Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-07-16 Regular
C I T Y C OUNCI L R EGU L A R M EET I NG AGENDA C ity Council Chamber s 33 E ast B roadway Avenue M er idian, I daho Tuesday, J uly 16, 2019 at 6:00 P M 1. Roll-C all Attendance X A nne L ittle R oberts X J oe Borton X Ty P almer X Treg B ernt Genesis Milam X L uke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. P ledge of Allegiance 3. Community Invocation by M ichael P ear son of S eventh D ay Adventist Church 4. Adoption of Agenda - Adopted 5. Announcements 6. F uture M eeting Topics - Public F orum (Up to 30 M inutes M aximum) Si gni ng up pri or to the start of the meeti ng is required. This time i s reserved for the public to address their el ected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land use/devel opment application. By law, no decisi ons 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 discussi on or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolvi ng the matter following the meeti ng. 7. Action I tems Public Heari ngs for Land Use Applications follow this process: Once the Public Heari ng is opened, City staff will present thei r report. F ollowing the report, the applicant is allowed up to 15 minutes to present their applicati on. Members of the public are allowed up to 3 mi nutes each to address council regarding the applicati on. If a person is representi ng a large group such as a Homeowner's Associati on, indicated by a show of hands, they may be allowed up to 10 minutes. Following all public testimony, the applicant is then allowed 10 additi onal mi nutes to respond to comments. Once the public hearing is closed, no additional testimony will be received. The Ci ty Council may move to continue the item for additional informati on or vote to approve or deny the item with or without changes as presented. The Mayor i s not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public heari ng items, unl ess to break a tie vote. A. P ublic Hearing for C ommunity D evelopment Block Grant (CDBG ) Progr am Year 2019 D r aft Action P lan B. F inal P lat C ontinued from J uly 9, 2019 for C herry B lossom (H- 2019-0064) by Doug J ayo, J ayo L and D evelopment Compan y, LLC ., L ocated at 615 W. C herry L n. – Continued to 08-13-2019 C. F inal P lat for F irenze P laza S ubdivision (H-2019-0067) by T he L and Group, I nc., L ocated on the NW corner of S . E agle Rd. and E. Amity Rd. - Approved D. P ublic Hearing for Rackham S ubdivision (H-2018-0126) by B VA D evelopment, L ocated at 1020 S . E agle Rd. - Approved 1. R equest: A P reliminary P lat consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 ac res of land in the C-G zoning dis trict E. P ublic Hearing C ontinued fr om J une 25, 2019 for T hr ee C or ner s Ranch (H-2019-0006) by S weet L and D evelopment, Inc., L ocated at 1890 E. D unwoody C t. - Approved 1. R equest: A nnexation and Z oning of 31.06 acres of land with the R - 4 zoning D istrict; and, 2. R equest: A P reliminary P lat consisting of 45 building lots and 9 commons lots. F. P ublic Hearing C ontinued fr om J une 18, 2019 for O aks Nor th and S outh (H-2018-0117) by Toll I D I LLC, L ocated on the Nor th and S outh side of M c M illan Rd. between N. M cD er mott and N. Black C at Rds. - Approved 1. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to modify the overall boundary of Oaks North and Oaks South development and update the zoning district boundaries, the concept plan and modify/remove certain provisions of the agreement that are no longer relevant to the project G. P ublic Hearing C ontinued fr om J une 18, 2019 for O akmore S ubdivision (H-2018-0118) by Toll I D I LLC, L ocated near the inter section of W. G ondola D r. and N. B lack C at Rd. - Approved 1. R equest: Rezone of 7.39 ac res of land in the R -15 zoning district to the R -4 zoning district; and, 2. R equest: P reliminary P lat consisting of eighteen single f amily residential lots on approximately 7.29 acres in a proposed R - 4 zoning district 8. F uture M eeting Topics Meeting Adjourned at 9:27 pm Meridian City Council July 16, 2019. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 16, 2019, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Ty Palmer, Anne Little Roberts and Treg Bernt. Member Absent: Genesis Milam. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Kyle Radek, Berle Stokes, Mark Niemeyer and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X__ Anne Little Roberts X _ _Joe Borton X__ Ty Palmer X__ Treg Bernt __X___Genesis Milam __X___Lucas Cavener __X__ Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Welcome to our City Council meeting. We appreciate you joining us. For the record is Tuesday, July 16th. It's two minutes past 6:00. We will start with roll call attendance, Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our 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 Michael Pearson of Seventh Day Adventist Church De Weerd: Item 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Michael Pearson with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Pastor Pearson, thank you for joining us. Pearson: Thank you for the invitation. Lord God, we want to thank you for the Mayor, the City Council, and administrators, first responders, and all employees -- for those here tonight and we pause for a moment to ask for you r blessing on the proceedings and on each person mentioned, that we might seek what is best and right, that we will make decisions that will be of the best for the city. We ask this in the one who is the first and the last, the beginning and the end, amen. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 122 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 2 of 62 Item 4: Adoption of Agenda De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 4 is adoption of the agenda. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: There were no changes to the published agenda, so I move that we adopt it. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Announcements De Weerd: Item 5 under announcements. Council, we have a car seat inspection on Thursday, the 18th, from noon to 3:00 at City Hall. They do require to schedule appointments and you can call the fire admin office. City 101. Last week was the first one that we covered Parks and Police and we had around 45 in attendance. This week on Thursday, the 17th, from 5:30 to 8:00 we will have the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. So, we would love you to join us here at City Hall. Kleiner Park Family Fun on Saturday, the 20th, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00, and just want to make sure -- I know you have started to get some e-mails about National Night Out and so make sure you have that on your calendar and I believe Chris will have a brief meeting for consent agenda business; right? Johnson: That is correct. De Weerd: Okay. And we do have some upcoming City Council joint meetings on August 13th at 3:00 pm with Ada County Highway District. If Council Members have agenda topics you would like considered, if you can get that to our Council President, we can discuss that at our agenda setting meeting. Same with the joint meeting with West Ada School District on August 21st at 6:00 p.m., as well Ada county commissioners on September 17th at 3:30. So, I -- I have some topics that we kind of talked about today, but we are interested in what is on your mind. Okay? Anything further for announcements? Hearing none -- Item 6: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) De Weerd: Item 6. Mr. Clerk, any sign-ups? Johnson: Madam Mayor, there are no sign-ups. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 123 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 3 of 62 Item 7: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Community Development Block Grant CDBG ) Program Year 2019 Draft Action Plan De Weerd: Okay. Seven under Action Items. We do have under Item A, our public hearing for our CDBG program and I will turn this over to Crystal. Campbell: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I just want to give a brief overview of the presentation from June 4th to remind everybody what was in the action plan. The actual plan is guided by the consolidated plan -- or, I'm sorry, the CDBG program is guided by the consolidated plan, which is a five year plan where we go out into the community and we use citizen participation to assess the community and see what they really want to have happen over the next five years. The current plan runs from 2017 to 2021 and the goals identified were improving accessibility, enhancing homeownership opportunities, providing social services, stabilizing the rental gap and, then, administration and fair housing. The action plan is -- there is one for each year of the consolidated plan that tells the community how we are going to meet those goals throughout the year. This is the third year coming up for the current consolidated plan and it will start October 1st, 2019, and run through September 30th, 2020. The public comment period started on May 31 and will end tonight after the public hearing. At the end of the year, then, there is also a CAPER, which is the final report that reports on all of the accomplishments and it's due in December. So, these are the activities associated with the goals that we identified. To improve accessibility we plan to do the East Third Street right of way improvements, as well as streetlight improvements near Meridian Middle and Meridian High School. For home ownership opportunities, then, we were going to fund the Home Ownership Assistance Program. For social services, then, we had identified homelessness prevention , youth extended care scholarships, SORE care coordination and behavioral health crisis stabilization. And , then, of course, administration of fair housing. So, we did have one major change and, then, some -- one public comment that we wanted to update you with. Unfortunately, we will not be able to fund the Pathways Community Crisis Center this year. They are -- Pathways is a for profit organization and to receive the CDBG public service funds, then, they have to be a nonprofit. So, in the past when they have needed to qualify for a service -- or for grants like this, then, they have used RC&D to qualify as the nonprofit and, then, they are the fiscal agent, but CDBG require -- would require them to be more like the full-on sub recipient and treat Pathways as a contractor, which would mean they would have to go monitor them and everything else and they are just not set up to do that. So, we had to find a new way to reallocate the 13 ,500 that was originally allocated toward them. After speaking with the scoring committee, then, we decided to look at the top two ranked projects that did not receive their full funding, which would be the Ada County Housing Authority, which is the Home Ownership Assistance Program. So, we are going to increase that funding from 30,000 to 40,000, which will allow them to help one additional household and, then, the Jesse Tree of Idaho is homelessness prevention and we are increasing the funding from there from 21,000 to 24,500, which will allow them to help another five households. The final update is on public comment. Councilman Borton had Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 124 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 4 of 62 asked a really good question about the default rates for our Home Ownership Assistance Program. So, when I was trying to compare what type of loans that we more than likely are providing, it was kind of hard to find the information, but the best that I could come up with, then, FHA loans nationally there is a 3.7 serious delinquency rate and that was in 2018, which was like an all-time low for -- well, not all time. Since 2011 all-time low and where ours, then, there were no defaults from the beginning of the program , which was in 2008. The first time we did it we have funded 35 households and nobody has defaulted. So, I think ACHA and Neighbor Works Boise have done a really good job of screening people and making sure they are getting the education that they need to be able to continue with the loans. So, those were the only updates that I had to the previously presented plan. So, again, tonight, then, it's the public hearing and the end of the public comment period. Next week I will make any changes to the action plan and submit that to you again, along with the resolution, so that you can approve that and I could submit the action plan to HUD by the end of the month. So, with that I will stand for comments. De Weerd: Thank you, Crystal. Council, any questions? Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Crystal, awesome job. Great job. Campbell: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. If there is nothing further, this is a public hearing, is there anyone signed up to testify, Mr. Clerk? Johnson: Madam Mayor, there was one sign in and it looks like they are actually here for another project and they did not indicate they wished to testify. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here who wishes to provide testimony on the item? Okay. Thank you. Council, this will be on next week's agenda for -- with a resolution and if there is no -- nothing further, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we close the public hearing on Item 7-A, the CDBG 2019 draft action plan. Cavener: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 125 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 5 of 62 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. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: And we will see this next week. Crystal, you have done a phenomenal job. I have appreciated the passion that you have put into it, but also going out and seeking further knowledge about the program and what some of the possibilities have been that we could be doing to improve our community outreach. So, thank you for that. Campbell: Thank you. B. Final Plat Continued from July 9, 2019 for Cherry Blossom H-2019-0064) by Doug Jayo, Jayo Land Development Company, LLC., Located at 615 W. Cherry Ln. De Weerd: Okay. Item B is a final plat continued from July 9th. This does request continuance to August 13th and maybe I will ask Bill if he can give us the reasons why. Parsons: Happy to, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. So, yeah, this is second or third continuance, I believe, for this particular final plat and the issue really stems around some irrigation easements that run along the south boundary of the projec t. This was a topic of discussion when it was in front of this body and Planning and Zoning Commission and so the applicant's elected to continue to work on those issues, but in order to do that they need to ask for the continuance, submit a revised plan, remove those -- basically remove the lots along that south boundary from their first phase of development as they continue to work with the adjacent neighbors and staff on a resolution to those issues, but we hope to have some updated plans to bring forward a staff report that is consistent with that preliminary plat that was approved last year. So, really, it's just -- there is some issues -- technical issues that have to be worked out. We can't seem to get there, so the easiest thing to do was just remove those lots from the boundary, submit a revised plat, write a staff report consistent with the preliminary plat and move forward and that's what the applicant has requested. That's why they are requesting the continuance. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any comments? Okay. Concerns? Do I have a motion to continue? Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I move that we continue H-2019-0064 to what date? August 13th, 2019. Little Roberts: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 126 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 6 of 62 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item B to August 13th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Final Plat for Firenze Plaza Subdivision ( H-2019-0067) by The Land Group, Inc., Located on the NW corner of S . Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd. De Weerd: Item C is -- received some comments by e-mail. Is there anyone here for this item? It is not a public hearing. Typically these are on our Consent Agenda, but the applicant did not get us comments before the publish date of our Consent Agenda, so it landed in the Action Items. Council, I see that the applicant is an agreement with the staff report and there is nothing further on this item. Did you have any questions? Bernt: No questions. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we approve Item 7-C, H-2018-0067, consistent with the conditions in the staff report. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve H-2019-0067. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; 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 our public hearing section of our agenda. If there is anyone new here this evening, our process for public hearings is to first hear from staff , who will present the application and any staff concerns. Then we will hear from the developer or applicant. They have 15 minutes to present their application to the City Council. After that we do open it up for public hearing and public comments. There is a three minute time limit and there is a timer on the screen at the podium that will help you track your time. I will interrupt you when the timer goes off and ask you to summarize if you haven't done so already. After public testimony the applicant has an opportunity to summarize Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 127 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 7 of 62 and answer any questions that came up during the testimony and Council will have an opportunity at that point to ask staff, applicant, or any of those that testified questions. There is a public record on each of these that Council has had an opportunity to review before coming to the hearing tonight and that's all considered in addition to what we hear this evening to render their decision. D. Public Hearing for Rackham Subdivision (H-2018-0126) by BVA Development, Located at 1020 S . Eagle Rd. 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district De Weerd: So, with that I will open this public hearing on Item 7-D for H-2018-0126 with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. First action item on the agenda this evening is the Rackham Sub -- or land use application is the Rackham Subdivision. It's a preliminary plat. The site consists of 51.59 acres of land and is currently zoned C-G in the city limits. This property was annexed in 1995 with a vision of a -- basically a mall on the site. The applicant was before you approximately six months ago, went through that DA modification process and tied a concept plan to this particular property and that's not changing as part of this application at this point. I would also mention to Council that the applicant is proposing -- has submitted a DA modification that will before you -- be before you in August to change some of the terms of that agreement. But, again, as part of the preliminary plat all they are doing is creating lots to sell off or create additional building pads or -- consistent with their concept plan that was approved with that DA. The applicant is proposing to develop this project in three phases. As you can see here in the phasing plan there is a phase one, a 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E and a three. Again, that's subject to change. As -- as you know sometimes applicants always have the best of intentions to develop their plans consistent with the concept plan, but as I just mentioned to you, things are changing quickly out there and so it's paramount that they get this approved, so they can adjust according to what's occurring on this particular property. When we were -- when we were before the Planning and Zoning Commission we had not yet received ACHD's comments on this particular application. I am happy to report that ACHD did provide us a draft staff report and that is included as part of your -- your record. I have had a chance to review that document. Again nothing glaring as far as any improvements. The applicant will be required to extend North Silverstone Way into the site and construct a mini roundabout and , then, have a cross-access with the adjacent property to the south and tie into Rackham Lane, which is currently stubbed to this property. So, again, consistent with the concept plan and the DA and consistent with their traffic study that ACHD reviewed and approved. As far as landscape improvements for the development, the applicant's only required to construct the landscape buffers along the extension of the collector road, which is that mini roundabout and there is a requirement for a 50 foot wide landscape buffer along ITD right of way or Interstate I-84. Staff did receive comments from ITD on this particular application. Some of the things they were asking for were all site improvements to some of the way the interchange Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 128 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 8 of 62 functions. Because this is just the plat and we have already annexed and zoned, we have limited purview as to what we can require as part of that process , but as I mentioned to Council, we do have a development agreement that's coming before you -- a modification. That would be the appropriate time to talk about some of those mitigations. I know the applicant is also in contact with ITD and having some conversations with them as well. So, hopefully, we can vet those out a little bit more as we go through that DA process. But it's important to note that this -- there are some impacts to the transportation system out there. So, the Commission did recommend approval of this particular project. Jeff Wardle spoke in favor and, then, as far as any key items of discussion or changes to the staff report or outstanding issues, there aren't any for you this evening. It's a fairly clean application. So, with that I will conclude my presentation and let you know that we are -- both the Commission and staff are recommending approval. De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions? Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Wardle: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, Jeff Wardle. My address is 251 East Front in Boise here on behalf of the applicant tonight. We are in agreement with what Bill outlined for you and I'm going to just give you a brief update on where we were , where we are, and why we will be back in front of you shortly. The project is not changing. As we have gone through the design and development process it's become apparent that there are certain phasing considerations that based upon infrastructure and when we are going to extend infrastructure, it makes sense to do at different times. So, as Bill indicated and as we talked about previously, the development agreement came in for a mixed use commercial project based upon the 1995 zoning and annexation . That was originally contemplating a large retail center with over 700,000 square feet of retail. That included the Eagle Commons property, which is the -- the Norco property and the related developments being brought forward by Jim Kissler to the south. The site plan has not changed. The type of improvements that we are talking about has not changed. What we have done as we have gone forward with the preliminary plat is identifying the fact that as we deal with certain elements that phasing as we initially contemplated probably isn't consistent with what we actually need to build and proceed. As we presented to you and as -- as you may know, we are in for a building permit on this building right here , which is ICCU's main building. In this -- the first two phases we are contemplating three office buildings with a mixture of retail, hospitality, entertainment here and the possibility of medical office down here. We will be back with respect to phase three , which is the future development of that southeast -- the southeast quadrant. As indicated the preliminary plat proposes 20 block -- 20 lots on one block with private access drives. We have -- are working on an agreement with Kissler to the south to address the concerns raised by ACHD and the city to ensure that we have connectivity to the public between the public roads that are Silverstone to the east and Rackham Way to the west. That will be accomplished with a private access drive and an easement between these two properties. Additionally we have addressed fire concern with the acquisition of property over here to permit an emergency access out to Rolling Hills, as well as emergency access through the eastern portion here. The preliminary plat that's before you we believe is fully compliant with the development agreement and the other requirements of your Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 129 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 9 of 62 code. As indicated, these parcels to the east in the southeast quadrant are being platted at this time, but we will have to come back to you with a development plan for those at that point in time. Now, the phasing plan that you previously approved in the development agreement as outlined by Bill, we have submitted. We will be making an amendment and I'm going to show you why. This is the development plan that was originally contemplated. Because of infrastructure we had contemplated doing this in four phases. Realistically as we start with phase one, the ICCU building, these other elements internally, we are going to have to address access, we are going to have to address utilities, extension of water and sewer and so that, then, leads to the phasing and the sequencing of certain commercial improvements and so in the staff report there was discussion as well about water and how we were going to address water and so Horrocks has been working with your Public Works Department. If we end up doing all of the infrastructure in the first two phases, we believe that that adequately addresses the loo ping of the water, because if we do it in the first two phases we will go ahead and loop out to the water facility that's adjacent to the interstate. If we end up not doing this extension initially, then, we will just loop it through this portion as part of phase two. So , we think that that issue has been addressed. We believe that we have also addressed the issues with respect to emergency access with the Fire Department and ITD and ACHD's requirements are what were expected. Now, the phasing that we talked about is just ICCU was phase one. The other commercial elements of phase two we just need some flexibility as -- for staging, timing, and where we go forward. But that becomes important, because you will see that between this plan none of the buildings change and the plan that you will see in a month or so just incorporates this phasing plan with these structures. So , we are in agreement with the conditions of approval. We recognize that there is still, obviously, design work to do, because this is just a preliminary plat, but the preliminary plat complies with the provisions of the Meridian Unified Development Code and we stand for any questions that you may have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this time? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Wardle, thanks for being here. Can you jump back to that slide that shows the water? Wardle: Sure. Cavener: I guess there was a concern that was raised from the staff. I appreciate you addressing it. I don't know if this slide was able to be shared with staff before the meeting. Wardle: I -- well, I believe that -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 130 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 10 of 62 Radek: Councilman Cavener, Madam Mayor, yeah, I have been talking to their -- their engineer Rob Sunderlage at Horrocks and we were going over exactly what this exhibit should show and say and I'm satisfied with it. Cavener: Madam Mayor, an additional question. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Cavener: Mr. Wardle, I don't -- quite frankly, I don't have any issues with your preliminary plat at all. I think it's fine. My question for you is there is some comments again in the staff report about the ability for our Fire Department to be able to serve this development with a ladder truck and there being some potential delays and I guess from the applicant's perspective is that a concern of yours and I guess -- I'm trying to figure out the best way that we can come to some type of conclusion to get that -- that piece addressed. Wardle: Madam Mayor, Council Member Cavener, I, obviously, have to defer to your Fire Department. Obviously, this is not the first six story building that we have built within a mile of this site. We are comfortable with the sequencing of things. We are comfortable with the service times that they indicate, as well as the contribution that the significant impact fees will add to this that we will be able to address all that and, obviously, it's all going to be built to code and sprinklered, so -- Cavener: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. De Weerd: Chief, anything you want to add? Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, Council, Councilman Cavener, thanks for the question. As you know that we put that in our -- in our staff report. This is kind of a mid-rise building, that six story. When we get into seven and above we are looking at high rise. We always put that in our staff report. As we continue to build vertically throughout our city -- right now we have one ladder truck to cover 56 square miles. So , we want to make sure that there is just an awareness on all of our parts that at some point probably in our city a second ladder truck is going to be needed based on the call volume and the growth vertically. Cavener: And Madam Mayor? I was trying to do some of the quick math, the square footage with new impact fees, kind of what that would generate. So, we would have an idea, but I think it's important for -- for Council to note as these great developments come in and bring a bunch of commercial with them, as they go vertically it is going to increase our need for additional ladder trucks, which development like this through impact fees pay for, we just need to make sure that's on our radar. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 131 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 11 of 62 Palmer: Did something change? I thought it was going to be a five story. Wardle: No. Madam Mayor, Council Member Palmer, there are no buildings in this project that are going to be taller than five stories. Palmer: Fair. Wardle: Okay. De Weerd: And certainly as the applications come into our Planning Department and the pre app, with all of our departments around the table, these are the discussions they have and certainly is a discussion that Council is -- is considering as you consider the annexation and the entitlements for these developments. So , anything further? Thank you -- Wardle: Thank you. De Weerd: -- Mr. Wardle. Okay. This is our public testimony section. Mr. Clerk, do we have sign-ups? Johnson: Madam Mayor, there are no sign-ups. De Weerd: Is there anyone who wishes to provide testimony that's in our audience tonight? You filled the room just for this awesome project. Nope. Okay. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Nobody interested in testifying, I move that we close the public hearing on Item 7-D, H-2018-0126. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7 -D. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Move we approve Item 7-D, H-2018-0126 as presented and include all staff and applicant testimony. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 132 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 12 of 62 Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-D. Any discussion from Council? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing Continued from June 25, 2019 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: Item 7-E is a continued public hearing on H-2019-0006. I will note that this public hearing was continued on three items. One is a revised plat that I understand has been received. Two was a plan on the -- something lateral. What was the lateral? Karnes Lateral. And the third one was to talk about the safety improvements on Dunwoody. So, I will turn this over to staff at this point. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I apologize. If I could just briefly interrupt. On June 25th I wasn't here, but following that meeting I was able to review all the materials, review the P&Z minutes and also watch the complete video of that -- of that hearing. So, I am fully up to speed on what's transpired. Had a chance to go through all the materials. So, I feel comfortable participating in today's hearing as well. De Weerd: Thank you. We appreciate that, Mr. Borton. And so the conversation tonight for this continued public hearing are on those three items. We have a lengthy -- or good public record up to this point, as Mr. Borton just talked about. So, Mr. Parsons. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I think you did a great job, Mayor, kind of laying the framework for what we are discussing this evening. So, staff did prepare a memo. We did receive those -- those updates yesterday afternoon and with those came a memo that kind of summarized the items that were received, along with Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 133 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 13 of 62 some of the written information that the applicant provided to you as far as how those deliberations went with the neighbors and what steps they took in order to add ress those three items. So, I would mention to you that this was the plat that was before the City Council on the 25th. As you recall there were some changes from the Planning and Zoning Commission on a revised plat that did not take -- did not happen between that month timeframe and so this body was -- picked up on that and asked that they make those changes. Now, I will mention to you that in my memo I errored a little bit. I went back and looked at the submitted plans today and I would let you know that the hearing outline that I prepared for you this evening does -- and the plans that the applicant showed did show a common lot and the sidewalks along Guinness Street as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and I do have that in the slide here. But I also left off some of the things that they required. So , if I can go through -- it looks like my slideshow is gone. So, essentially -- let's see if I have the right slides here for you. Essentially the applicant did provide -- did extend the road to align with Shandee and, then, they also extended the common lot along the south boundary of West Guinness Street. Included the sidewalks. So, staff has received that. That is also included as part of the record. The other issue was the safety concerns raised on Dunwoody Court and if you recall the -- the applicant was to go back and work with the neighbors and see if they could come up with a plan and I remember Councilman Bernt specifically said we have a lot of smart people in the room and come back with a solution . So, looking through the record and meeting with the applicant and the Deans, it sounds like the residents' terms weren't met. The residents want a complete street. They want Dunwoody Court built to a complete street standard, which means curb, gutter, sidewalk on both sides of the road. As we mentioned to you at the last meeting, there is the right of way to do that, but in order to facilitate that that requires drainage, that requires almost a rebuild of the road to do that, which is a significant cost. In receiving the e-mail from ACHD it appears that their standards for this particular road meets the amount of traffic that would be on this road -- meets their warrants. So, there is not traffic that would require those types of improvements. But there are standards that they can do to improve the safety on the roadway. ACHD -- Christy Little, in particular, sent an e-mail, which was included as part of your packet, that explained that the applicant could stripe four foot walkways on either side of the road and, then, stripe the travel lanes, so you would have, essentially, a striped pathway on each side of the road or the applicant has the option of doing all of it o n one side of the road or an eight foot pathway and still stripe the travel lanes and, then, put no parking signs along both sides of the street. So, there shouldn't be any parking on this particular roadway. And, the -- the applicant has also gone a step further and also asked to install street -- a few streetlights to improve some visibility in the area, one being at the intersection, one around the corner and, then, one at the entrance as you exit out of this subdivision into Dunwoody Court. So, they are putting lights in the appropriate places as far as staff is concerned. So, again, as far as a safety concern, that was something that was very important to this body. Again, I realize that the neighbors and the applicant may not have come to terms, but according to ACHD standards if these things are met they are meeting their policies. And the last item was the improvements related to the Karnes. As we talked about at the last meeting staff was concerned that a portion of those -- of that waterway would be an easement versus a common lot and I can -- if you can follow my cursor here, so originally as the Karnes Lateral is piped and within the existing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 134 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 14 of 62 Dunwoody Subdivision along this boundary here, which is Lot 19, Block 1, and, then, it terminates -- there is a gate here and, then, it becomes an open ditch that runs through the property. In discussions with the applicant they are going to -- from where that headgate is they are going to pipe along the south side of this private street here and, then, terminate at the west -- the east boundary of this property and, then, head south across the lots -- or, excuse me, four of the lots and, then, tie into where it's piped within the Bristol Heights Subdivision. So, some of this waterway is already piped. The applicant's going to pipe the remainder that falls within the boundary of their project. They have met with the Karnes Lateral to discuss those improvements. And I would mention to Council that it's -- at this time it's not realistic for the applicant to get plan approval at the preliminary plat stage. Typically as you go through the final plats the applicant has to provide their irrigation plans. Those get sent to the irrigation -- the lateral association. They approve the plans and, then, as they come in for their signature on the pla t the applicant has to provide a written letter from the irrigation district that they have prepared -- built the plans as proposed -- as proposed and approved by the lateral association. So, those negotiations -- those talks have happened. Now, I did receive an e-mail and you did, too, for Mr. Mark Miller. He was concerned that he wouldn't have access to his water and any improvements to that waterway may impede the use of his irrigation system and so I informed him and I sent him these plans and had him look them over and he wants to make it clear that anything that happens that the applicant enters into a license agreement with him, because the lateral will impact his property, which is right in this location here. There will be a 15 foot easement and that's where some of those improvements will occur. So, they are going to have to work with that private property owner and make sure whatever improvements they do to that irrigation facility that he can hook into it and his current system will remain and work as it currently works today. So , I told him that I would share that with you and, hopefully, you have had a chance to see his written testimony. So, those are the three items that -- that we -- that were opened up for discussion. I would let the Council know that we did receive additional written testimony on this particular application and that's included as part of the public record as well. So, we had nine residents, again, speaking to these three items. So, with that, again, everything's been addressed per staff's purview. We are comfortable with it, but I will just stand for questions and open it up for public testimony. De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff at this point? Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Clark: You bet. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. Representing the applicant. De Weerd: Thank you. Clark: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's good to be back and we have, I believe, addressed the items that as -- as Bill has mentioned. Appreciate his summary. I thought it might be helpful just to kind of make sure we are still on the same page, to give just a brief summary of how we got here, how we got to the three items that needed to be addressed and, then, ultimately, what we think are the items that Council should be Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 135 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 15 of 62 looking at and considering in terms of a motion. So, again, a small in-fill development, unique with all of the stub connections that we have talked about in the past. Forty-four homes. About half the density that could be allowed per the current comp plan designation. Again, part of the Dunwoody Subdivision, the CC&Rs, provide notice that this would take access off of Dunwoody Court. As we went through the process there was the discussion about cut-through traffic, which is why we ended up with the gated proposal. Again, the larger block does not include a collector roadway network. Everyone who's going to be accessing these local roads are going to be using them in order to get out to the arterials. There is not amenities that are accessible from the internal block itself. That was why ACHD and P&Z recommended no connection, again, as to Stafford and that was kind of the initial issue that had to be resolved through this process. So , again, as Bill mentioned, there were the three items that were brought up for follow up at this meeting. Start with Karnes. I think Bill's description is accurate. We have been back to them with -- and they have approved the current plans. That conversation has been ongoing for months. They reviewed a preliminary set of plans and approved it back in February. They have indicated that we could represent to you that that -- those plans are approved. It's my understanding that a Karnes board representative should be here tonight to confirm that. With regard to Mr. Miller's property, there will be no interference. We will not be on his property and -- other than to provide a connection to the point where he currently takes irrigation. So, we will be within the Karnes Lateral easement, but we will provide a connection point, so we will not interfere with his water. As Bill mentioned, it's typical of all plats that those plans would be finalized with construction plans in connection with the final plat. That will be done in the normal course as -- as is -- as is standard and that -- we are more than happy to see that as a condition of the final approval, because that's standard operating procedure. With regard to the plats, again, those have been submitted. The preliminary plat does, as Bill mentioned, include the buffer. I pointed that out here, because I thought that he maybe missed it, but he caught it on this round. So, that is there. The north-south connection to Shandee, if Council recalls, that was an item that was up for discussion and that's something that we would like to continue as part of the conversation tonight in connection with your ultimate motion. The revised pre-plat, as Bill mentioned, this is where the -- the buffer lot is located that staff had requested and, then, the site plan illustrates how that north-south connection would work. Again, that's something we are asking the Council to revisit for a number of reasons, including the fact that we believe that it will not be heavily used. We believe that it's not warranted, that folks will likely go out through the Dunwoody Subdivision. And, then, in addition to that I just wanted to point out that there had been a number of conversations about whether we had pushed back the eastern gate as had been recommended by P&Z and you can see the -- where it is located now is this bulb out area here at the mouth of the -- of the subdivision. Again, with that north-south connection -- and this is just a reminder of where we were . There is no block length issue to require the north-south connection. Just as a reminder the emergency connections will be at Shandee and Chinden and there will also be that pathway that will support an emergency connection and, again, our traffic engineer's opinion is that only five percent of this site traffic will actually use it, if it is ever required. Okay. So, now to the -- to the Dunwoody question and the safety and I want to talk about something that seemed to be an assumption on the part of several, which was at -- at the last hearing, which is that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 136 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 16 of 62 Dunwoody Court is inherently unsafe. It is not inherently unsafe. It meets current ACHD standards and I wanted to walk you through that to make sure that everyone was clear on that. So, this table is from the ACHD policy manual, Section 7600. This shows the local street requirements for the various types of local streets that are permitted within ACHD's jurisdiction. This project or the Dunwoody Court is what is -- what ACHD refers to as a standard rural street section. The width per ACHD standards is 30 feet with an eight foot drainage swale. That -- the 30 foot surface is exactly what is at Dunwoody Court. Now I want to point you to the sidewalk requirements for ACHD for a standard rural section. The standard is that there would not be a sidewalk. The standard is that there would be four feet of pavement on each side striped for nonmotorized travel. So , let's -- I just want to be clear about this. Dunwoody Court is not an aberration. Dunwoody Court satisfies current ACHD standards 30 years after it was built and that is why when ACHD reviewed this, again, they said there are no improvements required on Dunwoody Court. So, Bill described the communication that ACHD had provided. Again, it meets ACHD standards, but one thing -- and, Council Member Bernt, I appreciated your suggestion at the last hearing of looking at things like an extruded curb. Unfortunately, that's not something that ACHD will allow on a local street. They did, as Bill mentioned, reiterated that striping would be the -- the treatment that they would allow and they clarified that they would allow either two four foot paths on either side or what we think would probably be more appropriate would be an eight foot path on the -- on the south side. So, that kind of sets you up, so you have a little bit of context for what occurred in the meeting with the Dunwoody residents. At this point I would ask Mr. Conger to come in and describe how that went and kind of provide some insight for the Council, as I was, unfortunately, not able to attend. So, I will turn it over to Mr. Conger and, then, I will wrap up. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor, can I ask Hethe one quick question? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Clark: You bet. Borton: To the earlier comment on -- sorry to cut you off, Jim. On the sidewalks, if this application had come into the city along with Dunwoody Court as one project what sidewalks would be required on Dunwoody? Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, the -- the -- the -- the warrant for the different types of street sections is actually based on the size of the lots and so based on this -- on the -- the chart that I showed a few minutes ago, these lots are large enough that it could have qualified under the rural street section. Now, rural street sections aren't typically recommended in this type of an area, but it would have met the size requirements there. Beyond that I wouldn't be able to hypothesize as to what ACHD would require. Borton: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 137 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 17 of 62 De Weerd: And if Justin is here from ACHD we can ask that question when it comes up. Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Jim Conger at 4824 West Fairview Avenue. I will run through real quick the -- the -- as Hethe indicated, the Dunwoody -- I call it the Dunwoody Court safety collaboration, which -- the meeting that was held. We believe that was the direction of City Council was to meet with the owners along Dunwoody Court and collaborate with all parties that lived in -- in -- along Dunwoody Court to discuss potential mitigation of the pedestrian safety as the only end goal for that -- for those discussions. Prior to the neighborhood meeting , though, however, I did schedule meetings and other discussions with ACHD, because we needed to understand whatever mitigations that would come up with -- for Dunwoody Court would, obviously, have to be approved by ACHD. At that point we were actually pushing for the raised curb and that's where it came -- came very quickly and they have -- have a fairly new policy, actually, against raised curbs in local streets is, obviously, if we step back and think about it you wouldn't be able to sweep or clean up debris or do anything behind that raised curb. ACHD took that opportunity, however, because of my request for the meeting and everything, to go back and review the original Dunwoody approvals, which is where we all got the education of the rural street section and how it was then and how it is actually basically the same today. But what came out of that approval is -- is -- is a lot of things that -- a lot of things appear to be missing. So, the Dunwoody Court originally had an approval for -- it was to be no parking signs on both sides and the parking , obviously, restricted full length of the roadway. The existing roadway, which the Deans do remember, originally had striped, so the way the policy is is you can do a four foot striped pedestrian path as Hethe just showed you a second ago. ACHD does have it unwritten, but -- but it is allowable to do a more meaningful -- you can do an eight foot striped pathway on one side, which in this case the south side actually doesn't have conflicts with driveways and their community park and actual -- their tennis court is on that south side, which might make more sense than two four footers. ACHD also documented -- there was no room for sidewalks in that 50 foot right of way, as you could see with the -- that eight foot drainage swale on each side is in the policy is a pre -calculated hydraulic engineering function that -- that requires those swales to be there. Those swales are for the Dunwoody Street drainage and they also get used by the homeowners and we were actually told by several of the homeowners they still flood irrigate and those swales could not disappear. That kind of buttons up the ACHD portion prior to our collaboration meeting, which was held with the HOA. Again, topic of Dunwoody Court safety. So, moving into that, the group -- you know, our groups met with their groups. They indicated -- Mr. Tippets, who I'm sure will speak today, definitely a professional, would be the spokesman for the HOA. Myself, along with Mr. and Mrs. Dean, had -- were available to speak on behalf of the development. So, we weren't -- weren't restricted on making decisions. I opened it up kind of starting the foundation with kind of going through the recent findings with ACHD and the Dunwoody Court's missing improvements that -- that maybe that's a portion of the issue they are seeing today, as well as discussing additional safety items, like streetlights and a few other items that we will get into. At that point the HOA appointed spokesman identified that the Dunwoody homeowners held a previous meeting and -- and approved a prepared statement for us that -- and I'm going to paraphrase it. The Dunwoody homeowners would not accept anything less than a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 138 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 18 of 62 complete new roadway to include curbs, gutters, sidewalks and storm drainage and the homeowners would not provide any talent, material, or funds regarding any of the safety mitigation. So, that was our collaboration meeting and just to touch base why we call that a complete road rebuild, anytime a roadway is built with drain swales it never had engineering slopes to it. So, when you have drain swales you -- you actually run roads as flat as possible, because you want the crown of the road to take the water into that swale. You don't slope them a bunch or your swale ends up with all the water at one end . You actually want this -- the water in the swales, you know, periodically throughout the roadway. So, if you were to go rebuild this roadway it would be a complete road rebuild , asphalt, everything. It would not be just slapping curbs up to the existing asphalt. I -- after that statement I continued to explain our thoughts to provide the following safety items: Three streetlights -- three streetlights on Dunwoody. Provide and install all the missing no parking signs along both sides of Dunwoody Court. Install approved striping and I believe to create an eight foot walking path, which is a more sizable pathway on the side -- on the south side of the Dunwoody Court. At this point the Dunwoody HOA spokesman reiterated that they had an HOA approved motion that would not accept anything less than a full road rebuild of the Dunwoody Court. That was kind of the final statement and that meeting definitely came to an end for our collaboration. So , we came back to our group. So, relistened to the City Council hearing that -- that took us on our journey. We went back to ACHD's position and -- and all their letters that ultimately got in your file and we are offering the following improvements: Three stripe -- three streetlights on Dunwoody as we originally promised the neighbors. Provide and install all the no parking -- and, again, we are approximately 2,200 foot of road, which a mile is 5,280 feet. So, a little under a half a mile of -- that -- that's a lot of no parking signs on both sides of Dunwoody Court. Install an ACHD approved stripe to create an eight foot walking path. I think we would have some of our pedestrians walking, too, so we would love to weigh in on the two fours versus the one eight. We believe the one eight would keep the drive lane as it is and give a very buffering eight foot. So, we would lobby hard for one eight foot walking path that ACHD would approve on Dunwoody Court per the policy and within ACHD right of way we would like to go in and -- at our nickel and remove all -- any vegetation that's just in sight -- you know, causing line of sight issues. There is a few of those. There is -- there is not many, but there is actually probably a handful. These are significant improvements. They are -- they aren't small and we would place these conditions on our project to see if we will wrap up the presentation with and put those as conditions of our approval and I will turn it back over to Hethe to further clarify any -- any points that I may have confused somebody with. De Weerd: Thank you. Conger: Thank you. Clark: Thanks, Jim. Hethe Clark, 251 East Front Street, and I will finish up. Jim, I think addressed this, but one of the questions that has come up is can we just slap a sidewalk on there and be done. As Jim mentioned , there are significant engineering issues with doing that. There is also spacing issues. If you put a sidewalk in there and it's five feet wide, then, you don't have an eight foot drainage swale any longer. You don't have Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 139 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 19 of 62 something that can accommodate the -- the drainage as it was originally designed and as ACHD's policy requires at eight feet. So, to -- to wrap up on Dunwoody, there is not an ACHD policy basis for a sidewalk slash road rebuild. If there were it would be a huge financial requirement. It would not have a rational nexus or rough proportionality to the impacts of this project. A 44 lot subdivision doesn't generate this need and does not justify this expense. Trip counts, even at full build out, will be very low at about 14 percent of capacity. You would have to quadruple the homes, you would have to come in with a comprehensive plan amendment to allow for greater density in order to approach anything that would justify that type of expense. De Weerd: You need to -- you need to summarize. Clark: Madam Mayor, I know you had raised some questions about Kingsbridge last time. I will just offer that we believe that those are not similar situations. You have -- in Kingsbridge it's 76 acres and 130 lots and multiple stubs for future connections . In this case 30 acres with 44 lots and no future connections. So, in other words, twice the sidewalk for a third of the homes and future connection. De Weerd: I'm sorry, your time is up. Clark: Okay. And, Madam Mayor, I will just leave you with this: This is the summary that I had mentioned with the -- the proposed modifications to the P&Z staff report and to -- as -- to make it convenient for the Council I have these in hard copy for you and I will provide those to all of you and to the clerk. De Weerd: Give it to Mr. Clerk. Council, any questions? Okay. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I have a question for Justin if now -- De Weerd: Yes. Bernt: Okay. Cavener: Thank you. Good evening, Justin. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Lucas: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Justin Lucas. I'm here tonight representing the Ada County Highway District. Business address is 3775 Adam Street in Garden City, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 140 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 20 of 62 Bernt: Madam Mayor, Justin, thank you for joining us this evening. You squeaked in right at the most opportune time. Thank you very much. Lucas: Thank you. Glad to be here. Bernt: Speak to -- speak to us in regard to a rural street versus a local street and as is the raised curb that we spoke about that's not applicable to local streets, is it applicable to a rural street? Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bernt, ACHD has various street standards. Those standards have changed over time also and so our code has not been stagnant over time. So, when you're speaking about a rural street versus a local street , those standards do exist in our -- in our code now. They may have been different back when Dunwoody Court or street was -- was built. But, in general, a rural street is typically approved in a subdivision that has larger lots. The developer comes in and proposes a curbless cross- section, much like what is on Dunwoody Court, and for the fit and feel of the subdivision they don't propose a sidewalk. As was mentioned in -- and in Christy's letter, which I believe you have, there was a pedestrian facility designated on Dunwoody Court when it was originally approved. It's the pathway and that -- although it may seem odd, because it's different than most streets in Meridian, it's actually not atypical to have pedestrians and bicyclists operating within a street with the volumes of Dunwoody Court. Bernt: Follow up, Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bernt: So, what you're saying is that even in a rural street you would not the recommend raised -- Lucas: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Councilman Bernt, to speak specifically to the raised curb, ACHD has quite a bit of experience with these ribbon curbs or these raised curbs. We have used them as interim measures on larger streets. If you have ever driven down like Five Mile, Maple Grove -- there is some segments throughout the county. Typically it's used on much higher volume streets where we are putting them in as a safety measure to really clearly delineate the pedestrian space from the -- the vehicular space. They are not typical at all on local or rural streets. I can't -- off the top of my head can I say that there is not one out there? No, I don't -- I don't -- I don't think so though. I don't think there is a lot of applications where we have used that and what we found as we have installed quite a bit of this, I think with good intentions, we have found that there is quite a bit of maintenance issues associated with these -- these spaces behind the curb. Our street sweepers are unable to access that area, so these spaces will often fill up with debris and other things that, you know, are not -- you know, not desirable. Snow removal and other things like that, when we are plowing -- if, indeed, we were to plow this Dunwoody, which is not likely, unless it was a major event, but if we were plowing or doing other maintenance activities related to that, we can't get behind those curbs and so all of the snow ends up in that area and so there has been -- through all this internally ACHD Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 141 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 21 of 62 has determined that these -- these are not a desirable treatment and we are not looking to install more of them in the county, unless it's really a special circumstance where we have a clear need to do so and as we looked at this we did not determine that this was that special circumstance. De Weerd: Mr. Borton, did you have your question answered? Borton: Somewhat. I don't know if -- Madam Mayor. I will ask it to you because you're up here. If -- if the Dunwoody Court had come in with this as a singular application, what would have been the requirements for sidewalks, if any? Lucas: Yeah. That's a hypothetical question, Council -- Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton. I don't know. It really depends on what the developer would be proposing at that time. It's not typical within the City of Meridian and with current development codes and the development pattern to have a street without a sidewalk. I mean I think that's a blanket statement I could make. That being said, there are times when subdivisions come in and request not to include sidewalks for various reasons. As I have stated earlier, usually it's a rural type street. It's a fit and feel issue. In this instance, I -- it's hard to say exactly what -- what would be approved. That would go through the public hearing process. It would be discussed by ACHD. It would be discussed by the Council. Certainly that's not the situation we are in in this -- in this instance. De Weerd: That was a perfect nonanswer. Borton: Well said. I get it. De Weerd: I guess -- so, it's not hypothetical, because it's happening. You're -- you have a county sub that were -- that was built as a rural road. It's turning urban, because it is now connecting to a higher density, even though it's a low density development. So , it's hard to accept an answer like that when it's playing out in front of you. So , I think this Council, because we don't have that road authority, is struggling to find that answer as to what is -- is reasonable to expect to keep this a safe roadway for cars and pedestrians and bicycles and all modes and we can't answer that. So, we need you to answer that. Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you have the analysis before you that was performed by ACHD's technical staff. But the word safety is -- is -- is I think it's everyone's goal and the question of whether a road is safe or not or whether a pedestrian or bicyclist is safe or not, the professional and technical staff at ACHD examine each situation in context and provide a determination on what we believe is reasonable. In this instance ACHD, remember, only officially weighed in on what we are able to weigh in on in this case. ACHD is unable to require off-site improvements. It's not something that we, by statute, have the ability to do. But we did examine the situation at the request of the developer and there was quite a bit of back and forth. I think that's been discussed at length tonight. And so I guess my answer to that question is we believe that the -- as stated in Christy's letter, we believe that what was originally required on Dunwoody, if Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 142 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 22 of 62 implemented, seems to work for this situation due to the context, the densities prescribed, and the amount of proposed use that we see in this area. De Weerd: So, because you can't ask for whatever you're suggesting, if you were a city road department within the city realm, would you be asking for something different? Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think I can answer that question. ACHD is not a city road department. We work in partnership with you. We work in these situations as openly and as transparently as we can. The issue of what can be required of a development in an off-site situation is not solely an ACHD issue. That is a land use issue also. So, this isn't simply whether ACHD were -- were in existence or not. I think that's something that the city has to consider as you consider this application. De Weerd: And I probably agree with you. I guess in this situation ACHD is not that perfect model, because it leaves a gap of information, so -- okay. Any further questions for Justin? Thank you. Okay. Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, on your desktop is the sign-in dashboard. You will see that 18 people have signed in. Six indicate they wish to testify. And first is Candice McHugh. De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, list your name -- give us your name and address for the record. McHugh: Yes. My name is Candice McHugh. I'm actually an attorney representing Mark Miller and he is a resident at -- in Dunwoody Court. My office is located at 380 South 4th Street in Boise, Idaho. His address is 1906 East Dunwoody. And I appreciate the -- Madam Mayor and Council, it's obvious that you're giving this a lot of thought and this is kind of a bit of a little troubling subdivision that's been proposed. But for my particular client there are two things that I believe were actually required as conditions to be met in order to go forward with the subdivision , neither of which have been actually met. First of all, Mr. Miller has not resolved the issues relative to the Karnes Lateral. I understand that Mr. Hethe said tonight that they would not be using his property, but my client does, in fact -- if you look at what has been proposed, there are some admissions that while subtle, are material. In that you will notice that there is a question as to whether or not Mr. Miller will have access to irrigation water. They say they will have a plumbing and a functional diversion for Mr. Tippets, but not for Mr. Miller and while they say they won't be using my client's property, I'm asking about actually being a condition of approval and that they, in fact, make it so it's functional for Mr. Miller on the lateral. Secondly, if you look at their proposal and the letter that's included , another recommendation -- or, actually, another condition -- it wasn't a recommendation, I believe it was a requirement, is to move the gate that is the entrance way to the proposed subdivision and they propose that that be held off or that we have the final location determined at the final -- final plat. I ask that that be made a condition of approval at the very least, so that it does not block access to the ability for my client and the other homeowners who use the Karnes Lateral, to access the regular customer easement that they have always had in order to access their back Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 143 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 23 of 62 lots. Right now if you look at what has been submitted, again, it's a subtle admission, but it is material, they are only providing access to the lateral manager, but my client, along with the other three homeowners, actually need to be -- have that easement and access as well and not just the Karnes Lateral, because we have to have the easement and access, so that we can actually irrigate our properties. Finally, the -- some minor changes to the proposed plat would actually assuage some of the issues that are here and I think one of the key things is that -- for the Council to keep in mind is those minor changes for the plat -- for example, where roads are located, where the gate is located, the impacts to the actual lateral and access to the irrigation waters , has a minor impact upon the subdivision, but a major impact to my client in particular and to the Dunwoody Court people as a whole. So, for those reasons that's what I would like to say. Mr. Miller at this point, even with the updated approve -- the updated plat, still opposes as it's currently presented without the conditions he specifically requested and want to make sure an d confirm that he did, in fact, get the e-mail to all you. De Weerd: Yes, he did. McHugh: So, that was a quick three minutes. De Weerd: Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Council? Yes, Mr. Cavener. Cavener: It goes by fast. McHugh: Yes, it does. And I can talk fast. Cavener: Your -- your client's request for access I think is an interesting point. Is access to your client meaning ability to get access, again, to his property or is he looking for -- for gate access? Is he looking to have the gate relocated, so that he doesn't have to go through it? What is your client really requesting? McHugh: Well, frankly, we would request no gate and we would request the relocation of the entrance of the subdivision, which would actually impact Dunwoody Court -- Dunwoody Court the least. But if that is not reasonable , we would like to have the gate moved back far enough to the east where the back portion of my client 's property could be accessed without having to go through the gate, so that he can access freely any water that he might need to do, as well as his back lot, which he could develop in the future or continue to use as he has with his barn and stuff. Cavener: Thank you. McHugh: You looked puzzled. Did I not answer your question quite properly? I don't have -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 144 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 24 of 62 Cavener: I'm trying to understand how he is having access to his property. McHugh: Right now? Cavener: How is he deprived of access to his property when it's his property that he's on? McHugh: Oh. Right. Okay. Good point. Thank you. The -- if you look at the proposal on the -- De Weerd: You can use the mouse, right, Chris? McHugh: I should be smarter than that. Okay. If you look to the -- where the entrance of the subdivision comes in and you will see the Miller property -- Cavener: Yeah. McHugh: -- he uses that. Right now that's a road that he uses regularly to access the back property and he has a barn and he accesses the lateral and I believe some of the other property owners also access that, because that's where you get your water. It's also the road that would normally have been accessed for the back lot for anybody -- if he were to develop that property. So, that's what he's -- that he's always been using and accessing. So, if a gate is placed in that road, which has never been there, it impacts his access and his -- his ability to use the property I guess. Cavener: But -- Chris, am I able to control the screen? I know we used to be able to do that. I don't if we are able to do it anymore. Johnson: I don't believe so. Mr. Parsons can. Cavener: I guess -- sorry, Madam Mayor. My question is where the -- the yellow says Miller property -- McHugh: Uh-huh. Cavener: -- that's his property. Mr. Miller's property; right? And he's able to be on that property. So, is it a convenience and he's just wanting to get -- wanting to drive over to this location, as opposed to walk or use a Razor on his farmland? I mean is that really the crux of what we are getting to? McHugh: Oh, thank -- I see. Thank you. Okay. So, if you look at the Miller property, his -- the back line of his property abuts the subdivision -- the proposed subdivision right here and he has a barn that's here and farm equipment -- has always used this access to farm the property that's currently, you know, not developed, as well as Mr. Miller's back lot and without the ability to use this and access, he will no longer be able to get any kind of equipment back to his back lot. He won't be able to get it -- if the -- if the gate is not Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 145 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 25 of 62 placed far back and -- back far enough he won't be able to continue to use it as he has in the past. Right now, you know, his property is here and, then, the next property is, you know, here and, then, the next property here. There is no roads -- there is no -- this is landscaped yards. He uses this to access his back lot. Does that answer your question? Cavener: It provides greater clarification. I still -- I really am struggling to see how -- where the gate is located it's keeping Mr. Miller from accessing his property. I -- I see it, that it may be not his preferred method. I guess I'm just struggling to see how he's limited to being able to get access to his water on his property because of a gate on somebody else's property. McHugh: Well, it's actually a gate that would impact his easement, because he has a historic use onto that property that his property's always enjoyed the benefit of. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Bernt: Madam Mayor, could I ask just a quick question? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bernt: Ms. McHugh, how would -- how would Mr. Miller's neighbor's access their -- their -- you know, the back lots behind their -- their living -- the lot where they -- where their current residence is? McHugh: I don't represent the other three homeowners, but I have -- I did ask that question of my client and -- at the homeowners meeting and my understanding is some of them actually do use that same -- that same route to occasionally go back and access it, but their -- their lateral -- their water from the Karnes Lateral is underneath and in a ditch. I think a couple of them are actually here tonight to talk about that , but -- but they have used it in the past, is my understanding, but not frequently and all the time like my client does, because it abuts right there and his barn is right next to that particular roadway or pathway. Bernt: Thank you, Ms. McHugh. De Weerd: But it doesn't cut off total access. McHugh: Correct. He still has the ability on the -- if you drive -- I don't know if you have driven out there, but if you drive out there my client's property -- house faces east, so it faces Dunwoody Court and it's the side, so he still can get up his driveway to his house, he just isn't able to get any equipment if he needs to around the back of the house. De Weerd: And I guess Mr. Miller -- I think he and the other property owners, the three to the south of him, had just to approve through the subdivision splitting off and -- and saying that those would be separate lots; is -- is that correct? Am I remembering that correct? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 146 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 26 of 62 McHugh: Madam Mayor, you are correct. My understanding is the homeowners association has approved that and they are just now gathering signatures. But that is, in fact, true. And, for the record, those homeowners -- and I did try to read all -- listen to all the hearings and understand all the requirements, but specifically did propose to this -- to the proposed subdivision that they just move one of their streets , so that it was between their -- the back of their lots and so that those houses in the proposed subdivision faced a different way and, then, everybody would have had a street that would access all the lots without having to impact those four homeowners' ability to divide those full lots, but that was rejected. De Weerd: Yeah. Because they will have to figure out how to get a road to those four lots if they just split those off. McHugh: Correct. Which is one of the things that would be helpful is if the -- if the -- if you think about it, the City of Meridian wants to have orderly development, but what, essentially, is going to happen is those four lots would have to, then, have four different little side streets to get to the back of their lots if they are developed and that impacts, you know, what kind of emergency equipment can get back on those four little -- those four little side streets if those lots are developed. But, again, I think with just some minor modifications it could be a significant impact in a positive way for the Dunwoody Court residents and my client and a minimal impact to the subdivision. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. McHugh: Thank you. Johnson: Mayor, next is Cindy Breckel. Cindy. Breckel: Can I give my three minutes to my husband to add to his? De Weerd: No. You each get three, so -- but I think that was an awesome idea, it just doesn't work that way. Breckel: He's a lot more eloquent and nicer than I am. I get right to the point. De Weerd: Well, that's really nice of you. Breckel: Okay. Cindy Breckel. I live at 5960 North Rothmans Avenue, Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you, Cindy. Breckel: And I would like to start with something that we all agreed to when we mentioned the flag salute: And justice for all. That means Bristol Heights and Dunwoody and all the other subdivisions. Everything that I hear tonight so far is Dunwoody residents feel that they are entitled. I live in Bristol Heights. We are not asking for paved roads, sidewalks, this and that. According to what the ACHD said, they do have eight foot of safety. It can Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 147 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 27 of 62 either be eight foot on one side or four foot on each side. This shouldn't be just about pacifying them, it should be about -- I'm a little nervous. Sorry. It should be about being able to space out all of the traffic, because we are going to be hit with a lot of extra traffic, even though there is only, I don't know, 44 homes or something that are going to be built, it's still going to affect our area, Barclay. It's going to all filter in through there and I feel that we shouldn't just be limited to worrying about Dunwoody's nice yards and fancy streets and quiet drives. It's not about that. I also wanted to mention that -- let's see. That the current and future traffic status of Eagle Road and Chinden are going to require a lot of congestion and they are going to be heavily traveled. The -- by opening up the Dunwoody and not letting them have their way with their roads, it's going to be able to put the traffic through different ways, so that the people that live in the new neighborhoods will be able to access depending on where they are going to go. If they need to go out -- I'm not real familiar with all of the different roads. I haven't lived here that long. But in order for the new residents to go out to whatever roads they want to, we need to have the access. Does that make sense? De Weerd: Yes, it does. Breckel: Okay. Well, I think that's about it. I have a lot more to say, but I would rather give it to my husband to speak, but -- does anybody have any questions? De Weerd: We appreciate your testimony. Breckel: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Mayor, Mr. Jackson is next. De Weerd: Well, we are looking forward to your eloquence. Jackson: That's a tall order. De Weerd: You know, it's very -- it's very nice your wife speaks so highly of you. So, if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Jackson: Dick Jackson. 5960 North Rothmans Avenue -- De Weerd: Thank you. Jackson: -- Bristol Heights, Boise. In addressing this matter I think it's very important for everyone to recognize that they had easy access to recognizing that there was going to be some development at this location. Here was this large parcel of ground, six streets being stubbed into it, and everybody that lives around there had that opportunity to see that something was going to happen to this agricultural piece of ground at some point in time. So, none of us are exempt from assuming some responsibility for the changes that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 148 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 28 of 62 are about to occur. Well, Dunwoody residents certainly have a valid concern for -- for safety with their nonexistent walking and biking accommodation s at this time, as well as the street lighting. However, those of us who bought properties in adjoining subdivisions undertook that responsibility by purchasing properties where some of the value of that property was attributed to sidewalks, paths, biking paths and streetlights. The Dunwoody residents have that same opportunity to bear some financial responsibility and it's apparent from what has been mentioned tonight that they are reluctant to get seriously involved in bearing their responsibility. I commend Bill for his work with the highway department and making a great advancement to address those needs in a most practical way. The burden of providing access to this new residential area should not be imposed strictly upon one area, such as Barclays, Eagle Road and Chinden are at gridlock. The Meridian paper addressed this with a front page article just a couple weeks ago. Public services need more than one point of access. Emergency vehicles, if they are restricted to only one location, are going to have a difficult time responding during major parts of the morning and afternoon. Meridian has experienced a tremendous growth, commendable growth and it's no longer a bedroom community, it's a community where such as the residents that will live in this area need to have access to the southwest for employment, access to schools and retail shopping. The area needs more than one point of connectivity and preferably more than two. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you so much. We appreciate your testimony. Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Ben Tippets. De Weerd: Good evening. Tippets: Hi. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Tippets: Happy to. Benjamin Tippets. 1938 East Dunwoody Court in Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Tippets: So, Madam Mayor and City -- Members of the City Council, I'm Ben Tippets. I have been asked to represent the Dunwoody neighborhood tonight. De Weerd: Okay. So, we will give you ten minutes. Tippets: I hope to not take all of it. So, as you know in -- on June 25th at our previous meeting, there were serious safety concerns expressed by everybody involved in -- in concerned -- concerning Dunwoody Court as an ingress and egress access to Three Corners Ranch. The developer had recommended stripes on the side of roads and no parking signs. As you indicated, that was insufficient. That wasn't -- that wasn't considered to be safe. So, we were tasked by you as the City Council to meet as a neighborhood and meet -- to meet with the developer to come up with productive Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 149 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 29 of 62 deliberation I think is what you said. So, we did just that. We met as a neighborhood and we talked about all the issues from -- from the very least to the very most and what would make our Dunwoody safe. We talked to -- we talked about what would make Dunwoody safe and that would require separation of vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic. We came to what we felt was the reasonable m iddle ground and that wasn't just our thoughts that we grabbed out of the air, this is from national standards. It's from the U.S. Department of Transportation. It's the preceden ce that's been set by previous neighborhoods that have faced similar issues within the City of Meridian and as we go from a standard rural road to what functionally is an urban road , we feel that safety measures are important and what we agreed upon was we had to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic and that would require a sidewalk. So, we reached out to the developer and we had a meeting and as Mr. Conger said earlier, we -- he eloquently outlined his proposal, which was stripes along the sides of the roads. Signs. I was going to say two to four lights, but he said three lights and landscape changes. Now, of course, we felt this was an inadequate, as you have felt previously. This would effectively reduce the travel width of a road between 19 and 22 feet , which will be insufficient and it would not separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic. So, we felt it was inadequate. We presented our own plan, which included sidewalks and we were met with resistance. There was no compromise. There was nothing. There was no give and take. The developer insisted that he would -- he wanted to continue with his original plan of stripes along the side of the road, signs, lights and landscape changes. So, tonight as I come before you I regret to report that we were unsuccessful in coming up with an agreement on what it means to have a safe street for everybody involved , not just the members of Dunwoody Court, it's for all those members that will -- all those people that will access the street, including those that live in the new neighborhood. But I will say that safety is our -- of utmost concern and we will not compromise on safety. If Dunwoody Court cannot or will not be improved to make it safe , we have no choice. Another option needs to be pursued. So, inclusion -- in conclusion tonight -- I have had a lot of thoughts. The last three weeks I have missed -- I missed a lot of sleep thinking about this and I have dozens of thoughts that I would like to point out and to say to you tonight, but I'm going to spare you in sake of time. But the time has come -- the time has come to make a decision and we put our faith and our trust in you as the elected members of the City Council of Meridian to make the best decision. Now, as you deliberate tonight if you have any further questions or reasonable proposals we are open to those and I'm willing to come back and answer any further questions that you might have as you do so. Thank you. I would be happy to answer any of your questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Thank you, Mr. Tippets. Appreciate your -- your words this evening. I got a question for you. Do you feel like you -- let me back up. I was -- I was the Council Member that challenged you and the developer to get together to have productive conversation. It seems to me -- and I could be completely wrong, so, please, feel free to let me know if I'm -- if I am -- if I am off base by any means. But it seems to me that the re wasn't productive deliberation between you and the -- and the applicant. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 150 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 30 of 62 Tippets: That's probably true. And I -- Bernt: Mr. Tippets, two minutes ago you just said that there was. Sorry. Tippets: Oh. Sorry. Can you restate your question for me? Bernt: My question to you is -- this is really important, not only with this application, but past applications and with future applications. Result of deliberate conversations always happen -- mostly happen when two parties meet in the middl e and have conversation. That's politics. That's life. That's you and your wife. Tippets: Sure. Bernt: Am I off base? Tippets: No, you're not. Bernt: Okay. So, am I -- am I -- am I wrong to say that that did not take place between you and the applicant? Tippets: In our meeting -- it was cordial. We discussed several things. We felt like we came with a reasonable plan and we felt like the plan that the developer came forward with is very similar to the plan that was -- was put forth on June 25th that was felt to be inadequate. Now, we didn't ask for the sun and the moon and the stars. We don't ask to have our -- to Dunwoody Court be brought to the same level of Barclay or the Vienna Woods neighborhood or the Three Corners neighborhood. But we do feel like it is of most importance to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic. We asked the developer to come forward with a new proposal and they didn't -- they politely declined to do so. Now, I am willing to -- to compromise. I mean my -- my stand is not one hundred percent firm and you need to know that, but I will not compromise on basic safety. There -- there is a -- there is a figurative hill that we need to die on and that figurative hill is safety. Can I give you a personal example? I have children. I have a six year old. She's developmentally appropriate, but at times she's a bit of a hooligan, as all good six year olds are. I see some of you had six year olds. And sometimes she walks down the street to see her friends and I worry about her. I worry about her on our street right now, that I have to tell her you have to walk on the very side of the street and if a car comes what do you do? I worry about her now and if this development comes in and no street improvements are made, I don't know that I can let her go down the street by herself. I mean I don't send her down at midnight in a blinding snowstorm , I send her down at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. But I still worried about her. This is not an octogenarian neighborhood. We don't have -- we don't all have the perspective of a 35 year old that knows how to get out of a street in a specific situation or even on the side of the street. She has a six year old perspective, which is developmentally appropriate. There is always going to be children. There is going to be children that access this street from other places. The hill that we have to die on tonight is the hill of safety and that's been -- that has been said by many -- by the members of the Council, by the Police Department, the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 151 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 31 of 62 Fire Department, everybody involved. The hill that we have to die on is safety tonight and so that's why I put it in your hands with that faith and trust that you're going to make the right decision. Bernt: Madam Mayor, follow up, please. Mr. Tippets -- Tippets: Yes. Bernt: As a father, as a City Council Member, I think that we are in agreement. I don't think there is a person in this room that would disagree with your last statement for sure. You spoke earlier about a compromise. Are you in a position, you know, in your representation of your HOA or your subdivision to speak about a compromise? Tippets: Yes, I am. Bernt: Okay. What would that be? Tippets: A stripe down the side of the road is not safe. What prevents a driver from driving over the -- over a stripe? There is nothing. The concrete or asphalt barrier is not an option. What other options do we have? We have a sidewalk and that's what we proposed. Now, I have been authorized by our neighborhood, as a spokesman, to compromise and I'm willing to compromise. Does it have to be curb, gutter, sidewalk and a standard length street with streetlights and everything else? No, it doesn't. But it has to separate vehicular traffic from the pedestrian traffic. There has to be an improvement made to this road to make it safe. It's a standard rural road at the moment and it's going to become an urban road with the amount of traffic. I know -- I understand that we are not going to have 5,000 trips a day go down the street , but we are going to have significantly more than we have right now and it has to be safe. As I have reviewed -- as I have reviewed the federal standards, the state standards, the city standards, it requires separation of vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic. Now, I'm -- I'm open to suggestions also. My thought -- and as an expert in public health, that a sidewalk is required on this road to make it safe. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: So, a few things. You're the first that said we are not asking for the same standard that Bristol and Vienna have. Everything that we have heard from everybody has been that's exactly what we are demanding. You talk about the hill that you have to die on and won't compromise on is safety. You say that what's to stop somebody from crossing a painted in line. What's to stop somebody from crossing a curb and a sidewalk? If there is no level of -- of what is an acceptable level of danger, then, why not demand a steel and concrete ten foot wall to separate traffic from the sidewalk? Or from -- from the walking area? Well, that wouldn't make any sense, because that would be cost prohibitive. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 152 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 32 of 62 Tippets: That would be superfluous. Palmer: That's a big word for me. But I mean -- yeah, it wouldn't make any sense. So is rebuilding this road. You say that it doesn't meet federal standards. Well, according to -- to what your assumption of -- of the level of traffic may be we have -- we have traffic standards, we have an organization that determines what is to be required and they have said that the road provides ample infrastructure to be able to handle the traffic that would be added to by this additional development. We rely so heavily on experts in their field . ACHD is the expert. They are the ones that own, maintain, and approve and what makes sense -- what's going to be a road. So, we have to take the emotion out of it. Otherwise, we would require, if we have absolutely no chance of having vehicles be able to access pedestrian traffic, we would require a ten foot steel and concrete wall to separate them everywhere, but that doesn't make sense, because there has to be a level of danger that is an acceptable range and that standard has been set and I think it's -- it's this Council's job to decide if the application is legal and makes sense. To me what's being proposed to us is -- is below the density that they would even have to apply for and that just sets that standard that the road that exists now is even more capable of handling the traffic that it has now and is being proposed. So , we can keep going through everybody and having all the emotional testimony about, you know, we can't -- we can't compromise on any level of safety, except we are okay to compromise to a level of safety of having a sidewalk, even though a car could still access it. Where do we go from here, unless we all just want to make everybody happy, so we are just going to talk about it all night, but the reality is this fits within all of the code that -- that is there. Where do we go from here? You don't want to pay for it. You want the developer to pay for an expansion of your road. You're not even in the city. So, if it were to be built today in the city, your subdivision, we would require a different level of infrastructure be built, but you were built in the county with standards that exists today. I just don't know where we are -- where we need to go now. Tippets: So, there is an inherent level of danger in whatever we do. As I walk out of this building tonight there is nothing to prevent me from getting hit on a sidewalk by someone who chooses to drive on a sidewalk and that's true. There is -- you can't build a ten foot concrete barrier to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic, because that would be excessive and I completely agree with that. But there has to be a certain standard of safety and what the United States and the state of Idaho and the City of Meridian has said is for an urban road the standard is a sidewalk. I don't feel like I'm answering your question very well and I apologize for that. Palmer: Madam Mayor. And to be fair I guess I didn't ask really a question. De Weerd: I was wondering what -- Palmer: You made a very good attempt at trying to respond to my rambling of frustration , because there is a standard. There is a standard for safety and that standard is more than adequately met with the existing infrastructure. I'm happy to be her e all night. I have done it many times and listen to everybody and hear everything and my mind has been Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 153 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 33 of 62 changed from time to time from -- from what initial thoughts that I have had. But I don't see us getting anywhere, because your neighborhood is not willing to pay for the expansion to your road and it's adequate for what's being proposed. So, I don't think it's our job to require somebody else to improve an off -site project that every government entity has said it's good to go. Tippets: I would say that there are available options that do have all of those safety standards that are already met that are not being accessed currently that could be used. De Weerd: I -- since you're the spokesperson for the HOA, do you feel that you went into the negotiations -- and I know that Mr. Bernt asked this, but when you start the meeting saying we have taken a vote and this is what we want, do you think that sets the tone for a negotiation? Tippets: Can I -- Madam -- Madam Mayor, I apologize for not addressing you correctly tonight. De Weerd: That's all right. I have been called all kinds of things. Tippets: So have I. De Weerd: Usually on Next Door. Fortunately I can't see most of it. Tippets: I would like to take a bit different perspective. When we entered that meeting I allowed Mr. Conger to present his whole plan uninterrupted. I don't know that we came in with guns ablazing and making a firm stand from the very beginning. I -- we went in with the -- with the thought that we were going to have a productive discussion. When -- when Mr. Conger made his entire presentation it sounded very similar to what was discussed here back on June 25th and we felt that that was inadequate. We did meet as a neighborhood. We met and we felt like that was -- that was the minimum standard. The -- the middle ground. We are not asking for lights as would be -- as would be required by the City of Meridian. We are not asking for -- for everything, but we are asking for essential safety features and so after Mr. Conger -- to answer your question after Mr. Conger presented his entire presentation, including all of his -- his suggestions, I provided all my suggestions. It was not contentious in any way. At least I didn't feel it was contentious in any way. So, I felt that we went in with the thought that we are willing to compromise if there is room to compromise and we -- we felt that there wasn't. We were -- the chiasm that separated our two proposals was very wide and the developer was unwilling and unable to make any concessions from what he had originally proposed and we felt that we were coming in with a reasonable -- with a reasonable plan and we were met with resistance. That's how I would describe it. De Weerd: But you felt having curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the road was a reasonable plan for a gated community with 44 homes . You do know what that development could be? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 154 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 34 of 62 Tippets: Oh, yeah. De Weerd: So, I guess when we continued this we really thought there would be a coming to the middle of the developer and the neighborhood to -- to look at the safety issue and, you know, whether it's a detached sidewalk in this -- and the subdivision said on the south side, because there is three properties and common area, we will do a detached sidewalk. You don't need curb, gutter, and sidewalk -- or curb, gutter, and -- and a complete street. You can have a detachment to it. But I guess those are the kind of things that we had hoped that would be discussed. It does seem like everyone went to their -- the line they drew and -- and that no conversation was had. Tippets: Madam Mayor, you make an excellent point about having a detached sidewalk on one side of the street. If push comes to shove we would be willing to accept that. De Weerd: Unfortunately, I'm not a neighbor and I'm not the developer, I'm just -- Tippets: Right. But -- De Weerd: A presider of a -- I don't even have a vote, so -- anyway. I guess it just -- no, can't get a tie here. I -- I don't know. I -- we are not going to solve it in a public hearing. We -- I guess we had hoped that there would be better dialogue and -- and some -- some recognition. I think safety is paramount as well. But your subdivision approved four new lots and I don't -- I didn't hear what additional traffic that those would add and you haven't even asked for a stripe on your road. So, I -- I'm trying to be sympathetic to what -- what the neighbors are saying on Dunwoody, but I will go back to the testimony on Bristol Heights is they are -- they are really accepting the -- the larger percentage of what most of the traffic direction will be going to and they have curb, gutter and sidewalk and that's what they bought into. But you still don't have a whole lot of traffic and you had a developer that was sensitive to building a gated community so you would not carry the brunt of not just this development, but every connected development within that. There needs to be some acknowledgement to that and some common ground in finding something to mitigate a lower impact than what you could have otherwise. Tippets: Madam Mayor, I -- I don't want to be misunderstood. Within the boundaries of the proposed Three Corners Ranch I think it looks good. I like the development. I -- the private -- the private gated neighborhood, it's very nice. They are large lots. It's going to be a very nice neighborhood. I'm sure my new best friend is going to live back there. I like it. That's not my opposition. My opposition is not the neighborhood itself , it's the ingress and egress and how it's being used. De Weerd: And that's our interest, too. Tippets: So, Madam Mayor -- De Weerd: So, we have common goals. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 155 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 35 of 62 Tippets: We do. Madam Mayor, yes, we do. So, Madam Mayor, Members of Council, we leave it in your hands. Do the right thing. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Appreciate your testimony, both three weeks ago and tonight and you testified three weeks ago you were pretty adamant that no -- no sidewalks, not even -- the neighborhood didn't want to have any participation in the sidewalks, not even the land, if I recall was part of your testimony. It sounds like that the neighborhood stance has changed. I'm curious if the HOA has had a conversation about having a fiduciary role in the creation of potentially a -- a detached sidewalk? Tippets: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, can you define fiduciary? Cavener: Are you willing to help pay for it? And Madam Mayor. The reason why I ask is that your testimony earlier tonight led me to believe that in your opinion your street is already unsafe as is. If you believe that your street is already unsafe , well, then, why don't you as a representative of your neighborhood want to do something to address that? Tippets: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Cavener, I worry about our street. I do. Absolutely. Do I -- do I feel that there are safety improvements that need to be implemented? Absolutely. I am one member of 14 or 15 and I recognize that. There has been lots of different opinions that have been expressed. This -- using the street as an -- as an ingress and egress is going to change the nature of our street. I mean we are -- I think we are unanimously opposed to using the street as it -- as it currently is or with suboptimal or minimal safety standards applied. So, that's why we are -- we are taking a fairly firm stance on separating traffic. Am I willing to -- to put together a committee to pay for stripes? Yes. Absolutely. I think no parking signs would be nice and we are probably willing to pay for that, too. I can't speak for everyone, because we have not discussed that specifically. But am I personally? Yeah. Cavener: Madam Mayor. And I guess -- I really echo the Mayor's comments. This -- this medium is not the place for neighborly discussions. This should have happened between you and the applicant three weeks ago, because there is lots of possibilities -- possibilities that could have been vetted and discussed neighborly that's just not happening here. It's -- it's frustrating for me as a Council Member that we are now wrestling with this and it sounds, the way things played out the way they did is just -- leaves a lot to be desired. I'm disappointed for our community. De Weerd: Any other questions? Tippets: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 156 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 36 of 62 Johnson: Madam Mayor, you have two more sign-ins. First is Jeff Johnson. And your final is Jeanette Johnson. De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. J.Johnson: I'm Jeanette Johnson. My address is 7905 West Colt Drive, Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. J.Johnson: Madam Mayor and Council Members, I appreciate you listening this evening. I am here to represent Mark Miller also and I will just take a -- the three minutes. One of the reasons I'm here is that I have a company called Irrigation Consulting Services. He contacted me -- when the Karnes Lateral signed a license agreement for the lateral to be piped, that license agreement is only good for the portion of the lateral that's theirs, not the portion of the lateral that's on his private property. They cannot sign a license agreement for his property. That's against the law. He has contacted Bryce Farris, which I believe you guys have a letter from him. He also has his own attorney now who he is brought on board. So, there is a requirement that Mr. Conger will need to have a license agreement with Mr. Miller for that section that is on his property. If Mr. Miller chooses not to pipe that, then, he will not pipe that. If he chooses not to move the ditch, then, the ditch will not be moved, because the Karnes Lateral cannot dictate on someone's private property. Okay? The other thing is Idaho Code is very very clear that water must be unimpeded and flow at the same rate after work is completed. That is very very clear. They are proposing a two inch hole for Mr. Miller. Basically they have said here is a two inch hole. You hook your water back up. The other thing. Water flow must connect the upstream and the downstream ends, the work area and the property to the ditch, pipe or headgate at the other facility and must be the same size of specification as the existing facility. That's part of the Idaho Code. They are proposing to leave him that two inch pipe and said to him -- and this is in their plans -- you need to hook this back up yourself. No, that's not the way it works. They are required by law to replace exactly or better what was there. The proposal of a two inch pipe doesn't work. What needs to be replaced also is his ability to get to water -- get to his irrigation water. They have not given him -- or even in their proposal there is nothing as was stated by his attorney for him to even have access to a gate. That's not giving him access to the water. Okay. If they don't -- De Weerd: You will need to summarize. J.Johnson: Okay. If they don't move the water, then, they will not -- move the gate, then, he would not have access to his irrigation water. Okay. So -- and that's -- in the letter -- and I will make this very very brief . From -- from Hethe Clark it states that the final construction plans must be approved by the Karnes Lateral. They can only approve the plans as far as their -- their part of the lateral. The other part that goes across the property would need to be approved by Mr. Miller. They can only approve the section that's theirs. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 157 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 37 of 62 Bernt: Madam Mayor, I have a question for you. Don't you think Mr. Miller could access his water through his own property? J.Johnson: Not if the gate isn't in the right place. He doesn't have access to that property because of the way his property sits and the way the barn sits on his property. He doesn't -- isn't going to have access because of the gate. So -- or if he needed to get equipment as was stated by his attorney, because of the road and the gate there isn't a way to access that water if they don't set it up correctly, so -- and also grandfather rights in accessing water. There is a grandfather law with water. If he has accessed that right for a period of time, he has the right to access that water. They have to approve -- or have to allow him to access water that way. De Weerd: And that is one of our -- that's ordinance in the City of Meridian that they cannot impede the -- the delivery of water -- J.Johnson: Correct. De Weerd: -- and that is the -- between the property owners and the irrigation district or the Karnes Lateral district, that -- that is all worked out in advance. So, those rights cannot be impeded on -- J.Johnson: Correct. De Weerd: -- and -- and this developer deals with irrigation -- J.Johnson: Right. We have dealt with him. Yeah. Many many times. I deal with him on a regular basis. Right. And that this -- this has to be taken care of in -- in -- all of it. And all of the people on all those properties are in the same situation. Right . De Weerd: So, they just have to make sure the delivery is to that -- J.Johnson: Correct. De Weerd: And, then, they need to deliver -- J.Johnson: Then they -- right. De Weerd: -- that they continue. J.Johnson: Correct. And that they -- that it's -- it's as was or better. They can't just hook it up and say you guys fix it and do it yourself , it has to be set up, so that they can -- if they have their water delivery -- if that means putting in a new box the way it was or whatever, that's how it has to be, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 158 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 38 of 62 J.Johnson: Is there anyone else? Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further sign-ups? Johnson: That was the last of those indicating they wished to speak on the check box. De Weerd: Okay. Did I see a hand up? Yes, please. Please state your name and address for the record. Jurgensmeier: Thank you. My name is Darin Jurgensmeier. I'm from 1778 East Dunwoody Court. De Weerd: Darin, thank you. Jurgensmeier: Thank you for your time. I will try to be brief. Some of the comments that have been made were that this application has been passed by the previous commissions. This application has not been wholly supported by the previous commissions. The first commission meeting with ACHD three of the council members their voiced strong concerns about it. Their discussion was cut short by the votes of the other members. The Planning and Zoning Commission, if you listen to that meeting, after an hour or so of public open debate they requested the changes, including that north exit and entrance to Three Corners Ranch, which the developer is trying to discuss further today and they also requested that the safety measures be changed on Dunwoody Court and those were -- they also required that we meet with the developers to discuss this. It wasn't a flat support of this application. And when you look at these stipulations every commission has said, you know, that Dunwoody needs to have some changes to be safe and as Madam Mayor has eloquently mentioned tonight, this road was rural and is now becoming urban. If, as Council Member Palmer mentioned, this is to meet the standards, if you look at the chart that Mr. Clark provided tonight , the rural required no sidewalks. However, the next level up from a rural road becoming urban required five foot sidewalks. So, now that this is becoming a rural into an urban road , it doesn't meet the standard. The ACHD in their initial report said Dunwoody needs no -- requires no improvements. However, now after discussion there they say, oh, well -- and now it requires an eight foot section or two four foot sections, which would, then, leave 21 feet of roadway. We are not requesting to be up to the standard of the neighborhoods surrounding us, which has wide roadways, six foot sidewalks, et cetera. We are just requesting something safe. If the developer had mentioned to us, hey, you know, how about a detached sidewalk, the fiduciary responsibility on our side or the financial support of that would be the donation of our property, so that their residents in Three Corners Ranch could use that sidewalk to access the school bus. Their children are going to need to come through the sidewalk through Dunwoody as well to access the school bus, just because it doesn't come into the neighborhood. Also that north exit -- so, the Planning and Zoning recommended that north exit after that deliberation. One of the main reasons was because without it it would leave an 82 home cul-de-sac, which as Mr. Parsons mentioned, is against the rules -- against the law. The Planning and Zoning said if they added that north exit would that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 159 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 39 of 62 meet the rules and Mr. Parsons said by the letter of the law probably, but something else should be done to do it properly. De Weerd: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Thank you. And -- and I agree with you on the donation of the right of way. Jurgensmeier: Thank you. De Weerd: Any other testimony? Yes. I assumed you were -- are with the Karnes Lateral. Swick: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Thank you for coming up and testifying. If you will, please, state your name and address. Swick: Steve Swick. I'm 6065 North Karen Drive in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Swick: So, I didn't plan on speaking tonight, so I don't have anything -- De Weerd: Can you -- can you just pull that a little closer? Swick: Of course. De Weerd: Thank you. Swick: I didn't plan on speaking tonight, so I don't have anything formal prepared. Just a couple of comments on the Mr. Miller property from Karnes Lateral. Ms. Johnson stated that we are only giving him two inch pipe access. That's currently how he accesses the water now. I have a photo of his pipe and everything going into the end of the lateral to get water. That's what he accesses now. That's what they are providing him with. Mr. Ti ppets has a 12 inch pipe that comes from this area to his property. We are piping him with 12 inches. Or the group is. So, they are going to be hooked up with their current pipes, size, dimensions. That's what we are giving them. That's what we agreed to give them through the developer. So, if he wants a four inch pipe, then, he would have to add a four inch pipe. His -- he actually draws water from the main Karnes Lateral. He doesn't have his own lateral. So, when she said that the lateral was on his property I'm not sure what she's speaking of there, but as I said I have a photo of his pipe going into the Karnes Lateral where he draws water. We -- like I said, we have worked with the group to go through and make sure all of our customers have water as they do now. These two are the ones -- the main ones that came up that had issues. The headgate that they are putting in his half on Mr. Miller's property, I believe half is on Mr. Dean's property. They are looking to relocate that five feet, which would take it off of Mr. Miller's property and if I misspeak on any of this I'm going to have the developer correct anything I say, but I have got a lot of information that I may not have totally accurate , but the goal is to move Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 160 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 40 of 62 it and, then, they will add the four or five feet of two inch pipe that would reconnect Mr. Miller's pipe into the lateral and they agreed to do that. I have an e-mail with that in writing, so -- that is all have. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Thank you. Sorry. Come on up. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Heiner: Yes. Linsy Heiner. 1778 East Dunwoody Court. De Weerd: Thank you. Heiner: I just want to give my own personal perspective as far as our road as it currently is. We did have a meeting. After the Planning and Zoning Commission they asked us to meet together with the developer and we had an initial meeting with Mr. Clark and Mr. Lopez at the tennis courts and it started at 6:00 o'clock and, you know, there was discussion back and forth with this -- with the developer and our neighborhood and talking and is it safe, is it not, and Mrs. Dean was there and her opinion it wasn't safe. Marcel's opinion was he -- his quote was we don't disagree on safety. I mean , you know, we are all agreeing that there is some safety concern here and -- and I pointed out to Mr. Clark that 42 minutes into the meeting -- so, at 6:42 only two cars had passed. So, that's this -- this -- as it currently was that's kind of our neighborhood, just to give you kind of an insight. You know, I bought -- I personally bought the house. It -- an emotional reason is that it didn't have sidewalks. Honestly like that's one of the things, because I grew up on a road that was on -- in the country. So, for me that's the neighborhood that we -- you know, we bought into and there is two cars passing within 42 minutes. So, now we are changing it to a lot more traffic and I have yet to see the source of the traffic study. I would like that. They say that 30 percent will come through Dunwoody and 70 percent through Bristol Heights. If anyone looks at the map, though, you can see this is a nice straight direct pathway to Locust Grove and so I personally don't agree with 30 percent. I think it's going to be much, much higher. So, when Mr. Conger comes in and says we are going to provide no parking signs and we are going to have no sidewalks and you can't even park on the street and now we are having a lot of people coming through, this starts to feel like it's now -- it's not even a neighborhood street, it's now like kind of a highway, because you can't even park on the side. It just feels -- it feels like fundamentally different than it currently is. In regards to the sidewalk -- I know I have short time. An adjacent sidewalk right to the street doesn't impact the neighbors as much and that's what the discussion has been. It's in regards to a detached sidewalk there probably needs to be some discussion, because the neighbors coming right in -- the Zuches, right off of Locust Grove are not part of our HOA and were not involved in those discussions. So, there needs to be some understanding that that is their property with large trees and I don't like to infringe on other individuals' property or rights. So, I just think that that needs to be taken into account. Do you guys have any questions at all? De Weerd: Council? Thank you. Heiner: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 161 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 41 of 62 Lewis: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Tyler Lewis. 6059 North Karen Drive, Meridian. I'm going to kind of show you -- again, Ben couldn't be here tonight, so just want to speak on behalf of kind of the Shandee Street, which is also kind of part of this development, but thought not as prominent, because it's not the new traffic, but it is taking additional traffic because of the Three Corners current neighborhood that will access through there. So, the biggest deal is there I think Three Corners is 48 houses. This road here now will connect Three Corners to Shandee Drive. Shandee Drive is actually a 27 foot road with no improvements. The neighbors have -- we have talked to -- we don't have HOAs. We try to -- try to meet with a lot of the members of the neighborhood. We have met on that piece. We understand that we are only -- at least owning 48 of the homes. That's why I guess you haven't seen us in front of you asking for a ton of improvements on our road. It's 27 foot with the average house setback being about 32 feet on those one acre parcels, because it was built in 1962. So, it just brings -- not to overcomplicate the issue, but it brings back up to the same point as everybody owning in this piece, if we are going to start off site improvements and other areas for what we are calling rural roads, it's no different than 48 -- 48 homes for the Shandee Drive that would be a rural road. That's why we haven't come and asked for it, because we know that the impact is reduced in the amount of traffic that we will be getting with the development and that's where we are -- we are trying to work as corner piece. So, that is all. De Weerd: Thank you. Appreciate that. Good evening. Thank you for joining us. I think I saw you at a City 101. Seely: Yeah. Definitely. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Seely: My name is Remington Seely. I live at 676 East Idaho Avenue and I would like to just add to the sidewalks and safety. So, important thing to consider when -- with the proposal of sidewalks is that no matter the cost as Mr. Ti ppets stated earlier, we should die in the hill. Safety of our children and the people who live -- who live in that area. What's important to consider here is that just as the Police Department is willing to spend 25,000 dollars on a drone that could possibly save one life, I would also say that those in the neighborhood should also consider to spend that much money to -- to -- to have the possibility to save a life, to protect a life. I know that from living in a rural area that without sidewalks it was really hard for me when I was young to -- younger at least -- to understand, you know, like where I should cross the road. Sidewalks are important. They do provide a guide -- a guideline and a structure and not only for the children, but also for the drivers. It's a deterrence. It's a lot easier to see a sidewalk than just a line and definitely to notice it when you're driving. So, that's what I would like to add. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. And -- and you live in an area without sidewalks. There are not very many; right? Seely: Yeah. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 162 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 42 of 62 De Weerd: Thank you. Yes. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Real quick. Please tell me we haven't spent 25,000 dollars on a drone. De Weerd: He attended the City 101 and did talk to the drone operator, so -- Palmer: So, we did spend 25 -- De Weerd: I believe it's -- yes. T.Lewis: My name is Torri Lewis. I live at 6060 Sweet Valley Avenue. I live in the new subdivision which we are being impacted with Guinness being connected into us. De Weerd: And on east -- east-west? North? T.Lewis: It would be the north side. De Weerd: North side. Thank you. T.Lewis: I lived in Dunwoody for 14 years and I raised five kids on that road. I never saw near the problems they portrayed. It seems to me this is one of those examples of don't, you know, build in my backyard type of thing. All the safety things that keep coming up. I had five kids. The bus came into our subdivision. They used to have a -- a bull nose bus that circled in and out and, then, they made them go to the street, but -- I mean we always had a stripe on the road. The kids were informed, then, to walk in the stripe. But all the safety things I keep hearing it just amazes me, because I don't know how my five kids lasted 14 years. So, anyway, that's all I have. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other testimony? Good evening. Thank you for joining us. Santos: Ron Santos. 14474 West Barclay Street in Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you, Ron. Santos: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members, for deliberating and taking a lot of time to review this development. Also thank the developers, too, for working with our subdivision. De Weerd: If you can move a little -- Santos: I'm sorry. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 163 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 43 of 62 De Weerd: Thank you. Santos: I just wanted to request for the operation of the gates -- to address the safety concerns of cut through traffic is to somehow provide a vehicle or means to keep that gate closed in a normal state of operation. So , meaning that once the development is occupied, those gates stay closed and the only way to get in is to access with a code or remote, so it doesn't stay open and reduces the cut through traffic, whether it be from Bristol Heights or Dunwoody and that's what we are requesting. De Weerd: Thank you. That's a very legitimate concern. Santos: Thanks. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Mr. Santos. Did you have a -- you wrote in; right? Santos: Yes, I did. Borton: And you had -- was it construction traffic -- Santos: Yes. Borton: -- as well? Or had a concern with -- Santos: Just a concern of traffic -- construction traffic accessing Bristol Heights. Borton: Okay. Santos: And how that was going to play out. That was just in the letter. Borton: Okay. All right. Santos: Thanks. De Weerd: Any other testimony? Yes, ma'am. L.Lewis: Good evening. De Weerd: Good evening. L.Lewis: I'm Lori Lewis and I resided at 2000 East Dunwoody. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 164 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 44 of 62 L.Lewis: Thank you for hearing us today. I just have to ask -- I mean this is really, really, really concerning to me, because I know we have -- me and my husband, we have -- we have lived on Dunwoody for 27 years. We know the Deans. They are friends of ours. Or have been. And hopefully they will still be our friends after this. Parts of our family -- even Tori, who just came up and talked to my kids -- you know, I grew up, my -- I raised my kids on Dunwoody. It was never unsafe. Well, heck, that -- I mean Vienna Woods wasn't there. Bristol Heights wasn't there. Three Corners wasn't. It was a whole different context. The context has changed now and now -- and so what I want to know is who is the authority in our government that says -- that determines what is safe and what's not for our people? I just don't -- I don't even know who it is. ACHD -- you asked them to make a decision. If this -- if these were together what would you do? And they -- they wouldn't answer the question. No one is answering the question . No one wants to. And so I'm just like who owns that? I just -- who owns it? I mean even you, Ty, said that -- that if this were a Meridian subdivision you would have different -- different standards. So, I'm just trying to understand. I know this is weird and complicated, because we have got a Meridian subdivision going through a non-Meridian subdivision and, you know, going from one type to another, it's just an -- and I just want to know who is going to decide and make sure that our -- the kids are -- of not just our subdivision, but the new ones. We are the only ones talking about the new -- the people in the new subdivision and the safety of those kids. Who is going to make sure that they are okay? De Weerd: Certainly the City Council. L.Lewis: Okay. Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I will tackled that for you if you want. L.Lewis: Yeah. Borton: Briefly. It's not an answer you will like, but it might help. So, the entire problem is the disconnect in the two land use agencies which decided these properties -- these projects next to each other. So, you have got the county that approved Dunwoody Court and it did so without applying this -- this to and through concept where you're going to require that project to provide the infrastructure necessary not only for itself , but also the capacity to serve what will become future projects all around it. It's some of the reason why you see our water or sewer line sized a certain way, much larger than the actual project needs, because everyone helps each other out and provides capacity to serve all of the future development. That opportunity was missed in this context when the county didn't require this project, Dunwoody, to provide infrastructure that would serve not only that small development, but what it would inevitably become, which includes this. So, that ship has sailed and that land use agency has decided that Dunwoody is complete, which is fine. The problem comes now when this project , a different land use agency, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 165 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 45 of 62 and there now has to be what you saw in some of the earlier presentation, this concept called nexus and proportionality. So, now this land use agency doesn't have the legal means -- in this case in this context and in any other time when you have got competing land use approvals, it doesn't have the authority to lawfully require this -- this project, for example, to spend money off site in an unlimited fashion, even if that would be the most safe solution, because the law, then, requires there to be some nexus in proportionality. So, instead of requiring Dunwoody to have back then installed large sidewalks and the infrastructure necessary for the whole region, now we are much more limited and some of the obligations that this project -- that can be imposed upon -- imposed upon this project are much more limited, because now it has to be proportional to the impact created by this project, which is why I think some of the discussion has gone from doing nothing off site, to where this project has talked about streetlights , some signage, some striping, far less than what ultimately probably would have been required -- should have been required when Dunwoody was approved. But much less than what the public clearly wants. So, that's what happened. I think that's what got us here. So, now we are constrained in -- in our lawful ability to say this project not only asked to do what it needs here within the city, but also expand funds to a certain degree to improve offsite, we have got limitations on our ability to do it. Does that make sense? It's not -- L.Lewis: It does and it doesn't make sense. I -- what you're saying makes sense. I understand what you're saying, but it makes no sense whatsoever. I mean it's just -- it's -- because it's -- it's a lot of bureaucratic red tape that's keeping people from doing the right thing and it just -- and there is -- so, at the end of the day -- I mean so did it start with ACHD -- their recommendation? Is that where it started? That -- where it was off and they should have recommended or could they not have? I mean where is the accountability? De Weerd: Unfortunately you get into what -- shoulda, woulda, coulda. We have been asking the county for years to adopt our city standards in their county developments that we will someday abut to and they didn't. They -- and as elected officials they have that right to. We don't agree with it, but this scenario plays out around our community. This is not the first time we have -- we have faced this hill and this is not the first time this developer has faced this hill either and he has worked with the -- the subdivision, the county sub, in trying to make it safe, because it has to be safe for theirs, too. But it also has to pencil out and in order to get complete streets, you're going to have much greater density and you probably won't have a gated commun ity. So, there has to be some give and take, because as Councilman Borton said, we can't necessarily require this, but we don't necessarily have to approve it, but be aware, if this isn't approved you don't know what the next application will be and we are trying to find that happy medium and so it is a balancing act and I think ten years ago Councilman Charlie Rountree said: I think we have done our job if everyone is angry at us when they walk out of this room. You know, it -- it seems silly to say that, but in some regards that's the compromise that we -- we look for is everyone has to find that -- that middle ground. L.Lewis: So, do you think that we have -- I mean do you think we have found the middle ground? I mean even in the -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 166 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 46 of 62 De Weerd: We had hoped that you all would find the middle ground before you got here tonight. L.Lewis: Before we got here. Yeah. De Weerd: So -- L.Lewis: And it's too late to do that? It's too late to change that? I mean middle ground isn't -- I mean isn't -- is either -- right now they are like this. There is -- neither one is at a middle ground. Right? I mean don't you agree that they are just like -- De Weerd: It's -- ma'am. Lori? L.Lewis: Yeah. I should go sit down? De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good evening. Bergstrand: Good evening. My name is Patricia Bergstrand and I live on 1970 Dunwoody and I think I have more questions than -- than a testimony here. So, my question when we were discussing the safety, understand the limitations that we have here, so the question is why did our other avenues that meet the standards, that meet and have everything already in place, with no investment, no more money, why are they not being used? Why they have to pass the traffic -- only two gates open when there is five points connectivity up by level. You don't have the situation in many places. It is a gated community. It is not going to be crossing. This makes more options for the people on Dunwoody. If we go to the no parking signs, so the -- what is going to be the parents that drive the kids to the bus station, are going to park on Locust Grove? Where are they going to park? They have -- there is about one third of a mile from the new subdivision to Locust Grove. So, what is going to happen in the morning commute? Kids walking? Where are the schools? Southwest. Where are the young drivers going to? Rocky. Through Dunwoody. Where are the kids riding bikes? To Heritage. Dunwoody. Where are the kids walking to take the bus at Locust Grove. Dunwoody. What are the parents going to do. Pitch black. Maybe three lights now. Better. So, where are they going to park when waiting for the kids to load the bus? Where? Locust Grove? Where are they going to go? So, then, we are going to have all combinations. Kids walking. Riding bikes. No sidewalks. Do you add? Wintertime. Dark. If there is snow on the ground we hear from ACHD they don't -- they don't plow that street. So, the snow is going to be there. There is no sidewalks for us to shovel and at the beginning we were not asking for sidewalks. We like the neighborhood. But what we are asking the considerations is what are the options that are on the table? Why is that to be that plan. We were not opposed to the neighborhood. We love our neighbors. Our kids go to Ambrose and they cross to Three Corners, because it's safer. I don't want my kids walking to Locust Grove. I don't want my kids walking all the windy in the dark. My youngest used to send on his scooter with a headlamp. I would open the window and see the light floating, because I couldn't see anymore. That's what we have. And we like it. We like it. But I want the consideration Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 167 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 47 of 62 of what are the options? Where really are the options in making sense here. So , more questions than answers and thank you. Any questions for me? De Weerd: Thank you. Any other -- any further testimony? Clark: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. And I will try to fly through a couple rebuttal points and see where we end up. So, one question that was asked by Mr. Santos was about the gates and as we had mentioned, the gates will be key carded, so they will generally be closed. But they will be accessible to emergency service providers and as we have mentioned in prior hearings all of the pedestrian facilities are full publicly accessible. So, that will continue to be the case. De Weerd: Well, I'm thrilled to hear you have key cards, not key codes. Clark: I think there will be the ability also to dial in if you're a visitor, so that will -- that will allow -- De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Clark: -- for folks to be able to get in. De Weerd: Because we have one of those brewing right now, too. It's really fun. Clark: Very exciting. Okay. So, with regard to some of Mr. Miller's concerns, as Mr. Swick stated, we will provide a pipe that meets and matches his current connection point. We will satisfy Idaho law. We are very used to working with the lateral companies, working on license agreements with them. We will fully adhere to all of Idaho's law requirements. De Weerd: And those water entities are really good at making sure you are good and so is our staff, so -- Clark: That is -- might be the understatement of the night. They are also good at making you -- making sure their attorney gets paid, so that helps. With regard to the access questions, Mr. Miller will have access to the lateral from his property. It is accessible to him from his property. I want to make a distinction there, however. The access from outside of his property has been permissive over time. There is not an easement right. There is not a prescriptive right. He will be able to access it from his property. Access from outside of his property is a private matter between private citizens. It's not a matter for you all to adjudicate. I am surprised to hear about the Dunwoody residents wanting to allow development on the backside of those -- what were previously called open space lots on their plat. As was discussed at the last hearing, this was a nonfarm subdivision. It had a restriction on development of those properties. They had to be in common ownership. If the CC&Rs are changing, you know, what we are looking at is like -- I think about 12 additional homes and a couple of those lots are pretty big. So , the traffic -- it begs the question of why that traffic's okay when this traffic is not. But beyond that, there is not an obligation to provide development access by this property to nonfarm , Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 168 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 48 of 62 nondevelopment lots. As Bill described during the last hearing, generally, when you guys annex properties they would provide sewer and water from the front side of the lots and , then, be accessed through common driveways. That is not disorderly development , that is standard operating procedure for infill like that. Okay. So, turning to the Dunwoody Subdivision element. I do want to emphasize that that subdivision was approved 30 years ago and it was approved with the anticipation that this project would have come along later. So, my glass is a little bit different than yours, Council Member Borton, respectfully, from the perspective of it was done with a stub to this project and it was done according to ACHD standards that continue to be satisfied 30 years later. Now, we recognize the to and through question and that's why we have done the gated scenario here to try to limit the number of -- of homes that would take access along Dunwoody Court and we think that that is a huge concession. That's a huge item that I think everyone should acknowledge, because 98 percent of developers would have come into this and more than doubled the density that we are talking about and would have opened every access point and that would have been significantly more traffic for the Dunwoody residents than what is being proposed tonight. Now, the Dunwoody residents have insisted on sidewalks. I do want to just clarify that you will recall that our initial conversations were that we had started at no improvements , because that's what ACHD had said was no improvements on Dunwoody were required. We have met -- Marcel and I met with the Dunwoody folks. At that point we discussed painting. We discussed the no parking signs. And we also offered up volunteer efforts by -- by Marcel to help the Dunwoody residents try to find funding sources, if they really did want -- want a sidewalk. Now, that -- that was the initial movement and, then, we came -- after listening to the Council we came to the next meeting and we said in addition to that, okay, we will throw up some -- some -- some streetlights and we will do the other items that have been identified on that summary that I have provided to all of you. Jim Conger has priced that out. That's, you know, 30, 40 thousand dollars worth of improvements for a roadway that ACHD says doesn't require any improvements. So, we think we have been trying to come to the middle. The -- the chasm to jump from what we have proposed, which we think is significant, to a sidewalk, however, is a horse of a different color, because as we have explained, installing a sidewalk requires a road rebuild, because it requires a redo -- a redo of the drainage system. So, let me -- I just want to wrap up with a couple comments along those lines. So, there is a standard of safety. ACHD has established that standard of safety. There are 16 homes on Dunwoody today. When this project is built out , assuming about 30 percent are going out this direction, that means about 13 homes worth of traffic. We are talking about 29 homes on Dunwoody Court. That's all. We are not talking about a highway. We are talking about a low volume, low traffic roadway with only -- at only about 14 percent capacity at full build out. So, what is reasonable for what happens at Dunwoody? It has been established by ACHD standards. ACHD developed those policies over decades and we have adhered to them with this application. ACHD has confirmed that tonight. They confirmed it through the e-mails. They confirmed it through their commission. And Bill also summarized it through his comments. So, with that I would just ask for Council's approval of this and I would also point you back to the modifications that we requested to Planning and Zoning's recommendation of approval and I ask that you consider that in connection with your motion tonight and happy to answer any follow-up questions that you might have. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 169 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 49 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions? It doesn't look like they have any. Clark: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any further information needed from staff , the applicant, or any of those testif ied? All right. Before I ask if you would like to close the public hearing, I would ask for discussion first just in case. Cavener: Smart. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I know everybody's probably kind of collecting their thoughts, reading their notes. I'm happy to start. I think I'm going to be -- I'm supportive of the -- of the application as presented. I think the biggest challenge is probably the one that clearly everyone in the room has wrestle with. I'm sure that you are all wrestling with and it's that topic around safety, because while we don't like to admit it, safety is somewhat subjective. Council Member Palmer wants to build a wall and ACHD says -- ACHD says status quo is acceptable and I think we as elected officials rely on subject matter experts , like ACHD, but we also represent our citizens, even if they don't live in the city. So, I'm sure many of you are trying to struggle with what is appropriate. Candidly it's frustrating to hear that the highway district won't let us do this raised curb. I think that would solve a lot of our problems, but I understand their operational resistance to that. It's a missed opportunity I think if -- if there would have been more neighborly conversations there might have been other options presented. This isn't the vehicle to negotiate this or that or up or down. So, I'm supportive of the lights. I'm supportive of an -- of an eight foot stripe and I will yield -- yield to what ACHD would support, but I'm in favor of -- our neighbors to the east have colored designations for bicyclists in downtown Boise. If we could do some type of color designation to make it stand out more, I would be more comfortable with that. Be really encouraging for the developer to work with the neighbors about the blind spots. One person's blind spot is another residen t's lifelong tree and we want to make sure that we are sensitive to -- to that particular piece. I'm supportive of removing the -- the north- south connection. This goes back to -- if this was a different use -- this was a much larger use I wouldn't be there, but it's a small use. Big lots. And I think I said this three weeks ago. This is a good in-fill project and we -- for those of you that don't get to do this each week, we often, at the Council, will talk about creativity and oftentimes you don't see a lot of creative projects and I think this is a creative approach to address the needs of the entire surrounding neighborhoods, to minimize cut through traffic and to bring forth the best possible project, really, at the lowest possible density. So, I support it. De Weerd: Thank you. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 170 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 50 of 62 De Weerd: Mrs. Little Robert. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I think we are trying to find it really quick, but when I was pulling up the minutes of the previous meeting, the way I read it we had already addressed the north-south connection and it was included in the motion. Because Bill asked for clarification and it was all included. It was not part of the discussion. Bottom of page 62 in the Council minutes. I don't know who would get to address that. De Weerd: Bill. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- De Weerd: Bill will. Parsons: There was no condition stricken from the staff report. My clarification was whether or not the Council wanted to see a revised plan that showed the recommendations from the Planning Commission. That stub street -- that north-south connection was part of their recommendation. So , this body instructed the applicant, again, to come forward this evening to talk about the irrigation and revised plat. They have made those changes as part of that discussion at the previous meeting three weeks ago. It's still within your purview to strike that condition if you choose to do so. De Weerd: Lieutenant, I guess we have asked from our road authority about safety, but certainly sometimes we find ourselves in disagreement on a safety issue when it comes to personal safety and the safety off the street. Could you maybe weigh in on what your observations are? Stokes: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, sidewalks are, obviously, going to be better. That's why we require them in the city. This is a unique situation . You have a county road sandwiched between two -- or one will be part of Meridian, one is part of Meridian and we are responsible for Locust Grove. You know, it really comes down to the volume of traffic on that roadway. The behavior of the drivers. Oftentimes the traffic -- oftentimes the traffic complaints that we deal with -- we get a complaint from a neighbor on speed or those kinds of things and it's their neighbors that are the problem. That's just how it is. It's the people that live in those subdivisions that drive those roads. This would , obviously, be a new subdivision attached to an old subdivision connecting to other subdivisions. So, I guess to sum up, you know, a sidewalk would be better, but it doesn't -- it's not going to prohibit anything from happening necessarily, because, you know, cars leave the roadway all the time for all kinds of reasons. So , I think it's better, that's why engineers came up with that idea whenever, but there is no way to totally make that roadway safe and free everybody from any kind of danger. I don't know if that helps at all. We would certainly, you know, if it's approved, be driving down Dunwoody to access that neighborhood to patrol it or respond to calls and that kind of thing. De Weerd: Great. You're adding to the traffic on that road. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 171 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 51 of 62 Stokes: Yes, we would. But a marked patrol car is generally a good thing. Generally. De Weerd: Generally. Thank you. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Where do I start? Where do I start? I'm generally in support of this application. I think that it's a great in-fill project. I do believe that this is a perfect example of when two parties come together and -- and aren't able to negotiate an equitable agreement. That's the reason why I adamantly challenged the homeowners and the applicant to get -- to get together to discuss this. This isn't the first time we have had this discussion. It's not the first time I have yelled at Justin, you know, on the public record. I understand there is -- there is -- we are in a unique situation with the different governing bodies who take care of the roads and we have -- we have the county and we have the different -- you know, different municipalities with their -- with our laws and ordinances and code. It makes it difficult. And with that said that's the reason why I -- I was very clear -- crystal clear in saying that I wanted you guys to get together to come up with an equitable plan . You didn't and here we are. So, don't point the finger at us. I was very clear when -- when I said this or -- you know, a couple of weeks ago. I don't mean to be -- I don't normally speak this way in the public record, but I'm pretty -- sort of disappointed with how this process has played out. I know that the -- I know some of the residents that live over in that area. Very smart, educated, a very deliberate people and I just -- this is not the place to negotiate. We can't, you know, have the applicant come up and have a representative from the HOA to come up and -- and negotiate on the public record. That's not how it works, unfortunately. So, with that said I believe the developer is -- is doing more than what he needs to do and I wish we could as a body make it so that there would be a sidewalk or a pathway along Dunwoody Court. Unfortunately, we are not able to enforce that, because it's an off -- it's an off-site improvement and so it just makes it difficult. De Weerd: Any other comments? Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. It's interesting trying to resolve something that was created with information from 30 plus years ago regarding Dunwoody Court and something brand new today. We have got different information and dealing with two different entities, the county and what the city now requires, and the opportunity to resolve it was outside of this body and, unfortunately, that time has past and so I appreciate the things that the developer has come up with to voluntarily do to help mitigate safety issues on the road and I appreciate this is -- I think it's a great in-fill project and, hopefully, as time goes by things will be peaceful and the traffic won't be as bad as some people anticipate it being and, then, it will all be a great situation in the long run. But I think it's a really good project and our hands are pretty much tied in doing anything regarding mitigating anything on Dunwoody and appreciate what the developer's willing to do and I think we should move ahead with it. I guess with that I could put it in the form of a motion, unless we have got some other Council that would like to weigh in. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 172 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 52 of 62 Cavener: Close the public hearing. De Weerd: Want to close the public hearing. Little Roberts: That would be great. Madam Mayor, I move we close the public hearing. 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. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Any other discussion? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Since some of us have talked about it, I'm also in favor of removing the requirement to -- for the north-south connection. I think with the -- how little traffic is going to make it that way, we would rather not that traffic be going up to Chinden anyway. If they are going to access Chinden they need to do it through the proper route of connecting to the arterial and, then, connecting to the state highway through either -- through to Locust Grove or making their way out to Eagle Road. De Weerd: Any further comment? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I was giving Anne a chance to make the motion if she still wanted to, but -- so I will go ahead and do it. I move that we approve H-2019-0006 with the requested waiver to allow the irrigation easements within buildable lots and deleting the condition requiring the north-south connection and adding conditions that the three new streetlights , the striping as proposed with the eight foot section on the south side of the Dunwoody and no parking signage be added and the mitigation of the vegetation within ACHD's right of way sight line as proposed. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? What did you say about the parking signs? Bernt: Right. Madam Mayor, it's like no parking as far as -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 173 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 53 of 62 De Weerd: Oh. Bernt: I thought the same -- De Weerd: I thought he said no parking signs. Bernt: Right. Palmer: Madam Mayor? The signs that say no parking. They are required to be installed. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: I'm going to call a ten minute break. (Recess: 8:51 p.m. to 9:03 p.m.) F. Public Hearing Continued from June 18, 2019 for Oaks North and South (H-2018-0117) by Toll ID I LLC, Located on the North and South side of McMillan Rd. between N. McDermott and N. Black Cat Rds. 1. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to modify the overall boundary of Oaks North and Oaks South development and update the zoning district boundaries, the concept plan and modify/remove certain provisions of the agreement that are no longer relevant to the project De Weerd: Okay. I will reconvene this meeting and we will move like lightning speed to 7-F, public hearing continued from June 18th on H-2018-0117 and I will ask for staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next item is the Oaks North and South MDA. This project's actually been continued three different times. It was continued from February, June -- or April, June, and, then, now we finally got the revised plans I think last City Council hearing -- the last time we asked for a continuance the applicant withdrew a portion of the application and we asked for some time, so that we could revise this staff report to reflect those changes with the acknowledgement of that withdrawal and so that's why we are here before you this evening. So, this site consists of 357 acres. This property was annexed and zoned in 2008 and, then, later -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 174 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 54 of 62 and submitted a development agreement and, then, later in 2013 he came back through with some rezones and preliminary plats for what -- and it changed from Oak Creek to the Oaks North and Oaks South development. It was a master plan community that consisted of office, future park. It had three multi-family developments as part of it and, then, a mixture of R-4 and R-8 lots on both the north and south sides of McMillan Road. Since this development a lot has changed. So, currently the Oaks South portion, which is the graphic on the right-hand side, is currently is the property that's controlled by Coleman -- or Toll Brothers. That's currently built out. So, all of those phases are built out. Where you see the multi-family development, the park, and the office lot and the future fire station lots, all of that property was removed in 2017 and developed as the Oaks West development. So, that developer bought that from Coleman. Tom, Senior developed the Oaks West development. And so that area was extracted for the purpose of entering into their own development agreement. So, it's no longer subject to this particular DA. And so even though the next application is just for a minor -- a small subdivision, there is a lot of provisions that are no longer relevant to this particular property, because of what's transpired from 2008 to 2013 to ultimately to what we are discussing today. So, there was a lot of analysis in the staff report going back and forth with the changes and why we felt there should be more open space added with The Oaks development, but, again, the Council gave us latitude, we went back and modified the staff report to reflect that. So, currently in the recorded development agreement this is what's tied as a conceptual plan for The Oaks development and so because of the continuance the applicant was able to provide staff with the revised concept plan . You can see here that the northeast corner of the section which was also proposed as Oakwood Subdivision, has been incorporated and because the Oakwind Subdivision that was withdrawn a few weeks ago has been removed, the applicant's gone ahead and put back the R-15 piece and the multi-family development or some type of cluster development is going to go on this particular property. Those details are to be worked out. If you had a chance to read through the staff report you also noted that staff had some concerns and so did the Planning and Zoning Commission have concerns with the amount of open space for this particular development. Again, this was a master planned community. The multi-family developments typically have their own amenities and own open space. So , we were concerned that we were giving up density and increasing the number of single family lots, which would inherently impact the amenities approved for the development and so the applicant, based on some feedback that they received from the Planning and Zoning Commission, actually came to the table with the DA modification and, then, gave us those greater details for how that 5.65 acre central neighborhood park would develop and you can see here there is a -- a lot happening here. Large clubhouse. A larger pool. The irrigation pond would be a fishing pond, a recreational amenity, and, then, there would be Bocce ball courts, tot lots. So, they have come with a plan to really beef up the amenity package for that central open space and as I get into my presentation for the next hearing item, they have also -- you can see in the concept plan here with the Oakmore development, they have added some more open space and a tot lot. It's another amenity. So, the applicant heard what staff had said. the applicant heard what the Planning and Zoning Commission heard as part of the subdivision approvals and so they have definitely stepped up to the table and ad ded a greater amenity package for this particular subdivision. Now, I would mention to you that this exhibit here in the lower right-hand Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 175 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 55 of 62 corner is not tied to the development agreement , but in the staff report staff is recommending that this be included as an exhibit in the amended DA, so that we make sure that the applicant constructs what is being shared with you this evening. As I alluded to in the staff report, once the Oaks North development is built out there will be approximately 668 single family homes just on the north side of the road alone and there is over 300 lots on the south side. So, this is -- we are talking some substantial units out here using amenities and using open space. That's why staff and the Commission felt it was so important to get those details for you. So, with that I think the applicant the -- in the staff report we made those modifications, removed all the references to the park, to the office lots, to the fire station lots, just basically cleaning up, tying the applicant to this revised concept plan, holding them to this central open space and 5.6 acre park with the amenities showing before you this evening. The applicant seems to be in agreement with the staff report and I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: So, Bill, what is the percentage of open space now? I don't see that. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe at the time The Oaks came through I believe that section was approximately 14 percent. There is a lot of integrated connected pathways. There is parkways throughout. Detached sidewalk and parkways. There is multiple pocket parks throughout the development that you see here and -- De Weerd: And they are pocket parks, not retainage -- Parsons: Yeah. To my knowledge they aren't drainage -- De Weerd: Okay. Parsons: They are pocket parks. And, then, right through this -- right through the center of the development here is the Creason Lateral that they are going to approve with a multi-use pathway and tie into the adjacent subdivision for interconnectivity. So, again, our concern was the -- the level and the amount of amenities that we were losing with the number of units that we were -- the number of single family homes that are being added to this development. Again, with multi-family developments there is different standards for open space and amenities based on the num ber of units, so we felt comfortable with that when it was master planned that we were going to get additional open space and amenities, but when you take that component away, then, we have to make sure what you add back is still consistent with the code and their DA and so the applicant's provided all those calcs to us and that's why we have scrutinized this. So, I applaud the applicant working with us to bring back something that -- where staff's comfort level is a little bit -- it's put at ease. We are comfortable with the open space and the amenity package for the proposed -- at least the Oaks North portion of the development. Oaks South, again, is all developed out at this point. So, really no concept plan or changes to that, the south side of the road. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 176 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 56 of 62 De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? Okay. Becky. Well, you know how to clear a room. McKay: Didn't know it was me. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario. As Bill indicated, we have worked with staff on kind of updating that development agreement that was updated. We did provide the staff with an update of our open space and amenities and I worked with Stephanie and provided her the exhibit that's before you this evening that shows all of the amenities they're going to -- that we are going to construct within our central common area and so that -- we will have a recreational building clubhouse that will have a great room, storage, seating areas, double sided fireplace. They are going to have covered picnic areas. They are going to have -- I think they have some -- what is it? Cornhole games. They are going to have a multi-use court for pickle ball. They are going to have a fishing pier. Pathways. Swimming pools. Cabanas. Very extensive, high-end package that Toll Brothers has planned. Definitely an upgrade from what we initially had as far as our conceptual amenity plan and so I think, you know, I will just finish that -- that, you know, this is a continuation of that project. It's taken man y years and we have three phases under construction and they can't build it fast enough. That's how fast they are selling. So, I would ask the Council support the development agreement modification to update it to match what we have today. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Becky. Council, any questions? Okay. Chris, any sign-ups? Johnson: None for this project. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any testimony? If you will, please, come to the podium. We figured you were here for one of these items. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Worrel: My name is Randy Worrel and I live at 4647 North Adale. De Weerd: Thank you, Randy. Worrel: I live in The Oaks. So, that's why I'm here. I'm looking -- I was concerned, because in the past the R-15 zoning on either end at McMillan and Black Cat, McMillan and McDermott, my concern was how that might impact our neighborhood property values, traffic, overall security in the area and I see that here it looks like they have -- they have reverted back to the gray area on the map to whatever -- originally was high density housing. Could that be changed as they build out -- as they build out could they opt to say, okay, let's have that be single home -- single family homes. Is that possible? Or is it now set in stone that that's going to be high density housing. Over here on McDermott, near Black -- De Weerd: That area would come back for a public hearing. Worrel: Oh, it will. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 177 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 57 of 62 De Weerd: Ye s. Worrel: Okay. Well, that's good peace of mind on that one. On the other end, too, it looks like they have already changed the zoning to R-4, which is good peace of mind. So, that's all. I just wanted to see how it was playing out. De Weerd: Thank you for -- Worrel: It looks like it's going to be a really nice subdivision up there. The one that they have south of McMillan is really nice. We enjoy it a lot. De Weerd: Oh, good. Well, thank you for being here with us. Worrel: Thank you very much. De Weerd: And you can always talk to Becky after -- afterwards. She is a fountain of information. Well, seeing absolutely no one else -- Becky, do you have any other comments? Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: I move we close the public hearing. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All aye. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve H-2018-0117. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request for a development agreement modification. Any discussion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 178 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 58 of 62 Borton: Quick. Bill, does the staff report already reference these -- the concept plan that's before us right now or do we need to add that as a condition to include in the -- Parsons: No. Borton: -- DA to have this concept plan? Parson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, the DA -- the amended DA provisions -- proposed DA provisions incorporate these as exhibits and I would also let you know that the -- the central amenity that you see here before you has also been -- as part of the DA provisions to be installed with the first phase . So, as Becky mentioned to you, they have three phases going out there. So , we want to make sure to get this in place sooner than later. So, we have made those adjustments and, again, she's in agreement with those changes. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. G. Public Hearing Continued from June 18, 2019 for Oakmore Subdivision (H-2018-0118) by Toll ID I LLC, Located near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. 1. Request: Rezone of 7.39 acres of land in the R -15 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district; and, 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of eighteen single family residential lots on approximately 7.29 acres in a proposed R - 4 zoning district De Weerd: Item G is a public hearing continued from June 18th H-2018-0118. I will ask for staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This one coincides with the previous action you just took on, but this is the Oakmore Subdivision. This is a rezone Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 179 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 59 of 62 and a preliminary plat. The site consists of seven acres of land. It's currently zoned R- 15 and it's located near the intersection of West Gondola Drive and North Black Cat Road. We have subdivisions primarily surrounding the proposed development , which are R-4 or R-8 and so you would have West Bridge Subdivision to the north and, then, Black Cat to the -- to the east. Jump Creek Subdivision to the south. And, then, future phases of Oaks North to the west. Again, same history as last time. This was annexed in 2008. At that time it was just a bubble plan and, again, 2013 they came back through, subdivided this, had a concept plan that showed multi-family on the site and so the applicant is here this evening to rezone it from R-15 to R-4 and change the development plan from multi-family to single family, a preliminary plat that consists of 18 single family residential lots and lot sizes ranging from 9,500 square feet all the way up to 15,000 square feet in size. Again, here the proposed plat on the right-hand of your -- side of your screen. During the Planning and Zoning Commission, again, staff raised some concerns about open space and how this was going to tie into the overall Oaks development and so the applicant has revised the plat since the Planning and Zoning Commission. They have rerouted the common drive to meet not only UDC standards, but Fire Department requirements not to exceed 150 feet. Commission made a recommendation that they extend the open space to the west and included another amenity, which the applicant has. Staff also recommended that the applicant add a ten foot multi-use pathway along North -- or North Black Cat Road, which is the street buffer along that street, which is incorporated, and, then, also with the Oaks, the Jump Creek product to the south of this project , we had a pedestrian access stub into this property and they are extending that and tying into that subdivision. So, we are getting interconnectivity not only with open space in the adjacent subdivision, but also with pathways. So, we are starting to make those nexus in getting those connections throughout this area of Meridian. There is only one outstanding issue for the Council tonight and that's really -- there is the west half lateral that runs through the property. I know the Jump Creek project had a common lot, if you can see my cursor, somewhere in this area here. You can see on this color graphic that it comes into the site right across this -- comes through this common lot and, then, dives across Lot 3 here, Block 1. I would appreciate and staff's recommended that the applicant just explained how they are going to route that, whether it's going to be an easement on the buildable lot or a separate common lot and how that's going to tie into Jump Creek for you this evening, get some details on that as you guys make a motion on this particular project. So, testifying -- Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval with conditions. Becky was the only one that testified on the application. There was no one else that was there to testify. As I mentioned to you, open space and amenities were a concern, along with the common driveway. Again, the applicant has revised the plat to coincide with some of the discussions that occurred at the Commission hearing. Staff -- there has been no written testimony since the P&Z commission hearing, so it's a pretty straightforward application. Staff and the Commission are recommending approval for you this evening and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions? McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. Representing Toll Brothers on this application. So , basically, what's before you this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 180 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 60 of 62 evening is a down zone. The property was zoned R-15. We initially anticipated it will be multi-family with 60 dwelling units. We are asking to down zone it to R-4 and have 18 lots, single family, and those sizes range from 9,500 square feet to 15,000 square feet, with an average of about 11,495 square feet. At the Planning and Zoning Commission -- Bill, can you put up -- there we go. At the Planning and Zoning Commission their concerns was since this L piece is pretty far removed from the central open space , they wanted to make sure that we provided for some type of activity for the r esidents that we are going to have here. So, we added some open space and we put a playground here , which satisfied the Planning and Zoning Commission. They were happy with that. Secondly, the Fire Department, the way we had this arranged, our common drive exceeded the 150 limit, so we kind of rearranged the lots and now it is in compliance. The West Tap Lateral comes through, kind of arcs through the property right through here. We have been coordinating with the West Bridge engineer and Jump Creek engineer, so I have a stub street here that will connect to the north, a stub street that connects to the south, aligns with their stub streets and, then, we show that we will pick up that -- that lateral and we pipe it along the rear and, then, up here and it would go out that direction. So, there is just a short stretch that will be piped along the rear of these buildable lots, but, then, it will go into common lots and exit where it historically exited. As Bill indicated, the Parks Department asked that we build a ten foot multi-use pathway along Black Cat. We are in agreement with that. This particular piece of property sewers to the east out to Black Cat, so we will have a sewer main line that comes here. I show a pedestrian pathway and landscaping over the top of that where we will have the sewer connection. So, it's kind of a dual purpose. What's before you is 2.44 dwelling units per acre. So , it's low density. The reason that we deferred this application for a considerable amount of time is Toll Brothers was taking another look at this R-15 property. They were initially going to go with single family dwellings and down zone this to R-8 and, then, they decided that they want to do something like an auto court or a MEW type design and so they decided to keep the R-15 intact. So, that's -- that's kind of why -- why we continued to ask for deferrals and I have been working on that design for them . De Weerd: And you will bring it back at some later date. McKay: I believe we have a condition in our development agreement, Madam Mayor, that says anything within the R-15 areas has to come back as a conditional use permit. Is that not correct, Bill? I think that's in there. Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know if that's exactly the case, but it says if it's multi-family it's coming back for a conditional use permit. But if they do something like -- McKay: Auto court. Parsons: -- auto court or something that's single family there may be a DA mod or may -- so, we will have to look at that and -- but I know that DA does say it has to be densities between eight to 15 dwelling units to the acre on the site, if I remember correctly. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 181 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 61 of 62 McKay: Yes. And I believe, Bill, our target -- Madam Mayor, Bill, our target is eight dwelling units per acre, but they would be detached dwellings. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions from Council? McKay: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any public testimony? Okay. We don't hear down zone very often. So, awesome. Parsons: Madam Mayor. Becky just testified -- and Members of the Council, Becky just testified that that easement would run along those buildable lots. So , as you know, if it's an easement greater than ten feet we -- we need to have a waiver for that to happen to go across those two lots. So, if you're inclined to go with that in -- as part of her testimony tonight, I ask that you include that as a condition of approval or grant the waiver and we will make it happen. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Move we close the public hearing on Item 7-G. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-G. All those in favor? All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I move we approve H-2018-0118 with the waiver for the easements on the lots that Bill mentioned. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-G. Any discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 182 of 519 Meridian City Council July 16, 2019 Page 62 of 62 De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Future Meeting Topics De Weerd: Any items under eight? Okay. With that I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Borton: Move we adjourn. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:27 P.M. (AUDIO REC11 sl 11 ILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR T €RD P, , PuGusr � ATE APPROVED ATTEST. O C%'O1�11� o Z CHRIS J N - Y C L E R, cFNTER of trc EIDIAN,! - DAHJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 16, 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. This 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: 7/16/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 7/16/2019 Hearing Type: Public Forum 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=278 1/1 EIDIAN,*-- �J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 A Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Public Hearing for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Year 2019 Draft Action Plan Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.A . Presenter: Crystal Campbell Estimated Time f or P resentation: 5 Title of I tem - Public Hearing for C ommunity D evelopment B lock Grant (C D B G ) Program Year 2019 Draft Action Plan C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Memo to Council Cover Memo 7/11/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Community Development.J ohnson, Chris Approved 5/20/2019 - 6:55 P M Community Development.J ohnson, Chris Approved 7/12/2019 - 8:45 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 4 of 285 7/16/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 7/16/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-A Project Name: CDBG Program Year 2019 Draft Action Plan Project No.: Active: Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=272 1/1 City -State- I Wish To Sign In Signature Name Address For Against Neutral Zip Testify Date/Time SandraAnderson and 7/16/2019 1810Dunwoody Dick 6:01:23 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=272 1/1 Community Development Department 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 Fax 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org July 10, 2019 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor De Weerd and City Council FROM: Crystal Campbell, Community Development Program Coordinator CC: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Caleb Hood, Planning Manager Cameron Arial, Community Development Administrator RE: Summary of Changes to CDBG PY19 Action Plan Overview: The Program Year 2019 (PY19) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan opened for public comment on May 31, 2019 and will end at the public hearing on July 16, 2019. The PY19 Action Plan was presented to Council at the June 4, 2019 Council Meeting. As of July 10, 2019, there has been one (1) major change to the previously presented plan and one (1) question submitted, which will be included in the public comment section of the final Annual Application to be submitted to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Major Change to Action Plan: Pathways Community Crisis Center will not be funded. Public service entities who receive CDBG funding must be a non-profit agency, but the Crisis Center is run by Pathways, which is a for-profit agency. When Pathways has applied for funding designated for non-profits in the past they have contracted with Southwest Idaho Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) as an umbrella agency to act as their fiscal agent, allowing them to qualify as a non-profit. With this setup, the City would have an agreement directly with RC&D, making them the subrecipient and Pathways Community Crisis Center a contractor. HUD has issued guidance that delineates the responsibilities of grantees, subrecipients, and contractors which make it clear that the City would be responsible for ensuring our subrecipient is meeting all of the federal requirements and the goals of the program and RC&D would be responsible for the same from their contractor. RC&D is not set up to manage grants in this way, they are truly just a fiscal agent so organizations can qualify as a non-profit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 5 of 285 Page 2 Community Development Department 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 Fax 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org The CDBG Scoring Committee weighed in on how to reallocate the $13,500 originally allocated to Pathways Community Crisis Center and agreed on the following: Agency Award Participants Served Original Updated Original Updated Ada County Housing Authority (ACHA) $30,000 $40,000 3 Households 4 Households The Jesse Tree of Idaho $21,000 $24,500 26 Households 31 Households Public Comment: The City has only received one comment as of July 10, 2019. Date Method of Submission Contributor Comment City Response 6/5/19 Email Councilman Borton Do you have a data that shows the default rate of those who receive assistance, as compared to the common mortgage market? Something that shows perhaps a greater success rate I hope, which may be due to a thorough vetting process for those who applied for the assistance. Based on the population we serve with this program, I assume most of our loans are FHA loans, so my best guess at a comparison comes from CoreLogic , which reports that nationally FHA loans had a 3.7% serious delinquency rate in September 2018, which is the lowest it’s been in 11 years. According to the two agencies who have administered the Homeownership Assistance Program for the City, there have been zero defaults since the beginning of this Program. This non-existent default rate reflects on ACHA and NeighborWorks Boise, who have done a phenomenal job of screening and educating potential participants. ACHA and NeighborWorks efforts not only set these households up for success, but also show the agencies abilities to be good stewards of public funds for the City of Meridian. Next Steps: Below are the final steps to complete the PY19 Action Plan. July 16: Public Hearing will be held during regular Council meeting July 23: Action Plan reviewed and adopted by resolution July 31: Final Action Plan submitted to HUD (required to be submitted on or before August 16) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 6 of 285 Co m m u n i t y De v e l o p m e n t Bl o c k Gr a n t (C D B G ) PY 1 9 Ac t i o n Pl a n Pu b l i c He a r i n g 20 1 7 ‐20 2 1 Co n s o l i d a t e d Pl a n •I m p r o v e Ac c e s s i b i l i t y • E n h a n c e Ho m e o w n e r s h i p Op p o r t u n i t i e s •P r o v i d e So c i a l Se r v i c e s • S t a b i l i z e th e Re n t a l Ga p • A d m i n i s t r a t i o n an d Fa i r Ho u s i n g Ac t i v i t i e s An n u a l Ac t i o n Pl a n •T h i r d ye a r of Co n Pl a n •P r o g r a m Ye a r : Oc t o b e r 1, 20 1 9 to Se p t e m b e r 30 , 20 2 0 • P u b l i c Co m m e n t Pe r i o d : Ma y 31 ‐Ju l y 16 • P u b l i c He a r i n g : Ju l y 16 Co n s o l i d a t e d Annual Pe r f o r m a n c e and Ev a l u a t i o n Report (C A P E R ) •R e p o r t on Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s •D u e in December Ov e r v i e w Pr o j e c t s Pr e s e n t e d 6/ 4 / 1 9 ($ 4 2 4 , 1 6 2 ) Im p r o v e Ac c e s s i b i l i t y E. Th i r d Ri g h t ‐of ‐Way Im p r o v e m e n t s ($ 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 ) St r e e t l i g h t Im p r o v e m e n t s Ne a r Sc h o o l s ($ 1 1 5 , 6 6 2 ) En h a n c e Ho m e o w n e r s h i p Op p o r t u n i t i e s Ho m e o w n e r s h i p As s i s t a n c e ($ 3 0 , 0 0 0 ) Pr o v i d e So c i a l Se r v i c e s Ho m e l e s s n e s s Pr e v e n t i o n ($ 2 1 , 0 0 0 ) Yo u t h Ex t e n d e d Ca r e Sc h o l a r s h i p s ($ 1 3 , 0 0 0 ) SO A R Ca r e Co o r d i n a t i o n ($ 1 6 , 0 0 0 ) Be h a v i o r a l He a l t h Crisis St a b i l i z a t i o n ($ 1 3 , 5 0 0 ) Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n an d Fa i r Ho u s i n g ($ 3 5 , 0 0 0 ) Ov e r v i e w , co n t . Ma j o r Ch a n g e to Ac t i o n Pl a n Pa t h w a y s Co m m u n i t y Cr i s i s Ce n t e r wi l l no t be fu n d e d . • Ap p l i e d us i n g So u t h w e s t Id a h o Re s o u r c e Co n s e r v a t i o n an d De v e l o p m e n t (RC&D) as an um b r e l l a ag e n c y to qu a l i f y as a no n ‐pr o f i t • RC & D is a fi s c a l ag e n t an d ca n n o t me e t th e CD B G su b r e c i p i e n t re q u i r e m e n t s • Fu n d i n g fo r pr o j e c t ($ 1 3 , 5 0 0 ) mu s t be re a l l o c a t e d Re a l l o c a t i o n of Fu n d s Ad a Co u n t y Ho u s i n g Au t h o r i t y (A C H A ) Fu n d i n g : In c r e a s e fr o m $3 0 , 0 0 0 to $4 0 , 0 0 0 Pa r t i c i p a n t s : In c r e a s e fr o m 3 to 4 ho u s e h o l d s Th e Je s s e Tr e e of Id a h o Fu n d i n g : In c r e a s e fr o m $2 1 , 0 0 0 to $2 4 , 5 0 0 Pa r t i c i p a n t s : In c r e a s e fr o m 26 to 31 ho u s e h o l d s Pu b l i c Co m m e n t Da t e M e t h o d of Su b m i s s i o n Co n t r i b u t o r C o m m e n t C i t y Re s p o n s e 6/ 5 / 1 9 E m a i l C o u n c i l m a n Bo r t o n Do yo u ha v e a da t a th a t sh o w s th e de f a u l t ra t e of th o s e wh o re c e i v e as s i s t a n c e , as co m p a r e d to th e co m m o n mo r t g a g e ma r k e t ? So m e t h i n g th a t sh o w s pe r h a p s a gr e a t e r su c c e s s ra t e I ho p e , wh i c h ma y be du e to a th o r o u g h ve t t i n g pr o c e s s fo r th o s e wh o ap p l i e d fo r th e as s i s t a n c e . Ba s e d on th e po p u l a t i o n we se r v e wi t h this program, I as s u m e mo s t of ou r lo a n s ar e FH A lo a n s , so my best guess at a co m p a r i s o n co m e s fr o m Co r e L o g i c , which reports that na t i o n a l l y FH A lo a n s ha d a 3. 7 % se r i o u s delinquency rate in Se p t e m b e r 20 1 8 , wh i c h is th e lo w e s t it’s been in 11 years. Ac c o r d i n g to th e tw o ag e n c i e s wh o ha v e administered the Ho m e o w n e r s h i p As s i s t a n c e Pr o g r a m fo r the City, there have be e n ze r o de f a u l t s si n c e th e be g i n n i n g of this Program. This no n ‐ex i s t e n t de f a u l t ra t e re f l e c t s on AC H A and Ne i g h b o r W o r k s B o i s e , wh o ha v e do n e a phenomenal job of sc r e e n i n g an d ed u c a t i n g po t e n t i a l pa r t i c i p a n t s . ACHA and Ne i g h b o r W o r k s e f f o r t s no t on l y se t th e s e households up for su c c e s s , bu t al s o sh o w th e ag e n c i e s ab i l i t i e s to be good st e w a r d s of pu b l i c fu n d s fo r th e Ci t y of Meridian. Ti m e l i n e Ju l y 16 , 20 1 9 • P u b l i c He a r i n g •E n d of Pu b l i c Co m m e n t Pe r i o d Ju l y 23 , 20 1 9 • A p p r o v e Re s o l u t i o n to Ad o p t Ac t i o n Pl a n Ju l y 31 , 20 1 9 • A p p r o v e d Ac t i o n Pl a n Su b m i t t e d to HU D (F e d e r a l De a d l i n e : Au g u s t 16 ) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 B Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0064 Cherry Blossom Item Title: Final Plat Continued from July 9, 2019, Cherry Blossom By Doug Jayo, Jayo Land Development Company, LLC., Located at 615 W. Cherry Ln. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F inal P lat Continued from J uly 9, 2019 for Cherry Blossom (H-2019-0064) by D oug J ayo, J ayo Land Development Company, L L C ., L ocated at 615 W. Cherry L n. Applic ant R eques ts a C o ntinuanc e C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Continuance R equest 8-13-19 Cover Memo 7/15/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 7/12/2019 - 9:05 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 7 of 285 Landscape Architecture ● Civil Engineering ● Graphic Communication ● Erosion Control ● Irrigation Design ● Land Planning Cc: FILE Jayo Land Development Company, Inc. Breckon Land Design Inc. Post Office Box 44465 Boise, Idaho 83711 p: 208-376-5153 f: 208-376-6528 www.breckonlanddesign.com July 15, 2019 Mrs. Sonya Allen | Associate Planner City of Meridian | Community Development Department 33 East Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208‐884‐5533 | Fax: 208‐489‐0578 Project: Cherry Blossom Place Subdivision 615 W. Cherry Lane Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Request for Continuance On behalf of Jayo Land Development Company, Inc., I would like to request a continuance for the scheduled city council hearing on July16th to the August 13th date, due to the need to address issues with the existing irrigation ditch encroachments and to allow for the redesign and required access easements that have come from the final plat review. Should you have questions or require further information, please let me know as soon as possible. Sincerely, Breckon Land Design, Inc. Jon Breckon, PLA, ASLA, CPSI Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 8 of 285 ( �� EI DA IDIAN*,-----IZ HO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 C Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0067 Firenze Plaza Item Title: Final Plat for Firenze Plaza Subdivision By The Land Group, Inc., Located on the NW Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F inal P lat for F irenze P laza S ubdivision (H-2019-0067) by T he L and Group, Inc., L ocated on the NW corner of S . E agle Rd. and E. Amity Rd. C lick Here for A pplication Materials C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 7/10/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 7/10/2019 - 1:40 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 9 of 285 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 7/16/2019 TO: City Council FROM: Kevin Holmes, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0067 Firenze Plaza Subdivision PROPERTY LOCATION: NWC of E. Amity Rd. and S. Eagle Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for final plat consisting of eleven (11) commercial building lots and two (2) common lots on 15.92 acres of land in the C-C zoning district, by The Land Group, Inc. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 15.92 Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial Current Zoning C-C Proposed Zoning NA Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 11/2 Physical Features Tenmile Feeder Canal bisects the SW corner of the property History (previous approvals) H-2016-0102 (AZ, CPAM, PP); DA instrument # 2017-041827; A- 2019-0120 (TED) III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Roger Collins The Land Group, Inc. 462 E. Shore Dr. Eagle, ID 83616 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 10 of 285 Page 2 B. Owner: ABS ID-O, LLC 250 Parkcenter Blvd. Boise, ID 83726 C. Representative: Same as applicant IV. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the preliminary plat as required by UDC 11-6B-3C.2. The preliminary plat depicts eleven (11) commercial lots, two (2) common lots, and one (1) right-of-way (ROW) lot; the proposed final plat depicts this same count and configuration. As such, Staff deems the proposed final plat to be in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. A. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: None B. Dimensional Standards: Comply with UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C district (http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=306) C. Access: Two (2) public street accesses are proposed, one via S. Eagle Rd. (arterial) and one via E. Amity Rd. (arterial). In addition, two (2) right-in, right-out connections (one each to S. Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd.) are proposed; a cross-access/ingress-egress agreement between the commercial lots in the development shall be provided to the Meridian Planning Division in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2 and preliminary plat condition #1.1.3b. D. Sidewalks: A minimum five-foot (5’) wide detached sidewalk is required along S. Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd., both arterial streets, in accord with the recorded development agreement and preliminary plat. This sidewalk shall be located in the required twenty-five foot (25’) landscape buffer per Table 11-2B-3. A five-foot (5’) wide detached sidewalk is required along the east side of S. Montague St., a collector street, and is to be constructed with the first phase of development per the recorded development agreement. Detached five-foot (5’) sidewalks are proposed on both sides of S. Cubola Ave. and E. Mount Etna Dr., both local streets, in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. E. Pathways: None F. Landscaping A twenty-five foot (25’) wide street buffer is required along S. Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd., both arterial streets, measured from back of curb; a twenty-foot (20’) wide buffer is required along S. Montague St., a collector street, measured from back of curb; a ten-foot (10’) wide landscape buffer is required along the C-C zoned frontages of S. Cubola Ave. and E. Mount Etna Dr., both local streets, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Landscaping is required within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 11 of 285 Page 3 The landscape plan depicts a twenty-foot (20’) wide street buffer (including the sidewalk) along portions of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd.; the buffer should be widened to a minimum of twenty-five feet (25’) (including the sidewalk). The landscape buffer along the entire frontage of S. Montague Way shall be built with the first phase of development and prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site, per the recorded development agreement. When the two (2) R-8 zoned properties to the east are platted, this landscape buffer shall be included as a common lot to be maintained by a homeowners association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2.a. The internal landscaping of the commercial lots shall be reviewed through subsequent Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES) applications and shall conform with all applicable City of Meridian landscaping requirements. G. Parkways: Parkways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. H. Waterways: The Tenmile Feeder Canal runs through the SW corner of the property. Per requirements of UDC 11-3A-6B.3, this canal shall be piped or otherwise covered. I. Fencing: No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. J. Utilities: All development is required to be connected to City water and sewer systems; street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances per UDC 11-3A-21. V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in Section VII of this report. VI. EXHIBITS See following page Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 12 of 285 Page 4 A. Preliminary Plat Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 13 of 285 Page 5 B. Final Plat Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 14 of 285 Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 15 of 285 Page 7 C. Landscape Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 16 of 285 Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 17 of 285 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 18 of 285 Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 19 of 285 Page 11 VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: 1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development [H-2016-0102 (AZ, CPAM, PP); DA Instrument # 2017-041827; A- 2019-0120 (TED)]. 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer’s signature on the subject final plat by August 7, 2020, or apply for a time extension, in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer’s signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 4. The final plat prepared by The Land Group, Inc., stamped on 5/14/2019 by James R. Washburn, included in Exhibit B shall be revised as follows: a. Graphically depict the following dedicated landscape buffers (or common lots) in accord with UDC 11-3B-7: a twenty-five foot (25’) wide street buffer along S. Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd., both arterial streets, measured from back of curb; a twenty- foot (20’) wide buffer along S. Montague St., a collector street, measured from back of curb; a ten-foot (10’) wide landscape buffer along the C-C zoned frontages of S. Cubola Ave. and E. Mount Etna Dr. b. Note #2: Include Lot 3, Block 1 as a designated common lot. c. Note #9: Include the name and instrument number of the master declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements. d. Note #10: Include the recorded instrument number of the temporary ACHD Landscape License Agreement. e. Note #11: Include the recorded instrument number of the existing ACHD Landscape License Agreement f. Note #12: Include the instrument number for the recorded development agreement. g. Note #13: Include the instrument number for the recorded cut-fill easement. h. Include a note that references the recorded cross-access/ingress-egress for all commercial lots in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2 and preliminary plat condition #1.1.3b. 5. The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 4/12/19 included in Exhibit C, shall be revised as follows: a. Construct a twenty-five foot (25’) wide street buffer along S. Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd. in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. b. Construct a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along the east side of E. Montague St. per the recorded development agreement in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. Said landscape buffer shall be owned and by maintained by the current property owner until the R-8 portion of the property subdivides and is included as a common lot to be owned and maintained by a homeowner’s association. 6. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat and/or development agreement does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 20 of 285 Page 12 7. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of zoning compliance and administrative design review prior to commencing construction on any of the buildable lots. 8. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide a letter from the United States Postal Service stating that the applicant has received approval of the mailbox locations. Contact the Meridian Postmaster, Sue Prescott, at 887-1620 for more information. B. Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval: 1. Applicant shall be required to complete the water main connection to Eagle Road with this development, to provide a redundant connection. 2. Applicant shall verify when the water main connection will be completed to Amity Road. 3. Add City of Meridian standard streetlights notes founds at: https://meridiancity.org/land/files/STANDARD%20NOTES%20- %20Street%20Lights%20AP%203-29-18%20LDWEB.pdf 4. Move lights 52555c to the north mid-block between E. Mount Etna Dr. and E. Taormina Dr. 5. Add additional streetlight between E. Taormina Dr. and E. Amity Road on S. Montague Way. 6. If ACHD does not install streetlights on E. Amity Road and S. Eagle road this development will be responsible for the installation with the building permit. General Conditions of Approval: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 21 of 285 Page 13 estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non- health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3 -feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 22 of 285 Page 14 19. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 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 signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. Any 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 Water Department at (208)888-5242 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. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 23 of 285 E RI D I A N*, -,- July 16, 2019 Meeting Notes: Ci t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g Ju l y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 h2 Sl i d e 1 h2 Ag e n d a I t e m N u m b e r s / O r d e r : ho o d c , 1 2 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 6 Zo n i n g M a p Ae r i a l Pr e l i m i n a r y P l a t / L a n d s c a p e P l a n 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. Re v i s e d P l a t Mi l l e r Pr o p e r t y Zo n i n g M a p Fu t u r e L a n d U s e M a p Co u n t r y s i d e C o l l e c t i o n Ga r d e n C o l l e c t i o n Woodland Collection Co n c e p t u a l B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s Changes to Agenda: Item #7B: Cherry Blossom (FP) – H-2019-0064: Applicant requests continuance to Aug. 13th in order to submit a revised plat & application with fewer building lots due to some irrigation easement issues that affect the lots along the southern boundary of the site. Item #7C: Firenze Plaza Subdivision (H-2019-0067) Application(s): Final Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 15.92 acres of land, zoned C-C, located at the NWC of E. Amity Rd. & S. Eagle Rd. History: In 2017, the following approvals were granted by Council: 1) an amendment to the FLUM from LDR to MU-C; annexation w/C- C zoning with a DA; and a preliminary plat. An 18-month time extension on the plat was approved earlier this year. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C Summary of Request: Final plat consisting of 11 building lots & 2 common lots on 15.92 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Roger Collins, Applicant’s Representative (in agreement w/staff report) Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0067, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 16, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0067, as presented during the hearing on July 16, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0067 to the hearing date of ____________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #7D: Rackham Subdivision (H-2018-0126) Application(s): Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 51.59 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 1020 S. Eagle Rd at the SEC of S. Eagle Rd. & I-84. History: Property was annexed in 1995. A Development Agreement was recently approved. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. The subdivision is proposed to be developed in at least 3 phases as shown on the phasing plan. Primary access exists to this site via S. Silverstone Way, a collector street, at the southern boundary of the site; and a secondary access is available via S. Rackham Way, a local street, at the SWC of the site. All lots within the proposed subdivision are subject to a cross-access & parking easement. A 50’ wide landscaped street buffer containing a pathway is required along I-84 and a 20’ wide buffer is required along Silverstone Way, a collector street. Rackham Way stubs to this site at the SWC; a shared cross-access driveway is proposed along & adjacent to the southern boundary between this property and the property to the south. ITD submitted a letter to the City recommending the developer construct a 2nd right-turn lane at the eastbound off-ramp prior to commencement of Phase 3 or exceeding 668 PM peak hour trips as mitigation in lieu of mitigating for impacts to the northbound left turning movements at the westbound ramp which aren’t feasible. This mitigation would provide some relief to the overall operations of this interchange which ITD feels is reasonable to offset the developer’s impacts. Because this is an off-site improvement, staff does not recommend this is required with the plat; however, it may be considered with the upcoming DA modification that will soon be submitted for this project. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Geoffrey Wardle, Counsel for BVA dba Eagle View ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Key Issue(s):None Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: None Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2018-0126, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 16, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0126, as presented during the hearing on July 16, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0126 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #7E: 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. 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 pedestrian connection within the subdivision and to other subdivisions in the area. 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. ITD will prohibit access to Chinden when expanded to 6 lanes in the future. 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 originally recommended an extension of W. Guiness St. to N. Stafford Pl. to create an additional access point for residents and to increase connectivity for the northern part of this area; the Commission struck this condition. The Commission modified Staff’s recommendation to extend a private north/south street from E. Commander Ln. to be constructed when the Shandee access to Chinden Blvd. closes. Commission Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: NOTE: Those who signed in as “in favor” or “in opposition” could have stated their position based on either the developer’s proposed plan or to staff’s original recommendations, vi. In favor: Hethe Clark, the applicant’s representative; Brett Aeschbacher; Renee Jessome; Steve Ryser; Kevin Krafft; vii. 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 viii. 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; ix. 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; x. Written testimony: 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. xi. Key Issue(s): Support of ACHD’s approved plan, opposition to Staff’s recommendations; concerns related to safety and congestion resulting from increased traffic through Three Corners Sub., Ambrose School, and Dunwoody Sub.; concern regarding access via Dunwoody Ct. related to unimproved roadway; Extension of existing stub streets; Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Location of turnaround at western boundary gate; ii. Extension of W. Guiness St. to the east to connect with N. Stafford; iii. Extension of north-south private street from E. Commander Ln. to W. Guiness St. to align with N. Shandee Dr.; iv. Concern regarding safety on Dunwoody Ct.; v. Closeness of ACHD Commission decision; vi. Request for further discussion regarding amenities; vii. Provision of a third access point to alleviate amount of traffic on E. Dunwoody Ct.; viii. Need to work with Dunwoody neighbors regarding safety and irrigation concerns; Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Strike conditions requiring extension of W. Guiness St. to the east to connect with N. Stafford Pl.; ii. Modify condition A.3d to include a provision that the gated north-south private street be constructed upon closure of the Shandee Dr. access to Chinden; iii. Add a condition to require the gate on the west boundary to be moved closer to the proposed development; 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; iii. The applicant met with Dunwoody residents regarding Dunwoody Ct. and staff regarding amenities as required; 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 July 16, 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 July 16, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0006 to the hearing date of July 16, 2019 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #7F: Oaks North & South MDA (H-2018-0117) - Continued from June 18th Application(s): Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 357+/- acres of land, zoned R-4, R-8 & R-15, located on the north & south sides of W. McMillan Rd. & N. Black Cat Rd. History: This property was annexed and rezoned and included in preliminary plats in 2013; a DA was also approved at that time. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant requests a modification to the existing DA to modify the overall boundary of Oaks North & Oaks South development AND to update the zoning district boundaries, the concept plan and modify/remove certain provisions of the agreement that are no longer relevant to the project. The development agreement modification proposes to omit two of the three multi-family developments, office, WARD park and fire station components conceptually approved with the Oaks North and Oaks South development. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to revise the overall boundary of the Oaks North and Oaks South, the zoning district boundaries associated with the omission of the aforementioned components and modify the approved concept plan. Provisions that are no longer relevant to this development are also proposed to be removed or modified. If approved, the amended DA is required to be signed by the property owner and returned to the City within six (6) months of the Council granting the modification. The approved Oaks North preliminary plat included 653 single-family homes with two (2) multi-family phases on approximately 252 acres of land. The Oaks South preliminary plat included 310 single-family lots, one (1) multi- family lot, six (6) office lots, one (1) park lot, two (2) other lots, and 33 common lots on approximately 136 acres of land. The Oaks South subdivision was proposed to contain 20.29 acres of common open space and the following amenities: pool, children’s play structure, integrated pathway system, extension of the Meridian Multi-Use Pathway system, two (2) covered picnic areas, and 5% additional open space. In 2018, a new development agreement was approved for the Oaks West project (H-2017-0170) which removed a portion of the property (SWC of McMillan and McDermott Roads) from the Oaks DA. The applicant has submitted two (2) separate a rezone and preliminary plat applications for the Oakmore (H-2018- 0118) and Oakwind (H-2018-0119) Subdivision located in the Oaks North; both this applications were was heard before Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17, 2019. Approval of both the rezone and preliminary plat applications are is contingent on the approval of the subject MDA application. As part of this application submittal, the new concept plan depicts the addition of 100 18 new single family lots to be constructed within the Oaks North development consistent with the Commission’s recommendation on the aforementioned applications. The Oaks South Subdivision is completed but has not been included in the updated concept plan, however, this portion of the property still will remain subject to the amended DA. Due to the reduction in density and the increase in single family homes, staff raised concerns with the Commission that there may not be adequate open space and amenities commensurate to the large single family development. With the approval of the Oaks West project, the Commission included a condition to add more open space and amenities within that development to off-set the difference. Further, the concept plan approved with the Oaks North preliminary plat indicated approximately sixty (60) units where the Oakmore Subdivision is currently proposed and 208 multi-family units where the Oakwind Subdivision is proposed. If developed as multi-family, both the subject phases would have been required to provide at least 10% open space respectively; the phase where Oakwind is proposed would have needed to provide at least five (5) qualified site amenities, while Oakmore is would have been and at least one four (4) qualified site amenitiesy. The Oakmore Subdivision is proposed to add eighteen (18) single-family homes, while the Oakwind Subdivision will add eighty-two (82) single-family homes. With the substitution of 100 18 single-family residences for the multi- family phases the total approximate build-out (as currently proposed) of the Oaks North will include approximately 750 668 single-family residences, which is approximately 100 18 more single-family residences than originally proposed and approved. Without the added amenities that the multi-family developments would have been required to construct, approximately 750 668 single family residences within the Oaks North development will be utilizing the same amenities. During the hearing for the Oakmore project, the Commission did require the applicant to incorporate more open space and amenities within the Oaks North development. The revised plans for the Oakmore Subdivision have been included below that depicts more open space to the west and the addition of a tot lot, per the recommendation of the Commission (see Exhibit VII.D). To mitigate the concerns from the Commission, the applicant has also provided an exhibit that depicts the additional amenities proposed for the Oaks North which are proposed to develop on including the 5.65 acre neighborhood park (see Exhibit VII.F). The exhibit depicts a lake with fishing dock, pool, clubhouse, sports courts, children’s playground equipment and an on-site parking area. Staff recommends that this exhibit be incorporated in the amended DA to ensure amenities proposed for a development of this size is commensurate. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2018-0117, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 16, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0117, as presented during the hearing on July 16, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0117 to the hearing date of __________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #7G: Oakmore Subdivision (H-2018-0118) Application(s): Rezone Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 7 acres of land, zoned R-4, located near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Future SFR subdivision (Westbridge), zoned R-4 South: SFR subdivision (Jump Creek), zoned R-8 East: N. Black Cat Rd. and SFR subdivision (Bainbridge), zoned R-8 West: Future phases of The Oaks zoned R-4 History: In 2008, the property was annexed and zoned as part of the Oakcreek Subdivision (subject to Oakcreek DA). In 2013, rezoned to R-15 and platted as part of The Oaks North when the property was expanded and split into The Oaks North and South (with new DA associated). Current DA includes concept plan with multi-family depicted on the subject property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting a rezone from R-15 to R-4 and a preliminary plat consisting of 18 single family residential lots and 6 common lots. Lots range in size from approximately 9,500 sf to 15,000 sf, for an average lot size of 11,495. The gross proposed density is 2.44 units/acre. The proposed density is below the desired density for MDR, but staff feels it is consistent when included with the entire Oaks development. The applicant has submitted a separate modification to the development agreement to be consistent with the proposed development for 18 SFR homes on the subject property. The DA modification will be heard before City Council on February 19th. Approval of this project is contingent on approval of that modification since the current site plan depicts multi-family rather than single-family residences. A stub street is proposed to the north into the proposed Westbridge Subdivision and to the south to the Jump Creek Subdivision. Internal access will be through future phases of The Oaks. No direct access is proposed to N. Black Cat Rd. One common driveway is proposed to provide access to two lots at the northwest part of the property. That access exceeds UDC maximum length of 150’ and will be redesigned prior to the Council hearing to comply. Five-foot detached sidewalk is proposed throughout the development. Staff is recommending the applicant add a micropath to the southwest part of the site to provide pedestrian connection to the Jump Creek subdivision. Staff is also recommending that the City’s ten-foot multi-use pathway be continued along N. Black Cat Rd. The West Tap Sublateral crosses Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 in the proposed plat. The applicant shall relocate the lateral or tile it. The applicant needs to specify how wide the easement will be on the buildable lots. If the easement width is greater than 10’ it needs to have a 20’ common lot unless waived by Council. Renderings of a variety of SFR detached homes were submitted with this application that demonstrate what future homes within this development will look like. Renderings match those that were approved with the DA and will be consistent with development in the area. Staff is concerned that the number of amenities provided with the overall development may not be adequate since the conceptually approved multi-family would have been required to provide additional open space and amenities. This parcel was originally proposed to develop with 60 multi-family units which would have been required to provide 10% open space and at least 3 amenities With the addition of the two projects currently proposed, Oakmore and Oakwind, there will be approximately 100 more SFR than was originally approved, which means roughly 750 SFR will be using the same amenities. Staff feels that the recommended micropath and continuation of the ten-foot multi-use pathway would provide useable open space for residents. Commission Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: xii. In favor: Becky McKay, Applicant’s representative xiii. In opposition: None xiv. Commenting: Becky McKay xv. Written testimony: None xvi. Key Issue(s): None Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: ix. Open space and site amenities, addition of open space in the northwest corner of the development x. Current common driveway length of 187’ Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: iv. Add a condition that the common lot at the NW corner of the plat extend into the subdivision into the subdivision to the west Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Commission requests that the need for an additional amenity be discussed at the Council hearing. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2018-0118, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 16, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0118, as presented during the hearing on July 16, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0118 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) EIDIAN,?DAHO -- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 D Project File Name/Number: H-2018-0126 Rackham Subdivision Item Title: Public Hearing for Rackham Subdivision By BVA Development, Located at 1020 S. Eagle Rd. 1. Request. A Preliminary Plat consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C -G zoning district. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Rackham Subdivision (H-2018-0126) by B VA Development, L ocated at 1020 S. Eagle Rd. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Commission Recommendations and S taf f R eport S taff Report 7/10/2019 Minutes from Planning and Z oning Commission Hearing B ackup Material 7/10/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 7/10/2019 - 3:09 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 24 of 285 7/16/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 7/16/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-D Project Name: Rackham Subdivision Project No.: H-2019-0126 Active: � Signature City -State- I Wish To Sign In Address For Against Neutral Name Zip Testify Date/Time Geoffrey 251 E Front Suite 200 7/16/2019 X X Wardle Boise Idaho 6:01:05 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=274 1/1 Page 1 HEARING DATE: July 16, 2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0126 Rackham Subdivision LOCATION: 1020 S. Eagle Rd., in the southwest ¼ of Section 16, T.3N., R.1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district for Rackham Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 51.59 Future Land Use Designation MU-R Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land in development process Proposed Land Use(s) Mix of commercial, office, hotel, restaurants, residential (MFR), entertainment/recreation facility Current Zoning C-G Proposed Zoning NA Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 20 building lots/0 common lots Phasing plan (# of phases) 1 Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) NA Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: October 30, 2018; 13 attendees History (previous approvals) Annexed in 1995 (Ord. #719, Langly/Power Mall); H-2019- 0005 (new DA, Inst. #2019-037825) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 25 of 285 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District Staff report (yes/no) Not yet (TIS was required and accepted by ACHD) Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Fire Service Distance to Fire Station 0.9 of a mile from Fire Station #4 Fire Response Time 3 minutes under ideal conditions Resource Reliability 81% – does not meet the target goal of 85% or greater Risk Identification 4 – Current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project (see Fire comments in Section VIII.C for more information) Accessibility Meets all access requirements; fire lanes should be clearly marked Special/resource needs An aerial device is required; the closest truck company is 7 minutes travel time (under ideal conditions) – Fire Dept. can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required; in the event of a structure fire, an additional truck company will be required which will require additional time delays as they aren’t available in the City; in the event of a haz-mat event, there will need to be mutual aid required for the development Water Supply Requires 2,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours; may be less if building is fully sprinklered Police Service Distance to Police Station 2.3 miles Police Response Time Priority 3: 4.03; Priority 2: 7.10; Priority 1: 10.50 Calls for Service 819 % of calls for service split by priority See comments in Section VIII.D Accessibility Specialty/resource needs Crimes 81 Crashes 56 Other Reports Wastewater Distance to Sewer Services 0 Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application information WRRF Declining Balance 13.68 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 26 of 285 Page 3 C. Project Maps Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes Impacts/Concerns No concerns, flows already committed. Water Distance to Water Services 0-feet Pressure Zone 4 Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application information Water Quality Concerns Yes - Current plan results in a 1,400 LF dead-end water main, which is a concern for water quality. This concern can be mitigated by looping the water main back to the 8" to the west or 16" to the north. Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes Impacts/Concerns Applicant to change all proposed 10" mains to 8" mains. Eliminate long dead- end by looping back to either the 8" to the west or 16" to the north. Current configuration will result in water quality concern and increased cost of fire suppression system due to lower pressure at higher flows. Option also available to connect back to Overland via Rolling Hill. Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 27 of 285 Page 4 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: BVA Development – 2775 W. Navigator Dr., 4th Floor, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Idaho Central Credit Union/BVA Development – 2775 W. Navigator Dr., 4th Floor, Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Geoffrey M. Wardle, Spink Butler – 251 E. Front St., #200, Boise, ID 83702 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 5/23/2019 6/25/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 5/28/2019 6/25/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 6/7/2019 7/2/2019 Nextdoor posting 5/28/2019 6/25/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): This property is designated Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) on the City’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 28 of 285 Page 5 together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. See pgs. 30-31 of the Comprehensive Plan for more information. A. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site. Dimensional Standards (UDC Table 11-2B-3): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. The C-G district has no minimum lot size or street frontage requirements. Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in three (3) phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.A but the Applicant requests leeway for a few additional phases if necessary as shown on the phasing plan (i.e. a, b, c, etc.). Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): The primary access to this site is proposed via S. Silverstone Way, a collector street; another access is available via S. Rackham Way, a local street, at the southwest corner of the site. A cross-section/detail should be included on the plat for S. Silverstone Way. All lots in this subdivision are subject to cross-access and parking easements per the note on the plat in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Note: A 50’ wide future road easement abuts the southern boundary of this site on Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Jewel subdivision for access via E. Onyx St. but was never dedicated as right-of-way or improved. With submittal of an updated conceptual development plan with the upcoming Development Agreement modification application, the Applicant should provide a cross-access easement across the future land use buffer for interconnectivity upon redevelopment of the property to the south. An emergency access easement will also be required by the Fire Dept. to the east for access via S. Rolling Hill Dr. Traffic: The ITD submitted a letter to the City based on the findings of the Traffic Impact Study (see Section VII.K). Although this development is not taking direct access via the state highway, it will impact the Eagle Road interchange (Exit 46) due to the volume of vehicles generated by the development at full build-out in 2030. Per ITD’s letter, “ITD recommends to the City of Meridian that the developer construct a second right turn lane at the eastbound off-ramp prior to commencing Phase 3 of the ICCU Plaza or exceeding 668 PM Peak hour trips. This mitigation improvement is constructible and is in lieu of the more critical need for the developer to mitigate for impacts to the northbound left turning movements at the westbound ramp, which is not feasible or reasonable. ITD does not have any projects currently programmed to rebuild the Eagle Road interchange. This mitigation will provide some relief to the overall operations of this interchange and is a reasonable improvement to offset the developer’s impacts.” This will likely be a recommendation as a new provision in the amended Development Agreement application to be submitted for this project prior to commencement of Phase 3. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 29 of 285 Page 6 Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan does not depict any pathways on this site. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 17. Detached sidewalks are required along I-84, an interstate, and along S. Silverstone way, a collector street, in accord with UDC standards as proposed. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A- 17E. Eight-foot wide parkways are required for Class II trees unless root barriers are provided in which case the parkways can be reduced to 6 feet. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C- G zoning district in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide landscape buffer to adjoining residential uses is required with lot development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C as applicable. A 50-foot wide buffer is required along I-84, an interstate, and a 20-foot wide buffer is required along S. Silverstone Way, a collector street. The buffer along S. Silverstone Way should be depicted on the plat on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer maintained by the business owners’ association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2b. The proposed landscape plan included in Section VII.B should be revised as follows: 1) the 50-foot wide street buffer along I-84 needs to be extended along the west boundary of the site and the Landscape Requirements table updated accordingly (1 tree is required per 35 linear feet); the Landscape Requirements table also needs to include calculations for the buffer along S. Silverstone Way. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): No waterways cross this site. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. Fencing is not depicted on the landscape plan. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development as proposed. The New York Irrigation District has the water rights to this parcel which is delivered by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed ICCU building as shown in Section VII.C. Final design of all structures proposed on the site is required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and those in the Architectural Standards Manual. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 30 of 285 Page 7 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat per the conditions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on June 20, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject PP request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Geoffrey Wardle, Counsel for BVA dba Eagle View b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. None 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 31 of 285 Page 8 VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat (dated: 5/3/19) & Phasing Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 32 of 285 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 33 of 285 Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 34 of 285 Page 11 B. Landscape Plan (date: 11/1/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 35 of 285 Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 36 of 285 Page 13 C. Conceptual Building Elevations: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 37 of 285 Page 14 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division 1. All development shall comply with the terms of the Development Agreement (Inst. 2019- 037825) and any future amendments to that agreement as applicable. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.A, shall be revised as follows: a. The buffer along S. Silverstone Way shall be depicted on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer maintained by the business owners’ association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2b. b. Depict a street section/detail for S. Silverstone Way. The minimum width of the parkways along S. Silverstone Way planted with Class II trees is 8 feet unless root barriers are provided in which case they may be reduced to 6 feet. c. Add a note referencing the recorded cross-access easement and instrument number for the shared driveway with the property to the south along the southern boundary of the site west of S. Silverstone Way. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.B shall be revised as follows: a. Extend the 50-foot wide street buffer (and pathway) adjacent to I-84 along the west boundary of the site in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C; update the Landscape Requirements table accordingly. b. Include the calculations for the street buffer along S. Silverstone Way in the Landscape Requirements table. 4. Development of subdivision shall be generally consistent with the phasing plan included in Section VII.A. 5. If the City Engineer’s signature has not been obtained on the final plat within two (2) years of the City Council’s approval of the subject preliminary plat, the preliminary plat shall become null and void unless a time extension is obtained as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 6. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer’s signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 1.2 Applicant to change all proposed 10" mains to 8" mains. Eliminate long dead-end by looping back to either the 8" to the west or 16" to the north. Current configuration will result in water quality concern and increased cost of fire suppression system due to lower pressure at higher flows. Option also available to connect back to Overland via Rolling Hill. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 38 of 285 Page 15 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 39 of 285 Page 16 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 40 of 285 Page 17 surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169332/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169491/Page1.aspx E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) No comments were received F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169498/Page1.aspx G. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/173003/Page1.aspx H. NEW YORK IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=169239 I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169389/Page1.aspx J. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/169452/Page1.aspx K. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/173150/Page1.aspx L. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) Comments have yet to be received from ACHD. IX. FINDINGS Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) The Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 41 of 285 Page 18 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; The Commission finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 42 of 285 A. Public Hearing for Rackham Subdivision (H- 2018-0126) by BVA Development, Located at 1020 S. Eagle Rd . 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C -G zoning district Perreault: So, at this time we will open our active items this evening. We will start with the public hearing for Rackham Subdivision, H-2018-0126. Let's begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 51.59 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and is located at 1020 South Eagle Road. This property was annexed in 1995 and a development agreement was recently approved. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use regional. A preliminary plan is proposed, consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. The subdivision is proposed to develop in at least three phases as shown on the phasing plan. Primary access exists to this site via South Silverstone Way, a collector street at the southern boundary of the site. And that is right here where you can see my pointer. And a secondary access is available via South Rackham Way, a local street, at the southwest corner of the site. And that is right here. All lots within the proposed subdivision are subject to the cross-access and parking easement. The Idaho Transportation Department submitted a letter to the city recommending the developer construct a second right turn lane at the eastbound off ramp prior to commencement of phase three or exceeding 668 p.m. peak hour trips as mitigation in lieu of mitigating for impacts to the northbound left turning movements at the westbound ramp and this is an off-site improvement and isn't required as part of this application. Staff is just merely telling you the input that ITD had on this application. So, although this mitigation would provide some relief to the overall operations of this interchange, which ITD feels is reasonable to offset the developer's impacts, because this is an off-site improvement staff does not recommend it's required with the plat. However, it may be considered with the upcoming development agreement modification that will soon be submitted for this project. A 55 -- excuse me -- 50 foot wide landscape street buffer containing a pathway is required along I-84 and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along Silverstone Way a collector street. Rackham Way stubs to the site at the southwest corner as I mentioned and a shared cross-access driveway is proposed along and adjacent to the southern boundary between this property and the property to the south. There has been no written testimony received on this application and staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions. Perreault: Do Commissioners have any questions for staff? Thank you, Sonya. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Wardle: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Geoffrey Wardle. My address is 251 East Front Street, Boise. Suite 200. I'm counsel for the applicant BVA, dba Eagle View, which is the owner of this property. Okay. We are in agreement with the staff Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 43 of 285 report. I want to highlight and identify just a couple of issues that we -- that we want to go through and recognize that this application hasn't been before you, so we are going to give you a little bit of the background that we gave to the City Council when we got the development agreement approved a couple months ago. Eagle View Landing is the 51 acres that formerly was a farmstead. It was previously owned by the Idaho Elk's. This is a site that DVA Affiliates have worked on for several years, as we have worked through this and with the extension of Silverstone as part of Rackham and the improvements on Rackham as part of Norco's project this is now developable. However, this property has a long history, because it was annexed into the city for a large retail center in 1995. Originally in the 1995 approval it was zoned C-G, the city's most intensive commercial use, for a large retail center that would have been approximately 70 acres. It contemplated 700,000 square feet of retail around a rather significant parking field. Now, since then the -- the property has been divided. There are currently two owners. You had other applications in front of you relating to the Norco and Kissler properties to the south, as well as this one. We -- throughout the time that we have been working on this -- and, like I said, I personally have worked with Tommy Ahlquist on this almost six years as was the first time that we had it under contract and did the evaluation for what it could be utilized, we recognized that retail of this intensity is unnecessary and not conducive to what Meridian's Comprehensive Plan is seeking to do. That this really should be an employment center bringing quality jobs closer to the residents that we have and we should be promoting uses that are complimentary with respect to their times and traffic flow. So, what do we propose? We propose a mixture of office, retail, commercial, medical, hospitality, entertainment with seven of the acres in the southeast corner designated for future development that will be some mixture of office, commercial, or multi-family, but that will be subject to a future application and as we talk about phasing, that will make more sense in a moment. This is the preliminary plat with the buildings on it as -- as previously contemplated in the development agreement. It has always contemplated three significant office buildings located in this location, a mixture of hospitality and retail uses down here. The other possibility of either hospitality or office here, with medical office out at this location and, then, a future entertainment facility up here. When we talk about those properties in the southeast corner as part of phase three, it's this seven acres right here. The phasing plan was previously approved as part of a development agreement and as we have been working on infrastructure planning with staff and with Public Works, as well as dealing with market conditions, we are going to be making an amendment to that development agreement that we have been coordinating with staff on, so that this preliminary plat and that development agreement modification end up at the City Council at the same time. It's not a modification of structures, it's not a modification of any placement of buildings, it's just how do we get through the phases and what elements come first. So, this was the approved plan. The first building that we are working on and that documents are in applications for the CZC, design review, and building permit, are in for the ICCU building, which is right here. We contemplate a second office building here, which was originally intended to come forward this summer, but due to demand and due to configuration of how these are going to be, we are actually going to start with this area down here in these buildings, so that the whole western portion of the site will come in together. But we are not modifying the -- the location of the retail, we are not modifying the location of the structure here or these improvements Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 44 of 285 here, it's just an issue of timing. So, as we have worked with staff on the phasing plan for infrastructure, the first phase involves and includes the construction of the main drive in, as well as all of your primary site infrastructure and utilities, which will be here in the central part of it and that's why we have proposed this phasing plan where phase two will happen in -- depending upon market conditions, just because that infrastructure is already in. So, we will have the infrastructure that's in the table to do that as we do part -- as we do phase one. And this is the exhibit that Sonya had shown with -- with that phasing overlaid onto the -- onto the preliminary plat, with the caveat that all of this infrastructure that's necessary to be extended upon the private drive that extends north from Silverstone Way, is located in this location. So, we are generally in agreement with the conditions of approval. I want to just talk about four things in our conversation with staff. We want you to be aware of it and we want to put it on the record, but it's stuff that we believe that we will be able to clean up in the next few weeks with staff before we get to the City Council. Those deal, first of all, with the buffer on the Silverstone right of way. Second, the Jewel Subdivision connection. Third, the water connection. And, then, finally, the ITD requirement that Sonya -- or ITD request that ITD -- that ITD had forwarded that Sonya shared. Silverstone Way is a public street that dead ends at this property. In our discussions with ACHD, it's been determined that as long as we build a mini roundabout at this location that the site can be served with private access drives and that's the intention. So, we will provide the buffer that staff talks about, but we just want to be clear that when we talk about that -- the roundabout here is the terminus of Silverstone Way and so all of these areas immediately here -- immediately adjacent to this will comply with both ACHD and the City of Meridian's requirements, but it is not a public street to the north and I think staff and our engineering team -- everybody is in agreement and ready and able to work through that, it's just we wanted to be clear as to what our interpretation was and from my conversation with Sonya I think we are all on the same page. Next there is a requested condition that we provide a cross-access easement to the south in Jewel Subdivision. Now, Jewel Subdivision is a large lot rural subdivision that was platted in Ada county in the '60s or '70s and if -- we have all been doing this long enough we see these designations pop up on plats for future road easement. Ada county required them. Ada County Highway District does not recognize them and many of the property owners don't recognize them and this is something that we find with some degree of regularity in the rural areas of Ada county for plats that were recorded in the '60s or '70s. We had originally approached these property owners about the utilization of this designated 50 foot wide future road easement as a secondary emergency access and had a negative response from those owners, so we went and solved that problem elsewhere. We are fine with a cross-access requirement, but it needs to be predicated on the fact that we will reserve it and preserve it, but, obviously, we are not going to grant it and open it until some point in the future when those properties redevelop and those owners make that available. It wouldn't be a public street, because, obviously, there is not a public street that it would connect to, but we recognize the importance of connectivity and support that. So, unless and until the Jewel owners, you know, grant the reciprocal right and open it, we -- we agree with the condition, but we just want to be clear that we are not telling the Jewel property owners that they are having to open their property as part of this condition. It's a condition that your staff has recommended. There was a discussion of -- in the staff report about the water connection and, obviously, this is a big site and requires extension Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 45 of 285 of water facilities through it. We understand that the issue that has been raised by Public Works is we had shown a stub of the water here to the eastern boundary. It's important to note that here on the northeast corner where the future recreational area will go, their water access and their need for where they would take their water would be on that northwest side. So, we contemplate that, yes, there would be a looping of the water through the site. The sole reason, though, that we show that stub is that at some point when Rolling Hills redevelops and water needs to be extended to Rolling Hills, we need to do that. So, I think it's just an issue for Public Works and our engineering team to work through that the reason we stubbed that to the east wasn't just to, then, stub it to the north, it's just to provide that future connection to the east to Rolling Hills when that redevelops and we don't perceive that to be a problem, because as I indicated, the water service for this parcel here is going to be up here on the northwest portion of that and that's where the water is. So, ultimately, you're going to be able to loop it up like that with an extension here to the east for a future connection. Now, the last thing I just want to comment on is we have had a lot of discussions with staff about ACHD's requirements. We are in agreement with them. ITD issues -- we have a lot of meetings and discussions with those as well and we recognize there are significant traffic impacts of Eagle and Overland and at the interstate. Originally -- originally ITD had requested that we improve the northbound turning movements coming off the westbound ramp by constructing a third lane and our objection to that was none of the turning movements created by this project relate to a northbound turning movement on that westbound lane. It's off site. It's not related to the traffic. It's not related to traffic that we generate. They came back and requested that at the third phase or 668 p.m. peak hour that we consider a second access -- a second right turn lane here on the eastbound off ramp and that may satisfy some of those constitutional requirements, but there is -- anytime we talk about an off-site improvement there is always a concern with is the impact proportionate to what the property and the project is causing and is there actually a nexus between them. We do not deny that there are significant traffic issues out there. The issue that we see, though, is a lack of consistency in ITD's requests of municipalities, that ITD needs to get out front of these issues. We are willing to participate with our proportionate share. We always are. We are even willing to take the lead in doing it. But you can't just stick a large application with an impact that relates to improving an overall system that has been neglected by the -- the transportation planners. So, ITD needs to engage -- future developments in this area need to participate. We are more than willing to cost share, but we will work through that with staff. So, conclusions, we generally support the staff report. We will work with staff on those items and we appreciate staff's characterization of ITD's request, because we do agree that that's something that can and should be addressed in the future. And with that I will stand for any questions you might have. Perreault: Do the Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Is there anyone here to testify this evening for this application? Way: We do not have anybody further to testify. Perreault: Okay. Is there anyone here in the room that would like to come forward and testify on this application? Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 46 of 285 McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Madam Chair, before we close the public hearing I would like to ask staff a question. Are you in agreement with all of the points the applicant brought up at the end? These four additional things? Allen: Madam Chair -- McCarvel: The applicant referred to that they -- they have been in contact with you and you're in agreement. I just want to make sure that's the case. Allen: While we are in agreement I believe on the -- after I clarified the street buffer requirement on Silverstone, we are in agreement on that. McCarvel: Okay. Allen: Mr. Wardle brought up several things that are more development agreement related that aren't necessarily the subject of this application. We are in agreement that we are not requiring any off-site improvements as mentioned in the ITD report. There is not a requirement in the staff report to provide a cross-access easement aligning with the access easement from the subdivision to the south -- McCarvel: For Jewel? Allen: South boundary. Yeah. There is -- there is not a provision in the staff report for that. So, that is something that I mentioned in the staff report that we may be considering with the development agreement modification though. But not with this application, so -- McCarvel: Then the Eagle View Landing water? Allen: I am not sure on that. That was a Public W orks condition. So, any modification of that would have to be run through them. So, I would suggest the applicant make contact with them before the Council hearing. Wardle: Madam Chairman, Commissioner, just to clarify about the water loop issue there. We have had those discussions. We are designing -- the recommendation of Public Works was if you're going to stub it to the east end, then, go ahead and run it all the way down Rolling Hills and we are just like that's not necessary and it's not the time for that. We are stubbing it so we can do that, but we will loop it back to the northern property boundary, it just isn't showing right now. So, we will get that solved and I don't disagree with Sonya that these are development agreement issues, it's just the fact that since this is piggybacked with a development agreement application that will come in next week, we have been trying to sort out as many of these issues as possible with staff at the same time. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 47 of 285 McCarvel: But I did have one more question for you. Do you have -- the only access in there is not really coming along where the current Norco building is, it's -- Wardle: So, there are two points. There are two public streets that dead end. McCarvel: Okay. Wardle: There was Rackham here on the west -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Wardle: -- which is a constrained right-in, right-out off of Overland and, then, you have Silverstone Way, which comes up here past the Norco building, which is a five lane collector with a signal at Overland. So, those are the two points of public contact. And, then, in our negotiations with Norco there is going to be a shared private drive that connects those two with an easement benefiting both of those properties for circulation. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Any additional questions? Commissioner Holland. Holland: So, just looking at, you know, the transportation plan and how people would be coming in and out of this site for the proposed entertainment, recreation facility on Phase 2-B, would they be going through the roundabout and straight through that or would they be cycling in the roundabout and to the east and up? What's your thoughts there on how traffic would flow? Wardle: So, Madam Chairman, Commissioner Holland, the way that this is being engineered and designed and the way it will be constructed is that we have this southern access -- shared access drive across here with a -- essentially a secondary vehicular access here and a secondary one over here and, then, it loops around. So, we -- as we have designed this and worked with our transportation team -- and this was -- this is what has taken so long with this application is sorting through with ACHD exactly how this mini roundabout works and, then, how the internal circulation works and so our traffic study has been designed -- and this has been designed so that you're going to be able to go through -- you're going to be able to go right, you're going to be able to go left and there are going to be various points of access to get back there. Now, obviously, internal circulation becomes an issue of signage, but if we provide enough alternative access points through the site, we think that helps to dissipate traffic and it helps to keep the traffic moving at an appropriate speed, because the intention is that this is a single lane through here with retail fronting on it with angled parking, so that it is intended to slow those vehicles down. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 48 of 285 Holland: Thank you. Perreault: Are those all the questions? Wardle: Thank you. Perreault: Thank you very much. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Rackham Subdivision, H-2018-0126? Olsen: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Rackham Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: Who wants to start our conversation? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I -- I think it shows a lot of promise and I like the mix of uses there, instead of just all being retail. The flow of traffic I don't see being concentrated at any one time, which I think will help things through there. Rather than having all one use in having something try to go on that corner seems like it's been a long time in the making, but I do like the mix of uses on this, instead of all the retail. Perreault: Any other thoughts? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: If Commissioner Cassinelli was here I think he might be happy to see all the parking. The one thing that's always a challenge for me is it's good to have enough parking, but I also don't want to see Meridian become a sea of asphalt either and so it does look like a lot of parking for -- for this application. I don't know that that's something we necessarily need to change, but certainly would have -- for something that needs this much parking I would have liked to have seen maybe a parking structure of some sort. Again, I don't know that we really have control over that, but just a thought I wanted to voice out there. Overall I like the mix of uses there. I think it's smart to have a blend of office, medical, entertainment, retail and some potential multi-family or other commercial in the future. No big concerns on the -- the general mix. Always like to see more green Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 49 of 285 space when it's possible, but I think with the plan it looks like they have got a pathway that kind of goes around the site. There is, obviously, an entertainment option that's coming in the top right corner there that would be kind of a recreational amenity that might help offset that a little bit. But those are some of my thoughts. Perreault: Thank you. Commissioner Olsen, anything to add? Olsen: No, I see no reason why we can't approve this. Perreault: Okay. I agree with Commissioner Holland. I -- it felt very great asphalt intense -- intensive. I guess if you're going to have a project with this much parking that's the location to do it right there along a main area. I don't -- I don't love that much parking, but there wouldn't be a different location where -- where that would suit that I can think of. So, other than that I agree with my fellow Commissioners on the variety of actually what will be there, the variety of services that are offered to the public, and it will be nice to -- it will be nice to see something go in there. So, if there are no other comments or questions, can I get a motion? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council for file number H-2018-0126, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 20th, 2019. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just one question. Do we -- and maybe this is a question for staff. Do we need to mention anything about the four items we talked about? I know a lot of those are in the development agreement conversations, but since there was mention of those things in the staff report, especially the Public Works one, I don't know if we need to mention that. That they would work with Public Works staff to find something that would work for them. Allen: Commissioner Holland, I don't -- I don't know that any changes are necessary to the staff report, unless you're changing a condition. McCarvel: Than I will second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to approve the application for Rackham Subdivision, H-2018-0126. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. Congratulations. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 50 of 285 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 51 of 285 EIDIAN,?-- DAHJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 E Project File Name/Number: Three Corners Ranch H-2019-0006 Item Title: Public Continued from June 25, 2019 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. 2. A Preliminary Plat consisting of 45 building lots and 9 common lots. Meeting Notes: 91� 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 25, 2019 for T hree Corners Ranch (H- 2019-0006) by S weet Land Development, Inc., L ocated at 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Minutes from Planning and Z oning Commission Hearing B ackup Material 6/20/2019 S taff Report S taff Report 6/20/2019 Minutes from J une 25 City Council Meeting B ackup Material 7/12/2019 Memo from Staf f to Council Cover Memo 7/15/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 7/12/2019 - 9:22 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 52 of 285 7/16/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 7/16/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-E Project Name: Three Corners Ranch Project No.: H-2019-0006 Active: http://i nternalapps/SIGN IN FORMTOOLS/SignlnForm Detai Is?id=275 1/3 City- I Wish Sign In Signature Name Address State- For Against Neutral To Date/Time Zip Testify Candice McHugh, 7/16/2019 1906 E Dunwoody Ct., Meridian, Esq. representing X X 11:37:29 ID 83646 Mark Miller AM 1458 e loyalty st, meridian & 7/16/2019 Rand Spiwak 13969 w Cortina ct, boise (. X 5:41:21 Bristol heights) PM 7/16/2019 Cindy breckel 5960 n rothmans ave boise id. X X 5:47:22 PM 7/16/2019 Dick jackson 5960 N Rothmans Ave, Boise X X 5:47:30 PM 7/16/2019 1938 e Dunwoody Ct, Meridian Ben Tippets X X 5:48:35 Idaho PM 7/16/2019 1895 E Three Corners Dr Doug Thurston X 5:55:15 Meridian PM 7/16/2019 Ron Santos 14474 W Barclay St X 5:56:05 PM http://i nternalapps/SIGN IN FORMTOOLS/SignlnForm Detai Is?id=275 1/3 7/16/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Go Back To List Export To Excel http://i nternalapps/SIGN IN FORMTOOLS/SignlnForm Detai Is?id=275 213 7/16/2019 6294 N Sweet Valley Place, Marilyn Bell X 5:56:42 Meridian PM 7/16/2019 Nick Davis 6298 N Stafford PI, Boise X 5:57:02 PM 7/16/2019 Ron Asche 1856 a three corners dr X 5:58:07 PM 7/16/2019 Brett Aeschbacher 1896 E Golden Oak Ct X 5:58:22 PM 7/16/2019 6326 n sweet valley place Doug Clark X 5:59:22 meridian PM 7/16/2019 6100 n sweet valley ave Geoff Johnson X X 5:59:31 meridian PM 7/16/2019 Linsy heiner 1778 E dunwoody ct X 6:00:16 PM 7/16/2019 Troy Bergstrand 1970 E Dunwoody Ct Meridian X 6:01:51 PM 7/16/2019 14473 W Barclay St Boise ID Renee Jessome X 6:03:50 83713 PM 7/16/2019 Tyer lewis 6059 N Karen dr meridian X 6:04:10 PM 7/16/2019 7905 W Colt Dr Boise Idaho Jeanette Johnson X 6:05:21 83709 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel http://i nternalapps/SIGN IN FORMTOOLS/SignlnForm Detai Is?id=275 213 7/16/2019 © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=275 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 114 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 115 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 116 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 117 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 118 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 119 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 120 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 121 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 122 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 123 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 124 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 125 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 126 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 127 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 128 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 129 of 285 Page 17 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 130 of 285 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 131 of 285 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 132 of 285 Page 20 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 4/8/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 133 of 285 Page 21 C. Landscape Plan (date: 4/17/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 134 of 285 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 135 of 285 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 136 of 285 Page 24 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 137 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 138 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 139 of 285 Page 27 G. Conceptual Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 140 of 285 Page 28 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 141 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 142 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 143 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 144 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 145 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 146 of 285 Page 34 C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161277/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 147 of 285 Page 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 148 of 285 Page 36 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 149 of 285 Page 37 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 150 of 285 Page 38 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161912/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 151 of 285 Page 39 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 152 of 285 Page 40 E. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161616/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 153 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 154 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 155 of 285 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 156 of 285 July 15, 2019 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council CC: City Clerk, Bill Nary FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor RE: Three Corners Ranch (H-2019-0006) July 16th, City Council Meeting On June 25, 2019, the City Council continued this project to address three (3) issues. This afternoon the Applicant’s Legal Counsel provided a summary and support documents to address the list of Council’s concerns. Below Staff has listed the three (3) items left open for discussion and provided commentary on each of them. 1. Improved safety along Dunwoody Court. The residents and the applicant have not reached consensus on this issue. The resident’s desire a complete street with curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides, which would necessitate a rebuild of the street. ACHD staff is amenable to a 4-foot wide striped path on each side of the road or an 8-foot wide striped path on one side and striped travel lanes. No parking signs would be placed along both sides of the roadway. The applicant is also willing to remove the overgrown vegetation and install three (3) street lights and stripe the roadway and install no parking signs per ACHD standards; 2. Revisions to the plat as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A revised plat was received this afternoon. The revision only includes the extension of the north/south segment of the private street that aligns with N. Shandee Drive. The required street buffer and sidewalk along W. Guiness Street are not included on the revised plan; and 3. Improvements related to the Karnes Lateral that bisects the property. During the hearing, there was public testimony about access to the head gate from the Miller pr operty, piping the lateral with the easement remaining on a portion of the buildable lots and not in a common lot, and obtaining plan approval from the Karnes Lateral. Today, Staff received an exhibit that depicts the rerouting of the Karnes Lateral. The rerouting of the Karnes Lateral would affect Lots 20, 41, and Lots 30-35, Block 1 with a 20-foot wide easement. A meeting was held the Karnes Lateral Association about the improvements to the lateral. A summary of the meeting notes does accompany the resubmittal. Staff was unable to discuss the changes with Mr. Miller but he should be able to access the delivery area from his property as some of the improvements to the lateral affect his property. All of the support documents have been forwarded to the Clerk’s office to be included as part of the public record and City Council’s review. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 213 of 285 EIDIAN*,---, DAJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 F Project File Name/Number: Oaks North and South H-2018-0117 Item Title: Public Continued from June 18 2019 for Oaks North and South By Toll ID I LLC, Located on the North and South Side of McMillan Rd. between N. McDermott and N. Black Cat Rds. 1. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to modify the overall boundary of Oaks North and Oaks South Development and update the zoning district boundaries, the concept plan and modify/remove certain provisions of the agreement that are no longer relevant to the project. Meeting Notes: 7" I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.F. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from J une 18, 2019 for Oaks North and S outh (H- 2018-0117) by Toll I D I L L C, L ocated on the North and S outh side of M cM illan Rd. between N. M c Dermott and N. Black C at Rds. 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 7/11/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 7/11/2019 - 3:56 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 214 of 285 7/16/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 7/16/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-F Project Name: Oaks North and South Project No.: H-2018-0117 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=283 1/1 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 7/16/2019 Continued from February 19, April 16 and June 18, 2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2018-0117 Oaks North and South LOCATION: North and south side of McMillan Road between N. McDermott and N. Black Cat Roads, located in the NE ¼ and S ½ of Section 28, Township 4N, Range 1W AND the N ½ of Section 33, Township 4N, Range 1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION NOTE: The applicant’s original request for a modification to the existing development agreement included a portion of the western part of the Oaks North Subdivision known as Oakwind Subdivision (File No. H-2018-0119). The Oakwind project included a preliminary plat consisting of 82 building lots and rezone request from R-15 to R-8; the area was also proposed to change from multi-family to single-family residential, which required a change to the concept plan tied to the development agreement. The Oakwind project was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17, 2019. Recently, the City Council acknowledged the request by the applicant to withdraw the Oakwind application. However, the Oakmore Subdivision application (H-2018-0118) is still active and includes a request for single-family residential, which requires a change to the existing development agreement. As such, staff has modified the staff report in a strike-through and underline format to indicate applicable changes. The applicant is requesting a modification to the existing Development Agreement (DA) to modify the overall boundary of Oaks North and Oaks South development AND to update the zoning district boundaries, the concept plan and modify/remove certain provisions of the agreement that are no longer relevant to the project. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 215 of 285 Page 2 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary B. Project Area Maps Description Details Page Acreage +/- 357 acres Future Land Use Designation MDR Existing Land Use Undeveloped, planned and constructed single family residential Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential subdivision Current Zoning R-4, R-8, R-15 Proposed Zoning R-4, R-8 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) Approximately 750 Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: September 19, 2018; no attendees History (previous approvals) AZ-13-008, RZ-13-015 (DA Inst. No. 114030972); PP-13- 013; PP-13-014 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 216 of 285 Page 3 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Toll ID I LLC 3103 W. Sheryl Drive, Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho 83642 B. Owner: New Oaks LLC 5662 Calle Real #254 Galeta, California 93117 C. Representative: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, LLP. 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho 83642 IV. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 6/28/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 6/25/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted 7/5/2019 Nextdoor posting 6/25/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The development agreement modification proposes to omit two of the three multi-family developments, office, WARD park and fire station components conceptually approved with the Oaks North and Oaks South development. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to revise the overall Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 217 of 285 Page 4 boundary of the Oaks North and Oaks South, the zoning district boundaries associated with the omission of the aforementioned components and modify the approved concept plan. Provisions that are no longer relevant to this development are also proposed to be removed or modified. If approved, the amended DA is required to be signed by the property owner and returned to the City within six (6) months of the Council granting the modification. The approved Oaks North preliminary plat included 653 single-family homes with two (2) multi- family phases on approximately 252 acres of land. The Oaks South preliminary plat included 310 single-family lots, one (1) multi-family lot, six (6) office lots, one (1) park lot, two (2) other lots, and 33 common lots on approximately 136 acres of land. The Oaks South subdivision was proposed to contain 20.29 acres of common open space and the following amenities: pool, children’s play structure, integrated pathway system, extension of the Meridian Multi-Use Pathway system, two (2) covered picnic areas, and 5% additional open space. In 2018, a new development agreement was approved for the Oaks West project (H-2017-0170) which removed a portion of the property (SWC of McMillan and McDermott Roads) from the Oaks DA. The applicant has submitted two (2) separate a rezone and preliminary plat applications for the Oakmore (H-2018-0118) and Oakwind (H-2018-0119) Subdivision located in the Oaks North; both this applications were was heard before Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17, 2019. Approval of both the rezone and preliminary plat applications are is contingent on the approval of the subject MDA application. As part of this application submittal, the new concept plan depicts the addition of 100 18 new single family lots to be constructed within the Oaks North development consistent with the Commission’s recommendation on the aforementioned applications. The Oaks South Subdivision is completed but has not been included in the updated concept plan, however, this portion of the property still will remain subject to the amended DA. Due to the reduction in density and the increase in single family homes, staff raised concerns with the Commission that there may not be adequate open space and amenities commensurate to the large single family development. With the approval of the Oaks West project, the Commission included a condition to add more open space and amenities within that development to off-set the difference. Further, the concept plan approved with the Oaks North preliminary plat indicated approximately sixty (60) units where the Oakmore Subdivision is currently proposed and 208 multi-family units where the Oakwind Subdivision is proposed. If developed as multi-family, both the subject phases would have been required to provide at least 10% open space respectively; the phase where Oakwind is proposed would have needed to provide at least five (5) qualified site amenities, while Oakmore is would have been and at least one four (4) qualified site amenitiesy. The Oakmore Subdivision is proposed to add eighteen (18) single-family homes, while the Oakwind Subdivision will add eighty-two (82) single-family homes. With the substitution of 100 18 single- family residences for the multi-family phases the total approximate build-out (as currently proposed) of the Oaks North will include approximately 750 668 single-family residences, which is approximately 100 18 more single-family residences than originally proposed and approved. Without the added amenities that the multi-family developments would have been required to construct, approximately 750 668 single family residences within the Oaks North development will be utilizing the same amenities. During the hearing for the Oakmore project, the Commission did require the applicant to incorporate more open space and amenities within the Oaks North development. The revised plans for the Oakmore Subdivision have been included below that depicts more open space to the west and the addition of a tot lot, per the recommendation of the Commission (see Exhibit VII.D). To mitigate the concerns from the Commission, the applicant has also provided an exhibit that depicts the additional amenities proposed for the Oaks North which are proposed to develop on including the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 218 of 285 Page 5 5.65 acre neighborhood park (see Exhibit VII.F). The exhibit depicts a lake with fishing dock, pool, clubhouse, sports courts, children’s playground equipment and an on-site parking area. Staff recommends that this exhibit be incorporated in the amended DA to ensure amenities proposed for a development of this size is commensurate. NOTE: The applicant has since revised the preliminary plats and landscape plans for both subdivisions to include additional open space and site amenities including a micropath and pocket parks. Staff believes these changes are adequate given the modifications that are proposed and recommends the concept plan be tied to the amended development agreement. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed development agreement modifications and changes to the concept plan with the conditions in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 219 of 285 Page 6 VII. EXHIBITS A. Area Subject to Amended Development Agreement (date: 12/3/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 220 of 285 Page 7 B. Existing Concept Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 221 of 285 Page 8 C. Proposed Concept Plan Oakmore Subdivision No longer included in MDA request [Oakwind (H-2018-0119)] No longer included in MDA request [Oakwind (H-2018-0119)] Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 222 of 285 Page 9 D. Oakwind Preliminary Plat and Landscape Plan (Application Withdrawn - No longer included in MDA request) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 223 of 285 Page 10 E. Oakmore Preliminary Plat and Landscape Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 224 of 285 Page 11 F. Conceptual Central Amenity Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 225 of 285 Page 12 G. Applicant’s Proposed Modifications to the Development Agreement Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 226 of 285 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 227 of 285 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 228 of 285 Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 229 of 285 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 230 of 285 Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 231 of 285 Page 18 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Development Agreement Modification 1.1 The existing DA (Inst. #114030972, RZ 13-015, AZ 13-008) shall be amended to reflect the new provisions and conceptual development plan for the subject property. The agreement shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the City within six (6) months of the City Council granting the modification. A. Include all the strike out and underline changes included in Exhibit VII.G above and the concept plan depicted in Exhibit VII.D and VII.H, except for the following: Modify DA provision 5.1.13 as follows: With the first phase of development, the applicant shall construct the 5.65 acre neighborhood park, including the proposed amenities as shown in Exhibit VII.F to be constructed with the first phase. 1.2 Prior to drafting the amended DA, the applicant shall submit a revised concept plan for the Oaks North portion of the development that includes the Oakmore project and the multi-family portion of the development. B. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160276/Page1.aspx C. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160340/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 232 of 285 �B IDIZ IAN*,------ \_J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 G Project File Name/Number: Oakmore Subdivision H-2018-0118 Item Title: Public Continued from June 18 2019 for ®akmore Subdivision By Tall ID I LLC., Located near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. 1. Request: A Rezone of 7.39 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of eighteen single family residential lots on approximately 7.29 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district. Meeting Notes: 97A I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.G. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from J une 18, 2019 for Oakmore S ubdivision (H- 2018-0118) by Toll I D I L L C, L ocated near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black C at Rd. 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 Minutes from Planning and Z oning Commission B ackup Material 1/25/2019 S taff Report S taff Report 7/11/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 7/11/2019 - 8:49 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 233 of 285 7/16/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 7/16/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-G Project Name: Oakmore Subdivision Project No.: H-2018-0118 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=277 1/1 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 7/16/2019 Continued from February 19, April 16, and June 18, 2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0118 Oakmore Subdivision LOCATION: Near the intersection of W. Gondola Drive and N. Black Cat Road, in the NE ¼ of Section 28, Township 4N., Range 1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 7.39 acres of land from the R-15 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district; and preliminary plat consisting of eighteen (18) single family residential lots and six (6) common lots. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 252 of 285 Page 2 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District Staff report (yes/no) No Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Access via W. Webster Drive (local) and N. Oakstone Ave. (local) Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Stub streets proposed to the north into proposed Westbridge Subdivision and to the south to the Jump Creek Subdivision. Internal access through future phases of The Oaks North Sub. Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers None (undeveloped) Proposed Road Improvements Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) Approximately 2/3 of a mile to Keith Bird Legacy Park Distance to other key services Fire Service 29 Distance to Fire Station Approximately 2 miles from Station No. 5 Fire Response Time 6 minutes (does not meet response time requirements; level of service expectation= 5 minutes) Resource Reliability 77% (does not meet the targeted goal of 85% or greater) Risk Identification 1 (residential) – current resources would be adequate to supply service to this propose project Description Details Page Acreage 7.39 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (MDR) (3-8 units/acre) Existing Land Use Rural residential and agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residences Current Zoning R-15 Proposed Zoning R-4 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 24 lots total; 18 building lots/6 common lots Phasing plan (# of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units (type of units) 18 single family detached homes Density (gross & net) 2.44 units/acre (gross); 3.25 units/acre (net) Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 0.50 acres/0.50 acres buffer/6.77% qualified Amenities Staff is recommending a micropath and ten-foot multi-use pathway 29 Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 9/19/18; no attendees History (previous approvals) AZ-13-008, RZ-13-015 (DA Inst. No. 114030972); PP-13- 014 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 253 of 285 Page 3 Description Details Page Accessibility Does not meet all required access, road widths and turnarounds; will need revisions to meet IFC requirements. [Common drive is over 150’ in length; two access points for subdivisions over 30 buildable lots] Special/resource needs An aerial device will not be required Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for two hours Other Resources Police Service 29 Distance to Police Station 8.5 miles from Meridian Police Department Police Response Time 4-5 minutes Calls for Service 10 % of calls for service split by priority % of P3 CFS – 10% % of P2 CFS – 90% % of P1 CFS – 0% % of P0 CFS – 0% Accessibility Access for the Meridian Police Department is not an issue for the proposed development in this area. Specialty/resource needs No additional need Crimes 13 total Crashes 1 Other Reports West Ada School District Distance (elem, ms, hs) Pleasant View Elementary (planned to open 2020): ¼ mile Planned Middle School (SWC Chinden and Black Cat): +/- 1 mile Owyhee High School (planned to open 2020): +/- 1 mile Capacity of Schools # of Students Enrolled Grocery Store Approximately 1 mile (Walmart) COMPASS (Communities in Motion 2040 2.0) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 254 of 285 Page 4 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Toll ID I LLC 3103 W. Sheryl Drive, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: New Oaks, LLC. 5662 Calle Real #254 Galeta, CA 93117 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 255 of 285 Page 5 C. Representative: Engineering Solutions, LLP. 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 12/28/2018 6/28/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 12/26/2018 6/25/2019 Applicant posted notice on site on: 1/7/2019 7/5/2019 Nextdoor posting 12/26/2018 6/25/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. The applicant proposes to rezone 7.39 acres of land from the R-15 zoning districts to the R-8 zoning district and to construct eighteen (18) detached single-family dwellings on lots ranging in size from approximately 9,500 square feet to 15,000 square feet for an average lot size of 11,495 square feet. Previously, multi-family was proposed with this phase of development, which was consistent with R-15 zoning. The proposed rezone to the R-8 designation will allow for dimensional standards consistent with the size of lots and type of development now proposed. This subdivision is proposed to develop in one (1) phase. The legal description submitted with the application, included in Exhibit VII.A, shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be rezoned. The applicant has submitted a separate development agreement modification application (H- 2018-0117) to omit the multi-family component as conceptually approved with The Oaks North preliminary plat (PP-13-014). That application will be heard before City Council on February 19, 2019 per UDC Table 11-5A-2. The Oaks North plat included 653 single-family homes with two (2) multi-family phases on approximately 252 acres of land. The currently proposed modification to The Oaks North and South development agreement is replacing both multi-family phases proposed with The Oaks North with single-family residential lots. The Oakmore Subdivision will add eighteen (18) single- family homes, while the other phase that is proposed to develop with single-family residences rather than multi-family (Oakwind) will add eighty-two (82) single family homes. With the substitution of 100 single family residences for the multi-family phases the total approximate build-out (as currently proposed) of The Oaks North and South will include approximately 750 single family residences, which is approximately 150 more single family residences than originally proposed and approved. The concept plan (shown in Exhibit VII.D) included with the original preliminary plat for this phase of development depicted approximately sixty (60) multi-family units which would have required a minimum of 10% open space and approximately three (3) qualified site amenities. The applicant is not proposing any qualified site amenities with this phase of development. Without the added amenities that the multi-family developments would have been required to construct, approximately 750 single family residences within The Oaks North and South will be utilizing the same package of amenities originally approved and shown on the concept plan in Exhibit VII.D below. Staff is concerned that the lack of qualified site amenities provided with this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 256 of 285 Page 6 phase of development will put undue strain on the existing and planned amenities for other phases of The Oaks. Staff recommends that the applicant provide an updated list of amenities and a concept plan depicting current and planned qualified open space and amenities prior to the Council hearing. Further, Commission should determine whether there are adequate amenities and open space for a subdivision that will have approximately 750 single family homes at completion. Typically, a minimum of 10% open space is required for subdivisions that are 5 acres or more in size as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3. The applicant is proposing 0.50 acres of qualified open space or 6.77% for this phase of development. 10% open space is not being provided with this phase of development because it will be part of the overall Oaks North subdivision and open space was determined for the entire development. The percentage of qualified open space provided with this phase of development is consistent with that required with the original plat and development agreement (10.72% of the total development or 27.03 acres). Staff would like the Commission to determine the adequacy of planned qualified site amenities for the entire development. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets).” (3.03.02O) “Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow.” (3.03.03C) “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) “Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.” (3.07.02C) C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is one existing rural residence on the site that is proposed to be removed. In the applicant’s narrative they indicate that the structures are vacant. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant obtain a demolition permit for the Building Division and remove all structures within 60 days of Council’s approval of the rezone ordinance. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes to construct 18 single-family detached dwellings on lots ranging in size from 9,000 to 15,099 square feet, one (1) common driveway lot and five (5) common lots. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-4 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. E. Traffic A full traffic impact study (TIS) was prepared for The Oaks Subdivision. ACHD has indicated that a further TIS is not necessary for Oakmore Subdivision. F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The minimum street frontage required per lot is sixty (60) feet in the R-4 zoning district. Lots 6 and 9, Block 1 in the proposed preliminary plat shall be revised to comply with that minimum requirement or access shall be taken from a common driveway. The preliminary plat and future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 district; minimum lots size is 8,000 sq. ft. Buildable lots range in size from approximately 9,000-15,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 11,495 square feet, exceeding UDC standards. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 257 of 285 Page 7 G. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Stub streets are proposed into the proposed Westbridge Subdivision to the north and to the Jump Creek Subdivision to the south. Internal access is proposed through future phases of The Oaks North Subdivision. Direct lot access to N. Black Road is not proposed or approved. The proposed access points are consistent with Comprehensive Plan action item #3.06.02D and UDC 11-3A-3 which restricts access points on arterial streets; only one access is proposed via the arterial street (i.e. N. Black Cat Rd.). H. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3) One common driveway is proposed that shall be revised to comply with UDC standards. Per UDC 11-6C-3D-3 common driveways may be a maximum of 150’ in length. The proposed 187- foot driveway shall be modified to comply with this requirement with the final plat application An exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that are not taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s) is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. I. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit (i.e. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units require 4 per dwelling unit with at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or on a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad) in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. Two and three-car garages are proposed with parking pads in front of the garages in accord with UDC standards. J. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): A micropath is depicted in the eastern part of the site providing connection to a common lot abutting N. Black Cat Rd. An additional micropath shall be required in the western part of the development through the common area in Lot 1, Block 1 to provide connection to the Jump Creek Subdivision to the south and in accord with Comprehensive Plan Action Item #3.07.02C. Additionally, per the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, a ten-foot multi-use pathway shall be constructed along the west side of N. Black Cat Rd. adjacent to Lot 7, Block 2. K. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot detached sidewalks with parkways are proposed along both sides of W. Webster Ct. and adjacent to common lots, in accord with UDC standards. L. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Black Cat Rd., in accord with the development agreement and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 258 of 285 Page 8 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. Stormwater swales are required to be vegetated and designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. 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. Parkways are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.5 and UDC 11-3A-17. Mitigation is required for all existing healthy trees 4” caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100% replacement in accord with UDC 11-3B-10C.5. The applicant shall contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, at 888- 3579 to schedule an appointment to confirm mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees on the site The mitigation plan should be included on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Typically, properties over five (5) acres in size are required to comply with minimum open space and site amenity requirements as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3A.1. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (7.39 acres), a minimum of 10% (or 0.74 acres) qualified open space and one (1) qualified site amenity would be required to be provided with the development if constructed on its own. Staff recommends additional qualified open space be included with this phase of development as discussed in the qualified site amenities section below. N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Proposed amenities for The Oaks North Subdivision consist of the following: The City’s ten-foot multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek, a community swimming pool, children’s play structure, picnic shelter, pocket parks with amenities and additional qualified open space. As mentioned in the analysis above, Staff is concerned that the qualified site amenities originally approved may not be adequate for the number of single-family residences proposed for the entire development. Staff is recommending that a micropath be added to the western part of the site and the continuation of the ten-foot multi-use pathway along N. Black Cat Rd. be provided as additional amenities for this phase of development. Additionally, Staff does recommend that the Commission determine the adequacy of site amenities for the entire development during the hearing January 17, 2019. O. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing is proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan. Six-foot tall closed vision fencing is proposed at the rear of building lots along the boundary of the subdivision and adjacent to existing and future subdivisions. Five-foot wrought-iron fencing is proposed along the pathway to the common lot in the eastern part of the subdivision. The proposed fencing is in compliance with UDC standards. P. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The West Tap Sublateral crosses Lots 2-3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 in the proposed plat. The lateral shall be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B-3. Any required easement shall be depicted with the final plat submittal. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 259 of 285 Page 9 Q. 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. R. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII-B Below for Public Works comments/conditions. S. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevation renderings were submitted for future detached homes within the development, single-story and 2-stories in height. Building materials consist of a mix of materials with different types/styles of siding with stone veneer accents (see Exhibit F in Section VII.) Because the rear and/or sides of 2-story homes will be highly visible from the arterial street (i.e. N. Black Cat Rd.), staff recommends articulation is incorporated through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. NOTE: the proposed elevations in this staff report are similar to the ones that are already approved and tied to the recorded development agreement. VI. DECISION A. Staff: The proposed density (2.44 gross units/acre) of the subdivision is below the desired density in MDR designated areas (3-8 units/acre). However, when this phase is included with the entire the Oaks North subdivision, the density aligns with the desired density for MDR and adds lot diversity to the subdivision. The proposed rezone from R-15 to R-8 will allow for dimensional standards consistent with the type of development now proposed. For these reasons, Staff recommends approval of the proposed RZ and PP applications per the provisions in Section VII. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on January 17, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject RZ and PP requests. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Becky McKay, Applicant’s Representative; ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Becky McKay, Applicant’s Representative iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Stephanie Leonard vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons b. Key issue(s) of Public Testimony: i. None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 260 of 285 Page 10 c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Open space and site amenities provided with this phase of development. Addition of open space in the northwest corner of the development. ii. Current common driveway length of 187’ needs to be shortened to comply with Fire Dept. standards. d. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Add a condition that the common lot at the northwest corner of the plat extend into the subdivision to the west to provide a larger common lot. e. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Rerouting of the West Tap Sub Lateral through the development. If the easement width is greater than 10 feet, the UDC requires the easement to be placed in a common lot. A portion of the easement does bisect Lot 3, Block 1 but the revised plat does not depict an easement or a common lot. The impact of the Lateral should be clarified during the public hearing. The Council should determine if the easement should be in a common lot or an easement on the buildable lot. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 261 of 285 Page 11 VII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description and Exhibit Map for Zoning Boundary Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 262 of 285 Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 263 of 285 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 264 of 285 Page 14 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 10/8/2018) Revised: 2/8/2019 Micropath location Ten-foot multi-use pathway location Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 265 of 285 Page 15 C. Landscape Plan (date: 10/8/2018) Revised 02/15/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 266 of 285 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 267 of 285 Page 17 D. Approved Concept Plan for The Oaks North (PP-13-014) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 268 of 285 Page 18 E. Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 269 of 285 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 270 of 285 Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 271 of 285 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 272 of 285 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 273 of 285 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 274 of 285 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 275 of 285 Page 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 276 of 285 Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 277 of 285 Page 27 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of previous approvals (AZ-13-008, RZ-13- 015, DA Inst. No. 114030972; PP-13-014) associated with this property. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows: a. Note #10 shall be revised to include the name of the organization or entities responsible for maintaining the common driveway serving Lots 2 and 3, Block 3. b. Note #6: Revise to include the approved addendum to the development agreement (Inst. No. 114030972) and omit the previous development agreement. c. The West Tap Sublateral crossing Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 shall be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B-3. Any required easements resulting from the relocation of the lateral shall be depicted with the final plat submittal. d. Lots 6 and 9, Block 1 shall have a minimum 60-foot wide street frontage unless access is to be provided via the common driveway. e. The common lot (Lot 1, Block 3) at the northwest corner of the plat shall extend into the subdivision to the west to provide a larger common lot as shown in Exhibit C. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. The West Tap Sublateral crossing Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 shall be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B-3. Any required easements resulting from the relocation of the lateral shall be depicted with the final plat submittal. b. Include mitigation information on the plan for any existing 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 one hundred percent replacement as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10C.5; contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, (208-489-0589) to schedule an inspection to determine mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees from the site. c. A micropath shall be depicted within Lot 1, Block 1. d. Provide a ten-foot multi-use-pathway with a public use easement to the west of N. Black Cat Road. e. The common lot (Lot 1, Block 3) at the northwest corner of the plat shall extend into the subdivision to the west to provide a larger common lot as shown in Exhibit C. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 278 of 285 Page 28 4. If there are any irrigation easements greater than ten-feet in width, they shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20 feet in width and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by City Council per UDC 11-3A-6D. 5. For lots accessed by common driveways, an exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. 6. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. 7. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11- 6B-7. 8. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit a public access easement for a detached, multi-use pathway running the length of the development on the west side of N. Black Cat Road to the Planning Division for Council approval and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14’ wide (10’ pathway + 2’ shoulder each side) and may fall within the required landscape buffer. 9. The amended development agreement shall be recorded prior to submittal of a final plat application for the proposed development. 10. The preliminary plat is approved contingent upon City Council approval of the associated modification to the Oaks North and South development agreement. 11. The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C2. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 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 As proposed, the water distribution network can supply 1,500 gpm flow at build-out. If a fire flow greater than 1,500 gpm is needed, applicant shall contact the Public Works Department to determine availability. Each phase will need to be modeled individually at the time of platting. 1.3 Any existing water mainline stubs from Black Cat Road must be abandoned at the mainline in Black Cat Road per Meridian Public Works Standards. 2 General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 279 of 285 Page 29 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. 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 280 of 285 Page 30 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 July 16, 2019 – Page 281 of 285 Page 31 C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159192/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/fol/158920/Row1.aspx E. PARKS DEPARTMENT F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159241/Page1.aspx G. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160261/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 282 of 285 Page 32 H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159660/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 283 of 285 Page 33 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 rezone the subject 7.39 acres of land from the R-15 to the R-4 zoning district and to develop eighteen (18) new single-family residential homes. The Commission finds that the proposed rezone complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and future land use map (see section VII above for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-4 zoning districts is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities will be extended at the expense of the applicant. The Commission recommends that the Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in the adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. This finding is not applicable as the property is already annexed into the City. 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) The Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 284 of 285 Page 34 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission recommends the Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Council’s attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. The Commission recommends that the Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which the Commission is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05- 1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 16, 2019 – Page 285 of 285 (~�& IDIAN*,----IZ DA IL CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 16, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 8 Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Future Meeting Topics Meeting Notes: