, Bill. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I seem to recall something else more as well in marketing, make it known to -- for the real estate agents letting potential buyers know, because we just had this discussion about how most people don't read the entire CC&Rs either. So, having -- having that in there -- I'm guilty, so -- and, then, you try to do something and you find out you can't or you get in trouble, because you have put something within the easement area. So, I think it's important to really make sure that people find another way to let people know ahead of time, other than putting it in the CC&Rs, because generally when they are given those they are at closing with a pile this high of papers to sign and the agent is doing this. Nobody sits there and reads the CC&Rs unless they get them ahead of time. Clark: Unless you're a real estate lawyer with a bad habit, but yeah. Milam: Huh? Clark: Unless you're a real estate lawyer with a bad habit of reading that stuff. Milam: And you don't care how long the closing takes you. Clark: No. Council Woman Milam, your point's well taken. One other point that I would make, though, is that these are significantly large lots. So, to suggest -- Milam: Right. Clark: -- that folks are likely to do things within the last 20 feet of those lots I think is fairly unlikely. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 17 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 14 of 77 Cavener: One more as respect to A-3-D. You have a slide that showed those connections. One more. Madam Mayor, Hethe, where was the -- where is the gate proposed on Three Corners Drive? I know there is one here for Dunwoody, but isn't there another one that's proposed with the close out of Shandee? Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Cavener, so that -- you're getting right to the rub of this -- of this condition. So, currently there are two gates that are proposed. There is one at Dunaway Court and there is one at Barclay. So, at the -- at the Planning and Zoning hearing there was a discussion about should we connect these two streets, Shandee and Stafford, and the recommendation was no, which is what ACHD also approved. And, then, there was another question, which was based largely on the block face and this -- this kind of illustrates it. So, if Guinness is connected all this direction -- all this length, then, you would potentially have to have a north-south street to break it -- break that up. So, that's where it initially came from. It became a question of conductivity. So, the conductivity -- if it were to go in, then, that north-south gate would basically be here at Shandee. It would be aligned there and it would only be installed once the connection to -- to Chinden goes away and so that's why we have shown this as, okay, if -- if the connection to Chinden goes away it's emergency bollards only and folks are not going to be heading to Chinden anymore. The only thing that they are going to be doing is heading out to Locust Grove. They are going to be going through this route, up through the Ambrose School and, then, coming out at Locust Grove where it's probably backed up during the a.m. peak. Bongiorno: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. -- Chief Bongiorno. Bongiorno: Bongiorno. De Weerd: Mr. Bongiorno. I love saying that name. Bongiorno: So, I also have a question. As it stands right now, the entrance to Three Corners Drive is over what the fire code allows for access. If Chinden gets shut off, have you verified that the alignment will allow for bollards and a fire engine to make that climb? Because I have been in contact with the people down to the east a little farther and it's pretty steep, because they are actually changing the grade of Chinden. So, my concern -- I support the north-south connection that staff has recommended until it can be shown to me that my fire engine can get from Chinden Boulevard to -- up Shandee -- Shandee to make that climb. Because as it stands right now, once that's shut off we are going to be well over 30 houses, which is what the fire code calls for. So, as -- as it stands I agree with staff, we need another connection, because we don't have the two points of access that we should have. Clark: Madam Mayor, Chief Bongiorno, I would make two points. First, we spoke with ITD earlier this week on the 20th -- or, excuse me, of last week. They confirmed that they would be putting in bollards at that point. So , that means that there would be two points Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 18 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 15 of 77 of connection. They would be coming off of Chinden and they would be able to come through the bollards and, then, they would be able to come through the -- the -- the connection from Sweet Valley. Bongiorno: Okay. Clark: So, there would be two alternatives at that point. Bongiorno: Well, I would want to make sure that that grade -- I would want to see what the grade is, because fire engines can only make a certain amount of grade. Clark: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Chief Bongiorno, one thing that Mr. Conger just reminded me is that this pathway here over between Stafford and Shandee can be built to accommodate emergency services as well, so that would provide another option. Bongiorno: That would be it, too. Clark: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for the applicant at this point? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Forgive me if you did answer this. I got distracted for a second re-reading the conditions, but does your traffic study contemplate an exit to the south into Vienna Woods? Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Palmer, so this project has been through a number of iterations and one of the ways it started was with kind of a ring road that went all around the subdivision and basically connecting everything up and what folks were concerned about and what we were concerned about was that the more connections that you had the more likelihood of it becoming a de facto collector cut through would occur. So, we did look at every one of the connections, including Vienna Woods. Based on our analysis, the majority of the traffic is going to go west to Locust Grove or it's going to go east to Eagle and when we do not see a benefit of -- or a significant benefit of going through Vienna Woods and ACHD agreed with -- with that cut off. So, the -- the proposal that's before you is just the two, the connection at Dunwoody and the connection at Barclay. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, before we have the members -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 19 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 16 of 77 De Weerd: Bill. Parsons: -- of the public come up, I would -- I would like to at least clarify for the record staff's position for some of the roadway connections, because it wasn't stated accurately by the applicant. So, first of all, we require the north-south segment of the public street roadway for the fact that we wanted neighbors that lived in the subdivision to be able to take their kids to school on a local street and not having to go out to Locust Grove. That was the -- the importance of the street connection. Not to break up the block length. That was one issue. But the other was to have vehicular connectivity to that school. We don't want people going out on arterial roadways to go to school when it's right there, the shortest route is to take a local street and get there. The other issue is -- that we are having is if Shandee is closed off in the future, it's a fire department concern, but it's also a concern for staff, because now that entrance from Locust Grove through Three Corners all the way into Shandee is a dead end cul-de-sac and our -- our UDC standards don't allow cul-de-sacs over 450 feet. So, by -- by approving this -- or by the recommendation that came from Planning and Zoning Commission, we are basically de facto approving a cul-de-sac that's thousands of feet long, which isn't supported by the UDC and that's why staff's position was to extend the public street over into the project in the Bristol Heights Subdivision. That's why we recommend -- that's why staff recommended that so hardily -- why we push so hard for that connection. We realize -- we agree with the applicant. This is an unusual circumstance when you have six stub streets to a property, but this is kind of when you have low density meets six stub streets it doesn't always work and that's why we are trying to compromise, we are trying to work -- we understand the hurdles, the issues, we are -- we have to look at the long term public interest and in our minds connectivity -- more connectivity is always better for us, because at some point the neighbors are going to get upset with having to get on Chinden and Locust Grove and Eagle Road to get to their neighbors on the other side of Locust Grove, because there is no -- there is no connectivity and that's why we are pushing for that, just -- just our two cents on it. The other issue is the sidewalk waiver. There is nothing in code for you to waive a sidewalk. Our code requires sidewalks on public -- both sides of public streets. These lots have double -- are double fronted and our code prohibits that and so our recommendation is to have the sidewalk on the south side of that street coming out of the Three Corners Subdivision, along with a ten foot common lot with landscaping, so we don't create that situation and we have to stand firm on that recommendation for you this evening. Now, looking back at the waiver, I appreciate the exhibit that the applicant put together. That at least helps us understand what their desire is for this evening. I think where the Karnes Lateral runs along the north boundary of those lots, certainly this Council can place a restriction that fencing beyond the interior edge of the easement , rather than the exterior edge and that way the entire easement is located along the road and the Karnes Lateral folks can have access to that easement. Where it turns and heads south along the billable lots, that's something where the applicant is going to have to work with the future homeowners and determine what they can with that portion. But just throwing out some ideas and just clarifying the record for you as why we were pushing for the north-south connection and more east-west connection to this development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 20 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 17 of 77 Clark: Madam Mayor, if I could. And, Bill, I certainly did not want to misstate staff's position. With regard to the -- walking to the school concept, the only school on this block is Ambrose School. It's largely a regional school. Most people are going to be driving from outside. But if they are coming from Stafford over here, I would hope they would walk. I think that would be a better -- a better outcome. With regard to the dead ends, again, we have -- have -- we think we have more than mitigated for that with allowing for emergency access across this pathway and, in addition, confirming with ITD that there would be bollards and emergency access at the end of Shandee. With regard to the sidewalk, we are asking for a waiver of standards and we would ask you to consider that in connection with your motion and with regard to the irrigation, again, these are -- these are significant lots, so there is plenty of room to accommodate those, so -- Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: One more that popped up. Just because -- I don't think I have ever seen this. This -- the things that we heard from staff about the applicant required to modify the proposed plat per the recommended -- recommended changes and they did do so. What's going on? Where is the hiccup in this? Clark: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Council Member Cavener, so we got -- we didn't get the staff report ten days ago, so this is something that we wanted -- and we wanted to discuss the north-south connection with you and then -- and, then, go to the drafting of that once we know the Council's position on it. So, that's certainly -- certainly something that we can provide to the Council to confirm that we have satisfied what your requirements are. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council? Thank you. Clark: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This starts the public testimony part of this hearing. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, let us know who signed up to testify. Johnson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. There are 25 unique sign-ins for this. Twelve indicating they wish to testify. On your desktop you have a link, you can see the names of the people that have signed in and their position. But the first person indicating they wish to testify is Jeff Wilding. De Weerd: Good evening thank you for joining us if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Wilding: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. My name is Jeff Wilding and I reside at 1842 East Dunwoody Court. Okay. When I purchased my home on Dunwoody Court about six months ago, one of the key factors in our decision was the country look and the country feel of our neighborhood and that quiet cul-de-sac. In looking at the undeveloped Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 21 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 18 of 77 property behind my new home, I recognize that one day that would likely be developed. So, I drove through the neighborhoods and surrounding vacant area and found several stub streets that have been referenced already this evening and they have even been marked future extension into that undeveloped property. I, then, learned that the access road leading to the undeveloped area from Dunwoody was actually a private lane used for access to the land that was being farmed and to the Dean's home. I felt quite comfortable at that time that we wouldn't have more traffic coming through Dunwoody Court. I would like to make just a couple of points and, then, illustrate with a few -- few pictures. The ACHD in their approval has not taken advantage of multiple stub streets that were left open and -- and designated for expansion into the proposed development area. These stub streets should be utilized to lessen the impact of all. I also wanted to point out that as Council stated earlier, that there are paved shoulders on Dunwoody Court and there are not. I attended the ACHD meeting where the developer's plan was approved. I was very disappointed to observe Commissioner Goldthorpe sit seemingly disinterested or maybe even asleep and at the end of testimony made a motion to accept the developer's plan as presented, even though it had only been a plan for less than 24 hours and had not been reviewed by any residents. Although Commission President Arnold was highly opposed to the plan with safety concerns, the motion was seconded and approved. This is irresponsible government at best. I e-mailed Commissioner Goldthorpe expressing my displeasure and asked him several questions. I suggested in my e-mail that he wouldn't have the courage to e -mail me back and I was wrong. He e- mailed me and said thanks for attending the meeting. To my knowledge there has been no independent traffic study conducted to prove the developer's theory that there will be no north-south traffic out of Three Corners Ranch. We only get their side of the story and that seems to change quite frequently as you have experienced tonight. This new neighborhood should have as many access points as possible. In the last Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee meeting city staff recommended -- and I quote from the minutes: That all the stub streets should be extended and connected per the original site plan, including Sweet Valley Drive. Close quote. And they should be gated to eliminate cross-cut traffic. To make Dunwoody safe would require hundreds of thousands of dollars in improvements. It would cost less to extend stub streets and install gates, rather than to put in sidewalks and drainage for an area nearly a half a mile of Dunwoody Court. Putting the stub streets in would reduce the number of homes the developer could build, so that's why they don't want to do it. They are more concerned about their profit than they are about the safety. I do have just very quickly just some pictures. I don't know if you guys have access to those. Can we get those pulled up? Johnson: They are in front of you. Wilding: Oh. Okay. Thank you. Johnson: You should be able to right click. Wilding: So, thank you. So, this -- I will promise I will be really fast. This is on Dvorak Street. This is in Vienna Woods neighborhood. You can see here that there are -- there is plenty of room to come in through that -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 22 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 19 of 77 De Weerd: If you will just identify the pictures and quickly go through them. Wilding: Okay. All right. Thank you. So, this -- this picture is of Dvorak Street. It's in the Vienna Woods neighborhood. It's wide. It has sidewalks. It has lighting. This -- boy, that's a sensitive mouse. Sorry. This picture is on Sweet -- North Sweet Valley Road or Avenue and it has the sign still there today. It says it will be used for future extension. And I did see that in the plan -- De Weerd: Okay. The next picture, otherwise, I will have to ask you to -- Wilding: All right. Next picture is Shandee. Direct access. This is a picture of Dunwoody. Court even with cars parked on -- on two sides of that street -- De Weerd: No narrative, just pictures, please. Wilding: Okay. There is a picture of Dunwoody Court and this is a picture of the access that would be coming into Dunwoody Court. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Wilding: Sorry for taking too much time. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Thank you. Bernt: I have one. De Weerd: Oh. Mr. Wilding, there is one question. Bernt: Madam Mayor. Where is the Sweet Drive? Where is that located? This -- Wilding: That's coming out of Three -- Three Corners Ranch over by Ambrose School as you wind through, that's the one that actually stubs into the proposed new development. Bernt: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Wilding: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Joe LaGue. De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. LaGue: Happy to. I'm Joe LaGue. I live at 14435 West Guinness Drive in Boise. Mayor de Weerd, Council Members and all present, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 23 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 20 of 77 you here tonight. I am president -- president of and representing the Bristol Heights Neighborhood Association. Also in attendance -- De Weerd: Excuse me. LaGue: Yes. De Weerd: You want to give him ten minutes. Cavener: Representing -- De Weerd: As president of the HOA, yes. Thank you, sir. LaGue: You bet. Also in attendance is one of our three association directors, Mr. Ted Dawson. Director Scott Phillips was unable to attend. As a board we believe that we have significant responsibility and we are committed to protecting the best interests of our community, our association, our neighborhood's appeal and the broad interests of our members. Accordingly, also present from Bristol Heights and most importantly is a representation of our residents here tonight. I will also be offering my full testimony in writing, so they may be made part of the public -- written public record. At the conclusion of my testimony I will acknowledge those Bristol Heights residents present and ask for a show of hands of those supporting the position and remarks I am presenting. I would like to once again recognize extraordinary work of the City of Meridian, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the city's planning staff for their administrative -- administrative precision and thoughtful analysis applied as a matter of routine. Madam Mayor, we are very appreciative of the leadership and exceptional dedication that you have brought to the city for so many years. It's been quite an era. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. LaGue: We realize that the work you do will often present challenges in the pursuit of building a great city. Tonight's proceedings, while they may show signs of passion, concern, even differing views, we are here once again to address business among many stakeholders in Three Corners Ranch. Accordingly, it is desirable that we collectively experience a productive evening of deliberation and reasonable outcome. It was evident from the sign-in sheet at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on May 16, given the results captured in the staff report, that there was confusion as to the position that the attendees came to represent. Were they in favor of the applicant's proposal? Were they opposed? Or were they in favor or opposed to planning staff's recommendations? I can assure you that the accuracy of those recorded statistics are suspect. The minute s suggest that the majority favored the applicant's proposal and opposed staff's recommendation. What is curiously atypical in this case is that rather than being residents versus developer at this hearing, is that this constituency now needs to persuade -- or a portion of this constituency needs to persuade the City of Meridian that those that live here have the knowledge, experience and vested interest, desire to see the developer's plan approved. This is what you at the city level want us to do , make a good faith effort Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 24 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 21 of 77 to work it out first at the ideal level, among the existing residents and developer. We have tried to do exactly that. For all surrounding neighborhoods and residents , the city and others, there is no perfect solution for this in-fill development. But to summarize the various stakeholder neighborhoods and the sch ool's position, I offer my observations. Three Corners to the northwest will accept a public street connection to West Guinness Street to Sweet Valley to enable ingress-egress for the Wilson Ranchettes. Shandee to Locust Grove via East Three Corners Drive. Three Corners is opposed to connectivity that will enable cut through traffic from arterials and collectors. The Ambrose School to the northwest is very concerned about the traffic that public connectivity will enable from Eagle Road to Locust Grove particularly in light of the school's future expansion plans to the north across East Three Corners Drive. A large volume of continuous student pedestrian traffic and safety being the key. The residents of Wilson Ranchettes on Shandee to the north, recognizing their quiet neighborhood, will at some point lose routine access to Chinden. They simply want to have reasonable avenue to come and go without the impact of unnecessary transient cross-traffic from the arterials, Eagle and Locust Grove. Vienna Woods to the south. At the moment Vienna Woods is very content to be flying under the radar in what appears to be likely -- to be a likely outcome that Dvorak stub and East Handel Street remain closed to connection to Three Corners Ranch. Vienna Woods is the one community to emerge with the least adverse impact. Dunwoody to the west, the most vocal opposition to the Three Corners Ranch is being voiced by the Dunwoody neighborhood. I believe I can speak for all , inasmuch as we have great respect for the well being and safety needs of all surrounding residents , Three Corners Ranch and the impact it could bring. There is some element of inconvenience and even some element of burden that everyone will endure along with the benefits of developing Three Corners Ranch. What is key is that the impact be reasonably distributed and equitable to and for all. The Dunwoody Subdivision had signed up for this eventuality about 20 years ago. I will elaborate. What follows is an excerpt from the amended declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions and easements for Dunwoody Subdivision as recorded April 22nd of 1999. Article Two of the declaration states in part: By accepting a deed to a lot within Dunwoody Subdivision each owner shall conclusively -- shall be conclusively deemed to have waived any objection to the exclusion of said Lot 16 of Block 1, that's Three Corners Ranch and consents to the resubdividing and development thereof in accordance with the zoning ordinance then in enforce and effect and applicable to Lot 16, Block 1, including such resubdividing and/or development as shall require that access to Lot 16 of Block 1 will be provided by the public rights of way within Dunwoody Subdivisions. That's East Dunwoody Court. When purchasers take title -- purchasers take title to lots of within recorded -- with recorded deed restrictions, such as the noted declaration, they are acknowledging and agreeing to be mutually and contractually bound by the content and scope of the declaration. Accordingly, there is no disputing the fact that each owner within Dunwoody Subdivision agreed in writing upon taking title to their lots that East Dunwoody Court, the public street, that at some event in the future be called upon to provide access to the 31 acre parcel known as Lot 16, Block 1. Said parcel is now intended to be resubdivided as Three Corners Ranch. Finally, we have Bristol Heights to the east. That would be my tribe. At 544 residences Bristol Heights Subdivision is the single largest and most populated in the entire square block. At present we are enduring progress and development efforts on three of four-plex Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 25 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 22 of 77 apartments and storage units to the south , Chinden expansion and right of way acquisition of our common area to the north and Three Corners Ranch to the west. If ITD was to begin the inevitable expansion of Eagle Road, Highway 55, to our east flank, well, we would be complete. In an effort to make efficient use of your time , Bristol Heights brings you organized representation tonight. On May 13 the Bristol Heights Neighborhood Association convened a special meeting of its members and adopted a resolution. I have already made that resolution part of the public record by written testimony regarding this application. As noted before, my remarks effectively represent the mandate of 98 percent of the homeowners of 544 homes within Bristol Heights. That's 533 to be precise. In support of the applicant's plan there is a level of compromise on behalf of Bristol Heights to accept West Barclay Street being stub connected to the gated east entrance of Three Corners Ranch. This will add some traffic to our community, yet that is considered to be reasonable and acceptable. Active members of Bristol Heights Neighborhood Association and other surrounding neighborhoods have worked to pursue an acceptable street configuration with the developer. It is believed that this has been achieved by exemplary neighborhood -developer cooperation. The public connection to North Stafford Place, a condition that was prudently and appropriately struck by the Planning and Zoning Commission, would have been inequitable and fiercely opposed by Bristol Heights. As I informed the commission of my testimony last month, Bristol Heights has invested several hundred hours of members' time related to Three Quarters Ranch development. Additionally, the financial expense to secure consensus contains a comma, this is an important investment in our community's future and we are anticipating a favorable return on that investment. As a Marine I was trained to always returned a piece of gear in as good or better condition than it was issued. When I complete my service to Bristol Heights Neighborhood Association it is my objective to return the community to my replacement in as good or better condition than delivered to me. There is a group behind me that seems insistent on that. I will now ask for my friends and neighbors and others to stand or raise their hands in a show of support from my remarks and our position. Thanks very much. Council Members, we ask you to, please, move to approve the Three Corners Ranch application as proposed by Sweetland Development and finalize a reasonable development agreement. We believe that they have got it right. Thank you. I will gladly answer any questions from the Council. De Weerd: Thank you for your testimony. Council, any questions? Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: No questions, but a comment. That was -- that was great, I mean as far as like, you know, the organization and your presentation in regards like your -- your -- your acknowledgement with, you know, those who are opposed or approve your -- your statement, that was probably the most organized HOA representation I have heard since I have been at Council for a year and a half. LaGue: Madam Mayor, Council Member Bernt, thank you much. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 26 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 23 of 77 Bernt: Well done. I'm not saying -- I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just saying the presentation was on point, sir. LaGue: There is -- there was one point that was brought up by the deputy chief earlier tonight and it's worth making a comment on. We have two bollards -- we have bollards that allow access to the north of Stafford Place right now and when Chinden is blown up and put back together again there will be an opening in the sound wall for the emergency egress and ingress for that -- for the fire engines to be able to get through and it works well, it will work well, it should be something that can easily be replicated over on Shandee. There will not be a sound wall over on Shandee, because it doesn't meet the requirements for that. I don't know if they plan to do berms or whatever, but with respect to the grade, understandably, yes, that you would be able to get in and out of that. It would far be our preferences Bristol Heights Homeowners Association that long before we talk about connecting emergency egress and bollards through Stafford Place to connect all the way through to Guinness and Shandee, that we exhaustively look at the option with ITD for an emergency access to the north from Chinden. That allows Meridian Fire apparatus to come through Meridian to get into Meridian to service Meridian, as opposed to having to go through Boise to our development. Not that it's a big territorial issue, but it's just you get the picture that way. So, that, too. Bollards can come out pretty quick. These guys are good at it. Any other questions? De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any further questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: It's customary I always -- somebody who serves on an HOA board, there is a special place in heaven for people who serve on HOA boards. Appreciate you being here tonight. LaGue: Thank you. De Weerd: I think there are some that think otherwise, which I have served on one, which is how I can say that. LaGue: Madam Mayor and Council Member Milam, with respect to CC&Rs, if your people have to read those or not read them at their own peril, it's just unfortunate that they do it the way they do in title -- title closings. I agree with you. It's terrible. Again, thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you so much. LaGue: Thank you so much. De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 27 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 24 of 77 Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Benjamin Tippets. De Weerd: We appreciate your enthusiastic applause, but I would ask that you hold that back, please. Not that I don't mind, but -- thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Tippets: My name is Benjamin Tippets. 1938 Eastern Dunwoody Court. De Weerd: Thank you. Tippets: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Benjamin Tippets and I have -- I -- our neighborhood has requested that I represent our neighborhood , so I would request that I have ten minutes to present today. Now, I am -- De Weerd: And you are with -- with what -- Tippets: Dunwoody Court -- Dunwoody Subdivision. I apologize. De Weerd: Thank you. Tippets: Okay. So, I have the unique opportunity or task to represent two different interests this evening and I'm going to wear two different hats and I will tell you when my hat -- one hat is taken off and the other hat is -- De Weerd: That doesn't mean you get ten minutes for each hat. Tippets: No. No. No. No. De Weerd: Okay. Tippets: I would rather stab myself than do that. So, Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, the first hat I'm going to put on tonight is a member of the Karnes Lateral board. So, my name is Benjamin Tippets. I'm a member of the Karnes Lateral Board. I would like to give a brief statement regarding the status of the irrigation that supplies both the proposed Three Corners Ranch, as well as other surrounding neighborhoods. The Karnes Lateral board had received an engineering -- an engineer drawing from the Civil Site Works for the Dean property, project number 17013, dated 12/19/2018. This plan was reviewed by the Karnes Lateral board and was approved in February of 2019. A licensing agreement was provided with -- with Mr. Dean regarding this plan. At the Meridian City Planning and Zoning meetings concerns were expressed regarding the irrigation and the conditions of approval of the proposed development plan, including a meeting between the developer and Mr. Mark Miller, who was a resident Dunwoody Court. I was not in attendance at that meeting. It did happen between Mr. Miller and the developer's representative. But through a private conversation with both Mr. Miller and Mr. David Dean I can confirm several statements that were made. These would include that the location of the piped ditch had been moved from the original plan -- and I have Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 28 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 25 of 77 the original plan in front of me if you would like to look at it. That the points of diversion or the irrigation boxes along the ditch would not be connected to the existing individual irrigation systems. That the individual water right owners will be responsible for making the connection between the irrigation box and the existing irrigation system and that because the development would be on private -- on private property that each water right user would not have full access to the privacy gates to their irrigation boxes. Due to these concerns a conversation was initiated between Mr. Jim Rosett i, who was a ditch rider for Karnes Lateral board and the developer's representative. The proposed solution to these concerns included -- and this was written in an e-mail and I just want to list these, so we make sure that we all have them all. Number one, solid lids on all boxes. Number two, has to allow locks on boxes where Mr. Miller gives Mr. Tippets and Shandee will be able to access water boxes of 1-9, 1-8, and 1-7, respectively on -- on current approved plans and I would like to add to avoid a little bit of confusion , that I suspect he meant box five, six and seven, because there is not a box eight or nine on the proposed plan. Number three, leave the pipe in the lateral -- in the lateral in its current location along the north boundary of Mr. Miller's property. Number four, a 15 foot easement can be located on the north side of the property where it's adjacent to Mr. Miller's property. Number five, they would provide a two inch knockout on box number 1-9, which is actually box number 1-7, to allow Mr. Miller to connect and access the water and I will have to give a follow -up regarding stubbing of pipes to the current location where he draws water is it's difficult to tell how deep his current pipe runs. The next, Miller -- Mr. Miller would be allowed to draw water from the new box with a sump pump and number next , connecting a 12 inch irrigation pipe to box number 1-8, which is actually box number 1-6, for the Tippets irrigation water shown on the current approved plan. The water board has -- had agreed that these standards rectify the concerns previously raised. One issue that we were not sure how to handle and that has been brought up, that a portion of the ditch as it currently lies is going to be within the boundaries of Mr. Dean's property and a portion that -- within the boundaries of Mr. Miller's property. We have a licensing agreement with Mr. Dean, but not with Mr. Miller. Currently as we receive counsel regarding this issue we will follow the Idaho water law and with due respect. Are there any questions regarding the Karnes Lateral board? Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Okay. Just give me the bullet points now, boom, boom, boom, what you just said. Tippets: There is an approved plan -- Bernt: I heard a bunch of jargon that were -- Tippets: I need to stick to the facts. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 29 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 26 of 77 Bernt: Just -- just talk to me like I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Talk to me like that. Tippets: Actually, no one does when it comes to water. Bernt: Perfect. Tippets: There was an approved plan and the meeting between Mr. Miller and the developer's representative. There were several statements that were concerning. Bernt: Madam Mayor. Who was Mr. Miller? Tippets: Mr. Miller lives at 1906 East Dunwoody Court. De Weerd: So, a resident of the subdivision -- Tippets: Resident of the subdivision. Correct. De Weerd: -- you represent. Tippets: Right. Bernt: Okay. Tippets: Right. So, there was an approved plan. There was a meeting between Mr. Miller and the developer's representative. There was some concerns about the statements that were made that would be a violation of Idaho water law. Those concerns were rectified by the developer's representative as far as we know. We do not have a presented updated plan for approval yet that we will review and approve if deemed appropriate. De Weerd: So, you need an updated plan? Tippets: We would like an updated plan in writing that we can review and accept it. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Tippets, you indicated you have a copy of the previous approved plan? Tippets: Councilor Cavener -- Cavener: Luke is fine. Tippets: Luke is fine. Okay. Luke, I do have a plan if you would like to look at it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 30 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 27 of 77 Cavener: If we can put it on the screen so everyone can see it. Again, for a -- sorry. Madam Mayor. If you want to hand it to our clerk, so we can all see it. Madam Mayor, while Chris is doing that, is it possible to pull up on the screen the current proposed easement on there so we can see that as well? I know we can't go picture in picture, but -- De Weerd: This is what you were asking for? Cavener: Yes. But this is -- this is what's proposed, but has not been submitted to you guys. Tippets: We have not seen an updated plan yet. Yes, that's correct. De Weerd: And what they are going to show us is the previously approved plan? Tippets: This is the previously approved plan that was approved in February of 2019. De Weerd: And your -- your -- this approved plan is not what is being suggested or proposed? Tippets: The approved plan in 2000 -- in February of 2019 was in contrary to the statements that were made by the developer's representative at the meeting with Mr. Miller and the developer's representative has indicated that they are willing to follow the approved plan as it has been presented and they will provide some updates that we can review at the Karnes Lateral board to ensure that it is following water law. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. So, please, continue. Tippets: Luke, do you have questions regarding this plan? De Weerd: Do you still have continued questions? Cavener: No. Madam Mayor, Chris just put up the -- the approved plan and so I'm -- I'm just trying to be able to wrap my eyes around it. Tippets: I have some reading glasses if you would like, because the writing is very small. De Weerd: Thank you. Tippets: I may have to use them also. Johnson: Madam Mayor, I can copy this if you would like. Cavener: We don't need to have everybody hold up because of me. So, let's just -- if you want to continue and, then, the clerk can make us some copies. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 31 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 28 of 77 De Weerd: Go ahead and continue. Tippets: Are there any other questions regarding the Karnes Lateral board and irrigation? Okay. I now take off my Karnes Lateral -- Bernt: Just a comment just to make sure that before you go forward that -- that -- that you and the developer are going to be in line in regard to what the new proposal is versus what was -- what was approved in February of 2019. Tippets: That is correct. De Weerd: We will ask the representative to comment on that at the end. Tippets: Thank you. I now remove my Karnes Lateral hat and I'm going to put on my concerned citizen. So, my name is Benjamin Tippets. I'm a resident of Dunwoody Subdivision and I stand before you today to express my concern of the design of Three Quarters Ranch Subdivision as it is currently proposed. I am not opposed to the internal design of the proposed subdivision. In fact, I believe that the design of the subdivision will be consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and will be a great addition to this area of Meridian. I am opposed to the proposed access points to the subdivision. This opposition is based on public safety. As a physician and as an expert in public health , the proposed design compromises the safety of the residen ts of Three Corners Ranch, as well as the residents of Dunwoody Subdivision. There are six access points to Three Corners Ranch, four of those which include the Dvorak, Barclay, Stafford Place and North Sweet Valley Avenue, meet the design and safety standards required for a medium density zoned neighborhood as outlined in the City of Meridian Public Works Design Standards 2016. The two remaining streets, Shandee and Dunwoody Court, do not meet the standards. The United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Safety Administration has stated this, quote: Accessible sidewalks or pathway should be provided and maintained along both sides of the streets and highways in urban areas , particularly near school zones and transit locations and where there is frequent pedestrian traffic. Research -- or end quote. Research has shown that approximately 4,500 pedestrians are killed every year in the United States from crashes with motor vehicles. That is death only. But these numbers do not include temporary or permanent injury or disability as a result of an auto-pedestrian accident. Research has shown that providing walkways separated from the travel lanes prevents 88 percent of the walking along roadway crashes. The Dunwoody Court has been proposed to be the primary access point to Three Quarters Ranch, along with Barclay. This will increase vehicular traffic by up to four to five hundred vehicle trips per day. With the current proposed Dunwoody plan, Dunwoody Court would be forced to change from a rural to an urban street without sidewalks, without lights. Dunwoody Court will no longer be a safe corridor for pedestrian traffic. Now, this is not my -- only my professional opinion, nor the U.S. Department of Transportation and the City of Meridian Public Works Design Standards, it's also the opinion of the previous committees that this plan has been presented. Now, you have been told that ACHD and the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Committees have approved this plan with conditions. So, you are clear and understand the concerns of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 32 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 29 of 77 these committees, I would like to provide a few, but not all, because we don't have time, of these concerns. Commissioner Seal, quote: The report that reflected Dunwoody doesn't need any kind of development in order to support this is a horrible idea. I don't put a lot of faith in ACHD saying that something is not warranted. End quote. Commissioner Olsen. Quote: I think my main thought is the safety of Dunwoody. As we contemplate what needs to be done here this is a good subdivision. I like the density. But I think we have to do something about Dunwoody. I don't think we in good conscience can pass this without doing something. Commissioner Cassinelli. Quote: Dunwoody can't handle it. It's dark. I have driven there at night in the winter and it is dark, without curb, gutter and sidewalk and if this part of the original Dunwoody development -- and in this part of the Dunwoody development why can't we condition the developer to improve Dunwoody if this is going to be one of their access points . The streets of Vienna Woods can handle it. Any street going out by Sweet Valley, those roads can handle it, but I don't believe that Dunwoody is equipped to handle it as the road is equipped now it can't handle it. If Dunwoody Court is used as the primary access point, it would be required to meet the same safety standards as other access points that are currently available for the same access. This would require -- it would require the placement of lights, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. It's unreasonable and unrealistic to require the current homeowners of Dunwoody Subdivision to carry the cost of these provided infrastructure improvements. As I have listened to the proposed plan and testimony of the city of Meridian -- the citizens of Meridian it comes down to the matter of convenience versus safety. Is it inconvenient to have an increased amount of traffic pass through any of these neighborhoods? Of course it is. Are their local streets that are more or less convenient to access arterial streets? Yes. Do each of these local streets that are currently connected to the lot previously known as Lot 16, each have the essential safety features of a safe , urban street? De Weerd: Mr. Tippets, you need to -- Tippets: The answer is an obvious no. So, I would -- I would encourage you to consider safety in your decision tonight. Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I guess maybe one. You represent your homeowners association; correct? Tippets: I do represent the homeowners association. Cavener: The homeowners association, is it -- is it a matter of cost that -- if -- if a developer were to come to your neighborhood and said we will put in sidewalks if you give us the land or is it you don't want to give up your land for sidewalks either? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 33 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 30 of 77 Tippets: That's a difficult question to answer and one that we have battled with throughout the entire time. We believe that there are other streets that currently meet the se safety standards and those should be considered first. Cavener: All right. Tippets: If -- if they decide that Dunwoody is the access point, it needs to be a safe street. Cavener: And Madam Mayor? Is it your assessment now that the street you live on isn't safe? Tippets: It is safe for a rural street. When Dunwoody Court was developed it was developed as a rural community. It's zoned as RUT and as it stands now with the limited number of traffic we believe that it is safe. As it -- as it transitions to the traffic that is funneled through from an R-4 zoned neighborhood, it will no longer be a safe street. Cavener: Appreciate your input. Thank you. De Weerd: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tippets. I am going to call a ten minute break and I will ask staff during this time if you can pull Kingsbridge Crossing as that's connected through a county subdivision to a major arterial and I would love to hear what we required of that subdivision -- of that developer. Okay? So, we will reconvene in ten minutes. (Recess: 7:37 p.m. to 7:48 p.m.) De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call this meeting back to order if we may. I know we are very entertaining to hang out with, but if we would like to move this meeting along. Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Mona Tippets. De Weerd: Good Evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record? M.Tippets: Absolutely. Thank you. My name is Mona Tippet s and I live at 1930 East Dunwoody Court. I just wanted to say that I am opposed to the development plan itself as it is currently planned. I do like the density and the gates that might prevent cross- through traffic. I do not like the design and lack of using the designated stub streets to access the property. There are a few concerns I want to share tonight. At the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting Mr. Hethe Clark gave a similar presentation as he did tonight. He referred to the Dunwoody CC&Rs and referred to the parcel of land to be developed as Lot 16 as part of the Dunwoody Subdivision. Supporting the cause for changing the Dean's private driveway that connects to the Dunwoody Court at the entrance to Three Corners Ranch. He's also mentioned that night and tonight that in 2013 Mr. Dean chose to file for an exclusion from Dunwoody Subdivision and that was granted and that, quote, all covenants and restrictions no longer apply or are binding on Lot 16. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 34 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 31 of 77 He also failed to mention that in 2014 Sweet Valley Avenue stub street was agreed in writing to be extended in the future as his personal land was developed. This agreement was specifically referred to in the ACHD report. The use of this street as an entrance to the north would provide a natural connection from Three Corners Subdivision to its sister community at Three Corners Ranch and, therefore, should be used. And it is confusing to me, but they are not using the streets that already have the safety measures in place when they have been planned to be used as entrance roads for Three Corners Ranch and we as a subdivision Dunwoody, have met several times over the last nine months with the developer expressing our concerns. We have proposed ideas and alternatives to try to come to a win-win situation and have been ignored. There have been several members of ACHD and Meridian Planning and Zoning committees that have voiced high concern and disagreement with using Dunwoody Court as an entrance to Three Corners Ranch. As a result, there were three conditions of approval of the plan from Meridian Planning and Zoning specifically related to Dunwoody Court. The first is the developer representatives were required to meet with the residents of Dunwoody to discuss ideas about making Dunwoody safe for additional traffic and for the residents. On June 18 th we did, indeed, meet with the developers. At that meeting we were told that the developer will not financially contribute to improving the safety of Dunwoody by adding sidewalks or other improvements. They told us they would help create a volunteer task force of our residents to research funding options. Their contribution would be some time, although what amount of time they would contribute they do not commit. We are concerned this is a timely process with little -- little results, because this is a several hundred thousand dollar improvement project that only needs to be done with the addition of this development and in the end Dunwoody will still be left unsafe. Their condition of approval was that the additional gate entrance on the north side -- that an additional gated entrance was to be added to the north side to help alleviate the traffic burden of Dunwoody Court. We told the developer -- we were told the developer disagrees with the recommendation and the cost of changing the plan and adding a new gate was not warranted. De Weerd: Mrs. Tippets, can you, please, summarize. M.Tippets: Yes. The other one was to move the entrance of the gate closer to the homes of Three Corners Ranch and they told us it, again, was a recommendation that they disagreed with and a three point turn allowance was sufficient. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Kendra Neely with Three Corners HOA. De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Neely: Sure. My name is Kendra Neely. I represent the Three Corners Subdivision board and my address is 1800 East Golden -- Golden Oak Court, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 35 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 32 of 77 Neely: So, as the applicant mentioned, what's at issue right here is just the roadway plans. The bulk of the development has been approved by all the parties involved and, really, the only thing that's left is what to do with the roads. There is, basically, three plans on the table you could say. The ACHD approved plan, the P&Z plan and, then, the staff's recommendation plan and I just thought it was important to, again, clarify who supported each plan. ACHD, the developer, and over 93 percent of the residents support the plan that was approved by ACHD and I -- two things I wanted to note about that percentage. One is that in that percentage we haven't included Vienna Woods, because they were basically unaffected by this plan, but if you would include them in that percentage would be much higher. The other thing I wanted to note is that the neighbors in our own subdivision who said they didn't approve the plan that was proposed or ratified by ACHD, when we asked them why it was because they said we just don't want traffic through our neighborhood and that's -- a lot of the people who are trying to oppose the roads or oppose the plan, it's not that they have an alternative that's better, they just want to shut it down and have no traffic. So, when we went back to those people and presented the three plans that are available, a hundred percent of the time they said they wanted the ACHD plan, even the people who originally voted against it. So , this is a really unique situation in the sense that I have the utmost amount of respect for staff , respect for everyone who has worked on this and I appreciate it -- everyone's efforts, but the hard thing is to understand why when you have some -- a developer, ACHD, and over 90 percent of the stakeholders on board, why -- why is there something being recommended that's different than that? I tried to look at the staff report to find the basis for that, because I was initially told it was because they thought there was a mixed bag of people in support of this plan and that's the reason why we as a neighborhood went and actually voted, because one of the problems that I have seen in the last few meetings is the people who are in support of this don't feel the desire to get up and talk to support what the developer has already recommended. The other thing is the people that are in support have abided by the recommendations to not provide duplicate testimony. So, one thing I want you to keep in mind is for every person who opposes this statistically there is at least 14 people who could be standing beside them saying we want the ACHD plan. Like for you -- for your own sanity it's good that 600 people are not going to get up to repeat themselves, but, by contrast, the people that oppose you will see a lot of them where there are several in one household getting up and talking and sometimes I think that gives the idea that there is more opposition than there really is. So , when we looked at the staff's report something that struck us is we couldn't find the basis for staff's recommendations. They -- they rely on the Meridian city -- the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, but it clearly states that its purpose is to integrate the concerns and expressions of the community. So, we have over 90 percent of our residents expressing their concerns and staff's recommendations would actually fly in the face of that. There is also a quote that says work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors and they were using that section to support their recommendations to change the ACHD plan. We already did that. We worked with ACHD and we worked with all the residents to come up with a plan that everyone could -- or the vast majority of people could buy off on and so there is another place on the staff report that says we need to connect -- staff replaced the Sweet Valley in order to minimize the cut through route. Well, that connection is what creates the cut through route. There are several other examples, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 36 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 33 of 77 but the point is that I would encourage you to actually look for a nexus between the provisions that are quoted and what's being recommended. I think the true conflict at every level has been that the developer slash ACHD slash homeowner's plan with the roadways conflicts with this idea of connectivity and even though it meets a bunch of the policies, you come up against this issue of connectivity and what do we do with that? But ACHD they knew that they had a bias in favor of connectivity as well , but one thing that we discussed in that meeting is why do you have a bias in favor connectivity? There is a reason. And when we looked at all the reasons that they were listed to us , for example, it increases pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, that's already achieved by the bike path. You don't need to connect Stafford to Three Corners to achieve that. Or it reduces the need for additional access points to the arterial street system. You don't need to connect those two in order for that to happen. The other thing that was talked about at length at the ACHD hearing is the very real risk associated with cut-through traffic in and of itself, but especially in this high risk zone, because Three Corners comes out and it dissects a campus. There is campuses that are going to be on each side. So, even now people are using one side of the road to park and you have kids darting and parents darting across that street. When you come out directly across from you is another campus and a church being used as a campus. So, cut-through traffic is -- it's not just like our standard concerns about, hey, we don't want this traffic coming through our neighborhood, there is a huge concentration of issues at the end of that cut-through traffic. Not to mention the fact that Chinden backs up past the Ambrose School regularly and I know we submitted that video to you and that was during an off time that that was taken. So , I would just encourage you in the strongest possible terms to listen to the community. I think it's virtually unheard of to go and have a whole square mile where people came together and made their concerns as expressions as clear as they are and I just want to encourage you to listen to those and listen to -- and think about the intent behind the Comprehensive Plan and the intent behind connectivity and just realize that it isn't met by connecting Stafford to Three Corners. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Thank you. Neely: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Troy Bergstrand. De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Bergstrand: Yes. My name is Troy Bergstrand. I reside at 1970 East Dunwoody Court. De Weerd: Thank you. Bergstrand: Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you all. I would just want to reiterate the concerns of the residents of Dunwoody Court primarily of safety and I hope to illustrate that through a very simple example here and that is getting our kids off to school. Currently there are 14 homes on Dunwoody Court right now that share that -- that street and our kids walk down that street to get on the bus as it joins onto Locust Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 37 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 34 of 77 Grove. Some families choose to drive their kids down to the end of the street. Some kids' families deliver their kids all the way to the school. We have four schools that are served for us. You got the high school. It's to the west. Middle school to the west. Elementary school is there to the south. All of it has to go out through Locust Grove through Dunwoody Court. Now we add in the new -- new subdivision and -- and before and after house ratio is now wonderful. So , we have four times as many kids going to school and twice as many parents delivering their school -- delivering their kids, four times as many folks going to work making the traffic situations there. So, for every new kid and every new car that's a four times four -- 16 times greater incident that there could be -- or greater chance that there could be an incident; right? If you consider traffic coming the opposite way that's another four times -- 64 times we are increasing the chance of an incident. You think about families coming and parking near Locust Grove to hold onto their kids until the bus gets there. Now we are -- we are taking this already narrow road and we are making it even more narrow and folks are trying to get out and come -- and possibly come back in from morning -- morning errands and that just elevates the risk all the more. So, we just want to make clear that this is a safety concern, it's not a -- a made- up thing. It's a very -- a very realistic thing. And it is not just a Dunwoody thing, it is also, according to the representatives of the applicant, their expectation is that the new subdivision families would be sending their kids down Dunwoody to -- to the same bus stop and so it directly ties their subdivision to ours in this -- in this concern. De Weerd: Thank you. Johnson: Next is Mauri Lewis. De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Lewis: Good evening. I'm Mauri Lewis. I reside at 2000 East Dunwoody Court. First of all I would say that, Mayor and City Council Members, thanks for taking the time. I have a video I would like to have Stephanie play it. A little bit of a different view than we have already talked about. We have a -- I'm kind of a -- excuse me -- kind of a visual guy. So go ahead. I'm just going to kind of let it play. It's sped up for time. That's why it looks funny. She doesn't walk like that normally. Okay. I just wanted to give you another visual of what the street's like when there is no curb, gutter or sidewalk and I personally feel in the majority of homeowners -- and I don't feel that this is a safe conclusion, we are opposed to the current plan for Three Corners Ranch, because of the infrastructure lack of support. We -- we think it's important that -- that you think about this closely and carefully, because there is a lot of people involved. There is a lot of people that it could impact based on how it lays out for us. We knew going in there that we had a real -- a real rare situation. Also I'm not opposed to development. I'm not opposed to any -- I'm not opposed to this development at all. I just want it to be smart. I just want it to be smart and I want everybody to share the burden of traffic. That's all. It's as simple as that. So, any questions? Palmer: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 38 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 35 of 77 De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Help me understand something. So, I -- I live in a -- in an R-8 Corey Barton neighborhood with hundreds of homes and the biggest driveway -- there is a few homes that have three spots, most of them have two, mine has two and we don't have half as many cars parked on the street as -- as Dunwoody does. What -- why are there so many people parking on the street when all those -- every single driveway in your video was empty? Lewis: Thanks, Mr. -- thanks, Mr. Palmer. We -- we were just illustrating what could happen in a day where there is a function going on in someone's home or there is a youth group meeting or there is -- whatever -- whatever the case may be. There is no place to park on the street except for right on the street. There is no curb, gutter, sidewalk for the kids to move over to and walk on. It's just kind of -- it's kind of sketchy and -- and that's just -- that's an extreme example, but there are times when people are visiting and they will park on the street and they will park on a corner that maybe is blind as you come through this -- as you come through and I'm just worried about that being amplified with more traffic volume with just two accesses to the subdivision. Palmer: Madam Mayor? So, you brought the cars out to the street for the purposes of your video? Lewis: Those were people that live there and representing, basically, an illustration of what happens when there is a function at either -- at any level. This is what it looks like. And, then, we had another video where we were just on one side of the road, but we didn't show that. Palmer: Madam Mayor? Just -- so it's a hundred percent clear, it wasn't just a time that you picked to go out with your drone, it was an organized, okay, we are going to put our cars on the street, so I can get this video, what -- Lewis: To illustrate, yes. Palmer: -- what could happen. Lewis: Right. The illustration of how narrow it really is when people are parked on both sides of the road and I will say back five -- well, 15 years ago maybe, ten years ago, we -- they chip sealed our road, we used to have a walking path lane painted and a center line painted for traffic. If you go to Larkwood, which is our sister sub, they are still painted with lines. We don't have that. We have to guess, okay, well, I got to get over here. It's really kind of ambiguous compared to doing theirs the same. So, it's just another thing that we have to deal with. If somebody comes down the road you got to get over and the person driving that's never been in it before knows that there is two lanes, but there is also supposed to be a walking lane on one side of the road, but it's not painted to designate that. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 39 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 36 of 77 De Weerd: Thank you. Lewis: That's it. Any other questions? De Weerd: No. Thank you. Lewis: Okay. Thanks. Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Lori Lewis. De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. L.Lewis: I'm Lori Lewis and my address is 2000 East Dunwoody Court. De Weerd: Thank you. L.Lewis: Okay. So, Madam Mayor and City Council Members, so thank you, again, for -- for -- for all you do, actually, for -- for Meridian. I love living here. I'm an Idahoan and -- and I actually moved from Boise to Meridian and I love it, so -- so thank you. I know it's a lot of work. We have heard a lot of really compelling testimony today, some really interesting points of view and as you're determining your response to the proposal in front of you, I would really like to urgently -- and even maybe go without saying, but urgently ask you to be very thoughtful and really think long term, because the decision that you make tonight is going to impact communities well beyond the life of anyone in this room and so it needs to make sense. I would also ask that you would take into account the material planning considerations that have been presented today. Those that affect the community as a whole versus the individual interests of -- of certain people. The material planning issues, things like citizen safety. I mean we have heard lots of testimony, especially from the Dunwoody neighborhood in terms of the safety concerns that we have. You saw the video we put together. I mean that is a really -- that's a -- well, it is -- but I mean it's -- that was -- we are very upfront and honest about that. We -- we put that together so we could illustrate what happens very regularly on our -- on our street. A lot. So, it's not that we were trying to be underhanded or anything. But I mean -- I mean how many of you have even gone down Dunwoody? Okay. All right. So, you have. So -- so, I mean that's what we wanted to do is be able to show you the visible. Okay. Also the -- so, the fact also that we heard expert testimony from Ben Tippets, who is a doctor in the community, as well as a master's in public safety. He went through a lot of statistics regarding safety and, really, the -- the big concerns there. We have talked about the -- the other material planning issue around traffic generation and the inadequacy of the infrastructure. You have seen pictures. You have seen the video. We and -- and Shandee are the only two streets that don't have the infrastructure to support that -- that level of extra traffic and ACHD expects that they would have 415 additional trips per day. The applicant says that 30 percent of those will go through Dunwoody, but yet we have yet to see any of their engineering reports that substantiate that. We know that through Dunwoody it's a faster connect to Locust Grove. It's about -- I mean it's like less than a mile to get to Locust Grove. So, we think it's going to be higher than 30 percent. At the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 40 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 37 of 77 end of -- at the end of the day, you know, we -- we elect our leaders in the communities to represent us. Our families, our friends, our -- you know, moms, dads, et cetera and we trust that you are going to make a decision based on -- to make us -- help us be safe and secure and protect our rights, build connections and tie the community together and it requires a well architected plan and I will tell you this plan does not make sense. It just doesn't make sense. Okay. Sure. It doesn't -- there is a lot of loose ends and, in conclusion, I just want to actually quote what Bill Parsons said in the -- in the Meridian Planning and Zoning hearing. He said brilliantly I will say -- that if this is not the time to develop this property maybe we wait and determine whether or not we extend all the stub streets in the future and wait for a different plan. De Weerd: Thank you. L.Lewis: Do you have any questions for me? De Weerd: Thank you. L.Lewis: Okay. Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Darin Jurgensmeier. De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Jurgensmeier: My name is Darin Jurgensmeier. I'm at 1778 East Dunwoody Court, Meridian, Idaho. Mayor and commissioners, thank you for your time and for your consideration of these applications. Just as those who have passed applications for construction in the past, you have to look at the future and how this will affect future developments and the residents in Meridian and I appreciate that responsibility. Those who approved applications in the past approved stub streets to this location. There are five stub streets and there is one private lane. Dunwoody is that private lane. Looking at the future of how this will affect as well, we need to look at when Chinden expands as is mentioned, Shandee will be blocked off. When Locust Grove expands, which is already in the plans, Dunwoody Court will be blocked to a right-in, right-out. So, as the main exit to the east, you will have a right-in right-out. So, the concern over what does it add to give that north entrance, which allows access to the Three Corners Road is another exit to the east. There has been a lot of discord between the Planning and Zoning decision and the ACHD decision and those who have been based primarily on the access to this community. After about an hour of open deliberation, the Planning and Zoning committee came to the recommendation of that north street, which the developer disregarded and didn't show good faith in changing the plat before you today. The ACHD had four commissioners present. Three of them began an open discussion , which was cut short by the fourth who brought up the vote to pass the application. Two of the other commissioners immediately said, you know, I think we should table this, we should have revisions and have this brought at another time , because I feel it -- it doesn't meet the ACHD policies and the third said, you know, I think it's very difficult to develop from the inside out. It's easier to develop when it's an outside in plan. He said I don't know that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 41 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 38 of 77 we are going to be able to come to a good plan in this location and he voted to pass it. The other yes vote came from a commissioner who had attended over the phone and had not participated, but voted yes. So, I do believe that there can be a good plan for this and I believe that we should wait until there is a good time. I don't believe that it's your responsibility tonight to try and reconcile the disagreements is between Planning and Zoning and the ACHD in trying to fix this plan tonight. I think it's your responsibility to just recognize this is not a good plan and wait until there is one brought before you. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Jurgensmeier: Questions? De Weerd: No questions. Thank you. Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Tyler Lewis. De Weerd: Good evening. T.Lewis: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, my name is Tyler Lewis. I live at 6059 North Karen Drive. I actually was asked to represent our HOA. We technically don't have an HOA in the Fuller Ranchette neighbor. De Weerd: No. I thought how many HOAs are out there. T.Lewis: There is a lot. De Weerd: My goodness. T.Lewis: We technically don't have one, just because our neighborhood was formed in 1960. So, we -- we did go around and collect signatures. We did submit that as our kind of testimony and, then, got asked to come speak for them tonight on behalf of -- kind of where we are at with the Fuller Ranchettes, which is the property to the north. So, I kind of will jump into that piece. I do -- I am directly personally affected, but I will kind of talk about the neighborhood piece first. Shandee, just like Dunwoody, is a private or a public road. It is a rural road. There was some concern originally of being shut off to Chinden. That is -- so, there is -- we are nice to see that there is a road put in there . When the neighborhood came -- when we all came together to have a conversation about this , it was put in place that we were worried about the same thing everybody else is is cut- through traffic, especially from Chinden into this neighborhood. That was our number one concern. Number two concern is being shut off from emergency services. Being an emergency services person I -- we identified that quickly with ITD that there will be bollards from Chinden. The interesting statement from ITD is its proposed that it be shut off. Proposed being in that -- in part of a ton of COMPASS committees through my entire career I know that proposed sometimes can mean the same thing, but I don't know if any of you guys remember the Five Mile extension project of 55, that was a proposed project. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 42 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 39 of 77 Well, proposed can come and go. So, the shut off piece for Shandee is not, as it says today, proposed when they go six lanes, because all of six lanes are proposed at this point. They don't know at least the information when I was researching that I got . So, our concern there is if we do connect the Stafford Drive to Shandee to Three Corners, Shandee Drive will become the main access in and out of this whole deal, which, then, brings an entire list of issues that we have just like Dunwoody where that's no curb and gutter, sidewalk street. But when we looked at this we all kind of decided that we are going to have to have some share in this. So, that's -- originally we liked the ACHD plan that had just an emergency access, left our access piece there. We all realized that everybody's going to have to own in this. There's 40 -- about 40 homes going into the development. There is another 40 in Three Corners. There is 27 developable lots in our neighbor -- in our small community. We quickly realized that this -- we would need to own part of this traffic pattern. That's why we were in favor when they added the road from Sweet Valley to Shandee, one, it gives us our access, but until -- or if that is never cut off we will be dealing with the traffic from Three Corners going out and going to Chinden. So, we are trying to take the burden of that piece on, as well as, then, having the neighborhood be split 20-20, Bristol Heights into Dunwoody as well. That was kind of -- when we came together we all -- we realize that we are going to need to own a piece of this. I don't know if my time is up or if I will have the HOA timeline here. Another three minutes went up here. So, I don't know how you want to handle that piece, but -- De Weerd: How much more time do you need? T.Lewis: I don't need a lot here. My biggest thing is -- De Weerd: We will give you two more minutes. T.Lewis: Yeah. The biggest thing I guess is just the connectivity piece, that north-south, connecting that piece that staff's recommended immediately removes the whole purpose of having a gated community here to cut that traffic off from going from Eagle Road to -- to Locust Grove with cut-through traffic. It's still fully connected and I think the developer showed it. It's still only -- I think two additional turns to come back through Stafford to get to Locust Grove through the Three -- through Three Corners Ranch neighborhood. So, we currently stand in favor of the -- the plan as approved by ACHD and the P&Z. Without the P&Z's recommendation of that north-south addition in the neighborhood. That would just put that much more, unless that is, obviously, cut off, then, it's not going to be a big -- a big deal. We are just afraid that that will never happen and we wouldn't want that -- we wouldn't want that north-south built until that fully was shut off from -- from Chinden -- Shandee were shut off from Chinden. So, we stand with that piece as P&Z made amended to us. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? T.Lewis: Thank you. De Weerd: Appreciate it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 43 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 40 of 77 Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Brian Granvall. De Weerd: Good Evening. Granvall: Good evening. My name is Brian Granvall. Unlike the P&Z meeting there is no D in it and -- and I live at 1741 East Sabalious Street. I am on the board of the Vienna Woods HOA. So, if you can change the time -- minute there. I won't go too long, though. And I represent the homeowners of the Vienna Woods HOA, which is directly to the south of the proposed plat and to address my -- my friend from Bristol Heights, yes, we are trying to fly under the radar a little bit, but I do feel that we need to address our concerns as well. One of the original designs, as Councilman Palmer brought up, was to open up the access at Dvorak and create what, in effect, amounts to cut-through traffic from this new subdivision to -- to and through -- actually through Vienna Woods, because there is no destination within Vienna Woods. There is no retail. There is no frontage. There is nothing. There is only Locust Grove to the west and McMillan to the south, which you would have to cut through two more subdivisions. I can show you here . Do I have access to this? Okay. So, right here is the proposed access from Three Corners Ranch to this rectangular subdivision, which is Vienna Woods. This very convoluted traffic pattern going to Locust Grove. This one goes into Bristol Heights and somewhere out this way, which I never go, ends up at Eagle somewhere out here and, then, these two subdivisions to the south are Edinburgh and Austin -- Austin Creek and those end up down here on McMillan. Opening up this access is something that the Vienna Woods HOA is very much opposed to for the sole purpose of the fact that the only reason to do that is to create cut - through traffic and to create connectivity for that subdivision and it serves only one purpose and that is to avoid traffic through Dunwoody Court or Bristol Heights. There are, as people mentioned, many sidewalks and bike paths through our neighborhoods that are open through this new proposed subdivision. So, there is pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through there. One of the -- one of the things that was mentioned -- I haven't heard it mentioned yet tonight, but one of the things that was mentioned at the P&Z meeting was that on the Locust Grove frontage road there is no safe passage north-south across the front of Dunwoody and as I mentioned in testimony, then, there is a 56 foot easement by ACHD from Locust Grove back up to the properties, including sidewalks, that as you can see here up by the Ambrose School and down here -- it's kind of hidden by the trees, but it's -- it goes clear back to here. Through these trees here there is a very wide sidewalk. It's -- you know, you can -- you can ride bicycles both directions on the sidewalk north-south. So, the safety aspect of having folks walking to the Ambrose School or walking down to the elementary school down below is mitigated by the addition of that across the front of Dunwoody should ACHD decide that that's a huge safety issue. That's about all I have in terms of our position and we are in support of the ACHD plan and the developer's plan as it stands, with keeping Dvorak closed off. Be happy to answer any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. I don't see any questions. We appreciate you being here. Granvall: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 44 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 41 of 77 Johnson: Madam Mayor, your last sign in is Mark Miller. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Miller: Mark Miller. The one referred to previously in the previous testimony at 1906 East Dunwoody Court. I'm just here to oppose the plan, although I'm not actually sure which plan I'm opposing, because there is so many plans that are uncertain right now that have been presented, I don't even know what to tell you I'm opposing , because I don't even know what is actually being presented. This has been a typical situation with this particular development as things have smoke and mirrored and moved and moved around at every single development. Things get presented at the last minute where people can't even address them. You will notice in previous -- and you can ask the staff if you want to -- there are numerous conditions of approval and things that this developer was required to submit that he has not submitted, including what affects me is the irrigation plan and the -- and the water Karnes Lateral plan that's still assumed to be up in the air and I'm a homeowner and the Karnes Lateral is on my -- on my plan. If you can put up the plan there. I also wanted to bring up the fact that -- I had some pictures here. There are four lots that are currently, according to city, deed restricted. However, they have been released, just like Lot 16, for development. They are acre lots behind the Dunwoody lots and I'm asking you to, please, be careful, if you put this all into private streets what happens to these four lots and your responsibility has to do with land use and appropriate land use and development in a city that's growing and needs new homes. Those would be one acre lots and I'm asking for the fact that since Mr. Dean has six stub streets going into Lot 16, which was also a deed restricted lot in Dunwoody Subdivision, that this committee -- that this Council require him to put in a stub street to at least -- a couple of these lots on the south side, so that we can develop those lots in the future and have access. That a condition of approval be that we allow -- be allowed to access through this private driveway if it is approved and allowed to develop our lots, so that we are not landlocked and make it impossible for us to even develop. You will notice those are there. They are currently deed restricted, but the HOA has already approved building -- making those into residential lots, because of now the fact that Dunwoody is not agricultural anymore, but it's becoming more urban and that's the problem with what's going on there. The other thing I wanted to show you is that -- please notice that the Deans owned all of the property, not just the property in question, and had selectively just to -- I wanted to, like Mr. Palmer, point out the obvious -- he pointed out the obvious on the video. They owned all this property. They first developed a subdivision that has now ten minutes of additional testimony from what I believe is the daughter of Dave Dean representing one of the other subdivisions. So , just take into account that the testimony that's come is relative -- relative to the -- to the developer, at least I believe so. Maybe somebody needs to confirm that. And, then, it -- can go to the next slide -- slide please. I need to -- and I have the issue with irrigation. So, these connector roads should have gone through there. In fact, ACHD required the Deans when they decided where that arrow was to put their house, at the bottleneck of both of these -- the developing properties that they would have to sign a fitness form that says a connector road is going to go through there. That is the connector road that you connect this new subdivision to Locust Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 45 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 42 of 77 Grove, not Dunwoody, which is an unsafe road, which has also been said by Locust Grove. The last thing I want to tell you is that I was -- one of the conditions of approval of the -- of the Planning and Zoning was for the developer to meet with me. He personally did not meet with me, he sent a subordinate that had no ability to work with me . Please -- I hope the staff can declare that there is multiple things like that that they did not, then, comply with. I had a meeting with them. He couldn't make any decisions. He could -- all he did was tell me he was going to move the irrigation canal 50 feet away, build a box, and, then, require me to configure all of my irrigation to connect to his. De Weerd: Mr. Miller, can you summarize? Miller: Yes. I also -- I called up my Karnes Lateral -- the ditch rider said to call Jim Rosetti. I called. He said, please, call the -- advice from attorney. I called Bryce Farris, who I talked to about the situation and he said, actually, since the Karnes Lateral is on your property he is required to have a license agreement with you personally before he can touch the land or touch the lateral and I'm asking as a condition of approval that we postpone any approval here until he gets a license agreement that's required by Idaho law with me before we touch any of the lateral at that point , so I can know what's happening with my irrigation water. De Weerd: Thank you. And good job. You didn't even take a breath there. Miller: Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. De Weerd: I was breathing for you. Council, any questions? Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Talk to me about these four lots that we haven't discussed up until now. Miller: Everybody kind of ignores those lots. Bernt: Are they legit lots or what's -- Miller: Those are called open space lots. There is -- if you want to pull up a bigger plan of Dunwoody I can show you as quick as I can. Do you see the -- if you look at Dunwoody, to the left of Dunwoody there is a big -- to the left. Go left farther with your arrow. Just a little bit left. See that big area there to the left of Dunwoody? That little in space, that will also get in-filled. Those are open space lots of Dunwoody and we are restricted in terms of development for 15 years, just like Lot 16 was. The owners of those -- of those lots are the homeowners of Dunwoody that are right next to them and their plan is to develop them and that's allowed. The other open -- there is two open space lots in Dunwoody that have already been released from the deed restriction. That's the one on the corner Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 46 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 43 of 77 of North Locust Grove and Dunwoody and another one in another open space lot where they were released to -- Bernt: Madam Mayor? Can you show me those? Can you point to what you're talking about? Miller: Yes, I can. I don't know how to -- oh, sorry. So, this lot right here was an open space lot designated by deed restriction and it was released by Dunwoody to be a buildable lot. Bernt: That's a newer house? Miller: This lot also here is a lot from Dunwoody that was deed restricted as an open space lot that now has a house on it. Bernt: Yeah. Miller: What's that? Bernt: I'm agreeing with you. Miller: Oh. Sorry. Okay. This is the sub -- this subdivision -- these are all four open space lots. They are actually separate parcels that were taxed on and the -- if you look at the plat -- original plan there is a 15 year moratorium. You can confirm with staff that that moratorium is now over and was over for -- also for Lot 16. The homeowners association has already met and voted to release these two development s and it makes only sense that we don't have to fit townhomes in this little spot , since this is now all open space, large acre lots. My proposal is that we, please, work with the developer to extend his street here just down this way, so that these four lots, as well as his four acre lots, can also be developed. I'm even thinking we are willing to help pay for the road, since I don't think I expect him to pay for our road for us, but I do think it's interesting that there are six stub streets that -- Vienna Woods, Bristol Heights that were all required by the city to stub into him that the developer had to pay for, so that his open space lot would be accessible. I'm only asking for the same thing fo r me and my lot and I'm also asking there is -- there is a restriction that we don't press -- press forward until a license agreement is with me about the irrigation, but I hope that answers your questions about -- here you can see the house that blocks the -- just like this -- somebody said the obvious, the house that blocks the street coming into here. It's easy to put in a street through here and make this -- in fact, this is -- the whole area of Three Corners was going to be a business park with tons of traffic in and out, in and out all day long and so with the school there is actually less traffic than there would be and you can actually build a tunnel underneath the street , because nothing's been developed over there, so the kids can get by and go across the street without hitting a car, just like most campuses do when there is traffic issues. Sorry. Other questions? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 47 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 44 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. So, I -- who owns the four lots that are between Dunwoody and the proposed development? Miller: Different individuals own those lots. Those -- those are owned by different Dunwoody residents, but they are separate. They are separate parcels -- separate tax lots. Bernt: Separate. Miller: Yes. Separately taxed. They have a different number and they are taxed separately. De Weerd: And why would you want them to build a road? Miller: Well, no, I'm just saying -- De Weerd: But they access from that road that they want to connect through Dunwoody; right? Miller: Say that again? I'm sorry, Mayor. De Weerd: They would have access to that road that is being proposed as the entrance into the subdivision. Miller: No, because it's a private road and they have already told us they wouldn't give us access. De Weerd: So, you're saying that they would be landlocked? Miller: Yeah. There would be no way to get to the backs of the roads, unless -- I suppose you could put a little driveway by every single house for 15 feet and somebody could live behind somebody else's house. I don't think that's really a great use of land. De Weerd: Every single house is the owner of the lot behind it ? Miller: Every single house for the lot behind it. I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. De Weerd: So -- Miller: Yes. Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Miller: We are just asking -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 48 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 45 of 77 De Weerd: So, really, they are allowed to subdivide their lots -- Miller: Yes. De Weerd: -- from one to two. Miller: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Miller: Well, they will be. That -- that's what the homeowners association has approved that -- and I'm looking -- I don't know if it's tomorrow, but no matter what you say, as this becomes less agricultural in ten or 20 years these are lots in the City of Meridian that need to be developed and it will be a poor use of land if they are made so they can't even be used in a reasonable way. I don't know. Maybe you -- I don't know. That's -- I just -- take into consideration the owners of those lots , since you took into consideration the owner of Lot 16 when you made all the stub streets into their lot. I'm just asking for the same consideration. De Weerd: How old is the subdivision? Dunwoody? Miller: Since 19 -- 1991. De Weerd: 1991. Miller: So, 28 years. I think that's what it is. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Miller: Any questions about the irrigation stuff? Bernt: Madam Mayor? That's already come up. We have already discussed that. Miller: I just want to make sure I can answer it, because I'm worried that the presentation -- the questions to the developer may be not accurate, so I'm happy to answer after that. So, I'm happy to answer after that if you -- Bernt: Madam Mayor? He's already -- we already -- we have already talked about it. It's going to -- it's going to get discussed when he comes up. Miller: Thank you very much for your time. De Weerd: Bill, was this part of the county when they had these cluster developments? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, that's kind of what the county did through their PUD process back in the '90s when they set aside a certain Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 49 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 46 of 77 amount of open space and put a 15 year moratorium on certain lots until -- and then -- so, I had this discussion with Mr. Miller and -- at the P&Z hearing this came up and as you mentioned, Mayor, all of these lots are held in common ownership. So , the owners that have the houses in front of these lots own the back lot. So, from our standpoint, although they are not in the city, if they were to annex into the city we would look at that as one lot to develop, not two separate lots. They would have to come and annex and redevelop and provide services to those properties as well and they have access to Dunwoody and that's why we did not look at providing a private street connection or utilities to those particular back parcels and that's what we shared with the Planning and Zoning Commission when we were there as well. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. That -- that is the end of those that signed up to testify. Are there any additional -- yes, ma'am. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Heiner: Thank you. Linsy Heiner. 1778 East Dunwoody Court. De Weerd: Thank you, Linsy. Heiner: Thank you for your time. I think the reality of our street on Dunwoody -- it's --is the best thing you could do is drive down the street and see what it looks like. There is a lot of blind corners. It's narrow. It has a lot of big trees that in the winter provide a lot of shade and a lot of ice and so it's just -- and also buses don't come down our street. They used to send a shorter bus down, but now they don't even do that. So, our kids -- I have four kids ages three to 12. So, two of my kids walk to the bus at Locust Grove and one rides a bike to the middle school at Heritage. So, he rides his bike every day. So, I just wanted to point that out, as my sons are here with me. One of my -- my younger son said about his older brother: I just really want my brother to be able to ride to school safely. So, that's why I'm here as a mom -- a concerned mom and I also will say, yes, I'm a mom, I am not -- we are not -- none of us are professional videographers. So, we tried our best as a neighborhood to just show the reality of our streets and we worked together, but, you know, keeping kids controlled while we are trying to make a movie, maybe it didn't show -- you know, we only had a limited amount of time, but we are trying to show -- and it is a reality that on a weekly basis there are families in our neighborhood that have youth groups come and there are that many cars. That is a reality. That is not fake. That is not contrived. That is a reality. And there are kids still that need to have a pathway and they don't currently have one. So, to quote from the musical Hamilton, take a stand with the stamina God has granted us. I know this discussion around the development has been long and thank you for your time and consideration on this. It's a very important issue that affects our entire community's future. When they brought up the statistic of 14 people standing here would represent that one person that was speaking, just because we are a smaller group we need to remember that in America I asked you to consider that we don't trample on the minority, in this case a relatively small neighborhood. Thomas Jefferson said that the minority must possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression. As community leadership we need to take a stand . Several people have talked about how the ACHD and the Planning and Zoning meeting Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 50 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 47 of 77 went. This process -- I won't go into more detail, because it's been discussed, but this process has been rife with expediency and ignoring safety. Concerns with ACHD commissioners and a plead for further discussion was ignored. Recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commissioners are not being taken into account. Development shouldn't create problems. The developer's current plan does not provide for adequate connectivity for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City's Comprehensive Plan for connectivity. The current plan embraces a reckless disregard for not only connectivity, but safety. In short, it proactively creates problems. Let us set aside emotion . No one wants their neighborhood to change. That's agreed . No one wants cars on their street. That's agreed. But we cannot set aside safety. Government's first duty and highest obligation is safety. Any questions? De Weerd: Thank you. No. But I agree with you. Heiner: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Good evening. Moore: Hello. I'm Monte Moore. I have lived at 1921 East Dunwoody Court for 23 years -- 26 years. I'm getting old. I didn't realize I needed to sign in when I came in. So, please forgive me. De Weerd: That's all right. Moore: Madam Mayor and City Council, I just really appreciate being part of this process and that we live in this community where this happens. It's just a fascinating and beautiful thing and I appreciate your time. I appreciate every person who has testified tonight. I think it's been a great meeting and it's been trying and -- Winston Churchill said the political system stinks, but it's the best thing I can think of and I think the system is so great. So, I just have a quick point. Was there a slide that was e-mailed today Dunwoody destinations? Yeah. There it is. So, I just wanted to reference -- this is kind of anticlimactic, but I wanted to reference the applicant's assertion that traffic is primarily east and west and the reason they chose Dunwoody is because there is going to be a lot of traffic to the west and so I noticed -- you know, I, my wife, and, then, I started to ask my neighbors and we are not going to live in Three -- in Three Corners, but we represent people who live in the area and I started to ask people where they go when they leave Dunwoody and so I got 23 respondents and -- how do I advance -- let's see. Does that work? Yeah. Twelve percent of trips out of Dunwoody for their estimation go to the west. Fifteen percent go to the north. Twenty-seven percent go to the east and forty-six percent go south. So, I just wanted to point out that the assertion that south is irrelevant in this development I don't believe is accurate. Even if we are all biased, I can -- I can tell you -- myself I work near the Eagle Road exit. My wife primarily goes to the Eagle Road area to shop. I have asked several of my next door neighbors who have businesses that are to the south. Are there any questions? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 51 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 48 of 77 De Weerd: Thank you. Any further testimony? It's nice to see you still smiling at the end of the evening. Lozano: Thank you. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Lozano: My name is Adam Lozano. I Live at 14567 West Barclay Street. De Weerd: Thank you. And if you will just say that one more time. I don't know if Dean really -- I didn't catch it. But your name one more time slow. Lozano: Sure. Adam Lozano. De Weerd: Thank you, Adam. Okay. Go ahead. Lozano: Thank you for your audience, Mayor and Council. I wanted to ask if you would make prevention of cut-through traffic a top priority to guide the decisions you make regarding the proposed development. I don't think you need to be a traffic expert, all you need to do is come take a walk around where I live to see the people who live in that area drive very differently from people who do not -- who are passing through or may be cutting through. Also it takes a very shallow examination to see one of the few things that all of the neighbors of the proposed development agree on is that they don't want more traffic and the reason they don't is for the safety of the people that live there. I understand there is, you know, several safety issues to be considered. There is a lot of regulations we need to consider that are here for our benefit. But, again, I would ask that you make prevention of cut-through traffic a primary objective for the reason that the community of people that live around the proposed development , we will have to deal with the risk of the cut-through traffic every day, every day -- every time we drive, every time we walk, every time we bike on the streets of our neighborhoods. That's it. De Weerd: Thank you, Adam. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: After you have been to these meetings for a few years that there are certain terms of -- like we just start kind of using them and the -- the common I guess definition of cut-through traffic that we use -- or that we hear a lot is if there was -- if a subdivision were to be built, for example, without gating it, there would certainly be an opportunity for cut-through traffic from Bristol Heights through your neighborhood and likewise through Bristol Heights from your neighborhood. In this case I think you're asking for the prevention of cut-through traffic to be the biggest emphasis and I think what's being proposed certainly does that. There definitely still has to be exiting and entering traffic, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 52 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 49 of 77 because no matter who lives here they have to be able to get there and get out. Where would you ideally -- I guess whose neighborhood should they go through if it's not yours? Lozano: I don't mind sharing the road we live on with the Three Corners residents. I just don't want to share it with everyone that doesn't want to wait for the light at Chinden and Linder, right, where everyone is on Eagle who is -- you know, it's backed up at Chinden, so I will just take a left here and I don't know it real well, but, boy, I better make up for the time I'm missing. So, who should -- who should take it? You know, all of us should. We are all neighbors. We are all -- we are all residents. We share the road with our new neighbors. That's great. We just don't want to share it wit h everybody else that doesn't drive like their kids live and play there, too, in an uncontrolled way. Yeah. I think the -- the county proposed plan or agreed plan or supported plan or whatever we want to call it with the gates, it does a reasonable job of limiting the traffic of people going from main road to main road through a subdivision. Did I answer or -- Palmer: Madam Mayor? Lozano: -- adequately? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Palmer: Maybe. Again, they would -- they would -- they would be your neighbors. Understanding there is -- there is definitely a difference in the roads and there is no sidewalks on that road. There is in the other adjacent subdivisions, but the -- the creation of this subdivision would not create traffic that doesn't -- that's currently going other ways, it would not take those cars and, then, be able to siphon them to you, this would just be an extension, essentially, of your neighborhood and some -- really, I'm just rambling is what I'm doing. I'm trying to -- I'm trying to find where the best route to send the cars would be and so everyone just kind of says don't send it through mine. Where do they go? Lozano: I'm not saying that they -- anybody that lives in Vienna Woods or Dunwoody or Three Corners Ranch want to come down Barclay, great, because you got kids that live there, too. It's people that don't live there. It's people that are driving on Locust Grove or Chinden or Eagle to get to a different destination who don't want to wait for a light at a major intersection and take any turn they can to avoid the light , then, they drive way too fast, because they are trying to find a way through and they are trying to make up time. As far as sharing the road with the -- with the rest of the community that live within my square mile, great, I don't mind. It's the people outside who forget that it's a country road. Unless I can put a limitation on teenage drivers from our own community with delusions about their driving abilities and cars. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further testimony? Yes, ma'am. Is -- oh, Justin is here. Jessome: Hi. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 53 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 50 of 77 De Weerd: Good evening. Jessome: I'm Renee Jessome. I live at 14473 West Barclay. So, I am right on that street with the big 70 percent of the traffic coming through. You know, no one wants 70 percent of the development coming through their -- their neighborhood, their street, but we feel like really this is balanced and we do support the plan as submitted in the Ada County Highway. We feel like the Three Corners took the traffic from the north and we are going to split the traffic east and west. We feel like the gated community does help to block the cut-through from far away and -- and just the people in our in -- in our block to -- to be around our streets. What -- I have a question actually. Maybe Mr. Parsons can answer. Is Dunwoody a fire lane? Is that designated a fire lane, 27 foot wide? What's up? Dunwoody, is it a fire lane? There is no parking? Parsons: Madam Chairman -- or Mayor -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's a public road. Jessome: It's a public road. So, you can park on both sides. Parsons: There is no parking signs on that street at all from my -- with my understanding and that's -- De Weerd: We are not aware of any parking restrictions. Jessome: Okay. We appreciate this community is walkable and, you know, if we want the kids to go to that private school we can have the kids walk from our neighborhood. If you're in the block you're probably walking. One thing I did want to say about Barclay is my kid also bikes to Heritage and you can't bike on the sidewalks, you have got mailboxes right in the freaking sidewalk. So, he bikes on the streets, like most people do. Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? Aeschbacher: So, my name is Brett Aeschbacher and I live at 1896 East Golden Oak Court and one of the things I guess I want to point out is the Deans -- I have always admired. Born and raised here. Been here my whole life. I have watched all the development. I know growth. I know what happens. One thing I want to make sure that everybody understands is that they are going the extra mile. Everybody keeps talking about Dunwoody, how it's unsafe and it's this and that. He knew it when he bought the property, okay? They also stood up here and said that I think she's representing the developer as -- I'm sorry Kendra Neely who spoke on behalf of Three Corners. It has nothing to do with them being related. She spoke on behalf of us. So, one thing I guess I want to -- I guess I keep hearing from this gentleman who wants to have Dave provide access to these four lots is that they complain about growth and they complain about traffic, but, then, they say we want to be able to develop these lots. Those don't go hand in hand. I grew up on an acreage down off Garrett Street. I never once had people park out on the public roadway when I lived on an acreage . You have an acreage with 400, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 54 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 51 of 77 300 foot of driveway, people park in your driveway. They don't park out on the street. So, with that being said that's about all I have. De Weerd: Thank you. Justin, we would love to talk with ACHD for a few minutes. Lucas: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just for the record my name is Justin Lucas. I'm here tonight representing Ada County Highway District. My business address is 3775 Adam Street in Garden City, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard a lot of discussion about the stub streets into this -- this parcel and I'm -- I'm curious as to why ACHD is -- I understand through Bristol Heights and I appreciate the testimony by their HOA and their residents. That's a -- that's a collector -- that's a major collector and makes sense. Putting cars through rural -- a rural designed road -- it's a public road, so I do understand that. Without any requirements to provide for the safety aspect for sidewalks or -- or any further improvement on that road, can you help me with what the thinking is in -- in that recommendation and that approval? Lucas: I will do my best, Madam Mayor. As usual I will guide you to the ACHD staff report. It contains the commission's official recommendation and determination and decision on this specific application. As you have heard it was discussed at length at the ACHD commission. The commissioners, as they always do, carefully consider the testimony provided and they came to the conclusion that you see in the staff report. You know, in areas like this, just to provide some insight on developing areas, where you have subdivisions that have developed at different times with different standards and you have this final piece of land that happens to be right in the middle, it's difficult. The -- this isn't that typical. You see a lot of land use applications and it's not often you see a piece of land that has this many stub streets right in the middle of a square mile that has never been developed before. It also is complicated by the fact that you h ave -- some of the subdivisions were developed in the county. They are not urban subdivisions, but as the -- as you stated, Madam Mayor, they are public streets. These are streets that have public use. They are public -- full public access. There is no restriction on access to any public street under the jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway District and as -- as is often the case you have adjacent property owners who have access to that street frontage we call it requesting to develop. The question of improvements on existing streets that are outside of the -- of the development boundary, we call these off-site improvements and they are very difficult for the Ada County Highway District to required, because it's very difficult to require a property owner to develop sidewalks and other things in front of someone else's property that they have no control over, there is oftentimes landscaping, potential right-of-way impacts and other things that the property -- the developer has no ability, unless they are negotiating with each of those property owners individually, it's extremely difficult to require that. If that were to be required that requirement would have to come from ACHD commission and they -- in this specific case they chose not to do that. I can't provide you with insight into all of their thought process, but in this specific case they analyzed this and chose not to do that based on the impacts that are projected. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 55 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 52 of 77 De Weerd: So, why did they choose to go through this subdivision and not the subdivision that is northwest of it, which had -- or even south of it, which have completed curb, gutter and sidewalk -- improved streets? Lucas: Madam Mayor, they -- I think the commission responded to the application that was submitted. The applicant worked with ACHD staff to try and develop a solution in this difficult situation that was acceptable. The commission carefully considered the solution that was provided at the -- through the public hearing process and they -- that's what they determined. Beyond that it's hard for me to really get too far into their heads and I'm very hesitant to do that, because what is written in the staff report is really what the determination of the commission is. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Justin, just for clarification, we heard a lot of testimony tonight about Dunwoody being a country -- country road. Country street. Is that a definition of ACHD and, if so, what does that refer to? Lucas: No. Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, we don't really refer to streets that way. It's oftentimes citizens will describe a street that way when it does not have curb and gutter and sidewalk. There are many streets that don't have curb and gutter and sidewalk, especially streets -- yeah, there is streets that don't have these facilities and It's -- it's kind of interesting in these situations, there are oftentimes places in this exact situation where you may have one or two of the members of the subdivision that want curb an d gutter and sidewalk and, then, you have a whole bunch of them that don't want curb and gutter and sidewalk, because they like the look and feel of the street. So, ACHD's hesitant to put curb and gutter and sidewalk on streets like this without the -- basically the full support of the -- of the neighborhood and so that's the -- I'm not speaking specifically to this neighborhood. I don't know their -- their -- their -- each individual opinion on curb, gutter and sidewalk, but from my experience working with neighborhoods similar to this, it can often be a controversial topic. Cavener: Thank you, Justin. Appreciate you being here. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for Justin? Thank you. Lucas: Thank you. De Weerd: So, Bill, for -- gosh, a couple of centuries or decades -- sure seems like centuries -- the county was approving these cluster developments where they allowed land -- a certain percentage of rural land to have less than required five -- five acre lots for the reason of having greater density at a later time, but allowing a certain piece to develop. The problem we had is the county never adopted our city standards and they always locate the -- the acre lots abutting the arterial -- so, then, the back property will Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 56 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 53 of 77 have to develop and go through it. This is another example of -- now I asked you to pull up Kingsbridge. That was also a cluster development where Kingsbridge developed around it and we needed to have connectivity through that subd ivision. What did we require at that time? Parsons: It's interesting, Madam Mayor, because when you -- I knew -- I was anticipating that question tonight, so -- we oftentimes have these same discussions with the developers where as part of annexations, if we feel it's in the best interest of the city we tried, through the development agreement, to have the developer to work with the Dunwoody -- or with the county residents to see if they can compromise and come back with some off-site improvements that everyone can agree with and Kingsbridge was one of those situations where they were developing in the city. If you recall they came in with a lot of greater density than what the city wanted. We sent them back to the drawing board, denied them, they worked with their residents, got agreements from the residents, revised their plans, and as part of that development agreement -- again through that DA they were amenable to adding the curb, gutter and sidewalks to the county subdivision to Eagle Road, adding some upgrades to the irrigation system and also adding some fencing and that was mutually agreed upon between the developer and the homeowners in that subdivision. And, then, also subsequent to that development agreement there was other agreements that the developer entered into with those private property owners separately from the city's process that they may concessions to them as well. So, this is one of those similar -- similar situations. The one thing that -- that wasn't discussed -- and I just want to share it with the Council, is when this project originally came into the city it had a rim road that connected all the stub streets, but still gated off these and lots and so as part of that -- with the change that ACHD worked with the applicant on, it was a different plan than what Stephanie and I had to analyze for our staff report. So, we paused on it. We continued to -- got the revised plan and made a recommendation to our Planning and Zoning Commission, but to me I understand there is an expense to sidewalk, I understand there is an expense to street lights, but, again, if you're willing to build miles of road, what's -- what's the issue with trying to work with the residents and build some of that sidewalk and improve some of those safety concerns. The other thing that was discussed at the commission hearing was whether or not traffic should go to the south through Dvorak and that's certainly within your purview. If you feel -- the commission was concerned about safety as well and they struggled a little bit on whether or not to send people to the north to another road or to the south and so certainly it is within your purview to say that the access to Dunwoody could be the emergency access bollard and pedestrian connection and, then, provide that secondary out or that other gated access. Through Dvorak it still gets them to complete streets as you mentioned, Mayor, and provide the safer route for not only vehicles but kids and bikes. It's just some options to think about as you deliberate. But long story short -- I know I'm a little long winded sometimes, but it was done through a development agreement and certainly that's what we had before you this evening is an annexation. We are requesting -- recommending a development agreement as part of that. Again, the key words was it was mutually agreed upon between the homeowners and the developer. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 57 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 54 of 77 De Weerd: Right. Can you also -- and I should have asked this to Justin, but one of the residents of the Dunwoody Court said at some point with the widening Locust Grove be restricted to right-in, right-out; is that correct? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's -- my understanding is it would never be restricted to right-in, right-out. De Weerd: Okay. Parsons: Justin can certainly add some light onto that. I don't think -- that was something that was brought up by public testimony, but I don't think ACHD ever stated that was the case. Lucas: Madam Mayor, Justin Lucas, just back up here at the podium. It's -- no, I don't believe ACHD has any plans to restrict Dunwoody Court. It is sufficient distance from any adjacent intersection and to my knowledge when we widen this section of Locust Grove we would intend to keep that public street as a full access point. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant -- if there is no further testimony, would the applicant like to respond. Clark: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Hethe Clark, 251 East Front Street. Okay. Got some work to do here. So, I will try to address the comments that we have heard. Again, as has been noted, this is in-fill and it's in-fill with a bunch of stubs on it, so it means that we have got to make a number of hard decisions and those decisions are not always easy. We spent a lot of time with these neighbors. As you saw tonight, Fuller Ranchettes, Three Corners, Bristol Heights, Vienna Woods, all these neighborhoods are in support of what came out of a process of compromise and discussion with the agencies. This has been -- on the part of Marcel and Jim Conger has been an incredible amount of PR work that they have done and I hope that the Council appreciates that. I only spent a couple hours at a meeting and they spend dozens and dozens and dozens. So, they -- we have done everything that we can to try to address every concern. With regard to the Karnes Lateral questions, I will hit that first. If -- if you want a summary of Idaho water law, it's don't cut somebody off from their irrigation and don't mess with their property and go onto their property without permission. We understand that. We have -- the Karnes Lateral did review our initial plans. They have been modified, as Mr. Tippets mentioned. He accurately read the bullet points that we had proposed to the Karnes folks. We fully expect that all of that will be approved in the next few weeks. That is standard operating procedure. When it comes to irrigation, we have to build according to the approved plans that Karnes Lateral will approve. There is just no going around that. It's their property. We can work within their -- within their easement and that's what we fully anticipate doing. With regard to Dunwoody, there was a suggestion that the -- there was an exclusion that I misrepresented. Obviously, CC&Rs are not your -- it's not your job as a city council to enforce CC&Rs. I'm fully mindful of that. But it's come up quite a bit and I just want to make sure that we are all clear on what's happening there. So, there is a two-step process that's described in the CC&Rs. First, Lot 16 would be excluded and, second, it would Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 58 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 55 of 77 develop and use Dunwoody Court. The exclusion is not -- does not mean that it loses the benefit of -- or the notice to folks that it would take access through there. I think more importantly -- or for these purposes tonight is that on the question of the open space lots -- and, Stephanie, can I have my slide deck back? So, Dunwoody is an old nonfarm subdivision from 1990 and what we are talking about that Mr. Miller mentioned where these lots on the backside of these parcels, I agree with Bill's analysis of this, that that is generally looked at as a -- you would sub -- you would do a minor subdivision within your own property and provide your own access, because you have common ownership of it. I would only add that the CC&Rs do require common ownership. So, it's not like they can be split off unless this -- I suppose unless the CC&Rs are modified, but they haven't -- they -- they are required to be in common ownership. But it does, of course, beg the question if the HOA doesn't want the traffic from these 44 units, would they really want to change their CC&Rs to add traffic from development on the backside of each of these lots. It seems inconsistent to me. Okay. So, let's move on to the -- I think the real question, which is the question of the off-site improvements. I have my own video of Dunwoody Court, which I'm not going to bore you with. It doesn't look like that one I will tell you that much. It is a public street . People should not be parked on both sides of a public street. People should not be riding their bikes down the middle of a public street. It's pretty obvious, you know, what we were looking at there. I do want to emphasize a couple of things there, though. Again, this is a 30 foot paved section. ACHD standard for a local street is 27 feet. So, it's wider than your standard local street and that was because -- that was to allow, according to the ACHD staff report, for a pedestrian area on the side. That's why it was striped before. The opinion of ACHD is that this does not require safety improvements. Again, it's a local road. Local roads have capacity of up to 2,000 trips. Our calculation shows that it will be at 14 percent capacity at full build out of Three Corners Ranch. We are not talking about it being overwhelmed by traffic, even though that's the way that it's being portrayed. It doesn't change the character of the street and it is wider than ACHD local street standards. Now, we are offering -- and I have already met with the Dunwoody folks to talk about what kind of improvements might go there that might address their concerns. There certainly is low hanging fruit . You know, the low hanging fruit would be to put that stripe back and we are more than willing to make those arrangements with ACHD and pay for that. Other low hanging fruit would be to put no parking signs on one side of the street. Now, in contrast to what was stated before, anything less than 33 feet is parking restricted on one side under ACHD standards. So , there should be no parking on one side of the street. Again, we are happy to coordinate those pieces and we are also happy to work with the Dunwoody folks if they want to look at -- at funding resources for sidewalks in the future. But requiring this applicant to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for improvements that ACHD says are not warranted would not be correct and would not meet the U.S. Supreme Court standards for exactions and, let's be honest, a 44 lot project won't pay for those kind of off sites. What we are talking about with Kingsbridge was a much more dense project and you would have to look at a redesign to be able to pay for that sort of thing. Question of why Dunwoody. Again, it's near the mid mile along Locust Grove. It's the most direct path to Locust Grove. As ACHD stated, there is no intent to restrict it and as I have mentioned it is well -- well within its capacity and -- and, again, ACHD has said no safety improvements are required. So, again, we are asking you to revisit the P&Z recommendations and for your reference, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 59 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 56 of 77 if it's helpful I have a physical print out of the items that we would -- we would ask you to consider in a motion and I will hand that out and then summarize. So , again, the three items we are providing -- De Weerd: Did you give one to the clerk? Clark: Oh, excuse me. Sorry. So, again, the three items that we were asking the Council to revisit -- the waiver for the Karnes Lateral so it's -- allow it to be in an irrigation easement. Deletion of the north-south connection and, then, looking at the requirement of sidewalk on both sides up at Guinness Street. And with that I'm happy to answer any remaining questions. De Weerd: And just for those in the audience, what we received is what you have on your screen. Okay. Council, questions? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: As Bill had mentioned, we cannot waive the sidewalk requirement for both sides of the street for that north street that runs east-west; correct? There -- because we can't or is there an alternate suggestion you have? Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Palmer, no, the -- we are asking the Council to consider waiving that requirement. There is -- it's a fairly binary question. Is it there or is it not. Because we are proposing to put the sidewalk on the other side of the road . De Weerd: I think the -- the staff is -- is pointing out that that is not consistent with our ordinance. Palmer: Madam Mayor? Meaning we couldn't if we wanted to? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: That's correct. Palmer: Madam Mayor? So, knowing that we couldn't if we wanted to, is there -- what else would you have us do? Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Palmer, no, this was a request to look at a waiver of a standard. That's all. So, if -- if it's the Council's position that you don't have the authority, then, we understand you don't have the authority. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Oh, Hethe, I do have one question. The roads within your subdivision will be public as well or private? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 60 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 57 of 77 Clark: Madam Mayor, they will be private as they will be gated off. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure. Okay. Council, can I have a discussion before you close the public hearing? Cavener: Madam Mayor, I think that's probably best. De Weerd: I think so. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: While we are at it one more question for staff. Is there additional items you would -- would need from the applicant before an approval would make any sense tonight? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you heard testimony this evening that there should have been a revised plan before you already and we never received that. So, if you want a clean record and you want the findings to reflect what your approval is and have the conditions appropriately, then, yes, we would ask that we continue this out, get a revised plan, make sure the findings and the conditions are accurate, so that we have a complete record if that's your desire to do something different than what ACHD condition has acted on. Palmer: Thanks. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Robert. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I would be more comfortable with the revised plan, as well as having the final word regarding the Karnes Lateral, that we have full information on that prior to moving forward. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Quick comment. I know that in-fill development applications are always complicated and I think we all know why. I generally think that this application is -- this application is generally -- I don't have any issues with -- with the development itself. The only question and concern I have is with the Dunwoody Court Road. Mr. Clark mentioned low hanging fruit and -- and mentioned maybe like a couple signs -- no parking signs, maybe a stripe. I think that smart minds need to get together to talk about something a little bit higher than that low hanging fruit -- or lower than that low hanging fruit. I think we can do better. I don't know if we necessarily have to have curb and gutter, but I do believe Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 61 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 58 of 77 that if you are going to ask us to approve this application , I think, then, you're using Dunwoody Street as a way to get in and out, I think it's tough to put an exact number, whether it's 14 or whether it's 30 -- I have no idea. The traffic guys do the best job they can. I don't know if it's an exact science. But we need to do better than -- than a stripe and we need to do better than signs, because at the end of the day -- I don't care if it's one child or if there is 50 children, I don't care if it's church related or if it's a local party or whatever the case may be, our purview is to keep everyone safe and, you know, Meridian -- we -- in Meridian we do have some, quote, unquote, rural roads were -- that are off the beaten path per se and I think that in order to accommodate these type of developments I think that there is -- we just need to think creative -- you know, a little bit creative and -- -- and to do something that we are all -- where both parties can come to an agreement some how, some way. So, that's where I'm leaning. I know there are some places in busy streets where you have like a cement or like an asphalt type bump along the side where it separates the road from where kiddos and people walk or travel , maybe -- and that -- that can't be too expensive. Certainly not going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Maybe that's a great alternative. Something needs to happen on that street in my opinion. Just to give you a heads up. I just want you -- I want to set an expectation. I don't want there to be any surprises. If there is one thing that I respect about the development community and I try to provide it about development community is consistency and so I don't want you to put a lot of effort into this and come back and have it be a complete surprise when Councilman Bernt come -- you know, says this and if this gets continued, but it's just my concern and I just wanted you guys to know that. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I tend to agree with Council Member Bernt. First, I think it's important to note there was a whole heck of a lot of creativity done on this project. I think it is very creative. I think that there are a lot of really strong attempts to make this in-fill project work. That said I think, Council Member, you hit the nail on the head in terms of Dunwoody Street or Dunwoody Subdivision. I -- clearly it sounds like we need no parking signs there now. I think a striping absolutely needs to return and I applaud your recommendation of some type of concrete barriers. We heard from representatives of the neighborhood. They are not in a position where they want to provide sidewalks in their neighborhood . Don't even want to provide the land for sidewalks. So, that really handcuffs what the development -- the developer is able to do. I think we have an opportunity here. We have heard from staff. We have heard from at least one Council Member that says they feel comfortable with seeing the applicant come back with the proposed plat, get some answers from the irrigation folk, meet with the neighbors, see if there is any common ground to be found. I heard a term from somebody who testified tonight that has stuck with me and that's productive deliberation. Sometimes we on the City Council have really unproductive deliberation. But sometimes we get really lucky and have really productive deliberation. And I -- I believe that the neighbors and the applicant can work together for some productive deliberation and come forth with something maybe not everybody is going to love, but it's -- but it's leveling up in terms of the application . So, I for the most part, am Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 62 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 59 of 77 supportive of it. I need to be supportive of the request from the applicant in terms of the proposed changes. I think that we can do a better job, though, when it comes to the impact on that one particular issue. De Weerd: I would also make another suggestion and that's in the City of Meridian our police, our code enforcement, our planning teams have worked hard together to identify areas of our community that have safety concerns, because of a lack of lighting, and I heard someone talk about how dark that area is and -- and maybe it -- we can't because you're in the county, but to have the conversation about the lighting in that area and maybe Lieutenant Colaianni, since I saw him pulling the microphone close to his mouth , might have something to add to that. Colaianni: Yeah. I have tried to stay silent all night on this and I have actually been looking at this, Mayor and Council Members, for the better part of three hours and rubbing my head. This is a difficult one. I, too -- and a lot of this has already been repeated. Excuse me, I have allergies. A lot of this has been repeated time and time again tonight , but my job -- my perspective is this: The police department -- the Meridian Police Department's sole purpose is to preserve and protect life and property. That's what we are here for and we do it through at least three ways, education, prevention and at the end of the day, if that doesn't work, enforcement and as I look at this there is a lot of difficulties, because whatever we talk about on Dunwoody, that is in the county and it's under the purview of the sheriff's department. If we annex and develop this that area is under the purview of the Meridian Police Department. If we go east it becomes the Boise Police Department. There is a lot of moving pieces there and some frustration that can build with HOAs and such, depending on the decisions that are made and so there is a lot of complexities to this. But at the end of the day when I look at developments in the City of Meridian, it doesn't matter if it's a hotel, a subdivision or apartments, we look at the same thing. We want to save movement of traffic. We want sidewalks. We want pedestrian connectivity. And we want people to move through the community without being hurt or hit. There is some challenges if we have traffic go to the north and people turn westbound on Chinden, we run a high risk of broadside accidents. If we send them south and east they could go through these subdivisions -- there is a lot of turns in there and Dunwoody, as everybody's mentioned tonight, no sidewalks, dark, there is -- those are difficult things to grapple with with all those jurisdictions and a unique -- unique piece of this property. We will do what we can, but there are a lot of players in this mix when it comes to the police side as well and what we look at. De Weerd: I appreciate your comments, lieutenant. Certainly I also appreciated Justin coming up and making comments. This connection does make sense. It does -- it is concern from a public safety standpoint. The size of the road is -- is wider than many of the roads in our community. However, there is no sidewalk, there is no safe place for the pedestrian movement and bicycles and it's dark. So, I would encourage, since it sounds like Council would like to have the revised plat, would like to have the plans for the Karnes Lateral and ask the developer to meet with Dunwoody residents and -- and see what there can be done to make Dunwoody a safer road. I, too, like the development and I appreciate the developer looking at this in terms of trying to minimize the amount of traffic Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 63 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 60 of 77 that could go through there by making private streets and investing in a gated community. I think that was above and beyond. So , I would applaud your efforts in that. There is concern about Dunwoody at -- both to what the neighbors -- neighbors said and also from previous experiences. We try and learn with each development and each different scenario that comes along and staff already pointing out some of the things that we did in Kingsbridge. I think maybe when I'm no longer sitting up here that institutional knowledge won't be here, but staff will be able to catch it and at least -- at least give the heads up to our number one priority is public safety and it would -- we would be not standing up to our responsibility setting up something that would not be safe and I do understand, Mr. Clark, about offsite improvements. But, too, we are not in a hurry. We don't have to approve everything and especially something that might set up a dangerous scenario. So, that's my two cents. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I would echo Lieutenant Colaianni. Yes, Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Yes. Well done. Thank you for your comments , Lieutenant Colaianni. I just -- I charge the developer and the applicant and the folks on Dunwoody Court -- let's figure it out, you know. Let's just figure it out. Sit down, hash it out. I know Mr. Conger well. Great guy. Great developer. I know he is going to do what's right. I know that, hopefully, you know, you guys can come to an agreement, something that makes sense for your community. So, I hope when -- when you come back that we have a -- we have a solution to this and I have faith that that will happen. De Weerd: So, our next meeting is in two weeks. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I'm going to throw this question out maybe for the applicant. I know that I will get some eye rolls, but I love special meetings. If the applicant is able and willing to meet with the public in the next week, maybe we have a special meeting next Tuesday for this issue. I don't know if that's too aggressive of a timeline. I want you to know that I think -- I'm willing, I think the Council would be willing to meet specifically for this. You guys can get things addressed in the week. If n ot, you're looking at July 9th at the earliest. I know that's a rapidly growing agenda, as much as I know everybody loves special meetings. De Weerd: Hethe, do you want to make a comment? Clark: Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. So, I don't want to over promise and under deliver in terms of making something by Tuesday and, then, we have a conflict on the 9th. So, it would probably have to be maybe the following week. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 64 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 61 of 77 Johnson: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: The 16th? Johnson: Madam Mayor, the 16th is rather full. In looking at the draft I would recommend the 23rd, but it's your decision. Cavener: So, I guess, Madam Mayor, just a thought. If -- with the understanding -- I mean I want to keep the public hearing open. I want to allow the public to have the opportunity to testify, but I guess fair warning to the public, if they plan to bring the same testimony that they brought tonight it will be a very lengthy meeting for everybody in attendance. De Weerd: Well, if Council were to continue it for specific items, the testimony would be limited to only those specific items. Clark: We have a conflict on the 23rd as well. De Weerd: The 16th would work. We will make it work. Clark: Okay. The 16th. Thank you. Cavener: Council? Madam Mayor? Cavener: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Looking for my notes. I move that we continue the public hearing for Three Corners Ranch, H-2019-0006, to July 16th and leave the public hearing open for specific testimony related to safety features of Dunwoody, comments about the plat and -- and commentary specifically related to the proposed Karnes Lateral. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue this to July 16 with the specific items has noted. Safety to the road on Dunwoody, the plat -- the revised plat and Karnes Lateral. Parsons: Madam Mayor? Sorry. De Weerd: Mr. Parsons. Parsons: Just for clarification when you say revised plat, in our staff report we had talked about the landscape buffer along -- that public street being extended along the north boundary along with the sidewalk. We -- Commission wanted the north-south street to align with the Fuller Ranchettes or whatever that street is. Yeah. Fuller Ranchette subdivision. Are you -- are you still wanting to see those -- that revision for additional Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 65 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 62 of 77 private street north and south or just landscape improvements and improvements to Dunwoody? Cavener: Madam Mayor, my motion referenced the public testimony about the -- the proposed plat that staff had asked for. So, I guess I wasn't including in terms of additional discussion about those items from staff , but that we were continuing the public hearing for those three specific items and, Madam Mayor, I would leave it to staff to determine what updates to the staff report that they deem necessary to -- to add if needed for Council to review. De Weerd: I haven't heard Council make any changes to the requirements you were waiting for on the revised plat from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Unless Council has any -- anything further on that. Parsons: That's all we needed. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Parsons: Perfect. De Weerd: Okay. So, the motion is to continue this to the 16th. All those in favor say Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. That was very overwhelming. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for all joining us. We will recess for five minutes before we take our next agenda item. (Recess: (9:38 p.m. to 9:45 p.m.) E. Public Hearing Continued from June 11, 2019 for 2019 UDC Text Amendment (H-2019-0049) by City of Meridian Planning Division 1. Request: A Text Amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections, by City of Meridian Planning Division Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 66 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 63 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and -- and reconvene this meeting. We are now moving to Item 7-E, which is a public hearing continued from June 11th regarding our UDC text amendment. So, I will turn this over to Bill. Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Hopefully we -- as you recall I was here with -- discussing with you these items back on the 11th of June. You guys had continued this project out for two weeks to take a chance -- take an opportunity to look over all 17 pages of the changes and come back with some -- either some questions or some discussions that we could have around some of the proposed changes. So, the table that I prepared for you this evening does clean up the -- some of the changes a little bit, so that you can understand them better, because a lot -- the previous version you saw had a lot of changes from Planning and Zoning Commission, so there was a little disconnect on what transpired there. So, I went through -- back through the table, cleaned up this table for you so you can see some of the strikeout-underlining changes and some of those things that weren't relevant for you to read through as part of the strikeout - underlining changes I removed those, so you can see that -- how it would read if it's -- if and when it's published through code. I didn't go through a lot of the code -- as I mentioned to you at the previous hearing code enforcement are bringing forward some of the changes, so I didn't go through a lot of their changes. In our opinion those are things that we feel should move forward and get taken care of to help them do their jobs better, but from staff's perspective I think we had some members from the community that wanted to delay some of these UDC changes until the Comprehensive Plan was done and so what I did for you this evening is I went through these proposed changes and highlighted all the items that we felt were clean -up items, that we should go forward on those, it has no bearing on the approval -- adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan. These are things that we just need to get on the books for you and for us, so we can efficiently do our jobs better. So, if you would like, I would take a few minutes to do that and go through those changes or if you're ready to jump in and just start your -- firing away your questions or any comments on any of the proposed changes I will just stand there and you tell me how you would like to proceed with tonight's changes. De Weerd: Council, you had asked for more time to digest and you would come back with questions. So, perhaps that's the way we can approach it. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: It's okay. I have had ample opportunity to kind of review different variations and versions. So, I have had most of my questions addressed. I noticed this looks a little bit differently, though, than the version that was in our packet. So, Madam Mayor, if you're okay and Council, maybe you can hit a high level review, these are the pieces that are clean-up, these are the pieces that could potentially be delayed, just so that Council -- we got a -- and, then, Madam Mayor, if Council has questions as we are kind of going through that they could do that at each opportunity. Does that make since? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 67 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 64 of 77 Parsons: Yep. I will try to stay brief and concise for you. How does that sound? And we can get you out of here this evening. De Weerd: That would be awesome. Parsons: Thank you. So, again, the items highlighted in green are the clean-up items that I put together for you this afternoon. A lot of them are just definitions and we have these areas -- like, for example, with the linear open spaces, those are in other areas of our code, but we don't really have it defined, so we just want to make sure to put a nexus that our definition matches up with something else in our code. So, it's just -- again, that's what we mean by clean-up. We are going through that and making sure that there is some -- if there is a conflict or if something's changed in code or a different jurisdiction, we want to make sure our code matches their standards as well, so -- the next one, again, this was a request of a developer just to make it clear for side loaded garages. Again, it doesn't impact the Comprehensive Plan, it's just basically a setback and getting a garage closer to the street. Next item we have for you is -- again, it's -- it's just numbered wrong in the code. So, changing it from a number to a letter for the hours of operations in the C-N, L-O and C-C districts. So, again, it's just more of a numerical item, rather than any substantive changes to the text of the code. Next item that we have on here for you, as I go through this, is outdoor storage. Again, this is a clean-up, just helping us understand the intent of the code, so we can enforce it more clearly with our customers. So, we are taking out some -- some verbiage and making it cleaner. The second item from the bottom is -- we have renamed our tree selection guide. So, again, a clean-up. There is a new book that we are using -- a new tool to help us do our job , so we just want to make sure our code matches the new title of that document and, then, as you recall our last -- about two weeks ago I talked about us giving greater flexibility to reducing buffer sizes depending on who is the authority -- the decision making body on -- on that particular application. So, to me this is one that certainly needs to get cleaned up because of the different application types that we work with. Next item are just including new figures in our signing ordinance, so just making it clear when you can get bigger signs when you're adjacent to the freeway. Our graphics are outdated, so, again, clean-up has really no bearing on the Comprehensive Plan. The item -- this is one that legal's directed us to move forward on with changes to the variance process and making it clear that you can approve those through a waiver process. It no longer requires a variance. That came about as -- from some projects that you recently reviewed and approved and so we are marrying that up with state code and that's also noted at the very bottom of the page there were no -- accesses to highways will no longer require a variance. We will treat those more like a waiver or a request from the developer contingent upon ITD's approval and share that information with you, so you will -- that will still be within your purview to approve those or deny those accesses, it just doesn't require that variance process as it aligns with state statute. The public hearing extension, as you recall -- as we get around the holiday season sometimes we can't get our commission recs to you in an orderly -- in a timely manner. The 45 day window creates an issue for us, so most -- last time -- last year there was a couple times where we had to continue a project just so that we could stay within compliance with this 45 day window. So, we are making it more consistent to extend that from 45 days to 70 days to get some greater flexibility as well. And, then, the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 68 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 65 of 77 last item, our notice abatement standards are referenced in Chapter 3 of our code as alternative compliance and this is really just moving this to this table to link it to that other section of code and keep all of our -- our alternative compliance requests consistent on one table. So, those are the items that we have as part of the clean-up. All the other items that I haven't highlighted, if those are things that you don't feel are necessary to move forward and could wait until the comp plan is done, certainly staff is happy to hold off on those and maybe revisit those at a later date with a future of UDC update. Any questions? Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I know that one of the -- one of the changes in regard to open space is going to be postponed for a little while until after the Comprehensive Plan is complete. However, did staff have a chance to meet with the BCA or a representative from the BCA or folks from the development community in regard to striking a deal in regard to that ? De Weerd: Making a deal? Bernt: Striking a deal would be like talking about it -- I mean it's like -- there was already discussion. I mean did you come to an agreement. Parsons: Mayor and Council, I think this -- this -- the changes that you see before you are the deal that we kind of worked out as we went from -- maybe before -- you know, we met before we went to P&Z. We compromised on some changes and, then, as we -- as I shared with you last week or two weeks ago , these were the changes that we kind of compromised on now for some -- some fixes to our code to help us administer it better. But I think the biggest rub from the BCA and the development community was just staff's position of just removing the landscape buffers from counting towards the open space and so this version that you see before you, that's been added back into the code, so nothing is changing that -- that will stay the status quo and, then, as we get through that Comprehensive Plan update that's when we have got buy-in from the development community and the BCA that they are willing to work with staff and overhaul our open space and our amenities ordinance and probing back something that's a little more comprehensive for this body to take under consideration. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: And you said last time that we would look at the open space -- primarily the open space and design standards that you really want to bring back for -- certainly a more in-depth discussion with stakeholder groups. Hood: And, Madam Mayor, if I can, Bill, Madam Mayor and Councilman Bernt, so the one conversation -- and I believe we were there for most, if not all, of the steering committee meeting. That's the only real conversations that's occurred since two weeks ago when Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 69 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 66 of 77 you all discussed, which we did as part of our last Comprehensive Plan steering committee meeting discuss generally open space and site design standards and so the talk is to establish that committee and we will be looking for names and volunteers. I know there is at least one in the audience and some that may not be volunteered, but we volun-told to be part of it. Kicking that off later this fall. So, we can kind of hit the ground running while the comp plan is going through the adoption process, already have a meeting or two underneath our belt to understand where we are going to be going with developing site design standards, open space and amenities. So, that all will be done later. But in two weeks we couldn't have got this done. I mean there have been -- this is -- this is a pretty heavy lift. It's just going to include people from all points of our community bringing them to the table. We limit the number -- we can have 50 people on the committee, but when you get the right people and it's going to take a series of meetings to get this right. Bernt: Madam Mayor, follow up. Just to clar -- I didn't -- I didn't -- I choose the wrong. I did -- I did -- further this is going to be like a big deal to me. I should have -- you know, I may -- I should have used the word agreement. Like -- you know, like discuss. That probably would have been better. Collaboration. There we go. Hood: Well -- and again, Madam Mayor, Councilman Bernt, just a little bit -- Bill mentioned it, but this isn't the version that staff originally proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission had some changes and tweaks and so, really, it does reflect some more middle ground, if you will, stepping back in favor of this bigger effort that's forthcoming. If I can just real quick while I have the microphone. I guess I would couch this a little bit different than the way Bill did. I -- because the open space -- so, the one we have got it on now, 11 -3-G, 3-D, I wouldn't classify them all as clean-up, but I really don't see any correlation between the Comprehensive Plan and what staff has proposed here. If you feel differently that's fine. I -- staff's recommendation is still to move forward with all these, maybe with the caveat of this qualified open space one, holding off on that. The rest of these, though, the comp plan guides, but this -- a lot of the stuff in here really just helps us do our job better. But if you have -- you have hesitations on that, none of this is urgent and, again, we are not pounding our fist saying you have to or else. Okay. Do our job now. No. We will be fine. If any of these don't feel right, let's push pause on them. But our recommendation is move them all forward. Bongiorno: Madam Mayor, if -- over here. This side. If I may, I'm with Caleb. We have a parking problem and this will help solve a lot of the problems. So, I would -- I also would like to see it moved forward as well. De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Colaianni: Sorry, I was sending an e-mail to Emily. Yes. What Joe said. De Weerd: What Joe said. Wow. Never say yes to a question you didn't hear. That was good advice from my mom. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 70 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 67 of 77 Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Since we are on parking, I had a question on 11-3C-4A, parking clean-up. Is that -- that is not street parking; correct? Parsons: Council Woman Little Roberts, is that the vehicle -- the RV parking? Or the assigned -- the code enforcement change that came forward? You said 11-3C -- Little Roberts: Yes. Parsons: -- 4A? This one here that talks about -- Little Roberts: Yes. I noticed about -- I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't like in front of your house street parking. This is temporary. Because that's the only space in our neighborhood people have to load their boats, trailers, park, and later you're off and running. Parsons: Yeah. That's -- that's off-street parking. Little Roberts: Which is a whole other story. Hood: And just this one really, again, channeling code enforcement a little bit. Is somebody taking plates off a registered vehicle and placing them on an other wise unregistered vehicle, it's just a -- the plates have to belong to the vehicle. You can 't just have some plates on the vehicle. Little Roberts: So, that it's all tied together. I was just limiting out the location. So, thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I'm not sure where Council wants to head tonight. Beside s home. There is some pieces that I'm not supportive of adopting tonight and there are some other parts that I think need some additional discussion. The two pieces that cause me a little bit of concern that I guess I would prefer either a discussion from Council tonight or in the future are these elements where it removes Council authority to -- I can't remember the term that we used -- person in charge or leader or whatnot. I think they are well intended, I just want to make sure that Council has a chance to review -- maybe to review that, discuss together and render a decision. The other one that I struggle with is our -- and Bill and I talked at great length about this -- about our parking requirements for multi- family and the simple reason being is that we see this time and time again , an applicant meets the requirement for parking in multi-family and they get to Planning and Zoning or Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 71 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 68 of 77 they get to City Council and we asked for more and I think that we have got a development community that responds in kind and if we -- if we want to raise what the minimum is, because that's what our expectation is, I think that's -- that's a larger conversation for Council. What is it that we are truly asking as the minimum so that the development community can respond in kind. So, those are a couple that I'm a little hesitant to change or to adopt. I think those two, in my opinion, kind of require some greater conversation from the Council. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Nary, I guess if Council wanted to pull certain sections off of this for further discussion, there is nothing that would prohibit the rest of them moving forward? Nary: That's exactly correct, Madam Mayor. I think that was Mr. Parson's intent was to take the ones that he and Planning and Mr. Hood didn't think were problematic or controversial, but, actually, were things that have already been directed or we are already doing to some degree and parcel them out separately and, then, giving us the opportunity to get more meatier discussion on the ones that have more of a concern and have a little bit greater impact. Cavener: Madam Mayor, an additional piece. For Council and staff's benefit, I'm -- I'm well aware sometimes that there is things that are of great interest to me and only to me and so I don't want Council to feel like that we have got to go through a narrative of having a discussion about something. If the rest of the body feels opposite of mine I think it's unfair to staff that we -- as we have heard from a citizen group now, we already spent plenty of time in these meetings and so if -- if the City Council already feels differently that's -- that's okay. That's what collaborative discussions are all about. So , no hard feelings if the body would rather go another direction , but I guess I just would encourage you -- if you do want to go another direction we should also be vocal about that so that we don't subject everybody to additional meetings and, you know, agenda topics if our minds have already been made. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: I agree with Councilman Cavener. I think those are two things that we could have a more in-depth conversation, especially regarding parking and what -- what we are thinking, so that we are giving clear direction and I think at 10:00 o'clock is probably not the time to start another discussion that could be lengthy. Cavener: Madam Mayor? I'm happy to make a motion, I just would also just encourage, you know, Council -- staff has done a good job of giving us time to review this stuff. I know we are all very busy with reviewing the budget and with a lot of things going on right now, I just want to encourage that when we say schedule these things, that we do spend some time going back through refreshing ourselves. I know that I'm guilty sometimes of -- we kick something off two weeks and I get here an hour before the meeting and it's like, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 72 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 69 of 77 oh, I got to -- I got to jump back into that one particular thing. So, let's -- let's be respectful of staff's time and invest a little time on our back end so we can be more efficient when we are here in these meetings on these particular items. So, Madam Mayor, I move that we adopt the changes that are highlighted in green -- the UDC changes that are highlighted in green, with the exception of any item that contemplates removal of authority from City Council to be given to someone else. I'm going to look for staff to make sure that makes sense to you all or if you need some greater clarification. I see a small grimace, so I don't want to cause any consternation. Palmer: Second. Cavener: Sorry, I didn't mean to include my commentary in the motion. De Weerd: Did you want to include the parking? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Cavener: The second one that -- I am comfortable with modifying my motion to include parking with the exception of multi-family. De Weerd: Okay. To remove the parking for multi-family -- Cavener: Yes. De Weerd: -- for further discussion. Cavener: Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: Madam Mayor, thank you. Appreciate the clarification. I, too, am getting a little rummy. Hood: Madam Mayor, if I can just -- just clarify. I just want to make sure everyone's reading that table correctly, because there aren't any proposed changes to multi -family. Now, we did talk about it and we -- I hear you and just, by the way, you're not the only one that believes we should look at that some more. I know our Planning and Zoning Commission -- at least some of them are frustrated with that, too. And the development community a lot of times are -- it's a moving target. I never know if I have enough or not. So, we hear that and it is on our list of things to look at further. But just to clarify, the table there has changes the other parking requirements and multi-family are like -- we don't have a better solution at this time. So , we weren't posing any. We were proposing to cleanup some other uses that weren't multi-family at this time, so -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 73 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 70 of 77 Cavener: Madam Mayor, if I may. Caleb, agreed. I guess this is always the case for me that when we open up Pandora's Box I like to kind of dig in, which is why we are having some conversations about other code enforcement issues here in the next few weeks is these things that are -- percolate to the top and often if we don't act on them when they are top of mind, we -- then we have other issues that become top of mind. So, I wanted to shine a light on that in my motion, so that there is an opportunity for us to have that conversation as a body with staff about what potential changes and I'm not saying it needs to happen next week or something needs to happen this month, but that -- there is clear direction from Council, to the Mayor and to staff about some of the items that we want to have addressed in the relatively near future. Hood: So, Madam Mayor, if I may follow up with Councilman Cavener a little bit on that. How much do we read into some of the draft changes we have now with some of the other uses that aren't multi-family, but are similar and there may be some relationships to what our multi-family standards may become -- you know, do we start from scratch or do we start with some of the other changes that we have in some of the conversations we had public testimony on, some of the -- you know, 55 and over community already, so I don't know how to read into that. Do you not like it? Or is it just because multi-family aren't proposing to change is the only reason you aren't adopting now standards to 55 and older age restricted housing? You know what I mean? Like I don't -- I'm not quite -- kind of to your point, we almost had that, in my mind at least, to a finish line and, then, we could really dive in and get our hands dirty on multi-family, but if you see a correlation between what we are requiring in age restricted housing and multi-family and single family even or whatever and you want to come look at that all at the same time , I get that. Cavener: Sure. And, Madam Mayor, great -- great question. Good feedback. Appreciate the pushback on that. I guess there is not anything that would preclude us from having those conversations as well though; right? Hood: Absolutely. And I think I made that comment last time -- Madam Mayor. Sorry. That you could make changes now and if you want to change them in six weeks we can change them again, you know. I don't want to do that, but I'm just saying hypothetically you could if it turns out it doesn't work, additional changes are necessary, we can change city code. De Weerd: Well, this conversation is interesting, but we still have not closed the public hearing. So, I took your motion and, then, I thought, no, I didn't even get a close of a public hearing and, who knows, we may have a public member who wants to provide comment? Cavener: Just trying to strike a deal with Treg. That's all I'm trying to do. De Weerd: Oh, my gosh. So -- Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 74 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 71 of 77 De Weerd: -- hold that and -- Cavener: I will withdraw my motion. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: And move to close the public hearing. De Weerd: Okay. First would you like to provide testimony? Okay. Thank you. Parsons: Madam Mayor, I'm sorry to belabor the conversation, but it is important and I appreciate Councilman Cavener's pause on directing some of that authority to differen t bodies, but looking at the proposed changes to the -- there is only two areas that -- where we have done. One is the landscape buffers between commercial and residential uses. So, certainly can remove that. And the other one is ditches, laterals and canals where we are saying that the decision making body can waive the tiling of canals. So, I'm happy -- I mean certainly we can move forward with those and just put it back that the Council still has the authority to do that or just scrap it all and bring it back later I guess is my -- for further clarification from -- from Council. Cavener: Madam Mayor? So, appreciate that. I guess I was mistaken. I thought there were multiple instances as proposed where those changes were made. I thought I had four or five listed and I'm not sure if that's because those -- those are the only items that are highlighted in this green document and if that's the case I'm comfortable with it , then, as presented. Parsons: Yeah. So, Mayor, Members of the Council, see, I'm looking through this -- so, here is the one right here, if you can see my -- it's hard to see my cursor. There is no arrow, but 2-A it says here we have changed it from City Council to decision making body, maybe we waive the requirement covering the ditch, that's the one I see here, which is on page four. The page numbers didn't change from your version until now. Lighting wouldn't have any effect on the Council. There is the last item on page nine here where it says decision making body was Council, unless Council would review it at a public hearing. So, certainly if you want we can just remove this one all together, unless you would like authority being granted at different -- by different -- but other than that I can't -- I don't recall -- actually for the access we actually gave you more power. I didn't like that. It said decision making body and actually said, no, I want the City Council to make -- so, in Item 3-H-3 here we changed it from decision making body may consider, we said, no, we want City Council to be the ones that approve the changes to access to state highways. No other body should have the right. So, that's why I'm -- I'm not sure where you saw it throughout the document here, but those are the only two items, skimming through this, that I see where we have made some -- some changes that may give you some pause. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Bill, I may have -- I very well may be wrong and just confused from my -- my Sunday night notes versus where we are today. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 75 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 72 of 77 Parsons: Well, if I hear you, are you good with those changes to move forward? Okay. Cavener: I am at this point. I'm satisfied with that. I don't know how the rest of the body feels, just want to make sure that -- De Weerd: I think Ty was seconding your comment just a couple of statements ago, so -- Cavener: Okay. De Weerd: Do I have a motion? Cavener: So, Madam Mayor, I move that we adopt -- Palmer: Close. Cavener: Oh, thank you, Council Member Palmer. Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing on Item 6-E, public hearing for UDC Text Amendment H-2019-0049. Palmer: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I'm a little gun shy, but I move that we approve the proposed UDC text amendments that have been highlighted by staff in green. Palmer: Second. Cavener: Wait. Oh, Madam Mayor. With the exception of the landscape or has that part already been removed? I'm sorry, guys, I'm -- Palmer: As proposed. De Weerd: Okay. So, I have a motion and a second. Discussion. Any -- any clarity over there, Bill? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 76 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 73 of 77 Parsons: I need some clarity, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. So, is it your intent that the code enforcement changes go along with this? Or are you wanting to pull those? We have two pieces here. We have code enforcement in gray. The green are clean-up and some of the -- as Caleb said, all of them are -- I was under the impression you wanted all of them to go forward except for that landscape buffer change. Cavener: Not getting any direction from anybody else, Bill, I'm satisfied with that. I -- I am comfortable with the particular piece that's related to code enforcement, so, essentially, if you need my motion to be approving all UDC text amendments with the exception of the element related to the open space, I'm good with that. Parsons: Landscape buffer reduction, yes. Cavener: Perfect. Yes. Parsons: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. How about a second? Palmer: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: I'm making it hard on you guys. I'm sorry. De Weerd: It's 10:15. If there is no discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 8: Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 19-1831: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code As Codified At Title 11, To Create A New Residential Self- Storage Use That Includes A Definition; Specific Use Standards And Specifies Conditional Use Approval In The R-15 And R-40 Zoning Districts; And Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective Date. De Weerd: Item 8-A is Ordinance 19-1831. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 77 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 74 of 77 Johnson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ordinance amending Meridian City Code as codified in Title 11, to create a new residential self -storage use that includes a definition; specific use standards and specifies conditional use approval in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title. Since there is no one left I won't ask if anyone wants to hear it read in its entirety, so, Council, what's your pleasure? Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance 19-1831 with suspension of rules. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Do I have a second? Palmer: Second. De Weerd: Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8 -A. If there is no discussion, since there wasn't too much before I got a second, I will ask Mr. Clerk to call roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Milam, absent; Cavener, nay; Palmer, nay; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, nay. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. The motion fails. MOTION FAILED: ONE AYE. THREE NAYS. TWO ABSENT. De Weerd: Do we need to have some discussion on this? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I'm happy to provide brief discussion. I didn't support this at the time. Bernt: Me either. Cavener: It's not something that I supported at this particular juncture. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 78 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 75 of 77 Bernt: I don't mean to prolong this meeting. It's not the intent and all kidding aside, I didn't support this, I voted the same way -- was the last week or the week prior with -- with Councilman Cavener. I feel like this opens up a huge can of worms going forward in regard to future development and using, you know, storage units as an amenity. I'm okay with it being -- with it being at R-40, but I think R-15 creates maybe a little bit too much residential for me to support it, so -- Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: It's not what I thought it was and I was in support of it. I don't know why when I glanced at the agenda before it was something else on my mind. So, are we in a position where we should -- just the motion failed, so we didn't deny the ordinance. De Weerd: Would you like a fully seated Council to make the decision? Bernt: My vote is going to be no regardless, so -- De Weerd: So, I would accept one of two motions, either to continue this until July 9th or another motion either to approve or to deny. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Is it appropriate to make the exact same motion that just failed? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, so this ordinance was prepared at the direction of the Council. You voted in favor of this two weeks ago , which also, then, prompted the applicant to apply to do this in their subdivision -- apply to modify their development agreement. So, it has put some wheels in motion. You can either move to approve it -- again, because we would put it back on the agenda, because I don't know -- I don't have nothing else to do for you tonight. Bernt: Madam Mayor? Nary: Or you can move to continue it. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: You know, Council Member Cavener and I were in the minority. We are just being consistent with our votes from a week or two ago. This was voted -- I don't know if it would be fair to the applicant, who is -- I get why you -- you would want to change your Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 79 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 76 of 77 vote and to continue it. I would understand if that -- if that would be the -- in all fairness to the applicant that his -- their -- their application was approved and so -- but I guess that's my explanation of why I voted no and why it would make sense, because of the original vote to the application, it would be make sense to continue it. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I move -- sorry if I mess this up. I move we approve Ordinance 19-1831 with suspension of rules. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-A. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Milam, absent; Cavener, nay; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, nay. De Weerd: And I vote no. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT. MAYOR NAY. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I move we continue Item 8-A to July 9th is our next meeting? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 8-A to July 9th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 9: Future Meeting Topics De Weerd: Any item under Item 9? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9, 2019 – Page 80 of 542 Meridian City Council June 25, 2019 Page 77 of 77 Cavener: Just a plug for Council. We are getting closer and closer to our budget workshop. I'm sure all of you have been busy writing your book, writing your questions. I'm just as guilty. We need to get those questions to staff as soon as possible. So, If you haven't done that yet, please, try and wrap up your review in the next day or two and get those questions to staff, so that the Finance Department and our directors can have time to be able to provide the most accurate response as possible. De Weerd: Thank you. You took the words right out of my mouth. So, with that I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I move we adjourn our meeting. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:23 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR TAMMY E WEERD DATE APPROVED / G0�Q�{tATtii, `J / ATTEST: �� 1 / C ih. of CHRI JOH S ITY CL RK IDIAN�w 'OAHO SEAL CrE IDA*,-----INAHO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 25, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 5 Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Announcements Meeting Notes: EIDIAINDAH ?- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 25, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 6 Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Future Meeting Topics — Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. ]'his time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general :interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land use/development application. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting Meeting Notes: 6/25/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/25/2019 Hearing Type: Public Forum Active: *-* Signature Name Discussion Topic Sign In Date/Time Tom and Norine Katsma Three corners ranch 6/25/2019 5:53:21 PM Suzanne wilding Dunwoody 6/25/2019 5:55:35 PM Mauri Lewis 3 corner/dunwoody ct. 6/25/2019 5:59:50 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=266 1/1 E IDIZIANC--DAHO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA .lune 25, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 A Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Public Hearing Proposed New Fee The Compliance Engine Administrative Fee Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.A . Presenter: J oe Bongiorno Estimated Time f or P resentation: 1 minute Title of I tem - Public Hearing on P roposed New F ee: T he Compliance E ngine Administration F ee C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing C ouncil Notes: RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate L egal.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/10/2019 - 6:52 P M L egal.B aird, Ted Approved 6/19/2019 - 2:41 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 4 of 151 6/25/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/25/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-A Project Name: Proposed New Fee: The Compliance Engine Administration Fee Project No.: Active: There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=263 1/1 E IDIAN*,- (IZ,�J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA .lune 25, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 B Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Resolution No. 19-2148 Adoption of New Fee - The Compliance Engine Administration Fee Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.B . Presenter: J oe B ongiorno Es timated Time for P res entation: 1 minute Title of Item - Resolution No. 19-2148: Adoption of New Fee - The Compliance Engine Administration F ee C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Reso f or T C E fee Cover Memo 6/10/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate L egal.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/10/2019 - 6:54 P M L egal.B aird, Ted Approved 6/19/2019 - 2:39 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 5 of 151 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 19-2148 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS MILAM, PALMER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COMPLIANCE ENGINE ADMINISTRATION FEE; AUTHORIZING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Meridian Fire Department provides administrative services related to inspections tracked by The Compliance Engine, for which it is appropriate to institute a fee for the provision of such services; and WHEREAS, following publication of notice in the Meridian Press on June 14, 2019 and June 21, 2019, according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on June 25, 2019, the City Council of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of a proposed new fee for these services provided by the Meridian Fire Department; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council, by formal motion, did approve said proposed new and updated fees; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That a new fee shall be adopted, The Compliance Engine administration fee, in the amount of $13.05. Section 2. That the Meridian Fire Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. 2019. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 2 day of June APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 2 day of June, 2019. ►_199z01kaa�� Tamm e eerd, Mayor ADOPTION OF FEES OF MERIDIAN CLERK'S OFFICE PAGE 1 OF 1 �/rEDAH IDIZ IANk- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 25, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 C Project File Name/Number: Item Title: First Amendment Agreement with Brycer, LLC For The Compliance Engine Meeting Notes: c�- I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.C. Presenter: J oe Bongiorno Estimated Time f or P resentation: 1 minute Title of I tem - F irst Amendment to Agreement with Brycer, L L C for the C ompliance Engine C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F irst A mendment to B rycer A greement Cover Memo 6/10/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate L egal.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/10/2019 - 6:52 P M L egal.B aird, Ted Approved 6/19/2019 - 2:39 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 7 of 151 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 8 of 151 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties shall cause this First Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized officers, to be effective on the Effective Date established above. BRYCER: By: Its: CITY OF MERIDIAN: Attest: ses, Auc� e d, Mayor ZTammy o� .1 E IDS IANC`" IDAHO SEAL' FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BRYCER, LLC FOR THE COMPLIANCF. ENGINE PAGE 2 OF 2 Exhibit A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 10 of 151 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 11 of 151 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 12 of 151 1180293/4/13399.000 including but not limited to the risk of breach of security, the risk of exposure to computer viruses and the risk of interception, distortion, or loss of communications. Client assumes these risks knowingly and voluntarily and indemnifies and holds Brycer harmless from all liability from all such risks. Not in limitation of the foregoing, Client hereby assumes the risk, and Brycer shall have no responsibility or liability of any kind hereunder, for: (1) errors in the Solution resulting from misuse, negligence, revision, modification, or improper use of all or any part of the Solution by any entity other than Brycer or its authorized representatives; (2) any version of the Solution other than the then-current unmodified version provided to Client; (3) Client's failure to timely or correctly install any updates to the Client Access Software; (4) problems caused by connecting or failure to connect to the Internet; (5) failure to provide and maintain the technical and connectivity configurations for the use and operation of the Solution that meet Brycer’s recommended requirements; (6) nonconformities resulting from or problems to or caused by non-Brycer products or services; or (7) data or data input, output, accuracy, and suitability, which shall be deemed under Client’s exclusive control. 11. Indemnity. Brycer (the “Indemnifying Party”) will defend and indemnify the non-indemnifying party against any damages, losses, liabilities, causes of action, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) arising from the Indemnifying Party’s breach of this Agreement, gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Client will hold Brycer harmless against any damages, losses, liabilities, costs or expenses, claims, demands, suits or proceedings made or brought against Brycer by a third party in connection with Client’s or an Authorized User’s use of the Solution, or any action or inaction taken by a third party, including, but not limited to, third party inspectors, in connection with such third party providing services for Client or otherwise at Client’s or an Authorized User’s request or direction. 12. Breach. Brycer shall have the right to terminate or suspend this Agreement, and all of Client’s rights hereunder, immediately upon delivering written notice to Client detailing Client’s breach of any provision of this Agreement. If Client cures such breach within 5 days of receiving written notice thereof, Brycer shall restore the Solution and Client shall pay any fees or costs incurred by Brycer in connection with the restoration of the Solution. 13. Illegal Payments. Client acknowledges and agrees that it has not received or been offered any illegal or improper bribe, kickback, payment, gift or anything of value from any employee or agent of Brycer in connection with the Agreement. 14. Beneficiaries. There are no third party beneficiaries to the Agreement. 15. Force Majeure. Neither party shall be responsible for any failure to perform due to unforeseen, non-commercial circumstances beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to acts of God, war, riot, embargoes, acts of civil or military authorities, fire, floods, earthquakes, blackouts, accidents, or strikes. In the event of any such delay, any applicable period of time for action by said party may be deferred for a period of time equal to the time of such delay. 16. Notices. All notices required in the Agreement shall be effective: (a) if given personally, upon receipt; (b) if given by facsimile or electronic mail, when such notice is transmitted and confirmation of receipt obtained; (c) if mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, to the last known address of each party, three business days after mailing; or (d) if delivered to a nationally recognized overnight courier service, one business day after delivery. 17. Assignment. The Agreement may not be assigned or transferred by either party without the prior written consent of the other and any purported transfer in violation of this section shall be null and void. The Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties thereto and their respective successors and representatives. 18. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. THE AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND ENFORCEABLE UNDER, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS MADE IN IDAHO AND THAT ARE TO BE WHOLLY PERFORMED IN IDAHO WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CHOICE-OF-LAW PRINCIPLES OF IDAHO. THE PARTIES IRREVOCABLY AGREE THAT ALL ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS IN ANY WAY, MANNER OR RESPECT ARISING OUT OF OR FROM OR RELATED TO THE AGREEMENT SHALL BE LITIGATED ONLY IN COURTS LOCATED WITHIN ADA COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO. THE PARTIES HEREBY CONSENT AND SUBMIT TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ANY LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL COURT LOCATED WITHIN SAID COUNTY AND STATE. THE PARTIES HEREBY WAIVE ANY RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE TO TRANSFER OR CHANGE VENUE OF ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT. THE PARTIES WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY ON ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE OR DEFEND ANY RIGHTS UNDER THE AGREEMENT, AND AGREE THAT ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE TRIED BEFORE A COURT AND NOT BEFORE A JURY. 19. Attorneys’ Fees. The prevailing party in any proceeding in connection with the Agreement shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party all costs and expenses, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ and paralegals’ fees and costs incurred by such party in connection with any such proceeding. 20. Entire Agreement. The Agreement sets out the entire agreement between the parties relative to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements or representations, oral or written. 21. Amendment. The Agreement may not be altered or modified, except by written amendment which expressly refers to the Agreement and which is duly executed by authorized representatives of both parties. The waiver or failure by either party to exercise or enforce any right provided for in the Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any further right under the Agreement. Any provision of the Agreement held to be invalid under applicable law shall not render the Agreement invalid as a whole, and in such an event, such provision shall be interpreted so as to best accomplish the intent of the parties within the limits of applicable law. The Agreement may be executed by facsimile and in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 22. Expiration. The rights and obligations contained in these Terms and Conditions shall survive any expiration or termination of the Agreement. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 13 of 151 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 14 of 151 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 15 of 151 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 16 of 151 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 157 0 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADOPTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY OF THE MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT REGARDING APPROVED METHOD OF TRANSMITTING RECORDS OF INSPECTIONS TO MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE FIRE CHIEF TO CARRY OUT SUCH POLICY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to International Fire Code ("IFC") sections 107.2.1 and 107.2.2, as adopted by Meridian City Code section 10-4-1, the Fire Chief requires that records of required tests, inspections, and reinspections be filed with the Fire Chief; WHEREAS, the Fire Chief is authorized by IFC section 104.1, adopted as amended by Meridian City Code section 10-4-2, to adopt procedures to facilitate the application of the provisions of the IFC; WHEREAS, the Fire Chief finds the Internet -based service known as Compliance Engine to be a reliable, secure, easy to use, cost-effective, responsive website that will facilitate inspectors' and property owners' compliance with City Code; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council find that it is in the best interest of the safety and welfare of the people of Meridian to adopt and effectuate the Administrative Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the Administrative Policy attached hereto as Exhibit is hereby adopted and effectuated by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian. Section 2. That the Fire Chief is authorized to carry out said Administrative Policy. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full forceand effect immediately upon its passage. ADOPTED by the Meridian City Council this DeY day of1 YI 1,/1AW/2015. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ! da— y of 2015. APPROVED: Y ATTEST: 4sT up. uD A Qc,&-r^ 9 v Cily of Tammy eerd, MayorE TD. o ee olman, City Clerk SEAL f r. DAH R pf. r rue inc f`v RESOLUTION ADOPTING MFD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY ESTABLISHING METHOD OF TRANSMITTING REQUIRED TEST AND INSPECTION RECORDS Page I of 3 Exhibit B Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 17 of 151 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING MFD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY ESTABLISHING METHOD OF TRANSMITTING REQUIRED TEST AND INSPECTION RECORDS Page 2 of 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 18 of 151 E IDIAN-- IDAHO Meridian Police Department ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY SUBJECT: Approved method of transmitting test and inspection records to Meridian Fire Department PURPOSE: To establish the approved method of transmitting records of required tests, inspections, and reinspections to the Meridian Fire Department as required by International Fire Code sections 107.2.1 and 107.2.2, as adopted by Meridian City Code section 10-4-1. POLICY: The Fire Chief finds Compliance Engine to be a reliable, secure, easy to use, cost- effective, responsive, Internet -based service that will facilitate property owners' and inspectors' submission of required test, inspection, and reinspection records and compliance with City Code. For these reasons, the Fire Chief designates Compliance Engine to be the method by which records of required tests and inspections are to be transmitted to the Meridian Fire Department where such transmission is required by the IFC and/or City Code. RESOLUTION ADOPTING MOD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY ESTABLISHING METHOD OF TRANSMITTING REQUIRED TEST AND INSPECTION RECORDS Page 3 of 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 19 of 151 E IDIAN*,-----IZ �J CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA June 25, 2019 Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Outline and Presentations Meeting Notes: City Council Meeting June 25, 2019 Zoning Map Aerial Preliminary Plat/Landscape Plan Staff’s Recommendation •Extend W. Guiness St. to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. •Extend private street to connect with W. Guiness St. with gate north to south from E. Commander Ln. •Provide 5-foot sidewalk along both sides of the proposed public street, W. Guiness St. •Provide a 10-foot landscape buffer in a common lot to the north of double-fronted lots along W. Guiness St. Commission’s Recommendation •Strike condition requiring extension of W. Guiness St. to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. •Extend private street with gate north to south from E. Commander Ln. to connect with W. Guiness St. Phase installation to coincide with closure of N. Shandee Dr. access to W. Chinden Blvd. •Move the gate on the west boundary closer to proposed development. •Provide 5-foot sidewalk along both sides of the proposed public street, W. Guiness St. •Provide a 10-foot landscape buffer in a common lot to the north of double-fronted lots along W. Guiness St. Changes to Agenda: Item #4A: Three Corners Ranch (H-2019-0006) Application(s):  Annexation  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 31 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 1890 E Dunwoody Ct. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: SFR subdivisions, zoned R1 in the County and R-1C in Boise (Fuller Ranchettes and Bristol Heights) South: SFR subdivision, zoned R-4 (Vienna Woods) East: SFR subdivision, zoned R-1C in Boise (Bristol Heights) West: SFR subdivision zoned RUT (Dunwoody Sub.) History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting annexation of 31 acres of land to the R-4 zoning district consistent with the LDR FLUM designation. Preliminary plat consisting of 45 building lots, one of which will encompass an existing home. The applicant received private street approval; with gates at the entrances to the subdivision at W. Barclay and E. Dunwoody. The subject site is a 31-acre infill property located amongst several existing Meridian, Boise and Ada County subdivisions. The site has five (5) abutting stub streets that were installed with the development of previous subdivisions with the intention of future extension; the site also has 50-feet of frontage along E. Dunwoody Ct. to the west. With so many potential stub streets, connectivity and points of access have been greatly discussed by residents, City Staff, ACHD and the applicant. The ACHD Commission approved the plan presented with the subject application at their March 27th hearing. The applicant is proposing access via W. Barclay St. and E. Dunwoody Ct. with a private street that will be gated at least 50-feet back from both entrances. Public street access is not proposed, however, residents and visitors will be able to access the subdivision. The applicant is proposing to extend 2 of the 5 stub streets, N. Sweet Valley Rd. connecting to N. Shandee, at the northwest part of the site with a public street (W. Guiness St.). Shandee Dr. provides access to the Fuller Ranchettes Sub. and currently has full access to Chinden/SH 20/26. However, this access will be restricted to right-in/right-out with the Chinden expansion to 5 lanes in 2020, and will prohibit access to Chinden when expanded to 6 lanes based on comments received from ITD. Although this extension of roadway provides access to the Fuller Ranchettes Sub., the closure of the existing access point to Chinden, would result in a dead end loop with one point of access. Staff believes an extension of W. Guiness St. to N. Stafford Pl. will create an additional access point for residents and will increase connectivity for the northern part of this area. Without this connectivity, residents will be forced to access a state highway (Chinden/SH 20/26) or an arterial roadway (Locust Grove). Staff recommends the applicant also extend a private north/south street from E. Commander Ln. within the proposed sub. to provide a means of ingress/egress to the north for future residents. This private street would also break-up the block length should W. Guiness be extended to the east. Lot sizes range from approximately 11,000 SF to 96,000 SF, with an average lot size of 23,500 SF, or roughly ½ acre. The gross density is 1.45 du/acre, which is at the low end of the LDR target density. The applicant is proposing to include a 1.26 acre neighborhood park, pocket parks, and several micropathways to provide pedest connect within the subdivision and to other subdivisions in the area. Staff is recommending the applicant replace the currently proposed micropathway along the northeast part of the site with the extension of W. Guiness St. Should they be required to do so, staff recommends they provide sidewalk along both sides of the road to provide pedestrian connectivity. The Karnes Lateral crosses through this site and is proposed to be piped. Staff requests that the applicant provide informati on regarding the width of the lateral easement – the UDC requires any irrigation easement larger than 10-feet in width be located within a 20-foot common lot unless modified by the City Council. Commission Recommendation: Approval with the following conditions: Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: ii. In opposition: iii. Commenting: iv. Written testimony: v. Key Issue(s): Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The applicant was required to modify the proposed plat per recommended changes and has not done so. ii. The Council needs to grant a waiver if the applicant proposes to locate the Karnes Lateral irrigation easement within buildable lots; Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Overall there are 57 records of written testimony, 10 of which have been received since the Commission hearing May 16th. Each record has been added to the public record for this project. In summary: Alan and Debbie Jurgens, Mona Tippets, Jeff Wilding, Sandy Anderson, Brandon and Angela Wilding, Linsy Heiner, and Mauri Lewis (Dunwoody Subdivision to the west) – concern regarding use of Dunwoody Ct. as entrance due to safety concerns; question regarding where construction traffic will travel; interest in using other stub streets; frustration related to working with applicant on safety improvements; concern that developer does not want to adopt Commission’s recommendation, concern regarding the safety improvements needed along Dunwoody, concern regarding lack of connectivity proposed, belief that sidewalks should be provided if Dunwoody is used as an access; Patricia and John Trofast (Bristol Heights to northeast) – in favor of proposed (ACHD approved) plan, in favor of gates, elimination of cut-through traffic by preventing access via N. Stafford Pl. (northeast corner of proposed development); Luane and Dave Dean (developer) – interest in developing the proposed subdivision to add more LDR, discussion/worry regarding neighbor’s concerns; Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 25, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0006, as presented during the hearing on June 25, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0006 to the hearing date of June 25, 2019 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) EIDIAN.,?-- DAJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 25, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 D Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0006 Item Title: Public Hearing for Three Corners Ranch By Sweet Land Development, Inc. Located at 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 31.06 acres of land with the R-4 zoning District, and; 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 45 building lots and 9 common lots. Meeting Notes: Convnutod -to �v�y `�, Zoog I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for T hree Corners Ranch (H-2019-0006) by S weet L and D evelopment, Inc., Located at 1890 E. D unwoody C t. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 6/20/2019 Minutes from Planning and Z oning Commission Hearing B ackup Material 6/20/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/20/2019 - 1:17 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 20 of 151 6/25/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/25/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-D Project Name: Three Corners Ranch Project No.: H-2019-0006 Active: � httpWi nternalapps/SIGN IN FORMTOOLS/SignlnForm Detai Is?id=264 1/3 City- I Wish Sign In Signature Name Address State- For Against Neutral To Date/Time Zip Testify 6/25/2019 1842 E. Dunwoody Ct. Jeff Wilding X X 1:57:31 Meridian Idaho PM 6/25/2019 14435 W Guinness Dr, Boise Joe LaGue X X 2:55:46 (Bristol Heights) PM 6/25/2019 14495 W Battenberg. Boise, Ted Dawson 5:46:14 Id PM 6/25/2019 1980 E Dunwoodt Ct, Benjamin Tippets X X 5:49:52 Meridian PM 6/25/2019 1938 e Dunwoody ct Mona tippets X X 5:50:55 meridian PM 6/25/2019 Brett aeschbacher 1896 E Golden Oak Ct X 5:51:39 PM 6/25/2019 Sandra Anderson 1810 east Dunwoody X 5:52:52 PM httpWi nternalapps/SIGN IN FORMTOOLS/SignlnForm Detai Is?id=264 1/3 6/25/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Dick anderson 180 dunwoody ct Marilyn Bell 16294 N Sweet Valley P Kendra neely - 3 1800 east golden oak c corners hoa board Troy Bergstrand 1970 E Dunwoody Ct, Meridian Linsy heiner 11778 e dunwoody ct Lori Lewis 2000 E Dunwoody Ct, Meridian Renee Jessome 1 14473 W Barclay St Georia Petty 1 14355 W Stockwell David Arnett 1 6050 N Stafford PI, Boi Shelley Arnett 1 6050 N Stafford PI, Boi Darin Jurgensmeier 1778 E Dunwoody Ct. 14360 w. Stockwell St. Lisa Kukuk ID http://i nternalapps/SIGN IN FORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=264 213 6/25/2019 X 5:54:41 PM 6/25/2019 ace X 5:58:48 PM 6/25/2019 :t X X 5:59:41 PM 6/25/2019 X X 6:00:42 PM 6/25/2019 X 6:01:20 PM 6/25/2019 X X 6:02:00 PM 6/25/2019 X 6:04:10 PM 6/25/2019 X 6:05:19 PM 6/25/2019 3e, Id X 6:05:22 PM 6/25/2019 3e, ID X 6:06:06 PM 6/25/2019 X X 6:06:29 PM 6/25/2019 Boise, X 6:07:13 PM 213 6/25/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Go Back To List I Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=264 3/3 6/25/2019 6059 N karen dr Meridian Tyler lewis X X 6:07:56 Idaho PM 6/25/2019 1741 E Sabalious St Brian Granvall X X 6:09:02 Meridian PM 6/25/2019 Mark Miller 1906 E Dunwoody Court X X 6:09:09 PM 6/25/2019 Elizabeth Miller 1906 E Dunwoody Ct X 7:55:49 PM Go Back To List I Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=264 3/3 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 6/25/2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0006 Three Corners Ranch LOCATION: 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct., in the NW ¼ of Section 29, Township TN., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and zoning of 31.06 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district; Preliminary plat consisting of forty-five (45) single-family residential building lots, and nine (9) common lots; and a private street application. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 21 of 151 Page 2 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 31.06 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential (LDR) Existing Land Use Single-family residence on approximately 2 acres and approximately 28 undeveloped acres Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential Current Zoning RUT Proposed Zoning R-4 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 52 (45 building/6 common, 1 private street) Phasing plan (# of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units (type of units) 45 SFR Density (gross & net) 1.45 gross du/acre; 2.01 net du/acre Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 3.11 acres (10%) Amenities 1.26 acre open space/park, basketball court, sitting area, micropathways Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) The Karnes Lateral bisects the site Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: October 23, 2018 - 18 attendees; October 29, 2018 - 44 attendees NOTE: The applicant has met with residents in the area on multiple occasions after the above noted dates to discuss different site layouts and to receive feedback regarding design iterations. History (previous approvals) N/A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 22 of 151 Page 3 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes 39  ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Yes – Meeting held on March 27, 2019 Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Public access is proposed via N. Sweet Valley Ave. connecting to N. Shandee Dr. (N. Shandee Dr. will be limited to right-in, right-out access when E. Chinden Blvd. is expanded to four lanes; the access will be closed when Chinden is expanded to six lanes) Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Five (5) stub streets from existing residential subdivision are currently constructed;  One (1) public street is proposed (N. Guiness St.) via one (1) of the existing stubs – N. Sweet Valley to the northwest, to connect to N. Shandee Dr.  One (1) private street is proposed (W. Barclay Ln.) via one (1) of the existing stubs and utilizing the existing frontage to the Dunwoody Subdivision – E. Dunwoody Ct. to the west and W. Barclay St. to the east  Two (2) existing stub streets are proposed to terminate – N. Dvorak Ave. to the south and W. Barclay St. to the east. Existing Road Network Proposed Road Improvements Construction of public road to connect N. Sweet Valley Dr. with N. Shandee Dr. Construction of a private road to provide access to all proposed homes from W. Barclay St. and E. Dunwoody Ct. Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) +/- 1.30 miles to Champion Park (~6 acres, Meridian Park) +/- 0.50 miles to Charles McDevitt Park (~39 acres, Boise Park) Fire Service 32  Distance to Fire Station +/- 1.25 miles from Fire Station No. 3  Fire Response Time 5 minutes (under ideal conditions)  Resource Reliability 80% (does not meet target goal of 85% or greater)  Risk Identification 1=residential  Accessibility Project meets all required road widths and turnarounds. There shall be no parking allowed on either side of the proposed 26’ streets. All streets shall be signed “No Parking Fire Lane” per International Fire Code Sections 503.3 and D103.6. Curbing for any private street shall be painted red with “No Parking Fire Lane” stenciled in white paint. Electric gates shall have a Knox key operated switch in addition to opticom sensors.  Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device.  Water Supply 1000 gal./minute for 2 hours required  Other Resources Police Service 36  Distance to Police Station 5 miles Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 23 of 151 Page 4 Description Details Page  Police Response Time 6 minutes (2 minutes higher than average response time in Meridian)  Calls for Service Between 1/1/2018-12/31/2018 PD responded to 111 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.  % of calls for service split by priority See PD comments in Section VIII. D  Accessibility Emergency access will need to be provided using either a Key Pad Code, Opticom Sensor and/or Knox Box  Specialty/resource needs None  Crimes 368  Crashes 20  Other Reports All qualified open space provided in the development to include all amenities must be in an open area in order to allow for natural surveillance opportunities of public areas. Pathways and landscaping should not create hiding spots or blind spots to promote criminal opportunities. West Ada School District 38  Distance (elem, ms, hs) River Valley Elementary: +/- 2 miles Heritage Middle School: +/- 1.25 miles Rocky Mountain High School: +/- 2 miles  Capacity of Schools River Valley Elementary: 650 Heritage Middle School: 1,000 Rocky Mountain High School: 1,800  # of Students Enrolled River Valley Elementary: 495 Heritage Middle School: 1,254 Rocky Mountain High School: 2,448  Other notes Current over enrollment at the schools this development would impact. Wastewater 29  Distance to Sewer Services +/- 93 Ft.  Sewer Shed North Slough  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s 45  WRRF Declining Balance 13.56 MGD  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns Fill will be required to maintain minimum cover on lines B, C and D. Finish grade has not been shown. Water 29  Distance to Water Services 0 Ft.  Pressure Zone 3  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See Application Info.  Water Quality Concerns None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns This development shall not connect across the pressure zone boundary to the north as proposed. Instead, the development will need to build a proportionate length of a future second connection to N. Locust Grove Road. Grocery Store +/- 0.80 miles to Albertsons on Eagle Rd. (Others)…. +/- 0.60 miles to Target on Eagle Rd. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 24 of 151 Page 5 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Sweet Land Development, Inc. 1990 S. Cole Road Boise, ID 83709 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 25 of 151 Page 6 B. Owner: David J. and Luane Dean 1890 E. Dunwoody Court Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: Marcel Lopez, Conger Management Group 4824 W. Fairview Ave. Boise, ID 83706 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/26/2019 5/31/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 4/23/2019 5/30/2019 Radius notification published on 5/5/2019 Nextdoor posting 4/23/2019 5/30/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the northwest and south, is within the Area of City Impact Boundary, abuts Boise City limits to the east, and Ada County to the west. A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII. The subject site is a 31-acre infill property located amongst several existing Meridian, Boise and Ada County subdivisions (see Exhibit VII.F). The site has five (5) abutting stub streets that were installed with the development of previous subdivisions with the intention of future extension; the site also has 50-feet of frontage along E. Dunwoody Ct. to the west. With so many potential stub streets, connectivity and points of access have been greatly discussed by residents, City Staff, ACHD and the applicant. The ACHD Commission heard the Three Corners Ranch Project at their March 27, 2019 Commission hearing and has approved the plan presented with the subject application (see Section VIII.G). Although the subject application’s layout has been approved by ACHD, City Code and the Comprehensive Plan contradict aspects of the present layout. Staff has provided a list of recommended changes below, further analysis is available throughout this report. In accord with the Comprehensive Plan and several UDC policies, City Staff is recommending the following changes to the Three Corners Ranch Subdivision plat dated 4/16/2019:  Provide additional connectivity by extending the proposed public road (W. Guiness St.) to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 26 of 151 Page 7  Extend a north/south private street that aligns with the N. Shandee Drive intersection to increase connectivity for the subject development and to break-up the block face.  Provide five-foot sidewalk along both sides of N. Guiness St.  Provide a ten-foot common lot with landscaping to buffer lots adjacent to N. Guiness St. to mitigate “through lots” (lots double-fronting roads). A. Future Land Use Map Designation (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Low Density Residential (LDR) – LDR designated areas allow for the development of single- family homes on large lots where urban services are provided. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of three (3) dwelling units or less per acre. The applicant is proposing 45 building lots and nine (9) common lots within the 31-acre site. The proposed gross density is 1.45 du/acre while the net density is 2.01 du/acre, which within the target density for LDR. Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the R-4 zoning district and proposed development is generally consistent with the LDR FLUM designation for this site and is appropriate for this site. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) Services to this area are available and can be reasonably provided since the MFD and MPD are already servicing the area.  “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning.” (3.01.01J) This site is located approximately ¼ mile south of E. Chinden Blvd. (US 20/26), a heavily used state highway system. In an effort to decrease the number of single-family residences using this and other arterial roadways close to the development (N. Locust Grove Rd. and N. Eagle Rd.) the City and transportation authorities (ITD and ACHD) should work with the applicant to preserve necessary transportation corridors by providing connectivity via local roadways. Staff’s recommendation to continue the public roadway through N. Stafford Pl. will further this goal by increasing interconnectivity and minimizing a direct cut-through route.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) The proposed development includes pedestrian connectivity through four (4) internal micropathways and attached sidewalk along one (1) side of the proposed public road. Staff is recommending the applicant extend W. Guiness St. east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. which will eliminate the currently proposed micropathway along the north boundary of the development. However, public streets are required to provide sidewalk along both sides; as such, the extension of the public road would increase both pedestrian and vehicular connectivity.  “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets).” (3.03.02O) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 27 of 151 Page 8 This development is an ideal candidate to utilize existing stubbed roadways to provide connections that are currently lacking in the area. The applicant is currently proposing to extend the existing stub at N. Sweet Valley Ave. to the east to connect with N. Shandee Dr. (W. Guiness St.). Staff is recommending the applicant extend W. Guiness St. to connect with N. Stafford Dr. to provide a westerly connection for the Bristol Heights neighborhood without requiring residents to access N. Eagle Rd. and/or E. Chinden Blvd. Although staff would prefer to see all five (5) stub streets extended, believes the connectivity added by extending the public road to N. Stafford Dr. will meet the intent of the UDC and Comprehensive Plan. With the extension of Guiness Street to the east, the proposed block face would exceed the 1,200 linear feet and would not be eligible for City Council waiver. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant extend a north/south private street that aligns with the N. Shandee Drive intersection to break up the block face in accord with UDC standards and to provide additional accessibility to the future residents of Three Corners Ranch.  “Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow.” (3.03.03C) This site has the opportunity to connect various existing subdivisions located in the City of Meridian, Ada County and the City of Boise to the north, south, and east to enhance neighborhood connectivity and increase traffic flow by alleviating the need to access via arterial roads (N. Locust Grove Rd., E. Chinden Blvd., and N. Eagle Rd.). The proposed public road (W. Guiness St.) will only provide connection to N. Shandee Dr.; if W. Guiness St. was extended to the east to connect to N. Stafford Dr., residents within the area would be able to travel east and/or west without accessing E. Chinden Blvd. or N. Eagle Rd. This connection is especially important since two (2) existing stub streets to the east (W. Barclay St.) and south (N. Dvorak Ave.) are not proposed to extend. Further, if the roadway is not extended, connecting N. Shandee Dr. with N. Sweet Valley Ave. would create a long dead-end street between the Fuller Ranchettes and Three Corners Subdivisions when constructed at full build- out. UDC 11-3F-4A-5 prohibits private streets ending in cul-de-sacs to be longer than 450- feet. Extension of W. Guiness to the east would create an additional access point, eliminating the potential for a long dead end cul-de-sac on Shandee.  “Encourage infill development.” (3.04.02B) This site is located amongst several existing and established residential subdivisions located in Meridian City, Ada County and Boise City. The applicant developed Three Corners Subdivision to the northwest of the subject site in 2007 and plans to continue a similar type of development into the subject site.  “Consistent with the Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan, require all new residential neighborhoods to provide sidewalks, curb and gutters, and complete streets.” (3.07.02B) The applicant has proposed a public roadway through part of the north portion of the site and has proposed to construct five-foot attached sidewalk on the north side. Staff is recommending the applicant provide five-foot sidewalk along the south side of the public road to increase consistency with this action item and the requirements of the UDC. To mitigate the occurrence of through lots adjacent to W. Guiness St., staff recommends a 10 -foot landscape buffer in a common lot be required at the north boundary of Lots 8-15 and Lot 19, Block 1.  “Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.” (3.07.02C) Pedestrian access is proposed via micropathways located throughout the central part of the site, connecting to the proposed park amenity. Sidewalk located along the proposed public Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 28 of 151 Page 9 road will allow residents within this and other subdivisions the option to walk to services or open space, such as the Charles McDevitt Park located approximately ½ mile to the south of the development. There is currently a micropathway proposed along the northern part of the site adjacent to existing subdivisions (Fuller Ranchettes Sub. and Bristol Heights); staff is recommending this pathway be replaced with a public road to further connect the aforementioned neighborhoods and residents. Staff is recommending five-foot sidewalk be provided along both sides of the public street, in accord with UDC standards, which will provide pedestrian connectivity where the current pathway is proposed.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) Since this area is an infill piece, it is located in close proximity to many existing services, shopping centers and employment options.  “Require common area in all subdivisions.” (3.07.02F) The proposed development includes a centrally located 1.26 acre open space/park, basketball court, sitting area, and micropathways. Common areas are accessible via several pathway connections throughout the subdivision.  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) With a gross density of 1.45 du/acre and an average lot size of ½ acre, the proposed development is providing large, estate lots not abundant in Meridian. The proposed development provides a choice not widely available but highly sought after for residents. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is one (1) existing home on this site that is not going to be removed and is located on proposed Lot 19, Block 1. The structure proposed to remain meets the required setbacks of the R- 4 zoning district; any additions to the lot will be subject to R-4 zoning district dimensional standards. Any remaining structures aside from the home on Lot 19, Block 1 shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes to construct 44 single-family detached dwellings with one (1) existing home to remain at the northwest portion of the site, with seven (7) common lots, one (1) of which is a private street. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-4 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The private street is proposed to serve all homes within the development and is gated more than 50-feet back from the two (2) proposed access points (E. Dunwoody Ct. and W. Barclay St.), in accord with UDC 11-3F-4A-4f. E. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): This development is subject to the R-4 zoning district dimensional standards in UDC Table 11- 2A-5 (see below). Buildable lots range in size from approximately 11,000 square feet to approximately 96,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 23,500 square feet, exceeding the UDC minimum dimensional standard of 8,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Lots 13-15, Block 1 have frontage on two (2) streets (W. Guiness St. and E. Commander Ln.); UDC 11-6C-3A.1 prohibits through lots. These lots shall be limited to one (1) street access via E. Commander Ln. Additionally, to alleviate the issue, a ten-foot common lot should be added to buffer the residences from traffic. If W. Guiness St. is extended to the east as staff is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 29 of 151 Page 10 recommending, the resulting block length will exceed that allowed by the UDC. To mitigate this, staff recommends the applicant construct a private street extending from E. Commander Ln. to W. Guiness St.; this road will also provide future residents within Three Corners Ranch an access to the north. F. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): This site has frontage to an existing Ada County subdivision via E. Dunwoody Ct. and has stub streets positioned at five (5) locations adjacent to the subject site: three (3) to the north via N. Sweet Valley Ave., N. Shandee Dr. and N. Stafford Pl.; one (1) to the east via W. Barclay St.; and one (1) to the south via N. Dvorak Ave. The applicant is proposing to extend one (1) of those stubs (N. Sweet Valley Rd.) with a public street (W. Guiness St.) connecting to N. Shandee Dr. The Fuller Ranchettes Subdivision (an Ada County subdivision) is currently served by N. Shandee Dr. which presently has full access to E. Chinden Blvd. However, N. Shandee Dr. will be restricted to a right-in/right-out access when Chinden is expanded to five (5) lanes in 2020, and will be closed when Chinden is eventually expanded to six (6) lanes. The extension of N. Sweet Valley Ave. to N. Shandee Dr. will benefit the Fuller Ranchettes Sub. in the short term, but staff has concerns that this road will become a dead end loop with Three Corners and the Fuller Ranchettes Subdivision upon closure of E. Chinden Blvd.; in violation of UDC 11-6C-3B.4. The applicant has proposed a private street (W. Barclay Lane) with gates to the east and west bisecting the subdivision and connecting with E. Dunwoody Ct. and W. Barclay Ln. This gated private street will limit the amount of cross-traffic and connectivity through the center of the subdivision and increases the need for a connected public street on the north boundary of the site. To increase connectivity of the proposed development with existing subdivisions to the north, staff is recommending the applicant construct a private street in lieu of a proposed micropathway, extending north from E. Commander Ln. to W. Guiness St. to align with N. Shandee Dr. This private street will provide an additional connection for future residents within the Three Corners Ranch subdivision and will also provide a break in block length if staff’s recommendation to extend W. Guiness St. to the east is required. G. Subdivision Standards (UDC 11-6C-3) Lots 13-15, Block 1 have frontage on two (2) streets (W. Guiness St. and E. Commander Ln.); UDC 11-6C-3A.1 prohibits through lots. With the recommended extension of W. Guiness St. additional through lots (Lots 8-12, Block 1) shall comply with these standards, the applicant is required to construct five-foot sidewalk and install a ten-foot wide common lot on both sides of W. Guiness St. in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. H. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4) Private streets are required to be constructed on a perpetual ingress/egress easement or a single- platted lot that provides access to all properties served by such private street; preferably a lot when the property is being subdivided as is the case with this application. The proposed private street has been included as a common lot (Lot 1, Block 1) to be maintained by the Three Corners Ranch Subdivision HOA in accord with UDC standards. A draft private road maintenance agreement has been submitted with the subject application. All drive aisles are required to be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed. In addition, if a curb exists next to the drive aisle, it shall be painted red. The proposed private streets are 26 feet in width as shown on the private road section shown on the preliminary plat site plan in Section VII.B. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 30 of 151 Page 11 The applicant is proposing to install two (2) gates to restrict vehicular movement to the private street to those who live within that area of the development. Proposed gates are subject to the design standards in UDC 11-3F-4A. The gates are proposed to be located approximately 50-feet back from the west entrance and approximately 80-feet back from the east entrance along W. Barclay Ln.; the submitted plan meets the design standards as listed in UDC 11-3F-4A. Staff recommends the applicant construct an additional private street from E. Commander Ln. extending north/south to connect with W. Guiness St. The entrance to that private street will be required to be gated, in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3F-4. Access to the gates for emergency vehicles shall be coordinated with the Meridian Fire and Police Departments. Compliance with all other Private Streets standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4 is required. As mentioned in Section F above, the current layout connecting N. Shandee Dr. with N. Sweet Valley Ave. would result in a block length exceeding that allowed by the UDC when N. Shandee Dr. is no longer able to access E. Chinden Blvd. Staff’s recommendation to extend W. Guiness St. to N. Stafford Pl. will eliminate that conflict. I. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Parking for single-family dwellings is required based on the number of bedrooms per unit. For 2-, 3- or 4-bedroom single-family units, a minimum of 4 spaces are required per unit with at least 2 of those in an enclosed garage, the other spaces may be enclosed or in a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad. All roadways within the development are shown as 26- or 27-feet of driveable surface. Per the Meridian Fire Department, there shall be no parking permitted on either side of the proposed streets. All streets shall be signed “No Parking Fire Lane” per International Fire Code. J. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Pedestrian micropathways are proposed throughout the development (Lots 11, 25, and the northern part of 45, Block 1) for internal connectivity and connectivity with adjacent developments in accord with UDC 11-3A-8 and the Comprehensive Plan (action item #3.03.03B referenced above). Landscaping is required along pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip is required along each side of the pathway consisting of a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover. A minimum of (1) tree is required per 100 linear feet of pathway. Landscaping within Lots 11 and 25, Block 1 is proposed in accord with these standards. The proposed pathway within the northern part of Lot 45, Block 1 appears to be substantially in compliance with these requirements; however the applicant should verify that 5-feet of landscaping is provided along the western side of the micropathway. K. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is proposed to be constructed along one (1) side of W. Guiness St., the local public street proposed to connect from N. Shandee Drive to N. Sweet Valley Ave. The applicant shall provide sidewalk on both sides of the proposed public street in accord with UDC 11-3A-17D. A revised plat and landscape plan reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Division ten (10) days prior to the City Council hearing. Staff is recommending the applicant extend the proposed public road to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl., if that extension is required, 5-foot sidewalk shall be required. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 31 of 151 Page 12 L. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A- 17E. Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along one side of the proposed private street bisecting the development (W. Barclay Ln.) within the development and are landscaped in accord with UDC standards. M. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscaping is required along pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip is required along each side of the pathway consisting of a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover. A minimum of (1) tree is required per 100 linear feet of pathway. The proposed landscape plan is in compliance with these standards. Common open space areas are required to be landscaped with lawn (either seed or sod) and a minimum of one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3E. The proposed landscape plan reflects these requirements. Parkways are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-G-3B.5. Mitigation is required for all existing healthy trees 4” caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100% replacement in accord with UDC 11-3B-10C.5. The landscape plan indicates all existing trees are volunteer species and do not require mitigation, the applicant shall coordinate with Elroy Huff, City Arborist to confirm. N. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10% (3.1 acres) qualified open space is required; a total of 3.11 acres (or 10%) is proposed consisting of a 1.26-acre neighborhood park, micropathways, and pocket parks. O. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required; the applicant has proposed several amenities from each of the three categories (i.e. quality of life, recreation, and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system) as follows: additional 20,000 open space (i.e. 1.26 acre park), a sports court (i.e. basketball), and internal pathways and micro-paths (See Exhibit C in Section VII.) P. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Karnes Lateral crosses this site and is proposed to be piped. The applicant shall coordinate with the Settlers Irrigation District and the Karnes Lateral regarding requirements (see Section VIII.I below). Per UDC 11-3A-6, any irrigation easement greater than 10-feet in width must be placed in a minimum 20-foot wide common lot unless otherwise approved by City Council. The plat indicates an easement adjacent to Lot 20, Block 1 and crossing through Lots 31, 32, 33, 36 and 41, Block 1. The applicant shall clarify the width of the irrigation easement during the Commission hearing May 16th and shall depict the easement on the preliminary plat prior to the Council hearing. Q. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Five-foot tall black wrought iron fencing and four-foot tall solid vinyl privacy fence is proposed along the rear of building lots and adjacent to common areas that are visible from the street in accord with UDC standards. The landscape plan uses the same symbol to indicate both fencing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 32 of 151 Page 13 styles, the applicant shall denote the different styles proposed for common areas and building lots with the revised landscape plan prior to the City Council hearing. R. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. S. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. T. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required. In addition, street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. U. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the future custom homes within this development. Building materials consist of stucco, hardy plank and board-and-batten siding with some stone accents (see Exhibit E in Section VII.). Homes will be single-story and two-story in height, and will range in size from a minimum of 1,400 square feet and above depending on resident needs and preferences. V. Public Testimony Several residents in the vicinity have been expressing thoughts and concerns related to the proposed project from the time of application submittal in January 2019 via in-person and phone conversations and written testimony submitted to the public record. Written testimony was received from residents within the Dunwoody, Three Corners, and Bristol Heights Subdivisions. In an effort to communicate their concerns, staff has grouped and summarized written testimony received below:  Dunwoody Subdivision to the west – Concerns related to the nature and condition of the existing County roadway (E. Dunwoody Ct.) and potential negative impacts related to increased traffic, safety of pedestrians and children. A couple of residents did express their desire for connectivity, specifically through the existing Three Corners Subdivision to the northwest of the proposed development.  Bristol Heights Subdivision to the east – Concerns regarding an entrance via W. Barclay St. specifically in relation to construction related traffic and as the primary entrance to the subdivision. Concerns regarding increase in traffic, many residents noted that the Bristol Heights Subdivision is already used as a “cut-through” for vehicles traveling eastbound on Chinden. One resident did feel that there should be an opportunity for eastbound traffic via Barclay St., however did not feel the primary entrance should be through Barclay. Another family expressed their desire for the primary entrance to be through E. Dunwoody Ct., for a simpler traffic pattern with existing stub streets, and concern regarding the “closed island blockade” nature of the proposed development.  Three Corners Subdivision to the north – Concerns regarding creating a full-access road between the existing Three Corners Subdivision and the Ambrose School, specifically related to added congestion and traffic, and potential impact on the safety of students, faculty and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 33 of 151 Page 14 pedestrians in the area. Concern regarding “pass-through” traffic from adjacent neighborhoods created by locating an entrance at N. Sweet Valley Dr. VI. DECISION A. Staff: The legal description submitted with the annexation application shows the boundaries of the property contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. The proposed density (1.45 units/acre) of the subdivision is consistent with that desired in LDR designated areas. Common open space and site amenities are centrally located within the development and meet the minimum required standards. Pathways provide pedestrian connections to the internal central common area through the development and to adjacent properties. Although the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC support extension of the five (5) stub streets, staff recommendations for additional connectivity, as noted above, meets the intent of the UDC and Comprehensive Plan policies. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ, PP, and PS applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in Section VIII. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on May 16, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Hethe Clark, applicant’s representative; Brett Aescbacher; Renee Jessome; Steve Ryser; Kevin Krafft b. In opposition: Matt Howard; Ted Dawson; Tori Lewis; Deb Lewis; Tracy Younger; Greg Bengtzen; Cindy Breckel; Lisa Kukuk; Elizabeth Miller; Troy Bergastrand; Gary Collenboene; Marilyn Bell; Donna Wheeler; Brandon Wilding; Doug Clark; Geoff Johnson; TJ Bliss; c. Neutral: Anthony Adinolfi; Tricia Trofast; John Trofast; Wilson Miller; Trina Buckalew; Matthew Hands; Richard Jackson; Doug Racine; David Arnett; Shelly Arnett; William Albert; Patrick Pfeifer; Carlos Bittencourt; Sherry; d. Commenting: Kendra Neely, representing Three Corners Subdivision; Debra Jurgens; Mona Tippets, representing Dunwoody Subdivision; Ben Kneadler, representing Fuller Ranchettes; Joe LaGue, representing Bristol Heights; Tyler Lewis; Kelly Barbour; Jeff Lowe; Mark Miller; Jon Ostlund; Martha Bergstrand; John French; Brian Granvall; Lori Lewis; Jeanette Johnson; Darin Jurgensmeier; Andrew Davis; John Stigile; Ilse Herrera; Linsy Heiner; e. Written testimony: 46 written records of public testimony (see summary in Section V above); f. Staff presenting application: Stephanie Leonard; g. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons; 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Support of ACHD Commission recommendation, opposition to staff’s recommended changes due to concerns related to safety and congestion resulting from increased traffic and potential for cut-through traffic through all adjacent subdivisions; Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 34 of 151 Page 15 b. Concern regarding access via Dunwoody Ct. specifically related to increase in traffic on rural/unimproved roadway, lack of street lights and sidewalks, safety of children and residents, high concentration of vehicular trips due to two points of access, gate access and turnaround options, possibility for third access point, impact on irrigation and open space lots to east of three (3) Dunwoody residents; c. Concern regarding increase in traffic through Three Corners Subdivision and the Ambrose School campus; d. Extension of existing stub streets, importance of connectivity through area for long term; e. Close nature of ACHD Commission’s decision regarding proposed plat; 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Proposed pedestrian connection extending east from end of W. Guiness St. along northeast part of site; b. Location of turnaround for gated entrance via E. Dunwoody Ct.; c. Extension of proposed public road (W. Guiness St. to connect with N. Stafford Pl.) to the east, in lieu of proposed pedestrian connection; d. Extension of a north/south private street from E. Commander Ln. to W. Guiness St. to align with N. Shandee Dr.; e. Block length of N. Shandee Dr. and W. Guiness St. (if required to be extended to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl.; f. Low level of density proposed compared to potential density with another development; g. Concern regarding adequacy of E. Dunwoody Ct. to accommodate traffic from proposed development due to lack of lighting, sidewalks, signage, traffic calming, etc.; h. ACHD Commission decision and number of votes in favor/against; i. Concern regarding Sweet Valley Rd. connection to N. Shandee Dr. specifically in relation to possible cut-through traffic to Chinden Blvd., need for emergency access, timeframe of closure to Chinden; j. Request for further discussion about amenities and qualified open space provided with development; k. Provision of a third access point to alleviate the amount of traffic on E. Dunwoody Ct.; 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Strike conditions #A.3c and #A.4c to remove the requirement to extend W. Guiness St. to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl.; b. Modify condition #A.3d to include a provision that the gated private street will be engaged upon closure of the Shandee access to Chinden Blvd.; c. Add condition to require the gate on the west boundary to be moved closer to proposed development to accommodate a turn-around; 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. Applicant was required to provide revisions to the proposed plat depicting the north/south private street, 5-foot sidewalks along the proposed public street, the Karnes Lateral, and a 10-foot wide landscape buffer north of Lots 13-15 and Lot 19, Block 1; b. Applicant met with Dunwoody residents about potential lighting and traffic calming measures as required by the Commission; c. Applicant met with Mark Miller (resident in Dunwoody) regarding irrigation system as required by the Commission; Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 35 of 151 Page 16 d. Applicant met with Staff to discuss potential amenity options as required by the Commission; e. Council needs to grant a waiver if the applicant proposes to locate the Karnes irrigation easement on buildable lots; Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 36 of 151 Page 17 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 37 of 151 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 38 of 151 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 39 of 151 Page 20 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 4/8/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 40 of 151 Page 21 C. Landscape Plan (date: 4/17/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 41 of 151 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 42 of 151 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 43 of 151 Page 24 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 44 of 151 Page 25 E. Staff’s Recommended Changes Extend W. Guiness St. to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. Replace pathway connection with private street extending north to south from E. Commander Ln. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 45 of 151 Page 26 F. Surrounding Subdivisions Bristol Heights (Boise) Fuller Ranchettes (Ada County) Three Corners (Meridian) Vienna Woods (Meridian) Dunwoody (Ada County) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 46 of 151 Page 27 G. Conceptual Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 47 of 151 Page 28 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 48 of 151 Page 29 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The existing home proposed to be retained on Lot 19, Block 1 shall hook up to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in UDC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. The street address of this home will change as a result of this development. 2. Site amenities shall be provided within the development per those described in Section VII.C. 3. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict the irrigation easement for the Karnes Lateral. If the easement is greater than ten (10) feet in width it shall be placed within a minimum twenty (20) foot wide common lot unless waived by City Council. b. Comply with private street standards per UDC 11-3F-4. c. Extend W. Guiness St. to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. d. Extend a north/south private street that aligns with the N. Shandee Drive intersection to increase connectivity for the subject development and to break-up the block face of W. Guiness St. Install a gate at least 50-feet back from the entrance at W. Guiness St. Phase installation to coincide with the closure of the current access to W. Chinden Blvd. from N. Shandee Dr. e. Provide five-foot wide attached sidewalk on both sides of the proposed public street in accord with UDC 11-3A-17D. f. Provide a ten-foot landscape buffer in a common lot at the north boundary of Lots 8 13- 15 and Lot 19, Block 1. g. Move the gate on the west boundary closer to the proposed development to accommodate a turn-around. Ten (10) days prior to the City Council hearing the applicant shall submit a revised plat reflecting the proposed changes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 49 of 151 Page 30 4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a five-foot wide attached sidewalk on both sides of the proposed public street in accord with UDC 11-3A-17D. b. Depict a ten-foot landscape buffer in a common lot be at the north boundary of Lots 8 13 -15 and Lot 19, Block 1. c. Extend W. Guiness Street to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl. 5. Any remaining structures outside of Lot 19, Block 1 should be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 6. Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-4 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5. 7. Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 8. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11 - 3A-15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 9. Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 10. Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 11. Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3B-11C. 12. Construct all parkways consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17E, 11-3G- 3B5 and 11-3B-7C. 13. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 14. Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 15. Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 16. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5, UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 17. All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3F1. 18. The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances. 19. The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a minimum height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 50 of 151 Page 31 20. The applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways. 21. The applicant has a continuing obligation to comply with the outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 22. The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all landscaping and constructed features within the clear vision triangle consistent with the standards in UDC 11-3A-3. 23. No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 24. The applicant shall complete all improvements related to public life, safety, and health as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. A surety agreement may be accepted for other improvements in accord with UDC 11-5C-3C. 25. The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C2. 26. The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years; or, 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 27. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Division staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 1.2 Each phase must be modeled as developed to ensure adequate fire flow. 1.3 Please make the following changes in regard to the water system design: 1. GIS shows existing water to south is 10-inch. Connect to the south with a 12- inch main. 2. Eliminate water main on Barclay Lane between Brigadoon Lane and Dvorak Lane. 3. Eliminate water main north of Commander Lane, but provide water main easement for potential future connection to N. Shandee Drive. 4. Construct 8-inch water main on Barclay Lane from Karen Lane to Dunwoody Court, and on Dunwoody Court from Barclay Lane 450-feet west on Dunwoody Court. (This development shall not connect across the pressure zone boundary to the north as proposed). 2 General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 51 of 151 Page 32 provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 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 25, 2019 – Page 52 of 151 Page 33 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 surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 53 of 151 Page 34 C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161277/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 54 of 151 Page 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 55 of 151 Page 36 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 56 of 151 Page 37 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 57 of 151 Page 38 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161912/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 58 of 151 Page 39 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 59 of 151 Page 40 E. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161616/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 60 of 151 Page 41 F. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161948/Page1.aspx G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164215/Page1.aspx H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161579/Page1.aspx I. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/162274/Page1.aspx J. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161764/Page1.aspx K. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161276/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 61 of 151 Page 42 IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission, the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Applicant is proposing to annex and develop the subject 31.06 acre property with R-4 zoning consistent with the LDR designation. (See section V above for more information.) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will provide for housing opportunities on larger lots consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential use should be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential uses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and City services are available to be provided to this development. The Meridian Fire and Police Departments currently serve this area, however, the School District has submitted comments, included in Section VIII.I, that currently show student enrollment is above capacity. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if developed with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. B. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 62 of 151 Page 43 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. C. Private Street (UDC 11-3F-5) In order to approve the private street application, the director shall find the following: A. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The design of the streets meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3F-4. B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons, property, or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds that the proposed private road network will be a detriment to surrounding subdivisions (Fuller and Three Corners) if the north/south connection is not made to W. Guiness St., upon the anticipated full closure of N. Shandee Dr. when E. Chinden Blvd. expands to six (6) lanes. C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The proposed private street network does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan if the applicant extends the private street connection north/south to connect to W. Guiness St. and extends to N. Stafford Pl. The private street network has been supported by the ACHD Commission (see staff report in Section VIII.G). D. The proposed residential development (if applicable) is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10-1463, 11-3-2010, eff. 11-8-2010) The proposed development is a gated community in compliance with UDC 11-3F-4. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 63 of 151 O a, ° E 401 ,L- o p O O E 22 °^E C(1)mo ° C� M Ov C: _0 � 'gin Q� o � ms O 4-J�r 4 � E0 a) (1) 0 LM 6� m u r ° '- o a--) .S •0 O � ro � m � M V'f V N M r Q 4 -JO U E O 0 CL (1) V i O a�� ,0 4-0 7E O > �O-0 m�O }+ 'm � - ° _ V'f O s LL +; O cn ci p V i V � cn + (1) O s cn 4� '> a ° o r 'i a._ no �caV } Lu 0 a Three Corners Ranch June 25, 2019 Relation to Dunwoody Sub Relation to Dunwoody Sub “De Facto Collector” P&Z Recommendations P&Z Recommendations •Large lots mean irrigation easements can be accommodated and common area is unnecessary •Request waiver of Condition A.3.a to permit irrigation easements outside of common lots P&Z Recommendations P&Z Recommendations Locust Grove Access P&Z Recommendations P&Z Recommendations •A north-south connection is not required by code and does not provide a benefit that is commensurate with the cost •Request deletion of Condition A.3.d to remove requirement of a north-south connection P&Z Recommendations •Condition A.3.e requires attached sidewalk on both sides of the proposed public street •Speaking about W. Guiness Street P&Z Recommendations P&Z Recommendations •Request modification of Conditions A.3.e and 4.a to permit attached sidewalk on the north side of W. Guiness St. only ACHD Review of Dunwoody Court Dunwoody Court Capacity –Three Corners Ranch: •45 Lots = 128 vehicle trips per day (30% of traffic) –Dunwoody: •16 Lots = 151 vehicle trips per day –Local Street Capacity: 2,000 trips/day •14% of Capacity (AT BUILD-OUT) Items to Consider in a Motion •Provide waiver (per Condition A.3.a) to permit irrigation easements outside of common lots •Delete Condition A.3.d to remove requirement of a north-south connection –Modify Findings IX.C.B and .C if the north-south connection requirement is removed •Modify Conditions A.3.e and 4.a to permit attached sidewalk on the north side of W. Guiness St. only Hethe Clark hclark@spinkbutler.com (208) 388-1000 ACHD Commission Findings From ACHD Commission Action “Because this square mile was developed without a collector network, ACHD staff is concerned about east-west cut-through traffic.” “De Facto Collector” Block Length Proposal Bristol Heights Vienna Woods 3 Corners Ranch Access Stub Streets Sub Division –Vienna Woods Street –Divorac Wide street Sidewalks Lighting meant for access to 3 Corners Ranch 3 Corners Ranch Access Stub Streets •Sub Division –3 Corners Ranch •Street –Sweet Water Valley Wide street Sidewalks Lighting meant for access to 3 Corners Ranch 3 Corners Ranch Access Stub Streets •Sub Division – •Street –Shandee More Narrow Street Sidewalks Lighting Perfect for access to 3 Corners Ranch Additional options include Barclay which is recommended and Stafford Pl.which may also be an option Dunwoody Ct. •Sub Division –Dunwoody •Street –Dunwoody Rural Street No Sidewalks No Lighting Significant Safety concerns if adding additional traffic Dunwoody Ct. •Sub Division –Dunwoody •Street –Dunwoody Private Lane and Farm Access No Sidewalks No Lighting Not wide enough for turn around area even with expansion 3 Corners Ranch Access Stub Streets Sub Division –Vienna Woods Street –Divorac Wide street Sidewalks Lighting meant for access to 3 Corners Ranch 3 Corners Ranch Access Stub Streets •Sub Division –3 Corners Ranch •Street –Sweet Water Valley Wide street Sidewalks Lighting meant for access to 3 Corners Ranch 3 Corners Ranch Access Stub Streets •Sub Division – •Street –Shandee More Narrow Street Sidewalks Lighting Perfect for access to 3 Corners Ranch Additional options include Barclay which is recommended and Stafford Pl.which may also be an option Dunwoody Ct. •Sub Division –Dunwoody •Street –Dunwoody Rural Street No Sidewalks No Lighting Significant Safety concerns if adding additional traffic Dunwoody Ct. •Sub Division –Dunwoody •Street –Dunwoody Private Lane and Farm Access No Sidewalks No Lighting Not wide enough for turn around area even with expansion WEST EAST NORTH SOUTH 15% 12% 46% 27% DUNWOODY DRIVING DESTINATIONS 2019 N = 23 X 22 C) 55 z + o r Z O N N IL- k' CIT 09'v20S)—M74 WC3 RK tit i!: .ME, ID 837W I: �BWi1121Y 4ar ----- — --------- - IL�L -Ld, DEAN PROPERTY I 1890 E DUNWOODY COURT, MERIDIAN, ID IRRIGATION LINE 2 PLAN AND PROFILE is 81 y 9 1AA 1 L LLLL Mr.:—w N IL- k' CIT 09'v20S)—M74 WC3 RK .ME, ID 837W 4ar ----- — --------- - DEAN PROPERTY I 1890 E DUNWOODY COURT, MERIDIAN, ID IRRIGATION LINE 2 PLAN AND PROFILE is N IL- CIT 09'v20S)—M74 WC3 RK .ME, ID 837W O CVP(fl lff 201) CNO. SIZE WOBKB LLC. Tlb 1451PVVFHf 61XE PflOPWIY OE IXA. 511E NOIMS IIC. kt! BEPROMICVP�1. REUSE, OB IWOViGiWN OF P6 BL1"(R11VIN( qt f15 CONIIXIS NifHW( E]PP6S MNIIEN PEPbS9011 � CMl 41E N9W6 tIG 6 SIWCILY PPgfNi1FD. td B r 1 \r r ' q ��w l 1 vl v S 5 5 WOTRK- -O+ r ti IOI-2BILL7Y Bn on xBm 5_ a 9� 55 F I'q n n n n OMEIDU)OS ,9 a $ nE IVLfi flat]-c-mq-PPLra -]B>s1�1x WBnaN OB)�16 Bm IBWlO1.M' r i 111: IM1B0).0.1'( i nv. aur• .ox(� !c lit II ' -e Isl-a,ur p : t.l I RIM]01261' it 111:.MOIMYBI LBIM i r r itr alit ti to i] lel-Mi2B!' ! y'. r! y 6 q; nlsar yy' i IIV. BI�]80611' ) i gg !I i ti F r !I! I ,a 1; g:r � � r : Brv. our-masxBYq td B r 1 \r r ' q ��w l 1 vl v S DEAN PROPERTY WOTRK- -O+ E DUNWOODY COURT, MERIDIAN, ID ,m,, AS n� E.Ecorm w�.t 5_ a KARNES LATERAL PLAN AND PROFILE1890 A n n n n OMEIDU)OS ,9 nE IVLfi flat]-c-mq-PPLra -]B>s1�1x WBnaN OB)�16 .0 0 7f jk |§ DUN PROPERTY f §. , 5q� ,_rEmmm COURT, N, ID \�\ • :©! }`\/� ( ~ »� \\\ § / y �� `r\ 7\ . . . . . . . ^ ! |§ DUN PROPERTY f §. , 5q� ,_rEmmm COURT, N, ID ƒ/R _ o )) c N mE3P NAND mo LE ~ ,,.. |||| _.._,_, _,_ `r\ ---w_ 3 Corners Ranch Access Stub Streets Sub Division –Vienna Woods Street –Divorac Wide street Sidewalks Lighting meant for access to 3 Corners Ranch 3 Corners Ranch Access Stub Streets •Sub Division –3 Corners Ranch •Street –Sweet Water Valley Wide street Sidewalks Lighting meant for access to 3 Corners Ranch 3 Corners Ranch Access Stub Streets •Sub Division – •Street –Shandee More Narrow Street Sidewalks Lighting Perfect for access to 3 Corners Ranch Additional options include Barclay which is recommended and Stafford Pl.which may also be an option Dunwoody Ct. •Sub Division –Dunwoody •Street –Dunwoody Rural Street No Sidewalks No Lighting Significant Safety concerns if adding additional traffic Dunwoody Ct. •Sub Division –Dunwoody •Street –Dunwoody Private Lane and Farm Access No Sidewalks No Lighting Not wide enough for turn around area even with expansion EIDIANC DAHJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 25, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 E Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0049 Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from June 11, 2019 for 2019 UDC Text Amendment By City of Meridian Planning Division 1. Request: A Text Amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter ; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards, parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi -family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter S AND other miscellaneous sections. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.E . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from J une 11, 2019 for 2019 UD C Text Amendment (H-2019-0049) by City of M eridian P lanning D ivision C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 6/7/2019 Revisions Table B ackup Material 6/7/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/21/2019 - 1:00 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 125 of 151 6/25/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/25/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-E Project Name: UDC Text Amendment Project No.: H-2019-0049 Active: *#* There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=267 1/1 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: June 11, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2019-0034 2019 UDC Text Amendment PROPERTY LOCATION: City wide I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a text amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite #102 Meridian, ID 83642 B. Representative/Contact: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor Phone: (208) 489-0571 bparsons@meridiancity.org III. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: April 19, 2019 (Commission); May 24, 2019 (City Council) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 126 of 151 Page 2 B. PSA distributed: April 16, 2019 (Commission); May 20, 2019 (City Council) C. Next door posting: April 16, 2019 (Commission); May 21, 2019 (City Council) IV. STAFF ANALYSIS In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5, the Planning Division has applied to amend the text of the Unified Development Code (UDC). For purposes of this application, both the Planning Division and the Code Enforcement Division have work closely to compile a host of changes and combine them into one application. The text amendment includes updates to multiple sections and the addition of new provisions that pertain to the following:  Chapter 1: Notification of violations and definitions;  Chapter 2: Residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables;  Chapter 3: Ditches, laterals, canals and drainage courses, outdoor lighting, outdoor storage, traveling sleeping quarters, landscape standards, parking standards, qualified open space and variance processing;  Chapter 4: Specific use standards for educational institutions, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant;  Chapter 5: Public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance;  And other miscellaneous sections to improve the administration of the code. All of the proposed changes to the UDC including the support documents are attached as separate exhibits. Commentary has been provided for each of the respective code changes and new additions that are proposed. Staff has highlighted the requested Code Enforcement changes in light gray to delineate their recommended changes. These recommendations are made in hopes of eliminating confusion for the public, addressing common issues, eliminating loopholes and making the existing codes enforceable. The changes being proposed by the Code Enforcement Division were not shared with the UDC Focus Group or the BCA as they do not directly impact development per se. These changes were vetted separately with City Council and fully endorsed. Staff has shared the proposed Planning’s Division changes with the UDC Focus Group and the BCA. Several members of the UDC Focus Group have expressed concerns with the open space changes (specifically removal of the street buffers from counting towards qualified open space) and believe they should be deferred until the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. At this time staff has not modified the document based on earlier conversations. Further, staff has not received any other recommendations to modify the current proposal. A separate memo prepared by staff was sent to the BCA addressing some of these concerns. The Commission should determine if it is in the City’s best interest to delay amending the open space standards until the Plan is adopted. In addition, the both NMID and SID shared their concerns with the City encouraging waterways to remain open and integrated with developments. Primary concerns were safety and maintenance. After discussing the issues with them, staff has modified UDC 11-3A-6 to include a requirement that the applicant execute a license agreement for the irrigation districts if a waterway is to remain open and public safety can be adequately addressed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 127 of 151 Page 3 Overall most of the proposed changes are supported by our Community partners. In summary, staff believes the changes proposed with this application will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable. V. DECISION Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV, modifications in Section VI and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VII. Commission: The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on May 2, and 16, 2019. At the May 16th public hearing, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject UDC text amendment request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Will Patterson, Greg Curtis, Becky McKay, Jeanette Johnson, Jon Wardle, Jim Conger and Denise LaFever d. Written testimony: Jon Wardle, Becky McKay and Bryce Farris e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: Caleb Hood 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. g. Proposed text changes to UDC 11-3A-6; impact on delivery of water, public safety, fencing waterways and improvements requiring irrigation district and /drainage entity authority. Parking standards for age-restricted developments. Common driveways taking access from private streets. Removing street buffers from counting towards the required 10% percent common open space for development. Broader update to the common open space and amenity requirements. Useable open space and setbacks between homes. Removing state highway access form the variance process. Inviting stakeholders to participate in code changes and part of the UDC Focus Group. Allowing another decision-making body (Commission or Director) grant a waiver to reduce the 25-foot landscape buffer when commercial and/or industrial properties abut a residential use. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Location of mobile tiny homes and requirements to establish the use in an R-40 zone. Specify indoor shooting ranges to be measured from property line to property line or from structure to structure. Removal of the fee waivers from the ordinance impact economic development incentives. More comprehensive solution to the common open space and amenity requirements. Parking standards for age-restricted developments. Parking standards for restaurants. Rational for establishing specific use standards for an indoor shooting range. Requirements for determining light trespass on adjacent properties. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. UDC 11-3G(B)1.e. – Commission removed the words in width. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 128 of 151 Page 4 VI. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts. The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s) when making this finding. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 129 of 151 05/13/2019 1 Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Problem/Question/Revisions Potential Fix 11-1-11 Code enforcement Recggently a UDC violation case went to a court trial. The prosecutor, defense council and judge all pointed out the UDC does not specifically outline the methods of service when serving a UDC violator notice of a violation. The MCC does outline this process in 4-2-3 (C) 1, 2 and 3. B. Investigation: 1. The code enforcement officer shall investigate any structure or use which he or she reasonably believes does not comply with the stand ards and requirements of this title. 2. If, after investigation, it is determined that the standards or requirements of this title have been violated, a code enforcement officer shall serve a notice of violation upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition. The notice of violation sha ll state separately each standard or requirement violated; shall state what corrective action, if any, is necessary to comply with the standards or requirements; and shall set a reasonable time for compliance. The notice shall state that any further violation may result in criminal prosecution and/or civil penalties. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 3. The notice shall be served upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition addressed to the last known a ddress of such person. If no address is known, then notice may be made by publication in the newspape r of record for the City of Meridian. The Code Enforcement Officer will record all efforts made to effect service in person or by mail as part of their investigative report . (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10- 2007). Methods of service shall be by any of the following: a. Personal service upon such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property; or b. Regular mail to such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property, at the address shown on the last ava ilable assessment roll, or as otherwise known; or c. Posting such notice and order at a conspicuous place on the property and publishing one notice in the official newspaper o f the City that the property has been posted in accordance with this chapter and ordering the owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property to remedy the violation by the given date. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of accessory use, residential. ACCESSORY USE, RESIDENTIAL: A use or activity on a residential property that is secondary to the principal use. 11-1A-1 Definition Separate the personal and professional definition. They are separate uses in the allowed use tables in Chapter 2. PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The use of a site for the provision of individualized services generally related to personal needs. Personal service uses include, but are not limited to, beauty and healthcare services such as salons, hair, nail and skin care, spa, and barbers; fitness training and instruction; locksmiths; and repairs such as footwear and leather goods, and watches. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; computer designers; consultan ts; lawyers; media advisors; photography studios; fitness trainers; and title companies. The term does not include healthcare and social service. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: See definition of personal and professional services. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; compute graphic designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photography studios; fitness trainers; and title companies general offices. The term does not include healthcare and social service. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of foot-candle. FOOT-CANDLE: A standard unit of measurement used to identify the intensity of light. A unit of illumination equal to that given by a source of one candela at a distance of one foot. This is the SAE/Imperial unit of measurement whereas Lux is the Metric unit of measurement. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of an indoor shooting range. INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A controlled area of activity, specifically designed for the discharging of firearms at targets. The term does not include arts, entertainment and recreation facilities. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of light trespass. LIGHT TRESPASS: Light emitting from one property that crosses the property line of another property in excess of 0.1 foot -candle as measured at a height of 60 inches above grade in a plane at any angle of inclination. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of lumen. LUMEN: A lighting industry standard unit of measurement used to measure the total quantity of visible light emitted by a source. 11-1A-1 Definition Modify definition of open space to include linear open space. OPEN SPACE: An area substantially open to the sky that may be on the same property with a structure. The area may include, along with the natural environmental features, linear open spaces, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community centers or other recreational facilities. This term shall not include streets, parking areas, or structures for habitation. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of personal property. PERSONAL PROPERTY: Any property that is not real property. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 130 of 151 05/13/2019 2 11-1A-1 Recreational vehicle Add the term mobile tiny homes to the definition. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicle or portable structure primarily designed as temporary living accommodation for recreational, camping, and travel use. The term shall include, but not be limited to, motor home, travel trailer, fifth wheel trailer, truck camper, fold down camping trailer, park trailer, mobile tiny homes and travel trailer. 11-2A-3(B)(3) Minimum street frontages Ensure common driveways provide access to an abutting public street. Remove from table. 3. Properties taking access from a common driveways do not require street frontage, but said common driveway shall connect to an abutting public street. Table 11-2A-6 Dimensional standards of the R-8 District Developer requested that the UDC specifically call-out setbacks for side loaded garages in the R-8 district. R-8 Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 4,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet): 40 With alley loaded garage, side entry garage, or private mew lots 32 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area and/or side loaded garage (in feet): Local 10 Collector 25 Alley 5 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Table 11-2A-2 Allowed uses in the residential districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40 Restaurant1 - - - - A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 131 of 151 05/13/2019 3 Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the commercial districts. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Hotel and motel1 P/C P/C P/C - C P Indoor Shooting Range1 - - - - C - Industry, information1 P P P C P P Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards; specifically different parking standards. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Restaurant1 P P P C A A Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the industrial districts. Use I-L I-H Fuel sales facility, truck stop1 C C Indoor Shooting Range1 P C Industry, heavy1 - P/C Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use I-L I-H Restaurant1 A A Table 11-2D-2 Allowed uses in the traditional neighborhood districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use O-T TN-C TN-R Restaurant1 P P - 11-2B-3(A)(4) Standards Clean-up item. Re-numbering this standard as it does not pertain to a dimensional standard. 4B. Hours Of Operation: Business hours of operation within the L-O and C-N Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Business hours of operation within the C-C and C-G Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C -C and C-G Districts may be requested through a conditional use permit. These restrictions apply to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, customer or client visits, trash compacting, and deliveries. These restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring within an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, cleaning, bookkeeping, and after hours work by a limited number of employees. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 132 of 151 05/13/2019 4 11-3A-6 Ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses Amend this section of code to reference the definition of a water amenity in chapter 1 and grant the decision-making body on the application the authority to waive the tiling of irrigation facilities. Add new language as testified at the public hearing. Some text was added based on feedback from NMID. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to limit the tiling and piping of natural waterways, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve, protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fencing is proposed, the following standards shall apply. B. Piping: 1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered. See also subsection C1 of this section. 2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains may be left open when used as a water amenity or linear open space, as defined in UDC 11-1A-1, and any necessary approvals which may be required from an irrigation or drainage entity are obtained . See also subsection C2 of this section. 3. Except as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals, sloughs or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped, or otherwise covered. This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actual drainage facility is located on an adjoining property. a. The city councildecision-making body may waive the requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved and any necessary approvals which may be required from an irrigation or drainage entity are obtained a license agreement is executed with the Irrigation District . b. The city council may also waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. C. Fencing: 1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the city council, director and/or public works director. 2. Ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains do not require fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity. Construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idaho shall be submitted to bo th the director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. 3. Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains shall be fenced with an open vision fence at least six feet (6') in height and having an 11-gauge, two inch (2") mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain. D. Easements: In residential districts, irrigation easements wider than ten feet (10') shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. Improvements related to piping, fencing or any encroachment as outlined in sections A, B, and C of this section requires written approval from the appropriate irrigation or drainage entity. E. Impeding Movement Of Water Prohibited: For any irrigation or drainage ditch not within the jurisdiction of an irrigation or d rainage district, piping shall not impede the movement of the amount of water crossing the property prior to development or the amount of water delivered to downstream properties. Easements: In residential districts, irrigation easements wider than ten feet (10') shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. F. Natural Drainage Courses: All natural drainage courses shall be left undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and ease of maintenance of the channel. Relocation of natural swales is acceptable if the hydraulics and ease of maintenance are provided for. The term "natural drainage course" shall not be deemed to apply to minor swales and depressions that are located entirely on the applicant's property and which serve a relatively small area where runoff is infrequent. Impeding Movement Of Water Prohibited: For any irrigation or drainage ditch not within the jurisdiction of an irrigation or drainage district, piping shall not impede the movement of the amount of water crossing the property prior to development or the amount of water delivered to downstream properties. G. Natural Drainage Courses: All natural drainage courses shall be left undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and ease of maintenance of the channel. Relocation of natural swales is acceptable if the hydraulics and ease of maintenance are provided for. The term "natural drainage course" shall not be deemed to apply to minor swales and depressions that are located entirely on the applicant's property and which serve a relatively small area where runoff is infrequent. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 133 of 151 05/13/2019 5 11-3A-11 Outdoor lighting The current code does not adequately address light trespass. We are seeing advancements in lighting technology. These advancements are making lighting retrofits cost effective and common. With the retrofits come brighter lights. Code Enforcement is seeing an increase in light trespass complaints. Through a recent investigation, City Attorney staff and Code Enforcement learned light trespass is not enforceable with the language in our current code. The code allows for an exemption of all light fixtures below 1,800 lumens (equal to an average 120 watt incandescent bulb). One of these fixtures may not be a problem but the current wording of the code allows for an indefinite number of these unregulated fixtures to be installed in a single lighting project. The exemption allows said light fixtures to be configured in any way regardless how they impact an abutting property. A Lumen is a unit of measure routinely used by light fixture manufacturers and only practically measured in a laboratory environment. Lumen ratings are practical when used in the code for planning and development purposes but lumen measurements cannot be practically obtained in the field. This creates a huge obstacle for Code Enforcement when investigating light trespass complaints. The standard unit of measure for field-work in the United States is the foot-candle. Foot-candle measurements are easily obtainable from readily available instrumentation. The foot-candle must be referenced in the code to make light trespass enforceable. Lumens in the code should only be used when referencing fixture specifications as it applies to planning. Foot-candles should be used in the code to govern light trespass once the fixture is installed. Currently, when a permitted fixture is installed in a way that causes light trespass Code Enforcement cannot take any action. Holiday lighting is currently allowed for 40 days and is exempt from regulation. Which 40 days are not identified and such would require a daily inspection and documentation to prove/enforce. The exemption allows holiday lighting to be the source of light trespass and limit the enjoyment of abutting properties. We have seen exceptionally bright and flashing lights that illuminate a majority of an abutting property. The change would eliminate the 40 day period and have holiday lighting comply with light trespass standards. A. The following types of lighting are exempt from the regulations of this section: (Ord. 05 -1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of less than one thousand eight hundred (1800) lumens unless said fixture is the source of light trespass in violation of subsection C (3) of this chapter or is configured in a manner that impairs the vision of drivers and /or pedestrians in violation of subsection B (6) of this chapter. (Ord. 11-1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) 2. All outdoor lighting produced by the direct combustion of natural gas or other fossil fuels such as kerosene lanterns or g as lamps. 3. Temporary hHoliday lighting used for forty (40) days or less per year that is not in violation of this section. 4. Vehicular lights and all temporary emergency lighting needed for fire protection, police protection, and/or other emergenc y services. 5. All hazard warning lights required by federal or state regulatory agencies. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 6. Lighting when used to light a governmental flag in accordance with 4 USC 6(a); and provided, that the fixture used does no t create light trespass in violation of this section. 7. Street lights and historical lights installed and configured to the appropriate specification for the application as determined by the Community Development Director or his/her appointee. B. The installation, use, or display of any of the following types of lighting and/or illumination shall be prohibited: 1. Mercury vapor lamp fixture and/or lamp. 2. Laser source light or any similar high intensity light. 3. Lighting that changes colors, revolves, or moves, including searchlights shall be prohibited in all districts, except wher e approved for temporary uses under a valid, current city of Meridian temporary use permit. 4. Lighting, including strings of lights, on commercial or private tower structures that exceed the district height limit, ex cept as required by regulations of the federal aviation administration (FAA). 5. Strobing, revolving, or flashing lights. 6. Light or illumination with such brilliance or so positioned as to blind or dazzle impair the vision of drivers and/or pedestrians. 7. Low pressure sodium lighting. (Ord. 09-1436, 12-15-2009, eff. 1-1-2010) C. Standards: 1. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall have an opaque top to prevent uplighting; the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a full cutoff shield. See figure 1 of this section. 2. Light fixtures with a maximum output of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall be placed such that the ef fective zone of light (as documented by the photometric test report) shall not trespass on abutting residential properties. See figure 2 of this section. (Ord. 11- 1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) 3. Floodlight fixtures shall be located in such a manner as to prevent direct glare into a street and to minimize impact on abut ting properties. a. Floodlight fixtures shall be set to go on only when triggered by activity on the property (sensor activated) and to go off within five (5) minutes after activation has ceased. b. Floodlight fixtures shall be installed so that they do not tilt up more than forty five de grees (45°) down from vertical. All light emitting from any parcel shall not cause the light level along any property line abutting a residential use to exce ed 0.1 foot-candle. Light readings shall be measured at a height of 60 inches above grade and in a plane at any angle of inclination. Any light exceeding 0.1 foot- candle, when documented in the above manner, and extending onto an abutting residential use constitutes light trespass. 4. Floodlight fixtures shall be located positioned in such a manner as to prevent direct glare into a street and to minimize impact on prevent light trespass on abutting properties. a. Floodlight fixtures shall be set to go on only when triggered by activity on the property (sensor activated) and to go of f within five (5) minutes after activation has ceased. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 134 of 151 05/13/2019 6 b. Floodlight fixtures shall be installed so that they do not tilt up more than forty five degrees (45°) down from vertical. 5. Uplighting shall only be allowed in cases where the fixture and any light it emits are shielded from the sky by a roof overhang or similar structural shield. 56. In residential districts, the height of a freestanding light fixture on private property shall not exceed six feet (6'). St reetlamps are exempt from this height restriction. 67. Light fixtures mounted on a wall may extend to the full height of the structure, but no farther. 78. Electrical feeds to outdoor light fixtures shall be underground, not overhead. 89. If an owner or applicant desires to obtain an alternative compliance from the provisions of this section, the procedure shall be in accord with chapter 5, "Administration", of this title. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005; amd. Ord. 11-1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 135 of 151 05/13/2019 7 11-3A-11 Figure 1 Replace existing figure with new one Figure 1 EXAMPLES OF FULL CUTOFF SHIELDS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 136 of 151 05/13/2019 8 Figure 2 Replace existing figure with new one FIGURE 2 LIGHT TRESPASS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 137 of 151 05/13/2019 9 11-3A-14(A) and (C) Outdoor storage as an accessory use An outdoor storage investigation recently went to a jury trial. During the trial it was made apparent that our current outdoor storage language does not include “personal property.” This became an issue when defense counsel asked the investigating officer to explain how the items referenced fit the current language in the code. The current language easily applies to commercial properties but not residential properties. 11-3A-14: OUTDOOR STORAGE AS AN ACCESSORY USE: Accessory outdoor storage shall be allowed for an approved use subject to the following standards: A. All outdoor storage of material, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be conducted in an orderly manner. It shall be unlawful to conduct outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies in a manner that: 1. Creates a public nuisance, visual blight, or acoustic impacts by reason of condition, duration, and/or volume. 2. Blocks, impedes or overlaps any sidewalk and/or vehicular traffic. 3. Causes the site to be used as a "vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. B. For properties in commercial and/or traditional districts, outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and site landscaping so that the visual impacts of these functions are full y contained and screened from view of adjacent properties, the railway corridor, and public streets by a solid fence or wall with a minimum height o f six feet (6'). Such fence and/or wall shall be constructed of complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary str ucture. C. For properties in residential districts, all materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies, shall only be stored in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height. No outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be allowed in the required street yard, except as follows: On corner properties, such materials may be stored in the street side yard where such area is screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height; see section 11-3A-7 of this article for fencing regulations in street side yards. 11-3A-14(D)(2) Outdoor storage as an accessory use Clean-up to provide clarification to this section of code. 2. For properties that adjoin the railway corridor, in addition to the standards of subsection D1 of this section, outdoor st orage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be screened from the interior edge of the required street buffer a distance of one hundred feet (100') from the edge of right of way parallel to the railway corridor. 11-3A-20 Travelling sleeping quarters The current title and the definition are inconsistent. The title reads in part “…Sleeping Quarters” and the definition reads in part “…living quarters.” The tiny house movement is growing in popularity and we are seeing them in Meridian. Mobile tiny houses are not currently defined in our code. As their popularity increases, we are fielding more inquiries about Meridian’s stance on them. 11-3A-20: TRAVELLING SLEEPINGLIVING QUARTERS: No motor vehicle or trailer including, but not limited to, travel trailers, fifth wheels, recreational vehicles, mobile tiny houses and/or motor coaches, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters except within an approved recreational vehicle park. No recreational equipment, including, but not limited to, tents, tepees, yurts, and/or huts, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters. 11-3B-5(A)(1) Standards and installation Update this section of code to reflect the newly adopted tree publication guide for the Treasure Valley. A. Approved Tree Species: 1. The publication titled "Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide For Streets And Landscapes Throughout Idaho" by the urban forestry unit of the Boise parks and recreation department (latest edition) is hereby adopted by this reference as the city of Meridian's list of approved and prohibited tree species. The publication categorizes the trees by size as class I, class II, or class III trees. 11-3B-9(C)(2) Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Add flexibility to this section code so applicants don’t have to submit City Council Review application to reduce the landscape buffers when commercial and industrial uses abut a residential use. Example of this is when a conditional use permit is before Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission doesn’t have the authority to waive the buffer except through the City Council Review process. 2. Minimum Buffer Size: The width of the buffer is determined by the district in which the property is located, unless such width is otherwise modified by the decision making body set forth in UDC Table 11-5A-2 city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. The tables of dimensional standards for each district in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title establish the minimum buffer size. A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the pr operty line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 138 of 151 05/13/2019 10 11-3C-4(A)(2) Parking standards for single- family detached, townhomes, secondary, duplex and single- family attached dwellings The amendment would cause the UDC to read more in line with the similar ISC 49-456. The UDC as it currently reads allows a vehicle to display any currently registered license plate even if the license plate is registered to another vehicle. Code Enforcement Officers have experienced this occurring when trying to get property owners to come into compliance. The front license plate of currently registered vehicle is often placed on the public view portion the unregistered vehicle. 2. Types Of Vehicles; Location Of Parking: Only automobiles and motorcycles displaying license plates and assigned to the vehicle with current registration may be parked in the required street yard. All other vehicles, including, but not limited to, vehicles without c urrent registration, vehicles without license plates, recreational vehicles, personal recreational items, boats, trailers and/or other vehicles shall only be parked in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 139 of 151 05/13/2019 11 Table 11-3C-6 Required parking spaces for residential use Modify parking standards to make it clear what parking standards apply to nursing care facilities and age restricted housing. Request of the UDC Focus Group members, they requested that 1 and 2 bedroom units have the same parking requirements. Use And Form Number Of Bedrooms (Per Unit) Required Parking Spaces1 Age restricted elderly housing (attached or detached) 1 0.5 per bed 2+ 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, duplex and dwelling, single-family (detached, attached, townhouse) 1/2 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 2/3/4 4 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 5+ 6 per dwelling unit; at least 3 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, multi-family3 (triplex, fourplex, apartments, etc.) 1 1.5 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 2/3 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 4+ 3 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in a covered carport or garage Dwelling, secondary 1 As set forth above for single-family dwellings as determined by the total number of bedrooms on the property Nursing and Residential Care Facility 1 0.5 per bed Vertically integrated residential4 1 1 per dwelling unit 2/3 1 per dwelling unit 4+ 1 per dwelling unit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 140 of 151 05/13/2019 12 11-3D-8(A)(14)(f) Sign requirements Include a new figure to the sign ordinance since there is a new interchange in the Ten Mile area. f. Properties within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way and propert ies adjoining the Interstate 84 interchanges, as depicted on figures 1, and/or 2 and/or 3 of this section are subject to the following standards: (1) Such freestanding signs shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, signs which may be permitted by the district provisi ons set forth in subsections B through H of this section. (2) Freestanding signs within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way are prohibited in residential districts. (3) The maximum background area of any sign shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. (4) The maximum height of any sign shall not exceed forty feet (40'). (5) Properties exceeding seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage may be allowed an additional height allowance and background area allowance. Such sign shall not exceed fifty feet (50') in height nor shall such sign exceed three hundred (30 0) square feet of background area. Only one such sign shall be allowed per seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage. 11-3D-8 Figure 1 Replace and add new Interchange figures. Figure 1 I-84/Meridian Road Interchange (Replace existing Exhibit) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 141 of 151 05/13/2019 13 Figure 2 Figure 2 I-84/Eagle Road Interchange (Replace existing Exhibit) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 142 of 151 05/13/2019 14 Figure 3 Figure 3 I-84/Ten Mile Interchange (New exhibit) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 143 of 151 05/13/2019 15 11-3G-3(B) Qualified open space Modify the open space standards to ensure the City is getting consolidated usable open space with residential developments. Once the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted, this section of code will be reviewed in its entirety. B. Qualified Open Space: The following may qualify to meet the common open space requirements: 1. Active Or Passive In Intended Use: Any open space that is active or passive in its intended use, and accessible by all residents of the development, including, but not limited to: a. Open grassy area of at least fifty feet by one hundred feet (50' x 100') in area; b. Community garden; c. Ponds or water features; or d. Plaza.; or e. Linear open space area that is at least 20 feet and up to 50 feet in width, has an access at each end, and is improved and landscaped as set forth in subsection 11-3G-3E of this chapter. 2. Additions To Public Park: Additions to a public park or other public open space area. 3. Landscape Buffer as Open Space Full Area of Buffer: The full area of the landscape buffer along collector and arterial streets may count toward the required common open space if developed with a 10-foot wide segment of the City’s pathway system, and where the pathway provides a direct route to an adjacent passive or active open space noted in B1 and B2 above. 4. Percentage Of Buffer: Fifty percent (50%) of the landscape buffer along arterial streets may count toward the required common open space. 5. Parkways Along Collector And Local Residential Streets: Parkways along local residential streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the common open space requirement: a. The parkway meets the minimum width standard as set forth in subsection 11-3A-17E of this chapter. b. The parkway is planted with street trees in accord with section 11-3B-7, "Landscape Buffers Along Streets", of this chapter. c. Except for alley accessed dwelling units, the area for curb cuts to each residential lot or common driveway shall be exclu ded from the open space calculation. For purposes of this calculation, the curb cut area shall be twenty six feet (26') by the width of the parkway. 6. Parkways Along Arterials: Parkways along arterial streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the co mmon open space requirement: a. The parkway is a minimum of ten feet (10') in width measured between edge of sidewalk and back of curb. Where ACHD is anticipating future widening of the street, the width of the buffer shall be measured from the ultimate curb location as anticipated by AC HD; and (1) The parkway is planted with street trees and other materials in accord with subsection 11-3B-7C, "Standards", of this chapter; or (2) The parkway contains planter beds which meet the following requirements: A) Lawn areas account for no more than fifty percent (50%) of parkway. (B) Massed shrubs which at maturity provide vertical relief between minimum of one foot (1') and maximum of three feet (3') in he ight, cover at least twenty five percent (25%) of parkway area during growing season. Shrubs must be planted as a continuous edge or in a distinct repeating pattern to create vertical visual break between roadway and pedestrian areas (C) Planter beds must meet mulching and vegetation coverage requirements listed under subsections 11-3B-5H and N of this chapter. 67. Stormwater Detention Facilities: Stormwater detention facilities when designed in accord with section 11-3B-11, "Stormwater Integration", of this chapter may count towards the qualified open space requirement if located within a passive or active qualified open space of at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and is visible from a public street(s) on at least two (2) sides. 78. Open Water Ponds: Aesthetically designed open water ponds and holding areas may comprise up to twenty five percent (25%) of a required open space area when developed with at least one (1) site amenity in accord with UDC 11-3G-3C. All ponds with a permanent water level shall meet the following standards: a. The pond shall have recirculated water. b. The pond shall be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 144 of 151 05/13/2019 16 11-3H-3 Variance process Legal has determined that variance may not be required for Council to approve an access to State highways per State Statue. This modification to the UDC is being requested by the City Attorney’s office. Added this language based on feedback from the public hearing. 11-3H-3: PROCESS: Staff shall review all development applications for compliance with these standards. The City Council decision making body may consider and approve apply modifications to the standards of this article upon specific recommendation of the Idaho transportation department or if strict adherence is not feasible, as determined by City Council. 11-4-3-14 Education Institution Add specific criteria for parking. I. In all commercial and residential districts, education institutions shall provide one parking space for every four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area. 11-4-3-27(B)(1) Site Design Recently, there have been some conflicts between the setbacks in the UDC and the building code. This change is needed to make it clear that the IBC has different ways of governing building separation on a property. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet (10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. 11-4 Indoor Shooting Range The City has approved one such facility in the Gramercy development. This has caused issues for code enforcement and other sections of city code. This use is currently defined as an indoor rec facility. Added this language based on feedback from the public hearing. 11-4-3-47: INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A. No indoor shooting range shall be allowed within three hundred feet (300’), measured from property line to property line, of a residential use or district, daycare center, education institution, hospital, library or nursing or residential care facility. B. Accessory uses including, but not limited to, retail, equipment rental and restaurants are allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. C. The application shall include a sound study prepared by a licensed sound engineer that demonstrates how the proposed use will address the impact of noise on adjoining uses. Any adverse effects shall be mitigated through setbacks, buffers, sound mitigation and/or hours of operation. 11-4 Restaurant Add specific uses standards for a restaurant, specifically to address parking. 11-4-3-48: RESTAURANT A. Parking: 1. At a minimum, one parking space shall be provided for every two and fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 2. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space, a detailed parking plan shall be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with the requirements of this title. 11-5A-6(G)(5) Public hearing Extend the time period when the Commission has to forward its recommendation to Council. Need to make more consistent with this section of code. 5. The decision making body (see section 11-5A-2, table 11-5A-2 of this article) action shall be made within seventy (70) days after receiving all information to make a decision or seventy (70) days from the last meeting where the application is considered if additional information is not needed . For applications where the commission is acting as a recommending body, the commission shall forward its recomme ndation to the council within seventy forty five (4570) days. 11-5A-8(B) Fees Remove the request for fee waiver from code. 11-5A-8: FEES: In the application of fees for the review of permit applications, the following rules shall apply: A. Basis For Calculation: For any requested public hearing involving more than one classification of a petition or application, the filing fee shall be calculated on the basis of the cumulative fee for the individual application(s). B. Waiver Of Fee: Notwithstanding any of the preceding fee schedules, the city council shall have the authority to waive in whole or in part any application fee when such a fee would present a hardship. An applicant for a hardship waiver must present the request in writ ing to the city council, outlining the degree of such hardship. C. Fees Not Refundable: Fees to be charged for the various procedures stated above are not refundable, except where a petition o r application is withdrawn at least three (3) weeks prior to the date of its scheduled public hearing, and then only after order by the city council. 11-5B-4(B) Variances Remove the access to state highways section from the applicability section based on recommendation from Legal. State statutes do not specify access to state highways as part of a variance process; may be in violation. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish procedures for modification from the bulk and placement requi rements of this title. B. Applicability: The provisions of this section shall apply to requests to vary from the requirements of this title with respect to lot size, width, and depth; front, side, and rear setbacks; parking spaces; building height; all other provisions of this title affecting the size and shape of a structure or the placement upon properties; and the placement and/or number of access points to state highways. If a means of alternative compliance is available, it should be exhausted before applying for a variance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 145 of 151 05/13/2019 17 Table 11-5B-5 Alternative compliance Clean-up item to include noise abatement standards in UDC 11-3H- 4(D) are eligible for alternative compliance. B. Applicability: 1. This process is intended to replace specific requirements as set forth throughout this title as follows: (Ord. 05 -1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) TABLE 11-5B-5 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE Permit Section Common driveway 11-6C-3 Common open space and site amenity requirements 11-3G Fence requirements 11-3A-7 Height maximum in commercial districts 11-2B-3 Height maximum in industrial districts 11-2C-3 Height maximum in TN-C district 11-2D-5 Landscape buffer for wireless communication facilities 11-4-3-43E Landscape requirements 11-3B Landscaping for base of freestanding sign 11-3D-8 Lighting standards for pathway along State Highway 55 11-3H-4C3 Outdoor lighting requirements 11-3A-11 Multi-family private usable open space standards 11-4-3-27B3 Noise abatement standards 11-3H-4D Parking and loading plan requirements 11-3C-5 Parking requirements 11-3C-6 Private street standards 11-3F-4 Projecting sign allowance 11-3D-8E and F Sign location in the O-T district 11-3D-5 Structure and site design review standards 11-3A-19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 146 of 151 05/13/2019 1 Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Problem/Question/Clean-up Potential Fix 11-1-11 Code enforcement Recently a UDC violation case went to a court trial. The prosecutor, defense council and judge all pointed out the UDC does not specifically outline the methods of service when serving a UDC violator notice of a violation. The MCC does outline this process in 4-2-3 (C) 1, 2 and 3. B. Investigation: 1. The code enforcement officer shall investigate any structure or use which he or she reasonably believes does not comply wi th the standards and requirements of this title. 2. If, after investigation, it is determined that the standards or requirements of this title have been violated, a code enforcement officer shall serve a notice of violation upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition. The notice of violation sha ll state separately each standard or requirement violated; shall state what corrective action, if any, is necessary to comply with the standards or requi rements; and shall set a reasonable time for compliance. The notice shall state that any further violation may result in criminal p rosecution and/or civil penalties. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 3. The notice shall be served upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition addressed to the last known a ddress of such person. If no address is known, then notice may be made by publication in the newspaper of record for the City of Meridian. The Code Enforcement Officer will record all efforts made to effect service in person or by mail as part of their investigative re port. Methods of service shall be by any of the following: a. Personal service upon such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property; or b. Regular mail to such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property, at the address shown on the last ava ilable assessment roll, or as otherwise known; or c. Posting such notice and order at a conspicuous place on the property and publishing one notice in the official newspaper o f the City that the property has been posted in accordance with this chapter and ordering th e owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property to remedy the violation by the given date. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of accessory use, residential. ACCESSORY USE, RESIDENTIAL: A use or activity on a residential property that is secondary to the principal use. 11-1A-1 Definition Separate the personal and professional definition. They are separate uses in the allowed use tables in Chapter 2. PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The use of a site for the provision of individualized services generally related to personal needs. Personal service uses include, but are not limited to, beauty and healthcare services such as salons, hair, nail and skin care, spa, and barbers; fitness training and instruction; locksmiths; and repairs such as footwear and leather goods, and watches. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: See definition of personal and professional services. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; graphic designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photography studio s; and general offices. The term does not include healthcare and social service. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of foot-candle. FOOT-CANDLE: A standard unit of measurement used to identify the intensity of light. A unit of illumination equal to that given by a source of one candela at a distance of one foot. This is the SAE/Imperial unit of measurement whereas Lux is the Metric unit of measurement. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of an indoor shooting range. INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A controlled area of activity, specifically designed for the discharging of firearms at targets. The term does not include arts, entertainment and recreation facilities. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of light trespass. LIGHT TRESPASS: Light emitting from one property that crosses the property line of another property in excess of 0.1 foot -candle as measured at a height of 60 inches above grade in a plane at any angle of inclination. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of lumen. LUMEN: A lighting industry standard unit of measurement used to measure the total quantity of visible light emitted by a sour ce. 11-1A-1 Definition Modify definition of open space to include linear open space. OPEN SPACE: An area substantially open to the sky that may be on the same property with a structure. The area may include, along with the natural environmental features, linear open spaces, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community centers or other recreational facilities. This term shall not include streets, parking areas, or structures for habitation. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of personal property. PERSONAL PROPERTY: Any property that is not real property. 05/13/2019 2 11-1A-1 Recreational vehicle Add the term mobile tiny homes to the definition. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicle or portable structure primarily designed as temporary living accommodation for recreational, camping, and travel use. The term shall include, but not be limited to, motor home, travel trailer, fifth wheel trailer, truck camper, fol d down camping trailer, park trailer, mobile tiny homes and travel trailer. Table 11-2A-6 Dimensional standards of the R-8 District Developer requested that the UDC specifically call-out setbacks for side loaded garages in the R-8 district. R-8 Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 4,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet): 40 With alley loaded garage, side entry garage, or private mew lots 32 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area and/or side loaded garage (in feet): Local 10 Collector 25 Alley 5 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Table 11-2A-2 Allowed uses in the residential districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40 Restaurant1 - - - - A 05/13/2019 3 Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the commercial districts. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Hotel and motel1 P/C P/C P/C - C P Indoor Shooting Range1 - - - - C - Industry, information1 P P P C P P Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards; specifically different parking standards. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Restaurant1 P P P C A A Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the industrial districts. Use I-L I-H Fuel sales facility, truck stop1 C C Indoor Shooting Range1 P C Industry, heavy1 - P/C Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use I-L I-H Restaurant1 A A Table 11-2D-2 Allowed uses in the traditional neighborhood districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use O-T TN-C TN-R Restaurant1 P P - 11-2B-3(A)(4) Standards Clean-up item. Re-numbering this standard as it does not pertain to a dimensional standard. 4B. Hours Of Operation: Business hours of operation within the L-O and C-N Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Business hours of operation within the C-C and C-G Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C -C and C-G Districts may be requested through a conditional use permit. These restrictions apply to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, customer or client visits, trash compacting, and deliveries. These restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring within an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, cleaning, bookkeeping, and after hours work by a limited number of employees. 05/13/2019 4 11-3A-6 Ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses Amend this section of code to reference the definition of a water amenity in chapter 1 and grant the decision-making body on the application the authority to waive the tiling of irrigation facilities. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to limit the tiling and piping of natural waterways, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve, protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fenc ing is proposed, the following standards shall apply. B. Piping: 1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a natural amenity and s hall not be piped or otherwise covered. See also subsection C1 of this section. 2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains may be left open when used as a water amenity or linear open space, as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. See also subsection C2 of this section. 3. Except as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals, sloughs or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped, or otherwise covered. This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigatio n easement where the actual drainage facility is located on an adjoining property. a. The city councildecision-making body may waive the requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. b. The city council may also waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. C. Fencing: 1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the city council, director and/or public works director. 2. Ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains do not require fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity. Construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idaho shall be submitted to both the director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. 3. Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains shall be fenced with an open vision fence at least six feet (6') in height and having an 11-gauge, two inch (2") mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain. D. Improvements related to piping, fencing or any encroachment as outlined in sections A, B, and C of this section requires written approval from the appropriate irrigation or drainage entity. E. Easements: In residential districts, irrigation easements wider than ten feet (10') shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding prope rty owners. F. Impeding Movement Of Water Prohibited: For any irrigation or drainage ditch not within the jurisdiction of an irrigation or drainage district, piping shall not impede the movement of the amount of water crossing the property prior to development or the amount of water delive red to downstream properties. G. Natural Drainage Courses: All natural drainage courses shall be left undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and ease of maintenance of the channel. Relocation of natural swales is acceptable if the hydraulics and ease of maintenance are provided for. The term "natural drainage course" shall not be deemed to apply to minor swales and depressions that are located entirely on the applic ant's property and which serve a relatively small area where runoff is infrequent. 05/13/2019 5 11-3A-11 Outdoor lighting The current code does not adequately address light trespass. We are seeing advancements in lighting technology. These advancements are making lighting retrofits cost effective and common. With the retrofits come brighter lights. Code Enforcement is seeing an increase in light trespass complaints. Through a recent investigation, City Attorney staff and Code Enforcement learned light trespass is not enforceable with the language in our current code. The code allows for an exemption of all light fixtures below 1,800 lumens (equal to an average 120 watt incandescent bulb). One of these fixtures may not be a problem but the current wording of the code allows for an indefinite number of these unregulated fixtures to be installed in a single lighting project. The exemption allows said light fixtures to be configured in any way regardless how they impact an abutting property. A Lumen is a unit of measure routinely used by light fixture manufacturers and only practically measured in a laboratory environment. Lumen ratings are practical when used in the code for planning and development purposes but lumen measurements cannot be practically obtained in the field. This creates a huge obstacle for Code Enforcement when investigating light trespass complaints. The standard unit of measure for field-work in the United States is the foot-candle. Foot-candle measurements are easily obtainable from readily available instrumentation. The foot-candle must be referenced in the code to make light trespass enforceable. Lumens in the code should only be used when referencing fixture specifications as it applies to planning. Foot-candles should be used in the code to govern light trespass once the fixture is installed. Currently, when a permitted fixture is installed in a way that causes light trespass Code Enforcement cannot take any action. Holiday lighting is currently allowed for 40 days and is exempt from regulation. Which 40 days are not identified and such would require a daily inspection and documentation to prove/enforce. The exemption allows holiday lighting to be the source of light trespass and limit the enjoyment of abutting properties. We have seen exceptionally bright and flashing lights that illuminate a majority of an abutting property. The change would eliminate the 40 day period and have holiday lighting comply with light trespass standards. A. The following types of lighting are exempt from the regulations of this section: (Ord. 05 -1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of less than one thousand eight hundred (1800) lumens unless said fixture is the source of light trespass in violation of subsection C (3) of this chapter or is configured in a manner that impairs the vision of drivers and /or pedestrians in violation of subsection B (6) of this chapter. (Ord. 11-1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) 2. All outdoor lighting produced by the direct combustion of natural gas or other fossil fuels such as kerosene lanterns or g as lamps. 3. Temporary hHoliday lighting used for forty (40) days or less per year that is not in violation of this section. 4. Vehicular lights and all temporary emergency lighting needed for fire protection, police protection, and/or other emergenc y services. 5. All hazard warning lights required by federal or state regulatory agencies. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 6. Lighting when used to light a governmental flag in accordance with 4 USC 6(a); and provided, that the fixture used does no t create light trespass in violation of this section. 7. Street lights and historical lights installed and configured to the appropriate specification for the application as determined by the Community Development Director or his/her appointee. B. The installation, use, or display of any of the following types of lighting a nd/or illumination shall be prohibited: 1. Mercury vapor lamp fixture and/or lamp. 2. Laser source light or any similar high intensity light. 3. Lighting that changes colors, revolves, or moves, including searchlights shall be prohibited in all districts, except where approved for temporary uses under a valid, current city of Meridian temporary use permit. 4. Lighting, including strings of lights, on commercial or private tower structures that exceed the district height limit, ex cept as required by regulations of the federal aviation administration (FAA). 5. Strobing, revolving, or flashing lights. 6. Light or illumination with such brilliance or so positioned as to blind or dazzle impair the vision of drivers and/or pedestrians. 7. Low pressure sodium lighting. (Ord. 09-1436, 12-15-2009, eff. 1-1-2010) C. Standards: 1. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall have an opaque top to prevent uplighting; the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a full cutoff shield. See figure 1 of this section. 2. Light fixtures with a maximum output of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall be placed such that the ef fective zone of light (as documented by the photometric test report) shall not trespass on abutting residential properties. See figure 2 of this section. (Ord. 11 - 1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) 3. All light emitting from any parcel shall not cause the light level along any property line abutting a residential use to exce ed 0.1 foot-candle. Light readings shall be measured at a height of 60 inches above grade and in a plane at any angle of inclination. Any light exceeding 0.1 foot- candle, when documented in the above manner, and extending onto an abutting residential use constitutes light trespass. 4. Floodlight fixtures shall be located positioned in such a manner as to prevent direct glare into a street and to minimize impact on prevent light trespass on abutting properties. a. Floodlight fixtures shall be set to go on only when triggered by activity on the property (sensor activated) and to go off within five (5) minutes after activation has ceased. b. Floodlight fixtures shall be installed so that they do not tilt up more than forty five degrees (45°) down from vertical. 5. Uplighting shall only be allowed in cases where the fixture and any light it emits are shielded from the sky by a roof overhang o r similar structural shield. 05/13/2019 6 56. In residential districts, the height of a freestanding light fixture on private property shall not exceed six feet (6'). Streetlamps are exempt from this height restriction. 67. Light fixtures mounted on a wall may extend to the full height of the structure, but no farther. 78. Electrical feeds to outdoor light fixtures shall be underground, not overhead. 89. If an owner or applicant desires to obtain an alternative compliance from the provisions of this section, the procedure sha ll be in accord with chapter 5, "Administration", of this title. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005; amd. Ord. 11-1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) 05/13/2019 7 11-3A-11 Figure 1 Replace existing figure with new one Figure 1 EXAMPLES OF FULL CUTOFF SHIELDS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE 05/13/2019 8 Figure 2 Replace existing figure with new one FIGURE 2 LIGHT TRESPASS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE 05/13/2019 9 11-3A-14(A) and (C) Outdoor storage as an accessory use An outdoor storage investigation recently went to a jury trial. During the trial it was made apparent that our current outdoor storage language does not include “personal property.” This became an issue when defense counsel asked the investigating officer to explain how the items referenced fit the current language in the code. The current language easily applies to commercial properties but not residential properties. 11-3A-14: OUTDOOR STORAGE AS AN ACCESSORY USE: Accessory outdoor storage shall be allowed for an approved use subject to the following standards: A. All outdoor storage of material, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be conducted in an orderly manner. It shall be unlawful to conduct outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies in a manner that: 1. Creates a public nuisance, visual blight, or acoustic impacts by reason of condition, duration, and/or volume. 2. Blocks, impedes or overlaps any sidewalk and/or vehicular traffic. 3. Causes the site to be used as a "vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. B. For properties in commercial and/or traditional districts, outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supp lies shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and site landscaping so that the visual impacts of these functions are fully contained and screened from view of adjacent properties, the railway corridor, and public streets by a solid fence or wall with a minimum h eight of six feet (6'). Such fence and/or wall shall be constructed of complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary structure. C. For properties in residential districts, all materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies, shall only be stored in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height. No outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be allowed in the required street yard, except as follows: On corner properties, such materials may be stored in the street side yard where such area is screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height; see section 11 -3A-7 of this article for fencing regulations in street side yards. 11-3A-14(D)(2) Outdoor storage as an accessory use Clean-up to provide clarification to this section of code. 2. For properties that adjoin the railway corridor, in addition to the standards of subsection D1 of this section, outdoor st orage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be screened from the interior edge of the required street buffer a distance of one hundred feet (100') from the edge of right of way parallel to the railway corridor. 11-3A-20 Travelling sleeping quarters The current title and the definition are inconsistent. The title reads in part “…Sleeping Quarters” and the definition reads in part “…living quarters.” The tiny house movement is growing in popularity and we are seeing them in Meridian. Mobile tiny houses are not currently defined in our code. As their popularity increases, we are fielding more inquiries about Meridian’s stance on them. 11-3A-20: TRAVELLING SLEEPINGLIVING QUARTERS: No motor vehicle or trailer including, but not limited to, travel trailers, fifth wheels, recreational vehicles, mobile tiny houses and/or motor coaches, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters except within an approved recreational vehicle park. No recreational equipment, including, but not limited to, tents, tepees, yurts, and/or huts, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters. 11-3B-5(A)(1) Standards and installation Update this section of code to reflect the newly adopted tree publication guide for the Treasure Valley. A. Approved Tree Species: 1. The publication titled "Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide" by the urban forestry unit of the Boise parks and recreation department (latest edition) is hereby adopted by this reference as the city of Meridian's list of approved and prohibited tree species. The publication c ategorizes the trees by size as class I, class II, or class III trees. 11-3B-9(C)(2) Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Add flexibility to this section code so applicants don’t have to submit City Council Review application to reduce the landscape buffers when commercial and industrial uses abut a residential use. Example of this is when a conditional use permit is before Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission doesn’t have the authority to waive the buffer except through the City Council Review process. 2. Minimum Buffer Size: The width of the buffer is determined by the district in which the property is located, unless such width is otherwise modified by the decision making body set forth in UDC Table 11-5A-2 city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. The tables of dimensional standards for each district in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title establish the minimum buffer size. A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. Remove 05/13/2019 10 11-3C-4(A)(2) Parking standards for single- family detached, townhomes, secondary, duplex and single- family attached dwellings The amendment would cause the UDC to read more in line with the similar ISC 49-456. The UDC as it currently reads allows a vehicle to display any currently registered license plate even if the license plate is registered to another vehicle. Code Enforcement Officers have experienced this occurring when trying to get property owners to come into compliance. The front license plate of currently registered vehicle is often placed on the public view portion the unregistered vehicle. 2. Types Of Vehicles; Location Of Parking: Only automobiles and motorcycles displaying license plates and assigned to the vehicle with current registration may be parked in the required street yard. All other vehicles, including, but not limited to, vehicles without c urrent registration, vehicles without license plates, recreational vehicles, personal recreational items, boats, trailers and/or other vehicles shall only be parked in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height. 05/13/2019 11 Table 11-3C-6 Required parking spaces for residential use Modify parking standards to make it clear what parking standards apply to nursing care facilities and age restricted housing. Request of the UDC Focus Group members, they requested that 1 and 2 bedroom units have the same parking requirements. Use And Form Number Of Bedrooms (Per Unit) Required Parking Spaces1 Age restricted elderly housing (attached or detached) 1 0.5 per bed 2+ 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, duplex and dwelling, single-family (detached, attached, townhouse) 1/2 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 2/3/4 4 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 5+ 6 per dwelling unit; at least 3 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, multi-family3 (triplex, fourplex, apartments, etc.) 1 1.5 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 2/3 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 4+ 3 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in a covered carport or garage Dwelling, secondary 1 As set forth above for single-family dwellings as determined by the total number of bedrooms on the property Nursing and Residential Care Facility 1 0.5 per bed Vertically integrated residential4 1 1 per dwelling unit 2/3 1 per dwelling unit 4+ 1 per dwelling unit 05/13/2019 12 11-3D-8(A)(14)(f) Sign requirements Include a new figure to the sign ordinance since there is a new interchange in the Ten Mile area. f. Properties within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way and propert ies adjoining the Interstate 84 interchanges, as depicted on figures 1, and/or 2 and/or 3 of this section are subject to the following standards: (1) Such freestanding signs shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, signs which may be permitted by the district provisi ons set forth in subsections B through H of this section. (2) Freestanding signs within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way are prohibited in residential districts. (3) The maximum background area of any sign shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. (4) The maximum height of any sign shall not exceed forty feet (40'). (5) Properties exceeding seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage may be allowed an additional height allowance an d background area allowance. Such sign shall not exceed fifty feet (50') in height nor shall such sign exceed three hundred (30 0) square feet of background area. Only one such sign shall be allowed per seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage. 11-3D-8 Figure 1 Replace and add new Interchange figures. Figure 1 I-84/Meridian Road Interchange (Replace existing Exhibit) 05/13/2019 13 Figure 2 Figure 2 I-84/Eagle Road Interchange (Replace existing Exhibit) 05/13/2019 14 Figure 3 Figure 3 I-84/Ten Mile Interchange (New exhibit) 05/13/2019 15 11-3G-3(B) Qualified open space Modify the open space standards to ensure the City is getting consolidated usable open space with residential developments. B. Qualified Open Space: The following may qualify to meet the common open space requirements: 1. Active Or Passive In Intended Use: Any open space that is active or passive in its intended use, and accessible by all residents of the development, including, but not limited to: a. Open grassy area of at least fifty feet by one hundred feet (50' x 100') in area; b. Community garden; c. Ponds or water features; or d. Plaza.; or e. Linear open space area that is at least 20 feet and up to 50 feet in width, has an access at each end, and is improved and landscaped as set forth in subsection 11-3G-3E of this chapter. 2. Additions To Public Park: Additions to a public park or other public open space area. 3. Full Area of Buffer: The full area of the landscape buffer along collector streets may count toward the required common open space. 4. Percentage Of Buffer: Fifty percent (50%) of the landscape buffer along arterial streets may count toward the required common open space. 5. Parkways Along Collector And Local Residential Streets: Parkways along local residential streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the common open space requirement: a. The parkway meets the minimum width standard as set forth in subsection 11-3A-17E of this chapter. b. The parkway is planted with street trees in accord with section 11-3B-7, "Landscape Buffers Along Streets", of this chapter. c. Except for alley accessed dwelling units, the area for curb cuts to each residential lot or common driveway shall be excluded from the open space calculation. For purposes of this calculation, the curb cut area shall be twenty six feet (26') by the width of the par kway. 67. Stormwater Detention Facilities: Stormwater detention facilities when designed in accord with section 11-3B-11, "Stormwater Integration", of this chapter may count towards the qualified open space requirement if located within a passive or active qualified open space of at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and is visible from a public street(s) on at least two (2) sides. 78. Open Water Ponds: Aesthetically designed open water ponds and holding areas may comprise up to twenty five percent (25%) of a required open space area when developed with at least one (1) site amenity in accord with UDC 11-3G-3C. All ponds with a permanent water level shall meet the following standards: a. The pond shall have recirculated water. b. The pond shall be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. 05/13/2019 16 11-3H-3 Variance process Legal has determined that variance may not be required for Council to approve an access to State highways per State Statue. This modification to the UDC is being requested by the City Attorney’s office. 11-3H-3: PROCESS: Staff shall review all development applications for compliance with these standards. The City Council decision making body may consider and approve apply modifications to the standards of this article upon specific recommendation of the Idaho transportation department or if strict adherence is not feasible, as determined by City Council. 11-4-3-14 Education Institution Add specific criteria for parking. I. In all commercial and residential districts, education institutions shall provide one parking space for every four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area. 11-4-3-27(B)(1) Site Design Recently, there have been some conflicts between the setbacks in the UDC and the building code. This change is needed to make it clear that the IBC has different ways of governing building separation on a property. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet (10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. 11-4 Indoor Shooting Range The City has approved one such facility in the Gramercy development. This has caused issues for code enforcement and other sections of city code. This use is currently defined as an indoor recreation facility. 11-4-3-47: INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A. No indoor shooting range shall be allowed within three hundred feet (300’), measured from property line to property line, of a residential use or district, daycare center, education institution, hospital, library or nursing or residential care facility. B. Accessory uses including, but not limited to, retail, equipment rental and restaurants are allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. C. The application shall include a sound study prepared by a licensed sound engineer that demonstrates how the proposed use will address the impact of noise on adjoining uses. Any adverse effects shall be mitigated through setbacks, buffers, sound mitigation and/or hours of operation. 11-4 Restaurant Add specific uses standards for a restaurant, specifically to address parking. 11-4-3-48: RESTAURANT A. Parking: 1. At a minimum, one parking space shall be provided for every two and fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 2. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space, a detailed parking plan shall be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with the requirements of this title. 11-5A-6(G)(5) Public hearing Extend the time period when the Commission has to forward its recommendation to Council. Need to make more consistent with this section of code. 5. The decision making body (see section 11-5A-2, table 11-5A-2 of this article) action shall be made within seventy (70) days after receiving all information to make a decision or seventy (70) days from the last meeting where the application is considered if additional information is not needed . For applications where the commission is acting as a recommending body, the commission shall forward its recommendation to the council within seventy forty five (4570) days. 11-5A-8(B) Fees Remove the request for fee waiver from code. 11-5A-8: FEES: In the application of fees for the review of permit applications, the following rules shall apply: A. Basis For Calculation: For any requested public hearing involving more than one classification of a petition or applicatio n, the filing fee shall be calculated on the basis of the cumulative fee for the individual application(s). B. Waiver Of Fee: Notwithstanding any of the preceding fee schedules, the city council shall have the authority to waive in whol e or in part any application fee when such a fee would present a hardship. An applicant for a hardship waiver mu st present the request in writing to the city council, outlining the degree of such hardship. C. Fees Not Refundable: Fees to be charged for the various procedures stated above are not refundable, except where a petition o r application is withdrawn at least three (3) weeks prior to the date of its scheduled public hearing, and then only after order by the city council. 11-5B-4(B) Variances Remove the access to state highways section from the applicability section based on recommendation from Legal. State statutes do not specify access to state highways as part of a variance process; may be in violation. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish procedures for modification from the bulk and placement requirements of this title. B. Applicability: The provisions of this section shall apply to requests to vary from the requirements of this title with respec t to lot size, width, and depth; front, side, and rear setbacks; parking spaces; building height; all other provisions of this tit le affecting the size and shape of a structure or the placement upon properties; and the placement and/or number of access points to state highways. If a means of alternative compliance is available, it should be exhausted before applying for a variance. 05/13/2019 17 Table 11-5B-5 Alternative compliance Clean-up item to include noise abatement standards in UDC 11-3H- 4(D) are eligible for alternative compliance. B. Applicability: 1. This process is intended to replace specific requirements as set forth throughout this title as follows: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) TABLE 11-5B-5 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE Permit Section Common driveway 11-6C-3 Common open space and site amenity requirements 11-3G Fence requirements 11-3A-7 Height maximum in commercial districts 11-2B-3 Height maximum in industrial districts 11-2C-3 Height maximum in TN-C district 11-2D-5 Landscape buffer for wireless communication facilities 11-4-3-43E Landscape requirements 11-3B Landscaping for base of freestanding sign 11-3D-8 Lighting standards for pathway along State Highway 55 11-3H-4C3 Outdoor lighting requirements 11-3A-11 Multi-family private usable open space standards 11-4-3-27B3 Noise abatement standards 11-3H-4D Parking and loading plan requirements 11-3C-5 Parking requirements 11-3C-6 Private street standards 11-3F-4 Projecting sign allowance 11-3D-8E and F Sign location in the O-T district 11-3D-5 Structure and site design review standards 11-3A-19 EIDIAN,!DAHO -- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 25, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 8 A Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Ordinance No. 19-1831 An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code as Codified at Title 11, to create a new residential self -storage use that includes a definition; specific use standards and specifies conditional use approval in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts; and providing a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. Meeting Notes: ,n I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 8.A . Presenter: Chris J ohnson Estimated Time f or P resentation: 2 minutes Title of I tem - Ordinance No. 19-1831: An Ordinance Amending M eridian C ity C ode As C odified At T itle 11, To Create A New Residential Self-Storage Use T hat Includes A D efinition; S pecific Use Standards And S pecifies C onditional Use Approval In T he R-15 And R-40 Zoning Districts; And P roviding F or A Waiver Of T he Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective D ate. Ordinance f or UD C A mendment R E Residential S torage C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate O rdinance for UD C Amendment R E R esidential Storage Ordinance 6/17/2019 S ummary Ordinance 6/21/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate L egal.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/17/2019 - 11:54 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 147 of 151 SELF -SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY , RESIDENTIAL UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2019-0034 PAGE 1 OF 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 19-1831 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, PALMER, LITTLE ROBERTS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE AS CODIFIED AT TITLE 11, TO CREATE A NEW RESIDENTIAL SELF-STORAGE USE THAT INCLUDES A DEFINITION; SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS AND SPECIFIES CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL IN THE R- 15 AND R-40 ZONING DISTRICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS , the Unified Development Code is the official zoning ordinance for the City of Meridian and provides an opportunity to better support the Comprehensive Plan and provide a tool that is relevant and contemporary to the needs of the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems it to be in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of its citizens to incorporate changes to the Unified Development Code within the City of Meridian. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That Meridian City Code 11-1A-1, Unified Development Code, be incorporated as follows: 11-1A-1: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS: SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY, RESIDENTIAL: Any real property designed and used for renting or leasing individual storage spaces incidental to residential property or dwelling units, to which the occupants thereof have access for storing or removing personal property. Section 2. That Meridian City Code Table 11-2A-2, Unified Development Code, be incorporated as follows: Table 11-2A-2 ALLOWED USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40 Self-service storage facility, residential 1 - - - C C Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 148 of 151 SELF -SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY , RESIDENTIAL UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2019-0034 PAGE 2 OF 3 Section 3. That Meridian City Code Section 11-4-3-47, Unified Development Code, be incorporated as follows: 11-4-3-47: SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY, RESIDENTIAL A. The facility is encouraged to accompany or be a component of a single-family or multi- family residential development with a conditional use permit in an R-15 or R-40 zone. B. The size of the facility shall be limited to thirty five percent (35%) of a residential development not to exceed a maximum of eight (8) acres. C. The location of the facility may be located along an arterial roadway as a buffer to a residential development, but shall not take direct access from an arterial. Access to the facility shall be from a collector or local street only. D. The hours of operation shall be limited to six o’clock (6:00) a.m. to ten o’clock (10:00) p.m. E. The use shall be limited to individual storage compartments which shall be used for residential related personal property including vehicles. F. Storage units shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a residential storage facility is specifically prohibited. G. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25’). The maximum height of the buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. H. The storage facility shall be fully enclosed and screened from public view. I. A minimum twenty-foot (20’) wide landscape buffer shall be provided along a collector or local road and a twenty-five-foot (25’) wide buffer adjacent to residential development. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-7C and 11-3B-9C of this title. J. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes approved by the Meridian Fire Department. K. No outside storage area shall be allowed. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. L. Buildings shall be designed to the architectural character of the residential area. The building design shall comply with the Traditional Neighborhood District (TND) design standards set forth in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. M. Signage for the facility shall comply with Section 11-3D-8C, “Residential Signs in Residential Districts,” of this title. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 149 of 151 SELF -SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY , RESIDENTIAL UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2019-0034 PAGE 3 OF 3 N. On-site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with Title 3, Chapter 4, “Outdoor Sales and Temporary Use Requirements.” The hours of the on-site auctions shall be limited to daylight hours (sunrise and sunset) and specified on the temporary use permit application submitted to the Clerk’s office. O. On-site management or contact information for on-call management shall be provided for the storage facility. If the use is unattended, the standards in accord with Section 11-3A-16, “Self-Service Uses,” of this title shall also apply. The application materials shall also include a security plan for the proposed facility. P. No storage of fuel or hazardous materials shall be allowed. Q. The site shall not be used as a “vehicle wrecking or junk yard” as herein defined in Section 11-1A-1. Section 4. That all other provisions of Title 11 as they relate to the Unified Development Code remain unchanged. Section 5. That this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this _____ day of June, 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this _____ day of June, 2019. APPROVED: ATTEST: ______________________________ ____________________________ Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 150 of 151 ORDINANCE SUMMARY FOR UDC TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SELF -SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY , RESIDENTIAL NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 19-1831 An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code As Codified At Title 11, To Create A New Residential Self-Storage Use That Includes A Definition; Specific Use Standards And Specifies Conditional Use Approval In The R-15 And R-40 Zoning Districts; And Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective Date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective upon the passage and publication. __________________________________________ City of Meridian Mayor and City Council By: Chris Johnson, City Clerk First Reading: _________________ Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50- 902: YES_______ NO_______ Second Reading: _________________ Third Reading: __________________ STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 19-1831 The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached Ordinance No. 19-1831 of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A (3). DATED this ______ day of June, 2019. William. L.M. Nary City Attorney Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 151 of 151 C IDIAN*,---- �W,IZ�J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 25, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 9 Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Future Meeting Topics Meeting Notes: E IDIZ IAN?— DA IL CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 25, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 10 Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 74-206(d) Meeting Notes: CCU ' vaca4e-j Ajel-)A