Loading...
2019-11-12 Regular C I T Y C OUNCI L R EGU L A R M EET I NG AGENDA C ity C ouncil C hamber s 33 E ast Broadway Avenue M er idian, I daho Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 6:00 P M 1. Roll-C all Attendance X A nne L ittle R oberts X J oe Borton X (phone)Ty P almer X Treg B ernt X (left at 8:00)G enesis Milam X L uke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. P ledge of Allegiance 3. C ommunity I nvocation by J ustin J or dan of Real L ife M inistr ies 4. Adoption of Agenda 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 meeting is required. Thi s time i s reserved for the public to address thei r elected offi cial s regardi ng matters of general interest or concern of public matters and i s not specific to an active land use/devel opment applicati on. By law, no deci sions can be made on topi cs presented under thi s public comment secti on, other than the Ci ty Council may request that the topi c be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed di scussi on or acti on. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assi st you in resolvi ng the matter following the meeti ng. 7. Action Items Public Heari ngs for Land Use Applications follow thi s process: Once the Public Hearing is opened, City staff will present thei r report. Following the report, the applicant is allowed up to 15 minutes to present their application. Members of the public are allowed up to 3 minutes each to address council regarding the application. If a person i s representi ng a l arge group such as a Homeowner's Associati on, indicated by a show of hands, they may be allowed up to 10 mi nutes. Followi ng all public testi mony, the applicant is then allowed 10 addi ti onal mi nutes to respond to comments. Once the public hearing is closed, no addi ti onal testi mony will be received. The Ci ty Counci l may move to conti nue the i tem for addi tional information or vote to approve or deny the item wi th or wi thout changes as presented. The Mayor is not a member of the Ci ty Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items, unl ess to break a ti e vote. A. P ublic Hearing for P roposed O rdinance 19-1856: An O rdinance Amending M eridian C ity C ode 6-2-8(D ) and (G) to Incr ease F ine Amounts Related to O ff-L eash Dogs – First Reading of Ordinance on November 19, 2019 B. P ublic Hearing for S ilver stone Apartments (H-2019-0099) by D ave E vans C onstruction, L ocated at 4107 E . O verland Rd. – Continued to December 3, 2019 1. R equest: Modified Development A greement for the purpose of removing the subject property f rom D A I nstrument #2018-012457 and D A I nstrument # 2018-012456 and be plac ed in a new, separate agreement. C. P ublic Hearing for D elano S ubdivision (H-2019-0027) by D evco D evelopment, LLC , L ocated at 14120 W. J asmine L n. and 2800 E. J asmine L n. – Request 1 (CPAM) Approve d, Requests 2 and 3 REMANDED to Planning and Zoning Commission 1. R eque s t: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include 4.10 acres of land currently in B oise's area of C ity I mpact in Meridian's area of City I mpact with a Mixed Use-R egional f uture land use designation; and 2. R eques t: A nnexation and Z oning for an Annexation and Z oning of 15.21 acres of land with R -15 (11.57) and R -40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts; and 3. R equest: P reliminary P lat consisting of 85 single-f amily residential building lots, 1 building lot for multi-f amily development and 12 common lots D. P ublic Hearing for Inglewood P lace (H-2019-0090) by J ames P etersen, T he P ointe at M er idian, LLC, L ocated at 3250 E . Victory Rd. - Approved 1. R eques t: A nnexation and Z oning of 10.29 acres of land with C -C (3.76 acres) and R -15 (6.53 acres) zoning districts; 2. R eque s t: P reliminary P lat consisting of (8) building lots and (1) common lot on 8.84 acres of land; and 3. R equest: Conditional Use P ermit for a multi-f amily development consisting of (14) dwelling units on 1.91 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. E. Resolution No. 19-2174: A Resolution of the M ayor and the City Council of the C ity O f M eridian Appr oving a Welcome to M eridian S ignage P lan - Approved 8. F utur e M eeting Topics Meeting Adjourned at 10:14pm Meridian City Council November 12, 2019. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:04 p.m., Tuesday, November 12, 2019, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Genesis Milam, Ty Palmer, Anne Little Roberts and Treg Bernt. Also Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Warren Stewart, Brian Caldwell, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: X__ Anne Little Roberts _ X _ _Joe Borton X__ Ty Palmer (Telephone) X__ Treg Bernt __X___Genesis Milam __X___Lucas Cavener __X__ Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. It's always nice to see our neighbors and citizens here in the audience. For the record it is four minutes after 6:00. We will start our regular City Council meeting. It is Tuesday, November 12th. We will start with roll call attendance. Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the pledge to our flag. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Justin Jordan of Real Life Ministries De Weerd: Okay. The gentleman that we had leading us under our community invocation was not able to attend this evening. Item 4: Adoption of Agenda De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 4, adoption of the agenda. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we adopt the agenda as published. Cavener: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 22 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 2 of 74 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. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Announcements De Weerd: Item 5 is announcements. Any announcements? Milam: Oh. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: A couple of -- just really a reminder for the most part to -- for all of you to get a new calendar, because November seems to be going by really fast. We have -- Christmas In Meridian is kicking off soon. The Santa's mailbox will be November 7th through December 18th. I'm glad we have a lot of people in our audience to hear all this. The Salvation Army Angel Tree will be in the City Hall lobby from the 23rd to the -- to December 12th and, then, the -- the big one, the tree lighting and -- tree lighting and parade is on December 6th. So, mark your calendars for that. The parade floats are being prepared for the City of Meridian and the city Parks and Rec on Friday at 6:30. Council Members and commissioners are invited to gather by Storey Park like we always do. So, if you are not attending -- planning on attending, please, let the clerks know. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I hope to see Council Member Borton and Council Member Bernt in their Christmas suits at that parade, especially selected for my -- my colleagues. Hope to see you at that event in your dashing Christmas attire. Borton: Appreciate the -- Cavener: Just don't want you to forget. De Weerd: I think they better dress as elves. I did want to note that City Hall will be closed next Wednesday on the 20th for an all-city employee meeting and closed for Thanksgiving and the day after. Item 6: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) De Weerd: So, with that, if there is nothing further, I will move to Item 6 and ask Mr. Clerk if there are any signups. Item 7: Action Items Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 23 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 3 of 74 A. Public Hearing for Proposed Ordinance 19- 1856: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code 6-2-8(D) and (G) to Increase Fine Amounts Related to Off-Leash Dogs Johnson: Madam Mayor, there are several signups, but they are all for items that are actually later on in the agenda. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay. We will move to Item 7 under Action Items. We do have a public hearing for proposed Ordinance 19-1856. This is an ordinance amending Meridian City Code 2-2 -- or 6-2-8D and G, to increase fine amounts of -- related to off-leash dogs and I believe that -- who is presenting this? Mrs. Milam. Milam: Madam Mayor. I hope that the majority of you in this room are here to discuss this issue. We have a -- we are having a public hearing on the fines for off leash dogs. This is -- this is an item that I brought forward to the City Council a couple of months ago because of the enormous number of complaints that I was seeing and hearing about people being either bitten or chased or attacked, afraid of dogs that are being out in public off leash. So, at this point the proposal is to not touch any language in the ordinance. So, the ordinance would stay the exact same as it is right now. The only thing that would be changing is the -- the amount of the fine. So, currently the fines are 25 dollars for the first offense, 50 dollars for the second offense, and a hundred dollars for the third offense. The proposal is to change those from one hundred for the first offense, two hundred dollars for the second offense and three hundred dollars for the third offense and that's what I'm asking your support for tonight. De Weerd: So, the ordinance would be the -- the penalty changes. Do we have anyone who wishes to sign up to comment on this item? Council, you have heard the proposal. Do you have any discussion? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Question for Mr. Nary. I assume you have worked with Council Member Milam on this. No concerns about just reducing fines or don't have any concerns for this being overbearing or overburdensome? Nary: So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, no. It -- this is an infraction. The court doesn't have the ability to alter the fines. So, the only thing I will add in our conversation I have had with Council Member Milam is we don't have -- all of our enforcement of this offense is done by the Humane Society. In our current contract with them when we renewed, the police requested some additional tracking of data for these types of offenses, a variety of the offenses that they enforce. The frequency, amongst other things. So, we don't have any other data today to tell you whether a fine change would matter or impact the behaviors -- I don't know. So, we don't Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 24 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 4 of 74 have anything else to help right the discussion on whether or not the fine -- changing the fine would be the right remedy. De Weerd: I guess that would have been my question is -- and I don't know if Lieutenant Caldwell can answer this, but I'm going to ask it anyway. What has -- has been the response -- and this is generally citizen driven and typically by the time enforcement gets out there the dog and the owner is gone. What kind of tool has this been to begin with? Caldwell: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, our response as a police department to a lot of these animal issues have become somewhat muted since we have contracted with the Humane Society. They handle many of those issues for us now that they do that as part of their duties and beyond that I'm not aware of any issues like that that we have dealt, particularly in my current position in professional standards, since I'm not assigned to the patrol division. De Weerd: Nice political answer. Council, any other questions? I guess, then, looking for direction on moving forward or -- or not. Borton: Madam Chair? Milam: Mr. Borton. Borton: What would happen is we would bring back an ordinance -- the amended ordinance at the next Council meeting. The public hearing could be continued to next week, just in case there is an additional opportunity to comment and, then, the ordinance can be -- can be on the agenda then. I think, Genesis, your idea makes great sense and I think the reason that you brought it makes great sense. So, I appreciate you bringing it up. Intuitively I cannot think that it encourages people to be off leash, whatever the -- I would think if any -- if there is any change it's going to decrease and the problem will dissipate some. So, I appreciate you bringing it up. Milam: Thank you. De Weerd: Certainly money talks. Borton: Put it on next week. De Weerd: Okay. Well, we will bring back an ordinance to have first reading next week and look for further Council direction and we will continue this for public comment. Borton: Sure. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 25 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 5 of 74 Milam: Could you also maybe direct staff to put it out on NextDoor and maybe -- I went and did post some things on some forums that I had been informed on previously, just to let them know, but it wasn't until yesterday or the day before. So, if we could do a little bit of outreach maybe through NextDoor and just kind of let people know. We are asking for a fine increase of 400 percent. That's pretty -- yeah, that's pretty significant. I would say. Whether people are for or against it, I would love to hear from them, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Would it be okay to make it the 26th? De Weerd: Oh. Borton: Because next week is the comp plan. De Weerd: Yes. Thank you. Yeah. We will put this on for the 26th and that gives us two weeks to use social media and NextDoor to let people know. Okay. And we didn't do that in advance, because we didn't know what Council's thoughts were. B. Public Hearing for Silverstone Apartments (H-2019-0099) by Dave Evans Construction, Located at 4107 E. Overland Rd. 1. Request: Modified Development Agreement for the purpose of removing the subject property from DA Instrument #2018-012457 and DA Instrument # 2018-012456 and be placed in a new, separate agreement. De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-B is a public hearing for H-2019-0099 and this applicant is requesting a continuance to December 3rd. Sonya, can you tell us the basis of that request? Allen: Yes, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The applicant is requesting continuance due to needing additional time to respond to ACHD's comments and recommendation to adjust the access along Movado Way, to share information with concerned neighbors and to get traffic analysis information related to a potential traffic signal at the Movado Way and Overland Road intersections. De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that is here for this item, if you will raise your hands. Okay. Well, our apologies, but you probably would prefer to have additional data to be able to -- to maybe craft your testimony to. Council, we can still hear this. It's -- it's whatever your pleasure is. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 26 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 6 of 74 Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I'm always sensitive to the public coming out to provide testimony. I guess for those that are here, if they are able come back on the 3rd that would be my preference, but we have got an obligation that would keep them from providing testimony. I would be willing to open it up, but I guess I'm more in support of continuing it assuming those that are here are going to be able to come back. De Weerd: Okay. It's -- it's awkward procedurally to have testimony without introducing the application. Is there -- and -- and certainly the option, if you're not able to join us on December 3rd, is to submit written testimony. Is there anyone who has a problem with either? It is procedurally awkward. Thank you for that, Jeffrey. I have opened this public hearing. Mr. Nary, any issues with that? Nary: No. I think it -- De Weerd: I don't want to color the public record. Nary: I recognize the concern. I don't know this gentleman. I don't know what he has to say, so I don't know if it would be problematic. De Weerd: Well, some of us might say I wish I didn't. I'm really kidding, Jeffrey. Come on up. Hall: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Madam Mayor, Members of Council -- De Weerd: And this is -- pertains to whether it's the December 3rd -- Hall: Correct. De Weerd: Okay. Hall: Correct. So, for the record, Jeffrey Hall, 3023 East Copper Point, Meridian. 83642. So, I represent the Movado Homeowners Association. Several of their members, unfortunately -- we don't have the e-mails for all of them, so some of the people who are here testifying tonight only saw the signs. They have not received an e-mail notification that this was coming forth and we do support the request for continuance and I just want to say that. And we are holding two neighborhood meetings, so that's why I really wanted to talk about this. One is at 7:30 tonight for the homeowners of the village section and tomorrow night at 6:00 p.m. at Title One where we had the first original meeting, that will be held for the rest of the Movado homeowners. So, the applicant will be there and presenting their changes and we are going back. So, just want to provide that so, hopefully, these folks know that they can come to the neighborhood meeting and hear everything that's going on. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 27 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 7 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification and certainly maybe you could be available outside -- Hall: Yes. De Weerd: -- to ask any questions. This sounds like a perfect opportunity to provide comment to the developer and -- and get some answers with a two way dialogue. So, thank you for sharing that, Jeffrey. So, Council, you have heard the request for continuance. I will look for your direction. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: With that explanation and the purpose for the continuance being one we certainly support, that communication, I move that we continue H-2019-0099 to December 3rd. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item H-2019-0099 for Silverstone Apartments to December 3rd. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Public Hearing for Delano Subdivision ( H- 2019- 0027) by Devco Development, LLC, Located at 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. and 2800 E. Jasmine Ln. 1. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include 4. 10 acres of land currently in Boise' s area of City Impact in Meridian' s area of City Impact with a Mixed Use -Regional future land use designation; and 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning for an Annexation and Zoning of 15. 21 acres of land with R-15 (11. 57) and R-40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts; and 3. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 single-family residential building lots, 1 building lot for multi-family development and 12 common lots De Weerd: And thank you for joining us. We apologize for the inconvenience, but it sounds like it will just be an extension of -- from this place to another. Okay. Item 7-C is a public hearing for H-2019-0027. Before I open this public hearing I will go through our public hearing process. So, we start with a presentation from our staff that will present Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 28 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 8 of 74 the application and staff's concerns or comments. Then we will hear from the applicant. They have 15 minutes to comment about their application. Following that we will open the public comment period. Each that has signed up to testify has three minutes. There is a timer on the screen on -- on the podium and so you can kind of keep track of your time. I will at three minutes ask you to summarize if you have not concluded at that point. And after public testimony we will ask the applicant to come forward and address any questions that -- or comments that were raised during the testimony and answer any questions that Council has. I will let you know that Council has had an opportunity to look at the public record to -- to date and has reviewed that and so they are caught up to date. I will ask that you be respectful in your testimony. We did get a letter that is in front of our Council that does start abruptly and so if you will use decorum we would certainly appreciate that. And with that said I will open this public hearing with staff comment. Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is a request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment annexation and zoning, and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 15.21 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county currently and is located at 2800 and 14120 West Jasmine Lane. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential, as you can see there on the map on the left, the yellow area, and the parcel on the right, which is white, is designated general mixed use in the city of Boise and in Boise's area of city impact boundary. The Comprehensive Plan map amendment includes the eastern 4.1 acres of land as I mentioned currently in Boise's area city impact and planning area and Meridian's planning area with a mixed use regional future land use map designation, consistent with Boise's designation. The reason for the request is due to the larger portion of the property being in Meridian's area and Meridian's ability to provide city sewer and water services to the property. Since the Commission hearing the city of Boise approved and adopted a resolution to amend the land use map to transfer this parcel to the City of Meridian area of impact and this is the mixed use regional map designation future land use map that is proposed by the applicant. The annexation and zoning request is for 15.21 acres of land with R-15, which is 11.57 acres of the annexation request and R-40, which is 3.64 acres, consistent with the medium density residential and requested mixed use regional future land use map designations for this property and that is the breakdown of the zoning right here in this upper left-hand corner map. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 85 single family residential building lots for the development of a mix of detached and attached homes. One building lot for a future 96 unit multi-family residential development and that is this area right here on the east side and 12 common lots on 15.21 acres of land in the proposed R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in two phases with the first phase including the extension of the stub street Dashwood from the north and connection to the extension of Centrepoint Way at the southeast corner of the single family residential portion of the site. Development of the multi-family portion is not proposed at this time and will require a future conditional use permit prior to development. A conceptual development plan was submitted for the parcel to the north and that is the upper right-hand corner map. The parcel north of the multi-family area showing how the site could possibly redevelop with the extension of Centrepoint, but that -- that parcel is not part of this development application, just to be clear. Access is depicted on the plat via the extension of Centrepoint Way, a collector street at the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 29 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 9 of 74 southern boundary of the site, and via the extension of a local stub street North Dashwood Place at the northern boundary of the site. Centrepoint is proposed to extend from the southern to the northern boundary of this site consistent with the master street map for eventual connection to Wainwright Drive when the parcel to the north redevelops. Because of reduced street sections, 27 feet wide, are proposed, which only allow parking on one side of the street, which is further restricted by the narrow lots for detached homes where there isn't adequate area for on-street parking with the driveways for each lot, a parking exhibit was submitted as shown that demonstrates the locations and amount of available on-street parking, which are along common area landscape strips consisting of 56 on-street spaces. The staff report recommends the extension of Centrepoint Way from the south to the north boundary of the annexation area to take place with the first phase of development, rather than the second phase as proposed, so that if the property to the north develops before the multi-family portion of the site, the connection to Wainwright can be made for access to the traffic signal. The subsequent ACHD report requires Centrepoint to be extended to Jasmine with development of the single family units in phases one and two and extension to the north property line with the multi-family development. Right of way is required to be dedicated, but Jasmine would temporarily not connect to Centrepoint. There would be an approximate eight foot gap classified as unopened, unmaintained right of way that would be gated for emergency access only. A road test will be held by ACHD for the cost of the future connection of Jasmine to Centrepoint. Connection would occur when Centrepoint is connected to Wainwright Drive to complete the north-south collector or in ten years, whichever occurs first. A temporary hammerhead type turnaround is required for the Jasmine stub. Staff is okay with the aforementioned ACHD requirements if determined appropriate by Council and this would necessitate a modification to DA provision A-1-F in Section 8. A 20 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Centrepoint Way, a collector street. A minimum ten percent qualified open space is required to be provided for the development, along with one site amenity. The applicant is proposing 11.5 percent of the single family residential portion of the site consisting of a half acre park, parkways, a micro path lot, a collector street buffer and a local street buffer approved by the director through alternative compliance. Because the multi-family portion of the site is separated from the single family residential portion of the site by a collector street and the development plan is conceptual at this time, staff recommends as a development agreement provision that the ten percent open space is provided at the time -- at the -- excuse me -- time of development that portion of the site in addition to the open space required in the specific use standards for multi- family developments. A shade structure, children's play equipment, children's climbing dome, climbing boulders, seating benches, micro pathways and possibly a swing set are proposed as amenities, which exceeds UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for the single family residential attached and detached units on the left and the multi-family residential apartments on the right. All single family residential homes along the west and north perimeter boundary of the development will be a single story in height. There have been many letters of public testimony, as I'm sure you have seen on the public record. Approximately 49 have been received on this application, primarily from residential neighbors to the north in Alpine Pointe Subdivision. The primary concerns are the intensity of the development. Density is too high. Not enough transition in lot sizes to larger lots to the north. Extension of North Dashwood Place and Centrepoint Way and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 30 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 10 of 74 resulting traffic generated from this development and from the commercial and multi- family residential developments to the south that will be routed through their subdivision if Jasmine is connected to Centrepoint before Centrepoint can be extended to the north to Wainwright and safety concerns for children pertaining to traffic. So, please, see the public record for complete record of testimony and names. The Commission did recommend denial of these applications to Council. A little summary of the Commission public hearing. I will go through that. Jim Conger testified in favor. Several folks testified in opposition as follows: Malissa Bernard representing many neighbors on Dashwood Place to the north in Alpine Pointe Subdivision. Frank Marcos, Alpine Pointe Subdivision HOA president. Kenneth Clifford. Sherry Garey. Greg Walker. Patricia Pitzer. Joy Cameron. Sandi King. Laura -- I'm going to totally slaughter this -- Trairatnobhas. And Connie Thompson commented on the application and, again, many letters of testimony have been received. Key issues of public testimony are as follows: Consensus that proposed development -- the density is too high. Not enough transition in lot sizes to the larger lots to the north. Concern pertaining to the extension of Dashwood Place and Centrepoint Way and resulting traffic generated from the proposed development and from the commercial and multi-family residential developments to the south that will be routed through the subdivision to the north if Jasmine is connected to Centrepoint before Centrepoint can be extended to the north to Wainwright. Safety concerns for children pertaining to traffic. The proposed development is premature and that infrastructure, i.e., the extension of Centrepoint to Wainwright should be in place prior to development going in not after the fact and there has been no negotiation with neighbors by the developer as directed by the Commission. Key issues of discussion by the Commission are as follows: The desire for the city of Boise to take action -- action on a request to exclude the eastern portion of the site from their area of city impact boundary prior to the city making a decision on this application. This has been done, like I mentioned earlier. The possibility of only an emergency access via Dashwood Place. Concern pertaining to adequacy of parking for the development. Preference for R-8 versus R-15 zoning for the single family portion and R-15 versus R-40 zoning for the multi-family portion of the site as a transition to adjacent zoning. Density should be reduced due to Heritage Middle School and Rocky Mountain High School already being over capacity and desire for the applicant to work with neighbors to address issues that were brought up at the hearing. Commission changes to the staff recommendation. As I mentioned, the Commission recommended denial of the proposed applications to City Council based on their desire for the applicant to obtain approval from the city of Boise for the adjustment to the area of city impact boundary and opinion that the applicant did not sufficiently work with neighbors on their concerns pertaining to the proposed development. The only outstanding issue for Council tonight -- if Council approves this project staff is recommending a condition is added to require local street access to be provided on the multi-family portion of the site to the abutting property to the east, which currently takes access via State Highway 55 and Eagle Road in accord with UDC 11-3A3, which requires all subdivisions to provide local street access to any use that currently takes direct access from an arterial or a collector street. Written testimony since the Commission hearing. There have been approximately 33 letters of testimony received since the Commission hearing in July and so that -- that's about 80 letters total since the application was Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 31 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 11 of 74 submitted and primarily for recommending -- or requesting I should say denial of this project. Staff will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Sonya. Council, questions for staff at this time? Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Clark: I will. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street representing the applicant. And I do have a PowerPoint and I think Sonya has got that well underway. Okay. Well, off we go. Members of the Council, tonight we have before you an in-fill project that satisfies Meridian's comp plan and planning for this area and provides housing in a sector that's desperately needed in this city. As we begin I want to start out by talking a little bit about the development itself and what's proposed and, then, from there we will talk about some of the issues that have been raised over the -- over the course of this process. The current phase of this project includes 85 single family homes, as was mentioned by Sonya. Bearing to the east will be multi-family, as she mentioned, though, it is subject to a future conditional use permit. This is the type of product that's planned for this project. There will be a combination of single level and two level. The single level will be on the north where you can see the areas in blue to help provide for a transition to those neighboring properties. The anticipated buyer of this type of product is someone who is looking for the -- you know, doesn't want a yard, wants to have maintenance taken care of, often wants to downsize, could be an empty nester. That's the -- the typical person that would be looking to buy here. As Sonya mentioned in terms of amenities I think it's important to point out that for projects less than 20 acres only one amenity is required and in this project we are presenting five, as she mentioned, that includes play structures, climbing rocks, a shade structure, dome swing set and seating areas. These pictures kind of give you an idea of what that will look like. These are from other developments that have been done with very similar planning. So, now that you have an idea of what the project would look like, I want to couch this as -- in terms of how it fits with Meridian's planning and its Comprehensive Plan. So, this is where the project is located. I'm sure you are all very familiar. This is located in the immediate vicinity of single family, multi-family, small commercial, big box retail, and, you know, essential traffic corridors, Eagle and Ustick. The property is currently bisected by the area of impact between the city of Boise and -- and the City of Meridian. As was discussed, we did go to the city of Boise and discuss this with them and I know this was a significant point of discussion at P&Z. We did get the city of Boise's final opinion on this and it -- on October 8th we discussed with them factors that led us to believe that this was more appropriate for a development in Meridian. Those included the fact that there are utilities on the north and south boundaries of the property. This allows Meridian to close that loop. Boise was not in the same position to be able to serve from a utility perspective and we thought it made a heck of a lot more sense, given that these are going to be Meridian amenities in the area, that are likely going to be taken advantage of by these residents, including parks and whatnot. So, Boise city did agree. They had a couple of recommendations. The concerns that they addressed -- or that they expressed during the course of that hearing were that they wanted to see that there was density high enough proposed on this project to satisfy what they had planned for. They mentioned that a couple of times. And they also wanted to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 32 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 12 of 74 ensure that the property to the east is provided with a cross-access connection and we think that we have provided -- we have addressed both of those by finding the -- kind of the sweet spot between the densities that Meridian has -- has planned for and that the city of Boise planned for in this property and one thing that I would mention with regard to the -- the staff comment, which is the first that we have heard with regard to a local road connection to the east, the city of Boise's letter said cross-access provided to the east. We think that that actually is what makes the most sense here, because as you know, Meridian's ordinances and ACHD's access policies are not going to allow for a new access onto Eagle Road. That means that if there is a local road connection that goes to the east, it's going to end up stubbing and stopping. In this case a cross-access, which is what we have provided on our plans and have committed to, makes far more sense. So, let's look at the Comprehensive Plan designations for the area. As you can imagine, the Comprehensive Plan calls for a range of mixed uses with higher density in this location. As Sonya mentioned for the area on the west there is no change proposed. It's still the medium density that is proposed that is currently on the future land use map. For the area coming in from the city of Boise we have proposed MUR for a number of reasons. It matches what the Comprehensive Plan calls for given the proximity to Eagle Road, the commercial uses and area facilities, including parks. Second, that designation most closely matches Boise's mixed use designation, which previously applied to the property and it's consistent with the Meridian future land use map designation for the property that's currently to the south. The proposed density meets the requirements of Meridian and Boise and provides for an appropriate transition, which you can see is a bit of a job given the -- what is approved here. As you can see we need to transition from three units per acre on the north and southwest to multi-family at 22 to 30 units per acre along our southern boundary. This is also the previously mentioned commercial and retail development that's in the area and, again, the two major traffic -- transit corridors with Eagle and Ustick Road. This slide helps to -- helps you to see what the transition looks like. This is the Brickyard development that's approved on the south. This is another look at the -- at the Brickyard. You can see that the picture on the right kind of shows that proximity. It's about 15 feet from that project to -- to our property line and I also do want to mention a couple of Comprehensive Plan policies that I think are very important in considering this project. There is three that I think deserve particular focus. The Comprehensive Plan includes goals of providing a wide variety of housing types for all income groups that is close to employment and shopping centers and near major access thoroughfares. You will hear more about this as the night goes on, but this is high quality housing at a more affordable price point than is generally being provided in Meridian. There is a huge demand for this that is not being met. In terms of agency review, Meridian Public Works has reviewed -- this does complete the sewer and water loops as I previously mentioned. Also Suez -- depending on the outcome of tonight, but has already indicated that they would release this property to be served by Meridian city. Fire Department has issued a letter and that is approved. Police have indicated no objections. And, of course, ACHD has approved this back in May. Now, there has been a high level of interaction with the neighborhoods. We have -- even before that started we came to this with a lot of thought and I want to kind of go through some of those thought processes here. First, before we had any conversations with the neighbors we did propose single story -- the single story limitation on the north and on the west that would help to transition. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 33 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 13 of 74 We also carefully reviewed what is actually built on the north side of the property and I hope that this kind of helps describe what -- what we looked at. So, as you look from east to west, each of these squares represents a building envelope. So, the duplex -- duplex single. Moving where you see the label A, what you have there is we have shown what our future home -- homes would look back on. So, A here represents A here. That -- those homes won't be looking back in an RV pad with trailers and small homes. As you move west going to B, you can see what -- what would be adjacent to these future homes. In that case it's another large pad with an RV -- it looks like RV parking and trailers. Continuing west C you have an extremely wide lot, which is something that's fairly difficult to plan for. But, again, if you look at C, most of what these homes would face would be concrete pad and a shop, not the -- the living area on the back side. And, then, continuing further west with E, you can see that there is a very -- very significant parking area back there. We have -- you know, we have seen between four and six trailers parked in that area. So, we have looked at this very closely. We have tried to make sure that -- we have tried -- that we can minimize -- minimize that impact and we wanted to help you see what kind of things we took into consideration in connection with that. In terms of neighborhood interactions, four neighborhood meetings, three prior to even submittal, again, on September 26th, 2019. On October 18th, 2019, Laren Bailey forwarded ACHD's most recent letter. Again offered to meet. No response. There have been multiple plat revisions, at least three that I'm aware of. In addition to that, we lobbied ACHD to -- a temporary -- temporarily close the public road, which I will describe here in a moment. And, then, we also requested an additional clarification letter from ACHD that was provided just a couple weeks ago. So, with that I -- let's talk about what I think is going to be the big issue tonight is going to be traffic. That's the issue that seems to come up repeatedly in the comments. So, let's -- let's start with the planning. As you know, ACHD and the City of Meridian both very much emphasized connectivity. We don't do cul-de- sac subdivisions. We ensure that -- that subdivisions connect for a number of very good reasons, including economics of maintenance, making sure that folks can get out to -- to designated accesses on our arterials. All of these reasons are very important in terms of ensuring that the conductivity is there and that's reflected in the planning for this site. This is the ACHD master street map. It clearly shows a connection from Centrepoint through this development and up to Wainwright as Sonya had mentioned. And I will show this in a -- in a subsequent slide, but ACHD already has the -- the right of way for the Centrepoint connection through Alpine Village, it's the -- this property that's intervening that is the part that wouldn't be required to connect. So, this is how traffic will flow with the site. Dashwood here on the left is a local street. It should not function as a collector. That's why we worked with ACHD to provide for a temporary street closure that you can see here in that location. That will help ensure that traffic from the south will not attempt to use Dashwood in a way that it shouldn't be used. In other words, we don't want Dashwood to become a de facto collector, it needs to remain a local street and so we don't want that cut-through occurring. So, that's why the temporary street closure has been proposed until such time as Centrepoint can be connected. Now, this orange area here is what I had mentioned previously, that that is right of way that ACHD already has and it's my understanding that the builder at that time contributed to the road trust to help cover the cost of that -- of that road when it actually comes in. So, ultimately Centrepoint will connect to Wainwright. When that occurs the temporary closure will be removed and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 34 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 14 of 74 Centrepoint will carry the collector level traffic. Now, ACHD has reviewed and approved this plan. It's satisfying its policies. They have since taken the fairly unusual step, at least in my experience, of sending a follow-up letter, which is what you see on the screen today. It confirms that Centrepoint Way, is well within capacity, only 55 percent build -- at build out and it confirms that both ACHD and the City of Meridian require street -- excuse me -- street connectivity. So, as I finish up let's talk a little bit about roadway capacities. For the local streets at build out, the local street would be Dashwood. The local streets are designed for 2,000 trips. The analysis that ACHD has approved shows 954 trips at build out or -- or other -- in other words, less than half capacity. The mid mile collector street, which is Wainwright, at build out will be at 45 percent of the design threshold during the a.m.-p.m. peak, which is the measure that's used for that trip -- that category and, then, Centrepoint at build out will be at 55 percent of design threshold. So, about half of capacity for each of these roads. Now, we understand that all of this is going to feel like a change. You know, everyone who lives in this area they are going to look at this and they are going to experience a change. It's going to feel like a change. That perception is not what ultimately counts when we are talking about these roadway matters. ACHD has standards that are based on science, that are based on engineering, that require a quantitative analysis to tell us where these roadways are in terms of their overall capacity. That it helps ensure that there is a -- an efficient use of taxpayer resources to make sure that there is a roadway network that is not being wasted, that actually carries the -- the road -- the traffic that it's designed for. That's why ACHD approved this back in May. So, with that I will conclude with just a couple of points and with only a couple of seconds left. The project fully satisfies Meridian Comprehensive Plan. There is agency approval of this that includes Boise city, which is not an agency, but they did have a pretty significant say in the area of impact element. It provides desperately needed housing in Meridian and the roadways are well within capacity. I had indicated that there was no modifications to the proposed conditions of approval, but we would request that they are not be a local street connection as suggested by staff. De Weerd: Thank you for your comments. Council, any questions at this time? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I will just kind of jump around a little bit, but one of the topics that was brought up by staff in the staff report is concern with regards to the water and sewer connectivity and looping and a desire that property that's not part of this application, property to the north, that maybe the Centrepoint Way would connect through, that that should come in, along with something like this at one time, and some of the concerns included water and sewer service issues. Were you able to visit with staff recently to try and reconcile that? Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, we -- it was raised I think just a couple of minutes ago. The -- with regard to whether that property comes in with this application, that's something that we can't control. There is nothing that we are doing here that would preclude that connection through Wainwright to the neighboring property and so I don't Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 35 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 15 of 74 see this as being a -- something that precludes sewer or water access for that -- for that property by any means. Borton: And -- Madam Mayor. And it might be -- maybe it might be feasible, but there was some concern and I might ask Sonya or Warren to comment on it, to kind of give us some better context in what the concern rose to the level of -- almost a basis to not approve it. So, it's a pretty grave concern that I'm going to get my head around. So, I don't know if -- De Weerd: Warren, can you go ahead and -- and comment on -- on the staff notations on this particular issue? You want to turn on your mic. Yes. Stewart: I thought it was one. De Weerd: Thank you. Stewart: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, we did -- we did look at this. Obviously in Wainwright there is a water and sewer stub that comes out to the -- essentially what ends up being the Meridian city limit boundary going east on Wainwright. Eventually we would like to see that come down the Centrepoint Way and provide some connectivity to our water system. We can currently serve this development as proposed with water and sewer without that connection and it would be advantageous at some point in the future if we can make another connection, but it is not necessary in order to serve this and as was noted it doesn't preclude that from happening in the future if that -- that property to the north does come in, then, that connection can be made. Clark: Madam Mayor, if I can maybe add to that. The thought that occurs to me is that when we evaluated this application one of the primary reasons why we are in front of Meridian was because the proximity of Meridian utilities, you know, to be able to serve the project. My expectation is that if and when that property to the north develops they are going to go through that exact same analysis and they are going to look at it and say, hey, we have got Meridian here and here and we have got Boise clear over here. So, you know, we -- we think we need to come to Meridian. We expect that that's what's going to happen. We, obviously, can't speculate as to what that property owner is going to ultimately decide, but I expect that the analysis will be very similar to what we have gone through. De Weerd: Any further questions, Mr. Borton? Borton: Not at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 36 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 16 of 74 Cavener: Hethe, I'm going to give you a chance to kind of address some -- just because I assume there is going to be a lot of questions and comments about neighbor engagement. We have received a lot of feedback and concern and your narrative touched on the meetings that you had and if I noticed correctly the one meeting after Planning and Zoning you said there was no response. So, I'm hoping maybe for Council and for those here that are in attendance, you can kind of outline what approach you made to connect with those neighbors, specifically the ones that spoke in opposition at P&Z, to at least help us understand where the disconnect is between -- like -- it sounds like you attempted to do and it not landing maybe with the neighbors. Clark: Uh-huh. Council Member Cavener, I think -- Council Member Cavener, I would -- I just wanted to clarify that there was one meeting after P&Z, there was a September 26 meeting and we had 16 -- a lot of neighbors there. I personally wasn't there. So, if there are questions about what specifically was said there I can have members of the -- of the applicant team come help answer those questions. Cavener: Madam Mayor. Hethe, can you pull up that slide that showed -- Clark: Yeah. Cavener: I want to get on September 26. I just jumped to the October -- okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Madam Mayor. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation this evening, Mr. Clark. I got a quick question for you in regard to schools. You mentioned a lot of reports from our stakeholder partners. What were some thoughts in regard to the schools? I didn't -- I didn't hear you mention in your report -- or in your presentation about West Ada. Clark: Madam Mayor, Commissioner -- Council Member Bernt, I appreciate that question. Yeah. The -- you know, obviously, West Ada is dealing with population growth and trying to keep up with that and that's a -- that's a significant challenge. When we have spoken with them the suggestion was to defer until fall of 2020 to allow for Owyhee High School to come online. That -- I think there is a couple of responses to that. First is that we are only at the preliminary plat process stage right now. We are not going to have residents until fall of 2020. So, that's -- that's one point. You know, second, we think our residents are going to help provide the solution and why I say that is that our -- our product is -- is largely purchased by folks without children. We generate far less than what's typical and we will have some folks talking about that tonight. So, hopefully, that helps to -- to address that situation by generating property tax. And, finally, I think just the -- I will just be frank, I think that the district's comments can put the city in a tough position. You are having to ask yourself whether you are putting together a moratorium on all development until these things can be addressed. That's -- that's a hard space for you to be in. But in the end, given our -- our timing, we think that we will -- we won't be having folks living in this -- in Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 37 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 17 of 74 this place until Owyhee High School is online and that's the high school that the -- the school district has mentioned -- identified in particular as the concern. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further questions at this point? Bongiorno: Madam Mayor? Over here. Fire marshal table. De Weerd: Sorry, Joe. I just always hear your voice and think -- Bongiorno: Where is that coming from. De Weerd: -- where is it coming from. Bongiorno: I just had two quick questions. I heard something about an eight foot no man's land at the road closure. What -- I have never seen that. What's that about? And, then, my second question is how are we blocking the road? Bailey: Madam Mayor, Councilmen -- De Weerd: If you can first say your name and address. Bailey: Sure. Laren Bailey. My business address is -- apparently I can't remember my business address. It's -- sorry about that. Fairview Avenue. Boise, Idaho. Mr. Bongiorno, to answer that question -- so, when he said no man's land, there will be open right of way there. We will have a fire access road that meets department standards for -- for fire apparatus to travel one of our emergency vehicles and, then, as far as how we gate that, we will definitely work with -- with you on what you would like to see there. I don't think we have a preference whether -- but it would be Fire Department approved, obviously, with -- with whatever -- lock boxes or whatever we need to have there. Bongiorno: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. We do enter into the public testimony. We do give HOA presidents ten minutes and I do understand that Alpine Pointe HOA is here and when we call his name or her name we will allot ten minutes to the president. Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor, I apologize. I was going to ask one more question of Hethe if I could. De Weerd: I'm sorry. Borton: Sorry. I meant to catch you before you sat down. So, from the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, right, in their recommendation of denial through today, can you -- can you summarize what you understood their recommendation to be based on as you understood it? And -- and, then, from that hearing to today what, if anything, changed in the application to address those concerns -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 38 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 18 of 74 Hall: Madam -- Borton: -- taking Boise -- Boise's withdrawal of the area of impact aside, because we know that's accomplished. What were some of the other concerns and, then, how were they specifically addressed to bring it to us tonight. Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, so one thing I will mention as kind of a procedural item and I think this might be something that might be helpful for the city to consider doing in the future, because it would help applicants. Oftentimes when there is a Planning and Zoning recommendation, that recommendation in other jurisdictions is typically adopted within a week or two of the planning and zoning action and, then, there is a separate staff report prior to the city council. So, in this case, you know, in reviewing the Planning and Zoning recommendation as reflected by staff's notes, it was two items. It was the city of Boise and it was work with the neighbors. The -- the other concerns were discussed, but as I read the -- what appears to be the Planning and Zoning written adopted recommendation is those two items. So, obviously, the -- this Boise city element has been taken care of. Boise city is in agreement that this should go in Meridian. The other question was the -- working with the neighbors element and, as I mentioned, there has been a meeting -- an offer for another meeting. It's -- it's a -- as you know, that's a -- that can be a do loop of -- but, you know, there has -- there has been a good faith offer to -- to talk to the neighbors through these issues. Borton: Madam Mayor? And not to belabor, I just think it's really important to hear early on before the public comments some of the -- the areas that were identified to us as areas of concern in their discussion, which might not have been a change as part of the recommendation, but it referenced the Dashwood Place access and capacity, adequacy of parking, the school density that Councilman Bernt referenced and -- De Weerd: Transition. Borton: -- and the transition. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Those are just some of the -- those are some of the discussion concerns that came up. I presume that they at least provided some context to the recommendation for denial. So, I just wanted to see if there was anything that changed or if the position of the applicant is those concerns are either not -- don't warrant the change in your opinion or they have otherwise been addressed in a way that we haven't identified. Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, I appreciate the question. It makes a lot of sense. So, with regard to Dashwood Way and the capacity, we think that that is addressed and that's reflected in the ACHD staff report. It's my understanding that there are proposals out there that would -- would have Dashwood cut off by -- by various means, whether it would be by bisecting the property with -- and using cul-de-sacs and a gate on the north. We don't think that that would be approved by ACHD or the City of Meridian given your connectivity requirements. And, then, remind me what the final item was that you had mentioned. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 39 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 19 of 74 Borton: Parking. Clark: Parking. So, parking we are above code. We have the -- every location at this property has four parking spaces, two garage, two driveway, and, then, you have the offset -- the on-street parking that Sonya had previously mentioned. Now parking is an interesting one for this, because this product -- you are probably not going to have 40 people showing up for the Superbowl party. These are -- these are small homes. You are going to have a couple people may be coming by. We think most of the parking is going to be addressed by on -- on site, but if it's not, then, there is adequate on-street parking. And I do have -- well, actually, Sonya showed you the -- the parking, but this is -- this is how that -- how that works out. Borton: Madam Mayor. Sorry. Just one other. The last slide I guess it shows the parking, but it reminded me of Jasmine Lane being a private street and I recall us getting into snags when private -- you know, two public streets are connected by a private street and it is intended to remain private. Clark: So, Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, so the Jasmine as it extends east is intended to end at that point, that there would be internal easement based cross-access provided to the property to the east and we think that that's the most appropriate outcome, because, again, ACHD is not going to allow a connection onto Eagle and so a -- this should be handled the typical way in these types of developments, which is there would be internal cross-access that can be designed to satisfy our concerns, because we are the ones that are going to end up building it and still allow for our neighbor to be able to come back in and get to that mid mile collector and up and out. Borton: Madam Mayor. If Jasmine is private long term we are going to have Centrepoint, public street, private street Jasmine, Centrepoint, Dashwood. Am I misunderstanding how you might wind through that heading from the north -- south to the north -- ultimate build out that you can come north on Centrepoint, take a left on Dash -- or on Jasmine. Correct? Clark: Correct. Borton: And then -- which would be a private street. Clark: That would just be an internal cross-access easement. Borton: Right. But is the street itself private or public? Clark: West? Oh. Borton: Yeah. Going West. Thank you. Going west. Clark: Yeah. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 40 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 20 of 74 Borton: So, you're heading north -- Clark: Oh, I misunderstood. Yes. So, your -- Council Member Borton, what you're talking about is not this connection -- Borton: Right. Clark: -- you're talking down here and that is public. Borton: Oh, Jasmine is public? Clark: Uh-huh. Borton: Okay. Okay. I saw some reference to it being a private street, but maybe that's the current condition. Clark: Council Member Borton, I think where the confusion might be coming from is I think what staff was talking about was continuing Jasmine east as a private street. That that may be where the confusion comes from. Borton: So, there is no private streets involved. Clark: Correct. Borton: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Clark: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Madam Mayor, there are 32 sign-ins. Of those eight wish to testify. First -- first is Patricia Fitzer. De Weerd: The HOA certainly can go first. Johnson: Madam Mayor, the only person listing that they were an HOA and wishing to speak is Malissa Bernard. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 41 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 21 of 74 De Weerd: And that is the HOA representative. Okay. We will go ahead and -- and ask the HOA representative to provide the comments first and -- thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Bernard: I'm Malissa Bernard. I live at 4025 North Dashwood Place and that's in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Bernard: I would probably like to start this out with saying about the neighborhood meeting. We had a neighborhood meeting on the 26th of September, two hours and 40 minutes, and the applicant said we aren't changing density. We aren't changing the roads. We aren't changing anything about this application. So, when you are met with that much resistance and you are invited to be -- put through another two hours and 40 minutes or a request that was submitted on the 18th of October, well, you could understand why we decided to decline. So, just to clear that up, when we have that long of meeting and it satisfies the city of Boise's city council, it doesn't satisfy the City of Meridian P&Z requirement. There was no sign-in sheets that is required for the City of Meridian. So, I thought I would clear that up first. De Weerd: Thank you. Bernard: Okay. I would like to say that probably the main problems that we are having with this application is process as number one. There are six, possibly seven violations of the application process for pre-application. Also for meetings. There happens to be sign violations. There happens to be application dates and application pre-meetings. There was a pre-application meeting in February of 2018 and the application was turned in and, I'm sorry, February 2018 was a pre-application meeting and the application was turned in in February of 2019. Your city code and ordinances require four months after a pre-application meeting for the application to be turned in. Also your ordinances and UDC requires that five days after a neighborhood meeting can -- the application be turned in. One day after a neighborhood meeting the application was turned in. We were -- there was a City Council meeting that couldn't even be heard, because they didn't post the sign. There was no public notification posted on the site. So, therefore, there was another date that had to come up for that. Furthermore, the applicant does not come and pick up signage as you can see from the exhibit that I turned in to you. Laren Bailey, the applicant, signed, not realizing the sign process and when you're supposed to drop them off, when you're supposed to post them, when you're supposed to pick them up. There is more than several violations of that. So, we have six, possibly seven violations of the pre- application and also with public hearing notice on that. Sonya, could you pull up my -- Allen: Can you see it there? I'm not sure which one it is. Bernard: Let's see. Nope. None of -- Allen: Not on there? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 42 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 22 of 74 Bernard: No. No. None of -- Allen: I'm very sorry, just a moment. Bernard: Okay. Allen: I'm not sure where he put it. Let me look. Borton: Madam Mayor? You -- you reference in the November 5th information -- Bernard: The information -- sorry, sir. Borton: Oh, the November 5th letter that you -- Bernard: Yes. That's the November 5th letter that I had sent and also I believe at the last City Council meeting I also turned in something very similar as an exhibit. So, I wanted to address the possible illegality and is this even something we should be hearing at this time. So, Sonya, I do have a zip drive. Allen: Is this your presentation? Bernard: Oh, there we go. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Bernard: Okay. There we go. As you know, Alpine Pointe -- we had 241 residents signed a letter saying that we are against this in its current form and also there were seven -- or, I'm sorry, now there is 80 items of testimony for saying why we are against this item. Also we chose our homes carefully and in good faith. The commercial collector is now a grassy strip right now. We have never seen a sign for it. In fact, until 2018 on the master street map plans, that was the only time that was revealed to the public where we could access online to see the plans for that street. Furthermore, Dashwood was never signed as to be continued in the future. In 2011 you can go to Google Street -- street maps and you can see every other stub happens to be signed to be continued in the future. So, we bought our homes in good faith and we also did our research and we made decisions based on the public signs that we had available to us. As you can see -- oh, can you go back. I'm having a little bit of trouble driving this. Sonya, could you do three? Right there. Oh. Okay. There we go. As you can see that this application is just part of the problem that's coming into the future. We have six ingress-egress points at this time and we are going to get three in the future very soon. This is -- also there is a future light at Troxel Wingate that's coming, which is going to cause some cut through when the parcel connects at Conley and Rogue River north of Champion Park. So, not only is this application going to bring future traffic, it's also going to stress Wainwright as people try to seek a way east-west, north-south and it seems like our neighborhood is bearing the brunt of some poor planning, because we are the ones that are -- that are primarily going to be carrying most of the traffic east-west and north-south. As you can see, we have Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 43 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 23 of 74 approximately 35 acres of in-fill property and we need to be very careful on how these are developed. Primarily we have the Brickyard and 80 four-plex units to the south of us. So, we already have 1,000 new souls that are going to be living to the south of us and so with these 35 acres, if you reach maximum -- maximum -- maximum density potentials on this, you could add another thousand to two thousand people. So, all that's in a very tight footprint. As you can see there is quite a disparity between the two parcels that you are going to be throwing together, Dashwood and Brooksburg. You could fit probably about 65 homes if you used the common areas as well and that's just on the dirt. That's not the streets, that's -- you're going to get 65 of these Delano homes on there and as you can see on garbage day where do you park without blocking someone's driveway or even not even on garbage day. So, I don't see how this is very compatible or complementary type of property plan to put here. As you can see here, this is how it's going to look. This is a copy and pasted sort of depiction of what's going to happen. As you can see north towards Dashwood there is going to be quite a few buildings bordering our homes. One neighbor is going to have seven roofs to look at and possibly nine in the periphery. Also you are going to know Centrepoint Way is going to be heavily used and it runs right behind Brooksburg. What I would suggest is an R-15 for the Cook parcel to kind of buffer some density. I realized that you are going to need to put something there. The city of Boise it's -- they did not require high density. They never said so at the public hearing. It could be anywhere between six and 40 for mixed use regional and also the Enzler parcel, formerly the Ketlinski parcel that was to the west of that, that's currently in flux. They are probably going to want the Jasmine Lane to go and connect to get to that portion of the property. There was a thing about the capacity on the threshold for Centrepoint Way. As you can see from the ACHD report it's going to be nowhere near -- near capacity. So, honestly, the whole Delano project could be supported by Centrepoint Way without involving Dashwood. Now, there has been decommissioned stubs before based on however that property is going to relate to others. You did so at Three Corners Ranch. You decommissioned two stub streets because of connectivity. So, it's possible to consider that or to move the gate to Dashwood instead and have the same ten year moratorium. That might probably be the best fit for this situation. And also it can be bike and pedestrian open, just -- you know, everything would be just fine. I'm not very good at this. I'm sorry. Okay. There is other ways that we can get connectivity here. There is some concern with the Long parcel being forced into an eminent domain situation. What we could probably do is try to rethink -- how we rethink these roads and the land uses. If we redo some roads, there are some possibilities to help with the flow in this area and also the extension of Jasmine Way could be part of the pathway system, too. So, that's something to consider for the future. There have been three neighborhood meetings and as you can see there has been very little deviation from the plan. Everything's pretty much the same. We have always asked for a reduction in density. Rejigging of roads, things that are much more complementary and harmonious to our neighborhood. Other plans would meet requirements -- ACHD and city requirements. You could have hundreds of different possibilities that would be acceptable for your policies and also per ACHD. So, we would ask that you deny this application for procedure, for density, for inappropriate product in comparison to our neighborhood. The streets are too skinny. I think they are a fire hazard. I think there is not adequate parking -- parking south of Jasmine. If you know human nature, most people aren't going to park far away from their Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 44 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 24 of 74 homes and also if that's the public street and a thoroughfare, I don't think a bunch of cars in the way is really the best way to go about it. It's very stingy on usable green space. I feel there should be an increase at the park. And we are already poised to be high density heavy. If we can have some sort of buffer -- some sort of transition, because we can possibly have thousands and thousands of people to the south of us. Thank you. Please deny this application. Thank you. Do you have any questions? De Weerd: Council, questions? Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Bernard, for your presentation. I would like to go back a couple of slides and look at the presentations that were up. De Weerd: Sonya can -- don't worry. Bernard: All right. Thank you, Sonya. Bernt: Just the renderings that were shown at the -- at the meetings. I think it was like three slides from the end. Thank you. Let me stare at this for a second. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Malissa, nice to see you again. Thanks for being here. I feel like the last time you were here I complimented you on representing your homeowners association. You exceeded that again here tonight. I think they should probably double your pay or maybe even triple your pay. Bernard: I work for free. Cavener: I think the most unthankful job in government is being a part of a homeowner's association. So, thanks for doing that. I did have a question. You commented -- and, Sonya, if you want to drive back to any one of the pictures that kind of shows -- you had a great exhibit that shows kind of what it would look like and, then, with the houses next to it and during that you said that you had a neighbor that was going to have seven rooftops next to them and I missed that. So, I didn't know where that is on there and if you could point that to me -- Bernard: Okay. Let's see. Oh, I see which one. Okay. Great. All right. There is -- right there there is a -- a property that probably has about -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 45 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 25 of 74 Cavener: Madam Mayor. Malissa, sorry, can you use the mouse to show me where right there is. Bernard: Okay. Sorry about that. Cavener: That's okay. Bernard: Right -- right here there is a neighbor who has probably -- oh, got like more than 200 feet of frontage and she's going to see -- she and her husband are going to see about seven rooftops directly and, then, two others peripherally. So, she will have the sight lines of nearly nine homes there from her backyard and the setback is only 12 feet. Cavener: Madam Mayor. Just -- I want to make sure I'm clear. You're kind of referring to, essentially, two, almost three quarters of the homes on Della Street are going to be in their periphery is what you are -- Bernard: Yes. Yes. At least three quarters. Yes. Cavener: Okay. Thank you very much. Bernard: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? I also had a question about the procedure. Cavener: Oh. Yeah. Madam Mayor. Sorry. I wanted to get -- jump to that. Bernard: Oh. Okay. Cavener: I don't know who the appropriate person is. Mr. Nary, there was a lot of questions and claims about procedural violations and what, if any, action -- I think even Malissa suggested that we shouldn't even be hearing this tonight, so I was hoping you could provide some context for us. Nary: Certainly, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. So, I have been reviewing the letter that she has provided from the November 5th date on the top. So, none of these prohibit you from hearing this. So, this is not illegal for you to hear this. You do have some questions here about process that I think you need some answer in regards to -- one of the -- one of the concerns raised is the pre-ap meeting and pre-ap meeting is held almost a year prior to the application being submitted. I have no idea what occurred in that year. So, I think Planning can answer that question on what -- what occurred in that time period and if that is unsatisfactory to this Council you can deny the application, you can remand it, you can do whatever action is appropriate. The next one was regarding the -- there was an issue regarding a meeting and when the application was submitted, that it was submitted a day after the neighborhood meeting. Again, I don't know the reason. I think the applicant needs to answer that question. You could determine whether or not you feel that is fatal. There was a question regarding some noticing. We actually did -- I recall this. We did schedule -- we scheduled a public hearing in August of 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 46 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 26 of 74 because it wasn't noticed properly. So, what the court -- this Council did set it to a future date, so it could be noticed properly. That's not a flaw in the process. There is an issue regarding removal of signs. Part of the problem that's always existed in signs is that this property isn't in the city. So, the city ordinance doesn't apply to the property, because we can't enforce the sign ordinance on a property that's outside of the city. So, it is a directive, but if the Council considers that to be significant you can certainly remand this if you wish. But the failure to remove the sign is not fatal to you hearing this application. Everything else in this is really -- again, it's your direction on what you would like to do and there are, obviously, some answers that I think warrant an answer -- and a question that warrants an answer in regard to the pre-app, as well as some of the neighborhood contacts and such. But none of those are fatal to you hearing it. It is a condition, a consideration you may make in your decision. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any further questions at this time? Thank you. Bernard: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Madam Mayor, there was no other persons indicating they are with an HOA, so Patricia Pitzer. De Weerd: Okay. And -- and just -- I thought that was really nice for Malissa, but if we will hold our applause that would be -- yes. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Pitzer: Thank you. Patricia Pitzer. 2703 East Wainwright Drive in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Pitzer: Thank you, Honorable Mayor, Member -- or sorry. Mayor, Members of the Council. A lot of what I wanted to touch on tonight was already touched on, so in the essence of time and condensity of all of this, I'm just going to cut down to the pieces that I think were not touched on. One being the P&Z. When the -- when we met back in July many of the members there had a lot of trouble with the subdivision. In going through this and saying we would want to deny it and should we do this -- and addressing all the issues that we are having here, Mr. Parsons stepped in and said Council is the decision making body, so when we go forward with denial we, essentially, strike all the conditions. So, all the conditions they were talking about were striked and so it looks like it's coming down to just two items, but in reality there were many more, including the density and the traffic and the schools and et cetera. He went on to say let the Council determine whether or not they want to redesign, then, they can remand it back to the P&Z, which is hoping what -- we hope that you do is deny this based upon points that Malissa has already brought up. The density. The lack of working with us as neighbors. He spoke to the fact that he spoke with us individually. Never happened. The October 18th meeting -- I am an adjoining property owner. I never received anything for October 18th. He says I have Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 47 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 27 of 74 four trailers in my backyard. I guarantee you I do not have four trailers in my backyard. I guess that's about it. I'm not very good at this either. De Weerd: You did just fine. Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Pitzer: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Greg Walker. Walker: Greg Walker. 2403 East Honeywood Court. I'm a neighbor. De Weerd: Greg, can you pull the -- Walker: Yes. Sorry. De Weerd: -- microphone closer -- Walker: Madam Mayor, Council Members. Just a couple of comments here. You know, the public process is really about compromise. There has really been no compromise here by DevCo at all. In fact, I would say I'm fairly disappointed with this whole process. There is -- we have been to every -- look around this room, there is a tremendous number of people representing our -- our neighborhood and there has been no compromise. If anything -- if you look back at Malissa Bernard's photo of the three different developments, the density has gone up. This is really more about maximizing profit for DevCo, rather than trying to be a good neighbor or a good citizen. We built our houses in good faith and we understand that this was not really planned that well. Center -- or Wainwright Road is not really a collector. If you look there is frontages to it. So, you know, we built our -- in good -- in good faith and I just don't think that -- if you look at it, all of us are here to stay. We built our houses. This is my retirement home. This is where I want to live. So, I'm going to stay. DevCo is coming in, they are going to build a bunch of houses and they are going to leave and I don't think the residents and the transition that we are creating here really fits the master plan where they are saying, hey, it's supposed to be a nice smooth transition from one type of housing to another. This is not a smooth transition. This is going from half acre lots to 80 -- 80 houses in a -- in a ten acre area. So, this is a huge step for -- in density and, honestly, nothing has changed since the Planning and Zoning denial. They have gone and got the -- the change of -- the transfer of land and that's it. The meeting with us was purely because they were required to and they did come in with an attitude of we are not changing anything. That's how they have been throughout this entire process. So, we have made off -- if you look at Malissa Bernard's testimonies throughout the -- throughout the entire time, our neighborhood understands this land is going to get developed. We know it's going to get developed. We are not opposed to it getting developed properly. We have offered multiple solutions. If you look back at the -- all the input we have tried diligently to work with DevCo, but they have been totally unwilling to change anything, other than what they want to change for their benefit. That's all I have. Thank you very much. Any questions? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 48 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 28 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Walker. Bernt: Mr. Walker? De Weerd: Yes. Bernt: Madam Mayor, thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: You mentioned solutions and I'm interested to hear what your solutions were. If you look back at the testimony from Malissa Bernard, she has offered I would say three or four different opportunity -- different ideas on how to connect this and how to do different things and they have just been -- sorry -- they have been totally unwilling to make any compromises. Like I said, the public process really should be about compromise and trying to come to a solution that satisfies both parties. There has not been a give and take relationship, it has been strictly one sided. Bernt: Thank you, Mr. Walker. One follow up, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bernt: So, basically, what you're saying is your solutions have more to do with connectivity, as opposed to density. Walker: No. I believe we have talked about density and connections and everything. So, you know, there has been no compromise, there has been no coming to the meetings and saying, hey, what do you think of this. It's been here is what we are doing and the public process has been used to their advantage. I think they are better at it than the neighborhood associations and they are better at it than the public and they have used that quite well to their advantage. I don't feel like the neighborhood association has had really any say in this process. The neighbors or the neighborhood association. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I'm sorry, Mr. Walker. Borton: I was going to catch you on a question. De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: To follow up on Councilman Bernt's question. Amongst all the written testimony we have received from -- from all of the residents and interested parties that's been referenced, there is the April 29th letter from Mrs. Bernard to P&Z that might be something Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 49 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 29 of 74 that you are referencing, where she cites solutions or her proposed solutions and one of them was hinted on earlier in the discussion and it is regarding Dashwood Place to the north being an emergency connector utilizing bollards. Walker: Uh-huh. Borton: Were you -- if you were at the Planning and Zoning Commission, can you provide some context on how that discussion -- what happened at P&Z with that? Walker: If you look back at the Planning and Zoning records, you will find that the Planning and Zoning team said -- they complemented Mrs. Bernard on her -- on the fact that she had done so much work and so much research on size of roads, connectivity, turnarounds, everything else, saying, you know, the public generally comes into these and just says no; right? But she took the extra steps to offer other solutions and they were very complimentary to her on all these different solutions, but I don't think any of them were considered seriously by Delano or DevCo. So, you would have to look back at the Planning and Zoning record. They were offered and I believe the -- the -- I don't know if the presentation was kept as part of the record or not, but I -- I'm very certain that Malissa Bernard could provide that to you. Bernt: Okay. Borton: And, Madam Mayor, I'm referencing the letter that has the list of recommendations from April, so -- I think that's what you were -- one of the earlier references you were probably tying to a recommended solution. Thank you. Walker: You bet. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Kenneth Clifford. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Next is Laura T. I'm going to wait to hear it myself. De Weerd: There are just some last names people don't even want to try and mutilate. Thank you for joining us. Trairatnobhas: I should make him say it before I say it. I am Laura Trairatnobhas. I live at 4621 North Camas Creek Way, which is in Alpine Pointe. De Weerd: Thank you. Trairatnobhas: If anyone actually believes that the proposed Delano Subdivision will be full of quiet little retirees, I suggest you go take a look at Solterra. Solterra is here in Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 50 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 30 of 74 Meridian. It's another development that was built by DevCo. Solterra is nearly identical to Delano in that you have a ring of duplexes and inside that you have a large group of two story, very narrow -- I call them townhomes, but they are not connected. Solterra is most certainly not full of retirees. I believe it's purchased mostly by investors and it is full of families with children. I know this, because I'm one of the investors who purchased a home in Solterra, which I rent out. It has four bedrooms and there are six people living in the home, including a couple of teenagers. If you drive into Solterra I think you will see the future of the Delano. Every garage is chock full and there is no room for cars. We have to be realistic. This is Idaho, folks. We have homes and garages that are full of outdoor equipment, play stuff, stuff to go camping with and fishing and hunting and all the things we Idahoans love to do. We do not have neat, empty garages. Even our retirees do those things. They don't have neat empty garages, they out having fun and a lot of them have big motorhomes, just like we do in Alpine Pointe. So, I do not believe that you're going to have retirees in Delano. I believe that you will have families with children and teenagers and they will not be parking in their garage, they will be parking on the streets. Another example from Solterra. During Snowmageddon, which I think most of us here remember, maybe not too fondly in the case of Mayor Tammy and the other folks who were working in the Council at that time, the snowplows couldn't get in because all the people who were parked on both sides of the streets. Their cars were snowed in and I actually had to walk in at that time. My house was not yet occupied and I had to actually walk in in order to check on it and take an eye on it. So, parking -- we talk about ideals, we talk about numbers, we talked about formulas as far as how many cars are going to go through our neighborhoods, how many people will be driving through little Dashwood with all these houses facing the street. How many people will be going in? These are based on formulas, but are they based on the reality of what life is like here in our valley. I would just like to point all of you to the elections that we recently had for mayors and city councils. Political analysts throughout the valley agreed that the voters who came out and voted were saying to our councils and our mayors, we need you to handle growth. That's what we need for you to do. Please don't just sit by and let it happen. Handle it for us. Thank you very much. Do you have any questions? De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Trairatnobhas: Besides how to pronounce my name. De Weerd: Thank you. Trairatnobhas: Okay. All right. Thank you. Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Alison Crane. De Weerd: Good evening. Crane: Hello. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 51 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 31 of 74 Crane: Alison Crane and I'm at 2654 East Mahoney Street. I'm probably the one person not from Alpine Pointe here. We live in Champion Park. So, I will show you my -- I'm just going to use this. I'm right there. We are like the one house that's impacted by this subdivision, which I would not necessarily say I'm completely opposed to as -- as -- and have the same concerns as everybody else, but mostly on the applicant's information there are -- and you will see those -- the row of -- oops. Got to use my mouse. Sorry. The row of trees, which is basically the only division we have. The house when we purchased it did not have any trees and we have a concrete pad. So, we can't put trees right there. Right where that mouse is. And so the -- the applicant did state that they would keep trees as possible, but we are hoping that they could -- if not possible to replace, because that is really the only division that they have. The back -- that roadway to the back of our property is at -- at the lowest point is about 17 feet, which is pretty close, and when you are adding sidewalks, we weren't -- we weren't real sure that they had done a lot of research on that piece, so that was really our only comment that we had. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Council? Borton: Yeah, I have got -- De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Sure. Your -- your September 17th letter has a requested condition of approval. Crane: And that was just the -- with the trees, that if -- if it was approved that if -- sorry. That if any tree -- because it says they would try to keep the trees if possible. So, if they weren't able to keep trees because of sidewalk -- you know, putting in sidewalks or anything like that, that they would replace the landscaping with additional trees. We really like the trees. And we -- we purchased this house in the end of March of this year. So, we did not come in at the very beginning. I think our previous -- the previous homeowners, who we knew, had been in contact with DevCo and they had -- had worked with them to try to include those trees to make sure that those -- those did stay. There are quite established trees. De Weerd: Thank you. Crane: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Debbie Jeske. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Jeske: Of course. Debbie Jeske and I live at 1886 North Chandra Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 52 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 32 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you. Jeske: I am a homeowner in Solterra and I was asked by the Delano developer to conduct a survey to see how many school-aged children are in this established neighborhood, because it will reflect on similar expectations in Delano. There are 89 homes in Solterra. Sixty-five participated in this survey. The survey was conducted October 26th to November 7th of 2019. De Weerd: You want to stop the time, Mr. Clerk. Jeske: Of the 65 homes, 11 households had school aged children. Of the 11 they reported a total of 27 school aged children. Of those 27, only eight were new to the school district. So, in summary, out of the 65 households in Solterra there are only eight children added to the West Ada School District. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Thank you. Jeske: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Mayor, the last sign in is Will Dilmore. De Weerd: Good evening. Dilmore: Good evening. Will Dilmore. 1979 North Locust Grove, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Dilmore: To follow up on the testimony just for -- regarding the schools. I am here to speak first in favor of the Delano Subdivision. Just a follow up regarding that school survey, I was the agent on site at Solterra development for three years. Of those 27 kids mentioned, again, only eight were new to the area. The other 19 kids noted in the survey were already in the West Ada School District. That's only eight kids out of 65 households that participated in the survey that were new to the district. With our clientele we see a lot of buyers that are recently divorced, downsizing or moving out of an apartment and trying to keep their kids in the same schools. We have seen this trend throughout all of the previous developments. We expect to see the same thing in Delano. I have been a real estate agent in the valley for the last 25 years and have been working with BlackRock on this product for the last six years. This is the product that was built in Solterra Subdivision, again being proposed for Delano. Looking to put up a slide here. I'm looking to do a narrative. I'm your agent. You are the buyer. You come to me. I want to buy a home in Meridian. I want new construction and I want it to be under 325,000. So, I'm going to go into my multiple listing service and I type in all of Meridian new homes under 325,000. Here is what I found. There is a total of 80 homes in all of Meridian that are currently available under 325,000. All homes. Townhomes. Single level. One story, 1,200 square feet, 2,000 square feet -- all new homes. This represents only six weeks of inventory, meaning if builders stop building today Meridian would be out of new home Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 53 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 33 of 74 inventory within six weeks. As you can see on the overhead slide, 86 percent of the new homes were supplied by one builder. BlackRock only accounts for eight percent -- eight percent of the new homes under 325,000 in Meridian. If we go to the next slide. This product is proven to be highly successful in Verado, which is at the corner of Ustick and Locust Grove, connects Ustick to the Packard Subdivision. We had similar product. It was the number four top selling neighborhood in 2018. As it's been demonstrated by the developer, I believe with the traffic study, the school survey especially with Solterra, this housing style has a much lower impact on city services than your traditional neighborhood. My point here is that Meridian desperately needs more housing options under 325,000 and this product has proven to be very well received. With the connectivity of Verado with Packard Estates heard a lot of the same similar comments. That's been proven to be a very successful interaction between Packard and Verado. Sorry. De Weerd: If you can just summarize. Dilmore: Just to summarize, the product is -- there is a high demand for this product for the -- under 325,000 in Meridian. To transition from the apartments and Fast Eddy's to Alpine Pointe, it is going to work very similar to what we did with Packard Estates. It worked great. De Weerd: Thank you. Dilmore: One -- if I may, one last point. Mrs. T's testimony, I was the onsite agent. I was the one that actually was the listing agent when she purchased that home. She actually just lied in her testimony. She purchased the home as -- De Weerd: It's -- we are good. Dilmore: All right. De Weerd: We were doing really good until then. Okay. Those were who signed up. Johnson: That was everyone that indicated they wished to testify. De Weerd: Okay. This is a public testimony -- or public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to provide testimony? Yes, ma'am. And I will get you after. And then -- thank you for staying with us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. King: I don't want to blast everybody out. My name is Sandi King. I live at 2453 East Honeywood Court in Meridian. I live in Alpine Pointe. Have spoke before you a couple of times and before P&Z a couple of times. So, I kind of want to address the very first comment. First I want to say thank you all for listening to us and being patient and trying to understand our position. We definitely digressed with the lie comment and I -- and I am highly frustrated, because in one of my letters to you I specifically referenced you to go back to the P&Z meeting to point out lies that were stated and when we can't counter the lies that are said about us as a subdivision and what we are fighting and why we are Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 54 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 34 of 74 fighting, that's very frustrating, and there have been the same comments tonight by the Conger group, that make statements that are not true and it's really difficult to be able to counter those comments. That's all I'm going to say at this point. I'm going to ask all of you to, please, deny this application as P&Z did. We are not fighting growth in this town. We all know we are going to grow. People are moving in. We need reasonable housing. We need reasonable transition. We bought homes on a quarter to a little over half acre lots. RV garages. It takes room to turn an RV around. You're not going to be on 27 foot roads with an RV that is 40 feet long. That isn't even rational. We are fighting the zoning, because you are not transitioning from R-4 when you go to R-15. That isn't transitioning. We have asked for transitioning. Malissa has drawn up multiple plans, respectfully to this developer, trying to offer alternative methods. Yes, it would reduce his number of housing, but if a quality builder, as -- who built our home can build less homes on an acre and make money so can he. R-40 is not required by Boise. We specifically talked to Boise at the city hearing when they made the determination to transfer the property to the City of Meridian, they would not add a restriction, even though we were told that they were going to restrict it to R-40, that we would be stuck with that. They never had that intent to add R-40. They would like to see better transitioning, better roads, less traffic. Traffic is an issue. The traffic study that was done by ACHD was done on two of our current five ingress-egress roads. That is not an accurate study. I specifically asked them at the ACHD hearing to redo the study before they made a decision. They opted not to. So, the numbers you are getting are not accurate. When those roads open up that little eight home street is going to be inundated from traffic from Brickyard, from the homes, all across. De Weerd: If you can just summarize. King: I will try. We have argued the same points with Conger and his group since the very beginning and he wants to make absolutely zero transition or changes or concessions. We are not trying to be unreasonable. We are trying to have a livable product south of us, so that they can buy homes that they can get into, they can live in a -- in a reasonable area and we can also live in our homes in a reasonable area. De Weerd: Thank you. King: Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Okay. King: Thank you very much. De Weerd: The woman in the red. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Stowe: My name is Emma Stowe. I live at 4421 North Camas Creek Way in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 55 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 35 of 74 Stowe: And I don't know how to operate this. I need slide number six. De Weerd: Okay. Well, Sonya can bring up slide number six. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Emma, we don't want you to have to strain, so you can just go ahead and just eat that microphone, so that way you don't have to -- Stowe: Okay. I will try. Cavener: Perfect. Stowe: I have a brain injury. Cavener: I appreciate you being here. Allen: Emma, are you -- are you referencing my presentation that's up right now? Slide six? Stowe: No. It was the -- Allen: Do you have your own presentation? Stowe: Malissa's. Allen: Oh. Malissa's. Okay. Hopefully I can find it. Stowe: Because I want to talk -- I think it was Cavener asked about the no man's land. It gives a good representation. Right here. I can see it. If you look -- right there where the red is. De Weerd: You can use the mouse on the podium. Stowe: This? De Weerd: Yes. Stowe: I can point. Sorry. Okay. Right here. Right here. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Stowe: Okay. That is where Jasmine Street meets Centrepoint. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 56 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 36 of 74 De Weerd: Right. Stowe: Okay. Centrepoint right there in the red has not been developed yet. On the other side where Centrepoint stops down where I showed you -- I also shake. Right there was where you were talking about. Now my -- I don't know if you remember the man who talked about the no man's land, there is about eight to ten feet I think he said right there is where they would close it off, but if that Centrepoint is developed and that no man's land piece is also developed, that eight or ten feet, that will connect to Centrepoint that connects to the Brickyard apartment complexes, which curves out Centrepoint going out onto Eagle Road. Also that piece right there also curves and goes back behind -- I think it's called Hobby Lobby. Dick's -- is it Dick's -- De Weerd: Sporting Goods. Uh-huh. Stowe: And Kohl's out onto Ustick. Delano, if he would go ahead and from Jasmine Lane, which is on his property, if you can see Jasmine Lane, they test them on site, it is no longer public. If you go to Centrepoint -- Centrepoint through that no man's land and Delano -- or DevCo would have two exits out his project, meaning there would absolutely be zero reason whatsoever for him to go -- develop a new road connecting to Dashwood coming into our neighborhood to kind of be a Y, it would go around Wainwright, connect onto Camas Creek, onto McMillan. Meaning that when Centrepoint eventually does get opened, which they have already told you they are going to do, we will have people from the shopping center, Fast Eddy's, the Brickyard, which is 243 units, as well as DevCo accessing Alpine Pointe neighborhood. Now, instead of -- De Weerd: If you can summarize. Stowe: Okay. So, with two other options to enter his project, there is absolutely zero reason for him to extend out into our neighborhood into Dashwood. I also, in closing, would like to say that I heard somebody say change is going to happen. Since 2011 on Eagle Road alone we have got the Brickyard. There is two other complexes that have been built. There is The Village. There is Hobby Lobby. There is Fast Eddy's. De Weerd: I'm sorry, I have to cut you off, but we get your point. Stowe: Okay. De Weerd: There has been a lot that's happened. Stowe: Yes. So, we are embracing change and we want to embrace change with you -- all of you. De Weerd: Thank you. Stowe: We would just like to do without our neighborhood being an extension of Eagle Road. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 57 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 37 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I have one question for you. I appreciate your testimony this evening. I appreciate you coming to let us know your thoughts about this proposed development. You -- are you concerned that because of Brickyard and the commercial property near this proposed development, do you feel like they are going to be using or accessing I guess the streets through this proposed development to get the Alpine Pointe? Stowe: Absolutely. Absolutely. They were -- and even people picking their children up from the school will be coming through. De Weerd: Thank you. There was a hand -- yes. Yeah. If you get to the side then you can just pull that down. Thank you. Austin: Madam Mayor, thank you. My name is Jennifer Austin. I live at 4019 North Brooksburg Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Austin: And my husband and I are on the lot that would be -- it's 200 feet of exposure to this area. I -- De Weerd: So, on the other cul-de-sac. Right there. Austin: No. De Weerd: No? Austin: We are -- De Weerd: Right there. Austin: Let me -- I will do it now. I think -- there we go. De Weerd: There you go. Austin: It's going to keep going. I did send -- my husband and I did send a letter in with a picture showing what RU will be. Currently we do see all the Brickyard -- all the lights are shining in our backyard in our home right now, but Mr. -- Delano representative did come to our home and we do appreciate that they had said they would do single story initially and didn't tell us what type of density would be proposed for that and since, then, as the proceedings have gone on, our home for some reason has been eliminated from Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 58 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 38 of 74 all of their photos that they have given you of all of the back -- the neighbors that would -- the proposed neighbors that would be along their property. Both the last P&Z meeting, tonight's meeting, and I did address it with Laren at the neighborhood meeting, too, why our home picture was not shown up on the slides, but for whatever reason they have chosen not to show that we have no RV pad, we have no -- nothing blocking our view from all of the roof lines that will be exposed in our -- in our -- in our site -- line of sight and, additionally, what we will experience living on Brooksburg, we will be dealing with Centrepoint Way as it connects, so the -- all of the cars will be coming up the back side of Centrepoint eventually when it's connected and will come up around our home. So, our concern -- my husband and I's concern is just the higher density of lots and lots of cars coming up through Dashwood through to Brooksburg. One of the concerns when you have a cul-de-sac that we live on is they make an incorrect turn come in, not realizing that they have not hit Dashwood, so, you know, as they come up Wainwright, maybe to come up Dashwood, if you -- if the -- if it's -- if you go ahead and -- I'm sorry. The terminology is escaping me. If you approve this, that our concern is that those cars may miss Dashwood, hit Brooksburg Place first and, then, have to go out, as well as we just got those cars coming from both directions once those are doing. So, our concern is those things that you just -- we just ask you to reconsider this proposal and some of the things that we will be experiencing as we live on that property line. Please consider us. Thank you. De Weerd: Appreciate your testimony. Austin: Any questions? De Weerd: Any questions? No. Thank you. Austin: Thank you. De Weerd: Any others wishing to testify? Okay. If there is no others wishing to testify, I will ask the applicant to come up -- for their -- not rebuttal, but to address some of the issues that were brought up and to have closing remarks. Clark: I like that, Madam Mayor. Hethe Clark. 231 East Front Street in Boise. It sounds a lot less confrontational if it's not a rebuttal; right? De Weerd: Exactly. Clark: So, just a couple of -- of items as we wrap up here. I do want to talk about this question of process and the issue of compromise. As Council Member Bernt pointed out, Mrs. Bernard's slides showed various alternatives that have been presented through the course of this process. There has been three different plats that have been prepared. Those included a number of different approaches to how this could go forward. This plat itself was a compromise. No one's perfectly happy with it. That's the nature of this process. We have made a number of modifications. The latest was in the -- that February version that is currently before you. That was enough of a change that that required a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 59 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 39 of 74 new pre-application meeting before we could submit. So, there was a subsequent pre- application meeting after the one that was done in February of '18 and including ones that specifically identified this one. With regard to the neighborhood meetings as we show it on our slide, there was -- in addition to the February 2019 neighborhood meeting, there was a January 2019 neighborhood meeting. That satisfies the timing requirements for the city as well. So, with regard to concessions, as I mentioned -- and, Sonya, can you pull up my presentation for me. As I have mentioned, we came out of the chute with single level on the north and on the west. That's not something you typically see offered up, you know, by the developer just without even having a conversation with the neighbors. It was done to try to -- to address what we expected some of the concerns might be. As mentioned, we redesigned the plat three different times and as part of that conversation we lobbied ACHD in order to get that temporary closure at Jasmine, which, you know, frankly, is -- is a detriment to our marketability. When you get that, Sonya, I want to pull up the -- one of the maps. Allen: I am not sure where they put it, Hethe. Bear with me. Clark: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, can you stop the time while we pull this up. Clark: It's Delano second. Thank you. So, let me talk about that temporary closure a little bit more. So -- so why do that temporary closure? And I think this goes to Council Member Bernt's question for Mrs. Stowe. One of the reasons to do that was because we did not want Dashwood to turn into a de facto collector. So, you know, we did not want folks, prior to Centrepoint coming in and being the collector roadway that it is planned to be and the right of way that is already in existence to connect, this is where folks should be coming through to -- to -- to get to that mid mile collector at Wainwright. We don't want -- until that connection occurs we don't want people coming from the south and through the development and up through Dashwood. So, that's why that temporary closure was put into place and that's why ACHD approved it. Again, that's part of the conversations that we had with the neighbors, because we were hearing -- hearing their concerns. I also want to talk about transition. Again, we are medium density on the west where -- we are the mixed use regional on the east, but what we have to transition is from three units to acre -- to 22 to 30 units per acre to match what's on our south. If we do lot -- like size lots on the north, that's not enough room to actually do an actual transition. We have given this a heck of a lot of thought, that -- this is what is going to be required to actually make a meaningful transition from the three units per acre to the 22 to 30 units per acre that are on our south. And, then, finally -- so, I talked a little bit about that gate. I think the other question that might come up is the -- the gate on -- you know, the possibility of a gate on the north at Dashwood. So, as -- as the Council is very aware, there is a requirement in Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, in Meridian City Code, and in the ACHD policy manual, that connectivity be preserved. You should only eliminate connectivity when there is a good reason to do so. In this case the only reason to do that would be to reduce the traffic to Dashwood and we have shown that Dash -- we have shown -- ACHD's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 60 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 40 of 74 approval has shown that there is not a capacity issue, it's at half capacity at build out. This is solely a request that's based on convenience to the neighbors, it's not a safety or a capacity issue. Again, I can't say this -- stress this enough. All the roads that are under study in connection with this development will be at half capacity at build out. This was not a plan that was thrown together, this is a plan that was fully vetted by ACHD, by your staff, and I just have to stress that these are public roads. There is an investment that goes with public roads. Public roads should be used to the extent that ACHD has identified that they should be used. Again, they are -- there at half capacity. So, with that I will conclude and if there -- if there are further questions I would be happy to answer them. I just would stress that this is -- this is a great in-fill project that -- that straddles the various pressures that are put on it given its -- its location and we look forward to, hopefully, getting an approval from the Council tonight and happy to answer any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. And, Council, questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Hethe, were you guys provided a copy of this letter? Clark: Which -- Cavener: The November 5th dated letter that's been referenced throughout tonight. Clark: I think it was in the record, wasn't it, Sonya? Was it not? Cavener: Well, we received it tonight. I didn't know if you guys -- Clark: Council Member Cavener, we were just provided it tonight. Cavener: Do you or Laren have any response? I'm wanting to give you guys the opportunity, because I think there is a lot of allegations in there and I at least wanted to give you guys the opportunity, if you wanted to, to correct the record, respond, recognizing you just received it tonight, we just received it tonight as well, but because it was referenced by multiple people who provided testimony, if you wanted to, give you the opportunity. De Weerd: You know, at this point, Hethe, I would like to call a ten minute recess. I will give you all a chance to take a look at that, so you can respond. I -- we haven't really had a chance to totally read it and give full attention to those in front of us as well. So, I will call a ten minute recess and reconvene at 8:20. Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 61 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 41 of 74 Recess: (8:10 p.m. to 8:23 p.m.) De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call this meeting back to order. Thank you. And thank you for the -- the opportunity to take a break. So, I will turn this back over to Hethe. Clark: Madam Mayor, Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. And I will be very brief. The -- I think that we had largely addressed this in my -- in my not rebuttal comments. The -- the three items as I read in this letter are the pre-ap meeting and we went and checked the records and we met with staff for an additional pre-ap meeting on January 17th of 2019. That's well within the time frame. With regard to the neighborhood meeting, as I mentioned previously, and as this letter acknowledges, there was a neighborhood meeting in January in addition to the one in February. So, the timing requirements are satisfied there. With regard to the signage in the -- with regard to the -- on the August 20th meeting I agree with Mr. Nary's comments there that the -- the meetings were ultimately renoticed. That happened as a result of just a misunderstanding with staff, because we knew that that date was going to be deferred and so all subsequent hearings were properly noticed. So, with that I don't believe that there is anything else to address in that letter. I would just reiterate that this is medium density, it is approved by ACHD, it's within capacity and we would hope for your approval. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, questions? Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Clark, thank you. Clark: Uh-huh. Bernt: One of my concerns is -- one of the reasons why I wanted to go back and look at your -- your different proposals -- oh, sorry. Your different proposals was just to see the difference and where it went. I noticed that -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- I am most of the time. It seemed like your proposals got denser. De Weerd: Thank you. Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Brent -- Bernt. Excuse me. So, the -- the differences here are -- as you can see that there is the January 19, the April 2018 -- the -- the significant differences with regard to -- on the east with the -- the change to multi- family and -- and removal of that from this process and taking it to a conditional use permit, there is no -- we are not aware of any increase in density from there. The major changes there were to address the roadway layout. Bernt: Mr. Clark, I could be wrong, I'm not -- I'm not inferring here. I was just clarifying that. I want to make -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 62 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 42 of 74 Clark: And Council Member Bernt -- and we just don't -- I don't have specific lot counts to tell you exactly that section that's within the medium density area as compared as -- as it's progressed. I will say that a number of those changes were done to address issues that the neighbors had raised, like cut through. So, for example, you can see that in the April 2018 and, then, the January 2019 slides you can see that there was the possibility of being able to very easily cut over and, then, up to Dashwood and so that was the reasoning that we went through to change this, so that we would discourage that type of a movement, because folks would have to go all the way west and, then, up and around. This was not a means of adding density by any means. Bernt: Mr. Clark -- Madam Mayor. One last comment. I'm just counting the lots on the north and in February of 2019 you have five on the northeast corner. January of 2019 of four and on the northwest portion west of that stub street at North Dashwood Place you have eight lots, as opposed to ten in -- in February of 2019 and same along the -- along the west. I didn't count those, but it seems like they are a little more dense. Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Bernt, two things. You know, for one I would point you to the April 2018 that does match -- Bernt: Right. Clark: -- the February 2019. Part of that conversation was with regard to going to single story and, then, going to single story we needed to combine the structures, which means they needed to be skinnied up in order to make that work, as compared to what was shown on the January 2019 document. De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Clark: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Nary, I saw that we did receive a packet of information. This included the survey that was included in the testimony, but there was some additional pages that were not referenced. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, there is a document that was handed to me and I think the rest of the Council and the Mayor during the break and a part of it is the portion of the slide presentation that was made regarding the survey, but the back three, four pages is multiple listing service information that wasn't part of the testimony and although the -- the public hearing is still open, if this portion of the -- that -- this is unrebutable testimony, so no one can actually testify to it and it doesn't appear to be answering a question that's been raised by the Mayor or the Council, so it is a -- it is an example that we use for that purpose. So, I would suggest we strike those last four pages from the record, because they are not related to anything that's been testified to at this point. It wasn't referenced specifically by anybody prior to the rebuttal portion. So, I would suggest removing those four. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 63 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 43 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I know Hethe sat down, but I wanted him to earn some steps tonight. So, I got one more question for you. Hethe, you and your team are very creative. I'm curious if your creative group discussed making the Dashwood Place emergency access only and just developing Centrepoint Way all the way out and what's prevented that from being a option that was presented to the neighbors? Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Cavener, so the -- it goes back to my comments about connectivity. All of the -- the policies at the city and ACHD would suggest that there should be a local street connection there, unless there is a reason not to have a local street connection there. And, again, I would just reiterate that Dashwood is at half capacity at full build out. So, from that perspective it doesn't make sense under ACHD policy or under the city ordinance -- ordinances to restrict it to emergency only. Cavener: Madam Mayor, follow up for staff. Sonya, is that something staff would oppose, making Dashwood emergency access only and just building Centrepoint Way out? I'm not saying that that's proposed, I'm just wanting to get some feedback from staff on it. Clark: And, Madam Mayor, maybe I can jump in real quick. So, Council Member Cavener, are you suggesting that Centrepoint would have to be -- because I -- now I think I understand the totality of the question. Are you suggesting that Centrepoint Way would have to be built out now and that Dashwood would be emergency access now? Cavener: Madam Mayor -- Clark: Because we don't control that property for Centrepoint. Cavener: Madam Mayor, I think more what I'm suggesting is that perhaps when Centrepoint Way is built out, then, maybe Dashwood becomes emergency access at that point. And part of this -- because that's -- I will be real honest with those in attendance, I'm shocked we haven't heard hardly any testimony about the large scale multi-family piece. The vast majority of the testimony we have received, those are about substance, how they were engaged, but the biggest chunk has been about really cars going through Dashwood. So, I'm trying to wrap my head around the totality of that and if -- are there other options that we can explore to maybe solve that. So, that's where the question comes from. Allen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, Councilmen, to respond to your question, our city code does require the streets be extended and -- for interconnectivity purposes. You could certainly require that they not -- that it not be, but ACHD also has a say in it. Our city engineer has also stated to me that he would prefer that it be connected as well. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 64 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 44 of 74 Cavener: Okay. Stewart: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Stewart: The reason for that is I need to put utilities in that roadway and from an operation and maintenance standpoint I would much prefer that they were in a right of way that we can move vehicles in and out of, as opposed to something like an easement or whatever. So, we always try and put those utility services in a public right of way whenever possible. De Weerd: Well, certainly I try and put myself also in the -- the role of the citizen. I have been on the other side of this podium -- it was a long time ago, but if I would have bought a large lot on a -- what looked like a cul-de-sac with a bulb out that doesn't say this road will extend, I wouldn't have thought it would have extended. That -- that looks to me like it's -- it's a cul-de-sac and so that -- that's my first concern. My second concern is you have eight homes on that -- on that road and now you are going to add a whole subdivision going through one -- one stretch of street. That is concerning and I understand closing Jasmine really drives it through it, but even when it opens up they -- they are going to the lease route of resistance and that is going to continue to have that same route out to get to the traffic light, rather than going down to Jasmine and, then, taking Centrepoint out. So, that is a concern, because we have been very cognizant and focused on transition from lower density to a higher density and I appreciate that the developers have tried to make it look with the single building, with a single roof top, but it still is a much higher density that is not a transition between uses. I -- I think the -- the southern part of it I can understand, but connecting into that single road with an entire subdivision, that -- that is concerning to me as well and I understand the concern of the neighbors. And, frankly, the -- the apartments, they are blending with what is -- is currently underway. I -- and I think there is probably a reason we didn't hear a whole lot about that is -- is the larger concern is what's -- what's going out to Wainwright and how they are getting there and, frankly, I was shocked at the Brickyard Apartments. Oh, my God. Do I have an amen? Thank you for taking that picture down. So, if there is no further discussion, comments, questions for any of those that provided testimony, the applicant or staff, I -- and you are through with discussion, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing if you so choose. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Maybe -- maybe the hesitancy to not close the public hearing is maybe -- maybe that we have some more questions and maybe some more deliberation to take place in case we decided to do other options, but I will be frank with my concern before we close the public hearing. My -- my number one concern is density and, frankly, I have seen this -- this product in other locations in our city and I -- and I'm not opposed to the product, I think there is a reason why not only the City of Meridian, but other cities across the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 65 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 45 of 74 Treasure Valley, diversity of housing is important. I believe that there -- there needs to be more -- I shouldn't say -- there needs to be less expensive housing and I believe that this is an option that Mr. Conger and his group have done a good job in other locations. I wouldn't necessarily call them affordable housing and I have had this discussion with -- with some -- some of Mr. Conger's associates as well, but I do believe that they are less expensive and that's where we can agree. I do understand if I were a resident along that corridor I would be concerned. I would like to see maybe a redesign to make it -- the transition less dense. I like -- I echo the Mayor's sentiments in regard to the southern portion. I don't have any issues with the southern portion and the density there, but I wish I could see more of a transition on the northern portion from the existing subdivision to this -- this new proposed development. Is it a deal breaker? I'm not sure yet. But that's just where I stand in regard to the density. I wish it just was a little bit less. As far as the product is -- I want to be clear, though, I like the product. I think the product is done well and I think there is a need for it, there is no doubt about that. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Bernt, would you entertainment a question? Bernt: Yes. Cavener: Just curious from your perspective how many less lots? When you say less are you talking ten percent less? Are you talking 30 percent less? Are you talking five lots, 50 lots, I mean what's -- Bernt: I'm not sure. I think it's part of -- Madam Mayor, if I can respond to Council Member Cavener? De Weerd: Yes, please. Bernt: Thank you. Appreciate that. I don't know if I have an exact number in mind. Maybe I will leave that up to the developer, but I -- in January of 2019 there were -- there were less lots there and maybe change those to single -- single family dwellings maybe. I know that Mr. Conger did an interesting project on the corner of Eagle Road and -- and Lake Hazel where a project in that location -- there were some concerned residents where there were larger lot sizes, much larger than these lot sizes, and he was able to accommodate to a certain degree that transition. I think that Mr. Conger did a great job in that transition. Maybe something more along those lines. To give you a number -- I'm not sure. A little -- just less. Again, I don't know if that's a deal breaker, just a concern that I have. De Weerd: Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 66 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 46 of 74 De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: When it comes to -- for Council's benefit and those that are here, when you look at the -- the development, the density, personally I'm -- I'm supportive of the application. I think when you -- when neighbors engage with developers there is a desire of kind of this push and pull, give and take, and I guess for me I don't ever think it's that case. It's a collaborative process where -- it should be collaborative and, quite frankly, the frustrations of the neighbors are warranted. I think you guys could have done a better job communicating, coordinating with them, responding to some of their concerns. At the same time, for those that are in attendance, we see this all the time. A developer will bring a sub -- inferior project. Neighbors get upset. We say go back, meet with the neighbors and, then, they come back with something they intended to do in the beginning. I think to the applicant's credit they brought something that is thoughtful in a very challenging piece of in-fill that meets the needs and Council Member Bernt hit the nail on the head. We are long gone from the days of affordable housing in Meridian. This is less expensive. I -- I think I beat up the applicant with a similar application a year ago, because I don't like how they look. It's just not for me. But I have tried to evolve and say just because it's not a place that the Cavener family would live, clearly there is a demand for this type of product. Just like I wouldn't necessarily live in the neighborhood north of that either. But there is a clearly demand. So, to me the -- my two hang ups -- and one is silly and I comment on this in a previous application from the applicant -- I hate that we limit parking on only one side of the road. I like to see -- so that was where my question was, Mr. Bernt, about reducing lots. If we reduce enough lots to accommodate parking on both sides, that may address some of the concerns of the neighbors. And, then, my second piece -- and I don't know how we resolve it -- is to prevent a lot of cut through traffic coming through here. I think the three plats that we saw, this one does the best job of addressing that. Addressing the cut through traffic as best as it could be, but until that Centrepoint Way is open I just think it's going to be a frustration for the neighbors that have lived there and have experienced traffic to be a certain way that it's been their whole life. So, I -- overall I'm supportive. There is some tinkering I -- would like to do if Council is supportive. But overall I would be supportive of this application. De Weerd: So, part of this application is a Comprehensive Plan amendment. It wasn't -- it was less than a year ago this Council said we would not look at Comprehensive Plan amendments while we were in the process of amending a Comprehensive Plan and next week we are going to be looking at our Comprehensive Plan. So, I just wanted to bring that up as well and in terms of -- and I know this has been an application that's been in the process for some time. But, again, next week you do hear the Comprehensive Plan and see a vision that has all parts working together. So, just -- just another point of consideration. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 67 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 47 of 74 Cavener: Thank you. In the midst of my chicken scratch I had that question about that and if -- again, I don't know where the body wants to go. From a process standpoint I would feel more comfortable at a minimum continuing this at least until we potentially reviewed and approved our new Comprehensive Plan. So, just something else to chew on. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: For -- you had a question or not? De Weerd: Do you have a question for Mr. Nary? Borton: That was -- De Weerd: Oh. Borton: -- the question was coming. So, appreciate the -- the applicant's proposal and the public input. Here is -- here is sort of how I summarize my notes walking through this. The three applications, the Comprehensive Plat map -- map amendment is for a portion of property which wasn't previously in our comp plan and it's -- the mixed use regional makes great sense I think. So, it's -- it would be an -- and I don't have any hesitation in -- in acting on that. It's not amending something that was previously planned as part of Meridian's area to be something else. It, quite frankly, would be a swap from Boise to Meridian and it seems consistent -- is consistent with the mixed use regional to the south and I didn't hear, really, any dialogue of concern or read anything in any of the correspondence from the public that had concern on what mixed use regional might mean for that eastern portion -- eastern four acres. So, that portion of the application to me seems appropriate. Looking through all of the metrics that our staff has provided in review of the application and the public has commented on, the Police and Fire didn't raise any specific concerns from response time, I thought that was a positive. The ability to serve the area was -- was appropriate. The schools -- I think it was Heritage and Rocky Mountain, both of which are currently overcrowded. To some degree this school crowding does get addressed -- should get addressed as boundaries change from a long term perspective. So, from the long term perspective the school boundary -- or the school crowding isn't as great a concern as it is in the short term. I do have -- have concern over the process that got us here. I think some of the disconnect between the public and the applicant -- not pointing fingers necessarily, but that's unfortunate that there appears to be some continually unresolved issues. Not -- not what we want to see. But one of the comments that was -- was a highlight for me and it was referenced about Dashwood Lane and connectivity and the principle of connectivity is truly one that we support, but connectivity is premised upon connectivity and it's premised upon a desire to promote connectivity, because that's important, and that generally means multiple points and multiple ways in and out of developments to truly support connectivity and -- and I think this is a great project, but I don't think it's the right spot at this point, because the concerns Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 68 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 48 of 74 that I have got that just -- and it's not the developer's fault, because they have no control over this -- is Centrepoint Way and that parcel directly to the north, it could be 50 years. Again, this isn't the developer's fault, they don't control it, and Centrepoint Way is such an integral part of the long term success of this area as I see it, that it's -- that's the challenge I can't get over and I think this -- without Centrepoint Way it's -- it's certainly in my mind too dense. It will, for the foreseeable future, funnel one hundred percent of the traffic north through Dashwood, which nobody intended. The developer doesn't control how long that might occur. If Jasmine's blocked it could be decades. We don't -- and that's not what anyone intends, but, quite frankly, it could happen. This is the one chance we have got to get it right. So, I think the public has done a good job and the written testimony and today -- and really highlighting that concern and we are mindful of the long term consequence of that. So, I like the mixed use regional on the four acres to the east. As presented I'm not comfortable moving forward with the zoning -- annexation and zoning of the plat. I think, quite frankly, both of those will change if Centrepoint were connected. I'm not sold on the R-40 apartments quite frankly, but as -- with what the applicant has to control today it's only the comp plan map amendment, the mixed use regional, that I would be supportive of and I just don't think it's time yet to do the other two. It's just not there. It would invite a long term -- perhaps generational problem for everybody to the north that we have an opportunity to avoid. That's kind of how I balanced the staff's input, the data that we have got, and the public input and the applicant's effort at trying to make this thing fit. I just don't think it does yet. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I'm really struggling with this one, because we talk so much about in-fill and how we need price points that are -- give our community a variety, but yet I'm really struggling with that much traffic going down Dashwood and -- and the transition between existing homes and the potential new homes and I think Councilman Borton hit it really well, that Centrepoint Way is key to having this flow so much better and not putting all of that traffic out on Dashwood. It just -- it just seems like it's -- like it's just not ready yet or maybe like Councilman Borton said, it's not the right location. De Weerd: Is Councilman Palmer still on the line? Palmer: I'm still here. De Weerd: I just thought I would check. Do you have any comments? Palmer: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 69 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 49 of 74 De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Maybe a conversation starter for Council. Hearing the feedback from those that are here tonight, P&Z denied -- recommended denial on this in part because of the issue with Boise and, then, the charge was to engage the neighbors. The issue has been resolved. Rather than approve or deny the other, is this body open to sending this back to P&Z and allowing them to take another look at this in light of the change with the city of Boise? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: The city of Boise change just allowed it to proceed. Kind of a technical prerequisite to get us to be able to consider it, but I don't know if that moves the ball anywhere. Cavener: Madam Mayor? And I don't know for this -- for you all if it -- if it does, I just -- to me if -- if one of the two reasons that they -- around their denial -- I guess the one reason around their denial has been resolved, it gives -- it gives the applicant at least another opportunity to hear feedback from the Council, sharpen their pencil, hear the feedback from Council Member Bernt about maybe less lots -- again, I don't know if it -- if it addresses the other concerns from the rest of you. You know, to me Dashwood Place is designed to handle the amount of traffic that this application would develop. It is -- I can appreciate from the neighbors not -- not preferred, which is why I'm trying -- I was working to try and find maybe a creative solution to address your needs. Just -- this body hears me talk a lot about local government, how much I love the -- the wrestling that we have as a body and -- and if this particular one the body feels not best to move forward, okay, I'm good with that. But I just think that to Council Member Little Roberts' point, in- fill is never easy. If this was in a block south of town, no brainer; right? But anytime we deal with in-fill next to a state highway, it's going to bring us challenges. I think the density does make sense next to a state highway. I think the connectivity plan does make sense. I support it without closing Dashwood, but would be open to that if that was something that this body supported. Which is why I -- I suggested, again, maybe shipping it back to P&Z, having them take another look at it. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: It's kind of clear where I'm coming from. I just -- I mean call a spade a spade. Everyone's had a year to talk about it and discuss and the applicant's made a choice and -- and decided not to -- to reduce density and make some of the adjustments. So, it's good, I just don't know if that's going to change anything going through it again. If you think it might, argue why, because I don't see it. Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 70 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 50 of 74 De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Amongst the Council does anyone have any concerns on the comp plan amendment? The mixed use regional designation for the four acres to the east? De Weerd: Sonya, with -- what is -- what is that -- we probably haven't -- haven't designated it in the Comprehensive Plan that will be next week, because this is a new piece. So, I guess with that said -- no. It's in that area with the -- Borton: Okay. De Weerd: -- the mixed use. Allen: Madam Mayor, if I may add to that. That is absolutely correct what Madam -- Mayor Tammy said. Additionally if you do not approve the annexation and you do approve the comp plan amendment, you cannot tie them to that development plan without an annexation and a development agreement. So, just keep that in mind. Thank you. Borton: Which is how it would normally be. Correct. It would be a blank slate mixed use regional. It doesn't necessarily mean it's R-40 apartments or -- it could be anything at a future date. De Weerd: So, basically, you can approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but without the annexation and the plat that would just be the comp plan amendment with the designation. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I guess my question would be to the applicant. Are you -- would the applicant be open to doing a redesign to make it less dense before we close the public hearing and not giving you that option? De Weerd: Or even rearrange the density. Bernt: Madam Mayor, just to follow up. I just don't want to deny -- you know, I don't want to put you in a position where the project is over without giving you an opportunity to do -- maybe make some changes to it. Conger: Right. Yeah. Madam Mayor, Council Member Bernt, Jim Conger, 4824 West Fairview Avenue. You know, we have gone through a long process and I think in credit to Council Member Cavener, we didn't come in with the -- the bait and switch, the ugly project. We -- we -- you know, we see that done a lot. We attempted not to do that. We in good faith met with every neighbor, even though we heard -- maybe we didn't -- on our boundary to say a single level and -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 71 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 51 of 74 De Weerd: Hey. Conger: -- there is only six of them. I mean we didn't meet with 40 of them. There is six adjacent and -- and the point of that being is single level. So, if we want us to go back and look at densities and -- and make it less dense, we would need to be similar homes, which would mean two story. So, if -- if the direction is to go back and look at our north boundary, if that's what I'm getting, we will go back and look at that north boundary. We -- we, obviously, would not start a transition in the middle of our property. I mean as Madam Mayor is tired of looking at the Barrack departments, we are tired of looking at -- Brickyard. I call them Barrack. It's one and the same to me, but we -- we still have that arduous chore of getting from those really God awful 15 foot away from the property line, that doesn't happen halfway through our property. Our property is only 500 feet wide or something of that nature. So, if -- what we got clear direction was to go look at our north boundary lots and look at can those be wider and lose -- lose lots similar to what was -- you saw in our middle iteration on that, those were not single levels. We would definitely go to wider -- we have come in front of you with Verado and -- and with adjacent neighbors and committed up front with those neighbors to be single level and it worked very well. We thought we were halfway happy with single levels next to these neighbors. I'm clearly wrong. You have heard I'm wrong. So, if the direction is to go back and look at that interface, we would be more than happy to do that. The staff report you have in front of you says that interface met policy. But we don't want a denial. If you are telling us to go back and look at that north boundary, we would look at that north boundary, remove a handful of lots. They would be traditional lots, similar to what's across the street -- across the fence from us and we would come back in front of you with that. If that's what I'm hearing, we would entertain that. I don't know what other transition would really matter after our first row of homes. Certainly. Bernt: Madam Mayor? Mr. Conger, are you saying -- just to -- just to confirm -- and I appreciate your -- your transparency and your willingness to discuss this with us this evening. Are you saying that you would swap out single story, multi -- or the single story duplex and the detached and -- detached homes, the more dense homes, with maybe larger lots, but they would be two story? Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Bernt, I am saying that, yeah, if we went to -- to what I'm hearing as an interface with an existing house, those -- those homes are single and two -- two level homes. I'm not guaranteeing that they will be two levels, I'm not trying to be obstinate in that manner. I'm saying they -- what I'm hearing is we want a transition to the existing homes, then -- then I would have to do a lot -- you know, a couple of those are pie shaped that we wouldn't match up one to one, of course. That's -- that's not possible and typically not a requirement in those -- those odder pie shaped type lots. But, yes, I'm hearing this -- the -- I'm hearing the interface is the issue and my single level restriction -- that doesn't occur very often -- I come to a lot of public hearings and haven't seen other developers do that. I'm seeing that that is not entertainable or -- or -- or a concession that I thought it was. We would modify the lot width similar to that 2018 plan that you alluded to and it would be a typical home similar to what's across the fence. I think that's what I'm hearing. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 72 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 52 of 74 Bernt: Okay. Conger: That's what I'm agreeing to. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: If that's where we are headed, I think the single level was a great idea, but I don't want to discount it. It's a big deal. I understand on your end it's a big deal to make that commitment. Conger: I thought it was amazing. Borton: And -- and the reason I was hesitant to continue is -- just to be blunt, again, you do great work and I think this can be a great project, I -- the challenges that I find -- it would be a massive redesign to -- to solve the concern that I have got with funneling traffic in and out of one -- Dashwood. That's a concern. So, I didn't want to -- from my perspective lead you astray, at least from -- from what I see to be that problem, without that Centrepoint Way. Redesign and -- through a remand still might have that problem. And I could be wrong. It depends on what you come up with. But that's -- it's just a tough one. Conger: Yeah. No, Madam Mayor -- Borton: You can't control it and I get it. It's -- Conger: Right. Council Member Borton -- right. No, I get definitely what you're saying. I think that the challenge -- and ACHD felt the same challenge is, you know, when this is at full build out with the Centrepoint Way, you are still going to have, yes, some traffic once that's open heading to Centrepoint Way. That is a mid-mile collector that Dashwood comes out on with a traffic signal on Eagle Road. So, a majority of traffic going to Eagle Road -- specifically going north is going out that way anyhow. I believe you will have minor cut through traffic through our neighborhood once Centrepoint is open. That would be the -- the neighbors that you see tonight going to Hobby Lobby and Dick's, which we think is healthy. I call that cut through, but that's not negative cut through -- Borton: No, I get it. Conger: That's commercial cut through. So, once this is opened up and why ACHD did this -- the traffic analysis when this is fully opened isn't going to be despairingly different than what's occurring right now through Dashwood. Dashwood is a -- is a stub road that it at the end of the day is going to function at about half capacity when Centrepoint is open as well with the amount of cars that will be cut through going to the Hobby Lobby and Dick's that are local, not -- not the cut through -- the good cut through. So, our point was -- and I believe ACHD's point was -- is that neighborhood of Dashwood won't function -- I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 73 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 53 of 74 mean it will be half capacity if it's never opened and when that opens it's not going to be much different than half capacity anyhow. It's not going to desperately go down once that opens. So, I don't quite follow the concern of Centrepoint not open, because when it's open it will be very close to the same as when it's not open, ironically, because of the future cut through to Hobby Lobby and Dick's. De Weerd: I think the point is, Mr. Conger, is -- and maybe sometimes this leads to the disconnect between the city and ACHD and maybe not to all Council, but we are talking neighborhoods and the preservation of the character of neighborhoods and -- and this does impact the character of the neighborhood to the north with the densities going down a single block with very few homes on it that now inherit a high -- a high density going from -- in -- in their -- on their street you probably have two per -- per acre to an R-15 and that does impact the character of a neighborhood. So, there -- therein lies the concern. ACHD is looking at traffic. We are looking at character and we are looking at a community. Sometimes those have different goals, different angles and -- and that's -- I think that's what we are trying to -- to balance is how to not totally impact another neighborhood's character with a real different feel and something that is more geared towards what's south of it than what is north of it. Conger: Yeah. Madam Mayor, I couldn't agree more. When we go into an existing neighborhood -- and that is what happens every time when development occurs. We do not take lightly what fabric changes in that neighborhood. It is impossible I think to -- no matter what density is going to be here to not -- I mean Dashwood is the stub road and -- and un -- fortunately and unfortunately -- fortunately they have been on a cul-de-sac road and I understand that it just -- ultimately that road is going to be open and connect to Centrepoint that -- that's just on every map that's out there. So, we definitely agree and that is not easy for us either. I think, you know, the function of density will -- again, you are correct, it's three homes per acre on Dashwood. Our single level twin homes are around 4.8 homes per acre and, then, we transcend -- transition to our two story that -- that gets in the six to seven units per acre, to even 7.2, depending on the layout and configuration, so -- and, then, ultimately we get to the -- we keep saying 22 to 30, but it's 22 to 30 units per acre. So, you know, we -- I mean the transition was the number one - - when we started our entire process of layout and planning -- I mean transition -- traffic, yes, but transition was the number one, traffic is the number two. You know, we actually -- your -- your staff -- and rightfully so -- your staff wasn't supportive of blocking off Jasmine Lane. ACHD was requiring that. I believe you will even find out the record that your staff responded to ACHD saying our policies are to keep all roads open. We don't support closing of Jasmine. We heard the neighborhood in one of our -- two of our meetings of worried about the -- the detrimental cut through traffic, not the productive cut through traffic. That is why we pushed with ACHD to get that done. I mean I think from a city standpoint -- I'm hearing what you are saying, but -- but our entire year and a half of planning has been -- been -- been kind of not hearing that from city staff, that we are to open roads and get them open. So, we are open to another configuration. I think what we have is -- is two sellers. We have, you know, one on the ten acres and one on the four acres. You know, they have been county residents. They have got these apartments looming over them on this side. They have had the three story, which they have been a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 74 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 54 of 74 good neighbor to this entire time. You know, our one seller, Mr. Cook, is sitting right behind me, they have retirement, they need to sell their property, so to simply say, hey, we need Centrepoint Way to function before they develop is -- is -- is possibly good for -- for those eight homes that are on Dashwood, certainly not good for the two individuals that -- that have, you know, property that they have relied on the city with -- specifically the ten acres with the medium density. Nobody's coming in here and trying to modify any codes, any comp plans, we simply definitely are respective of -- that we are changing Dashwood, it's going to go -- to have capacity and right now you and I both know it's -- it's not half capacity, because it's got the type three barricade at the end and it's not finished, but it -- but it's got no traffic on it. So, we are definitely sympathetic to that. But to the detriment of -- of not doing these two in-fills right next to Dick's, right next to Hobby Lobby, right next to The Village, right next to Kleiner Park -- I mean I can just go on and on. I mean there is lots of places that I could probably take that this isn't the time for this -- this area is not getting any better. Their -- their Wainwright, you know, isn't -- I mean part of the -- and we have heard it in our numerous meetings with -- with the neighbors -- is it's getting the cut through traffic from McMillan coming to the light at Wainwright and ultimately there is just a lot of pressure, because, you know, we all feel -- and it's not a feel -- I mean it is a real feel that there is more traffic on these roads, because it -- it is more traffic than what everybody was used to, but -- but that -- that's just not -- not going away. Eagle Road will continue to get busier and it's, you know, getting Jasmine Street -- right now it is a private lane, it's not a street, it needs to be called Jasmine Lane, that -- that -- that has, you know, two, three and four people entering Eagle Road in a very unsafe environment since Fast Eddy's has been put on. The quicker we get some of those illicit driveways coming to Eagle Road the better, too. So, there are a lot of good things occurring with this in-fill. Yes, there are some -- some will even use the word carnage in -- but that -- that's what happens, we -- we win and we lose and I guess if I had known it was going to be a negotiation, I would have came in with different product and not tried to -- to come in -- but that's just not how we operate. We come in and we go talk about doing single level against these neighbors, because that's what I would want if I was living behind them, but -- but if -- again, I just see if there is an issue with the north boundary, I -- you make it in your condition on -- on get -- get rid of one lot on one side and one and a half lots or two lots on the other side and -- and -- and I don't think that's a solution. I think the single level is the right solution in the long run. So, I think there is just some feeling that transitions, you know, can -- can help get this denied and I think denial would -- would make folks happy, but there is just another project coming in behind me that may not be so insightful and is going to have the same issues and you have one of the last in-fills in the square mile, I don't know how you could continue to keep denying it. I mean you can, I'm not saying that's not in your purview, but at some point there is just one more person behind me and it may not be the same. In fact, it won't be. De Weerd: Well, we had another project off of Ustick that had multi-family and buffered it and in trying to transition with the R-4 before they -- they got to the -- the multi-family or the higher density product. It's not something new to this Council. They -- they have been asking for those greater transitions and -- and this is even less dense than the project that was abutting the development application on -- on Ustick, so it -- this -- this isn't a new conversation for this Council. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 75 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 55 of 74 Conger: No, Madam Mayor, you're absolutely correct and your staff is very -- very well trained at -- I mean in our pre-application meetings the very first item is -- and it's not even fire, it's not even safety, it's about transition. That isn't new to us either. So, that is what we come into these developments with. I mean we know we are not going to -- to -- to buck the system. This appears to be bucking the system. We are a little confused -- normally I may not have -- I may have a condition and I have had a condition before to transition better and we come here and debate it with you. In this particular case we -- we attempted to resolve that before we got in front of you and we actually have a staff report that it actually gives a little -- commends me a little bit about our transition and so this is -- I mean I'm trying to answer it as best as I can, but a little bit of a shock to us, to be honest, although it's always the number one item. So, that part's not a shock. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Conger, your application was denied at P&Z. Like I don't know why you're surprised. I mean one -- and I don't want to get -- I don't want to be hostile and I don't want to -- but one of the reasons why the Commission denied your application was because of density. I mean I'm just -- I'm just -- I'm -- I'm just looking at it right here. I'm not trying to -- and so I don't -- I guess I'm struggling to find out why you are surprised. You're a smart guy. You have been around the block many times. This certainly isn't your first development and certainly won't be your last. So, I feel like you are sort of challenging us to a certain degree right now and I don't understand why. Conger: Madam Mayor and Council Member Bernt, I'm certainly not challenging you. I'm on the wrong side of the microphone to be doing that for certain. I believe we have given a concession that doesn't happen more than about three times a year in this Council, which is single level. If that's not important, then, I have misread -- misread things and -- and that's the only part that I am -- and -- well, I guess I'm surprised not from P&Z, I was talking about the staff report, definitely not P&Z. Now I think there are two -- I think that was discussion points they had for sure. Their -- their motion was actually to get Boise approval and go meet with the neighbors and additional time as well. Both of those made it in their motion. Density I don't believe really made it in their motion, but it was points of discussion without a doubt, but I'm not going to try to sit there and -- because my memory is not that good, but -- but I am definitely open. We have done it before. We -- we do an R-8 there instead of R-15 and those lots get wider and -- and that would be the transition on that and I -- I'm certainly not challenging with that, I am definitely saying that is an option if -- if it was the transition. I think -- I think the traffic is a different discussion. I think Madam Mayor definitely is -- is -- is -- and all of us sensitive to what that does to Dashwood. I think at full build out with Centrepoint and full build out without Centrepoint ultimately that's the same outcome, more -- more per response to Mr. Borton and on that, but -- you know. So, if -- if we are trying to regulate traffic, you know, I think it's -- at build out or full opening it's -- it's going to have the same outcome and I believe ACHD did the same thing. Again, if it's transition on the north boundary, I have already indicated that we would be open to modifying one on the right side and there is probably Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 76 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 56 of 74 two on the left side that would balance that back out if it truly -- truly were that and that would be a very easy condition. De Weerd: Any other questions for Mr. Conger? Anything further you want to add? Okay. Conger: No, ma'am. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: You bring up the traffic count. So, I was going through the staff -- ACHD staff report and it referenced the situation where -- it called Dashwood a de facto collector under these circumstances until Centrepoint is built and connected through. You see the recommendation for Jasmine to be closed and it speaks to those situate -- when that occurs the local street maximum capacity looks like it's 1,000, not 2,000, and in that situation at full build out this would be 920 daily trips. So, darn near at the thousand cap threshold, but I can't find any reference that talks about what you have said where in Centrepoint is fully constructed that, in essence, the cut through traffic that would go through Dashwood would -- that increase in cut through traffic would offset the decrease in the interior traffic going north. I don't know where that is. Is that in the ACHD staff report or is it in your own data? Conger: No. Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, that -- you know. And we have had this with other projects -- calculating the actual cut through traffic. Most traffic engineers kind of avoid that like the plague, because it's impossible to calculate. So, that was discussions with our design team, engineer team -- mainly traffic engineer team and ACHD during their process of writing the staff report. That is not a calculation and that's why I said more possibilities -- or I didn't say exact numbers, because there is no exact number to that and I think coming back to the thousand trips, the -- what -- what would a local street, Dashwood, is designed for is 2,000 trips per day. ACHD's policy says if it's not at full connection, then, we want them at a thousand trips per day and that is because of our condition by ACHD that we lobbied for to block off Jasmine Street, then, ACHD would have to treat that as a not finished roadway, which would put a cap of a thousand trips per day. So, what ACHD -- when it's not a finished system, they want to leave extra capacity for these roadways, so -- so, that would be what they are referencing, too, is a thousand trip allowance on Dashwood isn't what it's designed for, it's because the -- we are blocked off from Centrepoint, so they have to use their policy that says it can't exceed a thousand trips per day, which we were under that as well. But it is ultimately -- I mean it's designed for 2,000, but that's the thousand which we are under anyhow. Borton: That makes sense. Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 77 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 57 of 74 Conger: Thank you again for the question. De Weerd: Oh, I did see a hand up from the HOA president or representative. Would Council like to -- Cavener: One hundred percent. De Weerd: Okay. I believe -- okay. Come on up. And the applicant always gets the last word. Well, I kind of do, but -- King: Thank you. My name is Sandi King. 2543 East Linwood. De Weerd: Thank you. King: So, the point I would like to make here -- and I think it's paramount -- is that they don't need to use Dashwood and Dashwood -- that the traffic count would be horrendous. The ACHD study was done during spring break. It was on two ingress-egress roads, not all five, so they didn't get anywhere near the traffic that flows through our subdivision, nor was Dashwood counted. So, the point is -- and I don't know if you can see the -- the map, but if you -- if you allowed Dashwood to be closed or just bollards and not opened until Centrepoint Way actually is complete, they can reconfigure their subdivision and both ingress and egress coming out of the Delano Subdivision can come out to Jasmine. You have got two access points coming out, you're not using Dashwood, you're not destroying the environmental comfortability -- I don't even know what to call it, but for -- on Dashwood as far as having a livable space for their homes it is easily changed. It -- I don't get why it's such a problem. I honestly don't. They don't need Dashwood. Unless they want a pretty front to bring their customers in to sell. There is no other reason for them to use Dashwood. We can either close it all together and -- and abandon it or we put bollards up so that people can still ride their bikes and walk through. I hope and pray that you guys can see what this is going to do to our subdivision. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. I know you have looked at this every which way. If you will state your name for the record. Conger: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Jim Conger again. De Weerd: Thank you. Conger: I will be fast. So -- so, as far as the location -- you know, first and foremost, you know, blocking off Jasmine, which we went to ACHD and helped lobby after our neighbor meetings. In hindsight it's probably a terrible precedent to set for -- for any connectivity and that's probably why your staff was against it to begin with. So, you know, I don't know if it's better to have both of them open. We definitely have access requirements of our single family homes going to single family homes, going to the mid mile collector and the traffic signal of Eagle Road. We -- we think the isolation -- and that's why we are -- we are a little bit comfortable -- or a lot comfortable not having Centrepoint finished is you Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 78 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 58 of 74 have our new apartments that would occur, you have the Barracks apartments to the south, all of that is going out Centrepoint Way. In their regulated traffic to the heavy commercial area basically -- didn't mean to hit that. But -- but, yes, we are -- we are like product to like product going out. At the end of the day we are less than the thousand trips per day and -- and we, you know, definitely respective if we still have a -- you know, a transition issue. We worked as hard as we could to get from three story down to two and single level -- single family homes. So, we -- if you want to adjust our north boundary I'm still open to that and I have no further questions, Madam Mayor. Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Conger: Or no further comment. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I will move something along. At least on part of it. I move with close the public hearing on Item 7-C, H-2019-0027. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I think all ayes. Mr. Palmer, are you and aye? Palmer: Yep. De Weerd: Okay. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve the first portion of H-2019-0027, which is the request for a comprehensive plat map amendment for the mixed use regional designation as requested. Cavener: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 79 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 59 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-C-1. Borton: Correct. That -- De Weerd: Okay. Borton: -- specific portion of the application. De Weerd: Okay. 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. Borton: We moved on the items that were a little easier, at least got us down the road somewhat, so -- Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I didn't know if Councilman Borton had any other motions, so if not I will take a crack at it. Madam Mayor, I move that we remand Item C-2 and 3 back to Planning and Zoning Commission for the following reasons: To address the density issue of the proposed development and to review -- I believe it will be a revised site plan, recognizing the changes of the north border of the development of those homes that run alongside North Della Street. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Discussion? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I have a chat on this. So, what I have tried to do here is summarize -- from the concerns that I have heard from Council of density, leaving that somewhat nebulous to allow the applicant to hear the feedback from Council, take another crack at this, but, then, to drill down deeper to what we heard from the applicant is their willingness to something I think is necessary to make a change to those homes on -- on Della. I -- I agree with you, Council Member Borton, I think the single story makes a lot of sense. I would -- I would hope that the applicant would do some single story and maybe lose -- to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 80 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 60 of 74 appease everyone to lose maybe a lot of the duplex, open these lots up a little bit different. To me I think that gets to the crux of the issues that I heard from -- at least this -- this group. Council Member Borton, I think your piece and you are concern about Centrepoint Way is valid. I guess I just feel like Dashwood is going to be able to handle the traffic regardless, so I'm -- I'm supportive of it moving forward without any types of changes and I think that your comments have been well heard by the applicant about something that you're very concerned with, but at least it gives Planning and Zoning another opportunity to look at this, it gives the applicant another opportunity to take a crack at this. I -- I sympathize with the -- with the neighbors who have been through the wringer on this. I have been through it, too. I appreciate the frustration. You're welcome to call me with your frustrations and your calls, because I have been there as well. De Weerd: Well, you can't. Not when the application is -- Cavener: That's fair. Thank you, Madam Mayor. But that's where my motion is coming. That's at least the thought process behind it. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: The remarks with regards to addressing density encouraged the applicant to be -- kind of take a more holistic view of the application and not just Della Street, but to the extent there is an ability to design and address density in a broader context -- Cavener: Madam Mayor, if I can respond. In a word yes, which is -- which is why I noted both of those things separately. I wanted to capture the applicant's comments specifically about Della, but also leave -- again -- and approach the entire application separate from that. I didn't want it just to be limited to Della. De Weerd: I'm just going to represent the staff here for a moment. A remand with a redesign is like a whole new application. So, it is like a whole new application and -- and it is a lot of work. So, I just needed to speak on their behalf. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I appreciate you saying that and I don't -- it's not a motion that I make highly -- in part because of that. And maybe it's just how I'm visualizing in my head that this is not a dramatic change. If it had to completely be erased and start fresh, then, I would be more supportive of a denial, but I don't think that's the case. I appreciate your comment. De Weerd: I -- I guess I would just make a comment, again, concerned about Dashwood and -- and having an opportunity for more of an official entry onto Jasmine Street for the subdivision to make it look like it's going to be a subdivision, not just a -- and maybe would Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 81 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 61 of 74 be a dead end at this point, but it would access to Centrepoint and it would still have traffic flow both going north and south and east, just -- I think that Mrs. King came up and -- and talked about that at the very end. So, at least for consideration for the applicant as they look at bringing back a modified plan. And, of course, I won't be here, so it's just a suggestion. Anything further? We do have a motion to remand. Any further direction if -- assuming this motion passes, any further direction for the applicant and for those on our Planning and Zoning Commission? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, nay; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, nay; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: Okay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAY. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: It's remanded back to Planning and Zoning and certainly the -- the neighbors in the audience, if you're looking at when that might come back to the Planning and Zoning, it will be listed -- I guess you can -- when might it -- well, I don't know. Check online and with our city clerk or Planning Department. So, we appreciate you spending a good portion of your evening with us tonight and we appreciate you being here. And thank you so much for the civility that was present tonight. We do appreciate that. D. Public Hearing for Inglewood Place ( H- 2019- 0090) by James Petersen, The Pointe at Meridian, LLC, Located at 3250 E. Victory Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10. 29 acres of land with C-C 3.76 acres) and R-15 (6.53 acres) zoning districts; 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of (8) building lots and (1) common lot on 8. 84 acres of land; and 3. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of (14) dwelling units on 1.91 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open the next public hearing on 7-D. It is a public hearing for H-2019-0090. I will open this with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and two conditional use permits. This site consists of 8.84 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located at the northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Victory Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. Annexation and zoning is requested of 10.29 acres of land with C-C zoning, which consists of 3.76 acres of the site and R-15 zoning, which consists of 6.53 acres of the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 82 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 62 of 74 site. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown, showing how the site is proposed to develop with a mix of commercial retail, three pads sites and office, 12,300 square feet. A nursing and residential care facility and a senior age restricted 55 and older cottages, which is considered multi-family in our city code because there are several dwelling units on one property and the proposed development is consistent with the mixed use community future land use map designation. A revised plan was submitted as shown there on the right since the Commission hearing that reflects items discussed at the hearing and in the staff report. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown to subdivide the property consisting of eight building lots and one common lot. The plat is proposed to develop in two phases, with the residential portion developing first on the east side of the site. One right-in, right-out access is proposed via South Eagle Road and one full access is proposed via East Victory Road with the provision of a new north-south local public street, which will stub to the north boundary for future extension and interconnectivity and that will eventually extend up to EasyJet, which has a signal. An access easement and driveway is required to be provided to the property to the north in alignment with the driveway along the east side of the retail pads for future interconnectivity and that is this area right here. A 25 foot wide street buffer along Eagle and Victory Roads and a 25 foot wide buffer to the residential use to the north on the C-C zoned property is required. The McDonald lateral crosses the southwest corner of the site and is proposed to be piped. There is an existing 15 foot wide ingress-egress easement that runs along the northern boundary of the site benefiting the adjacent property owner that is required to be preserved. An attached sidewalk exists along Eagle Road and along Victory Road on the portion of the site nearest the intersection. A detached sidewalk is proposed where none exists among the remainder of the frontage along Victory to the east boundary. In mixed use developments public and quasi-public spaces and places are required to make up a minimum of five percent of the development area. None of these types of spaces are proposed. Therefore, a development agreement provision requires these spaces are provided within the commercial portion of the development with building arranged to create common usable area, such as plaza or green spaces, in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. A conditional use permit is proposed for a multi-family residential development consisting of 14 dwelling units on 1.91 acres of land in the R-15 district. And that is these seven duplex style single level structures on the east side of the site that are proposed for age restricted 55 and older independent living senior cottages. A minimum of .1 of an acre of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development. A total of .29 of an acre is proposed, exceeding UDC standards. Site amenities are proposed consisting of a gazebo and barbecue area in accord with UDC standards. This development will also have access to the amenities located in the adjacent nursing and residential care facility. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. A total of 14 covered spaces and 11 uncovered spaces are required. Fourteen garage spaces, 14 driveway spaces and 25 surface parking spaces are proposed, for a total of 14 extra spaces. Another conditional use permit is proposed for a nursing or a residential care facility on 3.48 acres of land in the R-15 district, consisting of 86 dwelling units. The proposed structure varies in height from two to three stories and will house 46 independent living, 30 assisted living and ten memory care units. Parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. A minimum of 43 spaces are required. A total of 84 spaces are proposed, consisting of 23 garage spaces and 61 surface or uncovered spaces. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 83 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 63 of 74 Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the residential care facility as shown, which, as we stated, varies in height from two to three stories in high and the single level duplex style senior cottages. Conceptual elevations for the 12,300 square foot office structure, three stories and commercial retail pads proposed along Eagle, were also submitted as shown. The commercial structures are required to incorporate some of the same or similar design elements and construction materials as the residential development to unify the development. All structures on the site are required to comply with the design standards listed in the architectural standards manual and obtain design review approval with the certificate of zoning compliance. The Commission recommended approval of the proposed applications. Jim Petersen, the developer, Jacob Shirley, Think Architects, David Gagliano property owner to the east and Matt Graham TO Engineers testified in favor of the applications. No one testified in opposition. Jason Attinger, HOA president for Sutherland Farm, commented on the application and written testimony was received from John and Juanita Sharp, the property owners to the north. John Carpenter, the applicant's representative, and he testified that he was in favor with the staff report and recommended change to condition A-3-E. Key issues of public testimony were as follows: The property owners to the north, the Sharps, requested their access easement that lies on the northern portion of the site to be free of any curbing and landscaping and that all buildings, berming and landscaping, be set back, so as not to interfere with their easement and that is noted here along the north boundary of the site in red. Secondly, there is safety concerns pertaining to proposed access via South Eagle Road, specifically a left-in from Eagle and traffic backing up while cars are waiting to turn, since there is no turn lane. Lastly, Mr. Attinger and Mr. Gagliano would like the applicant to construct a new fence, possibly vinyl, along the east property boundary, to replace the existing fence to avoid double fencing. The developer Jim Petersen agreed to work with the neighbors on this. Key issues of discussion by the Commission are as follows: Future access to the site from the north via Eagle Road. Staff -- just as a side note, staff did recommend in the staff report originally that the access on Eagle would be temporary until such time as access was available from the north at the light at EasyJet. Commission voted to strike that condition and just have a right-in, right-in -- right-in, excuse me, right- out access via Eagle Road. So, just a side note on that. They discussed the amount of parking needed on the site in relation to how many spaces are proposed, i.e., how many of the residents in the nursing and residential care facility have cars and the applicant stated that not many of them do. The lack of common public, quasi-public space in the commercial portion of the development and, lastly, concern pertaining to traffic flow through the site, specifically the north-south public street proposed between the cottages and the residential care facility and proposed two accesses via Eagle Road and Victory Road. The Commission made the following changes to the staff recommendation. They modified condition A-3-E in section eight to depict the existing access easement along the northern boundary of the site to be free of trees and bushes. Grass is allowed. And pedestrian walkways. Fencing shouldn't restrict access to the easement and its purpose. Modification to condition A-1-F to remove the portion of the condition that limits the access via Eagle Road to temporary, as I previously mentioned. Add a new condition requiring the applicant to work with the adjacent neighbors on a new replacement fence as agreed upon by the developer along the east boundary of the site and that's condition A-3-G. And, finally, adding a new condition requiring the applicant to work with staff and ACHD Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 84 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 64 of 74 to implement traffic calming signage and/or safety measures on the public street entering the site from Victory Road to assist with pedestrian safety and that's condition A-15. There are no other -- no outstanding issues for Council tonight. Written testimony since the Commission hearing was received from Butch Weedon. He requests no further development is allowed on Eagle Road until the gridlock is relieved and Monica Ramsey requests the project is denied due to existing traffic issues in this area that will worsen with the proposed development. Staff will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to comment? There you go. Shirley: Jacob Shirley. I'm with Think Architects, Salt Lake City, Utah. Here on behalf of the developer Jim Petersen. I think the theme of the night is cooperation. I did put together some slides, but it looks like Sonya has included most of them in her presentation, so I'm just going to use hers. With this project we have definitely tried our best to cooperate with everybody who is involved in this and let me touch on some of those points. For example, the very first meeting that we sat down with the city, the Fire Department said they wanted to see extra parking stalls. That's something we have -- we have held to throughout the entire design process is making sure that we have -- not only are we meeting what is required of the parking stalls, but exceeding those and, then, later the most recent recommendation from them is that the drive aisles in the parking is slightly too small. So, after we had sent the application out last week, I jumped in there and I expanded all the parking stalls -- or not -- the parking lanes, the drive aisles, to make sure that they meet the requirements. Early on in the process we started working with ACHD and there was a lot of discussion going back and forth. One of the big discussions was where that location of Titanium Avenue was going to be proposed. They -- they really wanted Titanium Avenue in there for connect -- connectivity. Also another buzzword of the night. We wanted to make sure to connect to the neighbors, but we had an issue as far as negotiating on where that was placed. Currently Titanium -- Titanium Avenue is proposed where ACHD wants it and there was a lot of discussion. They don't want it any further east. They don't want it any further west. So, they kind of designed that for us and we cooperated and we worked with that. That goes the same with the right-in, right- out to the west end of the property. There was a lot of discussion there with a lot of group cooperation. We talked about how we can best address that. This is the solution that was -- that was come up with. When I initially submitted the application, the landscape plan showed a lot of trees and plantings along the northern boundary and in the -- the comments we received back from the Planning Department there was a concern there about a -- the easement that Sonya mentioned. We have -- we jumped in and we removed all the trees and bushes from there. Landscape is going to be sure that there is going to be no irrigation in there. All the lawn that's available is going to be sprayed from the side. So, we are doing everything we can to cooperate with that. Also you know -- and this is my fault, I should have included the neighbor's driveway. They have a gravel driveway that overlaps on our project. That was mentioned in the recommendations. So, when we took out the trees I hurried and put their gravel driveway in our plans to show that we want to leave up there. Obviously we want to cooperate with our neighbors to the north and make sure that they have access to their property. In the comments received there were Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 85 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 65 of 74 some trees in the McDonald Lateral, the irrigation ditch. We have gone back and removed those. There was some comments as -- little minor things on the landscaping as far as -- we need an evergreen shrub for every three linear feet of foundation along the street. We hurried and adapted or changed our plans for that and also as -- as per the comments in our -- in our last meeting with -- with the Planning, the neighbors did want to see a new fence along the -- the eastern border -- the eastern boundary. So, we -- we read through the -- the city ordinances and we tried to figure out what is it that Meridian wants the most as far as their fencing and we have -- I had my landscape architect put together two fences, the vinyl fence is the solid fence, is the one we are going to see on the boundaries and on the interior of the project we need some fencing as far as the senior living facility, as far as -- I mean our consultants -- our consultant told us that generally people in the senior living facilities never go outside, which I thought was really sad. I still wanted to provide that option to them. So, we have some yards that are fenced in, so nobody can escape. I hate to use that phrase, but that's kind of the way it's been described to me. I believe -- oh, okay. A bunch of little minor things. The -- Planning wanted to see a sign at the end of Titanium that it will be connected in the future. I didn't think that was that important of an issue, but now I understand that that is a very important issue. That sign will be there at the end of Titanium. So, I just -- a slight little adjustment on the site plan, while maintaining the quality and what we are -- we are -- we are providing there. One of the comments that Planning made -- they were really concerned about people being able to walk around in the parking lot. So, I went through and meticulously made sure that there is crosswalks everywhere that I could get a crosswalk to make sure that pedestrians have full ability to move around this site. And I hope that answers any questions you might have about this. De Weerd: Thank you. And thank you for listening in on the previous application. I heard you pick up some real key words there. Council, any questions for the applicant at this point? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Just a single question. I appreciate you going through all that detail. Every image that we have seen -- and I don't know if this is a question for you or John. The right-in, right-out, which is not temporary now, it's permanent on Eagle Road, all of the designs look like they are full accesses. So, I didn't know if you had an image which shows -- I mean there is right-in, right-out that -- that make it impossible to try and left out onto Eagle Road. Or at least comment on how we can be certain that is -- Shirley: I think that could be -- if it -- if it doesn't appear like a right-in, right-out, that could be my lack of illustrating that appropriately. I guess since I drew the curbs I assumed that it would be painted on the road. Borton: Yeah, we have seen -- Madam Mayor. We have seen some where it's just like little bulbs that -- you really -- you could take a left out and take a left south on Eagle Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 86 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 66 of 74 Road, because it's really not and there is others -- and you have seen then, John, where if you want -- yeah. Yeah. Come on up and just speak to that, because I was -- that left out to Eagle Road would be the worst. Carpenter: John Carpenter. 332 North Broadmore. Yeah. Thank you. Good to see everybody tonight. De Weerd: Thank you. Carpenter: Curb out in Eagle Road. So, ACHD doesn't allow those -- wishbone is what we used to always call them. Porkchop. Whatever. Because people just drive right around those. So, they require a raised curb on the middle of the Eagle Road, so you can't physically turn left in or out. And also our drawing -- we have to put in -- if I can get that mouse working -- a drop lane right here to get in. Borton: Okay. Shirley: So, ACHD was -- was fine with this right-in, right-out as a permanent solution. Borton: Okay. Shirley: That was an idea from staff early on. We didn't really debate that too much, but we would prefer that it is a permanent right-in, right-out, only because somebody buying a lot out here, they got to know, is this going to be an access or not and, then, who gets rid of it in the future. De Weerd: While you're up there -- why didn't they ask you to put in a turn lane? Shirley: I'm sorry? De Weerd: Why did they not ask you to put in a turn lane? Isn't that what I understood? Shirley: Madam Mayor, they actually did ask us to put in a turn lane onto the right-in and -- actually, that is the requirement from ACHD. De Weerd: Okay. I thought I heard -- well, thank you. Good job. Fix it right there. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Bongiorno: Madam Mayor, over here on the Fire Department side again. De Weerd: Thank you for noting that. Hi, Joe. Bongiorno: Quick question on -- I heard something about traffic calming. It was mixed in with the walkways or something. Shirley: It's the -- are you referring to the conversation about traffic calming on Titanium? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 87 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 67 of 74 Bongiorno: I heard traffic calming. That's all I heard. I wanted to know what it is. Shirley: Well, I did mention that I went through and made sure we had crosswalks through the drive aisles in the parking lot everywhere that I believe they need to be. Plus some. To make sure that it's as safe as -- for pedestrians as possible. De Weerd: There is going to be a speed bump every hundred yards. Bongiorno: I know. That's what I wanted to make sure. Because traffic calming to me is speed bumps and we -- I don't do speed bumps. So, we need to talk if you were planning speed bumps in there. Shirley: You know, speed bumps haven't even crossed my mind at this point. Bongiorno: Okay. Awesome. If they do give me a call. Shirley: They won't. De Weerd: That was the right answer I think. Unless you call them pillows and, then, apparently, that's better. Carpenter: John Carpenter again. What we envision there is pedestrian crossings or stamped concrete. So, ACHD -- when you feel that texture change we consider it a -- a traffic calming. Or sometimes we will actually neck down the curb and gutter, make the street a little narrower. But one of those two is what ACHD likes. Bongiorno: Got it. Thank you. Carpenter: Yeah. You're welcome. De Weerd: ACHD needs to do more of that. There are no further questions. Thank you. Shirley: Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Madam Mayor, there are three sign-ins. Two are from Alpine Pointe and I believe they are gone, and the third is Mr. John Sharp. De Weerd: Thank you for hanging in with us. We appreciate your -- your tenacity and appreciate you being here. Sharp: My name is John Sharp. 3020 South Eagle Road. And I'm the property owner just directly north of this particular project and I have been there for over 30 years and so waiting a few minutes wasn't too bad. We have resolved ourselves to the fact that things are going to change out there and they have and I don't have a problem with the project Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 88 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 68 of 74 itself, but the easement across the -- the north part of their property is part of my emergency access to get to my irrigation pump. So, I need to -- well, it's also the access to my back property, the first two hundred and some feet I use every day to get to my back property. So, I got to have that opened up. The other portion that goes on back I use to maintain my pump in an emergency when -- when something goes down and I have to take a vehicle back there with a generator in it in order to do the work on it or pump out the well house. So, I need to have that -- and I didn't see the revised landscaping. So, I'm glad to see that they removed the trees and the shrubs and stuff there, so that I wouldn't make hinges out of the trees and the only other thing that I would request is that there was some kind of an access gate or something put into the back near my pump, so that I can go through their perimeter fence in order to get to the pump and they seem to accommodate us with most of the stuff, but the easement is important to me and access to the pump is important. And that's really all I have, other than it's inevitable that that property is going to go and this seems like it's working out all right. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Sharp. Any questions? Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to close this? Good evening. Petersen: Good evening. Thank you for your time. James Petersen. Salt Lake City. My address is 6609 Old Mill Circle. Yeah. I mean it's been a pretty smooth process. Of course, a little longer than we always like, but the process has gone great and I think the neighbors have been pretty favorable. We have had a couple neighborhood meetings that have been very positive and as far as the access gates, yes, that -- I mean that won't be a problem. We will honor the easement. De Weerd: Thank you. Petersen: Any other -- De Weerd: And I'm sure you will work with Mr. Sharp afterwards. Petersen: Absolutely. De Weerd: Thank you for that. Council, any questions? Petersen: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any -- if there is 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-D. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 89 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 69 of 74 Bernt: 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. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve Item 7-D, H-2019-0090, as reflected in the staff report of today's date and inclusive of the comments of the applicant and particularly the addition of the gate that's been referenced. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-D as stated. Any discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Thank you so much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. E. Resolution No. 19-2174: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City Of Meridian Approving a Welcome to Meridian Signage Plan De Weerd: Item 7-E is Resolution 19-2174. I will turn this over to Caleb. Thanks for hanging out with us. Hood: I was hanging out in my office, so -- De Weerd: I -- I know. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. In 2010 the city put together a sign plan and installed some metal signs on the perimeter of our city boundaries generally. Those metal signs largely move as the city limits progress outward and some of them will stay at our ultimate city boundaries on -- on kind of the less intense arterial roadways. Earlier this spring it was brought up by Mr. -- Mr. Cavener and some others that our sign plan really wasn't a plan at all, it was just a map that had 23 some signs on it and an ultimate location in our GIS database and a couple of comp plan policies. So, we have been working on putting some text together and that's largely what you have Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 90 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 70 of 74 before you tonight is a resolution on the first page, but, then, it's got some background information on what the sign plan is, how we will implement that plan. Some specifications on what the signs are, both the metal signs and the monument signs. Excuse me. And, then, that same -- largely the same map and list. There have been some modifications to the map, both from the legend and the location and number of some of those signs from what originally occurred or was put together in -- in 2010. Again, there are 22 locations identified in that map for the monument signs. It might say monument signs. There is actually three different sizes and designs of those monuments. There are four of them in existence. That includes the metal sign that's out in front of KFC at the split corridor, so that one's included, but that's a different design than the rest of the signs that are envisioned. There is one on Fairview in front of CarMax. There is one on Linder Road just north of Chinden that was put in by that development and, then, there is -- forgetting the one -- yes. South Eagle. Thank you. And that's the one by the hotel I guess. So, on the south side of Eagle, yeah, and I-84. So, those four exist. So, this plan is currently cross-referenced in our draft comp plan that you mentioned we will be hearing next week. We had a subcommittee look at the -- all those policies. They pared it down from three different policies that talked about the city implementing the sign plan to basically requiring developers to implement the sign plan and, then, some hybrid mix. What I hope I have done is make it -- make it more clear. We are still open to partnerships on that, if someone wants to do, but, really, the intention to implement this is through the budget amendment or budget process annually. That's not to say that every year we will propose to build one or two or three of these signs, but that's the more regular way that these signs will come into existence through an enhancement request put together by staff and approved by Council to build these as time and other resources allow and, again, at the pleasure of the Mayor and Council to build the sign. So, still open in the text of that, so if a developer -- so, CarMax, for example, they really -- when they came into our community they wanted to put the sign in for us. They wanted to be part of the community. They said let us do this for you. We want to do it. Some other developers have -- we kind of drag them along saying you will do this, right, for our community. That's only been a couple of times, but I think that was some of the rub with -- with the plan was it wasn't really a plan. So, anyways, I hope that comes through in this draft resolution and the sign plan that, really, the implementation of the plan is more on city staff to propose a plan to build the next key corridor or key location signs. We do have -- we do have some agreements. St. Luke's, for instance, has been willing to partner with us and at least allow us the easement to build a sign. So, if we want to put one there, funds are available, they have given us the right to go ahead and construct one and parks will maintain it. So, we haven't asked for that, but don't be surprised if that doesn't happen sometime in the near future. So, with that I stand before you with any questions and would appreciate you approving the resolution before you tonight. De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Council, any questions? Comments? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 91 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 71 of 74 Cavener: Caleb, sorry, this just popped into my head. I know at one point there was some concern about price to construct these larger monument signs and have we done any truthing on those? I mean are they -- nothing -- nothing government ever does is a -- but I mean do we have a good sense as to what -- if we wanted to do one of these what it would cost these days? Caleb: So, Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, it seems like that's changing all the time. That one in front of the Tru Hotel is -- is our most recent one and that -- that was substantially more than what we envisioned. It's probably a better question -- I haven't actually ground truthed that. Public Works managed that project. Cavener: Okay. Caleb: I don't know where that came in as far as budget. Don't quote me on this, but it's somewhere between 20 and 25 thousand dollars, I think, for the sign. Now, again, is it more or less today? I don't know. That was a year ago and prices can fluctuate. But it's more than it was five years ago. Certainly those prices seem to be raising rather quickly. Cavener: Madam Mayor, additional questions. Then -- follow up, Caleb. On the map, Exhibit No. 5, DA for Fast Eddy's currently includes the requirement I think for a monument sign. In light of the direction that these are more city driven, does that requirement still exist when we adopt this plan? Does it get eliminated? What -- what direction do we give that individual in terms of what is expected of them moving forward? Caleb: Yeah. Good question. Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener. So, I got your comments and I tried to incorporate some of those. Even if you took it off -- and you could take it off this map. The development agreement still exists. So, the Eddy's, if they don't want to do that sign that's on -- in front of the new Fast Eddy's there on Eagle Road, they need to propose that to you all and do a development agreement modification and that doesn't mean you can't take it out of this resolution now, but it will not change the contract that they are -- currently entered into with -- with the city. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Caleb, thanks. I was just reading that, because I think we had had some conversation about that piece previously. I just want to make sure we close the loop on it. So, thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other conversations? Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? I'm trying to figure out -- because we have got some new signage coming forward with our hands free, so people will need to know that we are in Meridian and need to be hands free. Is there any way to tie that in with the metal signs? And especially because I think like -- and I guess two different things here, but my concern with putting a monument sign at Fast Eddy's -- people already think they are in Meridian. I know -- why I know right where that one is south of the freeway is because, one, I drive by it all the time, and, two, I have gotten so many questions regarding -- when was I out of Meridian. They think that -- I just got off the freeway, I have been in Meridian since I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 92 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 72 of 74 entered what I thought was Meridian on the freeway and, then, off -- all of a sudden here is this sign welcome to Meridian. So, it's caused it seems like a lot of confusion more than welcome. Caleb: Yeah. And, Madam Mayor, Councilman Little Roberts, but that's something, again, that -- it's been almost a decade now since the sign plan was put together. Back when we put it together the thought was, yes, you have been in Meridian on the freeway, but you have been driving at 65 or 70 miles an hour and you haven't -- you're coming into our community now. You have been driving on the interstate. So, we have one of those at each of the off ramps along I-84. We weren't trying to confuse people, but it's really the first opportunity to really welcome -- welcome them to our community, even though they could have been in our community for six or eight miles already. So, again, that's kind of the thought process. If you don't like that we can remove some of the signs. I like where you are going and I hadn't thought about -- and, just by the way, last Monday during the Meridian Transportation Commission that came up, the putting up the Welcome To Meridian Hands Free Community signage and those conversations are still ongoing with ITD and ACHD both, with our Police Department trying to figure out how to notify people and bigger discussion on -- you don't have to necessarily put those up. We don't put all laws on signs up everywhere all the time and all the rules, but, anyways, I think we can potentially co-locate some of those on the metal signs, because generally we are pretty good about those being on our -- our boundary. So, I will bring that up and see if that's -- if that's an option. De Weerd: Well -- and we will have a budget amendment in front of Council maybe next week or the following week from the Police Department. They received a grant from the Office of Highway Safety to cover signs and to help us with a PR campaign and -- and all of that. So, really excited about that. Stephanie, second day on the job, that she landed a big one, so, she's -- she's been very diligently working that. So, if -- if that's certainly a strategy, we can -- we will look at that and even know how many signs we need, so we can co-locate if that's a possibility. Excellent. Any other questions for Caleb? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Not a question, but just a comment. Caleb, thanks for your -- your collaboration on this. It kind of goes back to our -- one of our land use applications. It was -- it was collaboration. It was -- Caleb kind of told me when I was off base and me trying to let Caleb know where I think we needed to be and it was -- it was healthy and it was respectful dialogue. Almost a year ago -- I feel like it was right around Christmastime that we really started bouncing this idea and I think the finished product is really good and I appreciate your help and guidance and collaboration on it. Really enjoyed that. Caleb: Well, thank you and I do apologize, I would have hoped to have this done, but -- I knew we could get it done just before the comp plan. So, you know -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 93 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 73 of 74 Cavener: Didn't have anything else going on. De Weerd: Just sliding it in; right? Caleb: Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Thank you, Caleb. Appreciate your work and I know you and your team have been stretched and really appreciate your work. Okay. Council? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I move we approve Resolution No. 19-2174, a resolution of the Mayor and City Council, the City of Meridian approving the Welcome To Meridian signage plan. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Future Meeting Topics De Weerd: Is there anything for Item 8? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to adjourn our City Council meeting. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we adjourn. Cavener: Second. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 26, 2019 – Page 94 of 352 Meridian City Council November 12, 2019 Page 74 of 74 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:14 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 11 / 2 — MAY TA Y DE WEERD OAucUsr DATE APPROVED ATTES W =o " IDIAN�-- CHR J S - CITY C K IDAHO SEAL �JFR or me TRF EIDIAN?- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 12, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 6 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: 11/12/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 11/12/2019 Hearing Type: Public Forum Active: Signature Name Discussion Topic Sign In Date/Time Pat and perry cantwell Devco 11/12/2019 5:50:58 PM Greg Walker Devco 11/12/2019 5:52:11 PM Beverly Harrigfeld Movado Apartments 11/12/2019 5:59:55 PM Evelyn Morgan Movado Apartments 11/12/2019 6:00:49 PM Jeffrey Hall Silverstone Apts 11/12/2019 6:01:18 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=366 1/1 EIDIAN,+-- DAJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 12, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 A Item Title: Public Hearing for Proposed Ordinance 19-1856 An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code 6-2-8(d)(g) to increase fine amounts related to off -leash dogs Meeting Notes: rosy- dead ,)y G� arAn6 ,cc 11-2-6,-/5 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.A . Presenter: Genesis M ilam Estimated Time f or P resentation: 10 Title of I tem - Public Hearing for P roposed Ordinance 19-1856: An O rdinance Amending M eridian City Code 6-2-8(D) and (G) to Increase F ine Amounts Related to O ff-L eash D ogs C urrent C ity C o d e 6-2-8 P roposed Amend ment to C ity C ode 6-2-8(G ) “Do g R ushing” to increase the fine levied fo r vio lations from $300 to $500-$1,000.00 eac h violatio n, and d ed icate any fine p aid to ward o ur costs for the Idaho Humane S o ciety c o ntract. C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Current City Code 6-2-8 B ackup Material 8/22/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 11/7/2019 - 6:18 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 4 of 139 11/12/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 11/12/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-A Project Name: Proposed Ordinance Related to Off -Leash Dogs Project No.: Active: There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=368 1/1 8/22/2019 Sterling Codifiers, Inc. https://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=306 1/3 6-2-8: PROHIBITED ACTS: A court sentencing a person for a violation of this chapter may assess court costs in addition to the fines and penalties set forth herein. A. Barking Dog: It shall be unlawful for any dog owner to permit a dog owned by such person to carry on excessive, continuous or untimely barking or noise. A violation of this subsection shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00). B. Reserved. C. Damage To Property: It shall be unlawful for any person owning any animal to cause or allow such animal to damage private or public property without the consent of the property's owner. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. D. Dog At Large In Public Place: Except as otherwise allowed by law, it shall be unlawful for any dog owner to allow or cause any dog owned by such person to be or remain in any public place, unless such dog is controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet (6') in length. A person's first violation of this subsection shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of twenty five dollars ($25.00). A person's second violation of this subsection shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00). A person's third violation of this subsection shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00). The animal control officer may seize and impound any dog found in violation of this subsection. E. Dog At Large On Private Premises: It shall be unlawful for any dog owner to allow or cause such dog to be or remain upon any private premises without the consent of the person in possession of such premises. A person's first violation of this subsection shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of twenty five dollars ($25.00). A person's second violation of this subsection shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00). A person's third violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. The animal control officer may seize and impound any dog found in violation of this subsection. F. Dog Attacking Or Biting: Any owner of a dog which, when unprovoked, attacks or bites another person or other domestic animal upon the streets, sidewalks, any public grounds or places, or private property not owned or possessed by the owner of the biting dog, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. The animal control officer may seize and impound any dog found in violation of this subsection. Where a dog seized pursuant to this provision shows any symptom of rabies or has not been vaccinated for rabies, the animal control officer shall deliver the biting animal to the Idaho Humane Society or to a licensed veterinarian for examination for rabies, and all related costs of such examination shall be paid by the dog owner upon demand from city. Such examination may include, at the discretion of the Idaho Humane Society or veterinarian to whom the biting dog is surrendered, a period of quarantine, confinement, and/or impoundment. If such biting dog is determined to be free of rabies, the dog shall be returned to the owner upon payment to the Idaho Humane Society or licensed veterinarian who examined such animal of all related fees and/or Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 5 of 139 8/22/2019 Sterling Codifiers, Inc. https://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=306 2/3 costs. If such biting dog is determined to be afflicted with rabies, the biting dog shall be euthanized according to the provisions of this chapter. G. Dog Rushing: It shall be unlawful for any owner of a dog which, when unprovoked, in a vicious or terrorizing manner, approaches any person in apparent attitude of attack upon the streets, sidewalks, any public grounds or places, or private property not owned or possessed by the owner of the dog. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. H. Failure To Display Dog License Tag: It shall be unlawful for any dog owner to fail to cause any licensed dog owned by such person to wear, at all times, a durable, secure collar bearing a valid city of Meridian dog license tag. Production of proof that such dog is licensed shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violation of this subsection. The person raising such affirmative defense shall bear the burden of proof that such defense applies. A violation of this subsection shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of twenty five dollars ($25.00). I. Failure To License Dog: It shall be unlawful for any dog owner to fail to obtain a city of Meridian dog license for any dog owned by such person. It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violation of this subsection that such dog is six (6) months of age or younger. The person raising such affirmative defense shall bear the burden of proof that such defense applies. A person's first violation of this subsection shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of twenty five dollars ($25.00). A person's second violation of this subsection shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00). A person's third violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. J. Failure To Update Dog Owner Contact Information: It shall be unlawful for any dog owner to fail to provide to the city clerk's office updated contact information where there is a change in such dog owner's physical address, mailing address, and/or telephone number registered with any city of Meridian dog license. A violation of this subsection shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of ten dollars ($10.00). K. Failure To Vaccinate Dog Against Rabies: It shall be unlawful for any dog owner to fail to vaccinate his or her dog against rabies within the first year of the dog's life. Further, it shall be unlawful for any dog owner to fail to renew his or her dog's rabies vaccination every three (3) years. L. Female Dog In Heat: It shall be unlawful for any owner of a female dog in heat to fail to enclose such female dog in such a manner as to preclude other dogs from attacking or being attracted to such female dog. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. M. Fraudulent Display Of Dog License Tag: It shall be unlawful for any dog owner to fail to cause or allow any dog owned by such person to wear a dog license tag issued for another dog, or to wear any imitation of a city of Meridian dog license tag. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. N. Harboring Excess Dogs: It shall be unlawful for any person to own; keep, harbor, possess, accept, or maintain custody, control, or care of; or license more than three (3) dogs at any single Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 6 of 139 8/22/2019 Sterling Codifiers, Inc. https://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=306 3/3 residence, property, or premises. It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violation of this subsection that such dogs comprise a single litter of puppies under six (6) months of age that is kept at a single location with the mother dog. The person raising such affirmative defense shall bear the burden of proof that such defense applies. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. O. Harboring Rabid Animal: It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep, harbor, possess, accept, or maintain custody, control, or care of any animal afflicted with rabies. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. The animal control officer may seize and impound any animal found in violation of this subsection. P. Harboring Vicious Dog: It shall be unlawful for any person to own a vicious dog in the city of Meridian more than fourteen (14) days following the entry of a final decision that the dog is a vicious dog. Fourteen (14) days following the entry of a final decision that the dog is a vicious dog, such dog may be considered to be contraband, and may be seized pursuant to warrant and euthanized. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and one hundred eighty (180) days' jail. Additionally, upon conviction, the court may authorize the animal control officer to seize, impound, and/or euthanize the dog giving rise to the violation. Q. Improper Disposal Of Dead Dogs: It shall be unlawful for any person to place or leave any dead dog on public or private property, including premises lawfully owned or possessed by such person. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. R. Interference With Animal Control Officer: It shall be unlawful for any person to hinder or interfere with in any manner an animal control officer who is enforcing any of the provisions of this chapter. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. S. Removal Of Dog Feces: It shall be unlawful for any person to fail to promptly remove and dispose of, in a sanitary manner, any and all feces left by a dog owned or being handled by such person on property, public or private, other than the premises of the owner or handler of such dog. A violation of this subsection shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of twenty five dollars ($25.00). T. Unlawful Reclamation Of Impounded Dog: It shall be unlawful for any person to recover or attempt to recover possession of any impounded dog, in any manner contrary to city policy or the provisions of this chapter. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and ninety (90) days' jail. (Ord. 16-1713, 11-15-2016) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 7 of 139 2 External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Meridian City Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing in regards to the article linked below about proposed changes to the Meridian Off-Leash Ordinance. I have lived in Meridian for over 20 years (and in Idaho for 48). I appreciate the small town feel with all the amenities of a larger city. The parks and growing number of pathways that are spread throughout the city provide great areas for community members to have easy access to activities and healthy recreation. I became a dog owner 3 years ago and have worked very consistently at training her to be well behaved as we walk throughout the community. Our dog is a high energy breed and this is an opportunity for us to both get some healthy exercise. We frequently walk to one of the parks near our home and must admit she is off leash chasing a ball as far as I can throw it to burn off some much needed energy. I always try to be mindful of people around me and do not let her approach people unless they invite her. If someone is walking by I make her sit as they pass, unless they want to pet her (then she turns back into the wiggly puppy). This area is frequented by many others with dogs, some on-leash and many not. The area is wide open and is a great place for the dogs to run as long as there are no other users on the field. I have never had any issues or conflicts with other people or animals. In my observations, everyone has been very mindful of their dogs and their behaviors. I also walk her back to the house off-leash sometimes as it is a good opportunity to provide training. She automatically stops at each intersection, drops her ball and sits until I release her. Again, she does not approach people unless I tell her it's ok, and I only do that if they invite her. She gets compliments from people for being well behaved nearly every time we are out. I don't want to come off as bragging, but I am trying to point out that dogs behaviors are more about the owners. In 3 years of walking very frequently for many miles around our house, I have only encountered one "conflict". I put my dog on a leash as another couple was walking their dog on a leash down a path toward us. My dog is really clueless about other animals most of the time as she is focusing on her ball or smelling something. As the other little dog approached it launched at my dog and "attacke d". It was small so no harm done. Scared my much bigger dog and we all laughed a bit. That is what I like about walking around our great city. The people a very friendly, understanding, and out trying to live healthy lifestyles. The couple was just a little embarrassed by their dog's behavior, but it was not really a big deal. I realize Meridian has dog parks and I really appreciate the one I have gone to by the water tower. It is such a great place and a good social environment for the dogs. It is a good size but still not big enough for high energy dogs. I have seen far more conflicts there than anywhere else we have walked, including 100's of miles in the Boise foothills. Some people at the dog park do not really watch their dogs and do not pick up waste so you do have to watch a bit more there than walking close to home. Meridian does a great job at placing bags around parks and pathways for owners to pick up droppings. This really helps to keep the community clean! I am concerned that the proposed ordinance change to increase the fines will primarily punish owners of dogs that are well behaved and that are really mindful of others in the community. I would like to propose that rather than increasing fines for off-leash violations, that very strict poli cies be put in place for owners that have dogs that create the conflicts noted in the article below. I was very surprised to read about the "enormous number of complaints", "regarding people being chased or bitten by dogs". I agree that is totally unacceptable and there is no place for that behavior in our community. I agree with City Attorney Bill Nary in that owners need to be aware of their dogs and their dogs behavior. Rather than increase fines for people that really aren't causing a public nuisance, I would like to see the city implement a common sense approach and enforce ordnances that address the real concerns of the community. Fines should be imposed for people that do not maintain at least some level of control over their dogs, aggressive dogs in public, to include dogs that are on and off-leash, and for pet owners that do not pick up pet waste. People should be encouraged to call and report dog owners that are not mindful of their behaviors. I believe this would be a much better way to address the real concerns of the citizens of Meridian, without stifling healthy activities and community bonding. Penalizing someone like myself would only encourage me to move to an area where there would be less potential for fines and better access to large areas where we could get out. We love Meridian and supporting the local community and businesses, but unfortunately that move would likely be outside of the city. I ask you to please reconsider the porposal to increase fines for off-leash dogs and to consider implemeting policies that address the real concerns with agressive behavior. Thank you. https://www.kivitv.com/news/off-leash-dog-fines-could-triple-in-meridian-if-new-ordinance-passes Mat Runcorn 208-870-5319 1 Charlene Way From:Chris Johnson Sent:Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:13 AM To:Charlene Way Subject:FW: Off-Leash Ordinance Change Proposal From: Josha Iverson <jiverson@meridiancity.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:06 AM To: Mat Runcorn <matnpeg97@gmail.com> Cc: mayortammy <mayortammy@meridiancity.org>; Genesis Milam <gmilam@meridiancity.org>; Joe Borton <jborton@meridiancity.org>; Luke Cavener <lcavener@meridiancity.org>; Anne Little Roberts <alittleroberts@meridiancity.org>; Ty Palmer <typalmer@meridiancity.org>; Treg Bernt <tbernt@meridiancity.org>; Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: Off-Leash Ordinance Change Proposal Mat, Thank you for your email, it has been received by the Mayor’s Office. We appreciate you taking time to share your thoughts and comments with us about proposed changes to the off-leash ordinance. We take public feedback seriously and want you to know that we have received your email and have read your comments. This ordinance is currently scheduled to be heard at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, 11/26/19 at 6:00pm; you are welcome to attend and provide public comment at that time. The meeting will be held in our City Council chambers at Meridian City Hall, 33 E. Broadway Avenue Your email has been forwarded to our City Clerk and will be included in the public record. We invite you to check the City’s website, meridiancity.org , for additional information; both the City Council and City Clerk pages. I hope you find this information helpful. Thank you again for contacting us, Josha Iverson| Administrative Assistant City of Meridian | Mayor’s Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 489-0529 |Fax: (208) 884-8119 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law From: Mat Runcorn < matnpeg97@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 8:06 PM To: mayortammy < mayortammy@meridiancity.org >; Genesis Milam < gmilam@meridiancity.org >; Joe Borton <jborton@meridiancity.org >; Luke Cavener < lcavener@meridiancity.org >; Anne Little Roberts <alittleroberts@meridiancity.org >; Ty Palmer < typalmer@meridiancity.org >; Treg Bernt < tbernt@meridiancity.org > Subject: Off-Leash Ordinance Change Proposal 1 Charlene Way From:L Wheatley <WHEATLEYL07@msn.com> Sent:Sunday, December 01, 2019 6:33 PM To:Meridian City Clerk Subject:Off Leash Dogs Amendment My concern isn’t for the off leash dogs. Something has to be done with the roaming cats. There is too much emphasis on the dogs running loose when the cats are as big of an issue. They do far more damage to my property than dogs and owners need to take responsibility and contain any animal they own. 1 Charlene Way From:Jennifer A Pedrali <crackerjax@mac.com> Sent:Monday, December 02, 2019 12:40 PM To:Meridian City Clerk Subject:Upcoming hearing on dog leash law and RV storage Hi, Just wanted to send in my opinion: I AGREE that the fines for off-leash dogs should INCREASE. I DON’T AGREE that RVs can be kept on the driveway or front yards. Thank you, Jennifer Pedrali 555 W Laughton Dr Meridian ID 83646 1 Charlene Way From:Chris Johnson Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:59 AM To:Charlene Way Subject:FW: Support Increasing FInes for not having dog on a leash From: Genesis Milam <gmilam@meridiancity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:36 AM To: Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Subject: Fw: Support Increasing FInes for not having dog on a leash For the record Genesis Milam | Councilmember City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0529 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Rutherford < stmusic@cableone.net > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 9:24 AM To: Genesis Milam Subject: Support Increasing FInes for not having dog on a leash Hi Councilwoman Milan - I just read about you're introducing an ordinance to increase the fines for this offense and my wife Susan and I strongly sup port this. I have written to the Mayor previously about this and we are glad to hear about this. Its important to note that for us older people the real risk with dogs running loose is that they can knock us down and the fall can cause severe injuries. Even friendly dogs can do this as they jump up on us and want be playful so its not just dogs that might bite someone that pose a danger to elderly people. Thanks for doing this. Sincerely - Bill and Susan Rutherford �/�E IDiA 11�- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 12, 2019 Planning and Zoning Public Hearings Staff Outline and Presentation Meeting Notes: Changes to Agenda: • Item #7B: Silverstone Apartments (H-2019-0099) – Development Agreement Modification Applicant requests continuance to Dec. 3rd due to needing additional time to respond to ACHD’s comments & recommendation to adjust the access along Movado Way; share information & meet with concerned neighbors; and get traffic analysis/information related to a potential traffic signal at the Movado Way/Overland Rd. intersections. Item #7C: Delano Subdivision (H-2019-0027) Application(s): ➢ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 15.21 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 2800 & 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (City of Meridian); General Mixed Use (City of Boise & in Boise’s AOCI boundary) Summary of Request: Comprehensive Plan map amendment to include the eastern 4.10 acres of land currently in Boise’s AOCI & planning area in Meridian’s planning area with a MU-R FLUM designation consistent w/Boise’s FLUM designation. The reason for the request is due to the larger portion of the development being in Meridian’s area and Meridian’s ability to provide City water & sewer services to the property. Since the Commission hearing, the City of Boise approved & adopted a resolution to amend the land use map to transfer this parcel to the City of Meridian Area of City Impact. Annexation & zoning of 15.21 acres of land with R-15 (11.57 acres) & R-40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts consistent with the MDR & requested MU-R FLUM designations for this property. Preliminary plat consisting of 85 SFR building lots for the development of a mix of detached & attached homes, 1 building lot for a future 96-unit MFR development & 12 common lots on 15.21 acres of land in the proposed R-15 & R-40 zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in 2 phases with the first phase including the extension of the stub street (Dashwood) from the north and connection to the extension of Centrepoint Way at the SEC of the SFR portion of the site. Development of the MFR portion of the site is not proposed at this time and will require future CUP approval prior to development. A concept development plan was submitted for the parcel to the north of the multi-family area showing how the site could possibly redevelop with the extension of Centrepoint. Access is depicted on the plat via the extension of Centrepoint Way, a collector street, at the southern boundary of the site & via the extension of a local stub street (N. Dashwood Pl.) at the northern boundary of the site. Centrepoint is proposed to extend from the southern to the northern boundary of the site consistent with the MSM for eventual connection to Wainwright Dr. when the parcel to the north redevelops. Because reduced street sections (i.e. 27’) are proposed which only allow parking on one side of the street, which is further restricted by the narrow lots for detached homes where there isn’t adequate area for on-street parking with the driveways for each lot, a parking exhibit was submitted that demonstrates the locations & amount of available on-street parking, which are along common area landscape strips, consisting of 56 spaces. The staff report recommends the extension of Centrepoint Way from the south to the north boundary of the annexation area take place with the 1st phase of development, rather than the 2nd phase as proposed, so that if the property to the north develops before the MFR portion of this site, the connection to Wainwright can be made for access to the traffic signal. The subsequent ACHD report requires Centrepoint to be extended to Jasmine with development of the SFR units in Phases 1 & 2 and extension to the north property line with the MFR development. ROW is required to be dedicated but Jasmine would temporarily not connect to Centrepoint (there would be an 8’+/- gap classified as unopened/unmaintained ROW that would be gated for emergency access only - a road trust will be held by ACHD for the cost of the future connection of Jasmine to Centrepoint) – connection would occur when Centrepoint is connected to Wainwright Dr. to complete the north/south collector or in 10 years, whichever occurs first. A temporary hammerhead type turnaround is required for the Jasmine stub. Staff is ok with the aforementioned ACHD requirements if determined appropriate by the Council (this would necessitate a modification to DA provision #A.1f in Section VIII). A 20’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along Centrepoint Way, a collector street. A minimum 10% qualified open space is required to be provided for the development along with (1) site amenity. The applicant is proposing 11.5% on the SFR portion of the site consisting of a ½ acre park, parkways, a micro-path lot, a collector street buffer and a local street buffer approved by the Director through ALT; because the MFR portion of the site is separated from the SFR portion of the site by a collector street & the development plan is conceptual at this time, staff recommends as a DA provision that the 10% open space is provided at the time of development on that portion of the site in addition to the open space required in the specific use standards for MFR developments. A shade structure, children’s play structure, children’s climbing dome, children’s climbing boulders, seating benches, micro -pathways and possibly a swing set are proposed as amenities, which exceed UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for the SFR attached/detached units & MFR apartments. All SFR homes along the west & north perimeter boundary of the development will be a single-story in height. Written Testimony: Public Testimony: Many (49+/-) letters of testimony have been received on this application, primarily from residential neighbors to the north in Alpine Pointe Subdivision. The primary concerns are the intensity of the development (i.e. density is too high); not enough transition in lot sizes to larger lots to the north; extension of N. Dashwood Pl. and Centrepoint Way and resulting traffic generated from this development and from the commercial and MFR developments to the south that will be routed through their subdivision if Jasmine is connected to Centrepoint before Centrepoint can be extended to the north to Wainwright; and safety concerns for children pertaining to traffic. See the public record for a complete record of testimony. Commission Recommendation: Denial 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jim Conger b. In opposition: Malissa Bernard (representing many neighbors on Dashwood Place to the north in Alpoint Point Sub.); Frank Marcos (Alpine Point Sub. HOA President); Kenneth Clifford; Sherry Garey; Greg Walker; Patricia Pitzer; Joy Cameron; Sandi King; Laura Trairatnobhas c. Commenting: Connie Thompson d. Written testimony: Many letters of testimony were received (see public record). 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Consensus that proposed density of development is too high; b. Not enough transition in lot sizes is proposed to larger lots to the north; c. Concern pertaining to the extension of Dashwood Pl. and Centrepoint Way and resulting traffic generated from the proposed development and from the commercial and multi-family residential developments to the south that will be routed through the subdivision to the north if Jasmine is connected to Centrepoint before Centrepoint can be extended to the north to Wainwright; d. Safety concerns for children pertaining to traffic; e. The proposed development is premature and that infrastructure (i.e. the extension of Centrepoint to Wainwright) should be in place prior to the development going in, not after the fact; and, f. There has been no negotiation with neighbors by the Developer as directed by the Commission; 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. The desire for the City of Boise to take action on a request to exclude the eastern portion of the site from their Area of City Impact boundary prior to the City making a decision on this application; b. The possibility of only an emergency access via Dashwood Pl.; c. Concern pertaining to adequacy of parking for the development; d. Preference for R-8 vs. R-15 zoning for the single-family portion & R-15 vs. R-40 zoning for the multi- family portion of the site as a transition to adjacent zoning; e. Density should be reduced due to Heritage Middle School and Rock Mountain High School already being over capacity; and, f. Desire for the Applicant to work with neighbors to address issues that were brought up at the hearing. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. The Commission recommended denial of the proposed applications to the City Council based on their desire for the Applicant to obtain approval from the City of Boise for the adjustment to the Area of City Impact boundary; and opinion the applicant did not sufficiently work with the neighbors on their concerns pertaining to the proposed development. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: If Council approves this project, Staff recommends a condition is added to require local street access to be provided on the MFR portion of the site to the abutting property to the east which currently takes access via SH-55/Eagle Rd.in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A, which requires all subdivisions to provide local street access to any use that currently takes direct access from an arterial or collector street. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Many (33) letters of testimony have been received since the Commission hearing in July (see public record) - 80 letters total since the application was submitted. Notes: Possible Motions: Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0027, as presented in the staff report for the hearing on November 12, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0027, as presented during the hearing on November 12, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0027 to the hearing date of ____________for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #7D: Inglewood Place (H-2019-0090) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ (2) Conditional Use Permits Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 8.84 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at the NEC of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Victory Rd. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C Summary of Request: Annexation and zoning is requested of 10.29 acres of land with C-C (3.76 acres) an R-15 (6.53 acres) zoning districts. A conceptual site plan was submitted showing how the site is proposed to develop with a mix of commercial retail (3 pad sites) and office (12,300 s.f.) uses, a nursing/residential care facility and senior age restricted (55+) cottages (i.e. multi-family) consistent with the MU-C FLUM designation. A revised plan was submitted since the Commission hearing that reflects items of discussion at the hearing & in the staff report. A preliminary plat is proposed to subdivide the property consisting of 8 building lots & 1 common lot; the plat is proposed to develop in 2 phases with the residential portion developing first on the east side of the site. One (1) right-in/right-out access is proposed via S. Eagle Rd. and one (1) full access is proposed via E. Victory Rd. with the provision of a new north/south local public street which will stub to the north boundary for future extension & interconnectivity. An access easement & driveway is required to be provided to the property to the north in alignment with the driveway along the east side of the retail pads for future interconnectivity. A 25’ wide street buffer along Eagle & Victory Rds. & a 25’ buffer to the residential use to the north on the C-C zoned portion of the site is required. The McDonald Lateral crosses the SWC of this site and is proposed to be piped. There is an existing 15’ wide ingress/egress easement that runs along the northern boundary of this site benefitting the adjacent property owner that is required to be preserved. An attached sidewalk exists along Eagle Rd. and along Victory Rd. on the portion of the site nearest the intersection; a detached sidewalk is proposed where none exists along the remainder of the frontage along Victory to the east boundary. In mixed use developments, public/quasi-public spaces & places are required to make up a minimum of 5% of the development area; none of these types of spaces are proposed. Therefore, a DA provision requires these spaces are provided within the commercial portion of the development with buildings arranged to create common usable area such as a plaza or green spaces in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. A CUP is proposed for a MFR residential development consisting of 14 dwelling units on 1.91 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district - (7) duplex style single-level structures are proposed for age restricted 55+ independent living senior cottages. A minimum of 0.10 of an acre of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development; a total 0.29 of an acre is proposed, exceeding UDC standards. Site amenities are proposed consisting of a gazebo & BBQ area in accord with UDC standards; this development will also have access to the amenities located in the adjacent nursing/residential care facility. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards – a total of 14 covered spaces & 11 uncovered spaces are required; 14 garage spaces, 14 driveway spaces & 25 surface parking spaces are proposed for a total of 14 extra spaces.+ Another CUP is proposed for a “nursing or residential care facility” on 3.48 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district consisting of 86 dwelling units. The proposed structure varies in height from 2 to 3-stories and will house 46 independent living, 30 assisted living and 10 memory care units. Parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards – a minimum of 43 spaces are required, a total of 84 spaces are proposed consisting of 23 garage spaces & 61 surface/uncovered spaces. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the residential care facility which varies from 2 to 3 stories in height & the singl e- level duplex-style senior cottages. Conceptual elevations for the 12,300 s.f. 3-story office structure & the commercial retail pads proposed along Eagle Rd. were also submitted. The commercial structures are required to incorporate some of the same or similar design elements and construction materials as the residential development to unify the development. All structures on the sit e are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and obtain Design Review approval with the CZC. Commission Recommendation: Approval 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jim Petersen, Developer; Jacob Shirley, Think Architects; David Gagliano (property owner to east); Matt Graham, T-O Engineers b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Jason Attinger (HOA President for Sutherland Farm) d. Written testimony: John & Juanita Sharp; John Carptenter, Applicant’s Representative (in agreement with staff report & recommended change to condition #A.3E) 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. The property owners to the north (Sharp’s) requested their access easement that lies on the northern portion of this site to be free of any curbing and landscaping and that all buildings, berming, and landscaping be set back so as not to interfere with their easement; b. Safety concern pertaining to proposed access via S. Eagle Rd., specifically a left-in from Eagle and traffic backing up while cars are waiting to turn since there is no turn lane; c. Mr. Attinger & Mr. Gagliano) would like the Applicant to construct a new fence (possibly vinyl) along the east property boundary to replace the exising fence to avoid double fencing. Developer (Jim Petersen) agreed to work with neighbors on this. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Future access to the site from the north via Eagle Rd.; b. Amount of parking needed on the site in relation to how many spaces are proposed (i.e. how many of the residents in the nursing/residential care facility have cars – the Applicant stated not many); c. The lack of a common public/quasi-public space in the commercial portion of the development; d. Concern pertaining to traffic flow through the site, specifically the north/south public street proposed between the cottages and residential care facility; and proposed accesses via Eagle Rd. and Victory Rd. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Modification to condition #A.3E in Section VIII to depict the existing access easement along the northern boundary of the site to be free of trees and bushes (grass is allowed) and pedestrian walkways; fencing shouldn’t restrict access to the easement and its purpose; b. Modification to condition #A.1f to remove the portion of the condition that limits the access via Eagle Rd. to temporary; c. Add a new condition requiring the Applicant to work with the adjacent neighbors on a new replacement fence (as agreed upon by the Developer) along the east boundary of the site (see condition #A.3g); d. Add a new condition requiring the Applicant to work with Staff and ACHD to implement traffic calming signage and/or safety measures on the public street entering the site from Victory Rd. to assist with pedestrian safety (see condition #A.15). 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Butch Weedon (requests no further development is allowed along Eagle Rd. until the gridlock is relieved); & Monica Ramsey (requests project is denied due to existing traffic issues in this area that will worsen with the proposed development). Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0090, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 12, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0090, as presented during the hearing on November 12, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0090 to the hearing date of __________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) City Council Meeting November 12, 2019 Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Aerial Map Proposed by Applicant: Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map E IDIAN*- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 12, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 B Item Title: Public Hearing for Silverstone Apartments (H-2019-0099) By Dave Evans Construction. Located at 4107 E. Overland RD. Continued to December 3, 2019 Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for S ilverstone Apartments (H-2019-0099) by Dave Evans C onstruction, L ocated at 4107 E . O verland Rd. The Applicant is Requesting a C ontinuance to December 3, 2019 C lick H ere for Application M aterials C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 10/18/2019 A pplicant's Request f or Continuance Cover Memo 11/8/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 11/8/2019 - 2:37 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 8 of 139 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 10/22/2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin Holmes, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0099 Silverstone Apartments MDA LOCATION: 4107 E. Overland Rd., in the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 21, Township 3N., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant has applied for a development agreement modification for the purpose of combining/removing property from the boundary of three (3) previous recorded development agreement (DA Instrument #2017-076698, 2017-024757 & Addendum Instrument #2018-12457) to create one development agreement that governs the Silverstone project. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Silverstone Apartments, LLC 7761 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 100 Boise, ID 83714 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Acreage 12.43 Current Zoning C-G Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 8/15/2019; 9 attendees History (previous approvals) H-2016-0060 (AZ, CPAM, CUP); H-2017-0104 (RZ, PP, MDA, MCU); DA Instrument #2017-076698, 2017- 024757 & Addendum Instrument #2018-012457 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 9 of 139 Page 2 B. Owner(s): Bienapel Family Limited Partnership (Owner of Phase 2 and 3) 2674 S. Andros Way Meridian, ID 83642 Silverstone Apartments, LLC (Owner/Developer of phase 1) 7761 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 100 Boise, ID 83714 C. Representative: Dave Evans Construction 7761 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 100 Boise, ID 83714 IV. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/4/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 10/1/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted 10/10/2019 Nextdoor posting 10/1/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 10 of 139 Page 3 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant has applied for a development agreement modification (MDA) to the existing development agreements and addendums for the subject 12.43 acre property (Exhibit A). Because the project is proposed to develop in three (3) phases (phase 1 has commenced), three separate legal descriptions have been provided for each phase. However, the entire project is proposed to be subject to one DA that governs the entire development. Other items include modifying and add new DA provisions and incorporating a new concept plan and building elevations. Removing the properties from the three (3) previous agreements will assist staff with administering development of the subject properties and their respective phases. This is the third requested modification to the DA for the Silverstone Apartments. The original approval in 2016 encompassed 14.41 acres, including the western portion of the subject property and a portion of what is now the Movado Greens Subdivision. This original DA (inst. # 2017-076698) had provisions for a maximum of 312 multi-family dwelling units. In 2017, this original DA was amended to reduce the number of multi-family units to 112 and develop the southern portion of the original site as single-family homes as part of the Movado Greens Subdivision and incorporate a commercial buildings on the remainder of the C-G portion of the property (addendum inst. No. 2017- 024757 and 2018-012457). In previous approvals, staff has been supportive of higher density residential. The Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation for this property is Mixed-Use Regional, which also encompasses the large commercial developments to the west of this site. These employment and commercial centers support the current proposal for high density residential on this site. With this application, the applicant is requesting Council approval of a new concept plan, which expands the multi-family development from 112 units to 204 units, depicts a 12,000 square foot commercial building and associated parking and 10 townhomes (Exhibit D). Building elevations submitted with the application are consistent with those currently under construction with the first phase. NOTE: Townhomes are not allowed in the C-G district. Conceptually, staff supports the residential diversity throughout the development, however, before the property can be developed with townhomes, the applicant must rezone and subdivide the property. Further, the applicant request the following modifications to the language of Addendum Instrument Number 2018-012457: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 11 of 139 Page 4 The additional units are proposed to be part of phase 2, located in a 4.38 acre area previously approved for commercial uses. With the additional units, the applicant is proposing to add fitness facilities to the clubhouse, a pool, dog walk, and an additional 50’ x 100’ open lawn area. The proposed concept plan shows a total of 377 parking stalls for the multi-family development for both phases. This is two stalls less than the 379 required by code (375 for the multi-family and 4 for the 1,834 square foot clubhouse). To alleviate parking concerns and increase open space, staff recommends that the 24-plex “Building J” shown on the proposed site plan be replaced with a three-story 12-plex. The northern half of the footprint should be revised to show an open lawn area with landscaping along the eastern edge. The plans for phase two shall also be revised to show the full 25’ wide landscape buffer to the residential uses to the south (including Lot 14, Block 1 of Movado Greens No. 1) or request a waiver from the buffer width requirements as allowed in UDC 11-3B-9. Staff recommends that the buffer be comprised of trees that touch at the time of maturity and that this requirement not be waived. According to Table 11-2B-2, the proposed multi-family use is a conditional use in the C-G zoning. The applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Modification application (H-2019-0104) with the City to modify the existing conditional use permit approved for the site in 2016 (H-2017-0104). All applicable code requirements for this development shall be analyzed through that process and any changes that result shall be incorporated in a revised site plan, landscape plan, and elevations. The proposed multi-family townhome development in the southeast corner of the subject properties will also be required to obtain a Conditional Use permit per the table referenced above. Staff recommends the applicant be granted flexibility to revise their layout of this area (townhomes) to meet the requirements of the multi- family conditional use approval. Staff has reviewed the terms of the three (3) previous development agreements to determine which provisions may still apply and if any new provisions should be included into the combined agreement. Below are staff’s recommended DA provisions: a) Future development of the site shall generally comply with the site plan, landscape plan, and architectural elevations included in Section VII, Exhibits D, E, & F of the staff report dated 10/22/2019 and the conditions contained therein. b) The submitted site and landscape plan, included in Section VII, Exhibits D & E of the staff report dated 10/22/2019 shall be revised to replace “Building J” with a three-story 12-plex to be located on the southern end of the current buildings footprint. The northern half of the footprint shall be revised to show an open lawn area with landscaping along the eastern edge. c) The plans for phase two shall be revised to show the full 25’ wide landscape buffer to the residential uses to the south (including Lot 14, Block 1 of Movado Greens No. 1) or request a waiver from the buffer width requirements as allowed under UDC 11-3B-9. The buffer shall be Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 12 of 139 Page 5 comprised of trees that touch at the time of maturity, this requirement shall not be eligible to be waived. d) A maximum 192 multi-family residential dwelling units shall be constructed within this development. The townhomes depicted on the concept plan shall not commence until the applicant rezones and subdivides the property. e) Site amenities shall be provided as follows: 1) clubhouse with fitness facility, 2) children’s play structure, 3) sports court, 4) pool, 5) dog walk, and 6) two open grassy areas, in accord with the standards of UDC 11-4-3-27D. f) All commercial lots and multi-family developments are subject to certificate of zoning compliance (CZC) and design review prior to the issuance of building permits. g) All multi-family developments shall obtain conditional use approval prior to submitting for CZC and design review approval per Table 11-2B-2. h) The applicant shall have the ability to obtain multi-family building permits with phase 2 prior to recording the final plat. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA per the provisions in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 13 of 139 Page 6 VII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description of Properties to be Included under Development Agreement Phase 2 and 3 DA No(s). 2017-076698, 2017-024757 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 14 of 139 Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 15 of 139 Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 16 of 139 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 17 of 139 Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 18 of 139 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 19 of 139 Page 12 Phase 1 DA No. 2018-012457 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 20 of 139 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 21 of 139 Page 14 B. Previously Approved Site Plan from Original DA Inst. No. 2017-076698 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 22 of 139 Page 15 C. Current Site and Landscape Plan from DA Addendum Inst. No. 2018-012457 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 23 of 139 Page 16 D. Proposed Site Plan (dated: 06/28/2019) Remove residential building and replace with open space Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 24 of 139 Page 17 E. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 08/28/2019) Remove residential building and replace with open space Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 25 of 139 Page 18 F. Multi-Family Elevations (dated: 11/09/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 26 of 139 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 27 of 139 Page 20 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Recommended Development Agreement Provisions: USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under City’s Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian Unified Development Code § 11- 2B. CONDITIONS COVERING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 1. Future development of the site shall generally comply with the site plan, landscape plan, and architectural elevations included in Section VII, Exhibits D, E, & F of the staff report dated 10/22/2019 and the conditions contained therein. 2. The submitted site and landscape plan, included in Section VII, Exhibits D & E of the staff report dated 10/22/2019 shall be revised as follows: i. Replace “Building J” with a three-story 12-plex to be located on the southern end of the current buildings footprint. The northern half of the footprint shall be revised to show an open lawn area with landscaping along the eastern edge. ii. The plans for phase two shall be revised to show the full 25’ wide landscape buffer to the residential uses to the south (including Lot 14, Block 1 of Movado Greens No. 1) or request a waiver from the buffer width requirements as allowed under UDC 11-3B-9. The buffer shall be comprised of trees that touch at the time of maturity, this requirement shall not be eligible to be waived. 5.2. A maximum 192 multi-family residential dwelling units shall be constructed within this development. The townhome portion of the development depicted on the concept plan shall not commence until the applicant rezones and subdivides the property. 5.3. Site amenities shall be provided as follows: 1) clubhouse with fitness facility, 2) children’s play structure, 3) sports court, 4) pool, 5) dog walk, and 6) two open grassy areas, in accord with the standards of UDC 11-4-3-27D. 5.4. All commercial lots and multi-family developments are subject to certificate of zoning compliance (CZC) and design review prior to the issuance of building permits. 5.5. All multi-family developments shall obtain conditional use approval prior to submitting for CZC and design review approval per Table 11-2B-2. 5.6. The applicant shall have the ability to obtain multi-family building permits with phase 2 prior to recording the final plat. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 28 of 139 1 Chris Johnson From:Bill Parsons Sent:Friday, November 8, 2019 2:14 PM To:Chris Johnson; Adrienne Weatherly Cc:Caleb Hood; Bill Nary Subject:FW: H-2019-0099 Silverstone Apartments MDA - Request for Continuance Chris, Attached is the applicant’s request and reasons for continuance of the Silverstone Apartment MDA application. Thanks, Bill Parsons, AICP | Planning Supervisor City of Meridian | Community Development Dept. 33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533 | Fax: 208-489-0571 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Robert Powell <RobertP@devansconstruction.com> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 1:54 PM To: Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org> Cc: Mysti Stelluto <MystiS@devansconstruction.com>; Jeffrey Hall <jeffrey@nwcommadv.com>; 'luke@idahorealestatecenter.com' <luke@idahorealestatecenter.com> Subject: H-2019-0099 Silverstone Apartments MDA - Request for Continuance Bill, please regard this as an official request for a continuance of the item we have scheduled to be heard before City Council on November 12 th . We are requesting it to be heard on the 3 rd of December instead. Our reasons for this include: 1. Additional time is needed to respond to late comments and a recommendation from ACHD to adjust the access along Movado Way. 2. Additional time is needed to share information and meet with concerned neighbors. 3. Additional time is needed to get traffic analysis/information related to a potential traffic signal at the Movado Way/Overland Road intersection. I understand council’s interest in keeping neighbors informed of the change, especially after our request for a continuance at the last hearing. We have mailed out information to residents within 300’ of the project, as well as the HOA, stating our intentions to continue. We have also discussed the matter with Jeffrey Hall who is in contact with several other concerned neighbors. He recommended the date of December 3 rd vs. November 26 th anticipating possible conflicts the week of Thanksgiving. Please let me know if you need anything else. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 29 of 139 2 Regards, ROB POWELL | Architect DAVE EVANS CONSTRUCTION 7761 W. Riverside Dr. Suite 100 Boise, ID 83714 office: (208) 639.4619 cell: (208) 830.6576 fax: (208) 853.1220 NOTE: All information contained in this email and /or attachments is confidential. The recipient of this information shall not copy, use, or modify this information without the prior written authorization of Dave Evans Construction. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free, and Dave Evans Construction accepts no liability for any damage caused by any nature of virus transmitted by this email . Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 30 of 139 �S IDIIZDA 0 AN,+-- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 12, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 C Item Title: Public Hearing for Delano Subdivision (H-2019-0027) By Devco Development, LLC. Located at 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. and 2800 E. Jasmine Ln. 1. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include 4.10 acres of land currently in Boise's area of City Impact in Meridian's area of City Impact with a Mixed Use -Regional future land use designation; and 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning for an Annexation and Zoning of 15.21 acres of land with R-15 (11.57) and R-40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts; and 3. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 single-family residential building lots, 1 building lot for multi -family development and 12 common lots S�-eM 1 m AqrD,Lj � j *M 2- Meeting Notes: ;,W I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - Public Hearing for D elano S ubdivision (H-2019-0027) by Devco D evelopment, L L C , L ocated at 14120 W. J asmine L n. and 2800 E. J asmine L n. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lick H ere to S ign U p to Testify at H earing C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Commission Recommendations & S taf f R eport S taff Report 11/7/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.Weatherly, A drienne Approved 11/7/2019 - 5:16 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 31 of 139 11/12/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 11/12/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-C Project Name: Delano Subdivision CPAM, AZ, PP Project No.: H-2019-0027 Active: � http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=367 1/4 I Wish HOA HOA Sign In Signature Name Address For Neutral Against To Name Represent Date/Time Testify 11/12/2019 2703 E Wainwright Dr Patricia Pitzer X X 5:29:37 Meridian PM 11/12/2019 Alpine Gretchen Burdin 2576 E Lacewood Dr X 5:32:58 Pointe PM 11/12/2019 Alpine Robert Burdin 2576 E Lacewood Dr X 5:33:44 Pointe PM Steven and 11/12/2019 Nancy 4242 N Chelmsford X 5:48:16 Hasselblad PM 11/12/2019 William alpine 2725 e wainwright dr X 5:49:05 schumacher Point PM 11/12/2019 4585 N Camas Creek Alpine Denise Fritzley X 5:51:03 WayPointe PM 11/12/2019 2403 E. Honeywood Alpine Greg Walker X X 5:53:14 Ct Point PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=367 1/4 11/12/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=367 2/4 11/12/2019 Mark and nancy Alpine 4495 In rosepoint pl X 5:53:28 smith point p PM 11/12/2019 Kenneth J 4523 N Rosepoint PI, Alpine X X 5:55:21 Clifford Meridian Pointe PM 11/12/2019 4025 N Dashwood Malissa Bernard X X X 5:56:15 Meridian PM 11/12/2019 Gordon and julie 2753 e wainwright dr X 5:57:08 eldredge PM 11/12/2019 4563 N Camas Creek Alpine Sherry Garey X 5:58:08 WayPoint PM 11/12/2019 Alpine Kathy Getto 4173 N Linwood Way X 5:58:19 Pointe PM 11/12/2019 Alpine Rich Getto 4173 N Linwood Way X 5:59:11 Pointe PM 11/12/2019 4563 N Camas Creek Alpine Chuck Garey X X 5:59:52 WayPoint PM 11/12/2019 Colleen Alpine 4290 N Chelmsford X 6:02:06 Neymeyer Pointe PM 11/12/2019 4084 N Brooksburg Pl, Alpine Robert Hartley X 6:02:30 Meridian, ID Pointe PM 11/12/2019 Dennis Alpine 4290 N Chelmsford X 6:02:44 Neymeyer Pointe PM 11/12/2019 Alpine Barbara Herner 4308 N Rosepoint Ave X X 6:03:16 Pointe PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=367 2/4 11/12/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=367 3/4 11/12/2019 Alpine Randy rebel 2779 e wainwright X 6:03:37 point PM 11/12/2019 Laura 4621 N. Camas Creek Alpine X 6:04:24 Trairatnobhas Way Pointe PM AMI 11/12/2019 David and 2499 East Wainwright Alpine X 6:05:17 Miriam Rosera Dr Pointe PM 11/12/2019 Alpine Lynette LaMay 4078 N Dashwood PI. X 6:05:30 Pointe PM 11/12/2019 Alpine Timothy nelson 2825 a waldemar dr X 6:06:14 pointe PM 11/12/2019 Julie Eldredge 2753 E wainwright dr X X 6:07:24 PM 11/12/2019 Champion Alison Crane 2654 E Mahoney St X X 6:08:14 Park PM 11/12/2019 Alpine Tyson LaMay 4078 N Dashwood PI X 6:09:19 Pointe PM 11/12/2019 Alpine Darren LaMay 4078 N Dashwwod PI. X 6:10:14 Pointe PM 11/12/2019 1886 N. Chandra Ave, Debbie Jeske X X 6:11:48 Meridian PM 11/12/2019 1979 N Locust Grove Will Dilmore X X 6:12:51 Rd PM 11/12/2019 Alpine Richard tiago 2596 a lacewood dr X 6:13:30 point PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=367 3/4 11/12/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=367 4/4 11/12/2019 4421 N Camas Creek Alpine Anna Stowe X 6:16:46 Way Meridian Idaho pointe PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=367 4/4 Page 1 HEARING DATE: November 12, 2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0027 Delano Subdivision LOCATION: 2800 & 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Comprehensive Plan map amendment to include 4.10 acres of land currently in Boise’s Area of City Impact and planning area in Meridian’s planning area with a Mixed Use – Regional Future Land Use Map designation; Annexation & zoning of 15.21 acres of land with R-15 (11.57 acres) and R-40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts; and, Preliminary plat consisting of 85 single-family residential building lots, 1 building lot for a 96-unit multi-family development and 12 common lots on 15.21 acres of land in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT 1. Project Summary 77STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 15.21 Future Land Use Designation MDR (in City of Meridian) & Mixed Use (in City of Boise) Existing Land Use 2 existing homes & accessory structures Proposed Land Use(s) Residential (SFR, attached & detached) Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-15 & R-40 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 85 SFR building/12 common/1 MFR building Phasing plan (# of phases) Yes; 2 phases Number of Residential Units (type of units) 181 SFR units (18 attached/67 detached SFR, 96 MFR apartments) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 32 of 139 Page 2 2. Community Metrics Density (gross & net) 7.35 (SFR, R-15) & 27 (MFR, R-40) gross; 11.8 (SFR, R-15) & 27 (MFR, R-40) net Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) See Analysis, Section V.3 Amenities Shade structure, (2) play structures, benches, pedestrian walkways Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: February 25, 2019; 92 attendees History (previous approvals) None Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Yes (tentatively scheduled to be heard on May 22, 2019) This project is being heard by the ACHD Commission because of objections from neighbors pertaining to the extension of Dashwood Pl. and connectivity to Centrepoint Way Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 1.3 miles from Fire Station #3 (can meet the response time requirements)  Fire Response Time 3 minutes under ideal conditions  Resource Reliability 82% from Fire Station #3 – does not meet the target goal of 85% or greater  Risk Identification 2 (residential); see comments in Section VIII.C  Accessibility Meets requirements; FD is concerned as there is no visitor parking in the development resulting in people parking in areas that may block access to residences. See additional comments in Section VIII.C.  Special/resource needs Doesn’t require an aerial device  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for 1 hour (may be less if building is sprinklered)  Other Resources NA Police Service  Distance to Police Station 5 miles  Police Response Time 4:30 minutes  Calls for Service 0  Accessibility PD has no issues with proposed access Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 33 of 139 Page 3  Specialty/resourc e needs No additional resources are needed; MPD already services this area.  Crimes 0  Crashes 0 West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Discovery Elementary – 2.8 miles; Heritage Middle School – 3.1 miles; Rocky Mountain High School – 5.5 miles  Capacity of Schools Discovery Elementary 650; Heritage Middle School 1,000; Rocky Mountain High School 1,800  # of Students Enrolled Discovery Elementary 515; Heritage Middle School 1,254; Rocky Mountain High School 2,448  Anticipated school aged children generated by this development 68 Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0-feet  Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s 181  WRRF Declining Balance 13.66 MGD  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns The following proposed manholes have less than 3' of cover: A -3, A-4, A- 5, C-1 and D-5. Public Works has previously discussed with the applicant the possibility of using grinder pumps in these shallow areas, but the plans do not note the use of them. If the parcel to the north of the multi-family is to be served by Meridian, applicant must stub sewer at minimum slope in N. Centrepoint Way to the north boundary line. Water  Distance to Water Services 0-feet  Pressure Zone 3  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application information  Water Quality None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns Public Works has met with SUEZ Water and agreed that water service to the north for the multi-family portion of the development will be provided Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 34 of 139 Page 4 3. Project Area Maps according to how annexation proceeds. Meridian will provide water in Meridian, and SUEZ will provide water in Boise. Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 35 of 139 Page 5 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Devco Development, LLC – 4824 E. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: Norm Cook – 14120 W. Jasmine Ln., Boise, ID 83713 Eddy Bollinger – 2800 E. Jasmine Ln., Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, Devco Development, LLC – 4824 E. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/12/2019; 6/28/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 4/9/2019; 6/25/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 4/22/2019; 7/8/2019 Nextdoor posting 4/9/2019; 6/25/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT The eastern 4.10 acres of the site located on the east side of N. Centrepoint Way is currently located within Boise’s Area of City Impact (AOCI) boundary and within their Comprehensive Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 36 of 139 Page 6 Plan with a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of General Mixed Use (see https://pds.cityofboise.org/media/151844/bb_chapter_3_06142018.pdf pgs. 3-11 thru 3-16 for more information on this designation) which encompasses the following: The Applicant proposes to amend the City of Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan to include this parcel in the City’s planning area with a FLUM designation of Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) per Exhibit A in Section VII of this report. The MU-R designation provides for a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional 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. For example, an employment center should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 37 of 139 Page 7 Staff believes the requested MU-R designation is appropriate due to the adjacent MU-R designated land to the south in the City of Meridian and the General Mixed use designated property to the north and east in the City of Boise; and due to the parcel’s proximity to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, a major transportation corridor and major arterial intersections (i.e. Ustick/Eagle and McMillan/Eagle). The proposed high density residential development will provide supporting residential uses for the commercial developments along the Eagle Road corridor. A few months ago, the Applicant submitted a request to the City of Boise to modify the boundary of their planning area to accomodate this project being included in Meridian’s planning area and FLUM but later withdrew the request the week the City Council was set to formally consider it. Therefore, the property is still in the Boise’s planning area and AOCI boundary. Staff would be more comfortable with this request if the Applicant had gained approval from the City of Boise to remove this area from their planning area prior to submittal of the subject application. Because the City can provide water and sewer service to this parcel, the land to the west and south is within Meridian’s planning area, and the greater portion of the development area for this project is currently within the City of Meridian’s planning area, it makes sense for the entire property to develop in the City of Meridian. Similarly, there have been other instances (i.e. Movado, Fast Eddy’s) where a development property is split between the City of Meridian and City of Boise where the balance of the property has been annexed into Meridian and developed. For efficient provision of City services, the parcel to the north (Parcel #R4582530100) should also be included in the map amendment. Inclusion of that property would allow City water and sewer services to eventually be extended to the south in N. Centrepoint Way from E. Wainwright Dr. where they currently dead-end (see map below), into a loop system (see Public Work’s condition #1.4 in Section VIII.B). Unimproved right-of-way (ROW) (400’+/-) within the City’s planning area exists from Wainwright to the north boundary of the parcel to the north. If the property to the north which lies in between the subject property and the existing ROW is not included in the City’s planning/service area, this connection will not be possible. See Public Works comments in Section VIII.B. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the map amendment contingent upon the property to the north also being included per Exhibit A in Section VII; otherwise Staff does not believe it’s in the City’s best interest to approve the proposed map amendment. Note: Denial of the map amendment will also necessitate denial of the Annexation and Zoning request for the (R-40) east parcel as it cannot be annexed without being included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 38 of 139 Page 8 2. ANNEXATION & ZONING The applicant requests annexation and zoning of the 11.57 acres west of N. Centrepoint Way with an R-15 zoning district; and the 5 acres east of N. Centrepoint Way with an R-40 zoning district consistent with the MDR and proposed MU-R FLUM designations. The eastern portion of the annexation area is considered a Category A annexation. Idaho State Statute 50-222.3(a) states, “Category A: Annexations wherein: (i) All private landowners have consented to annexation. Annexation where all landowners have consented may extend beyond the city area of impact provided that the land is contiguous to the city and that the comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation; . . .” The landowner has consented to this application and the Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include this land in the City of Meridian’s planning area in accord with this statute so the property can be annexed into the City of Meridian. Note: The parcel to the north (Parcel #R4582530100) recommended by Staff to be included in the amendment to the FLUM is not part of the annexation request. Annexation of that parcel would take place upon future redevelopment of that parcel at the property owner’s request. Comprehensive Plan (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for the portion of this site west of N. Centrepoint Way is Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the City of Meridian; the portion of the site east of N. Centrepoint Way is currently located in the City of Boise’s Area of City Impact boundary and is designated General Mixed Use. As noted in the previous section, the Applicant proposes to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 39 of 139 Page 9 amend the FLUM to include the eastern parcel in the City of Meridian’s planning area with a MU-R FLUM designation. The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 units per acre. The MU-R designation allows high density multi-family developments as supporting uses for higher intense commercial uses such as those to the south and east of this site along a major transportation corridor (i.e. Eagle Rd./SH-55) and near arterial intersections (i.e. McMillan/Eagle Rds. & Ustick/Eagle Rds.). Land Use: The proposed land use for this site is single-family residential (SFR) and a future multi-family residential (MFR) development (i.e. apartments). A total of 85 (18 attached and 67 detached) SFR units at a gross density of 7.36 units per acre, and a net density of 11.8 units per acre are proposed; and 96 apartment units are planned to develop in the future at a gross and net density of 27 units per acre. The proposed density is consistent with that desired in the MDR and MU-R designations respectively. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed single-family dwellings (attached & detached) are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning district; and the multi-family development is listed as a conditional use in the R-40 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Multi-family developments are subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27; compliance with these standards will be evaluated in the future through the conditional use permit process. Concept Plan: The Applicant submitted a concept development plan for the property to the north (Parcel # R4582530100) at Staff’s request to demonstrate how the property could possibly redevelop with the extension of N. Centrepoint Way to the north as planned on the MSM (see Section VII.E). Transportation: The Master Street Map (MSM) depicts a planned north/south commercial collector street through this site from the south boundary to the north boundary eventually connecting to E. Wainwright Dr. for access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): Goals, Objectives, & Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) A mix of SFR attached and detached homes and MFR apartment units are proposed within this development which will provide ownership and rental options for various income groups in this area.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The proposed development will provide housing options in close proximity to the employment and shopping center uses along the Eagle Rd. corridor.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02L) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 40 of 139 Page 10 The density proposed in the multi-family portion of the development falls within the high density category. The site is located within a mile of Kleiner Memorial Park, a 60-acre City Park, and is in close proximity to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, a major access thoroughfare.  “Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K) The MSM depicts a north/south collector street through this site; the proposed plan depicts a collector street in accord with the MSM.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) Qualified open space in accord with the minimum standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 is required.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to this development.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) One (1) access is proposed on the west side of N. Centrepoint Way, a collector street, to the SFR portion of the development; and one (1) access is proposed on the east side of N. Centrepoint Way for the MFR portion of the development.  “Coordinate with transportation agencies to ensure provision of services and transit development.” (6.02.02H) This site is not currently served by public transportation. However, ValleyConnect 2.0 proposes bus service on Eagle Rd. from the Boise Research Center to downtown Kuna with 20 minute frequencies in the peak hour. The Closest bus stop would be less than ½ mile from this site when that route is operational.  “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) There are no pathway connections to this development from adjacent developments to the north and south other than sidewalks adjacent to public streets. Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate with the Developer of the property to the south (Brickyard Apartments) to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two developments on each side of N. Centrepoint Way. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pgs. 23-24): (Staff’s analysis in italics) • “Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre.” The gross density of the proposed MFR development is 27 units per acre which falls within the range desired in mixed use designated areas. • “Where feasible, higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69.” The proposed development incorporates a MFR component along with the SFR development and is in close proximity (i.e. 460’) to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. The proposed development will provide housing options for nearby employment centers. • “A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application.” A concept plan was included on the landscape plan for the future MFR development in conjunction with the SFR development currently proposed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 41 of 139 Page 11 • “In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space.” This development does not include commercial/office buildings. • “The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development.” The proposed single-family attached and detached units will provide a transition in density and lot sizes between larger single-family residential lots to the north and the townhomes/multi-family lots to the south. This development does not include any commercial uses; however, the proposed multi-family development on the eastern portion of the site will provide a transition between the proposed single-family attached and detached units and future commercial/mixed uses along Eagle Rd. • “A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis.” The proposed development plan only includes one land use type (i.e. residential); however, three different types of residential units are proposed (i.e. single-family detached, attached and multi-family apartment units). Within the overall mixed use designated area, which incorporates land on both sides of Eagle Rd./SH55 to the south to Fairview Ave., there are a mix of uses as desired consisting of commercial (retail, restaurants, etc.), office and residential uses. • “Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments.” This is a relatively small portion of the overall mixed use designated area; none of these types of uses are proposed on this site nor have they been developed on the adjacent mixed use designated area to the south. • “Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count.” The proposed plan does not incorporate public and/or quasi-public spaces and places; the common area proposed in the residential development is owned by the Homeowner’s Association and does not satisfy this requirement. These types of public spaces have been provided in the adjacent mixed use designated area to the south. • “All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians.” The proposed development plan shows interconnectivity with the residential neighborhood to the north providing accessibility to the commercial development to the south via N. Centrepoint Way. • “Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code.” The proposed development plan includes a north/south collector street (i.e. N. Centrepoint Way) consistent with the Master Street Map. • “Because of the existing small lots within Old Town, development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein.” The proposed development is not within Old Town; therefore, this provision is not applicable. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 42 of 139 Page 12 In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-R areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pg. 30): • “Development should comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas.” See analysis above. • “Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre.” The proposed residential uses comprise 100% of the site. Densities of the SFR and MFR developments are in accord with this guideline. • “Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area.” No retail commercial uses are proposed with this development; however, the MU-R designated land to the south incorporates a large amount of retail commercial uses. • “There is neither a minimum nor a maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses.” No commercial uses are proposed with this development. Zoning: Based on the analysis above, Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts and proposed development is generally consistent with the MDR and proposed MU-R FLUM designations and is appropriate for this site. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the north and south; the R-15 area is within the Area of City Impact Boundary (AOCI) and the R-40 area is outside of the AOCI boundary. 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. 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are two (2) existing homes and accessory structures on this site. These structures are required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-7 for the R-15 and 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning districts (see below). The proposed plat complies with these standards. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 43 of 139 Page 13 Subdivision Design & Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): The proposed subdivision is required to be designed and improved per the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 which include but are not limited to streets, driveways, common driveways, easements, and block face. The proposed plan complies with these standards. Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in 2 phases. The first phase will include the extension of N. Dashwood Pl. from the north through the site to N. Centrepoint Way. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4)/Streets: Jasmine Lane, a 50-foot wide private street, currently provides access to the lots in Jasmine Acres Subdivision, including the subject properties. The private street is depicted on the Jasmine Acres subdivision plat. Staff is unaware if a separate recorded easement exists for the private street. Where the easement crosses the subject property it should be relinquished; proof of relinquishment shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. One access is proposed on either side of N. Centrepoint Way, a collector street; and from the extension of N. Dashwood Pl. at the north boundary of the site. A stub street (E. Jasmine St.) is proposed to the parcel to the west for access and future extension. Public streets are proposed Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 44 of 139 Page 14 within the SFR portion of the development with 27-foot wide street sections; private drive aisles will be provided within the MFR portion of the development. Staff recommends N. Centrepoint Way is extended/constructed with the first phase of development from the southern to the northern boundary of the site so that if re- development of the property to the north occurs before the multi-family portion of this site, the connection to Wainwright Dr. can be made and services can be extended as soon as possible. Traffic: A Traffic Impact Study was not required by ACHD for the proposed development; however, the Applicant did include an informal traffic analysis in their application narrative based on ACHD’s Policy Manual that takes into consideration existing traffic volumes in relation to anticipated traffic volumes from the proposed development and the resulting impacts to Wainwright Dr. & Dashwood Pl. The analysis shows the total trips per day on Wainwright at 41% of total capacity; and on Dashwood at 44% of total capacity resulting in 56-59% under total capacity for these streets, which should not overburden existing roadways systems if these calculations are correct. See application narrative for more information. Many letters of testimony have been received from adjacent residential property owners to the north regarding the amount of traffic that will be generated from the proposed development and routed through their neighborhood. For this reason, it’s imperative that the Centrepoint Way connection to Wainwright occur as soon as possible; thus, the reason for Staff’s recommendation for the property to the north to be included in the amendment to the FLUM and for the construction of Centrepoint to the northern boundary of the annexation area to occur with the first phase of development. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3) All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Three (3) common driveways are proposed that comply with UDC standards. Common driveways should be a maximum of 150’ in length or less, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Dept. 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. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s) is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. Signage should be provided at the ends of the common driveways on Lot 12, Block 1; Lot 7, Block 2; and Lot 19, Block 2 for emergency wayfinding purposes as requested by the Fire Department. Transition: There are 6 single-story structures with 10 dwelling units/properties proposed along the west boundary of this site adjacent to the 8.2 acre rural residential property to the west, which is currently in Ada County and designated as MDR (3-8 units/acre) on the FLUM. There are 5.5 existing single-story residential properties to the north that abut this site that are 0.31-0.38 of an acre in size; 10 structures with 15 dwelling units/properties are proposed along the north boundary of the site. The Applicant submitted an exhibit (I) in the narrative of the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 45 of 139 Page 15 application that demonstrates the proposed structures and lots in relation to existing homes, shops, parking areas and yards. Because the homes proposed along the north and west boundaries will all be a single-story in height, Staff believes they will have a lesser impact on adjacent neighbors than 2-story homes would have; therefore, Staff is not recommending a greater transition in lot sizes is proposed. However, the Commission and City Council should consider any public testimony provided in determining if fewer lots/structures should be provided along these boundaries as a better transition to existing residential properties. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Parking for single-family dwellings is required based on the number of bedrooms per unit. For 1- bedroom units, a minimum of 2 spaces per unit are required with at least one of those spaces in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad. For 2-3 bedroom units, a minimum of 4 spaces per unit are required with at least 2 of those spaces in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pads. Because of the proposed reduced 27-foot wide street sections, parking is restricted to one side of the street only. Because of the narrow lots (i.e. 32’+) for detached homes and associated driveways, there is not adequate room for on-street parking in front of those lots for guest parking and in some areas parking is a ways away. Where attached homes are proposed, there is room for approximately one space per every 2 lots for on-street parking. On-street parking (56 spaces) is also available adjacent to common lots within 200’ from any home within the development (see Exhibit H in Section VII). Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 with landscaping on either side of the pathway(s) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C. Because interconnectivity is important and especially so in mixed use developments, Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate with the Developer of the property to the south (Brickyard Apartments) to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two developments on each side of N. Centrepoint Way. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along all collector and arterial streets; and minimum 5-foot wide attached (or detached) sidewalks are required along local streets as proposed. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 17E. Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along collector streets and along local street abutting common areas in accord with UDC standards. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided within common lots in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Per UDC Tables 11-2A-7 and 11-2A-8, a 20-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to N. Centrepoint Way, a collector street. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Based on the overall development area which consists of 15.21 acres of land, a minimum of 10% (1.52 acres) qualified open space is required to be provided within the development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 46 of 139 Page 16 A qualified open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.F that depicts 1.33 acres (or 11.5%) of open space for the SFR portion of the development consisting of a half-acre park with amenities, parkways, a micro-path lot, a collector street buffer and a local street buffer. Alternative Compliance is requested to count the local street/land use buffer along the southern boundary of the site toward the qualified open space requirements (see Section 4 below for more information). The qualified open space on the MFR portion of the site east side of Centrepoint Way includes area that does not qualify (i.e. the perimeter buffer along the east boundary) and is below the 10% required of the total land area (i.e. 5 acres). Because that portion of the site is not planned to develop at this time and is conceptual in nature and likely to change, Staff recommends a DA provision is added requiring a minimum 10% qualified open space is provided at the time of development that meets the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B. This requirement is in addition to that required in UDC 11-4-3-27C for MFR developments. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided for this development based on the size of the development (i.e. 15.21 acres). The Applicant proposes a shade structure, children’s play structure, children’s climbing dome, children’s climbing boulders, seating benches, micro-pathways and possibly a swing set as amenities, which exceed UDC standards. Existing Trees: There are many existing trees on this site the Applicant states are being removed by the residential property owner for firewood. Include mitigation information on the plan for any existing trees that are not removed by the property owner in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Nourse Lateral runs along the northern boundary of this site and is piped. An easement should be depicted on the plat for the waterway. If the easement is 10 feet or greater, it should be located within a common lot that is a minimum 20-feet wide and outside of a fenced area unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6D. 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. The existing fencing along the north and southwest boundaries of the site is proposed to remain. A 6-foot tall solid vinyl privacy fence is proposed along the west, south and east boundaries of the SFR portion of the site as well as along the north, east and south boundaries of the MFR portion of the site in accord with UDC standards. A 4-foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed around the perimeter of the children’s play area on Lot 1, Block 3. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII-B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 47 of 139 Page 17 Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-family attached and detached units and multi-family apartment structures as shown in Section VII.F. Building materials for the single-family homes consist of a mix of siding (horizontal and vertical lap siding and board & batten) with stone veneer accents. The single-family attached and multi-family structures are required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual; single-family detached structures are exempt from this requirement. All SFR homes along the west and north perimeter boundaries of the development will be a single-story in height. Because the rear and/or side of 2-story structures on Lots 14-18 and 51, Block 2 that face N. Centrepoint Way will be highly visible, Staff recommends those elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single- story structures are exempt from this requirement. Public Testimony: Many letters of testimony have been received on this application, primarily from residential neighbors to the north in Alpine Pointe Subdivision (aka Zebulon Heights). The primary concerns are the intensity of the development (i.e. density is too high); not enough transition in lot sizes to lower larger lots to the north; extension of N. Dashwood Pl. and Centrepoint Way and resulting traffic generated from this development and from the developments to the south that will be routed through their subdivision until Centrepoint can be extended to the north to Wainwright in a more direct fashion; and safety concerns for children pertaining to traffic. The neighbors have suggested several alternate development plans that would result in less traffic through their neighborhood. See public testimony in the project file for more information. 4. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE The applicant requests alternative compliance to UDC 11-3G-3B, as allowed in UDC Table 11- 5B-5, to be allowed to count the area of a local street buffer toward the minimum qualified open space for the development. The qualified open space pertaining to street buffers listed in UDC 11-3G-3B allows the full area of collector street buffers and 50% of arterial street buffers to count toward the minimum required common open space; local street buffers do not count toward the minimum requirements. The Applicant proposes to construct a 29-foot wide landscape buffer along the southern boundary of the SFR portion of the site with dense landscaping along E. Jasmine St., a local street, to buffer the abutting 3-story apartment structures in Brickyard Subdivision. In order to grant a request for Alternative Compliance, the Director must determine if the alternative provides an equal or superior means of meeting the intent and purpose of the regulation (see Findings in Section IX.D). The Director has reviewed the request and finds the proposed alternative means for meeting the intended purpose of UDC 11-3G-3 has been met. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 48 of 139 Page 18 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment if the parcel to the north (R4582530100) is also included, the Annexation & Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications with the conditions included in Section VIII.A per the Findings in Section IX. If the parcel to the north (R4582530100) is not included in the map amendment, Staff recommends denial of annexation and zoning request for the eastern parcel (i.e. R-40 zone). B. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on May 2 and July 18, 2019. At the public hearing on July 18th, the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject CPAM, AZ and PP requests to City Council. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jim Conger; b. In opposition: Malissa Bernard (representing many neighbors on Dashwood Place to the north in Alpoint Point Sub.); Frank Marcos (Alpine Point Sub. HOA President); Kenneth Clifford; Sherry Garey; Greg Walker; Patricia Pitzer; Joy Cameron; Sandi King; Laura Trairatnobhas c. Commenting: Connie Thompson; d. Written testimony: Many (47+/-) letters of testimony were received (see public record). e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Consensus that proposed density of development is too high; b. Not enough transition in lot sizes is proposed to larger lots to the north; c. Concern pertaining to the extension of Dashwood Pl. and Centrepoint Way and resulting traffic generated from the proposed development and from the commercial and multi- family residential developments to the south that will be routed through the subdivision to the north if Jasmine is connected to Centrepoint before Centrepoint can be extended to the north to Wainwright; d. Safety concerns for children pertaining to traffic; e. The proposed development is premature and that infrastructure (i.e. the extension of Centrepoint to Wainwright) should be in place prior to the development going in, not after the fact; f. There has been no negotiation with neighbors by the Developer as directed by the Commission; 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. The desire for the City of Boise to take action on a request to exclude the eastern portion of the site from their Area of City Impact boundary prior to the City making a decision on this application; b. The possibility of only an emergency access via Dashwood Pl.; c. Concern pertaining to adequacy of parking for the development; d. Preference for R-8 vs. R-15 zoning for the single-family portion and R-15 vs. R-40 zoning for the multi-family portion of the site as a transition to adjacent zoning; e. Density should be reduced due to Heritage Middle School and Rock Mountain High School already being over capacity; f. Desire for the Applicant to work with neighbors to address issues that were brought up at the hearing. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 49 of 139 Page 19 a. The Commission recommended denial of the proposed CPAM, AZ and PP applications to the City Council based on their desire for the Applicant to obtain approval from the City of Boise for the adjustment to the Area of City Impact boundary; and opinion the applicant did not sufficiently work with the neighbors on their concerns pertaining to the proposed development. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 50 of 139 Page 20 VII. EXHIBITS A. Applicant Proposed & Staff Recommended Future Land Use Maps Proposed by Applicant: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 51 of 139 Page 21 Recommended by Staff: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 52 of 139 Page 22 B. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 53 of 139 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 54 of 139 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 55 of 139 Page 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 56 of 139 Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 57 of 139 Page 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 58 of 139 Page 28 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 59 of 139 Page 29 C. Preliminary Plat (date: 2/18/2019) & Phasing Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 60 of 139 Page 30 D. Landscape Plan (date: 2/20/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 61 of 139 Page 31 E. Possible Conceptual Development Plan for Parcel to the North Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 62 of 139 Page 32 F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit & Site Amenities Note: Only qualified open space depicted in the R-15 zoned area is approved. Not Approved Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 63 of 139 Page 33 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 64 of 139 Page 34 G. Conceptual Building Elevations (Single-Family Attached/Detached and Multi-Family Apartments) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 65 of 139 Page 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 66 of 139 Page 36 H. Parking Exhibit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 67 of 139 Page 37 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, phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. All single-family attached and multi-family structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An application for Design Review shall be submitted and approved for all attached dwellings prior to submittal of building permit applications. An application for Design Review and Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be submitted and approved for all multi-family structures prior to submittal of building permit applications. c. Single-family homes along the west and north perimeter boundaries of the development shall be restricted to a single-story in height as proposed by the Developer. d. The rear and/or side of 2-story structures on Lots 14-18 and 51, Block 2 that face N. Centrepoint Way shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. e. A Conditional Use Permit is required to be submitted and approved for the multi-family development prior to application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review. f. The construction of N. Centrepoint Way from the southern boundary to the northern boundary of the annexation area shall occur with the first phase of development. g. The Developer shall coordinate with the developer of the property to the south (Brickyard Apartments) to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two developments on the west and east sides of N. Centrepoint Way. h. A minimum 10% (0.5 of an acre) qualified open space shall be provided with development of the portion of the site on the east side of N. Centrepoint Way based on the total land area before dedication of right-of-way (i.e. 5 acres) as set forth in UDC 11- 3G-3B. This requirement is in addition to the common open space standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C for multi-family developments. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 68 of 139 Page 38 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict an easement for the Nourse Lateral along the north boundary of the site. If the easement is 10 feet or greater, it shall be located within a common lot that is a minimum 20-feet wide and outside of a fenced area unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6D. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. Include mitigation information on the plan for any existing trees on the site that are not removed by the residential property owner for fire wood in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. 4. The 50-foot wide private street easement (i.e. Jasmine Lane) shall be relinquished where it crosses the subject property. Proof of relinquishment shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 5. For lots accessed by common driveways, an exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. 6. Provide address signage for homes accessed by the common driveways on Lot 12, Block 1; Lot 7, Block 2; and Lot 19, Block 2 for emergency wayfinding purposes. 7. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 8. All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat phase in which they are located. 9. Parking is restricted to only one side of the 27-foot wide street sections; signage shall be installed prohibiting parking on one side of the street to ensure emergency access can be provided. 10. The Director approved the Applicant’s request for Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3G-3 to count the local street buffer along the south side of E. Jasmine St. toward the qualified open space. 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 The following proposed manholes have less than 3' of cover: A-3, A-4, A-5, C-1 and D-5. Public Works has previously discussed with the applicant the possibility of using grinder pumps in these shallow areas, but the plans do not note the use of them. If the parcel to the north of the multi-family is to be served by Meridian, applicant must stub sewer at minimum slope in N. Centrepoint Way to the north boundary line. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 69 of 139 Page 39 1.3 Each phase must be modeled to ensure adequate fire flow. 1.4 Public Works has met with SUEZ Water and agreed that water service to the north for the multi-family portion of the development will be provided according to how annexation proceeds. Meridian will provide water in Meridian, and SUEZ will provide water in Boise. If the area being considered for inclusion is to be served by the City of Meridian, the Public Works Department would like to have a completed water main loop north to the existing water main in E. Wainwright Drive. The purpose of this loop is not for flow and pressure reasons, it is to create redundancy and for mitigation of water quality concerns created by dead end mainlines. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 70 of 139 Page 40 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 71 of 139 Page 41 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164748/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165252/Page1.aspx E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165379/Page1.aspx F. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165231/Page1.aspx G. SETTLER’S IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164812/Page1.aspx H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=165010&dbid=0 I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164959/Page1.aspx J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165083/Page1.aspx K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/169441/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 72 of 139 Page 42 IX. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 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 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and FLUM designation of MU-R is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the property to the north (Parcel #R4582530100) is also included in the map amendment as detailed in Section V.1 of this report. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. The Commission finds that the proposal to modify the Future Land Use Map to include a parcel of land that is currently in the City of Boise’s planning area for development in the City, along with the adjacent parcel to the north as recommended, will provide an improved guide to future growth and development of the City if the City of Boise approves an adjustment to their Area of Impact boundary. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section V. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Commission finds the proposed amendment will be compatible with adjacent existing residential and future commercial uses. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. Sewer and water services are available to be extended to this site. 7. The proposed map amendment (as applicable) provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. The Commission finds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section V and the subject findings above, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City if the parcel to the north is also included in the amendment as recommended by Staff in Section V.1. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 73 of 139 Page 43 B. 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 property with R-15 and R-40 zoning consistent with the MDR and proposed MU-R designations. If the property to the north of the land proposed to be zoned R-40 is not included in the FLUM amendment, the Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (See section V above for more information.) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and subsequent development would be detrimental to the public safety and welfare due to the high volume of traffic from the proposed development and commercial development to the south that would be funneled through Alpine Point Subdivision with the extension of N. Dashwood Place to E. Wainwright Dr. 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 City services are available to be provided to this development. The School District has submitted comments, included in Section VIII.J that currently show student enrollment is below capacity for the elementary school and over capacity for the middle school and high school; the Commission finds the proposed map amendment would result in an adverse impact on the school district. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City at this time due to the Commission’s desire to have the City of Boise act on a request for exclusion of the eastern portion of the subject property from their Area of City Impact boundary. Further, the Commission finds the Applicant did not work with the adjacent neighbors sufficiently on issues discussed at the hearing. C. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) 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 November 12, 2019 – Page 74 of 139 Page 44 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and are 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 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 would be detrimental to the public safety and general welfare due to the proposed extension of N. Dashwood Pl. to Wainwright Dr. and the resulting high volume of traffic that would be routed through a residential neighborhood (Alpine Point Sub.); extension of N. Centrpoint Way, a collector street, to E. Wainwright Dr. should take place first. 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 would need to be preserved with this development. D. Alternative Compliance (UDC 11-5B-5E) Required Findings: In order to grant approval for an Alternative Compliance application, the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or Staff finds that strict adherence or application of the requirements of UDC 11-3G-3 are feasible. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and Staff finds the proposed alternative means of compliance provides an equal means for meeting the requirements in UDC 11-3G-3. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. Staff finds the alternative means of complying with UDC 11-3G-3 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties and will actually be a benefit to the public welfare by providing a buffer between the high density and medium density residential uses and 2- and 3-story structures. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 75 of 139 Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, Lies: I wish that developers and builder who come before the council were made to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Since that isn't so, the best we can do is refute his testimony. 1)He has testified that he spoke with each adjoining property owner individually to negotiate the design of Delano. Not true. Other than the fact that Laren came to our doors Spring 2018 to inform us of a neighborhood meeting, no contact has been made individually. There have been no negotiations, no compromises. The plan at the April 2018 meeting is essentially the same as todays plan. I have attached a letter signed by all adjoining property owners attesting to that fact.2) He states The City is holding him to a R15 and R40 density. This is not true either. Bill Parsons testified that the R40 portion, which DEVCO stated they intend to sell off, that R15 would work, and that R15 would be required as a transition from the Brickyard Apt. The project was denied before the discussion of transition from R4 to R15 could be discussed. 3) Thresholds at Centre Pointe will be exceeded — not true as Malissa pointed out and supported by ACHD email. Density: 10 homes along 3 adjoining property owners is unacceptable. 6 of these duet, or twin homes if you will, would abut a single property owners back yard and only 12 feet from their fence line. There is no buffering. Going from a R4 to directly to a R15 is NOT transition. 114-114, or 114-118, then R8 -R15 would be appropriate. Aesthetics: What would these homes look like? We have the Brickyard which is already nicknamed The Barracks. Now we are looking a duet homes that look like Base Housing? Thoroughfare.: Records Ave runs from Fairview, behind The Village, across Ustick, behind the Lowes shopping center, behind the church then out to Eagle Rd. This collector road is doing what it is designed to do — keep traffic off congested Eagle Road. Centre Point is designed to do the same thing. Run from Ustick, behind the Kohl's, Hobby Lobby center, behind the Fast Eddys, and connect to the commercial section of Wainwright, then to Eagle Rd. Connecting Centre Pointe to Wainwright, according to ACHD, might not be developed for as much as 10 years. This plan would allow Delano to become the commercial collector, running through 2 subdivisions with forward facing houses and no traffic calming. Other designs have been offered with streets coming out to Centre Point as a solution, but they have fallen on deaf ears at Devco. Connectivity: Dashwood was not intended a thru street but did require connectivity to the adjoining property. This can still be accomplished with finishing out the court with a path and bollards such as the ones displayed here. This is being done in other developments here in Meridian P&Z: P&Z members opined about there being so many troubling flaws and problems with this subdivision but felt the fatal flaw, having Boise release the Cook Parcel to Meridian, would need to be addressed before further discussions were held. They moved to deny the application. Mr. Conger is slick. Get denied at P&Z, state he did what P&Z wanted, then come before council under the guise of fulfilling P&Z requests of working with the neighbors. Laren did hold a meeting on Sept 26 that started with Quote: We do not intend to change anything... Unquote. Didn't work with us at all, but it fulfilled his goal, if only in his mind. I respectfully request Council deny the Delano application based on the points laid before you... lack of transition and too high of density on the North, thoroughfare traffic, no calming, no P&Z approval. We know something will go there. We are not denying the property owners right to sell. But let's reach for a sensible plan and not settle for this poorly designed one. Work with us, P&Z, and lets come together as a community. Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Meridian City Council, My name is Patty Pitzer. My husband and I live at 2703 E Wainwright Dr in Alpine Pointe. I am one of the adjacent property owners. I am writing to refute Mr. Conger's testimony before the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee on July 18, 2019, that he has had, quote from Page 57 of the P&Z minutes, "numerous individual meetings with our five adjacent owners..... We agreed to build single level homes in our discussions in exchange for our density impact along our north and west boundary ....... and negotiated in individual meetings with those adjacent meetings, as we always meet with our adjacent neighbors." Unquote. I have personally spoken to all six adjacent property owners. All six have given me permission to speak on their behalf and 5 are co-signers of this letter. With the exception of Laren Baily coming to our doors in April 2018 to tell of us an upcoming neighborhood meeting at Famous Dave's, we have had no individual contact with anyone from Devco. To testify that he has had "numerous individual meetings" with any of us is an out and out lie. Jim Conger may have spoken to us at one of the neighborhood meetings, but nothing on an individual basis. I recall asking a question to which I was given a reply. But other than that, Mr. Conger is out and out lying about meeting with us, much less about negotiating with us. There have been no negotiations in individual meetings, period. Every adjacent property owner, and, again, I have permission to speak on their behalf, is against the high density of a R15 rezone, oppose the proposed single family "duet" homes with 30'-40' frontages and 12' setback to our fences, and the lack of transitioning from R4 to R15. A reasonable transition of R-4, to R- 4, to R-8, to R-15 has been discussed at previous neighborhood meetings, however, Devco has refused to budge on his development design. I am not opposed to housing behind me. I knew something would go back there at some point. But with so many other GOOD plans available, why do we have to consider the BAD plan. Madam Mayor and Member of the City Council, we ask you to have Mr. Conger work with us, as Planning and Zoning has requested on May 2 and July 18 meetings, but to which Devco/Jim Conger has refused to do, to find a harmonious plan instead of trying to fit the square peg in the round hole by forcing it upon us. Delano Sub has been denied by City of Meridian Planning and Zoning. We ask you to deny his request to rezone to R15, and to deny the application for Delano Subdivision until it can be reworked to be amicable and livable for the surrounding neighborhood. Signed: Jeff and Melissa Job —4001 Dashwood Dr, Meridian, ID 83646 Virgil and Barbara King -4012 Dashwood Dr, Meridian, ID 83646 William and Marge Schumacher — 2723 Wainwright Dr. Meridian, ID 83646 David and Patricia Pitzer-2701 E Wainwright Dr, Meridan, ID 83646 Robert and Cany Argo — 2677 Wainwright Dr, Meridian, ID 83646 *James and Jennifer Ostyn — 4019 Brooksburg Ct, Meridian, ID 83646, have submitted a separate letter but have agreed to state they are in agreedment with the facts of this letter. ti nqa. 0 entr'epoint Wa I 1 � � _ r CU 1p CL wit Ast . f. m T ■ 31 K-41 CO C+) Is Ts}; lit Mol! -- 0-11 lit Mol! -- 0-11 Rini, November 5, 2019 To the Honorable Mayor Tammy de Weerd and to the Members of the City of Meridian City Council: I am writing this letter in reference to the application for Delano Subdivision AZ, CPAM, PP H-2019-0027 filed by DevCo Development, LLC on April 4, 2019. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include 4.10 acres of land currently in the Boise's area of City Impact with a Mixed - Use Regional land use designation. This includes Annexation of Zoning of 15.21 acres of land with R-15 (11.57 acres) and R-40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts and a Preliminary Plat of 85 SFR building lots, 1 building lot for MFR and 12 common lots. We have noticed non-compliance with Unified Development Codes set forth for the application process, and more than several violations of the procedures for applicants has occurred, resulting in six infractions of this code (possibly a seventh) associated with the Delano project. For example, 11-5A-6: PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, Section B states: "Preapplication Meeting: No more than four (4) months prior to submitting an application, applicants for permits requiring a public hearing to conduct a preapplication meeting with the department. Requests for city council review do not require preapplication meetings. (Ord. 14-1623, 9-2-2014)" The pre -application meeting with the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning regarding the Delano pre -plat occurred on February 7, 2018. The application for this project went forth on April 4, 2019, though it was submitted on February 26, 2019, over a year after the applicant met with City of Meridian planners and ITD. The dated pre -application meeting notes are on Page 48 of 63 in the Delano application packet. In reference to 11-5A-6: PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, Section C, Neighborhood Meetings, Item 3: "Notice of the meeting shall be provided at least five (5) days prior to the meeting. The meeting shall be held not more than three (3) months or less than five (5) days prior to the submittal of an application." DevCo held a neighborhood meeting on February 25, 2019, and submitted the application to the City of Meridian on February 26, 2019, much less than the five (5) days required before the submittal of an application. Furthermore, the DevCo mailed notice for a January 10, 2019 neighborhood meeting that was received by neighbors on January 7, 2019 in the mail, only !-days before the neighborhood meeting. While this meeting is not the latest February 25, 2019 Neighborhood Meeting associated with the application, it is nevertheless a violation of City of Meridian Unified Development Code regarding the parameters set forth for all Neighborhood Meetings. In reference to 11-5A-6: PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, Section D. Posting of Public Hearing Notice, Item 2. "Time Frame: Not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing, the applicant shall post a copy of the public hearing notice of the application on the property under consideration. Except as noted herein, posting of the property must be in substantial compliance with the following requirements: " (the description of the 4 x 4 sign criteria and lettering is then described in the UDC). DevCo is in violation of this code and procedure. On August 20, 2019 there was a City Council Meeting for this application, and the 4x4 sign for that City Council Meeting was never posted. Alpine Pointe HOA made their own signs (4) to give visual notice to our neighbors for this referenced City Council Meeting held on August 20, 2019 at 6 PM. The item could not be heard that evening, and another date was assigned to the Delano application. In reference to 11-5A-6: Public Hearing Notice, Section D. Posting of Public Hearing Notice, Item 5. "Sign Removal: The signs shall be removed no later than three (3) days after the public hearing for which the sign had been posted is ended. (OR. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005; amd. Ord. 14-1623, 9-2-2014)" DevCo has not removed signs within this time frame by code, re. 4 x 4 foot signage for the May 2, 2019 Public Hearing Notice for the Planning and Zoning Commission, this fact is verifiable by the Alpine Pointe HOA. DevCo had not removed the sign for the Public Hearing Notice for the Planning and Zoning Commission for July 18, 2019 until the afternoon of August 20, 2019. Furthermore, the sign for the September 17, 2019 City Council Meeting was not removed by the applicant until October 28, 2019, having been noticed on the premises late afternoon on October 27, 2019. In reference to Article A, GENERAL PROVISIONS, 11-6A-2: APPLICABILITY, "These regulations shall apply to the subdivision of all land within the legally defined Meridian city limits and the area of city of impact. It shall be unlawful and considered a violation of the unified development code for any person to initiate or cause to be initiated the subdivision of any land or real property in any manner which violates, omits, or fails to conform to any procedure, design or improvement standard, and/or requirement set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008), which segues into 11-6b-2: PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESS, item D. Public Hearing Requirements: All preliminary plat applications shall comply with the public notice and hearing procedures in accord with chapter 5, Administration, of this title." To reiterate: the Delano Preliminary Plat application is not in compliance of Chapter 5. The Pre - application meeting occurred on February 7, 2018, with the late submission of the application on February 26, 2019, which is over one year after the Pre -application Meeting with the Planning Division. Furthermore, on February 26, 2019, only one day after a neighborhood meeting, this application was received by the City of Meridian. In addition, Notice of the City Council Meeting for August 20, 2019 was not posted as required. Removal of signage for meetings within three (3) days was not done, on three separate occasions (May 2, 2019 and July 18, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearings, and the September 17, 2019 City of Meridian City Council notice). The applicant is in violation of standard operating procedure in the City of Meridian Unified Development Code for Subdivision Process, Preapplication Procedures, Hearings, and Meetings, in addition to lack of proper signs for notification to residents adjacent to the proposed development. Not every citizen has access to the internet notifications, website notifications, or newspaper notifications. This application for Delano Subdivision AZ, CPAM, PP H-2019-0027 should be denied immediately. The applicant is not only in violation of Preapplication Procedures, Hearings, and Meetings for one infraction, but has incurred six violations for Delano Subdivision AZ, CPAM, PP H-2019-0027 alone (seven violations if the late mailing for the 10 January 2019 Neighborhood Meeting is included) . Thank you. Sincerely, Malissa Bernard Alpine Pointe Resident 4025 N Dashwood PI Meridian, ID 83646 copy COMMITMENT OF PROPERTY POSTING Per Unified Development Code (UDC) 11 -5A -SD, the applicant for all applications requiring a public hearing (except for a UDC text amendment, a Comprehensive Plan text amendment and/or vacations) shall post the subject property not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing. The applicant shall post a copy of the public hearing notice of the application(s) on the property under consideration. The applicant shall submit proof of property posting in the form of a notarized statement and a photograph of the posting to the City no later than seven (7) days prior to the public hearing attesting to where and when the sign(s) were posted. Unless such Certificate is received by the required date, the hearing will be continued. The sign(s) shall be removed no later than three (3) days after the end of the public hearing for which the sign(s) had been posted. I am aware of the above requirements and will comply with the posting requirements as stated in UDC 11-5A-5. -a "©o Ap lic nt/agent signature Date Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax; 208-888-6854 www meridiancity.ors/planning (03/23/2018) Solterra Subdivision: 89 homes 65 Participated in Survey This survey was conducted October 26, 2019 - November 7, 2019 QUESTION: Do you have school age children at home? 11 Households said"yes" Further survey results show.- Of how: Of these 11, they reported a total of 27 school age children • 27 kids = 0.4 kids per house • Of those 27, only 8 were new to the school district 11 Intermountain MLS Search Criteria on 11.07.2019 Meridian New Homes Price under $325,000 MERIDIAN UNDER $325,000 AVAILABLE NEW HOMES 80 Total Homes = 6 weeks of inventory CBH Homes 69 homes Blackrock Homes 6 homes Miscellaneous 5 homes 6% TOP SELLING 2018 NEW CONSTRUCTION MERIDIAN NEIGHBORHOODS SOLD HOMES 1. The Oaks by Coleman Homes 91 sales in 2018, Median price: $318,500 Average Days on Market: 10 2. Bainbridge 86 sales in 2018, Median price: $456,000 Average Days on Market: 91 3. Fall Creek 71 sales in 2018, Median price: $418,700 Average Days on Market: 12 4.Verado 60 sales in 2018, Median Price: $255,900 Average Days on Market: 7 5. Bridgetower West 58 sales, Median price: $438,900 Average Days on Market: 63 3❑ Solterra, Subdivision* 89 homes 65 Participated in Survey This survey was conducted October 26, 2019 - November 7, 2019 QUESTION: Do you have school age children at home' 11 Households said "yes"" Further survey results shovr: s Of these 11, they reported a total of 27 school age children 9 27 kids = 0.4 kids per house + Of thane 27, only 8 were new to the school district 4 Intermountain MLS Search Criteria on 11.07,2019 Meridian New Hames Price under $325,000 MERIDIAN UNDER $325,000 AVAILABLE NEW HOMES Bo Total Homes = 6 weeks of inventory CBH Homes 69 homes 86°Ian Blackrock Homes 6 homes 81% Miscellaneous 5 homes 6% TOP SELLING 2018 NEW CONSTRUCTION MERIDIAN NEIGHBORHOODS OLD HOMES 1.. The Oaks by Coleman Harries 91 sales in 2018, Median price:. $318,500 Average Days on Market: 10 2. Bainbridge 86 sales in 2018, Median price: $456,000 Average Gays on Market: 91 3. Fall Creek 71 sales in 2018, Median price. $418,700 Average Days on Market: 12 4. Vera do 60 sales in 2018, Median Price: $255,900 Average Days on (Market: 7 5. Bridgetow+er West 58 sales, Median price: $4.38,900 Average Days on Market: 63 City of Meridian, City Council Meeting Nov 12, 2019 at 6 PM 33 E Broadway, Meridian, Idaho Malissa Bernard, Alpine Pointe HOA, Community Outreach Committee, Chair DevCo Delano Proposal, recommended for Denial -unanimously-by P and Z Commissioners on July 18, 2019 •241 Residents signed a letter stating we are against this application in its current form, filed with the City Clerk. That still stands. •Over 77 items of written testimony submitted as of 7 Nov 2019 via City Clerk , many offering solutions •Much higher than average attendance at hearings and meetings by Alpine Pointe residents. We call. We write. We show up. •We chose our homes carefully and in good faith. The City and ACHD hadn’t signed properly for Dashwood Pl or for the future collector. ACHD did not reveal the full collector plan online until 2018 re. Master Street Map materials •Our neighbors care for one another, and our homes are our havens. -211 HOMES @ < 3 HOMES PER ACRE -APPROX. 90-ACRES RESIDENTIAL -EST. $100 MILLION IN VALUE, JUST IN HOME VALUES…NOT COMMON LOTS, AMENITIES, OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 3 IS OVER-CONNECTED! DELANO 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 Current ingress/egress 6 Note: thoughtful planning for Madison Park/A. Pointe lessens impact upon that connected neighborhood Future/pending ingress/egress 3 All N/S, and very close together Future commercial collector traffic Future Troxel/Wingate light and Conley/Rogue River Connection Current cut-through and local traffic patterns via Alpine Pointe Collateral traffic from schools at Leighfield and Locust, and the eastern Champion Park entry Settlers Park Cut-through Locust Grove-Alpine Pointe-Eagle Rd, E/W, W/E Older low density Rural neighborhood—Locust Grove connection solely Settlers Bridge Schools Summerfield Champion Park Brickyard 4 -plexes Commercial Madison Park 4 Traffic Patterns Here are the current, proposed, and possible future traffic patterns that this area may experience. The potential of a vital ingress/egress that extended Jasmine Street could provide to alleviate traffic burdens, especially when the Wong, Hedrick, and Enzler parcels are developed. Legend Pink= possible Enzler parcel layout Royal = Delano Red = Future Commercial Collector Green = Jasmine St. (former Jasmine Ln) could be extended east onto Cook’s Orange = Centrepointe Way N to S Turquoise = Fast Eddy’s/Brickyard future road (currently stubbed, in Meridian documents.) White = Existing Jasmine Ln/Eagle Yellow = Existing Centrepoint Way flow to light from Eagle to Centrepoint to Ustick ??Estate or sub •SOLTERRA -30 Homes would fit on Dashwood’s 8 deeded lots •Where to park in front of homes on these skinny lots? Notice on garbage day there is no room to park on either side. Driveways would be blocked, on any given day. No eaves. •Zero lot homes. How does a resident do maintenance…one must trespass to rake snow off roof, or to paint. 5 R-4 zone, 2.76 homes per acre smallest lot on Dashwood is 12200 sf E Kern Street ?? Extended Jasmine StreetJasmine Street Perhaps R-15 designation or 30-40 two- story townhomes on this parcel. This is copied from Verraso Village Enzler Parcel in Transition Estate? Estate and Homes? Future CUP? E Della Street Ce n t r e p o i n t W a y Ce n t r e p o i n t W a y From ACHD RECENT CORRESPONDENCE : “On May 22, 2019, the Ada County Highway District Commission reviewed and approved the preliminary plat application Delano Subdivision. Since ACHD’s approval of the project neighboring property owners have raised concerns regarding the level of service of Centrepoint Way and the connectivity of public streets. Both of these issues are addressed in ACHD’s staff report (Table 2, pg. 2 and pg. 6), however, to avoid confusion the following clarifications are provided. Level of Service –Centerpointe Way: There has been some confusion regarding the current and future level of service for Centerpointe Way. As reported in Table 2, of the staff report, Centerpointe Way currently operates at an acceptable level of service, with 139 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour at 30% of its available capacity. At buildout of the Delano Subdivision and the Brickyard Subdivision, located to the south, Centrepoint Way is still anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service with 233 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour; the roadway will be at 55% of its available capacity. Centerpointe Way is not anticipated to exceed ACHD’s acceptable level of service planning threshold. Public Street Connectivity: ACHD and the City of Meridian both have policies requiring the extension of stub streets and interconnectivity between subdivisions. The preliminary plat application approved by ACHD, provides public street connectivity consistent with ACHD policies. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (208) 387-6335. Sincerely, Austin Miller, Planner II, Development Services” 10 DEVCO SAID TO P & Z COMMISSIONERS THIS PROJECT WITH DELANO APTS ALONE WOULD HAVE PUT CENTREPOINT NEAR THRESHOLD CAPACITY…THIS IS A FALSE NARRATIVE THE CENTREPOINT COLLECTOR ENTRY WILL SUPPORT THIS PROJECT FULLY FOR DELANO SFR AND APARTMENTS, WITHOUT A DASHWOOD ENTRY (55% OF CAPACITY FOR ALL AREA PROJECTS) YES, ACHD DID ACCEPT THIS PP APPLICATION, BUT OTHER ROAD CONFIGURATIONS IN ANOTHER PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN WOULD MEET AND BE CONSISTENT WITH ACHD POLICIES---A THOUSAND DIFFERENT PLANS WOULD SATISFY ACHD CITY COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO STATE WHERE THE ACCESS GATE GOES…IT IS WITHIN THE CITY’S PURVIEW AND CONTROL ON GATES. INTERCONNECTIVITY CAN BE BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN AS WELL. THE CITY & ACHD DID THIS BEFORE, AN EXAMPLE IS THE CUL-DE-SAC IN THREE CORNERS RANCH PLAN, FROM VIENNA WOODS (DVORAK) AT THE NORTH…THIS WAS DONE TO PREVENT OVER- CONNECTIVITY…DVORAK AND BARCLAY ARE DECOMMISSIONED STUB ROADS. HTTP://WEBLINK.MERIDIANCITY.ORG/WEBLINK8/DOCVIEW.ASPX?D BID=0&ID=167933&PAGE=1&, PAGE 12 OF 22 8Green-wider Jasmine St Combo with Pathways Easement to Connect with ENZLER future path Possible relocated Connector stub to add road for future Hedrick access and avoid Eminent Domain to connect via Wong home THIS IS NOT SUITABLE FOR THIS UNIQUE INFILL SITUATION, EITHER IN DENSITY OR TRAFFIC PATTERNS. 5 There have been 3 neighborhood meetings with DevCo, and all requests for plan modification and reduction in traffic impacts have been ignored and dismissed. A 4th meeting was held for the City of Boise City Council (Sept 2019), where DevCo reiterated that they were not going to change traffic patterns, the gate location, or any of the density of the project. The directive to work with the neighbors by P and Z Commission motion has not been satisfied. JAN 2019 FEB 2019 APRIL 2018 ALTERNATE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO ACHD, CITY OF MERIDIAN, AND PRESENTED TO DEVCO. THIS ONE REDUCES ALPINE POINTE’S TRAFFIC BURDEN BY 80%-100% AND ELIMINATES CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC FOR BOTH DELANO AND ALPINE POINTE. DENSITY TRANSITION IS MUCH MORE COMPATIBLE, AND PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATH AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE TRAFFIC NEEDS ARE MET. OTHER PLANS CAN BE SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION 10 Other Plans would meet all requirement and codes --P & Z COMMISSION recommended this for DENIAL, and the directive in the motion to work with neighbors was ignored. DevCo has always had the room and capability to modify…we do not. --PLANS ARE PIECED TOGETHER USING “BEST USE” engineering software, not a “BEST FIT” common sense approach overall for surrounding neighborhoods. DELANO is not harmonious to our existing neighborhood. --DENSITY IS NOT COMPLEMENTARY TO ALPINE POINTE’S R-4. Consider two separate components of lower density north, and higher density south --STREETS ARE TOO SKINNY. Increase width for resident parking on both sides of the street. I believe this is a hazard for traffic, emergencies, and residents will not park far away from their homes…the space to park is not adequate. --LOTS ARE TOO NARROW. Increase to 40 foot min. lot width. 4000 SF lot minimum, please, for the R-15 portion, like Oberg. 6000 SF min R-8 for lots adjacent to Alpine Pointe. Oberg is 25 homes on 4.79 acres. Applied to these parcels with lower density north, Bollinger’s Delano would be 50- 55 homes, and Cook’s 21 homes, for 71-76 total homes, not 181 units. --STINGY on USABLE GREEN SPACE for residents. Half of the roughly 11% of green space is rendered largely unusable for Delano residents. I am wondering how an alternative compliance was granted for this project. --This area is already poised to be high-density-residence heavy south of Wainwright and east of Champion Park. We have approximately 1000 residents from the Brickyard and 4-plexes. Designate R-15 for the Cook apartment pad. Still MU-R acceptable, while lessening potential density. --DASHWOOD PLACE = HEAVY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. Construction and trades to the south entry only…please, do not use Alpine Pointe streets. Incorporate this stipulation into the DA. DevCo is non-committal re. our request for construction traffic plan. The arguments to use Dashwood as the main entry are baseless.11 PLEASE DENY THIS DELANO APPLICATION •Alpine Pointe---specifically Dashwood Pl and Wainwright ---needn’t bear the weight of POOR PLANNING. With its over-connection, Alpine Pointe streets are poised to become the de facto HEAVY USE residential and commercial collectors for the majority of this City square mile, not to mention the cut-through of choice for many. •City and ACHD plans are relying far too heavily on Alpine Pointe to disproportionately carry traffic E/W and N/S, mostly by front-facing yards. Furthermore, the area for the Commercial Collector was never signed (it is currently a landscaped grassy buffer strip between commercial/residential), and its future purpose isn’t reveal ed on the 2016 MSM ACHD map search, and isn’t fully revealed until 2018 on ACHD MSM Map search online. •We chose and bought our homes in good faith based on the signage and information readily available. It would take weeks of online research and many phone calls to find all Meridian City, Boise City, ACHD, and County information re. future plans for established Alpine Pointe. •Connectivity for vehicle traffic will occur at Centrepoint Way/Wainwright Commercial Collector and at the Rogue River/Conley connection. Connectivity at Dashwood could be limited by the number of homes to the north with an emergency lane, or simply via a bike/pedestrian/emergency access point only at Dashwood; this simple modification would reduce trips by 850-1000 VTD through Alpine Pointe. THANK YOU! ~Alpine Pointe Neighbors 12 13 THE FOLLOWING SLIDES ARE AN ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION BY ALPINE POINTE RESIDENT SHERRY GAREY THE SLIDES ARE INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET TO ILLUSTRATE THE APPEARANCE OF DASHWOOD CUL-DE-SAC AND THE CURRENT APPEARANCE OF THE CENTREPOINT COLLECTOR EASEMENT. ALSO INCLUDED ARE SUPPORTIVE ACHD DOCUMENTS NOT SHOWING CENTREPOINT WAY/WAINWRIGHT COLLECTOR CONNECTION INTENTIONS UNTIL MASTER STREET MAP AMENDMENT, WHICH OCCURRED IN 2018. 14 ATTACHMENT A WAINWRIGHT & EAGLE LIGHT AREA, WEST NORTHEAST MERIDIAN, IDAHO NOTE: THE ENZLER LAYOUT IS A CONCEPT. THIS PROPERTY WAS RECENTLY PURCHASED BY A DEVELOPER. JASMINE ST IS TO END AT CENTREPOINT, BUT COULD BE CONTINUED EAST FOR BETTER FLOW WHICH IS SEEMINGLY NEEDED IN THIS AREA. THE GREEN DASHED LINE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR VITAL EAST-WEST INGRESS/EGRESS THE HEDRICK PARCEL HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET AT LEAST TWO YEARS. (MODIFIED BY M. BERNARD, 11/7) ATTACHMENT A, Garey letter, Delano ATTACHMENT B THE BOLLINGER PARCEL HAS A LOT OF RVS, AND A PRESUMED DEVELOPER AGREEMENT ACCESS POINT FOR THESE RVS AND LOT HAD BEEN ASSUMED SINCE THERE WAS NOT AN ACHD-MANDATED STREET SIGN LIKE OTHER STUB STREETS. THIS DEAD-END STREET WAS ALSO ASSUMED TO BE A TURN-AROUND FOR CONSTRUCTION IN PHASE TWO SINCE ALL THE STREETS WERE NOT COMPLETE AT ONCE, NOT UNLIKE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS DONE IN PHASES WITH SIMILAR TURN-AROUNDS. ATTACHMENT B, Garey letter, Delano 16 ATTACHMENT C GAREY LETTER, DELANO ALL OTHER STUB STREETS IN ALPINE POINTE WERE SIGNED EXCEPT FOR N DASHWOOD PL. MOST THOUGHT IT WAS A DEVELOPER-AGREED TURN-AROUND IN 2011, OR AN ACCESS POINT FOR A GATE FOR BOLLINGER FOR RV’S. NEIGHBORS WILL SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT--IF REQUESTED--SAYING DASHWOOD WAS NEVER SIGNED Attachment, Garey Letter, Delano N DASHWOOD PL SEPT 2016, GOOGLE STREET VIEW NO SIGNS STATING “THIS ROAD IS TO BE CONTINUED” THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SIGN WE HAVE HAD PEOPLE HIT AND NEARLY HIT THIS FENCE IN THE PAST…ON FOGGY DAYS IT IS HARD TO SEE. MANY THOUGHT THIS WAS A RED AND WHITE WARNING TO VEHICLES THAT THIS WAS NOT A THRU-STREET AND CAUTION RE. A FENCE IN THE TURNAROUND -N Dashwood Pl was created as a stub street to the Bollinger parcel in 2005 by the City of Meridian because the parcel was considered “landlocked” --verifiable via City of Meridian documents, since Jasmine is currently a Private Street. Dashwood was originally planned to be a closed cul-de-sac, like Brooksburg to the East. -Being “landlocked” is not the case today with the addition of Centrepoint Way (N/S) and Jasmine going to a partial public street. Centrepoint Way is a stub for a collector designed for heavier traffic -Dashwood has never had a sign for future extension unlike other Alpine Pointe stubs had posted. (verifiable via Google Street View 2011) -There is no sign at Centrepoint Collector…it is a landscaped grassy wide strip behind Brooksburg by the Commercial pads Ce n t r e p o i n t Jasmine Dashwood 19 ACHD MSM 2016 Note: the Salmon Pink lines (solid or dashed) or Solid Red represent Commercial Collectors. You will note there is no connection represented from Centrepoint to Wainwright---present or proposed…how is a citizen to know there is a PLANNED COMMERCIAL COLLECTOR behind their home or within proximity of their neighborhood? Attachment Garey letter, Delano ACHD MSM 2018 and Blueprint Boise Map showing Centrepoint. ACHD showing future Wainwright/Centrepoint Connection, but not until 2018 map amendment ATTACHMENT Garey Letter, Delano •Site of the future Centrepoint Commercial Collector, south of Wainwright, east of Brooksburg Cul-de-sac •No signage by ACHD or the City of Meridian. This ACHD easement purpose is not apparent, being fully-landscaped with grass and trees, with utility boxes and no curb cut-out or stub section to indicate this is anything but a landscape buffer between commercial and residential Centrepoint, Looking North to Wainwright Centrepoint, South to Wong N Fence Attachment, Garey letter, Delano •SAVED MAPS FOR FUTURE 29 1 Delano Neighborhood Site Plan 2 Home Elevations Single-Family Detached Single-Family/Single Story 3 Neighborhood Amenities 4 5 6 7 8 Delano Vicinity Map Boise City Approval of Area of Impact Modification •Hearing on October 8, 2019 •Boise agreed this property is better served in Meridian •Boise recommended connectivity to property to the east (already provided) 9 Comprehensive Plan •Area Currently in Meridian Area of Impact: •Medium Density –No Change •Area Previously in Boise Area of Impact: •Mixed Use Regional (MU-R) •Most closely matches Boise City planning •Corresponds to planning designation immediately to the south 10 Density Transition •Transition from 3 units per acre (north), all the way to 22-30 units (south) •Commercial, retail, multi-family, and major transit corridors in immediate vicinity = density is appropriate 11 12 Depiction of Brickyard Development Density Development South of this Property •Zoned R-40 •Built at 22-30 units per acre 13 Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies •“Provide for a wide variety of housing types… and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03.B) (emphasis added) •“Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02.D) (emphasis added) •“Locate high-density development, where possible, near… major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02.L) (emphasis added) 14 Agency Review •Meridian Public Works •Completes the sewer and water connection loop •Suez has released this area to the City •Fire Department •Police •ACHD 15 16 Delano Neighborhood Site Plan 17 Neighborhood Discussions •Four neighborhood meetings •Three times prior to submittal (4-26-18; 1-10-19; 2-25-19) •Met again on September 26, 2019 •October 18, 2019 –Offered to meet (no response) •Numerous one-on-one meetings and telephone conversations •Multiple plat revisions •Lobbied ACHD to temporarily close a public road •Requested additional clarification from ACHD 18 Traffic •ACHD and City of Meridian Require Connectivity •ACHD Master Street Map •Area planned with a “through” Collector and connection to the Eagle Road access at Wainwright 19 Delano Neighborhood Transportation Plan Temporary Street Closure Emergency Access Only 20 Delano Neighborhood Transportation Plan Temporary Street Closure Emergency Access Only ACHD Centerpoint R.O.W. 21 22 ACHD Letter Traffic Counts: •Centrepoint Way •55% of capacity when Delano is completed. Street Connectivity: •Connectivity Policy •ACHD and City of Meridian both require street connectivity. •Delano “provides public street connectivity consistent with ACHD Policies”. Roadway Capacities •Local Streets (Designed for 2,000 Trips) •Dashwood –954 trips at build-out •Mid-Mile Collector Street •Wainwright –45% of design threshold at build-out (AM/PM peak) •Collector Street •Centrepoint Way –55% of design threshold at build-out (AM/PM peak) 23 Centrepoint Way Summary •Fully Satisfies Comprehensive Plan •Agency Approval •Needed Housing Product Type •Roadways within Capacity •No Modifications to Proposed Conditions of Approval 24 25 Thank You 26 Housing Type Traffic Trip Generation Smaller Homes Generate Less Traffic – A study of the traffic generated by this same housing product in another Meridian Neighborhood had the following outcome: •ITE standard for a traditional single family home is 9.44 trips per day •26% less traffic overall or 6.95 trips per day •Nearly 35% less AM/PM peak trips 27 28 29 West Ada School Capacity Enrolled –38014 Capacity -39709 Project Phasing Plan 30 31 On Street Parking 32 33 Fast Eddy’s North Boundary 34 Percentage of Garage 25% 26% 27% 35 36 37 EIDIAN,+-- DAJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 12, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 D Item Title: Public Hearing for Inglewood Place (H-2019-0090) By .lames Peterson, the Pointe at Meridian. Located at 3250 E. Victory Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.29 acres of land with C -C (3.76 acres) and R-15 (6.53 acres) zoning districts; 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of (8) building lots and (1) common lot on 8.84 acres of land; and 3. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi -family development consisting of (14) dwelling units on 1.91 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district 9 Meeting Notes: ��� I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Inglewood Place (H-2019-0090) by J ames Petersen, T he Pointe at M eridian, L L C, L ocated at 3250 E . Victory 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 & S taf f R eport S taff Report 11/6/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.Weatherly, A drienne Approved 10/22/2019 - 12:31 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 76 of 139 11/12/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 11/12/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-D Project Name: Inglewood Place Subdivision AZ, CUP, PP Project No.: H-2019-0090 Active: Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=320 1/1 HOA HOA I Wish To Sign In Signature Name Address For Neutral Against Name Represent Testify Date/Time 3020s eagle 11/12/2019 John sharp X road 5:52:14 PM Jim and jennifer 4019 n Alpine 11/12/2019 X ostyn brooksburg pl Pointe 6:10:38 PM 2403 E Alpine 11/12/2019 Denise Walker X Honeywood Ct. Point 8:11:42 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignlnFormDetails?id=320 1/1 Page 1 HEARING DATE: November 12, 2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0099 Inglewood Place Subdivision LOCATION: 3250 E. Victory Rd on the NE corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Victory Rd., in the SW ¼ of Section 21, Township 3N., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and zoning of 10.29 acres of land with C-C (3.76 acres) an R-15 (6.53 acres) zoning districts; preliminary plat consisting of 8 building lots and 1 common lot on 8.84 acres of land; conditional use permit for a multi-family development consisting of 14 dwelling units on 1.91 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district; and, conditional use permit for a “nursing or residential care facility” consisting of 86 dwelling units on 3.48 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 10.29 Future Land Use Designation MU-C Existing Land Use Single-family residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Mixed-use professional office, retail, nursing/residential care facility, and multi-family residential Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-15 and C-C Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 8 building; 1 common Phasing plan (# of phases) 2 (1st phase residential; 2nd phase commercial) Number of Residential Units (type of units) 100 units (86 in residential care facility and 14 duplex style multi-family units) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 77 of 139 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Density (gross & net) 24 units/acre in nursing/residential care facility and 6.5 units/acre in multi-family portion (gross); 45 units/acre in nursing/residential care facility and 12.5 units/acre in multi- family portion (net) Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) Open space is only required for the multi-family development – a total of 0.30 of an acres is provided in excess of UDC req. Amenities Clubhouse, fitness center, plaza, gazebo Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) McDonald Lateral crosses the southwest corner of the site within a 41’ wide easement Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: January 3, 2019 (20 attendees) and July 16, 2019 (8 attendees) History (previous approvals) ROS #8196, 9059, 10764 Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Not yet  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 0.5 mile from Fire Station #4  Fire Response Time 1 minute under ideal conditions; can meet the response time goals  Resource Reliability 81% from Fire Station #4 – does not meet the target goal of 85% or greater  Risk Identification Risk factor of 4 – current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project (see comments in Section VIII.C)  Accessibility Project does not meet all required access, road widths and turnarounds; roadways needs to be 26’ wide for ladder truck access  Special/resource needs An aerial device is required; the closest truck compa ny is 8 minutes travel time (under ideal conditions) – Fire Dept. can meet this need in the required timeframe.  Water Supply Requires 2,000 gallons per minute for 2 hours  Other Resources NA Police Service  Distance to Police Station 3 miles  Police Response Time 4 minutes  Calls for Service For time period of 7/1/2018-6/30/2019: 607 calls within a mile of site  Accessibility No issues with the proposed access  Specialty/resource needs No additional resources are needed at this time; the PD already services the area  Crimes 84  Crashes 33 Wastewater Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 78 of 139 Page 3 C. Project Maps  Distance to Sewer Services 0 feet  Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application  WRRF Declining Balance 13.7  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns Flows Commitments have been added to the Declining Balance Water  Distance to Water Services 0 feet  Pressure Zone 4  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application  Water Quality Concerns None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns Extend water easement to north property line at northwest portion of property to facilitate potential future connection. Water main connection to Eagle Rd. will be required with 1st phase Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 79 of 139 Page 4 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: James Petersen – The Pointe at Meridian, LLC – 4859 S. 190 W., Salt Lake City, UT 84107 B. Representative: Jacob Shirley – Think AEC – 5151 S. 900 E., Salt Lake City, UT 84117 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 9/13/2019 10/25/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 9/17/2019 10/22/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 9/18/2019 10/29/2019 Nextdoor posting 9/17/2019 10/22/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION & ZONING The Applicant requests annexation and zoning of 10.29 acres of land with R-15 (6.53 acres) and C-C (3.76 acres) zoning districts consistent with the MU-C (Mixed Use – Community) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation in the Comprehensive Plan. A conceptual site plan and Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 80 of 139 Page 5 building elevations were submitted for the development showing how the property is planned to develop, included in Section VII. Proposed Use: The Applicant proposes to develop the site with a mix of uses including nursing/residential care facility, age restricted (55+) multi-family residential, office and commercial retail uses. Independent living (14 units) is proposed on the east side of the site [i.e. multi-family (duplex style single-level units on one parcel)]; a 3-story nursing/residential care facility is proposed in the center of the site consisting of independent living (46 units), assisted living (30 units) and memory care (10 units); a 12,300 square foot (s.f.) 3-story office is proposed on the west side of the senior living facility; and retail commercial uses are conceptually proposed on 3 pads along the west side of the site adjacent to S. Eagle Rd. – the applicant is requesting flexibility for the ultimate layout of this portion of the development. The Allowed Uses table in UDC Table 11-2A-2 for the R-15 zoning district lists nursing or residential care facilities as a conditional use subject to the specific use standards of UDC 11-4-3- 29; and multi-family developments as a conditional use subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district is required, including but not limited to the maximum building height of 40 feet. The Allowed Uses table in UDC Table 11-2B-2 for the C-C zoning district lists professional services (offices) and retail uses as principal permitted uses. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3 for the C-C district is required, including but not limited to the maximum building height of 50 feet. Comprehensive Plan (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): This property is designated MU-C (Mixed Use – Community) on the Future Land Use Map. The MU-C designation allocates areas where community-servicing uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in MU-N (Mixed-Use Neighborhood) designated areas but not as large as in MU-R (Mixed Use – Regional) designated areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to but also walk or bike to (up to 3 or 4 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. The proposed development meets many of the goals of Mixed- use Community designation. Please see the following analysis for which specific goals are met and which are deficient. The proposed land uses and residential densities are consistent with those desired in MU-C designated areas. Transportation: Access to the site is proposed via one (1) driveway access from S. Eagle Rd., an arterial street, which ACHD is restricting to right-in/right-out; and one (1) full-access local public street (S. Titanium Ave.) from E. Victory Rd. Internal driveways are proposed for internal access within the site. The new local street (S. Titanium Ave.) is proposed to extend to the north boundary of the site for future extension and interconnectivity when the property to the north redevelops. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): Goals, Objectives, & Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics): Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 81 of 139 Page 6  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) The mix of housing options proposed to be provided on this site will contribute to the variety of housing types available in the City for its senior residents.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The proposed development will provide housing options for seniors in close proximity to office and commercial uses planned to develop on the western portion of the site.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) An open space exhibit is included in Section VII that complies with the minimum UDC standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-4-3-27.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to this development.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) One (1) access is proposed via E. Victory Rd. and one (1) access is proposed via S. Eagle Rd. Staff is of the opinion the proposed accesses shown in Section VII are acceptable unless otherwise restricted by the City Council and/or ACHD.  “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) Pedestrian walkways are proposed throughout the development between the residential and commercial uses; and along E. Victory Rd. and S. Eagle Rd. for access to existing and future developments in the vicinity.  “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) The Applicant has been working with ACHD on the proposed access points to the roadway network. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pgs. 23-24): (Staff’s analysis in italics) • “Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre.” The residential gross densities for the nursing/residential care facility and multi-family portion exceed the minimum desired at 24 units per acre and 6.5 units per acre respectively. • “Where feasible, higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69.” This project is adjacent to two (2) main arterial roadways – E. Victory Rd. and S. Eagle Rd. The proposed development does include multi-family and assisted living components, which will provide for the density desired in close proximity to employment. However, because this development is not being marketed to residents that are still active in the labor force, residents will most likely not be working in the nearby employment centers. • “A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application.” A conceptual development plan was submitted for the proposed mixed use development, included in Section VII.C. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 82 of 139 Page 7 • “In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space.” Green space is proposed within the residential portion of the development. A common usable area should also be provided in the commercial/office area as envisioned away from adjacent arterial streets. • “The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development.” The proposed plan depicts single-level residential homes (duplex style) along the east boundary adjacent to existing single-family homes. A landscape buffer and 6-foot vinyl fence is proposed along the northern boundary of the site as a buffer to the existing rural residential property to the north. • “A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis.” The proposed development will at a minimum include a mix of commercial retail, office, and residential uses as desired. • “Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments.” The proposed nursing/residential care facility will provide healthcare services to the elderly residents of the facility. At 8.84 acres, staff does not consider this development to be a large scale mixed-use development. • “Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count.” The proposed concept plan in Section VII.C does not depict any public and/or quasi-public spaces and places in the commercial portion of the site; the common area proposed in the residential portion of the development is solely for the residential use and does not satisfy this requirement. These types of public spaces should be included in the commercial (C-C zoned) area when it develops. • “All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians.” The proposed development will be directly accessible to the mixed use designated property to the north when it redevelops via a public street connection stubbing to that property (S. Titanium Ave.). There is also an existing public stub street (E. Publisher St.) at the east boundary of the property to the north (2960 S. Eagle Rd.) which will be extended with development of that property and will provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnectivity with the residential neighborhood (Sutherland Farm Subdivision) to the east. Currently, the only interconnectivity that can be provided is via the pedestrian sidewalk along the frontage of the site adjacent to S. Eagle Rd. and E. Victory Rd. • “Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code.” The Master Street Map does not depict any streets across this property. • “Because of the existing small lots within Old Town, development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein.” The proposed development is not within Old Town; therefore, this provision is not applicable. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 83 of 139 Page 8 In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-C areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pgs. 33-34):  “All developments should have a mix of at least three land use types.” The proposed development contains a mix of uses as required (i.e. commercial/retail, office, and residential).  “Developments should comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed Use areas.” See analysis above.  “Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre.” Residential uses comprise more than 20% of the development area at a gross density of 24 units per acre for the nursing/residential care facility and 6.5 units per acre for the independent living portion.  “Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings.” The proposed 3-story office building will be proportional to the adjacent 3-story nursing/residential care facility to the east. Design elements and construction materials of the non-residential buildings should be consistent with those in the residential portion of the development.  “Vertically integrated structures are encouraged.” No vertically integrated structures are proposed.  “Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and commercial land uses, a maximum building size should be limited to a 30,000 square-foot building footprint.” The largest building proposed on the site is the nursing/residential care facility which has a building footprint of 18,394 square-feet.  “Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement.” These types of spaces and places should be provided.  Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development above the minimum 5%, the developer may be eligible for additional residential densities and/or an increase to the maximum building footprint.” Not applicable Zoning: Based on the analysis above, Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the R-15 and C-C zoning districts and proposed development is generally consistent with the MU-C FLUM designation for this site. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A as well as individual legal descriptions and a map for each of the zoning districts proposed. 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 84 of 139 Page 9 application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of eight (8) building lots and one (1) common lot on 8.84 acres of land in the proposed R-15 and C-C zoning districts for Inglewood Place Subdivision. The plat is proposed to develop in two phases as shown in Section VII.B as follows: Phase 1 will include an 80K square foot nursing/residential care facility and 14 multi-family units (duplex style); Phase 2 will include a mix of retail, professional service/office uses. The Applicant requests allowance for one (1) building permit to be issued for the senior living facility on Lot 1, Block 2 prior to subdivision of the property. Because there are four (4) existing parcels, Staff is amenable to the request but recommends the property is subdivided prior to issuance of any additional building permits. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are several existing structures on this site that are required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat for the phase in which they are located. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district and Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C district. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): One access is proposed via S. Eagle Rd., an arterial street, which ACHD is restricting to right- in/right-out. Staff recommends this access is only allowed on a temporary basis until such time as the property to the north redevelops and an access driveway can be constructed in alignment with E. Moon Dipper St. on the west side of Eagle Rd. At such time, the driveway access shall be removed and the landscape buffer along Eagle Rd. extended. Additionally, an access easement shall be provided to the property to the north and a driveway extended to the northern property boundary for future interconnectivity and access via Eagle Rd. through the property to the north (an access easement will also be required to be provided to this property when the property to the north redevelops). A local public street (E. Titanium Ave.) access is proposed via E. Victory Rd., an arterial street, which will be a full access. The public street is proposed to extend from Victory Rd. to the northern boundary of the site to be extended when the property to the north redevelops for interconnectivity and access. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): There are no pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this property. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 17. The UDC requires 5-foot wide detached sidewalks to be constructed along arterial streets (i.e. S. Eagle Rd. and E. Victory Rd.). There is an existing attached sidewalk along Eagle Rd and a portion of Victory Rd. nearest to the intersection. Because the existing sidewalk is in good condition, the Director has waived this requirement allowing the sidewalk to remain and not be reconstructed as a detached sidewalk but the remainder of the sidewalk along Victory Rd. should be constructed as a detached sidewalk as depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.D. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 85 of 139 Page 10 Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A- 17E. A parkway is proposed along E. Victory Rd. where there is not an existing sidewalk in accord with UDC standards. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C- C district and 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district and planted in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Eagle Rd. and E. Victory Rd., both arterial streets, measured from the back of sidewalk where attached sidewalks are located and from the back of curb where detached sidewalks are required. Plans submitted with the final plat application and Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications shall comply with this requirement. Street buffers in residential districts are required to be placed in a common lot and maintained by the Homeowner’s Association; street buffers in commercial districts are required to be placed in a common lot or a permanent dedicated buffer maintained by the property owner of business owner’s association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2. The plat should be revised accordingly. A 25-foot wide landscape buffer to adjoining residential uses is required on the C-C zoned portion of the site along the northern boundary, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C, unless a reduced buffer width is requested and modified by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. The existing 15-foot wide ingress-egress easement should be depicted along the northern boundary of the site; no permanent structures or trees/shrubs should be planted within this easement. Qualified Open Space & Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Because the residential (R-15 zoned) portion of the site is under 5 acres in size, the qualified open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 do not apply. However, the open space & site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 for multi-family developments do apply (see analysis below). 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. A 6-foot tall solid vinyl fence is proposed along the north boundary of the site in accord with UDC standards. Existing Easement: There is an existing 15-foot wide ingress/egress easement (Inst. #7907119) that runs along the northern boundary of this site that benefits the adjacent property to the north as depicted on the plat. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The McDonald Lateral crosses the southwest corner of this site and is proposed to be piped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6B.3. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 86 of 139 Page 11 Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation (PI) system is required to be provided for each lot within the development as set forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. If a PI pump station is required on the developed property, such station shall be on a lot solely dedicated to that pump station and shall be owned by the entity that owns and maintains the PI system as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6E. 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 structures on the site as shown in Section VII.F. All structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Submittal and approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications are required prior to submittal of building permit application(s). The design of the commercial structures should incorporate some of the same or similar design elements and construction materials as those in the residential portion of the development. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff’s analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: Multi-family developments with multiple properties shall be considered as one property for the purpose of implementing the standards set forth in this section. A. Purpose: 1. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. 2. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. 3. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community, provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe, interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet (10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. Complies 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 87 of 139 Page 12 trash enclosures; all proposed transformer/utility vaults and other service areas shall comply with this requirement. 3. A minimum of eighty (80) square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section, the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. The submitted site plan and elevations depict each unit with a private patio however they appear to be below the minimum 80 square feet; the plans should be revised to comply with this standard. 4. For the purposes of this section, vehicular circulation areas, parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles, boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 7. Developments with twenty (20) units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail, that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773, 4-24-2018) This development consists of 14 units so these standards do not apply. C. Common Open Space Design Requirements: 1. A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty (150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred (500) or less square feet of living area. Not applicable b. Two hundred fifty (250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of living area. Seven (7) units are between 500 and 1,200 s.f.; therefore, a total of 1,750 s.f. (or 0.04 acres) of common open space is required for these units. c. Three hundred fifty (350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of living area. Seven (7) units contain more than 1,200 s.f.; therefore, 2,450 s.f. (or 0.06 of an acre) of common open space is required for these units. At a minimum, a total of 4,200 s.f. (or 0.10 of an acre) of outdoor common open space is required to be provided in the proposed development. A total of 0.29 of an acre is proposed to be provided in a central common area as shown in Section VII.E, in excess of the minimum standards. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 88 of 139 Page 13 2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred (400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet (20'). The central common open grass area complies with this requirement. 3. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. The multi-family component of this project is proposed to be developed in one (1) phase. 4. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet (4') in height, with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, eff. retroactive to 2-4- 2009) The common open space area is central to the development and not adjacent to any collector or arterial streets. D. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. b. Open space: (1) Open grassy area of at least fifty by one hundred feet (50 x 100') in size. (2) Community garden. (3) Ponds or water features. (4) Plaza. c. Recreation: (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty (20) units, two (2) amenities shall be provided from two (2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty (20) and seventy five (75) units, three (3) amenities shall be provided, with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy five (75) units or more, four (4) amenities shall be provided, with at least one from each category. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 89 of 139 Page 14 d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred (100) units, the decision making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D, provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Based on 14 proposed units, a minimum of 2 amenities are required; a gazebo and BBQ area are proposed from the open space and quality of life categories in accord with UDC standards. The multi-family portion of this development will also have access to the amenities located in the nursing/residential care facility. E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet (3') wide. b. For every three (3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty four inches (24") shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan shall be revised to comply with these requirements. F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit [Multi-family: 1-bedroom requires 1.5 per unit with at least 1 in a covered carport or garage, 2-3 bedroom units require 2 per unit with at least 1 in an a covered carport or garage], as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. Based on (7) 1-bedroom units and (7) 2-3 bedroom units, a minimum of 14 covered carport or garage spaces and 11 uncovered spaces are required. Parking is proposed as follows: 14 garage spaces, 14 driveway (tandem) spaces, and 11 surface parking spaces for a total of 39 spaces in excess of UDC standards. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NURSING/RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY 11-4-3-29: NURSING OR RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES: A. General standards: 1. If the use results in more than ten (10) persons occupying a dwelling at any one time, the applicant or owner shall concurrently apply for a change of occupancy as required by the building code in accord with Title 10 of this code. This standard is not applicable. 2. The owner and/or operator of the facility shall secure and maintain a license from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, facility standards division. The applicant shall comply with this requirement. B. Additional standards for uses providing care to children and juveniles under the age of 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 90 of 139 Page 15 years: This section is not applicable as care will not be provided to juveniles. 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by a minimum 6-foot non-scalable fence to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the building code in accord with Title 10 of this code. 2. Outdoor play equipment over 6-feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential district or uses adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. C. Additional standards for uses providing care to patients who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, dementia or other similar disability that may cause disorientation: A barrier with a minimum height of 6 feet, along the perimeter of any portion of the site that is accessible to those patients shall be provided. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the building code in accord with Title 10 of this code. Staff recommends a detail of the proposed fencing be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that complies with the aforementioned requirement if outdoor recreation areas are proposed for the memory care facility. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for the nursing/residential care facility at a ratio of 0.5 space per bed; based on a total of 86 beds proposed, a minimum of 43 spaces are required. A total of 84 spaces are proposed consisting of 23 garage spaces and 61 surface/uncovered spaces, in excess of UDC standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation & Zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permits 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 October 3, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ, PP and CUP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jim Petersen, Developer; Jacob Shirley, Think Architects; David Gagliano (property owner to east); Matt Graham, T-O Engineers b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Jason Attinger (HOA President for Sutherland Farm) d. Written testimony: John & Juanita Sharp; John Carptenter, Applicant’s Representative (in agreement with staff report & recommended change to condition #A.3E) e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen; Caleb Hood f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. The property owners to the north (Sharp’s) requested their access easement that lies on the northern portion of this site to be free of any curbing and landscaping and that all buildings, berming, and landscaping be set back so as not to interfere with their easement; b. Safety concern pertaining to proposed access via S. Eagle Rd., specifically a left-in from Eagle and traffic backing up while cars are waiting to turn since there is no turn lane; Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 91 of 139 Page 16 c. Mr. Attinger & Mr. Gagliano) would like the Applicant to construct a new fence (possibly vinyl) along the east property boundary to replace the exising fence to avoid double fencing. Developer (Jim Petersen) agreed to work with neighbors on this. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Future access to the site from the north via Eagle Rd.; b. Amount of parking needed on the site in relation to how many spaces are proposed (i.e. how many of the residents in the nursing/residential care facility have cars – the Applicant stated not many); c. The lack of a common public/quasi-public space in the commercial portion of the development; d. Concern pertaining to traffic flow through the site, specifically the north/south public street proposed between the cottages and residential care facility; and proposed accesses via Eagle Rd. and Victory Rd. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Modification to condition #A.3E in Section VIII to depict the existing access easement along the northern boundary of the site to be free of trees and bushes (grass is allowed) and pedestrian walkwaqys; fencing shouldn’t restrict access to the easement and its purpose; b. Modification to condition #A.1f to remove the portion of the condition that limits the access via Eagle Rd. to temporary; c. Add a new condition requiring the Applicant to work with the adjacent neighbors on a new replacement fence (as agreed upon by the Developer) along the east boundary of the site (see condition #A.3g); d. Add a new condition requiring the Applicant to work with Staff and ACHD to implement traffic calming signage and/or safety measures on the public street entering the site from Victory Rd. to assist with pedestrian safety (see condition #A.15). 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 92 of 139 Page 17 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation & Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps al Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 93 of 139 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 94 of 139 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 95 of 139 Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 96 of 139 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 97 of 139 Page 22 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 08/27/2019) & Phasing Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 98 of 139 Page 23 Phase 1 Phase 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 99 of 139 Page 24 C. Conceptual Site Plan (date: 10/2/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 100 of 139 Page 25 D. Landscape Plan (date: 8/27/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 101 of 139 Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 102 of 139 Page 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 103 of 139 Page 28 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 104 of 139 Page 29 E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit (date: 08/27/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 105 of 139 Page 30 F. Conceptual Perspectives & Building Elevations (date: 08/08/2019): Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 106 of 139 Page 31 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 107 of 139 Page 32 Conceptual Office Building Elevations: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 108 of 139 Page 33 Conceptual Retail Building Elevations: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 109 of 139 Page 34 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 110 of 139 Page 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 111 of 139 Page 36 Conceptual Nursing/Residential Care Facility Elevations: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 112 of 139 Page 37 Conceptual Multi-Family (Duplex Style) Elevations: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 113 of 139 Page 38 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 conceptual site plan, conceptual building elevations, preliminary plat, phasing plan, landscape plan, and qualified open space exhibit included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. All multi-family (i.e. duplex style) structures, the nursing/residential care facility, and all commercial/office structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. The design of the commercial structures should incorporate some of the same or similar design elements and construction materials as those in the residential portion of the development. An application for Design Review shall be submitted concurrently with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. c. Buildings within the commercial (C-C zoned) portion of the development shall be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use designated areas (see pg. 23 of the Comprehensive Plan). d. Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area shall be provided within the mixed use/commercial portion of the development as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan (outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count) (see pgs. 24 & 28 of the Comprehensive Plan). e. One (1) building permit is allowed to be issued for the nursing/residential care facility on Lot 1, Block 2 prior to subdivision of the property. f. The driveway access via S. Eagle Rd. is restricted to a right-in/right-out access and is only allowed on a temporary basis until such time as the property to the north redevelops and an access driveway is constructed via S. Eagle Rd. in alignment with E. Moon Dipper St. to the north on the west side of Eagle Rd. At such time, the driveway access on this site via S. Eagle Rd. shall be removed and the street buffer extended in place of the driveway. g. An access easement shall be provided to the property to the north in alignment with the north/south driveway on the east side of the future retail pads depicted on the site plan; a recorded copy of said easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the adjacent development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 114 of 139 Page 39 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict common lots for the 25-foot wide street buffers required along E. Victory Rd. on Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 1; street buffers shall be measured from the back of sidewalk where attached sidewalks are located and from the back of curb where detached sidewalks are required. Landscaping on these lots shall be maintained by a homeowner’s association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2a. b. Depict the PI pump station on a lot dedicated solely for itself and owned by the entity that owns and maintains the PI system in accord with UDC 11-3B-6E. c. Include a note on the plat prohibiting direct lot access via S. Eagle Rd. and E. Victory Rd. other than those access points approved with this application. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a 25-foot wide street buffer along S. Eagle Rd. and E. Victory Rd., measured from the back of sidewalk where attached sidewalks are located and from the back of curb where detached sidewalks are required. b. Depict a 25-foot wide landscape buffer to residential uses along the northern boundary of the C-C zoned portion of the site; and landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C that includes a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs that results in a barrier that allows trees to touch at the time of tree maturity. c. For the multi-family (duplex style units) portion of the site, landscaping shall be depicted along the foundations of all street facing elevations as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27E. d. For the nursing/residential care facility, if an outdoor recreation area is proposed for the memory care portion of the facility, a barrier with a minimum height of 6 feet shall be provided along the perimeter of any portion of the site that is accessible to those patients. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the building code in accord with Title 10 of this code. A If applicable, a detail of the proposed fencing shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that complies with the aforementioned requirement. e. Depict the existing 15-foot wide ingress-egress easement along the northern boundary of the site free of trees and bushes (grass is allowed) and pedestrian walkways; fencing shall not restrict access to the easement and its purpose.”. f. Extend the north/south driveway on the east side of the future retail pads depicted on the site plan to the north property boundary for future extension, interconnectivity and access via S. Eagle Rd. g. Depict fencing along the east boundary of the site. Applicant shall work with the adjacent neighbors to the east on a new replacement fence (as agreed upon by the Developer at the Commission hearing). 4. Submit a detail of the proposed BBQ pavilion with the final plat application. 5. Signage for addressing needs to be provided at the public street for the multi-family (duplex style) homes for emergency wayfinding purposes. 6. The multi-family development shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 115 of 139 Page 40 7. For each of the multi-family (i.e. duplex style) units, a minimum of eighty (80) square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. 8. The nursing/residential care facility shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards of UDC 11-4-3-29. 9. The owner and/or operator of the nursing/residential care facility shall secure and maintain a license from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, facility standards division as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-29A.2. 10. The multi-family development shall record a legally binding document that states the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of said document shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 11. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application(s) is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for all structures within the development. All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 12. If any drive-through establishments are proposed within the site, compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 is required. 13. All existing structures on this site are required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat phase in which they are located. 14. All drive aisles adjacent to the 3-story nursing/residential care facility and 3-story office building shall be a minimum of 26 feet in width per Fire Department requirements. 15. The Applicant shall work with Staff and ACHD to implement traffic calming signage and/or safety measures on the public street entering the site from Victory Rd. to assist with pedestrian safety. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Extend water easement to north property line at northwest portion of property to facilitate potential future connection. A water main connection to Eagle Rd. is required with the first phase of development. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 116 of 139 Page 41 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 117 of 139 Page 42 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. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/176733/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177167/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 118 of 139 Page 43 E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177122/Page1.aspx F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL Plans must be submitted to Boise Project- Board of Control for comment and review prior to construction. http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/177500/Page1.aspx G. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177496/Page1.aspx H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/176951/Page1.aspx I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177194/Page1.aspx J. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=178079&dbid=0 K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/177899/Page1.aspx IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission, the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the Applicant’s proposal to annex and develop the subject 10.29 acre property with R-15 and C-C zoning is consistent with the associated MU-C FLUM designation for this property. (See section V above for more information.) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statements of the residential and commercial districts in that it will provide for a range of housing opportunities (for the City’s senior residents) and retail and service needs for the community consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential and commercial uses should be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential and commercial uses in the area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 119 of 139 Page 44 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 City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of 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 the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the Development Agreement provisions and conditions of approval in Section VIII. 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 accomodate 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 November 12, 2019 – Page 120 of 139 Page 45 C. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Multi-Family Development: The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-15 district (see Analysis, Section V for more information). Nursing and Residential Care Facility: The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-15 district (see Analysis, Section V for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Multi-Family Development: The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the future land use map designation of MU-C and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 in the R-15 zoning district. Nursing/Residential Care Facility: The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the future land use map designation of MU-C and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 in the R-15 zoning district. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Multi-Family Development: The Commission finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. Nursing and Residential Care Facility: The Commission finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Multi-Family Development: The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The City Council should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. Nursing and Residential Care Facility: The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The City Council should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 121 of 139 Page 46 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Multi-Family Development: The Commission finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Nursing and Residential Care Facility: The Commission finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 122 of 139 Meridian, Idaho Nov 7, 2019 COLORS ARE REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY. FINAL COLORS MAY VARY FROM ABOVE REPRESENTATION I nglewood P lace S ubd I v ISI on F ence V A N EAGLE ROA PUBLIC ROAD MGMT MATCH LINE MATCH LINE RETAIL PADSOUTH RETAIL PADCENTRAL RETAIL PADNORTH OFFICE BUILDING 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 3 3 1 4 1 2 1 2 2 5 5 6 2 2 1 5 1 3 END OF VINYL FENCE 9 9 9 9 9 9 12" DIA. CONCRETEFOOTING 8'-0" O.C. 1" SQ. PICKET, TYP 3-3/4" TYP. UNDISURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADE 12" 9" + / - FINISH GRADE 6' HT. ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE 1 NOTE: 1. PRE-FABRICATED FENCE TO BE AMERISTAR, AEGIS II STYLE OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS MANUFACTURED BY AMERISTAR, TULSA, OK. PHONE: 800.321.8724. 2. INSTALL FENCE PER MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS 3. ALL STEEL FENCE COMPONENTS TO BE POWDER COATED, BLACK. 5. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. CONCRETE PATIO/DECK 6'- 0 " 6" 30 " 3" 2" FENCE OVER CONCRETE PATIO/DECK FENCE OVER LAWN WITH CONCRETE CURB CONCRETE CURB, 6" x 8" VI C T O R Y R D MATCH LINE 1 3 3 1 2 2 END OF VINYL FENC 9 9 8' O.C. 6' SOLID VINYL FENCE 2 6'- 0 " 30 " 3" 12" POST CAP TOP RAIL, 1-1/2" x 5-1/2" PICKETS, TONGUE AND GROVE, 5/8" x 11-3/8" END CHANNEL POST, 5" x 5" BOTTOM RAIL WITH METAL REINFORCING, 1-1/2" x 5-1/2" FINISH GRADE 12" DIA. CONCRETE POST FOOTING NOTES: 1. DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 3. COLOR: WHITE WITH EMBOSSED TEXTURE. 4. TOP OF CONCRETE CURB 1" ABOVE SOIL FINISH GRADE. 4" 12" 6' HT. ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE 1 3. ALL STEEL FENCE COMPONENTS TO BE POWDER COATED, BLACK. 5. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.3" FENCE OVER CONCRETEPATIO/DECKFENCE OVER LAWN WITHCONCRETE CURB OVERALL LANDSCAPE Meridian, Idaho Nov 7, 2019 COLORS ARE REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY. FINAL COLORS MAY VARY FROM ABOVE REPRESENTATION I nglewood P lace S ubd I v ISI on u P dated S I te P lan Moved units 5’ additional feet away from easement Replace fence along eastern border Tiatanium updated to 33’ width with rolling curb Sign at the end of Titanium Drive aisles expanded to 26’ More crosswalks indicated Victory Rd sidewalks no longer meander Meridian, Idaho Nov 7, 2019 COLORS ARE REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY. FINAL COLORS MAY VARY FROM ABOVE REPRESENTATION I nglewood P lace S ubd I v ISI on u P dated l and S ca P e P lan V A N V A N 0 10 20 40 NO R T H P U B L I C C O N N E C T I O N V I C T O R Y R D EA G L E R O A D PU B L I C R O A D MG M T MA T C H L I N E MA T C H L I N E RE T A I L P A D SO U T H BB Q Pa v i l i o n RE T A I L P A D CE N T R A L RE T A I L P A D NO R T H OF F I C E B U I L D I N G BABA BA BABA BABA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 3 31 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 2 1 2 2 2 5 5 6 6 2 2 2 1 5 6 13 7 ED G E O F E X I S T I N G AC C E S S D R I V E 8 EN D O F V I N Y L FE N C E 12 ' G R A V E L D R I V E 4 4 EN D O F V I N Y L F E N C E 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 KE Y E D N O T E S PL A I 1 21.UT I L I T UT I L I T CO N OR O ST R U C 2.AL L R ET C . 3.CO N OW N CO N CO N SA T I S 4.FR E E SH A P TO I N 5.CO N 6.PL A N 7.TR E E S AS I N SU C H TO A 8.OP E R WIN T 9.TO P S AS R E 10 . TO P S RE Q U 11 .OF T H PL A N TH E S 12 . UN T I L 13 .AR C H 14 .AL L P 15 . TO P S IN S T A 6 3 B 4 6 5 I M I L P D E E 6 BU F F E · MIN. 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER FROM PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO EAGLE RD AND VICTORY RD · MIN. 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN DIFFERING ZONE TYPES.PLANTING LIMITED DUE TO SEWER EASEMENT. LIN E A L F E E T O F S T R E E T F R O N T A G E : 1,269' AC R E A G E D E D I C A T E D T O O P E N S P A C E : SENIOR FACILITY 0.99 ACRES MULTI-FAMILY (COTTAGES)0.46 ACRES (SEE OPEN SPACE PLAN) ST R E E T T R E E S · ALONG VICTORY RD AND EAGLE RD:51 · RESIDENTIAL: ·NU M B ···MIT I G ·LA N 7 8 9 D V I N Y L F E N C E 2 OS T C A P OP R A I L , 1 - 1 / 2 " x 5 - 1 / 2 " CK E T S , T O N G U E A N D G R O V E , 5 / 8 " x 1 1 - 3 / 8 " ND C H A N N E L OS T , 5 " x 5 " OT T O M R A I L W I T H M E T A L R E I N F O R C I N G , -1 / 2 " x 5 - 1 / 2 " NIS H G R A D E 2" D I A . C O N C R E T E P O S T F O O T I N G OT E S : D I M E N S I O N S A R E A P P R O X I M A T E . . P R O V I D E S H O P D R A W I N G S T O L A N D S C A P E RC H I T E C T F O R A P P R O V A L P R I O R T O NS T A L L A T I O N . . C O L O R : W H I T E W I T H E M B O S S E D T E X T U R E . . T O P O F C O N C R E T E C U R B 1 " A B O V E S O I L NIS H G R A D E . 2" D I A . C O N C R E T E OO T I N G S Q . P I C K E T , T Y P ND I S U R B E D O R OM P A C T E D S U B G R A D E NIS H G R A D E L M E T A L F E N C E 1 OT E : P R E - F A B R I C A T E D F E N C E T O B E A M E R I S T A R , EG I S I I S T Y L E O R A P P R O V E D E Q U A L , A S AN U F A C T U R E D B Y A M E R I S T A R , T U L S A , O K . HO N E : 8 0 0 . 3 2 1 . 8 7 2 4 . I N S T A L L F E N C E P E R M A N U F A C T U R E R ' S W R I T T E N ST R U C T I O N S A L L S T E E L F E N C E C O M P O N E N T S T O B E P O W D E R OA T E D , B L A C K . C O N T R A C T O R T O S U B M I T S H O P D R A W I N G S F O R PP R O V A L P R I O R T O I N S T A L L A T I O N . ON C R E T E P A T I O / D E C K all technical drawings, graphic representation &models thereof, are the copyrighted work of Think Architecture, Inc. and connot be copied,duplicated, or commercially exploited in whole or in part without the sole and express written permission from THINK Architecture, Inc.These drawings are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors,government agencies, vendors, and office personnel only in accordance with this notice. OV E R A L L L A N D S C A P E Removed vegetation from easement Evergreen shrub for every 3’ linear feet of foundation along street facing elevations Neighboors drive included Trees removed from McDonald lateral Stub in parking lot for future nothern expansion ��E IDIANIZC-- �J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 12, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 E Item Title: Resolution No. 19-2174: A Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian approving a welcome to meridian signage plan Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.E . Presenter: Caleb Hood Estimated Time f or P resentation: 10 minutes Title of I tem - Resolution No. 19-2174: A Resolution of the M ayor and the City Council of the C ity Of M eridian Approving a Welcome to M eridian Signage Plan R esolution adopting welcome sign plan. C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Welcome Sign Plan Reso Resolution 11/7/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Community Development.Weatherly, A drienne Approved 11/7/2019 - 5:19 P M Community Development.A lbertson, Michelle Approved 11/7/2019 - 5:25 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 123 of 139 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 19-2174 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WELCOME TO MERIDIAN SIGNAGE PLAN. WHEREAS, the Welcome to Meridian Signage Plan is designed to enhance and support Meridian as a premier City that is built for business and designed for living; and WHEREAS, Meridian is the population and employment center of the Treasure Valley, surrounded on all sides by other cities; and WHEREAS, recognition and identity are important to the City's livability factor and meeting economic development goals; and WHEREAS, the Welcome to Meridian Signage Plan, as set forth in ExhibitA hereto, establishes a framework to locate entryway signs along streets throughout the City; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the Welcome to Meridian Signage Plan, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the Community Development Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the Welcome to Meridian Signage Plan, as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect on December 1, 2019. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 12'x' day of November, 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 12" day of November, 2019. APPROVED: ATTEST: We l c o m e  to  Me r i d i a n  Si g n a g e  Pl a n In t r o d u c t i o n   Th e   We l c o m e   to   Me r i d i a n   Si g n a g e   Pl a n   is   de s i g n e d   to   en h a n c e   an d   su p p o r t   Me r i d i a n   as   a   pr e m i e r   Ci t y   th a t   is   bu i l t   fo r   bu s i n e s s   an d   de s i g n e d  fo r  li v i n g .  As  th e  po p u l a t i o n  an d  em p l o y m e n t  ce n t e r  of  th e   me t r o p o l i t a n   ar e a ,   su r r o u n d e d   on   al l   si d e s   by   ot h e r   ci t i e s ,   re c o g n i t i o n   an d   id e n t i t y   ar e   im p o r t a n t   to   th e   Ci t y ’ s   li v a b i l i t y   fa c t o r   an d  ec o n o m i c  de v e l o p m e n t  go a l s .   Ba c k g r o u n d   Th i s   Pl a n   ha s   be e n   a   fu n c t i o n a l   pr o g r a m   si n c e   20 1 0   wh e n   th e   Ci t y   fi r s t   be g a n  wo r k i n g   wi t h  th e   Ad a   Co u n t y   Hi g h w a y   Di s t r i c t   (A C H D )   to   lo c a t e   en t r y w a y   st r e e t   si g n s   al o n g   ar t e r i a l   ro a d w a y s .   Th e s e   me t a l   si g n s  we r e  fi r s t  in s t a l l e d  to  he l p  st a k e h o l d e r s  an d  vi s i t o r s  kn o w  wh e n   th e y  en t e r  in t o  in   Me r i d i a n   Ci t y   li m i t s .   Wh i l e  th e  2’   x  3’  me t a l  st r e e t   si g n s   ar e   ad e q u a t e   fo r   co m m u n i t y   id e n t i t y   on   ma n y   ro a d s ,   th e y   ar e   no t   vi s i b l e   at   ma j o r   po i n t s   of   en t r y   su c h   as   at   in t e r c h a n g e s   or   on   wi d e r ,  mu l t i ‐la n e  ro a d w a y s .   Hi s t o r i c a l l y ,  de v e l o p m e n t  al o n g  hi g h ‐pr o f i l e  en t r y w a y  co r r i d o r s ,  su c h   as   Fa i r v i e w   Av e n u e   ea s t   of   Ea g l e   Ro a d ,   cr e a t e d   op p o r t u n i t i e s   fo r   la r g e r  en t r y w a y  fe a t u r e s .  La r g e r  mo n u m e n t  si g n s  ar e  mo r e  vi s i b l e  to   mo t o r i s t   an d   be t t e r   ab l e   to   ma r k e t   th e   Ci t y .   Th e s e   mo n u m e n t s   ar e   de s i g n e d   an d   en g i n e e r e d   to   ma k e   ef f i c i e n t   us e   of   ma t e r i a l s   an d   co n s t r u c t i o n   ti m e ,   an d   ha v e   be e n   co n s t r u c t e d   in   se v e r a l   lo c a t i o n s   ar o u n d  th e  Ci t y .  To d a y  th e s e  mo n u m e n t s  ar e  si t e d  an d  bu i l t  bo t h  by   th e  Ci t y  an d  wi l l i n g  de v e l o p m e n t  pa r t n e r s ;  th i s  Pl a n  he l p s  to  hi g h l i g h t   op p o r t u n i t i e s  fo r  ad d i t i o n a l  mo n u m e n t  si g n s  in t o  th e  fu t u r e .   St r e e t  Si g n s   We l c o m e  to  Me r i d i a n  st r e e t  si g n s  ar e  24 ”  x  36” branded  metal  signs   th a t   ha v e   be e n   lo c a l l y   ma n u f a c t u r e d ,   an d   in s t a l l e d  in  coordination   wi t h  th e  AC H D .  Th e  si g n s  ut i l i z e  Ci t y  st a n d a r d s  for  market  colors  and   lo g o   us e ,   an d   ar e   mo u n t e d   on   st a n d a r d   12 ‐foot  breakaway  posts.  Th e s e  si g n s  ar e  ve r y  si m i l a r  to  th e  Ci t y ’ s  fl a g ,  a  design  since  emulated   by  ot h e r s .   Th e  Ci t y  ke e p s  se v e r a l  of  th e s e  me t a l  st r e e t  signs  and  posts  on ‐hand   so  th e y  ar e  re a d i l y  av a i l a b l e  sh o u l d  a  re p l a c e m e n t  for  an  existing  sign   be  ne e d e d .   Do u b l e F a c e H a l o I l l u m i n a t e d M o n u m e n t S i g n Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 5 o f 1 3 9     CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WELCOME TO MERIDIAN SIGNAGE PAN. WHEREAS, the Welcome to Meridian Signage Plan is designed to enhance and support Meridian as a premier City that is built for business and designed for living; and WHEREAS, Meridian is the population and employment center of the Treasure Valley, surrounded on all sides by other cities; and WHEREAS, recognition and identity are important to the City’s livability factor and meeting economic development goals; and WHEREAS, the Welcome to Meridian Signage Plan, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, establishes a framework to locate entryway signs along streets throughout the City; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the Welcome to Meridian Signage Plan, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the Community Development Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the Welcome to Meridian Signage Plan, as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect on December 1, 2019. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 12th day of November, 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 12th day of November, 2019. APPROVED: ATTEST: _________________________________ Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk     We l c o m e  to  Me r i d i a n  Si g n a g e  Pl a n In t r o d u c t i o n   Th e   We l c o m e   to   Me r i d i a n   Si g n a g e   Pl a n   is   de s i g n e d   to   en h a n c e   an d   su p p o r t   Me r i d i a n   as   a   pr e m i e r   Ci t y   th a t   is   bu i l t   fo r   bu s i n e s s   an d   de s i g n e d  fo r  li v i n g .  As  th e  po p u l a t i o n  an d  em p l o y m e n t  ce n t e r  of  th e   me t r o p o l i t a n   ar e a ,   su r r o u n d e d   on   al l   si d e s   by   ot h e r   ci t i e s ,   re c o g n i t i o n   an d   id e n t i t y   ar e   im p o r t a n t   to   th e   Ci t y ’ s   li v a b i l i t y   fa c t o r   an d  ec o n o m i c  de v e l o p m e n t  go a l s .   Ba c k g r o u n d   Th i s   Pl a n   ha s   be e n   a   fu n c t i o n a l   pr o g r a m   si n c e   20 1 0   wh e n   th e   Ci t y   fi r s t  be g a n  wo r k i n g   wi t h  th e  Ad a   Co u n t y   Hi g h w a y  Di s t r i c t   (A C H D )   to   lo c a t e   en t r y w a y   st r e e t   si g n s   al o n g   ar t e r i a l   ro a d w a y s .   Th e s e   me t a l   si g n s  we r e  fi r s t  in s t a l l e d  to  he l p  st a k e h o l d e r s  an d  vi s i t o r s  kn o w  wh e n   th e y  en t e r   in t o   in  Me r i d i a n   Ci t y  li m i t s .  Wh i l e  th e  2’   x  3’  me t a l  st r e e t   si g n s   ar e   ad e q u a t e   fo r   co m m u n i t y   id e n t i t y   on   ma n y   ro a d s ,   th e y   ar e   no t   vi s i b l e   at   ma j o r   po i n t s   of   en t r y   su c h   as   at   in t e r c h a n g e s   or   on   wi d e r ,  mu l t i ‐la n e  ro a d w a y s .    Hi s t o r i c a l l y ,  de v e l o p m e n t  al o n g  hi g h ‐pr o f i l e  en t r y w a y  co r r i d o r s ,  su c h   as   Fa i r v i e w   Av e n u e   ea s t   of   Ea g l e   Ro a d ,   cr e a t e d   op p o r t u n i t i e s   fo r   la r g e r  en t r y w a y  fe a t u r e s .  La r g e r  mo n u m e n t  si g n s  ar e  mo r e  vi s i b l e  to   mo t o r i s t   an d   be t t e r   ab l e   to   ma r k e t   th e   Ci t y .   Th e s e   mo n u m e n t s   ar e   de s i g n e d   an d   en g i n e e r e d   to   ma k e   ef f i c i e n t   us e   of   ma t e r i a l s   an d   co n s t r u c t i o n   ti m e ,   an d   ha v e   be e n   co n s t r u c t e d   in   se v e r a l   lo c a t i o n s   ar o u n d  th e  Ci t y .  To d a y  th e s e  mo n u m e n t s  ar e  si t e d  an d  bu i l t  bo t h  by   th e  Ci t y  an d  wi l l i n g  de v e l o p m e n t  pa r t n e r s ;  th i s  Pl a n  he l p s  to  hi g h l i g h t   op p o r t u n i t i e s  fo r  ad d i t i o n a l  mo n u m e n t  si g n s  in t o  th e  fu t u r e .   St r e e t  Si g n s   We l c o m e  to  Me r i d i a n  st r e e t  si g n s  ar e  24 ”  x  36” branded  metal  signs   th a t   ha v e   be e n   lo c a l l y   ma n u f a c t u r e d ,   an d   installed  in  coordination   wi t h  th e  AC H D .  Th e  si g n s  ut i l i z e  Ci t y  st a n d a r d s  for  market  colors  and   lo g o   us e ,   an d   ar e   mo u n t e d   on   st a n d a r d   12 ‐foot  breakaway  posts.  Th e s e  si g n s  ar e  ve r y  si m i l a r  to  th e  Ci t y ’ s  fl a g ,  a  design  since  emulated   by  ot h e r s .   Th e  Ci t y  ke e p s  se v e r a l  of  th e s e  me t a l  st r e e t  signs  and  posts  on ‐hand   so  th e y  ar e  re a d i l y  av a i l a b l e  sh o u l d  a  re p l a c e m e n t  for  an  existing  sign   be  ne e d e d .   Do u b l e F a c e H a l o I l l u m i n a t e d M o n u m e n t S i g n   Mo n u m e n t  Si g n s   In   20 1 2 ,   th e   Ci t y   ob t a i n e d   co n s t r u c t i o n   dr a w i n g s   fo r   th r e e   ty p e s   of   mo n u m e n t s ,   an d   la t e r   ex p a n d e d   on   th i s   wi t h   an   op t i o n   fo r   a   la r g e r   va r i a n t .   Mo n u m e n t   si g n s   ar e   st a n d a r d i z e d ,   pr e ‐en g i n e e r e d ,   an d   co m e   in   th e   fo l l o w i n g   va r i e t i e s :   st a n d a r d   (f u l l )   ho r i z o n t a l ,   hi g h w a y   ho r i z o n t a l ,  an d  a  ve r t i c a l  (s m a l l )  mo n u m e n t  in t e n d e d  fo r  co n s t r a i n e d   lo c a t i o n s .   Al l   mo n u m e n t   si g n s   sh a r e   so m e   ge n e r a l   lo o k   an d   fe e l   el e m e n t s .   Al l   va r i e t i e s   us e   st a n d a r d i z e d   ma t e r i a l   co l o r s ,   in c l u d e   a   fa u x  or  re a l  br i c k ,  th e  Ci t y ’ s  lo g o  or  em b l e m  (t h e  st a r  sw o o s h ) ,  an d  al l   in c l u d e  re c e s s e d  ba c k l i t  ha l o  il l u m i n a t i o n  of  si g n  co p y .   Th e   Ci t y   pr e f e r s   a   co n s i s t e n t   de s i g n   fo r   mo n u m e n t   si g n s .   Ho w e v e r ,   th e   Ci t y   is   op e n   to   co n s i d e r i n g   ot h e r   de s i g n s   wh e n   ap p r o p r i a t e .   Wh e n   a   cu s t o m   de s i g n   is   pr o p o s e d ,   th e   Ci t y   wo u l d   pr e f e r   to   ha v e   so m e   of   th e   st a n d a r d   el e m e n t s   li s t e d   ab o v e   ma i n t a i n e d   so   th e   ov e r a l l   br a n d i n g   is   co n s i s t e n t .   It   ma y   be   ap p r o p r i a t e   fo r   a   cu s t o m   si g n ,   ho w e v e r ,   to   in c o r p o r a t e   de s i g n   ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s   co n s i s t i n g   wi t h   ex i s t i n g  or  pl a n n e d  de v e l o p m e n t  so  it  ti e s  in t o  th a t  th e m e  as  we l l .  In   al l  ca s e s ,  th e  Ci t y  lo g o  an d / o r  na m e  an d  em b l e m  wo u l d  st i l l  ne e d  to   be  in c l u d e d   in   th e   mo n u m e n t  de s i g n .   Se e   Ge n e r a l   Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   fo r   in f o r m a t i o n  on  us e  of  th e  Ci t y ’ s  lo g o .   Ov e r v i e w   Hi s t o r i c a l l y   th e   Ci t y   ha s   ut i l i z e d   GI S   to   me m o r i a l i z e   ex i s t i n g   an d   fu t u r e   de s i r e d   lo c a t i o n s   fo r   me t a l   st r e e t   si g n s   an d   mo n u m e n t s .   Th e   Ci t y  wo r k s  wi t h  AC H D  to  lo c a t e  si g n s  in  pu b l i c  ri g h t ‐of ‐wa y  (R O W )  an d   wo r k s   wi t h   pr o p e r t y   ow n e r s   an d   de v e l o p e r s   to   lo c a t e   mo n u m e n t s   ou t s i d e  of  pu b l i c  RO W  (t y p i c a l l y  in  an  ea s e m e n t ) .   Wi t h   Me r i d i a n ’ s   ra p i d   gr o w t h ,   re l o c a t i n g   me t a l   st r e e t   si g n s   as   de v e l o p m e n t  oc c u r s  wo u l d  be  a  bu r d e n  on  ag e n c y  st a f f  ti m e .  In s t e a d ,   th e  Ci t y  ty p i c a l l y  re v i e w s  ex i s t i n g  lo c a t i o n s  an d  Ci t y  li m i t  bo u n d a r i e s   ev e r y   fe w   ye a r s .   Th i s   is   a   re l a t i v e l y   si m p l e   mapping  process  where   ex i s t i n g   si g n s   ar e   co m p a r e d   wi t h   Ci t y   li m i t s ,  and  the  City  then   pr o v i d e s   ma p s   an d   ma k e s   a   re q u e s t   to   th e  ACHD  Sign  Shop, to   re l o c a t e   st r e e t   si g n s   wh i c h   ar e   no   lo n g e r  at  the  limits  of  City   bo u n d a r i e s .   Mo n u m e n t   si g n s   re q u i r e   a   mo r e   co n c e r t e d  coordination  effort  to   im p l e m e n t .  Th i s  ge n e r a l l y  oc c u r s  ei t h e r  th r o u g h  City  initiated  efforts,  or   th r o u g h   ex p l o r i n g   op p o r t u n i t i e s   an d   pa r t n e r s h i p s  with  property   ow n e r s  as  de v e l o p m e n t  is  pr o p o s e d .  In  bo t h  cases, monument  signs   ar e   ge n e r a l l y   lo c a t e d   on   re a l   pr o p e r t y ,   ei t h e r  land  that  the  City   al r e a d y   ow n s ,   or   wh e r e   an   ea s e m e n t   or  other  agreement  is   ne g o t i a t e d  on  pr o p e r t y  ow n e d  by  ot h e r s .   Th e   mo s t   co m m o n   wa y   mo n u m e n t   si g n s   ar e  constructed  is  through   Ci t y ‐le d   ef f o r t s   vi a   th e   bu d g e t i n g   pr o c e s s .  When  staff  or  elected   of f i c i a l s   be l i e v e   th e r e   is   an   op p o r t u n i t y   fo r  a  new  monument  sign,  re v i e w   an d   re s e a r c h   is   do n e   to   ve r i f y   fe a s i b i l i t y .  If  an  opportunity   se e m s  li k e  a  go o d  fi t ,  th e n  a  re q u e s t  is  ma d e  through  the  City’s  annual   bu d g e t  pr o c e s s .   Th e   ot h e r   wa y   mo n u m e n t   si g n s   ma y   be   constructed  is  when  a   de v e l o p e r   or   pr o p e r t y   ow n e r   vo l u n t e e r s  to  construct  one  or   pr o p o s e s  to  co l l a b o r a t e  wi t h  th e  Ci t y  fo r  co n s t r u c t i o n .  Staff  will  notify   de v e l o p e r s   an d   pr o p e r t y   ow n e r s   du r i n g   pr e ‐application  meetings   wh e n   a   mo n u m e n t   si g n   is   en v i s i o n e d   on  or  near  the  property   pr o p o s e d  fo r  de v e l o p m e n t  (s e e  Ma p s  se c t i o n  for  locations).   Im p l e m e n t a t i o n   Th e r e   ar e   se v e r a l   ci t y   po l i c i e s ,   co d e   se c t i o n s ,  and  permitting   pr o c e s s e s  th a t  ar e  in v o l v e d  in  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  this  Plan.     Co m p r e h e n s i v e  Pl a n   At   th e   hi g h e s t   le v e l ,   th e   Ci t y ’ s   Co m p r e h e n s i v e   Pl a n   pr o v i d e s   br o a d   di r e c t i o n  to  su p p o r t  ef f o r t s  to  we l c o m e  re s i d e n t s ,  vi s i t o r s ,  an d  ot h e r   st a k e h o l d e r s  in t o  th e  Ci t y .   Ci t y  Co d e   Me r i d i a n ’ s   co d e   re q u i r e s   se v e r a l   ty p e s   of   pe r m i t s   fo r   si g n s ,   in   ad d i t i o n   to   ge n e r a l   la n d s c a p e   an d   se t b a c k   re s t r i c t i o n s .   Ho w e v e r ,   a   si g n  co o r d i n a t e d  by  th e  Ci t y  an d   in s t a l l e d  by  AC H D  do e s  no t  re q u i r e   an   ad d i t i o n a l   pe r m i t   or   ag r e e m e n t   wh e n   lo c a t e d   in   pu b l i c   ri g h t ‐of ‐ wa y .   It   is   no t   pl a n n e d ,   ex p e c t e d ,   or   de s i r e d   fo r   a   st r e e t   si g n   to   be   lo c a t e d  on  re a l  pr o p e r t y ,  bu t  ra t h e r  pl a c e d  in  AC H D  ri g h t ‐of ‐wa y .    Mo n u m e n t s ,   wh i l e   a   ty p e   of   si g n a g e ,   re q u i r e   pe r m i t s   re g a r d l e s s   of   wh e t h e r   th e   Ci t y ,   pr i v a t e   de v e l o p m e n t ,   or   ot h e r s   in s t a l l   th e m .   Mo n u m e n t   si g n s   re q u i r e   fo o t i n g   an d   el e c t r i c a l   re v i e w ,   an d   th e   ea s i e s t  pr o c e s s  to  ap p r o v e  th o s e  is  th r o u g h  a  Ci t y ‐is s u e d  si g n  pe r m i t .   If   a   mo n u m e n t   is   to   be   in s t a l l e d   by   a   pa r t n e r   ag e n c y   or   de v e l o p e r ,   th e n   pa r t   of   an y   ag r e e m e n t   sh o u l d   cl a r i f y   an d   co n s i d e r   pe r m i t s ,   in s p e c t i o n s ,   ac c e p t a n c e ,   an d   an y   as s o c i a t e d   co s t s   as   pa r t   of   th e   ag r e e m e n t .    It  is  en v i s i o n e d  th a t  mo n u m e n t  si g n s  wi l l  be  in s t a l l e d  ov e r  ti m e ,  bo t h   by  th e  Ci t y  in d e p e n d e n t l y  an d  as  pa r t  of  pr i v a t e ‐pu b l i c  pa r t n e r s h i p s .   Pa r t n e r s h i p s   ca n  va r y ,  an d   th e  Ci t y  sh o u l d  re m a i n  op e n   to  ex p l o r i n g   an y  an d  al l  pr o p o s a l s  fr o m  po t e n t i a l  pa r t n e r s  to  im p l e m e n t  th i s  pl a n .   Ma i n t e n a n c e   In   mo s t   ca s e s ,   it   is   ex p e c t e d   th a t   th e   Ci t y   wi l l   ta k e   on   th e   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   fo r   ma i n t e n a n c e   an d   re p a i r   of   al l   me t a l   st r e e t   an d   we l c o m e   mo n u m e n t   si g n s .   Fo r   an y   in s t a n c e   wh e r e   th i s   ma y   no t   be   de s i r a b l e ,   an   ag r e e m e n t  sh o u l d   ov e r v i e w   an y   ro l e s ,   re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,   an d  ex p e c t a t i o n s .   Ma p s   Th e   fo l l o w i n g   ma p s   de p i c t   th e   lo c a t i o n   of   ex i s t i n g  and  future  street   si g n s  as  we l l  as  ex i s t i n g  an d  fu t u r e  mo n u m e n t  locations. Street  signs   ar e   pl a n n e d   fo r   th e   ma j o r i t y   of   en t r y w a y s  into  Meridian, with   mo n u m e n t   si g n s   on l y  pr o p o s e d  al o n g  St a t e  highways, interchanges,  an d  ke y  en t r y w a y s  in t o  th e  Ci t y .    It   is   en v i s i o n e d   th a t   ev e r y   fe w   ye a r s   Ci t y   st a f f  will  work  with  ACHD   st a f f   to   ad j u s t   me t a l   st r e e t   si g n s   as   ne c e s s a r y  with  little ‐to ‐no  fiscal   im p l i c a t i o n .   Lo c a t i o n s   an d   si g n   ty p e   ar e   no t  exact  or  parcel  specific,  bu t   ha v e   ge n e r a l l y   be e n   id e n t i f i e d   as   mo s t   desirable  at  the  time  of   Pl a n  ad o p t i o n .  Nu m b e r e d  sy m b o l s  on  th e  map  correspond  to  a  Map   Ex h i b i t  Ke y  fo l l o w i n g   th e   ma p s ,  an d  hi g h l i g h t  additional  information   fo r  th e  va r i o u s  mo n u m e n t  si g n  lo c a t i o n s .   Th e   Ci t y   sh o u l d   re m a i n   op e n   an d   lo o k   fo r   potential  partnerships  to   lo c a t e   mo n u m e n t   si g n s   ne a r   ke y   en t r y w a y s ,  remaining  flexible  in   bo t h  lo c a t i o n  an d  mo n u m e n t  si g n  ty p e  an d  design.       No r t h  Me r i d i a n  Ma p  Ex h i b i t           So u t h  Me r i d i a n  Ma p  Ex h i b i t       Ma p  Ex h i b i t  Ke y   ID # St a t u s Si g n T y p e Pr e f e r r e d L o c a t i o n Ot h e r N o t e s 1 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t Me r i d i a n , b e t w e e n C o l u m b i a a n d L a k e H a z e l 2 Fu t u r e S m a l l M o n u m e n t n e c L i n d e r / L a k e H a z e l 3 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t se c L a k e H a z e l / M c D e r m o t t 4 Fu t u r e S m a l l M o n u m e n t L a k e H a z e l , 1 / 4 m i l e w e s t o f C l o v e r d a l e 5 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t we s t s i d e E a g l e R o a d , n e a r K o h l s o r F a s t E d d y ’ s pr o p e r t y Th e D A f o r F a s t E d d y ’ s c u r r e n t l y i n c l u d e s re q u i r e m e n t 6 Fu t u r e S m a l l M o n u m e n t S H - 1 6 S B o f f r a m p a t C h i n d e n W i t h S H - 1 6 c o n s t r u c t i o n ? 7 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t SH - 1 6 o f f r a m p ( s ) a t / n e a r U s t i c k / M c D e r m o t t Wi t h S H - 1 6 c o n s t r u c t i o n ? T w o s i g n s ? 8 Fu t u r e S m a l l M o n u m e n t s e c F r a n k l i n / M c D e r m o t t a t S H - 1 6 o f f - r a m p W i t h S H - 1 6 c o n s t r u c t i o n ? 9 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t se c C h i n d e n / C a n - A d a 10 Fu t u r e F u l l M o n u m e n t s w c L o c u s t G r o v e / C h i n d e n ( V a l l e y L i f e C h u r c h ) W i t h i n t e r s e c t i o n w i d e n i n g ? 11 Ex i s t i n g Fu l l M o n u m e n t Ma i n / M e r i d i a n Me t a l s c u l p t u r e a t n o r t h e n d o f s p l i t c o r r i d o r 12 Fu t u r e S m a l l M o n u m e n t s e c U s t i c k / M c D er m o t t W i t h S H - 1 6 c o n s t r u c t i o n ? 13 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t ne c U s t i c k / E a g l e On U s t i c k , b y L o w e ’ s 14 Fu t u r e S m a l l M o n u m e n t se c C h e r r y / M c D e r mo t t / S H - 1 6 A t / N e a r c o u n t y l i n e 15 Ex i s t i n g Fu l l M o n u m e n t Fa i r v i e w , 1 / 2 m i l e e a s t o f E a g l e In f r o n t o f C a r M a x 16 Fu t u r e F u l l M o n u m e n t I - 8 4 E B o f f r a m p a t T e n M i l e 17 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t I- 8 4 W B o f f r a m p a t T e n M i l e 18 Fu t u r e F u l l M o n u m e n t I - 8 4 E B o f f r a m p a t M e r i d i a n 19 Ex i s t i n g Fu l l M o n u m e n t I- 8 4 E B o f f r a m p a t E a g l e In f r o n t o f T r u H o t e l 20 Fu t u r e F u l l M o n u m e n t I - 8 4 W B o f f r a m p a t E a g l e ( S t . L u k e ’ s ) Co u l d p u t s o m e C O R E m a t e r i a l t o m o d i f y si g n ; h a v e a g r e e m e n t w i t h h o s p i t a l 21 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t Ov e r l a n d n e a r E a g l e ( Z a m z o w s / N o r c o a r e a ) Co u l d m o v e f u r t h e r e a s t i f r e d e v e l o p m e n t oc c u r s 22 Ex i s t i n g F u l l M o n u m e n t n w c L i n d e r / C h i n d e n In s t a l l e d w i t h C h i n d e n / L i n d e r c r o s s i n g pr o j e c t   Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   Ge n e r a l  Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   Th e   fo l l o w i n g   sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   ar e   to   be   us e d   bo t h   fo r   th e   ap p r o v e d   st r e e t  si g n ,  mo n u m e n t  si g n s ,  an d  an y  no n ‐st a n d a r d  de s i g n s .   Lo g o  Co l o r :  In  ad d i t i o n  to  bl a c k  an d  wh i t e ,  th e  Me r i d i a n  lo g o  ma y  be   us e d  in  th e  fo l l o w i n g  co l o r s :    Bl u e  co l o r :  Pa n t o n e  28 8  C;  an d    Go l d  co l o r :  12 4  C.   Lo g o  Pr o p o r t i o n :  Th e  Me r i d i a n  lo g o  ma y  no t  be  cl i p p e d  or  di s t o r t e d ,   an d  mu s t  ma i n t a i n  a  ra t i o  of  1: 3 . 4 1 .  Fo r  ev e r y  1”  he i g h t ,  th e  lo g o  sh a l l   be  3. 4 1 ”  in  wi d t h .   Us e  of  th e  lo g o  mu s t  ad h e r e  to  th e  Me r i d i a n  Br a n d  Ma n u a l ,  wh i c h  in   ad d i t i o n   to   th e   ab o v e ,   ge n e r a l l y   me a n s   th a t   th e   lo g o   mu s t   be   al l   bl a c k ,  bl u e ,  go l d ,  ye l l o w ,  or  wh i t e  (a p p r o v e d  co l o r s ) ,  bu t  ma y  in c l u d e   th e   Id a h o   te x t   an d   th e   st a r   po r t i o n   ab o v e   th e   sw o o s h   in   an o t h e r   of   th e  ap p r o v e d  co l o r s .   Wh i l e   th e   Me r i d i a n   lo g o   is   a   gr a p h i c ,   it   ma y   be   de s i r a b l e   to   ut i l i z e   si m i l a r  fo n t s   fo r   ot h e r   wo r k .   Th e   fo n t  us e d  fo r  th e  Me r i d i a n  te x t  (a l l   bo t h   th e   M)  is  Ad o b e  Je n s e n .   Th e  ‛ R’  ha s  be e n  mo d i f i e d  gr a p h i c a l l y .   Th e  ‛ M’  is  a  va r i a n t  of  th e  fo n t  Vi v a l d i  Sc r i p t  FS .   Se e  th e  Ci t y ’ s  Br a n d  Ma n u a l  fo r  mo r e  in f o r m a t i o n  on  us e  of  th e  Ci t y ’ s   lo g o .   St r e e t  Si g n  Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   In   ad d i t i o n   to   th e   be l o w   sp e c i f i c a t i o n s ,   an y   st r e e t   si g n   pl a c e d   in   pu b l i c  ri g h t ‐of ‐wa y  sh a l l  me e t  al l  st a n d a r d s  an d  sp e c i f i c a t i o n s  fo r  th e   ap p l i c a b l e  ag e n c y .   Si g n :  Th e  si g n  sh a l l  be  24 ”  x  36 ”  pr i n t e d  in  fu l l  color  as  shown  in  Figure   1  on  re f l e c t i v e  20 +  ye a r  UV  re s i s t a n t  la m i n a t e .  Sign  shall  be  adhered   to  0. 0 8  ga u g e  al u m i n u m    gr a d e  ro a d  si g n   wi t h  1 ‐1/2” smooth  radius   co r n e r s .   Ho l e s   sh a l l   be   3/ 8 ”   DI A ,   pr e ‐dr i l l e d  3” from  the  top  and   bo t t o m   (1 8 ”   ap a r t )   as   sh o w n   in   Fi g u r e   1.   Ho l e s  are  sized  per  Idaho   De p a r t m e n t   of   Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n   (I T D )   st a n d a r d s  but  may  need  to  be   in c r e a s e d  to  7/ 1 6 ”  du r i n g  fi e l d  in s t a l l .   Br e a k a w a y   Po s t :   Si g n   sh a l l   be   mo u n t e d   to  ACHD  standard  12’  ga l v a n i z e d  me t a l  sq u a r e  si g n  po s t   Fi g u r e 1 : N o t e l o c a t i o n o f t w o b l a c k h o l e s f o r s e c u r i n g s i g n t o b r e a k a w a y p o s t . Mo n u m e n t  Si g n  Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   St a n d a r d   De s i g n s :   Th e   pr e f e r r e d   an d   de f a u l t  monument  signs  are   pr e ‐de s i g n e d   an d   en g i n e e r e d .   Th e   th r e e   va r i a n t s  include: standard   ho r i z o n t a l ,   hi g h w a y   ho r i z o n t a l ,   an d   a   ve r t i c a l  monument, and  are   in c l u d e d   in   th e   ba c k   ap p e n d i c e s .   Th e   ho r i z o n t a l  may  be  used  on   no r m a l   ar t e r i a l   en t r y w a y s ;   th o s e   le s s   th a n  5 ‐lanes. The  highway     ho r i z o n t a l   sh o u l d   be   us e d   ad j a c e n t   to   an y   in t e r c h a n g e   of   ro a d   co n f i g u r a t i o n   la r g e r   th a n   5 ‐la n e s   (i n c l u d i n g   tu r n ‐la n e s ) .   Th e   ve r t i c a l   mo n u m e n t   is   in t e n d e d   fo r   co n s t r a i n e d   lo c a t i o n s   wh e r e   la n d s c a p e   ar e a  is  li m i t e d .   No n ‐st a n d a r d   De s i g n s :   Ot h e r ,   cu s t o m   mo n u m e n t   si g n   de s i g n s   ma y   be   co n s i d e r e d   wh e n   th e y   ar e   in t e n d e d   to   in t e g r a t e   wi t h   ot h e r   ar c h i t e c t u r a l  gu i d e l i n e s ,  wh e n  in t e g r a t e d  in t o  a   pu b l i c   or   pr i v a t e   ar t   ex h i b i t ,  or  fo r  no n ‐tr a d i t i o n a l  en t r y w a y s  (e . g .  – wi t h i n  a  ro u n d a b o u t ) .   Re g a r d l e s s ,   th e   de s i g n   mu s t   ma i n t a i n   si m i l a r   si z e   co n s i d e r a t i o n s   as   th e   ty p i c a l   mo n u m e n t   si g n   fo r   th e   lo c a t i o n ,   mu s t   fo l l o w   ge n e r a l   sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   if   us i n g   th e   Ci t y ’ s   no r m a l   lo g o ,   an d   sh o u l d   st i l l   re f l e c t   th e   Ci t y ’ s   le v e l   of   co m m i t m e n t   to   ae s t h e t i c s ,   qu a l i t y ,   an d   ma i n t e n a n c e .   Se e   mo n u m e n t   co n s t r u c t i o n   pl a n s   fo r   di m e n s i o n s   on   th e  si g n s ,  lo g o s ,  ma t e r i a l  ty p e s  an d  co l o r s ,  an d  ot h e r  re f e r e n c e s .        Ap p e n d i c e s   Mo n u m e n t  Co n s t r u c t i o n  Pl a n s    Ho r i z o n t a l  Mo n u m e n t ,  Re g u l a r    Ho r i z o n t a l  Mo n u m e n t ,  Hi g h w a y    Ve r t i c a l  Mo n u m e n t        COPYRIGHT © 2012 CUSTOMER LOCATION DATE PAGE # __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ T H I S I S A N U N P U B L I S H E D DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN C O N N E C T I O N W I T H A P R O J E C T B E I N G P L A N N E D FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL C O L O R S U S E D O N T H E FINISHED DISPLAY. w w w .i e s i g n .c o m HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 28 YEARS Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6 528 SUPPLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 SALES DESIGNER REVISIONS 25961 N/A W.O. # RICK'S FILE 12-5-12 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN RICK BREDE NEIL COPYRIGHT © 2012 HORIZONTAL ENTRYWAY MONUMENT SIGN COPYRIGHT © 2012 CUSTOMER LOCATION DATE PAGE # __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ T H I S I S A N U N P U B L I S H E D DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN C O N N E C T I O N W I T H A P R O J E C T B E I N G P L A N N E D FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL C O L O R S U S E D O N T H E FINISHED DISPLAY. w w w .i e s i g n .c o m HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 28 YEARS Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6 528 SUPPLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 SALES DESIGNER REVISIONS 25961 N/A W.O. # RICK'S FILE 12-5-12 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN RICK BREDE NEIL SAILOR COURSE ROWLOCK COURSE SIDE VIEW 3/4"=1'-0" 11'-0" 5'-6" 7'-0" 7'-4" 1'-8"1'-8" 2'-8" 5' - 1 0 " 3' - 9 " 2' - 1 " 4" 1' - 7 ½ " 1' - ½ " 5 3 / 4 " 2½ " 8 3 / 4 " 4" 1' - 9 " 3" ROWLOCK COURSE 1'-6" 1'-8" 1'-0" DOUBLE FACE HALO ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGN SCALE 3/4"=1'-0" CABINET- FABRICATED WITH ALUMINUM FRAME AND SKINNED WITH .080 ALUMINUM SHEETING PAINTED WITH A BEIGE TEXTURED FINISH. SW 6128 BLONDE. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS "WELCOME TO" REVERSE PAN LETTERS- TYPE STYLE IS TAHOMA. ½" DEEP FABRICATED STAINLESS STEEL LETTERS. FACES AND RETURNS ARE PAINTED YELLOW TO MATCH PMS 124C. LETTERS ARE PEGGED ½" FROM BACKGROUND. REVERSE PAN LOGO- "MERIDIAN" ½" DEEP FABRICATED STAINLESS STEEL LETTERS. "MERIDIAN" FACES AND RETURNS ARE PAINTED BLUE TO MATCH PMS 288C. STAR FACE AND RETURNS ARE PAINTED YELLOW TO MATCH PMS 124C. ALL TO BE PEG MOUNTED ½" FROM BACKGROUND. HALO ILLUMINATION- GELCORE TETRA MINI MAX WHITE LEDS OR EQUIVALENT. U.L. LISTED. "IDAHO"- NON-ILLUMINATED FLAT CUT OUT LETTERS ROUTED FROM ½" ALUMINUM PAINTED YELLOW TO MATCH PMS 124C. PEG MOUNTED ½" FROM BACKGROUND. FACES TO BE FLUSH WITH REVERSE PAN COPY. BOTTOM LIP- (SEE ADDITIONAL DRAWING) FABRICATED WITH ALUMINUM FRAME AND SKINNED WITH .080 ALUMINUM SHEETING PAINTED WITH A BEIGE TEXTURED FINISH. SW 6128 BLONDE. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS. LIP BOLTS TO CABINET. BRICK MA SONRY BASE- (SEE ADDITIONAL DRAWING FOR BRICK AND COLUMN CAP DETAILS) MUTUAL MATERIALS MODULAR BRICK. COLOR IS DESERT ROSE. 3/8" JOINTS WITH ADOBE TAN GROUT. JOINTS ARE TO BE IRONED SMOOTH. 3" REVEAL IS CAST CONCRETE 3" THICK X 1'-6" SQUARE. REVEAL COLOR IS SW 6128 BLONDE. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS. BLOCK BACKER AND FILLER REQUIRED IN BASE, WATERPROOFING MASONRYCOLUMNS CORE IS CONCRETE, BLOCK, OR APPROPRIATE BACKER. SEALER REQUIRED. CONCRETE RISER A S REQUIRED FOR MASONRY BASE. INSTALLATION- CABINET IS ATTACHED TO CENTER PIPE SUPPORT. (SEE ADDITIONAL DRAWING & ENGINEERING) A POLYURETHANE MASONRY SEALANT IS REQUIRED AT ALL CABINET TO MASONRY CONTACT POINTS. JUNCTION BOX ATTACHED TO POLE ABOVE MA SONRY CORE WITH LONG SWEEP ELBOW CONDUIT INTO FOUNDATION. 3' - 0 " PAGE 1 OF 3 3" 5" COPYRIGHT © 2012 CUSTOMER LOCATION DATE PAGE # __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ T H I S I S A N U N P U B L I S H E D DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN C O N N E C T I O N W I T H A P R O J E C T B E I N G P L A N N E D FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL C O L O R S U S E D O N T H E FINISHED DISPLAY. w w w .i e s i g n .c o m HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 28 YEARS Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6 528 SUPPLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 SALES DESIGNER REVISIONS 25961 N/A W.O. # RICK'S FILE 12-5-12 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN RICK BREDE NEIL PAGE 2 OF 3 SIDE VIEW 3/4"=1'-0" 3' - 9 " TOP DETAIL SCALE 3/4"=1'-0" 1'-0" 4" 1' - 7 ½ " 1' - ½ " 5 3 / 4 " 2½ " 7'-4" 1' - 0 " CABINET DETAIL SCALE 3/4"=1'-0" 7'-0" 6"6" 1'-8"2"2" 2'-0" 6" 6" 1' - 8 " 2" 2" 2' - 0 " C A B I N E T A N D L I P D E T A I L S LIPS BOLT TO CABINET COPYRIGHT © 2012 CUSTOMER LOCATION DATE PAGE # __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ T H I S I S A N U N P U B L I S H E D DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN C O N N E C T I O N W I T H A P R O J E C T B E I N G P L A N N E D FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL C O L O R S U S E D O N T H E FINISHED DISPLAY. w w w .i e s i g n .c o m HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 28 YEARS Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6 528 SUPPLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 SALES DESIGNER REVISIONS 25961 N/A W.O. # RICK'S FILE 12-5-12 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN RICK BREDE NEIL SAILOR COURSE ROWLOCK COURSE SIDE VIEW 3/4"=1'-0" 11'-6" CONCRETE RISER 7'-0"1'-8"1'-8" 3'-6" CONCRETE RISER 2' - 1 " 4" + \ - ROWLOCK COURSE 1'-6"1'-8" DOUBLE FACE HALO ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGN SCALE 3/4"=1'-0" CA ST CONCRETE REVEAL CMU BLOCK BACKER CMU BLOCK FILLER BRICK COLUMNS COLUMN CAP 1"=1'-0"TOP VIEW 3/4"=1'-0" 1'-10½" +\- 1' - 1 0 ½ " 2 " 4 2 " 4 ½ BRICK 6" NOTCHED FOR CABINET 2'-8" 3'-0" 11'-0" 3" 1' - 9 " 8 3 / 4 " CA ST CONCRETE REVEAL 3" X 1'-6" X 1'-6" B R I C K B A S E D E T A I L S PAGE 3 OF 3 JUNCTION BOX 150626 JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PLACE, SUITE 100, MERIDIAN, ID 83646 Office: (208) 939-1045 Cell: (208) 608-0008 E-mail: tim@jde-idaho.com June 22, 2015 Idaho Electric Signs 6528 Supply Way Voice (208) 338-9401 Boise, ID 83705 Attn: Rick Berry Re: City of Meridian - Meridian, ID 11x6 Monument Sign As you have requested, we have provided the footing and column design for the above mentioned project. Please find the following enclosed as a list of considerations for your use in completing the project: PDF copy of select structural calculations. PDF copy of red-lined plans. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely, JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC Tim Johnson, P.E. 150626 JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PLACE, SUITE 100, MERIDIAN, ID 83646 Office: (208) 939-1045 Cell: (208) 608-0008 E-mail: tim@jde-idaho.com STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS for Idaho Electric Signs City of Meridian - Meridian, ID Select Structural Design June 22, 2015 by JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. Lakes Place, Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho 83646 (208) 939-1045 Page 1 of 3 POLE SIGN DESIGN 2012 IBC Client:Idaho Electric Signs Project:City of Meridian 11' x 6' Monument Sign Project No.150626 Date: 22-Jun-15 DESIGN CRITERIA: Distance to sign top (h)9.00 ft. Height (s)9.00 ft. Width (B)15.67 ft. s/h 1.00 B/s 1.74 Wind Load:Basic Wind Speed, V =115 mph ASCE 7-10, Fig. 26.5-1A Exposure C ASCE 7-10, Sec. 26.7.3 Wind Directionality Factor, Kd 0.85 ASCE 7-10, Table 26.6-1 Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient, Kz =0.85 ASCE 7-10, Table 30.3-1 Velocity Pressure, q = .00256*Kz*Kd*V^2 = 24.46 psf ASCE 7-10, Eq. 29.3-1 Force Coefficient, Cf =1.55 ASCE 7-10, Fig. 29.4-1 Gust Factor Coefficient, G =0.85 ASCE 7-10, Sect. 26.9 Design Wind Load, P = q*G*Cf*.63 = 20.30 psf Seismic:Face Area Dead Load, Wt =20 psf Mapped Spectral Accelerations for short periods, Ss =1.60 ASCE 7-10, Sec. 11.4.1 Site Coefficient, Fa = 1.00 ASCE 7-10, Table 11.4-1 Max. Spectral Response, SMS = Fa*Ss =1.60 ASCE 7-10, Eq. 11.4-1 Design Spectral Response, SDS = 2/3*SMS =1.07 ASCE 7-10, Eq. 11.4-3 Response Modification Coefficient, R =2.00 ASCE 7-10 Table 12.2-1 Seismic Load, Vs = 1.0*S DS*Wt/R =10.7 psf ASCE 7-10 Eq. 12.14-11 Soil:Lateral Loadings Fpv= 200 pcf/ft. Vertical Loadings Fpb= 1500 psf Steel Stresses:Yield Strength, Fy = 36000 psi Bending Stress, Fb=0.66*Fy=23760 psi Concrete Stress:Concrete Strength, Fc' =2000 psi Reinforcing Strength, Fy = 40000 psi MEMBER NO.BASE HEIGHT Pw Y Mw Pv (ft) (lbs) (ft) (ft-lbs) (lbs) 1 0.00 1238 3 3436 1220 SIGN FORCES: MEMBER #1 Sign Area # Area (Af) Centriod (Cf) Centroid*Area (ft2) (ft from base) (ft3) 1 6.00 5.50 33.00 2 27.00 3.75 101.25 3 28.00 1.25 35.00 ____________ ____________ · Af = 61.00 ·Af*Cf = 169.25 Sign Centriod,6 = (·Af*Cf)/·Af = 2.77 ft. Wind Load, Pw = ·Af*Ww = 1238.50 lbs. @ base Vertical Load, Pv = ·Af*Wt = 1220.00 lbs. @ base JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PL., SUITE 100 * MERIDIAN * IDAHO 2/3 POLE SIGN DESIGN 2012 IBC Client:Idaho Electric Signs Project:City of Meridian 11' x 6' Monument Sign Project No.150626 Date: 22-Jun-15 JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PL., SUITE 100 * MERIDIAN * IDAHO COLUMN DESIGN: [Use AISC (1.6-2); fa/Fa + fb/Fb < 1.33] Use sign loads at the base of each column member for analysis of each member MEMBER #1 per member total 4" Dia x 0.237" Wall Ax (in2) = 3.17 6.34 Number of Columns 2 Sx (in3) = 3.21 6.42 ry (in) = 1.16 K = 2 L unbraced (ft.) = 9.00 KL/r = (in.)186 Fa=AISC T.1-36 24660.00 psi fa = Pv/Ax = 192.43 psi Fb = AISC 1.5 = 23760.00 psi fb = Mw/Sx = 6423.02 psi fa/Fa + fb/Fb = 0.28 <1.33 OK! FOUNDATION DESIGN [IBC -Section 18] FOOTING DEPTH = A/2(1+(1+(4.36*Y/A))^0.5) 2012 IBC Equation 18-1 ASSUMED Multiple Excavated Footings # Footings, #F = 1 Ftg. Width = (ft.) 11.50 Ftg. Thick = (ft.) 3.50 Depth = (ft.) 2.50 A = (2.34*Pw/#F)/(S*B) = 0.72 where S = Soil Bearing @ 1/3 Depth = 333.33 (psf) B = Effective Footing Width = 12.02 (ft.) MINIMUM FOOTING DEPTH = (FT.) 1.88 OK ! CK. FOOTING AREA REQ'D = Pv/Ab 0.81 OK ! 3/3 USING SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS WHICH PROVIDE SAVINGS BY CONSERVING ENERGY COPYRIGHT © 2015 _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ All signs are listed by Underwriters Laboratories and will be (U.L.) installed in accordance with the installation instructions and Article 600 of the National Electric Code w w w .i e s i g n .c o m Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6528 SUP PLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 REVISIONS DATE 1-23-15 LOCATION MERIDIAN CUSTOMER CITY OF MERIDIAN N/A RICK'S FILE SKETCH # RICK BREDE DESIGNER NEIL SALES PAGE # THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN CONNECTION WITH A PROJECT BEING PLANNED FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITH OU T WRI T TEN PERMI S S ION O F I D A H O E L E C T R I C S I G N S , I N C . THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL COLORS USED ON THE FINISHED DISPLAY. HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 31 YEARS SIDE VIEW ½" =1'-0"DOUBLE FACE HALO ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGN SCALE ½"=1'-0" CABINET- FABRICATED WITH ALUMINUM FRAME AND SKINNED WITH .080 ALUMINUM SHEETING PAINTED WITH A BEIGE TEXTURED FINISH. SW 6128 BLONDE. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS "WELCOME TO" REVERSE PAN LETTERS- TYPE STYLE IS TAHOMA. ½" DEEP FABRICATED STAINLESS STEEL LETTERS. FACES AND RETURNS ARE PAINTED YELLOW TO MATCH PMS 124C. LETTERS ARE PEGGED ½" FROM BACKGROUND. REVERSE PAN LOGO- "MERIDIAN" ½" DEEP FABRICATED STAINLESS STEEL LETTERS. "MERIDIAN" FACES AND RETURNS ARE PAINTED BLUE TO MATCH PMS 288C. STAR FACE AND RETURNS ARE PAINTED YELLOW TO MATCH PMS 124C. ALL TO BE PEG MOUNTED ½" FROM BACKGROUND. USE ONLY APPROVED CITY LOGO. HALO ILLUMINATION- GELCORE TETRA MINI MAX WHITE LEDS OR EQUIVALENT. U.L. LISTED. "IDAHO"- NON-ILLUMINATED FLAT CUT OUT LETTERS ROUTED FROM ½" ALUMINUM PAINTED YELLOW TO MATCH PMS 124C. PEG MOUNTED ½" FROM BACKGROUND. FACES TO BE FLUSH WITH REVERSE PAN COPY. BOTTOM LIP- (SEE ADDITIONAL DRAWING) FABRICATED WITH ALUMINUM FRAME AND SKINNED WITH .080 ALUMINUM SHEETING PAINTED WITH A BEIGE TEXTURED FINISH. SW 6128 BLONDE. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS. LIP BOLTS TO CABINET. BRICK MA SONRY BASE- (SEE ADDITIONAL DRAWING FOR BRICK AND COLUMN CAP DETAILS) MUTUAL MATERIALS MODULAR BRICK. COLOR IS DESERT ROSE. 3/8" JOINTS WITH ADOBE TAN GROUT. JOINTS ARE TO BE IRONED SMOOTH. 4" REVEAL IS CAST CONCRETE 4" THICK X 2'-2" SQUARE. REVEAL COLOR IS SW 6128 BLONDE. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS. BLOCK BACKER AND FILLER REQUIRED IN BASE, WATERPROOFING MASONRYCOLUMNS CORE IS CONCRETE, BLOCK, OR APPROPRIATE BACKER. SEALER REQUIRED. RISER / FOOTING FOR MASONRY BA SE IS TO BE ENGINEERED. INSTALLATION- CABINET IS ATTACHED TO CENTER PIPE SUPPORT. (SEE ADDITIONAL DRAWING & ENGINEERING) A POLYURETHANE MASONRY SEALANT IS REQUIRED AT ALL CABINET TO MASONRY CONTACT POINTS. JUNCTION BOX ATTACHED TO POLE ABOVE MA SONRY CORE WITH LONG SWEEP ELBOW CONDUIT INTO FOUNDATION. 16'-1½" +/- 10'-0" CABINET & LIP CLADDING 8'-0" LOGO 2'-4"+/- 2'-4" 8' - 4 " 5' - 4 " SAILOR COURSE ROWLOCK COURSE ROWLOCK COURSE 3' - 0 " 11 ¾ " 4" 2' - 8 " 3½ " 8½ " 1' - 6 " 6" 4" 7" 2' - 4 ¾ " 4' - 2 ½ " 3'-6" 2'-4"+/- 1'-6" 2'-2" NOTES: CONCRETE RISER / FOOTING REQUIRED 3 & ½ BRICKS 3 & ½ BRICKS 5 BRICKS 1 OF 5 2-30-15 (REV #3) CHANGED FROM ONE PIPE SUPPORT TO TWO 4" X .237 PIPES AS PER ENGINEERING. ADDED FOOTING SIZE. (SEE ENGINEERING) USING SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS WHICH PROVIDE SAVINGS BY CONSERVING ENERGY COPYRIGHT © 2015 _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ All signs are listed by Underwriters Laboratories and will be (U.L.) installed in accordance with the installation instructions and Article 600 of the National Electric Code w w w .i e s i g n .c o m Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6528 SUP PLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 REVISIONS DATE 1-23-15 LOCATION MERIDIAN CUSTOMER CITY OF MERIDIAN N/A RICK'S FILE SKETCH # RICK BREDE DESIGNER NEIL SALES PAGE # THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN CONNECTION WITH A PROJECT BEING PLANNED FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITH OU T WRI T TEN PERMI S S ION O F I D A H O E L E C T R I C S I G N S , I N C . THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL COLORS USED ON THE FINISHED DISPLAY. HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 31 YEARS SIDE VIEW ½" =1'-0"DOUBLE FACE HALO ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGN SCALE ½"=1'-0" TOP VIEW SCALE ½"=1'-0" 2 OF 5 2-30-15 (REV #3) CHANGED FROM ONE PIPE SUPPORT TO TWO 4" X .237 PIPES AS PER ENGINEERING. ADDED FOOTING SIZE. (SEE ENGINEERING) USING SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS WHICH PROVIDE SAVINGS BY CONSERVING ENERGY COPYRIGHT © 2015 _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ All signs are listed by Underwriters Laboratories and will be (U.L.) installed in accordance with the installation instructions and Article 600 of the National Electric Code w w w .i e s i g n .c o m Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6528 SUP PLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 REVISIONS DATE 1-23-15 LOCATION MERIDIAN CUSTOMER CITY OF MERIDIAN N/A RICK'S FILE SKETCH # RICK BREDE DESIGNER NEIL SALES PAGE # THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN CONNECTION WITH A PROJECT BEING PLANNED FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITH OU T WRI T TEN PERMI S S ION O F I D A H O E L E C T R I C S I G N S , I N C . THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL COLORS USED ON THE FINISHED DISPLAY. HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 31 YEARS SIDE VIEW ½"=1'-0" TOP DETAIL SCALE ½"=1'-0" 1'-6" 1' - 6 " CABINET DETAIL SCALE ½"=1'-0" 7"7" 2'-8" 7" 2' - 8 " C A B I N E T A N D L I P D E T A I L S LIPS BOLT TO CABINET 10'-0" 5' - 4 " 3½ " 8½ " 1' - 6 " 6" 2' - 4 ¾ " 7" 3' - 2 ¾ " 2' - 1 ¼ " 3 OF 5 2-30-15 (REV #3) CHANGED FROM ONE PIPE SUPPORT TO TWO 4" X .237 PIPES AS PER ENGINEERING. ADDED FOOTING SIZE. (SEE ENGINEERING) USING SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS WHICH PROVIDE SAVINGS BY CONSERVING ENERGY COPYRIGHT © 2015 _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ All signs are listed by Underwriters Laboratories and will be (U.L.) installed in accordance with the installation instructions and Article 600 of the National Electric Code w w w .i e s i g n .c o m Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6528 SUP PLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 REVISIONS DATE 1-23-15 LOCATION MERIDIAN CUSTOMER CITY OF MERIDIAN N/A RICK'S FILE SKETCH # RICK BREDE DESIGNER NEIL SALES PAGE # THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN CONNECTION WITH A PROJECT BEING PLANNED FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITH OU T WRI T TEN PERMI S S ION O F I D A H O E L E C T R I C S I G N S , I N C . THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL COLORS USED ON THE FINISHED DISPLAY. HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 31 YEARS CAST CONCRETE REVEAL CMU BLOCK BACKER CMU BLOCK FILLER BRICK COLUMNS DETAIL - COLUMN CAP ¾"=1'-0" TOP VIEW ½"=1'-0" 2'-8" +\- 2' - 8 " + / - B R I C K B A S E D E T A I L S SIDE VIEW ½" =1'-0"DOUBLE FACE HALO ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGN SCALE ½"=1'-0" 15'-8" 10'-0"2'-4" 2'-4" 5' - 4 " 3' - 0 " 11 ¾ " 4" 2' - 8 " 2'-8" 2'-4" 1'-6" 2'-2" SAILOR COURSE ROWLOCK COURSE ROWLOCK COURSE JUNCTION BOX 3'-6" 4 OF 5 2-30-15 (REV #3) CHANGED FROM ONE PIPE SUPPORT TO TWO 4" X .237 PIPES AS PER ENGINEERING. ADDED FOOTING SIZE. (SEE ENGINEERING) USING SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS WHICH PROVIDE SAVINGS BY CONSERVING ENERGY COPYRIGHT © 2015 _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ All signs are listed by Underwriters Laboratories and will be (U.L.) installed in accordance with the installation instructions and Article 600 of the National Electric Code w w w .i e s i g n .c o m Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6528 SUP PLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 REVISIONS DATE 1-23-15 LOCATION MERIDIAN CUSTOMER CITY OF MERIDIAN N/A RICK'S FILE SKETCH # RICK BREDE DESIGNER NEIL SALES PAGE # THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN CONNECTION WITH A PROJECT BEING PLANNED FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITH OU T WRI T TEN PERMI S S ION O F I D A H O E L E C T R I C S I G N S , I N C . THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL COLORS USED ON THE FINISHED DISPLAY. HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 31 YEARS 15'-8" 10'-0"2'-4"2'-4" 5' - 4 " 3' - 0 " 2'-8" 2'-4" 1'-6" 2'-2" 3'-6" 5 OF 5 2' - 9 " 16'-6" 3'-8" 7'-0" CLCL TWO 4" X .237 WALL PIPES 2-30-15 (REV #3) CHANGED FROM ONE PIPE SUPPORT TO TWO 4" X .237 PIPES AS PER ENGINEERING. ADDED FOOTING SIZE. (SEE ENGINEERING) 150347 JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PLACE, SUITE 100, MERIDIAN, ID 83646 Office: (208) 939-1045 Cell: (208) 608-0008 E-mail: tim@jde-idaho.com March 31, 2015 Idaho Electric Signs 6528 Supply Way Voice (208) 338-9401 Boise, ID 83705 Attn: Rick Berry Re: City of Meridian - Meridian, ID As you have requested, we have provided the footing and column design for the above mentioned project. Please find the following enclosed as a list of considerations for your use in completing the project: PDF copy of select structural calculations. PDF copy of red-lined plans. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely, JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC Tim Johnson, P.E. 150347 JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PLACE, SUITE 100, MERIDIAN, ID 83646 Office: (208) 939-1045 Cell: (208) 608-0008 E-mail: tim@jde-idaho.com STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS for Idaho Electric Signs City of Meridian - Meridian, ID Select Structural Design March 31, 2015 by JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. Lakes Place, Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho 83646 (208) 939-1045 Page 1 of 5 POLE SIGN DESIGN 2012 IBC Client:Idaho Electric Signs Project:City of Meridian Horizontal Monument Sign Project No.150347 Date: 31-Mar-15 DESIGN CRITERIA: Distance to sign top (h)9.00 ft. Height (s)9.00 ft. Width (B)15.67 ft. s/h 1.00 B/s 1.74 Wind Load:Basic Wind Speed, V =115 mph ASCE 7-10, Fig. 26.5-1A Exposure C ASCE 7-10, Sec. 26.7.3 Wind Directionality Factor, Kd 0.85 ASCE 7-10, Table 26.6-1 Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient, Kz =0.85 ASCE 7-10, Table 30.3-1 Velocity Pressure, q = .00256*Kz*Kd*V^2 = 24.46 psf ASCE 7-10, Eq. 29.3-1 Force Coefficient, Cf =1.55 ASCE 7-10, Fig. 29.4-1 Gust Factor Coefficient, G =0.85 ASCE 7-10, Sect. 26.9 Design Wind Load, P = q*G*Cf*.63 = 20.30 psf Seismic:Face Area Dead Load, Wt =20 psf Mapped Spectral Accelerations for short periods, Ss =1.60 ASCE 7-10, Sec. 11.4.1 Site Coefficient, Fa = 1.00 ASCE 7-10, Table 11.4-1 Max. Spectral Response, SMS = Fa*Ss =1.60 ASCE 7-10, Eq. 11.4-1 Design Spectral Response, SDS = 2/3*SMS =1.07 ASCE 7-10, Eq. 11.4-3 Response Modification Coefficient, R =2.00 ASCE 7-10 Table 12.2-1 Seismic Load, Vs = 1.0*S DS*Wt/R =10.7 psf ASCE 7-10 Eq. 12.14-11 Soil:Lateral Loadings Fpv= 200 pcf/ft. Vertical Loadings Fpb= 1500 psf Steel Stresses:Yield Strength, Fy = 36000 psi Bending Stress, Fb=0.66*Fy=23760 psi Concrete Stress:Concrete Strength, Fc' =2000 psi Reinforcing Strength, Fy = 40000 psi MEMBER NO.BASE HEIGHT Pw Y Mw Pv (ft) (lbs) (ft) (ft-lbs) (lbs) 1 0.00 2477 4 9883 2440 SIGN FORCES: MEMBER #1 Sign Area # Area (Af) Centriod (Cf) Centroid*Area (ft2) (ft from base) (ft3) 1 15.00 7.75 116.25 2 60.00 5.00 300.00 3 47.00 1.50 70.50 ____________ ____________ · Af = 122.00 ·Af*Cf = 486.75 Sign Centriod,6 = (·Af*Cf)/·Af = 3.99 ft. Wind Load, Pw = ·Af*Ww = 2476.99 lbs. @ base Vertical Load, Pv = ·Af*Wt = 2440.00 lbs. @ base JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PL., SUITE 100 * MERIDIAN * IDAHO 2/5 POLE SIGN DESIGN 2012 IBC Client:Idaho Electric Signs Project:City of Meridian Horizontal Monument Sign Project No.150347 Date: 31-Mar-15 JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PL., SUITE 100 * MERIDIAN * IDAHO COLUMN DESIGN: [Use AISC (1.6-2); fa/Fa + fb/Fb < 1.33] Use sign loads at the base of each column member for analysis of each member MEMBER #1 per member total 4" Dia x 0.237" Wall Ax (in2) = 3.17 6.34 Number of Columns 2 Sx (in3) = 3.21 6.42 ry (in) = 1.16 K = 2 L unbraced (ft.) = 9.00 KL/r = (in.)186 Fa=AISC T.1-36 4320.00 psi fa = Pv/Ax = 384.86 psi Fb = AISC 1.5 = 23760.00 psi fb = Mw/Sx = 18472.12 psi fa/Fa + fb/Fb = 0.87 <1.33 OK! FOUNDATION DESIGN [IBC -Section 18] FOOTING DEPTH = A/2(1+(1+(4.36*Y/A))^0.5) 2012 IBC Equation 18-1 ASSUMED Multiple Excavated Footings # Footings, #F = 1 Ftg. Width = (ft.) 16.50 Ftg. Thick = (ft.) 3.67 Depth = (ft.) 2.75 A = (2.34*Pw/#F)/(S*B) = 0.94 where S = Soil Bearing @ 1/3 Depth = 366.67 (psf) B = Effective Footing Width = 16.90 (ft.) MINIMUM FOOTING DEPTH = (FT.) 2.54 OK ! CK. FOOTING AREA REQ'D = Pv/Ab 1.63 OK ! 3/5 COPYRIGHT © 2012 CUSTOMER LOCATION DATE PAGE # __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ T H I S I S A N U N P U B L I S H E D DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN C O N N E C T I O N W I T H A P R O J E C T B E I N G P L A N N E D FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL C O L O R S U S E D O N T H E FINISHED DISPLAY. w w w .i e s i g n .c o m HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 28 YEARS Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6 528 SUPPLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 SALES DESIGNER REVISIONS 25961 N/A W.O. # RICK'S FILE 12-5-12 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN RICK BREDE NEIL COPYRIGHT © 2012 VERTICAL ENTRYWAY MONUMENT SIGN COPYRIGHT © 2012 CUSTOMER LOCATION DATE PAGE # __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ T H I S I S A N U N P U B L I S H E D DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN C O N N E C T I O N W I T H A P R O J E C T B E I N G P L A N N E D FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL C O L O R S U S E D O N T H E FINISHED DISPLAY. w w w .i e s i g n .c o m HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 28 YEARS Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6 528 SUPPLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 SALES DESIGNER REVISIONS 25961 N/A W.O. # RICK'S FILE 12-5-12 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN RICK BREDE NEIL 2'-0" O.A.L. 1'-6" 1'-6" 2'-0" O.A.L. 1'-6" 1'-0"2"2" 10 ' - 8 ½ " O .A .H . 10 ' - 7 " 1' - 2 " 1' - 2 " L OG O 7' - 0 " 6½ " 8' - 0 " 3" 1' - 2 " SAILOR COURSE ROWLOCK COURSE ROWLOCK COURSE SIGN STRUCTURE- FABRICATED WITH ALUMINUM FRAME AND SKINNED WITH ALUMINUM SHEETING. EXPOSED TOP AND 3" REVEAL ARE PAINTED WITH A BEIGE TEXTURED FINISH. SW 6128 BLONDE. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS. AREAS TO BE OVERLAID WITH BRICK REQUIRE CEMENT BOARD ATTACHED WITH SCREWS. EXPOSED ALUMINUM SHEETING AT TOP AND BOTTOM OF BRICK IS TO BE SEALED (CAULKED) WITH A POLYURETHANE SEALER. BRICK MASONRY- MUTUAL MATERIALS SLIM BRICK. CORNER BRICK REQUIRED. ROWLOCK COURSE AND SAILOR COURSE ARE MUTUAL MATERIALS MODULAR BRICK CUT AS REQUIRED. COLOR IS DESERT ROSE. 3/8" JOINTS WITH ADOBE TAN GROUT. JOINTS ARE TO BE IRONED SMOOTH. WATERPROOFING MASONRY SEALER REQUIRED. REVERSE PAN LOGO- ½" DEEP FABRICATED STAINLESS STEEL LOGO. ALL FACES AND RETURNS ARE PAINTED YELLOW TO MATCH PMS 124C. LOGO IS PEGGED ½" FROM BACKGROUND. HALO ILLUMINATION- GELCORE TETRA MINI MAX WHITE LEDS OR EQUIVALENT. U.L. LISTED. BACKGROUND PANS- (REMOVABLE) 2" DEEP PAN FABRICATED FROM ALUMINUM. PANS ARE TO WRAP CORNERS ON BOTH SIDES. SEE TOP DETAIL. WAVE END OF PAN IS TO HAVE A YELLOW PMS 124C 1" PAINT REVEAL FACE SIDE AND RETURN. ALL OTHER IS TO HAVE A BEIGE TEXTURED FINISH. SW 6128 BLONDE. SHERWIN- WILLIAMS. REVERSE PAN COPY- "MERIDIAN" ½" DEEP FABRICATED STAINLESS STEEL LETTERS. FACES AND RETURNS ARE PAINTED BLUE TO MATCH PMS 288C. LETTERS ARE PEG MOUNTED ½" FROM BACKGROUND. TYPE STYLE IS TO BE MONOSPACE 821 BT HALO ILLUMINATION- GELCORE TETRA MINI MAX WHITE LEDS OR EQUIVALENT. U.L. LISTED. INSTALLATION- SIGN STRUCTURE IS ATTACHED TO CENTER PIPE SUPPORT. (SEE ENGINEERING) 1" PAINT REVEAL (FACE) AND WAVE END RETURN NOTES: 9" 3½ " 3" 2½ " DOUBLE FACE HALO ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGN SCALE 3/4"=1'-0"SIDE VIEW 3/4"=1'-0" POLYURETHANE SEALANT (CAULK) POLYURETHANE SEALANT (CAULK) PAGE 1 OF 2 COPYRIGHT © 2012 CUSTOMER LOCATION DATE PAGE # __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ T H I S I S A N U N P U B L I S H E D DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN C O N N E C T I O N W I T H A P R O J E C T B E I N G P L A N N E D FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TO ASSIST YOU IN VISUALIZING OUR PROPOSAL AND MAY NOT MATCH ACTUAL C O L O R S U S E D O N T H E FINISHED DISPLAY. w w w .i e s i g n .c o m HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED FOR 28 YEARS Full Service Sign Company Boise's Only 6 528 SUPPLY WAY / BOISE, ID 83716 208-338-9401 SALES DESIGNER REVISIONS 25961 N/A W.O. # RICK'S FILE 12-5-12 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN RICK BREDE NEIL TOP VIEW REMOVABLE BACKGROUND PAN 1'-6" 1' - 0 " TOP VIEW SCALE 1½" =1'-0" TOP VIEW SCALE 1½" =1'-0" BACKGROUND PAN (WRAPS CORNER) PAN-CHANNEL LOGO PAN-CHANNEL COPY BACKGROUND PAN (WRAPS CORNER) PAN-CHANNEL COPY PAN-CHANNEL LOGO JUNCTION BOX BEHIND REMOVABLE BACKGROUND PAN 3/4"=1'-0" SCALE 3/4"=1'-0" ALUMINUM SKIN CEMENT BOARD CUT AWAY DETAIL 1"=1'-0" EXPOSED ALUMINUM SKIN PAINTED WITH TEXTURED FINISH EXPOSED ALUMINUM SKIN PAINTED WITH TEXTURED FINISH PAGE 2 OF 2 150347 JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PLACE, SUITE 100, MERIDIAN, ID 83646 Office: (208) 939-1045 Cell: (208) 608-0008 E-mail: tim@jde-idaho.com March 31, 2015 Idaho Electric Signs 6528 Supply Way Voice (208) 338-9401 Boise, ID 83705 Attn: Rick Berry Re: City of Meridian - Meridian, ID As you have requested, we have provided the footing and column design for the above mentioned project. Please find the following enclosed as a list of considerations for your use in completing the project: PDF copy of select structural calculations. PDF copy of red-lined plans. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely, JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC Tim Johnson, P.E. 150347 JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PLACE, SUITE 100, MERIDIAN, ID 83646 Office: (208) 939-1045 Cell: (208) 608-0008 E-mail: tim@jde-idaho.com STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS for Idaho Electric Signs City of Meridian - Meridian, ID Select Structural Design March 31, 2015 by JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. Lakes Place, Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho 83646 (208) 939-1045 Page 1 of 5 POLE SIGN DESIGN 2012 IBC Client:Idaho Electric Signs Project:City of Meridian Vertical Monument Sign Project No.150347 Date: 31-Mar-15 DESIGN CRITERIA: Distance to sign top (h)9.00 ft. Height (s)9.00 ft. Width (B)15.67 ft. s/h 1.00 B/s 1.74 Wind Load:Basic Wind Speed, V =115 mph ASCE 7-10, Fig. 26.5-1A Exposure C ASCE 7-10, Sec. 26.7.3 Wind Directionality Factor, Kd 0.85 ASCE 7-10, Table 26.6-1 Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient, Kz =0.85 ASCE 7-10, Table 30.3-1 Velocity Pressure, q = .00256*Kz*Kd*V^2 = 24.46 psf ASCE 7-10, Eq. 29.3-1 Force Coefficient, Cf =1.55 ASCE 7-10, Fig. 29.4-1 Gust Factor Coefficient, G =0.85 ASCE 7-10, Sect. 26.9 Design Wind Load, P = q*G*Cf*.63 = 20.30 psf Seismic:Face Area Dead Load, Wt =20 psf Mapped Spectral Accelerations for short periods, Ss =1.60 ASCE 7-10, Sec. 11.4.1 Site Coefficient, Fa = 1.00 ASCE 7-10, Table 11.4-1 Max. Spectral Response, SMS = Fa*Ss =1.60 ASCE 7-10, Eq. 11.4-1 Design Spectral Response, SDS = 2/3*SMS =1.07 ASCE 7-10, Eq. 11.4-3 Response Modification Coefficient, R =2.00 ASCE 7-10 Table 12.2-1 Seismic Load, Vs = 1.0*S DS*Wt/R =10.7 psf ASCE 7-10 Eq. 12.14-11 Soil:Lateral Loadings Fpv= 200 pcf/ft. Vertical Loadings Fpb= 1500 psf Steel Stresses:Yield Strength, Fy = 36000 psi Bending Stress, Fb=0.66*Fy=23760 psi Concrete Stress:Concrete Strength, Fc' =2000 psi Reinforcing Strength, Fy = 40000 psi MEMBER NO.BASE HEIGHT Pw Y Mw Pv (ft) (lbs) (ft) (ft-lbs) (lbs) 1 0.00 447 6 2457 440 SIGN FORCES: MEMBER #1 Sign Area # Area (Af) Centriod (Cf) Centroid*Area (ft2) (ft from base) (ft3) 1 22.00 5.50 121.00 ____________ ____________ · Af = 22.00 ·Af*Cf = 121.00 Sign Centriod,6 = (·Af*Cf)/·Af = 5.50 ft. Wind Load, Pw = ·Af*Ww = 446.67 lbs. @ base Vertical Load, Pv = ·Af*Wt = 440.00 lbs. @ base JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PL., SUITE 100 * MERIDIAN * IDAHO 4/5 POLE SIGN DESIGN 2012 IBC Client:Idaho Electric Signs Project:City of Meridian Vertical Monument Sign Project No.150347 Date: 31-Mar-15 JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PL., SUITE 100 * MERIDIAN * IDAHO COLUMN DESIGN: [Use AISC (1.6-2); fa/Fa + fb/Fb < 1.33] Use sign loads at the base of each column member for analysis of each member MEMBER #1 per member total 4" Dia x 0.237" Wall Ax (in2) = 3.17 3.17 Number of Columns 1 Sx (in3) = 3.21 3.21 ry (in) = 1.51 K = 2 L unbraced (ft.) = 10.00 KL/r = (in.)159 Fa=AISC T.1-36 5910.00 psi fa = Pv/Ax = 138.80 psi Fb = AISC 1.5 = 23760.00 psi fb = Mw/Sx = 9183.88 psi fa/Fa + fb/Fb = 0.41 <1.33 OK! FOUNDATION DESIGN [IBC -Section 18] FOOTING DEPTH = A/2(1+(1+(4.36*Y/A))^0.5) 2012 IBC Equation 18-1 ASSUMED Multiple Excavated Footings # Footings, #F = 1 Ftg. Width = (ft.) 2.00 Ftg. Thick = (ft.) 2.00 Depth = (ft.) 3.50 A = (2.34*Pw/#F)/(S*B) = 0.79 where S = Soil Bearing @ 1/3 Depth = 466.67 (psf) B = Effective Footing Width = 2.83 (ft.) MINIMUM FOOTING DEPTH = (FT.) 2.61 OK ! CK. FOOTING AREA REQ'D = Pv/Ab 0.29 OK ! 5/5 Mo n u m e n t  Si g n s   In   20 1 2 ,   th e   Ci t y   ob t a i n e d   co n s t r u c t i o n   dr a w i n g s   fo r   th r e e   ty p e s   of   mo n u m e n t s ,   an d   la t e r   ex p a n d e d   on   th i s   wi t h   an   op t i o n   fo r   a   la r g e r   va r i a n t .   Mo n u m e n t   si g n s   ar e   st a n d a r d i z e d ,   pr e ‐en g i n e e r e d ,   an d   co m e   in   th e   fo l l o w i n g   va r i e t i e s :   st a n d a r d   (f u l l )   ho r i z o n t a l ,   hi g h w a y   ho r i z o n t a l ,  an d  a  ve r t i c a l  (s m a l l )  mo n u m e n t  in t e n d e d  fo r  co n s t r a i n e d   lo c a t i o n s .   Al l   mo n u m e n t   si g n s   sh a r e   so m e   ge n e r a l   lo o k   an d   fe e l   el e m e n t s .   Al l   va r i e t i e s   us e   st a n d a r d i z e d   ma t e r i a l   co l o r s ,   in c l u d e   a   fa u x  or  re a l  br i c k ,  th e  Ci t y ’ s  lo g o  or  em b l e m  (t h e  st a r  sw o o s h ) ,  an d  al l   in c l u d e  re c e s s e d  ba c k l i t  ha l o  il l u m i n a t i o n  of  si g n  co p y .   Th e   Ci t y   pr e f e r s   a   co n s i s t e n t   de s i g n   fo r   mo n u m e n t   si g n s .   Ho w e v e r ,   th e   Ci t y   is   op e n   to   co n s i d e r i n g   ot h e r   de s i g n s   wh e n   ap p r o p r i a t e .   Wh e n   a   cu s t o m   de s i g n   is   pr o p o s e d ,   th e   Ci t y   wo u l d   pr e f e r   to   ha v e   so m e   of   th e   st a n d a r d   el e m e n t s   li s t e d   ab o v e   ma i n t a i n e d   so   th e   ov e r a l l   br a n d i n g   is   co n s i s t e n t .   It   ma y   be   ap p r o p r i a t e   fo r   a   cu s t o m   si g n ,   ho w e v e r ,   to   in c o r p o r a t e   de s i g n   ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s   co n s i s t i n g   wi t h   ex i s t i n g  or  pl a n n e d  de v e l o p m e n t  so  it  ti e s  in t o  th a t  th e m e  as  we l l .  In   al l  ca s e s ,   th e  Ci t y  lo g o  an d / o r  na m e  an d  em b l e m  wo u l d  st i l l   ne e d  to   be   in c l u d e d   in  th e   mo n u m e n t   de s i g n .   Se e   Ge n e r a l   Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   fo r   in f o r m a t i o n  on  us e  of  th e  Ci t y ’ s  lo g o .   Ov e r v i e w   Hi s t o r i c a l l y   th e   Ci t y   ha s   ut i l i z e d   GI S   to   me m o r i a l i z e   ex i s t i n g   an d   fu t u r e   de s i r e d   lo c a t i o n s   fo r   me t a l   st r e e t   si g n s   an d   mo n u m e n t s .   Th e   Ci t y  wo r k s  wi t h  AC H D  to  lo c a t e  si g n s  in  pu b l i c  ri g h t ‐of ‐wa y  (R O W )  an d   wo r k s   wi t h   pr o p e r t y   ow n e r s   an d   de v e l o p e r s   to   lo c a t e   mo n u m e n t s   ou t s i d e  of  pu b l i c  RO W  (t y p i c a l l y  in  an  ea s e m e n t ) .   Wi t h   Me r i d i a n ’ s   ra p i d   gr o w t h ,   re l o c a t i n g   me t a l   st r e e t   si g n s   as   de v e l o p m e n t  oc c u r s  wo u l d  be  a  bu r d e n  on  ag e n c y  st a f f  ti m e .  In s t e a d ,   th e  Ci t y  ty p i c a l l y  re v i e w s  ex i s t i n g  lo c a t i o n s  an d  Ci t y  li m i t  bo u n d a r i e s   ev e r y   fe w   ye a r s .   Th i s   is   a   re l a t i v e l y   si m p l e   mapping  process  where   ex i s t i n g   si g n s   ar e   co m p a r e d   wi t h   Ci t y   li m i t s ,  and  the  City  then   pr o v i d e s   ma p s   an d   ma k e s   a   re q u e s t   to   th e  ACHD  Sign  Shop, to   re l o c a t e   st r e e t   si g n s   wh i c h   ar e   no   lo n g e r  at  the  limits  of  City   bo u n d a r i e s .   Mo n u m e n t   si g n s   re q u i r e   a   mo r e   co n c e r t e d  coordination  effort  to   im p l e m e n t .  Th i s  ge n e r a l l y  oc c u r s  ei t h e r  th r o u g h  City  initiated  efforts,  or   th r o u g h   ex p l o r i n g   op p o r t u n i t i e s   an d   pa r t n e r s h i p s  with  property   ow n e r s  as  de v e l o p m e n t  is  pr o p o s e d .  In  bo t h  cases, monument  signs   ar e   ge n e r a l l y   lo c a t e d   on   re a l   pr o p e r t y ,   ei t h e r  land  that  the  City   al r e a d y   ow n s ,   or   wh e r e   an   ea s e m e n t   or  other  agreement  is   ne g o t i a t e d  on  pr o p e r t y  ow n e d  by  ot h e r s .   Th e   mo s t   co m m o n   wa y   mo n u m e n t   si g n s   ar e  constructed  is  through   Ci t y ‐le d   ef f o r t s   vi a   th e   bu d g e t i n g   pr o c e s s .  When  staff  or  elected   of f i c i a l s   be l i e v e   th e r e   is   an   op p o r t u n i t y   fo r  a  new  monument  sign,  re v i e w   an d   re s e a r c h   is   do n e   to   ve r i f y   fe a s i b i l i t y .  If  an  opportunity   se e m s  li k e  a  go o d  fi t ,  th e n  a  re q u e s t  is  ma d e  through  the  City’s  annual   bu d g e t  pr o c e s s .   Th e   ot h e r   wa y   mo n u m e n t   si g n s   ma y   be   constructed  is  when  a   de v e l o p e r   or   pr o p e r t y   ow n e r   vo l u n t e e r s  to  construct  one  or   pr o p o s e s  to  co l l a b o r a t e  wi t h  th e  Ci t y  fo r  co n s t r u c t i o n .  Staff  will  notify   de v e l o p e r s   an d   pr o p e r t y   ow n e r s   du r i n g   pr e ‐application  meetings   wh e n   a   mo n u m e n t   si g n   is   en v i s i o n e d   on  or  near  the  property   pr o p o s e d  fo r  de v e l o p m e n t  (s e e  Ma p s  se c t i o n  for  locations).  Im p l e m e n t a t i o n   Th e r e   ar e   se v e r a l   ci t y   po l i c i e s ,   co d e   se c t i o n s ,  and  permitting   pr o c e s s e s  th a t  ar e  in v o l v e d  in  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  this  Plan.  Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 6 o f 1 3 9 Co m p r e h e n s i v e  Pl a n   At   th e   hi g h e s t   le v e l ,   th e   Ci t y ’ s   Co m p r e h e n s i v e   Pl a n   pr o v i d e s   br o a d   di r e c t i o n  to  su p p o r t  ef f o r t s  to  we l c o m e  re s i d e n t s ,  vi s i t o r s ,  an d  ot h e r   st a k e h o l d e r s  in t o  th e  Ci t y .   Ci t y  Co d e   Me r i d i a n ’ s   co d e   re q u i r e s   se v e r a l   ty p e s   of   pe r m i t s   fo r   si g n s ,   in   ad d i t i o n   to   ge n e r a l   la n d s c a p e   an d   se t b a c k   re s t r i c t i o n s .   Ho w e v e r ,   a   si g n  co o r d i n a t e d  by   th e  Ci t y  an d  in s t a l l e d  by  AC H D   do e s  no t  re q u i r e   an   ad d i t i o n a l   pe r m i t   or   ag r e e m e n t   wh e n   lo c a t e d   in   pu b l i c   ri g h t ‐of ‐  wa y .   It   is   no t   pl a n n e d ,   ex p e c t e d ,   or   de s i r e d   fo r   a   st r e e t   si g n   to   be   lo c a t e d  on  re a l  pr o p e r t y ,  bu t  ra t h e r  pl a c e d  in  AC H D  ri g h t ‐of ‐wa y .   Mo n u m e n t s ,   wh i l e   a   ty p e   of   si g n a g e ,   re q u i r e   pe r m i t s   re g a r d l e s s   of   wh e t h e r   th e   Ci t y ,   pr i v a t e   de v e l o p m e n t ,   or   ot h e r s   in s t a l l   th e m .   Mo n u m e n t   si g n s   re q u i r e   fo o t i n g   an d   el e c t r i c a l   re v i e w ,   an d   th e   ea s i e s t  pr o c e s s  to  ap p r o v e  th o s e  is  th r o u g h  a  Ci t y ‐is s u e d  si g n  pe r m i t .   If   a   mo n u m e n t   is   to   be   in s t a l l e d   by   a   pa r t n e r   ag e n c y   or   de v e l o p e r ,   th e n   pa r t   of   an y   ag r e e m e n t   sh o u l d   cl a r i f y   an d   co n s i d e r   pe r m i t s ,   in s p e c t i o n s ,   ac c e p t a n c e ,   an d   an y   as s o c i a t e d   co s t s   as   pa r t   of   th e   ag r e e m e n t .   It  is  en v i s i o n e d  th a t  mo n u m e n t  si g n s  wi l l  be  in s t a l l e d  ov e r  ti m e ,  bo t h   by  th e  Ci t y  in d e p e n d e n t l y  an d  as  pa r t  of  pr i v a t e ‐pu b l i c  pa r t n e r s h i p s .   Pa r t n e r s h i p s  ca n  va r y ,   an d   th e  Ci t y  sh o u l d  re m a i n  op e n   to   ex p l o r i n g   an y  an d  al l  pr o p o s a l s  fr o m  po t e n t i a l  pa r t n e r s  to  im p l e m e n t  th i s  pl a n .   Ma i n t e n a n c e   In   mo s t   ca s e s ,   it   is   ex p e c t e d   th a t   th e   Ci t y   wi l l   ta k e   on   th e   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   fo r   ma i n t e n a n c e   an d   re p a i r   of   al l   me t a l   st r e e t   an d   we l c o m e   mo n u m e n t   si g n s .   Fo r   an y   in s t a n c e   wh e r e   th i s   ma y   no t   be   de s i r a b l e ,   an   ag r e e m e n t   sh o u l d   ov e r v i e w   an y   ro l e s ,   re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,   an d  ex p e c t a t i o n s .   Ma p s   Th e   fo l l o w i n g   ma p s   de p i c t   th e   lo c a t i o n   of   ex i s t i n g  and  future  street   si g n s  as  we l l  as  ex i s t i n g  an d  fu t u r e  mo n u m e n t  locations. Street  signs   ar e   pl a n n e d   fo r   th e   ma j o r i t y   of   en t r y w a y s  into  Meridian, with   mo n u m e n t   si g n s   on l y  pr o p o s e d  al o n g   St a t e  highways, interchanges,  an d  ke y  en t r y w a y s  in t o  th e  Ci t y .   It   is   en v i s i o n e d   th a t   ev e r y   fe w   ye a r s   Ci t y   st a f f  will  work  with  ACHD   st a f f   to   ad j u s t   me t a l   st r e e t   si g n s   as   ne c e s s a r y  with  little ‐to ‐no  fiscal   im p l i c a t i o n .   Lo c a t i o n s   an d   si g n   ty p e   ar e   no t  exact  or  parcel  specific,  bu t   ha v e   ge n e r a l l y   be e n   id e n t i f i e d   as   mo s t   desirable  at  the  time  of   Pl a n  ad o p t i o n .  Nu m b e r e d  sy m b o l s  on  th e  map  correspond  to  a  Map   Ex h i b i t  Ke y   fo l l o w i n g  th e  ma p s ,  an d  hi g h l i g h t  additional  information   fo r  th e  va r i o u s  mo n u m e n t  si g n  lo c a t i o n s .   Th e   Ci t y   sh o u l d   re m a i n   op e n   an d   lo o k   fo r   potential  partnerships  to   lo c a t e   mo n u m e n t   si g n s   ne a r   ke y   en t r y w a y s ,  remaining  flexible  in   bo t h  lo c a t i o n  an d  mo n u m e n t  si g n  ty p e  an d  design.  Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 7 o f 1 3 9 No r t h  Me r i d i a n  Ma p  Ex h i b i t   Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 8 o f 1 3 9 So u t h  Me r i d i a n  Ma p  Ex h i b i t   Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 9 o f 1 3 9 Ma p  Ex h i b i t  Ke y   ID # St a t u s Si g n T y p e Pr e f e r r e d L o c a t i o n Ot h e r N o t e s 1 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t Me r i d i a n , b e t w e e n C o l u m b i a a n d L a k e H a z e l 2 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t ne c L i n d e r / L a k e H a z e l 3 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t se c L a k e H a z e l / M c D e r m o t t 4 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t La k e H a z e l , 1 / 4 m i l e w e s t o f C l o v e r d a l e 5 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t we s t s i d e E a g l e R o a d , n e a r K o h l s o r F a s t E d d y ’ s pr o p e r t y Th e D A f o r F a s t E d d y ’ s currently includes re q u i r e m e n t 6 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t SH - 1 6 S B o f f r a m p a t C h i n d e n Wi t h S H - 1 6 c o n s t r u c t i o n ? 7 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t SH - 1 6 o f f r a m p ( s ) a t / n e a r U s t i c k / M c D e r m o t t Wi t h S H - 1 6 c o n s t r u c t i o n ? T w o s i g n s ? 8 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t se c F r a n k l i n / M c D e r m o t t a t S H - 1 6 o f f - r a m p Wi t h S H - 1 6 c o n s t r u c t i o n ? 9 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t se c C h i n d e n / C a n - A d a 10 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t sw c L o c u s t G r o v e / C h i n d e n ( V a l l e y L i f e C h u r c h ) Wi t h i n t e r s e c t i o n w i d e n i n g ? 11 Ex i s t i n g Fu l l M o n u m e n t Ma i n / M e r i d i a n Me t a l s c u l p t u r e a t n o r t h e n d o f s p l i t c o r r i d o r 12 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t se c U s t i c k / M c D e r m o t t Wi t h S H - 1 6 c o n s t r u c t i o n ? 13 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t ne c U s t i c k / E a g l e On U s t i c k , b y L o w e ’ s 14 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t se c C h e r r y / M c D e r m o t t / S H - 1 6 At / N e a r c o u n t y l i n e 15 Ex i s t i n g Fu l l M o n u m e n t Fa i r v i e w , 1 / 2 m i l e e a s t o f E a g l e In f r o n t o f C a r M a x 16 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t I- 8 4 E B o f f r a m p a t T e n M i l e 17 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t I- 8 4 W B o f f r a m p a t T e n M i l e 18 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t I- 8 4 E B o f f r a m p a t M e r i d i a n 19 Ex i s t i n g Fu l l M o n u m e n t I- 8 4 E B o f f r a m p a t E a g l e In f r o n t o f T r u H o t e l 20 Fu t u r e Fu l l M o n u m e n t I- 8 4 W B o f f r a m p a t E a g l e ( S t . L u k e ’ s ) Co u l d p u t s o m e C O R E m a t e r i a l t o m o d i f y si g n ; h a v e a g r e e m e n t w i t h h o s p i t a l 21 Fu t u r e Sm a l l M o n u m e n t Ov e r l a n d n e a r E a g l e ( Z a m z o w s / N o r c o a r e a ) Co u l d m o v e f u r t h e r e a s t i f r e d e v e l o p m e n t oc c u r s 22 Ex i s t i n g Fu l l M o n u m e n t nw c L i n d e r / C h i n d e n In s t a l l e d w i t h C h i n d e n / L i n d e r c r o s s i n g pr o j e c t Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 3 0 o f 1 3 9 Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   Ge n e r a l  Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   Th e   fo l l o w i n g   sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   ar e   to   be   us e d   bo t h   fo r   th e   ap p r o v e d   st r e e t  si g n ,  mo n u m e n t  si g n s ,  an d  an y  no n ‐st a n d a r d  de s i g n s .   Lo g o  Co l o r :  In  ad d i t i o n  to  bl a c k  an d  wh i t e ,  th e  Me r i d i a n  lo g o  ma y  be   us e d  in  th e  fo l l o w i n g  co l o r s :    Bl u e  co l o r :  Pa n t o n e  28 8  C;  an d    Go l d  co l o r :  12 4  C.   Lo g o  Pr o p o r t i o n :  Th e  Me r i d i a n  lo g o  ma y  no t  be  cl i p p e d  or  di s t o r t e d ,   an d  mu s t  ma i n t a i n  a  ra t i o  of  1: 3 . 4 1 .  Fo r  ev e r y  1”  he i g h t ,  th e  lo g o  sh a l l   be  3. 4 1 ”  in  wi d t h .   Us e  of  th e  lo g o  mu s t  ad h e r e  to  th e  Me r i d i a n  Br a n d  Ma n u a l ,  wh i c h  in   ad d i t i o n   to   th e   ab o v e ,   ge n e r a l l y   me a n s   th a t   th e   lo g o   mu s t   be   al l   bl a c k ,  bl u e ,  go l d ,  ye l l o w ,  or  wh i t e  (a p p r o v e d  co l o r s ) ,  bu t  ma y  in c l u d e   th e   Id a h o   te x t   an d   th e   st a r   po r t i o n   ab o v e   th e   sw o o s h   in   an o t h e r   of   th e  ap p r o v e d  co l o r s .   Wh i l e   th e   Me r i d i a n   lo g o   is   a   gr a p h i c ,   it   ma y   be   de s i r a b l e   to   ut i l i z e   si m i l a r  fo n t s   fo r   ot h e r   wo r k .  Th e  fo n t   us e d  fo r  th e   Me r i d i a n   te x t   (a l l   bo t h   th e   M)  is  Ad o b e   Je n s e n .   Th e  ‛ R’   ha s   be e n  mo d i f i e d   gr a p h i c a l l y .   Th e  ‛ M’  is  a  va r i a n t  of  th e  fo n t  Vi v a l d i  Sc r i p t  FS .   Se e  th e  Ci t y ’ s  Br a n d  Ma n u a l  fo r  mo r e  in f o r m a t i o n  on  us e  of  th e  Ci t y ’ s   lo g o .   St r e e t  Si g n  Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   In   ad d i t i o n   to   th e   be l o w   sp e c i f i c a t i o n s ,   an y   st r e e t   si g n   pl a c e d   in   pu b l i c  ri g h t ‐of ‐wa y  sh a l l  me e t  al l  st a n d a r d s  an d  sp e c i f i c a t i o n s  fo r  th e   ap p l i c a b l e  ag e n c y .   Si g n :  Th e  si g n  sh a l l  be  24 ”  x  36 ”  pr i n t e d  in  fu l l  color  as  shown  in  Figure   1  on  re f l e c t i v e  20 +  ye a r  UV  re s i s t a n t  la m i n a t e .  Sign  shall  be  adhered   to   0. 0 8   ga u g e   al u m i n u m   gr a d e   ro a d   si g n   wi t h  1 ‐1/2” smooth  radius   co r n e r s .   Ho l e s   sh a l l   be   3/ 8 ”   DI A ,   pr e ‐dr i l l e d  3” from  the  top  and   bo t t o m   (1 8 ”   ap a r t )   as   sh o w n   in   Fi g u r e   1.   Ho l e s  are  sized  per  Idaho   De p a r t m e n t   of   Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n   (I T D )   st a n d a r d s  but  may  need  to  be   in c r e a s e d  to  7/ 1 6 ”  du r i n g  fi e l d  in s t a l l .   Br e a k a w a y   Po s t :   Si g n   sh a l l   be   mo u n t e d   to  ACHD  standard  12’  ga l v a n i z e d  me t a l  sq u a r e  si g n  po s t   Fi g u r e 1 : N o t e l o c a t i o n o f t w o b l a c k h o l e s f o r s e c u r i n g s i g n t o b r e a k a w a y p o s t . Mo n u m e n t  Si g n  Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   St a n d a r d   De s i g n s :   Th e   pr e f e r r e d   an d   de f a u l t  monument  signs  are   pr e ‐de s i g n e d   an d   en g i n e e r e d .   Th e   th r e e   va r i a n t s  include: standard   ho r i z o n t a l ,   hi g h w a y   ho r i z o n t a l ,   an d   a   ve r t i c a l  monument, and  are   in c l u d e d   in   th e   ba c k   ap p e n d i c e s .   Th e   ho r i z o n t a l  may  be  used  on   no r m a l   ar t e r i a l   en t r y w a y s ;   th o s e   le s s   th a n  5 ‐lanes. The  highway   Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 3 1 o f 1 3 9 ho r i z o n t a l   sh o u l d   be   us e d   ad j a c e n t   to   an y   in t e r c h a n g e   of   ro a d   co n f i g u r a t i o n   la r g e r   th a n   5 ‐la n e s   (i n c l u d i n g   tu r n ‐la n e s ) .   Th e   ve r t i c a l   mo n u m e n t   is   in t e n d e d   fo r   co n s t r a i n e d   lo c a t i o n s   wh e r e   la n d s c a p e   ar e a  is  li m i t e d .   No n ‐st a n d a r d   De s i g n s :   Ot h e r ,   cu s t o m   mo n u m e n t   si g n   de s i g n s   ma y   be   co n s i d e r e d   wh e n   th e y   ar e   in t e n d e d   to   in t e g r a t e   wi t h   ot h e r   ar c h i t e c t u r a l  gu i d e l i n e s ,  wh e n  in t e g r a t e d  in t o   a   pu b l i c  or  pr i v a t e  ar t   ex h i b i t ,  or  fo r  no n ‐tr a d i t i o n a l  en t r y w a y s  (e . g .  – wi t h i n  a  ro u n d a b o u t ) .   Re g a r d l e s s ,   th e   de s i g n   mu s t   ma i n t a i n   si m i l a r   si z e   co n s i d e r a t i o n s   as   th e   ty p i c a l   mo n u m e n t   si g n   fo r   th e   lo c a t i o n ,   mu s t   fo l l o w   ge n e r a l   sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   if   us i n g   th e   Ci t y ’ s   no r m a l   lo g o ,   an d   sh o u l d   st i l l   re f l e c t   th e   Ci t y ’ s   le v e l   of   co m m i t m e n t   to   ae s t h e t i c s ,   qu a l i t y ,   an d   ma i n t e n a n c e .   Se e   mo n u m e n t   co n s t r u c t i o n   pl a n s   fo r   di m e n s i o n s   on   th e  si g n s ,  lo g o s ,  ma t e r i a l  ty p e s  an d  co l o r s ,  an d  ot h e r  re f e r e n c e s .   Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 3 2 o f 1 3 9 Ap p e n d i c e s   Mo n u m e n t  Co n s t r u c t i o n  Pl a n s    Ho r i z o n t a l  Mo n u m e n t ,  Re g u l a r    Ho r i z o n t a l  Mo n u m e n t ,  Hi g h w a y    Ve r t i c a l  Mo n u m e n t   Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 3 3 o f 1 3 9 w w w . i e s i g n . c o m H E L P I N G O U R C U S T O M E R S S U C C E E D F O R 2 8 Y E A R S 2 0 8 - 3 3 8 - 9 4 0 1 65 2 8 S U P P L Y W A Y / B O I S E , I D 8 3 7 1 6 B o i s e ' s O n l y F u l l S e r v i c e S i g n C o m p a n y T H I S I S A N U N P U B L I S H E D D R A W I N G / D E S I G N S U B M I T T E D F O R Y O U R P E R S O N A L U S E I N C O N N E C T I O N W I T H A P R O J E C T B E I N G P L A N N E D F O R Y O U B Y I D A H O E L E C T R I C SI G N S , I N C . A N D I S N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C O P I E D O R E X H I B I T E D I N A N Y F A S H I O N W I T H O U T W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F I D A H O E L E C T R I C S I G N S , I N C . TH E C O L O R S D E P I C T E D I N T H I S D R A W I N G A R E T O A S S I S T Y O U IN V I S U A L I Z I N G O U R P R O P O S A L A N D M A Y N O T M A T C H A C T U A L C O L O R S U S E D O N T H E F I N I S H E D D I S P L A Y . SA L E S NE I L DE S I G N E R RI C K B R E D E RE V I S I O N S __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ W. O . # 25 9 6 1 RI C K ' S F I L E N/ A CU S T O M E R CI T Y O F M E R I D I A N LO C A T I O N ME R I D I A N DA T E 12 - 5 - 1 2 PA G E # CO P Y R I G H T © 20 1 2 HO R I Z O N T A L E N T R Y W A Y M O N U M E N T S I G N COPYRIGHT © 2012 Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 3 4 o f 1 3 9 3 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 7 ½ " 4 " 1 ' - ½ " 5 3 / 4 " 5 " 3 " 2 ½ " 4 " 1'-9" 3" 8 3/4" 2'-1" 3'-9" 5'-10" w w w . i e s i g n . c o m H E L P I N G O U R C U S T O M E R S S U C C E E D F O R 2 8 Y E A R S 2 0 8 - 3 3 8 - 9 4 0 1 65 2 8 S U P P L Y W A Y / B O I S E , I D 8 3 7 1 6 B o i s e ' s O n l y F u l l S e r v i c e S i g n C o m p a n y T H I S I S A N U N P U B L I S H E D D R A W I N G / D E S I G N S U B M I T T E D F O R Y O U R P E R S O N A L U S E I N C O N N E C T I O N W I T H A P R O J E C T B E I N G P L A N N E D F O R Y O U B Y I D A H O E L E C T R I C SI G N S , I N C . A N D I S N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C O P I E D O R E X H I B I T E D I N A N Y F A S H I O N W I T H O U T W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F I D A H O E L E C T R I C S I G N S , I N C . TH E C O L O R S D E P I C T E D I N T H I S D R A W I N G A R E T O A S S I S T Y O U IN V I S U A L I Z I N G O U R P R O P O S A L A N D M A Y N O T M A T C H A C T U A L C O L O R S U S E D O N T H E F I N I S H E D D I S P L A Y . SA L E S NE I L DE S I G N E R RI C K B R E D E RE V I S I O N S 11 ' - 0 " 1' - 8 " 1' - 8 " 7' - 4 " 7' - 0 " 5' - 6 " ROWLOCK COURSE ROWLOCK COURSE 2'-8" 1'-8" 1'-6" 1'-0" SAILOR COURSE CA B I N E T - DO U B L E F A C E H A L O I L L U M I N A T E D M O N U M E N T S I G N SC A L E 3 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " SIDEVIEW 3/4"=1'-0" W. O . # 25 9 6 1 RI C K ' S F I L E N/ A CU S T O M E R CI T Y O F M E R I D I A N LO C A T I O N ME R I D I A N DA T E 12 - 5 - 1 2 PA G E # PA G E 1 O F 3 CO P Y R I G H T © 20 1 2 FA B R I C A T E D W I T H A L U M I N U M F R A M E A N D S K I N N E D W I T H . 0 8 0 A L U M I N U M S HE E T I N G P A I N T E D W I T H A B E I G E T E X T U R E D F I N I S H . S W 6 1 2 8 B L O N D E . S H ERWIN-WILLIAMS "W E L C O M E T O " R E V E R S E P A N L E T T E R S - T Y P E S T Y L E I S T A H O M A . ½" D E E P F A B R I C A T E D S T A I N L E S S S T E E L L E T T E R S . F A C E S A N D R E T U R N S A R E P A I N T E D Y E L L O W T O M A T C H P M S 1 2 4 C . L E T T E R S A R E P E G G E D ½ " F R O M BACKGROUND. RE V E R S E P A N L O G O - " M E R I D I A N " ½" D E E P F A B R I C A T E D S T A I N L E S S S T E E L L E T T E R S . " M E R I D I A N " F A C E S A N D RE T U R N S A R E P A I N T E D B L U E T O M A T C H P M S 2 8 8 C . S T A R F A C E A N D R E T U RNS ARE PAINTED YELLOW TO MATCH PMS 124C. AL L T O B E P E G M O U N T E D ½ " F R O M B A C K G R O U N D . HA L O I L L U M I N A T I O N - G E L C O R E T E T R A M I N I M A X W H I T E L E D S O R E Q U I V A L E N T . U . L . L I S T E D . "I D A H O " - N O N - I L L U M I N A T E D F L A T C U T O U T L E T T E R S RO U T E D F R O M ½ " A L U M I N U M P A I N T E D Y E L L O W T O M A T C H P M S 1 2 4 C . P E G M O UN T E D ½ " F R O M B A C K G R O U N D . F A C E S T O B E F L U S H W I T H R E V E R S E P A N C O PY. BO T T O M L I P - ( S E E A D D I T I O N A L D R A W I N G ) FA B R I C A T E D W I T H A L U M I N U M F R A M E A N D S K I N N E D W I T H . 0 8 0 A L U M I N U M S H E E TI N G P A I N T E D W I T H A B E I G E T E X T U R E D F I N I S H . S W 6 1 2 8 B L O N D E . S H ERWIN-WILLIAMS. LIP BOLTS TO CABINET. BR I C K M A S O N R Y B A S E - ( S E E A D D I T I O N A L D R A W I N G F O R B R I C K A N D C O L U M N C A P D E T A I L S ) MU T U A L M A T E R I A L S M O D U L A R B R I C K . C O L O R I S D E S E R T R O S E . 3 / 8 " J O I N T S W I T H A D O B E T A N G R O U T . J O I N T S AR E T O B E I R O N E D S M O O T H . 3 " R E V E AL IS CAST CONCRETE 3" THICK X 1'-6" SQUARE. RE V E A L C O L O R I S S W 6 1 2 8 B L O N D E . S H E R W I N - W I L L I A M S . B L O C K B A C K E R A N D F I L L E R R E Q U I R E D I N B A S E , CO L U M N S C O R E I S C O N C R E T E , B L O C K , O R A P P R O P R I A T E B A C K E R . WATERPROOFING MASONRY SE A L E R R E Q U I R E D . C O N C R E T E R I S E R A S R E Q U I R E D F O R M A S O N R Y B A S E . IN S T A L L A T I O N - CA B I N E T I S A T T A C H E D T O C E N T E R P I P E S U P P O R T . ( S E E A D D I T I O N A L D R A WI N G & E N G I N E E R I N G ) A P O L Y U R E T H A N E M A S O N R Y S E A L A N T I S R E Q U I R E D A T ALL CABINET TO MASONRY CONTACT POINTS. JU N C T I O N B O X A T T A C H E D T O P O L E A B O V E M A S O N R Y C O RE W I T H L O N G S W E E P E L B O W C O N D U I T I N T O F O U N D A T I O N . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 3 5 o f 1 3 9 w w w . i e s i g n . c o m C A B I N E T A N D L I P D E TA I L S P A GE 2 O F 3 CO P Y R I G H T © 20 1 2 RE V I S I O N S 1 ' - 7 ½ " 1 ' - ½ " 5 3 / 4 " 2 ½ " 4 " 2 ' - 0 " 6 " 6 " 1 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 9 " 1'-8" 2" 2" LI P S B O L T T O C A B I N E T H E L P I N G O U R C U S T O M E R S S U C C E E D F O R 2 8 Y E A R S 2 0 8 - 3 3 8 - 9 4 0 1 65 2 8 S U P P L Y W A Y / B O I S E , I D 8 3 7 1 6 B o i s e ' s O n l y F u l l S e r v i c e S i g n C o m p a n y T H I S I S A N U N P U B L I S H E D D R A W I N G / D E S I G N S U B M I T T E D F O R Y O U R P E R S O N A L U S E I N C O N N E C T I O N W I T H A P R O J E C T B E I N G P L A N N E D F O R Y O U B Y I D A H O E L E C T R I C SI G N S , I N C . A N D I S N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C O P I E D O R E X H I B I T E D I N A N Y F A S H I O N W I T H O U T W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F I D A H O E L E C T R I C S I G N S , I N C . TH E C O L O R S D E P I C T E D I N T H I S D R A W I N G A R E T O A S S I S T Y O U IN V I S U A L I Z I N G O U R P R O P O S A L A N D M A Y N O T M A T C H A C T U A L C O L O R S U S E D O N T H E F I N I S H E D D I S P L A Y . SA L E S NE I L DE S I G N E R RI C K B R E D E TO P D E T A I L S C A L E 3 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 7' - 4 " 7' - 0 " 2'-0" 2" 1'-8" 2" 1'-0" W. O . # 25 9 6 1 RI C K ' S F I L E N/ A CU S T O M E R CI T Y O F M E R I D I A N LO C A T I O N CA B I N E T D E T A I L S C A L E 3 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 6" 6" ME R I D I A N DA T E 12 - 5 - 1 2 PA G E # SIDEVIEW 3/4"=1'-0" Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 3 6 o f 1 3 9 P A GE 3 O F 3 CO P Y R I G H T © 20 1 2 w w w . i e s i g n . c o m B R I C K B A S E D E TA I L S RE V I S I O N S 4 3" 1'-9" 4" +\- 2'-1" 8 3/4" 6" 2 4 " 1'-10½" CM U B L O C K B A C K E R 1'-10½" +\- 2 " H E L P I N G O U R C U S T O M E R S S U C C E E D F O R 2 8 Y E A R S 2 0 8 - 3 3 8 - 9 4 0 1 65 2 8 S U P P L Y W A Y / B O I S E , I D 8 3 7 1 6 B o i s e ' s O n l y F u l l S e r v i c e S i g n C o m p a n y T H I S I S A N U N P U B L I S H E D D R A W I N G / D E S I G N S U B M I T T E D F O R Y O U R P E R S O N A L U S E I N C O N N E C T I O N W I T H A P R O J E C T B E I N G P L A N N E D F O R Y O U B Y I D A H O E L E C T R I C SI G N S , I N C . A N D I S N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C O P I E D O R E X H I B I T E D I N A N Y F A S H I O N W I T H O U T W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F I D A H O E L E C T R I C S I G N S , I N C . TH E C O L O R S D E P I C T E D I N T H I S D R A W I N G A R E T O A S S I S T Y O U IN V I S U A L I Z I N G O U R P R O P O S A L A N D M A Y N O T M A T C H A C T U A L C O L O R S U S E D O N T H E F I N I S H E D D I S P L A Y . SA L E S NE I L DE S I G N E R RI C K B R E D E BR I C K C O L U M N S CA S T C O N C R E T E RE V E A L RO W L O C K CO U R S E TO P V I E W 3 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 8 " 1' - 6 " CM U B L O C K F I L L E R 11 ' - 6 " CO N C R E T E R I S E R 11 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 1' - 8 " NOTCHED FOR CABINET ½ BRICK COLUMN CAP 1"=1'-0" 3'-6" CONCRETE RISER 3'-0" 2'-8" 1'-8" CA S T C O N C R E T E R E V E A L 3" X 1 ' - 6 " X 1 ' - 6 " W. O . # 25 9 6 1 RI C K ' S F I L E N/ A CU S T O M E R CI T Y O F M E R I D I A N LO C A T I O N ME R I D I A N DA T E 12 - 5 - 1 2 PA G E # JU N C T I O N B O X RO W L O C K CO U R S E SA I L O R CO U R S E DO U B L E F A C E H A L O I L L U M I N A T E D M O N U M E N T S I G N S C A L E 3 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " SIDEVIEW 3/4"=1'-0" Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 3 7 o f 1 3 9 JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PLACE, SUITE 100, MERIDIAN, ID 83646 Office: (208) 939-1045 Cell: (208) 608-0008 E-mail: tim@jde-idaho.com 150626 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS for Idaho Electric Signs City of Meridian - Meridian, ID Select Structural Design June 22, 2015 by JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. Lakes Place, Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho 83646 (208) 939-1045 Page 1 of 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 139 of 139 JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC 1900 N. LAKES PLACE, SUITE 100, MERIDIAN, ID 83646 Office: (208) 939-1045 Cell: (208) 608-0008 E-mail: tim@jde-idaho.com 150626 June 22, 2015 Idaho Electric Signs 6528 Supply Way Voice (208) 338-9401 Boise, ID 83705 Attn: Rick Berry Re: City of Meridian - Meridian, ID 11x6 Monument Sign As you have requested, we have provided the footing and column design for the above mentioned project. Please find the following enclosed as a list of considerations for your use in completing the project: PDF copy of select structural calculations. PDF copy of red-lined plans. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely, JOHNSON DESIGN & ENGINEERING, PLLC Tim Johnson, P.E. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 12, 2019 – Page 138 of 139 �/�S IDIAN*,---,IZ I DAJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 12, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 8 Item Title: Future Meeting Topics Meeting Notes: