The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-01-21 Regular C I T Y C OUNCI L R EGU L A R M EET I NG AGENDA C ity Council Chamber s 33 E ast B roadway Avenue M er idian, I daho Tuesday, J anuary 21, 2020 at 6:00 P M 1. Roll-C all Attendance X L iz S trader X J oe B orton X B rad Hoaglun X Treg Bernt J essica P erreault X L uke C avener X Mayor R obert E. S imis on 2. P ledge of Allegiance 3. Adoption of Agenda - Adopted 4. Announcements 5. F uture M eeting Topics - Public F orum (Up to 30 M inutes M aximum) Si gni ng up pri or to the start of the meeti ng is required. This time i s reserved for the public to address their el ected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land use/devel opment application. By law, no decisi ons can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed discussi on or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolvi ng the matter following the meeting. 6. Action I tems Public Heari ngs for Land Use Applications follow this process: Once the Public Heari ng is opened, City staff will present their report. F ollowing the report, the applicant is allowed up to 15 minutes to present thei r application. Members of the public are allowed up to 3 minutes each to address council regarding the application. If a person is representing a large 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 additional minutes to respond to comments. Once the public hearing is closed, no additional testimony will be received. The Ci ty Council may move to continue the item for additional informati on or vote to approve or deny the item with or without changes as presented. The Mayor i s not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public heari ng items, unless to break a tie vote. A. M odified F inal Plat for C r eason Creek No. 2 (H-2019-0139) by C S 2, LLC , L ocated on the E ast S ide of N. L inder Rd., S outh of W. Ustick Rd. - Approved B. F inal P lat for O aks North S ubdivision No. 4 (H-2019-0136) by Toll S outhwest, LLC, L ocated at 6060 W. M c M illan Rd. - Approved C. F inal P lat for T hr ee C or ner s Ranch (H-2019-0141) by Sweet L and D evelopment, Inc., L ocated at 1890 E . D unwoody C t. - Approved D. F inal P lat for Ver ado S ubdivision No. 4 (H-2019-0132) by C 17, LLC, L ocated at 3090 N. L ocust G rove Rd. - Approved E. P ublic Hearing for B ach Storage (H-2019-0121) by B ach Homes, L ocated at 2480 N. E agle Rd. and 3280 E . River Valley S t. - Approved 1. R equest: A nnexation of 1 acre of land with a C -C zoning district, and; 2. R equest: Conditional Use P ermit f or a self -service storage f acility on 1.92 acres of land in the C -C zoning district. F. P ublic Hearing C ontinued from D ecember 10, 2019 for Goddard C r eek Townhomes (H-2019-0068) by S I C onstruction, L ocated at the NW C orner of W. M c M illan Rd. and N. G oddard C r eek Way- Denied 1. R equest: Modification to Development Agreement (I nst. #102012598) to allow the development of S F R homes (i.e. townhomes) instead of offices, and 2. R equest: Rezone of 5.03 acres of land f rom the R -4 to the R-15 zoning district, and 3. R equest: P reliminary P lat f or the re-subdivision of L ot 2, Block 1, Goddard Creek S ubdivision C onsisting of 4.62 Acres of L and into 44 B uilding L ots and 8 Common L ots. 7. O rdinances A. O rdinance No. 20-1871: An O rdinance Amending M er idian City Code S ection 1-6-4, C reating D esignated P ositions in the M ayor ’s O ffice and E stablishing a Hiring M ethod, Wage D etermination, and S eparation B enefit; Adopting a S avings C lause; and Providing an E ffective D ate- Approved 8. F utur e M eeting Topics Meeting Adjourned at 9:21PM Meridian City Council January 21, 2020. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 21, 2020, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Member Absent: Jessica Perreault. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Kyle Radek, Jamie Leslie, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: All right. I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. For the record it is Tuesday, January 21 st at 6:00 p.m. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance Simison: Item 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Adoption of Agenda Simison: Item 4 is adoption -- or Item 3, adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adopt the agenda as presented. Hoaglun: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 21 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 2 of 62 Item 4: Announcements Simison: Item 4. Announcements. Any announcements from any members of Council? Item 5: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) Simison: Okay. We will go into Item 5. Mr. Clerk, anybody signed up under Future Meeting Topics? Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It is loading and I apologize. There are no signups. Item 6: Action Items A. Modified Final Plat for Creason Creek No. 2 (H-2019-0139) by CS2, LLC, Located on the East Side of N. Linder Rd., South of W. Ustick Rd. Simison: Okay. We will go into Item No. 6. Action Items. Item 6-A, and I will turn this over to Sonya to talk about the modified final plat for Creason Creek No. 2, H-2019-0139, et al. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The first item before you tonight is a request for a final plat modification. This site is located on the east side of North Linder Road, just south of West Ustick Road. The final plat for this project was approved in 2018. The applicant is proposing to expand the subdivision boundary of phase two to include additional land area planned for development in phase three as shown on the approved, but not yet recorded final plan, and that's the one on the left there, and the proposed modified final plat on the right. The common area where a dog park was previously planned on Lot 1 , Block 1, Creason Creek Subdivision No. 1 and that is the area at the lower right-hand side there -- is proposed to be relocated to Lot 13 and portions of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, and that is this area right here as shown on the preliminary plat. These lots were previously planned as buildable lots. The applicant plans to resubdivide Lot 1, Block 1, in the first phase of Creason Creek Subdivision in the future into two buildable lots accessible by via Northwest 13th Avenue. The common area of Lot 1, Block 1, Creason Creek Subdivision, consists of 16,183 square feet. The proposed common area consists of 16,268 square feet, for an increase from that originally proposed. The proposed common area will have access by a pedestrian bridge over the Creason Lateral from a pathway on the north side of the lateral and that is shown right here, if you can see my cursor there on the map on the right. Again, from the pathway on the north side of the lateral will be fenced with a six foot tall wrought iron fence. Landscaping is proposed within the common area in accord with UDC standards. The applicant feels the proposed change will provide better access and use of the area. Written testimony has been received from Bob Unger, the applicant's representative, and he is in agreement with the staff report. The staff recommendation is for approval per the staff report and staff will stand for any questions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 22 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 3 of 62 Simison: Are there any questions? If not, this is not a public hearing. Do I have any motions?. Allen: Excuse me. Mr. Mayor, this item actually is a public hearing. The final plats after this are not. Simison: Okay. Allen: For clarification. Thank you. Simison: Well, thank you then. I stand corrected. Is the applicant here. Are there any questions for staff first I guess? If not, the applicant come forward. Unger: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Bob Unger with ULC Management and represent the CS2, LLC, who is the developer of the property. We reviewed the staff report and the conditions of approval and we are in agreeance with those and I will stand for any questions. Simison: Any questions for the applicant? Bernt: No questions. Simison: Thank you. Unger: Thank you. Simison: Councilman Cavener, did you have a question? Cavener: Mr. Mayor, thanks. Just a question for Legal or Sonya. You indicated this is a public hearing, but it wasn't noticed on our agenda as such, so I'm just making sure that we don't have any issues that we need to cure, because at least the agenda that I have before me does not have Item A listed as a public hearing. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Cavener, I don't show it as a public hearing either, so -- I don't know why it wasn't noticed on the agenda that way. don't recall other modified final plats being noticed as public hearings, so that's what I -- this is new. Allen: Perhaps I misspoke. Maybe it's a public meeting, rather than public hearing. Nary: The applicant has the ability to weigh in, so it's public in that regard. Simison: Okay. Nary: But not a public hearing for the rest of the public. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 23 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 4 of 62 Simison: Okay. Allen: Sorry, Mr. Mayor. My bad. Simison: We are all good. We are all learning. With that, since there is no public testimony that's available, are there any questions or is there a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we approve Item 6-A, H-2019-0139. Cavener: Second. Simison: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 6-A. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, do this by roll call or voice -- Nary: Roll call. Simison: Madam Clerk, call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Final Plat for Oaks North Subdivision No. 4 (H-2019-0136) by Toll Southwest, LLC, Located at 6060 W. McMillan Rd. C. Final Plat for Three Corners Ranch (H-2019-0141) by Sweet Land Development, Inc., Located at 1890 E . Dunwoody Ct. D. Final Plat for Verado Subdivision No. 4 (H-2019-0132) by C17, LLC, Located at 3090 N. Locust Grove Rd. Simison: Item 6-B. I will turn this over to -- it's a final plat for Oaks North Subdivision, H- 2019-0136. Start with staff comments. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the next three items are all final plat applications and we have received responses from the applicants on all three final plats in agreement with the staff reports. Typically those would go on the Consent Agenda if we received them prior to the day last week, but we did receive them late as the staff Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 24 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 5 of 62 reports went out late. Would you prefer to go ahead and act on those or would you like me to run through each of the applications for you? Bernt: Act. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Would it be appropriate just to lump all of these action items into one, separately, but like together? Same -- Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, you could do that. Bernt: Okay. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we approve 6-13, H-2019-0136. Item 6-C, H-2019-0141 . And D -- 6-D, H-2019-0132. Simison: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? If not, I will ask the Clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Bach Storage (H-2019-0121) by Bach Homes, Located at 2480 N. Eagle Rd. and 3280 E. River Valley St. 1. Request: Annexation of 1 acre of land with a C-C zoning district, and; 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a self-service storage facility on 1.92 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. Simison: Item 6-E is a public hearing for Bach Storage, H-2019-0121. I will turn this over for staff comments. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 25 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 6 of 62 Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a conditional use permit. This site consists of a total of 1.92 acres of land between two parcels. The northern parcel is zoned C-C and the southern parcel is zoned RUT in Ada county. The site is located on the east side of North Eagle Road just north of East River Valley Street at 2480 and 2500 North Eagle Road. The C-C zoned property was annexed in 2008 with the multi-family development to the east, Regency at River Valley, and a development agreement was required as a provision of annexation. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is mixed use regional. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of one acre of land with the C-C zoning district consistent with the mixed use regional future land use map designation and a conditional use permit for a self service storage facility on 1.92 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. A site plan was submitted as shown that demonstrates how the site is proposed to develop with a self service storage facility consisting of approximately 600 climate controlled storage units in a three story 100,000 square foot structure and 25 traditional storage units in two separate single story structures containing a total of 8,400 square feet to the north and south of the climate control building. A revised site and landscape plan was submitted that reflects removal of a pedestrian connection between the residential development to the east and this property. So, again, this is the original plan right here that shows the pedestrian connection. This is the revised plan that excludes that. Access is proposed by a north- south backage road along the east boundary of the site and that is this road that you see right here and that is for access via East River Valley Street, a collector street to the south. A cross-access easement is required to be provided to the properties to the north and south for access via the backage road to River Valley. And I will just go back for a second here and show you the overview here. This is River Valley Street right here and, then, the backage road goes up to the backside of these properties right here. A temporary access via Eagle Road and State Highway 55 exists on the Great Wall property directly to the north of this site. That is required to be removed once access is available via River Valley Street, which will occur with development of this site. A secondary emergency access is required with the proposed development for the specific use standards for the use. None is proposed, except for that on the Great Wall property that is required to be removed. Because this property is a mixed use designated area and located adjacent to a major transportation corridor, State Highway 55 and arterial intersections, interconnectivity between uses and integration of uses is paramount. Therefore, the Commission recommends the applicant continue to work with the property owners to the east on a cross-access easement and driveway for interconnectivity between uses, which would also serve as an emergency access for the storage facility via North Records Avenue and provide a direct route to the commercial uses from the adjacent residential development without having to go around via the collector street River Valley. The subject property and the property to the east are partially under the same ownership. If a driveway connection is provided on the property to the east it would necessitate removal of three parking spaces and extension of a driveway across the existing buffer. At some point in the future access may be available via the backage road from the north once the property north of the Great Wall Restaurant redevelops and a bridge is constructed over the Finch Lateral, but at this time no other access exists. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Eagle Road, State Highway 55, with a ten foot wide multi-use Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 26 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 7 of 62 pathway and pedestrian lighting. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required -- excuse me. Not street buffer, just landscape buffer is required along the east boundary of the site as a buffer to the existing residential development. The applicant is requesting Council approval of a reduced buffer width to ten feet, as there is an existing 15 foot wide buffer along this boundary on the residential property, which combined with the ten foot buffer will total 25 as required. A west side conceptual building perspective was submitted as shown with this application, which depicts building materials consisting of two different colors of the efface, with an accent color on the cornices, glazing and metal canopies over the windows on the single story structures. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. The Commission recommended approval of this application to the City Council. I will just go over a summary of the public hearing. Nick Mason, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. No one testified in opposition or commented on the application. Written testimony was received from Nick Mason, the applicant's representative, and he was not in agreement with staff's recommendation for a vehicular and pedestrian access between the adjacent residential development and the subject property. There was no issues of testimony -- public testimony. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were as follows: The provision of vehicular and pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent multi- family residential development to the east. Secondary emergency access to the site if the existing temporary access on the Great Wall property via Eagle Road is removed as required. Reference to the existing temporary access approved through the variance for the Great Wall property to remain for better -- for better business access and for emergency access as required for the storage facility until such time as the backage road is extended to the north of Great Wall, since the applicant doesn't feel a cross-access easement and driveway for the multi-family development to the east is feasible. Encouragement to the applicant to continue to work with the owners of the multi-family development to the east on a cross-access easement and driveway connection between the properties -- possibly a gated access only accessible by residents to restrict cut- through traffic. Concern pertaining to the impact of proposed three story storage facility will have on the residents' view and the adjacent four story apartments and desire for staff to do a very thorough design review on the structure for architectural appeal and compatibility with the adjacent residential development. The Commission made the following changes to the staff recommendation. The Commission offers their support to City Council of the applicant's request for a reduced buffer with two residential uses from 25 feet to ten feet along the east boundary of the site. The Commission recommended the inclusion of a requirement for strict design review of all four sides of the proposed structures to ensure compatibility and appearance with the adjacent apartment complex to the east. The Commission changed staff's recommendation requiring a condition for the construction of a vehicular and pedestrian connection -- connection to the residential development to the east for interconnectivity to -- to a recommendation for the applicant to continue to work with the property owners to the east on a cross-access easement and driveway for interconnectivity between uses. And, finally, the Commission recommends the existing temporary access via Eagle Road on the adjacent Great Wall property to the north remains until such time as the backage is extended to the north of the Great Wall property and just a note. Because the adjacent property isn't the subject of this application, this isn't a formal recommendation that Council should act on tonight. The Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 27 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 8 of 62 only outstanding issue for Council is the applicant's request for Council's consideration and approval of a reduced buffer width to residential uses, as I previously mentioned, along the east boundary from 25 to ten feet and there has been no written testimony received since the Commission hearing. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Sonya, I just want to make sure I understand the --the cross-access issue. As -- on the -- on the -- with the one recommended cross-access, if we are looking on the south side, access to the facility is via that driveway right there on the south -- Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, yes, it's right here. Hoaglun: And so that -- is it fenced to the right of that -- Allen: There is a fence right here. Hoaglun: Okay. And, then, discuss, then, the -- in the north end that would go out to the Great Wall parking lot and access to that point? Allen: Correct. Hoaglun: Some day that will continue on once further land to the north gets developed. Then for the property to the east, the apartments, does their driveway -- again, they access coming in off of Records and, then, can turn up that and there is parking on both sides. How far does that continue -- that -- their -- their driveway for the apartment complex continue? Allen: Are you -- are you referencing this driveway right here? Hoaglun: Yes. Allen: How far to the north? Hoaglun: Yes. Where does that end up? Is it circular or -- Allen: Yeah. It goes around the structures. Here -- you can see a little bit here. I can -- I can bring up a better map here. Hoaglun: Okay. So, Mr. Mayor, Sonya -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 28 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 9 of 62 Allen: This property is right here. And, then, you can see the driveway that goes clear around here and, then, River Valley is right here. Or excuse me. Records I mean. Hoaglun: Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to get a sense of that to see if that -- again, that property's not developed yet, so -- but it doesn't look like that would continue anyway. They have got parking structure or parking lots at least to the north for that apartment complex, so -- Allen: Yeah. Currently -- just a little more information on that subject on the access. When the Great Wall property was developed they were not required to grant a cross- access easement to the property to the north or construct a bridge or a culvert across the Finch Lateral here. When this property came in with a concept development plan, because this property wasn't required to grant access, they weren't either, but this property is coming before you here next week for a time extension on their application and they have been talking about doing a backage road here and a connection to the south. So, if we could get that to occur, then, there will be a backage road from River Valley clear up to the north to this drive aisle right here and this access from Eagle Road. So, that's how our code would prefer it to -- the access to occur instead of the direct accesses that we have got going on here. Simson: Sonya, does the Great Wall have space for a road through their parking lot or was that contemplated? Allen: They have -- Simison: It's hard to tell. Allen: -- a driveway right here. Yes, it gets -- yeah. It could span right across the -- Simison: Okay. So -- Allen: It's right here. Simison: -- there may be space, but really not formulated in terms of -- the one in -- the one in front of the storage units looks a little bit more like a road, whereas this one would be just through the drive space. Allen: It would be from their driveway, yes. So, they would have to agree to this, just to be clear. Simison: Are there any further questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 29 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 10 of 62 Cavener: Sonya, I can't recall seeing in a -- in a staff report the phrase -- or I guess a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission for strict design review. I just want to make sure that staff feels confident in what the Commission was intending with that recommendation. Allen: Yes. Cavener: It seems a little arbitrary to me. Allen: It was -- Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, it was -- it was a little arbitrary, but -- but, yes, staff understands what the Commission is requiring. Simison: Are there any further questions for staff? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, over here on this side. Simison: Yes. Bongiorno: If I may. A little clarification on the access requirements. So, in the UDC, excuse me, it is required for storage units to have two accesses. The -- the reason being is -- excuse me -- the fire code. Typically with our storage units they have very large buildings, so with this particular one here it's a three story building, so when you get to three stories you are required to have two different fire accesses for the property. Other reasons would be if you are over 124,000 square feet in -- in building size that's sprinklered, it would have to be two accesses. Sixty-two thousand square feet on a nonsprinklered building. So, that's kind of where that secondary access is required. It's required by the fire code. Simison: So, my question, then, is when the Great Wall's access goes away, what is the secondary access? Bongiorno: That -- that seems to be the topic of discussion, Mayor. The -- that's why we were looking at requiring that access to the apartment complex, because they are tied together is my understanding and so it just made sense to put an access through there. It doesn't have to be a full access for everybody just to drive through. I would be happy with a -- an emergency access with, you know, some bollards -- some knock-over bollards that we would require. So, that would satisfy the secondary access. Simison: So, just to follow up with that, would that work in the place where the Great Wall's access is to have bollards in that location? Bongiorno: Out to -- I'm sorry, Mayor. Out to Eagle Road? Simison: Yeah. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 30 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 11 of 62 Bongiorno: Yeah. That would be fine also. Yeah. I guess the issue there would be -- is whether ITD or ACHD or whoever would allow an emergency access only in that location. Simison: Is there any further questions? Okay. If not is the applicant here? If you will state your name and address for the record. Mason: Yeah. Nick Mason. 2237 Ramona, Salt Lake City, Utah. So, I am -- I agree with most of the staff report and agree with the -- the four sided architecture review that was talked about during the planning commission meeting. I -- I do understand that this really does come down to the secondary access issue. During the planning commission meeting it was brought to my attention by Bill and agreed to by the attorney -- it was a different attorney. It was a lady. And that -- that the City Council does have the authority to extend the temporary access to the Great Wall property. I think there is -- there is two reasons to do that. One being that we would need the secondary access for safety. And two being that the Great Wall, if they are restricted to having just the access from the south, then, I mean it's a -- they probably will fail. If you can -- if I can go to -- I'm not sure exactly how this works. How can I go to an aerial of this? Allen: Let me drive. Mason: Okay. Okay. So, this -- this helps a little bit, but -- so, if there is no access right here and the way that City Council has approved it in the past, once this back road right here is constructed, then, this will be shut off and so at that point the only access to the Great Wall would be right here. To get there you cannot come down this way and do a U-turn. There is a no U-turn sign there and there is a median blocking a left-hand turn by -- by the county. So, what you would have to do -- and I don't think I can move -- well, I can. They could come right here, drive around this way and into there. So, if you -- I know you guys do understand retail, it's bad for -- for them. I do think that once this access from the north comes about then -- then that problem will be solved. I -- I would encourage you guys to approve this with this right here being the secondary access until the road from the north comes through. If I understand correctly, this -- this road is a -- is a planned road. If you come up north here you can see it come off of the street and it comes through here -- it's kind of hard to see and is designed to continue through there. I believe that you guys probably have the authority to make that happen on the Gossers' application for whatever they are doing. I'm not certain about that. A couple other things. The -- the access through the apartments, while it seems simple, because our company built those apartments and it is not. I have approached the ownership, which is -- we have ownership in it, of course, but there are other owners and their -- their concerns have been the fact that -- and especially when this gets blocked off, that the way to get to the Great Wall and -- would be to drive through our apartments and -- and perhaps to get to a place like the -- the Mattress Firm right here, the best way to go would be to come here, turn into our private roads and through and that will only encourage that to happen. I -- I even talked to them about the pedestrian access going through there and while our portion of the ownership is -- I could say mostly okay with those access points, the -- the -- all the people that we need to agree to that are not -- not okay with it. I understand their concerns with it, especially with the setup of the -- the -- the possible poor access to the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 31 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 12 of 62 Great Wall. Let me see here. Took a couple other notes. Also I don't know if it was noted, but right here I believe there is an access agreement already in place for traffic to be able to go through to the Great Wall and we have agreed to also put that easement in place for the Great Wall to be able to access their property through that back road. I believe that's that. So, if you have any questions, welcome to answer them. Simison: Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, Mr. Mason. I just wanted to clarify -- did the owner of the Great Wall agree, then, to provide this secondary access? Mason: Yeah. He is -- he is worried about that access being shut off. I mean I -- I contacted him early on the -- what we wanted to do is to try to make an application to make that permanent. I mean we have been working on this for -- me personally for a couple of years, but he -- he is concerned. I think he is concerned about -- about how everything is going as is and if something were to happen like that access being cut off there would be a problem. So, he is definitely in agreement with it. I assumed that -- talked to him last about a year ago. It was the same today. I mean I don't know what else -- what else you would want there. And I -- and I understand you guys have the -- the ability to extend that temporary access. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Just a -- Nick, a couple of questions on that. One of the challenges, among others, is that application is not in front of us, so if the existing conditions on the Great Wall, which had the Eagle Road access being temporary until that connection to the south is made and your project makes that connection, the Eagle Road access goes away. So, the application that's not in front of us is a Great Wall application asking to extend that as you suggested. Mason: Well, you can make my approval subject to that and I'm completely confident that he will want that. That's okay. But I don't think you need an application to do that. You could ask the attorney. The application was not made by him, it was a condition put in place by the City Council. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Borton, the -- you're incorrect. mean they would have to -- they would have to ask -- if their requirement and their development agreement states that they will have to close that access once southern access is available to them, then, they would have to come and ask us. So, that's why the -- it's not a recommended condition for tonight, but you are correct, Council Member Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 32 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 13 of 62 Borton, that by creating this other access for them will trigger that clause and so it will require them to come before you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: With that sequence of events, absent that application, what happens if that's your secondary emergency access -- it gets closed unless there is action with a separate application should there be a desire to keep it open for any reason. It means your-- your secondary access condition couldn't be the Great Wall. We don't necessarily know if that would be approved. Mason: I understand that. I will have to come here to the city to get a building permit, at which time I will have to have that secondary access. So, I would encourage you to approve this subject to having a secondary access. I would be okay with that. Borton: Mr. Mayor. That secondary access. The other alternative would be even if it's an emergency with bollards to the east. Mason: Well, it's either that or it's to the north. I mean we don't have to build this right away. I can wait for the road from the north. I'm saying that I understand we need secondary access and I will not be able to get a building permit or a certificate of occupancy without that and so if you guys place that as a condition on my approval I'm okay with that and I will have to make sure that we have that access. Borton: Even -- Mr. Mayor. Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Even if one -- one scenario that could happen amongst those is if it gets -- if there was an approval tonight and it's conditioned on a secondary access and the secondary access doesn't go east, with or without bollards, but the secondary access, if ever, only goes north and that's the condition of approval and, then, at a future application from Great Wall there isn't-- let's just say there isn't a decision to allow that Eagle Road access to remain, now your project and building permit would be stuck until you connect all the way to the north. Mason: I understand that. I need secondary access. I totally understand that. I mean I would ask if you guys are in support of make -- extending that temporary access. We are -- I mean I can be -- I can be back here soon with Mr. Ma to make that application. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 33 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 14 of 62 Borton: Just a -- I recall the Great Wall application -- the temporary access discussion was truly temporary. The idea was that wouldn't serve any other additional purpose and so there is some risk that there might not be a desire to keep that Eagle Road access open. Mason: Desire by who? Borton: By this body. It might be a desire -- Mason: It could, but I would ask for -- I mean the logistics behind that, I really do think that it's a harm to Mr. Ma once that road's built for him just to get shut off. I mean he -- he likely will go out of business. I don't think that there is an unsafe or extra impact on Eagle Road because of this. I mean if there is a reason why you guys believe that should be shut off right away and not extended, I would like to hear that, but I don't -- I don't see it myself. But I'm open to suggestion. I just -- I think it -- it makes sense in my mind that you would allow that to stay open -- not only for us, but for the Great Wall. Simison: Are there any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Mason: Okay. Thanks. Simison: This is a public hearing. Did we have anyone signed up to testify? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody signed up for this hearing. Simison: Is there anybody who is here who would like to testify on this item in the audience? Okay. The public testimony -- applicant would you like to come back up and say any final words or would you like the Council to go into conversation further? Mason: I do want to say to Mr. Borton I -- I was genuine in that, but I would listen to reasons you had. I wasn't trying to force anything on you. It just -- it just makes sense to me. I -- I have met with Mr. Ma several times. He -- he is very concerned. There is a language barrier. There was a trust issue at first. And, then, he kind of understood that I was working with him to help him. He didn't understand the situation. So, once we got talking to him about how once we build this that his -- his access will be shut off, then, he was very concerned about that and I hope you can understand that -- I think that it is a natural access to go --go through to the north. I think that's what was intended. It sounds like a cross-access agreement was missed maybe in error. I don't know. But I know that the ordinance off of Eagle Road is to limit those access points and to provide a back road through in order to limit them and so in the spirit of that ordinance I think that you would need to connect these roads. Otherwise, it's just -- what was intended is not happening. But that's it. Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 34 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 15 of 62 Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, not to make this real gummy, but as Council Member Borton pointed out, this is not part of the application. There are some triggering effects by granting secondary access to the north here that is incumbent on that property to address. Really trying to weigh in on that now when it's not before you is probably not appropriate. Certainly with that in mind I think Council Member Borton and did -- did identify the issue. Specifically that, obviously, there is an issue of the secondary access and where it's located and what that might trigger. But ultimately it's still your decision. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Nary. If I could ask Deputy Chief a question in terms of -- on the access, if memory serves me correct coming out of there there is a -- coming off of River Valley that tapers into a merge left at that point in time. Right in that -- I don't know how far down that goes, but if that lane instead of tapering were to remain at -- basically a right turn only dedicated into the Great Wall in the future, would that suffice the secondary access from one direction for a right turn only in? Because I think at least from my perspective that's something -- because you almost already have a lane there and we have precedent even further up on Eagle Road where we have right turn dedicated lanes turning into the establishments that doesn't seem to impact the traffic flow. It would be a left -- right out coming out without an accel lane in that area. But would a right turn only in suffice? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, yes, I -- it's an access. Simison: Okay. Bongiorno: So, we could -- you could -- we could utilize that and, you're right, that lane does go all the way down to where Firehouse Subs is. But if they cut it short and just made it turned into his property, that's an access. I would be okay with that. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, question for Mr. Nary. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I just want to make sure, Bill, that I understand that -- if we approve with a generic secondary access, we don't distinguish where that is, whether it's bollards to the apartment complex, as opposed to going to the north, but it's my understanding once he connects to the Great Wall that's the access point. Now that is established there is a way into the Great Wall. That development agreement -- and, of course, probably hasn't been looked at. That triggers that closure of his Eagle Road access and then -- of course, then, that brings up -- we are back to the same thing. We need a secondary access for the applicant. There would be a secondary access -- access once that other property is developed, so -- but that, as you said, is down the road. We are not deciding that. We can't make any decisions about that. So, if we provide -- as long as we provide a secondary access and if that is a temporary access with bollards to the apartment complex and there is not a connection to the Great Wall and that remains until that is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 35 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 16 of 62 connected up and other actions take place down -- down the road, is that -- is that -- am I thinking that through correctly? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Hoaglun, you are. So, you know, if we want to designate in the development agreement that makes clear that the eastern access -- if the secondary access would come from the east to the adjoining property, it would be -- the emergency access only and pedestrian access. The northern one would be the full vehicular access and just to provide some context maybe to the Council, when the Great Wall was approved those median islands did not exist on Eagle Road at that time, so there was a concern about full turns and left turn ins that have been alleviated to a great extent today. So, it would be a different discussion with them. But it would trigger that -- like you said, it would be incumbent on them to come and request that remain until the northern access were to open or something to that effect. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I did have a follow up for Mr. Nary. Mr. Nary, do we have the authority to keep that temporary access open as a body? Just understand -- like legally do we have the authority to do that ourselves without any kind of other input from either Ada county or et cetera? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Woman Strader, no, we don't. So, as the land use authority we have the ability -- authority to designate the use on the property and the access that you would allow, but because the roadway is an ITD facility, it is incumbent on them. Now, again, if the property owner were to get their permission that it would remain and that the only impediment to it remaining open was the city's DA condition, that would be a discussion point for that modification. Simison: So, Council, I think we have the chicken and egg scenario where we can improve the chicken to cross the road, but until a secondary application comes in they can never get across the road, which it sets up -- I think I can understand what the applicant is asking for in this case, approval with the secondary and another application somehow will have to solve this issue and if that never happens, then, it's never moved forward. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: To that point, one option -- and the applicant can comment on it -- if the -- the least problematic option would be an emergency access to the east with bollards, that would not necessitate that connection to the north, so the north wouldn't have its second access, so the Great Wall would be able to retain its existing Eagle Road temporary access, because they hadn't yet obtained their new access. This project would -- instead Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 36 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 17 of 62 of using the -- the thing that we don't control -- Eagle Road access as its secondary, it would instead use access to the east with bollards only, pedestrian crossing -- hopefully it's never needed and that provides the two access points for this project and it doesn't eliminate the Great Wall's Eagle Road temporary access, which would, then, go away if and when there is a connection to the north, quite frankly, which could also, then, be conditioned with opening up the whole thing as part of that future application, so -- Simison: Do you have a specific question you would like to ask the applicant to come and answer? Borton: Yes. With that -- Mr. Mayor, with that as one of the options, what do you think of that? Simison: Could you just restate your name for the record. Mason: Nick Mason. So, my understanding is that it's -- what triggers that to be closed right now is not for the road to go all the way through, it's basically for the road to get there. So, once we build our road, the back road to get to our property, it shuts down. Borton: So, Mr. Mayor? That's what I'm -- I'm trying to see if there is scenarios where that wouldn't happen, so -- Mason: Yeah. Borton: So, in this scenario you wouldn't connect to the Great Wall yet. Your secondary access would be emergency only turning sharp east and not connecting. Mason: I see what you're saying. Borton: By not connecting Great Wall doesn't lose its temporary access. Mason: We would probably have to look at that development agreement, ours, and see if that's possible. But my -- yeah. So, it's a good solution if that's possible. Yeah. Borton: Well, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: To make that possible you would have to obtain somehow your cross-access to the east, even for emergency purposes. Mason: Yeah. And that will be a challenge as well. So, that's -- that's the thing is that I could go -- I could go to the east, but I need to get permission there. I need to get permission from Ma, which I'm sure that I can. So, that's why I'm saying if we just approve it with the requirement, which is already a requirement that we have secondary access. So, you're just approving the use, then, we will have to get that either through an Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 37 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 18 of 62 application through Ma or a building permit that shows the access going through the east with some type of agreement with the owner to the east. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: One question for the applicant. Are you -- are you opposed to having this continued until you have that agreement with Mr. Ma,just to alleviate everyone's concern? Mason: I -- I don't think that's necessary. If you think it's necessary then -- I mean -- guess it doesn't really matter what I think on that, but I -- I would -- I'm not concerned about him agreeing to it, but given the case that it might not go that way, it might go another way to make it required on him -- his approval -- I don't know. Because it might have to come from another area. I mean there is other ways. There could be another temporary access to Eagle Road we could get approved or-- and maybe that's not viable. But there is -- there is several different ways we could get access and so I -- I don't think there is any harm in approving it contingent on that secondary access. Approved by Fire of course. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Just thinking out loud, my only concern is Mr. Ma wanting to keep his Eagle Road access, because if he doesn't keep -- if he agrees to --to your easement or his --whatever to the north, that would automatically shut off his access to Eagle Road. Until that northern property is developed, that is like sudden death for him. Honestly. Even with your access. Because he would have -- people would have to go all the way up and around and over to grandmother's house and beyond to his place and that takes some work. I mean you are really going to want to have some Chinese food. Mason: Oh, I -- I totally agree with that. That's what I was saying earlier. I already have an easement to go through to his property. That's already in place. So, going to Mr. Ma would be him making an application to make his temporary access extended until it comes from the north. Well, it -- where else is he going to get his access though? You know. And so I -- I have his interest in mind. I have worked with him to -- I'm -- I'm concerned about his access. It does happen to benefit us as well at the same time, but I -- I think it could be a problem for him. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, question -- Simison- Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: -- for Nick. So, in trying to protect that access off of Eagle Road for -- for the Great Wall for the time being, you know, my thinking is having come in from -- from East Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 38 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 19 of 62 River Valley to your storage unit, an emergency access from the apartments with bollards as a temporary solution until such time the property to the north gets resolved and, then, you would -- utilizing your easement put that through and I would like to see, then, that temporary -- the emergency access for the apartments be closed completely, no longer needed because there will be two access points and, then, his access from Eagle Road will likely go away once that road is connected to the north. So, limiting you from using that easement to go to his property for the time being, to allow that -- that to stay and having that emergency bollard blocked access until such time that property is developed. That -- that's the solution I'm trying to see if that would work. So, your -- your thoughts on that. Mason: Well, it works for me, but I can -- I can't go to them and put an access into their property. I don't -- I don't have the legal right to do that. I don't think the City Council has the ability to put a contingency on the -- on the property to the right that's already as it is. I will definitely -- I would really like to go -- try to get that done. Like I stated, I have before -- there is -- we are not the only owners and there is banks involved, there is -- you know, that's one of the bigger concerns is that the bank is going to look at it and look at the -- the impact on the private roads going through there and they may have a problem with it and so I can't -- I can't say yes to it. I'm not opposed to it, but I can't say yes to it. But I -- contingent on secondary access, I mean I don't think to pinpoint where that access comes from is absolutely necessary. I -- I do have the ability with easements to go and build the road tomorrow if I had to and I wouldn't, obviously, have to wait until either I had the access to the east or from the north. So, I mean there is options out there. Maybe none of them work and, then, I don't build it. I get it. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question for Mr. Nary. To Nick's point about not having that agreement, if we designate that emergency access with bollards, I mean we know we have to have it for safety purposes. We have to have a secondary access, is that something we can take action on tonight or is that something we have to work through an agreement with property owners to the east? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Hoaglun, so he's correct, I mean they don't have to agree to even an emergency access through to their property, so -- but if that's your only alternative that you give him, then, that's incumbent on him. The only other risk that -- from what you folks have been discussing that's a concern is say Mr. Mason decides to sell this property and the next property owner doesn't care about the Great Wall or care about the impact on their business and says we have an easement, we are just going to build it and it has -- if he has to deal with it, he has to deal with it, it's not our problem. So, I understand where Mr. Mason is coming from. That's not his objective at all. That is a concern. If you just do an either/or, a different developer would probably pick the least expensive option, which is the access they already have. So, you can certainly make it only the east that will restrict this project until such time they Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 39 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 20 of 62 can get that access or they work out with Mr. Ma to have him come in and get his alternative to his development agreement and, then, they can come back and ask you to amend their agreement as well. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: A comment on that then. Mr. Nary, that's -- that's good advice. Thank you for dashing our hopes and dreams on that one, so -- Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Fire Department over here. Tammy does the same thing. I mean there is one other option. He can reduce the size of his building as well and -- and get under that 30 feet or less. That would eliminate the need for the secondary access all together. Simison: Thank you, deputy chief. And, you know, Council, I'm just going to say I don't know ultimately what you want in this entire stretch. If you agree with the access that currently exists on Great Wall, if that should be there long term or not, but I -- to the point whatever direction you go, even if you do reduce it down, it's still in -- right now I'm guessing it's going to be a cross-access, which would shut that down regardless. So, which it -- it really does come down to which application in the future is going to allow his project to move forward, because I think that that's ultimately where you are -- where you are going to be at. He -- he can't build what he wants to do without another application from somebody else, in essence. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Another question to that point for Legal and -- and hats off to you trying to do this. This -- all of this sausage making is because this was all done out of order and I distinctly remember when this went through and we thought, oh, this problem has got kicked down the road to 2020 apparently. If the access to the north were to be emergency only with bollards, in that condition is it possible that that wouldn't constitute a secondary access, which means Great Wall would not yet have to remove Eagle Road access in their DA? Nary: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, I -- without looking at their DA I can't tell you. Certainly that's a less restricted access, so the likelihood of that triggering that -- but I can't recall -- I don't know if Ms. Allen recalls, this is just like any access or full access. I don't know. Mason: I remember in the DA that it said once access from the south is provided to the Great Wall and that it would shut down -- Borton: So, if it has bollards is that an access to the south? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 40 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 21 of 62 Mason: Well, no, because if it had bollards, then, he's got no access anymore and if it's got bollards and you shut down the -- Eagle, then, he's got nothing. Borton: And that -- Mr. Mayor? Mason: That might be a way to -- Morton: If-- if it takes time to look at it -- Mason: I would say that I would -- I would try to get that done definitely first, but I don't know if that should be a condition on our approval. Allen: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Simison: Sonya. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council, that -- that is the condition, what Mr. Mason said, is when access is available from the south, the temporary access on the Great Wall property will be removed. Either way this -- this application has a condition that they have to comply with UDC standards and provide a secondary emergency access. That is a specific use standard and it can't be waived. Even if the Fire Department doesn't need one it is a -- it is a code requirement. So, there is a condition -- if the applicant can't comply with that down the road, then, they can develop their property the way they want to do regardless. It's -- I don't believe it's really necessary for the Council to determine tonight which -- from which direction or by what means that secondary access is provided. Anyway, just staff's two cents on that. Simison: And, in fact, you just said -- I think while I agree that you don't need this week, it sounds like in two weeks you probably should figure that out by -- whether or not you want the access on Eagle Road to remain or not, especially if there is a request for a cross-access coming from the north. Just food for thought. Any further questions? Any further discussion amongst Council or do I have any motions? Borton: Mr. Mayor, just real quick. Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Another question for Legal to that point. Do you have concern if there was a condition that merely said secondary access must be provided without designating how, that that could still suffice? Nary: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, that's certainly adequate from an enforcement standpoint that it's going to be required to show where the secondary access is and it does have to meet the Fire Department standards. So, whether it's the north or the east I think we are fine. Again, I'm trying to play those scenarios in my head to see if something else would be provided that would not require Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 41 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 22 of 62 somebody else to apply for something and I still think someone's going to have to apply for something. It would be my opinion that a secondary access that is emergency access only and not a full vehicle access would be a better argument as to why the Great Wall provision doesn't apply yet, because you still can't get there and that was the whole point of it. If you can get there some other way that's why the access is supposed to go away. That's not a means to get there. But, again, that's for another day. So, having a requirement that a secondary access exists, that it can be emergency only, depending on where it's located, but it can't -- or it can be full as long as you understand as a Council that it could go to the north and be only emergency access only and if the intent isn't for that to be a complete backage road, then, that would defeat the purpose of that, too. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I have another question for Mr. Nary. Mr. Nary, is there a possibility that the secondary access -- I'm just trying to think through the possibilities. Is there a possibility that exists here for the secondary access to disappear? Like what I'm wondering about is if there is a temporary access to the Great Wall and we get this other access through the south and, then, that meets and triggers that agreement that they will close their access on Eagle Road, I mean is it possible that the building could end up being constructed and, then, we only end up with one access in the future? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that's what Council Member Borton brought up initially was that without that change in the Great Wall's agreement, then, by connecting that roadway through and him, then, requesting it to remain open and a future Council decides, no, it's not going to remain open and that they are okay with that access, you're right, you're going to have a problem -- you may have a problem on how to get there and the secondary access would go away. Strader: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Just some discussion. I'm okay with the temporary access remaining to Great Wall. I don't personally see an issue with it at this time. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is is that -- is that going to be a decision within Council's discretion completely or is that something that we would need -- like is there any body, like ITD, that could overrule our ability to keep that temporary access open and -- and effectively close it? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I -- I don't recall specifically if the Great Wall approval was done that ITD only granted it because we conditioned that it would be temporary, because, again, the roadway conditions were significantly different at that point in time than they are today. So, I don't know the answer that -- that ITD is fine with that access remaining forever and that the only condition that's triggered in it is ours. I can't tell you that today. So, I don't know. But ITD definitely has a role in whether the access can remain. Simison: Council woman Strader. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 42 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 23 of 62 Strader: Mr. Mayor. Some further discussion. That -- that occurs to me as a significant risk if we haven't established whether we have the authority to keep that temporary access open and so I would think that another condition might be appropriate, in addition to secondary access, which would be an agreement from ITD to keep that secondary access for us and not take some kind of action. Simison: And I think that goes back to the point earlier in the context of like -- if he makes the connection it automatically goes away, unless there is another application some -- in some way to address that issue where you will get ITD to weigh in officially, then, if that connection is made it goes away. There is nothing you can do. And, therefore, a permit would not be issued. I -- it is that chicken and the egg. You take one step and you lose your other access unless another solution is found through another application in the future. Strader: Mr. Mayor, question. Perhaps a question for you, perhaps a question from Mr. Nary, I'm not sure, but is it possible for us to, you know, require someone appropriate to contact ITD to get -- to get their opinion about this or is it possible to require a condition -- some type of further condition before the permit is issued that they have, you know, received that or is it -- what kind of options might we have to establish whether ITD will keep that temporary access open? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Woman Strader, so I -- my experience has been with ITD -- I think as the Mayor has stated, unless there is an application in front of them they won't commit to a decision. They are unlikely to enter into an agreement with the city to keep the access open. If that access was a problem, the reality is is they could close that access off anytime they want to. They did that further south to The Village and didn't ask the city's opinion about that, they just did it. So, I don't think we can really get an answer to that question without an application in front of us. You know, again, logic says a future council isn't likely to eliminate an access point when it makes logical sense until there is something better in place and so I guess I would trust the Council in the future, even though the application is in front of you today, to apply logic to the situation and -- and would make some sense. Again, the situation requires some action from somebody else. You know, the access doesn't evaporate upon the opening of this roadway, someone's going to have to notify them, there is going to be a process. So, it's not like the day this roadway opens Mr. -- Mr. Ma is cut -- access is cut off. Simison: And I think that goes back to my original question, at least for -- to the deputy chief about a right only in access point at this location, thinking about what ITD may or may not allow if we wanted to have any sort of access along Eagle Road based upon the current infrastructure that exists at that location. What may be likely to remain that they would be not opposed to him with the city emergency services would not be opposed to as well if that was the direction to go, because, otherwise, the resolution is, yes, a north- south frontage road going through all -- through that area, but a right-in at that location allows them get their traffic in. The connection still going back the other direction to get out at the light makes as much sense. So, that's why having an emergency access only for that -- preventing that cross-access doesn't help, especially if you don't allow right- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 43 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 24 of 62 outs back onto Eagle Road. You know, looking at the overall connectivity through this, what makes sense and what is safe should be an important part of whatever decisions are made by all of the bodies, but everyone has different things that they care about and I can't speak for what ITD will care about at any point in time. I would never try to presume. Borton: Good one. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: This is a wild puzzle. So, here may -- this may be a solution and missing application to the -- to the question on the access to Eagle Road, ultimately the large long-term plan is it goes away. When that full backage road is north and south connecting all the way up as has been described. Someday that I mean that -- I mean that was the intent way back. So, if there was a DA modification, application from the Great Wall that that would readdress conditions of that temporary access and what would trigger it going away, at the same time that this application was going, you could make a global solution. So, for example, we would be allowed to, hypothetically speaking, grant a modification to the DA and allow the temporary access on Eagle Road to continue, maybe right-in only -- obviously I guess right-in only. Right-in. Right-out. And it would be able to continue even with a connection to the south through this project, but that temporary access would go away, hypothetically speaking, when the north-south access -- or excuse me -- when the northern access is completed at some point. You place a different parameter on what would make the temporary access go away. If that application was in front of us with Great Wall and if that action was taken, Great Wall would maintain their access, you would have --this project would have its emergency--or its second access, not even emergency access, he would have his second access through the Great Wall. Great Wall continues and wins, this project goes forward as its access, the Regency is not impacted, it doesn't have to go to the east and the DA for the Great Wall could, then, specify here is what happens to the north -- that when that occurs Eagle Road access goes away, which is the end result everyone is trying to get to. It could even require the cross-access to the north, which we don't yet have. But all of that scenario would require this being tabled until a DA modification comes forward, because you don't know what those specific terms would be until you get there. That gets you there. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I think that's the cleanest solution is doing that. The only question have, Councilman Borton, is would we have to not take action on this one tonight? Do they have to go in tandem, knowing what our -- our thinking is on this and trying to solve the problem, do we have to take -- do we have to table this -- this decision tonight and wait for the other application to come forward on the modified DA? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 44 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 25 of 62 Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Only hindsight will tell. Here -- I wouldn't think so, but the bad scenario would be if it gets approved tonight and a Great Wall application comes forward to the future and it has -- here is the new trigger of when the temporary access goes away and the applicant says, no, I don't like that and that's really important to this body, now what? Hopefully that doesn't happen. But if -- if you get to that scenario now we can't come back and -- just don't know. Well, I just don't know what Great Wall would say. Maybe the applicant can comment on it. He -- Mr. Mayor, that's -- that's the unknown. Simison: I'm going to go back to my original comments. I think you can approve this with the condition of the second access and let any other application address these issues without there being harm to the situation. Because, again, if the applicant connects to the Great Wall, the access is automatically triggered, he can build this project. So, you have addressed the -- I don't know that there is a scenario in here where there is not a solution. The solution has to be found somewhere else before a project can be built. Either, A, you are going to make the connection through another agreement through the north and the access will go away and you get a full full blown road or, B, you make an application for a DA modifications, allow that temporary to remain open for a short or extended period of time. Some other council action will have to solve this issue and he can never get a building permit unless that occurs. Borton: Comment from the applicant. Simison: Would the applicant like to affirm or deny what I have said, even though I have heard you say that. Mason: I just want -- yeah. I agree with what you are saying. I don't want this to be tabled in order to get something through the Great Wall, because I don't necessarily need the Great Wall. There is other scenarios where if I am able to go through the east or -- and have a temporary crash gate or whatever to the north, then, I should be able to do that without having to be contingent on -- without having a condition of getting an application from the Great Wall. I also -- I'm not sure the language of an application from someone else is true. If I -- what if I get an easement recorded, there is no application done, I have got an easement to go to the east, I come in with a building permit application, land use application for myself and have that, then, I don't need anyone else there. So, I -- I agree with you that if you approve it subject to secondary access, which is already in your code, then, to restrict it even further -- I -- I know in Utah you can't do that. I don't know Idaho law that well, but there is certain guidelines that you have to go by and you can't be more restrictive than what the state statute is and so I don't -- I don't -- I'm not sure if you can do that. You would know better. I could be completely wrong, because I don't know Idaho law as well. But to approve this -- and I don't even think you need to say it, but condition on secondary access, which I will need, which will trigger in some circumstances an application from someone else, which would address ITD, if they were to need to be addressed, then, that's true and I think we are okay. You know, the other -- the other way is to go to the east. I probably don't need an application from Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 45 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 26 of 62 someone else. I don't know what the likelihood of that is. I haven't talked to them about temporary. Simison: Sonya, does this require cross-access to the north? Because if cross-access is required to the north in this application, unless you remove that, it will trigger once you make connection to Great Wall, whether you get a -- get something to the east or not. That's --that's my point. If cross-access is required you must address Great Wall in some fashion before you can move forward regardless of another secondary access, unless you're going to cut off their -- their access to Eagle. Mason: Well, no, because I come with an application to put a road through there, he gets shut off, I don't have secondary access. Like you can't give me a building permit. Simison: Correct. Mason: So, you make a condition on me having secondary access then -- Simison: Right. Condition for you for secondary access, but if you have secondary access that you negotiate to the east, but you are still required to do access to the north to the Great Wall, once you do that you effectively trigger his ability -- Mason: Yes. Simison: -- you shut off his access. Mason: I know -- Simison: That's what I'm getting to from your standpoint and Council's consideration. Mason: I get that. But that's something that was put in place before me and that I can't do anything about. I do not want to do that to him and I would like to find a way to do it without doing that to them. Simison: Right. Mason: And I don't think we have to do that to him, so -- Simison: And that's --that's why I'm going back to -- I think you guys hopefully understand what I'm saying from that perspective. If you just go to the east and make that as an option, it, essentially, can shut down the Great Wall if no solution is found. Borton: Yeah. And, Mr. Mayor, to your point and to your comment, I think what I -- what I hear the Mayor saying is in every scenario Great Wall is impacted. You said -- there is not a scenario where it doesn't go away. Mason: I agree. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 46 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 27 of 62 Borton: Okay. Mason: But -- but to restrict my rights on my property because of that is -- I don't think that can be done. Could be wrong. But I -- I mean I give you my word that I do not want to do that. I will look for every option not to do that. I mean for me to have -- to not have a secondary access from the north doesn't -- it's not a good situation. I want to access from the north as well and so -- Simison: Council, what I was suggesting is you want the secondary access to the north unless you want-- because cross-access -- unless you're going to take away the northern cross-access agreement and, essentially, remove that road, you want this to be to the north. Otherwise, you do shut down the access from that standpoint. So, allowing just to the east as a bollard does not get -- is not a good long-term solution for the Great Wall. Mason: How about you make a condition on me -- I would allow you to do it -- that I try to make application first with Ma. I don't even know if you can do that, but I -- I will try to do that. I don't -- that would be my -- the best scenario for us is to have access right through the Great Wall. It would be good for our business, it would be good for ours and, then, once it comes from the north that access off of Eagle Road probably doesn't matter anymore and that's -- that's probably muddying the water to ask -- ask you to do that, but I guess I'm more trying to show what my intentions are, so -- Simison: Any further questions? So, Council, I will go back. Do we have any action that you would like to take at this point in time? Further discussion. Closing the public record. Five minute recess. Strader: Mr. Mayor, question -- Simison- Council Woman Strader. Strader: Question of Mr. Nary. I just want to check with you and get your opinion, Mr. Nary, if we could simply make a requirement that there be secondary access to the north, it seems like the appropriate solution to ensure that interests are aligned to me. The applicant stated he doesn't think we can do that under Idaho law and I was curious what your opinion is. Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Woman Strader. So, what --what the applicant maybe doesn't get, in this scenario -- because this is a development agreement. So, this is a contractual arrangement between the city and the developer. So, if the desire of the city is to require the action to the north, I would agree with him that it really is not certainly in his interest, both from a personal standpoint, but also a business interest, to simply put the access there and, then, not worry or concern themselves with the access from Eagle Road from the adjoining business. Again, we have had many scenarios where these properties don't develop as they intended. You are here a year from now, it's a different business, they don't care about that access, they don't know -- they don't need it or they don't care if it comes out of Eagle Road. So, that's what we are trying to wrestle Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 47 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 28 of 62 with is trying to do that. But, yes, you certainly can direct that the access has to come from the north. You could direct that it simply be secondary access that can be either full access or emergency only. You can basically leave that scenario -- it can only come from the east or the north. So, you probably don't have to designate location. But you can do all of that in this, because it is a contract, it's not just a land use decision. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. A question for Mr. Nary. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: So, if -- if we authorize moving forward and there is emergency access to the north, secondary emergency access to the north, when -- that keeps the Great Wall access right-in, right-out open, but in the future -- because I don't want to do something now, again, and future council finds themselves in a position when the property to the north develops, the continuation of the road -- the cross-access road is completed and that emergency bollard stays, because, well, you said that's all we had to provide, when the intent is do we need to stipulate that in that -- for the time being emergency access only to the north until such time that cross-access is completed to the north? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, yeah, I think that would -- that would probably be the safest way to assure that it would become a through backage road in the future. If you -- again, if you wanted to limit the access now for this purpose and, then, allow it to be open at a future point in time, don't -- the future council will be having this discussion about this property on this very same topic. But, yeah, that would at least make it clear. Simison: Council, anyone like to ask anymore questions? Would you like to hear from the applicant again? Say your name for the record, please. Mason: Nick Mason. Maybe I wasn't clear on what I was saying about your ability to restrict this development. I understand that you can require access through the north, but to require that my secondary emergency access comes to north when I have other abilities another way, does not seem right. If -- if there is a -- if I want to go to the east I should be able to go to the east. If you are -- if you are making condition on having to go to the north and you are restricting me from being able to go to the east, which is not part of a conditional use permit process in Utah. I don't know about Idaho, but I imagine it's very similar. If there is a safety issue, then, I get it, but I don't even think that's there. I just -- I -- I do not want to give up my right to go to the east regardless of what happens to the north. Again, it's not my intention -- I don't even know if I can get it done, but that's -- I should be able to do that. There is already a development agreement in place that has me having to build the road to the north. That's -- that's been put in place by the City Council. That's there. And so I have to do that anyway. If we find out another creative way to go to the east, I should be able to do that and not be forced to go to the north, because by forcing me to go to the north and, then, you're forcing the problem on itself. I -- we have to get secondary access. Why pinpoint where it has to be. There is already a development agreement in place that tells me what I have to do. We can work to try to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 48 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 29 of 62 do something different. But that -- that development agreement gives me rights to be able to do that, so -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Mason: Because I don't want to do that to him. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: To Nick's point probably a question for Bill again. If that is in his DA and we just require a secondary access, it's up on -- to Mr. Mason to find that secondary access, but at--when that time comes there is the connection to the north, that is still enforceable, then, to have that opened up -- that connection has to be made. I don't want to have a point in time where, then, well, we -- got secondary access, I don't need to do it. But if it's in the DA we can, then, take action, kind of like action has to be taken on Great Wall once this one connection is made. If that north connection is made we can -- we can enforce it, so -- Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, one thing I'm trying to figure out really quick -- and maybe Sonya could help me. On the annexation that's a part of this application, is there a DA requirement to that point that Council Member Hoaglun just asked? That there -- if there is already an existing northern access on the existing development agreement, but there is an annexation that's attached to this application, is there a requirement that we could put in the DA for that? Allen: I'm not sure I'm following, Mr. Nary. Getting a little brain weary, but -- but there -- there is a condition -- there is a development agreement provision and condition of approval in this application that they provide a north -- a cross-access easement to the north and to the south. Is that -- Nary: Yes. So -- Allen: -- what you're asking? Nary: Yes. So, there is a requirement in the development agreement for the northern access. Mr. Mason just said he already has a development agreement, but that's the part of this; right? Allen: There is a development agreement on the northern portion that's already in the city that was annexed with the Regency At River Valley property to the east, the multi- family development. Nary: Right. Allen: So, there is an existing agreement and, then, there is the -- the DA that's recommended as part of the annexation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 49 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 30 of 62 Nary: Right. And that DA-- so -- so I'm clear -- and since I don't have the DA in front -- or the condition in front of me, that that portion that's being asked to annex doesn't have any connection issue to the existing one that's already been annexed. It's not asking for a development agreement to make sure it all connects into one backage road? Allen: Hang on just a second. Let me look at something real quick. Nary: So, the reason I'm asking -- in the condition -- so, Mr. Mason raised a different point, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. This is a conditional use permit. So, there is a DA attached to the annexation. There is a conditional use permit that's required for the -- for the storage unit. You can condition what that condition -- whatever that is. I mean you can condition it for access from one direction or another. I think what he's --the point he's making, though, is it's not necessary, because whether it's to the north or to the east, makes little difference to the city, as long as it's there. So, you could do that. I think what his point is is there is no need to do that, that if you get a secondary access through the east and that all works itself out, he does only need to produce a cross-access easement, it has to get recorded, and that's all we would need, he's right. We don't need another application for that. Simison: Mr. Nary, I guess my point I was trying to make is I agree -- I agree and I understand, but as soon as he makes a cross-access connection to the Great Wall, their access goes away. So, ergo ergo if they are fine with the Great Wall's access going away just by --just by making that cross-access connection, Great Wall loses their access and that's why I want Council to be very mindful of whatever direction they provide, if they don't require a northern connection to be made as a secondary access -- or once it's a connection that's gone. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. However, to your point their access -- he creates that cross-access as required, they -- it goes away, he no longer has a secondary access. Simison: If he goes to the east he does. Hoaglun: If he goes -- Simison: If he goes to the east he's got a secondary access and he's made a cross- connection to the north and Great Wall loses their access. That's the domino effect of the way the conditions are laid out and requirements and I just want Council to make -- be mindful of that. Whatever they want for the future -- again I go back to the overall bigger picture on what you want from a backage or an access on Eagle for the Great Wall and when you want to trigger that. But you don't have a way to stop that right now. Approve with the secondary access to the east, connection made, Great Wall goes away without another application. Unless I'm missing something, that's the way my bouncing balls work. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 50 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 31 of 62 Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, you are correct. I think, though, what Mr. Mason has said is because that is the only way he gets his secondary access is through Great Wall, it is incumbent on him to work with that property owner to maintain that access, because, otherwise, he won't be able to get a building permit. Simison: Except for he's talking about going to the east. Nary: Oh, I -- Simison: He gets secondary access to the east and it makes the cross-access --just by default it goes away regardless of his best intentions. Nary: Yes, you are correct. Simison: It ends without another application. Nary: Yes. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, if I might ask Mr. Mason a question about the east connection. I mean if they don't want to play ball with you, you are -- you are not going to have an access. Is that my understanding? Mason: Oh, I might not have an access right away, but I can go further to the north through there. I -- you guys have put a development agreement in place with Ma and with us, so can you really restrict those development agreements from this conditional use permit? You would have to go back and amend the development agreements to take rights out of that development agreement. You can't -- you can't use a conditional use permit to restrict those. I'm only saying that, because I'm trying to avoid where this might go, which to me makes no sense. It -- I hope you see where I'm coming from. I -- you know, you approve this condition on secondary access, which you don't even have to do. I need to get that anyway. First thing I'm going to do is go to Ma. I'm going to try to get him -- well, I'm -- he's going to make an application. He already signed an application with me before and I met with staff and we decided not to move forward with it. He's willing to do it. Okay? If for some reason he doesn't, then, that's his choice and, then, I connect the road. He knows what my next step would be and the only other way I could develop it. He's making that choice. He is going to -- he is going to sign that agreement. So, if he doesn't sign the agreement, my next move is to go to Gosser and make sure that -- that that's in his application, because I don't want secondary access through our apartments temporary. I don't want that. I want a good access. I want it to come from the north or I want it on a temporary basis from Ma. I -- I see the concerns, but I -- I think that-- I mean another thing is I could come in for an application for another mattress place and, bam, it's gone. There is no need for a secondary access. We tried to list this property for years and we were not able to sell it and we have come up with the solution to do it Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 51 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 32 of 62 and to make it happen and that's why we are here today. But that is -- that is something to consider. Almost any other use does not require that secondary access. Simison: Thank you. I agree. You are also coming in for annexation. Like I say, this is two pieces. Mason: Well, I -- Simison: So, it's -- that they are coming in tandem together and, yes, you could do anything that you are currently permitted on what's annexed in the city. The other acre you cannot. Mason: I agree. So, it would just be on my piece where that would happen. I get it. And I'm not trying to strong arm or anything, I'm just -- I see what your concerns are and they are my concerns as well and I think that the natural way this would play out would be in Ma's best interest. The way I would do it would be in Ma's best interest. But I do have the right to go other ways with my access I believe. I think we are doing circles at this point, so -- thank you. Simison: Other questions for the applicant from Council? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Move we close the public hearing on Item 6-E, H-2019-0121. Hoaglun: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Is there discussion? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I will be making a motion for-- for discussion where this -- well, I will just make a motion. We have discussed this at length. I move that we approve Item 6-E, H-2019- 0121. Mr. Nary, can we take care of both of these in one motion? Okay. That we move -- or that we approve 6-E, that includes all of the conditions within the staff report for the hearing date of January 21 st, 2020, inclusive of the requirement that a cross-access and backage road be included and constructed north and south as intended and that a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 52 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 33 of 62 secondary access be provided. How that secondary access will be determined by the applicant, but the applicant has to provide that secondary access. And the condition that allows for the reduced buffer, 25 feet to ten feet be approved as well. Hoaglun: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: The reason -- we have spent a lot of time trying to discuss the challenge that's going to be in front of us relatively soon and where this thing is ultimately going to -- we are going to have this discussion, we just had it early perhaps before the application is in front of us, but, nonetheless, the approval has this backage road and cross-access north and south as intended. That's the long term plan for this area. There will be future applications from -- whether it's the Great Wall or -- or the property to the north that will have adjustments on this access to Eagle Road. If this gets built we know what's going to happen. When the backage road gets built and if there is a consequence to the Eagle Road access, we will deal with that when it shows up and the applicant has readily said here today that he understands there will be future challenges, but, nonetheless, that's the requirement that we always planned for and -- and conditioning an approval that that cross-access north and south occur, then, that still is appropriate. The secondary access requirement still exists. The applicant's afforded the flexibility to try and go east if he -- if he is able to. To the Mayor's point, it doesn't eliminate the obligation to still build north- south and continue that. We will see the Great Wall in front of us sometime soon I would -- I would think and we will address that at that time. But I don't think that it necessitates delaying this. Still is consistent with the long-term plan of what that backage road is intended to do. So, that was the reason why a motion to approve was made. Simison: Thank you. Is there further discussion? If not, ask the clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, nay; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, nay; Perreault, absent. Simison: The ayes have it. Three to two. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT. Simison: And we were scheduled to take a break at 8:00 o'clock, but we are just going to take a quick little ten minute break before we get into the next application. So, that we are in recess. (Recess: 7:36 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 53 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 34 of 62 F. Public Hearing Continued from December 10, 2019 for Goddard Creek Townhomes (H-2019-0068) by SI Construction, Located at the NW Corner of W. McMillan Rd. and N. Goddard Creek Way 1. Request: Modification to Development Agreement (Inst. 102012598) to allow the development of SFR homes (i.e. townhomes) instead of offices, and 2. Request: Rezone of 5.03 acres of land from the R-4 to the R- 15 zoning district, and 3. Request: Preliminary Plat for the re-subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Goddard Creek Subdivision Consisting of 4.62 Acres of Land into 44 Building Lots and 8 Common Lots. Simison: All right. We are going to call ourselves back into order. The time is 7:45. The next item up is Item 6-F, a public hearing continued from December 10th for Goddard Creek Townhomes, H-2019-0068. I will open this up for staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next applications before you are a request for a development agreement modification, a rezone, and a preliminary plat. But there are also applications for a private street and alternative compliance that do not require action from the Council, these are director decisions. This site consists of 4.62 acres of land. It's zoned R-4 and is located at the northwest corner of West McMillan Road and North Goddard Creek Way. A little history on this property. It was part of the Lochsa Falls development approved back in 2002 and received annexation with the requirement of a development agreement, a conditional use permit for a planned development, and a preliminary plat approval. The planned development allowed office uses as a land use exception in the R-4 district under old Meridian City Code. In 1970 -- excuse me -- in 2017 a map amendment was approved from office and high density residential to mixed use community and the property was included as a lot in Goddard Creek Subdivision. The current Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. A modification to the existing development agreement is requested to allow the development of single family residential attached homes and townhomes to develop on the property, instead of the previously approved office uses consistent with the map amendment to mixed use community and to exclude the subject property from the terms of the existing development agreement and enter into a new development agreement that just governs development of this site and not the larger Lochsa Falls Subdivision. A rezone at 5.03 acres of land is requested from R-4 to the R- 15 zoning district. The proposed development consists of a mix of single family residential housing types, as you can see there on the screen, attached and townhomes. The attached units are the two units that are attached together. The ones with more than two are the townhome units. Which, along with the multi-family development to the north, the single family residential detached homes in the vicinity, and the storage facility planned to the west provide a mix of uses and residential housing options in the area consistent with that desired in the mixed use community designation. A preliminary plat is proposed Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 54 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 35 of 62 consisting of 41 building lots and eight common lots on 4.62 acres of land in the proposed R-15 district. A revised plat was submitted today as shown on the right in response to previous concerns. Access is proposed via private street, West Apgar Creek Lane, via North Goddard Creek Way, a collector street. Direct access via McMillan Road is prohibited. Private streets, 24 feet wide, and common driveways are proposed for internal access within the development. Although private streets are not typically intended for single family developments, because the development is proposing a common MEW through the site design and access via McMillan Road is restricted, staff is of the opinion that private streets are appropriate. Because on-street parking is not allowed with 24 foot wide street sections and parking is a concern in this area due to the existing apartment complex to the north not having adequate parking, the applicant is providing an off-street parking area with 16 spaces at the south end of the townhome units to ensure adequate parking for guests is provided within the development. Although the UDC does not require common open space and site amenities to be provided because the property is below five acres in size, the applicant is proposing approximately 20 percent of qualified open space as shown on the open space exhibit and a tot lot, picnic shelter, and dog park as amenities. Conceptual building elevations and renderings were submitted for the proposed townhome units. Because staff recommended the front of the townhomes are oriented toward the abutting MEW, the elevations submitted do not contemplate this design. However, all structures are required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. The Commission did recommend denial of this application and I will go through the summary of the Commission public hearing. Scott Noriyuki, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. There were quite a few people that testified in opposition and those are reflected on the record. If you would like me to name them I can. I won't guarantee any pronunciation is correct. But, otherwise, I will proceed. Several people also commented again in the record and many letters of testimony received on this application again in the public record. Key issues of public testimony -- testimony are as follows: Saturation of high density residential in this area. Increased traffic on already congested streets. Proposed architectural element and preference to develop office uses as currently allowed under the development agreement. The key issues of discussion by the Commission are as follows: Continuing the project because parent-teacher conferences were occurring the same night as the October 24th hearing. Differences between townhomes and multi-family developments. Overcrowded schools in the area and the possibility of busing students to other schools. Current thresholds of the roads and impacts of this development will have on them. Shifting the central open space along McMillan Road to the east, as recommended by staff. Uses allowed under the Lochsa Falls planned unit development. Commission's action on the previous Goddard Greek application. Conditional use permit. Denial of the apartments. And conditional use permit approval for the storage units. Shifting the central open space along McMillan to the east as recommended by staff. Office uses provides the third land use in conjunction with the Selway Apartments and storage facility in compliance with the mixed use community land use designation and supportive of the design open guest parking, but wrong location for the development. Commission change to the staff recommendation. Again, as I stated, the Commission recommended denial of the townhome project in favor of office uses as allowed under the current planned unit development and development agreement. There are strike throughs in the conditions of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 55 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 36 of 62 approval in the staff report, but the conditions are still listed if the Council votes to approve this application. There are no other outstanding issues for Council. Written testimony since the Commission hearing was received from Scott Noriyuki, the applicant's representative. He is in agreement with the staff report. And, again, there were many letters of testimony that have been received since the Commission hearing on this and those are contained in the public record. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Is applicant here? Would you like to come forward. Name and address for the record. Noriyuki: Thank you. Scott Noriyuki. Northside Management. 6810 Fairhill Place, Boise, Idaho. 83714. First of all, I want to thank staff. There is a lot of technical aspects to this and there is a tremendous amount of history. I do want to impress upon you the history and how it's changed from the original development and how this entire area -- overall area was planned and how it's morphed with development agreements and conditional uses and changes throughout the years. So, this is dynamically--this area is dynamically different than what the original development agreement and what City Council reviewed and approved years ago and you will see those different aspects that include the -- the large apartment complex to the north, as well as the mini storage that's now since been approved to the west, as well as the tremendous growth farther to the west at the primary entrances. With that said I'm going to kind of try and track, so if you look at the staff report -- I hope you all got my e-mail. If you look at the staff report, page 11, that is the areas want to key into. So, these are all the conversations and I just want to make this about as simple as possible for everybody. So, if we look at section six, decision, and we focus on two key issues of public testimony. Number one, the saturation of high density residential in the area. With the current comp plan as it states that was just adopted, it is desired that we put higher density closer to areas of high employment. You recently have approved the Costco, the Winco, that entire intersection and mass transit. That's a huge employment hub. This makes the most practical sense, because we are sandwiched between a major arterial road, mini storage, which is commercial and a massive high density apartment complex to our north, as well as localized streets, which was -- street, which is God -- Goddard Creek. Excuse me. And it's a mid mile road. This is a perfect feather when we are talking densities. Furthermore, with those densities we -- we are sandwiched between what is entry level rental and, then, we have got a whole bunch of single family detached units. So, within those price brackets we are providing what everybody needs, which is townhouses, which is a first step or a step up product. They are not rentals, they are owned. That allows people to go from apartments into the step up and ultimately to the single family detached, which we are capturing our neighbors, we are capturing our kids, we are capturing -- this is the whole goal of comp plans. So, with that I want to move on. I'm going to try and be as quick as I can. Key issues discussed by the Commission is -- as far as continuing the public hearing because of parent-teacher conference, totally accepted. That just happened. We have -- we have done the best we could. I actually scheduled another neighborhood meeting at Willow Creek just down the street to the north. Following that nobody showed up. So, with that I understand there is some contention, but we -- we have done it about as best as we can to outreach. We did flounder on a couple of them and some of our communications were poor. That's why we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 56 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 37 of 62 noticed four separate meetings, where typically you just have one. Crowded schools. I want to address this. This is going to be a big deal and I hope you looked at what was e- mailed today and what was provided today. The West Ada County School District Assistant Superintendent Joe Yochum, when he reviewed this project, naturally he gave this troubling letter that suggested denial of the project. I have since reached out to Joe and you should see an e-mail response from him as recent as today and with that said we talked about the timelines. I wanted him to expand upon what is this problem, because if you look in the staff reports and you really read it, we are --those --the schools -- the elementary, middle school, and the high school, yes, they are a bit over capacity. However, our project is not going to be complete until fall of '21, spring of '22. Per demographics and your calculations, we are only going to add a maximum -- excuse me -- of 35 school age children in this area. With that said, in Joe Yochum's response to me today, they have plans for expansions. They have got a new high school coming in. They have got expansion to grade schools and middle schools and in that e-mail I was -- I had absolute clarity that I wanted to make sure when I stand here in front of you I was talking factually. So, on the assumption that my project is not complete prior to summer of 2021 , they will have capacity for us. So, I want to put that to rest. We are not adding to the problem, if you will. It's in writing. Current thresholds on roads and impact. This overall area, Goddard Creek and these private roads and McMillan, all of these items were addressed years ago with ACHD and ITD and the prior P&Z staff and Council for the City of Meridian. This property was always identified that the roads would be built accordingly. Currently, per ACHD and current traffic counts, this intersection is at a level D. Now, I want to clarify when we talk about levels, A, B, C, D, E, F with ACHD and road standards, a D is not like high school where D means you are not doing good. Now, it is acceptable. It is safe. D indicates that you do have a slightly elongated timeline before you can pull out and merge. However, it is not dangerous. E is still acceptable. F is when it becomes dangerous. These roads were built for the capacity of this property and ACHD staff report has reviewed the project and they support it. We agree with all the conditions of approval as per staff. We are not required with this application to provide open space, but I do want to point out we have 27 percent open space. Twenty-two percent is countable, if you will, but 27 percent, when you count all the buffers. We have multiple amenities. We have pedestrian and vehicular connectivity that is extensive. We are above and beyond. And, then, I guess with that, in closing, in reading every aspect of the new adopted comprehensive land use plan, all the goals, everything that you guys want and you worked on, we are hitting every single point of this. Every point. And, then, furthermore, I will defer in rebuttal -- I do have an expert here to talk about the virtues of why light office just isn't going to work here and it has to do with access. It has to do with reality and development and also talking about the demographics of housing, which is a big thing that's been in the news on behalf of Meridian and the entire Treasure Valley. This is a product needed. With that, sorry to be long winded, I will stand for questions. Simison: Thanks, Scott. Are there any questions for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 57 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 38 of 62 Cavener: Scott, Happy New Year. Thanks for being here. Noriyuki: Thank you. Cavener: If I remember hearing correct from staff, that horseshoe loop is a -- is a private street, not a public street? Noriyuki: Yes, sir. It is designed to a public standard. We are 32 feet back to back of curb. So, there is a -- we have parking and it works for the Fire Department and safety. However, I had to go private, because the northern road that provides access to Selway is a private road. So, you can't have a public road that comes off a private road. Does that make sense? Cavener: It does. Mr. Mayor. Scott, so I guess from a -- from a width standpoint to allow on-street parking from a -- from a function, probably not going to allow for a lot of on- street parking with your development. Noriyuki: No. This is actually cool. Thank you. I love this question. Parking. Okay. So, within this project I have 41 units proposed. Okay? They are all single family. They are attached, but they are single family owned. Not rentals. Cavener: Right. Noriyuki: So, with 41 homes, if you look at the last page I e-mailed all you, 41 homes times four equals 164 spaces. What that is is the base requirement for two cars within a garage, as well as two cars in their driveway. Okay? Cavener: Okay. So, first of all, we are taking care of everybody who owns and lives there. Secondarily, we have 16 visitor parking stalls. Because it was -- this is a big thing we heard from the neighbors and we heard from staff. So, we have got the 16 additional parking spaces, which include handicapped spaces. Cavener: Yeah. Noriyuki: Then on top of it our private on-street parking with our 32 feet back to back of curb, which is designed perACHD, that's providing us an additional 22 parking stalls. So, at the end of the day we have 218 spaces for 41 --a 41 home development, which equates to 5.31 spaces and, then, on top of it we are willing to work with -- on the northern portion, because with the Selway Apartments I have heard from the neighbors that parking is horrible and it's pouring over into their subdivision or areas. With that our open space, if you look at this northern exhibit is -- everybody looking at the screen? Cavener: Yeah. Noriyuki: So, up against Selway Rapids Lane that was built as a three-quarter road section. We will go ahead, because it's a private road, we technically don't have to treat Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 58 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 39 of 62 that buffer as if it was a local road. If you would allow me to reduce it, we will go ahead and widen that road to 32 feet, which creates additional parking for Selway and takes the pressure off Kelly Creek. Cavener: Okay. Noriyuki: We are fine with it. We are cleaning up somebody else's mess. Cavener: Maybe. Noriyuki: But we are -- we are happy to do that. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Scott, I'm going to -- I'm going to -- I'm going to push back a little bit, only because you got to enjoy a very robust conversation amongst my colleagues for the past 90 minutes about storage units and there is a reason why we continue to see a lot of storage units in front of us is because people aren't using their garages to store their vehicles, they are using their garage to store their stuff. Your piece about the on-street parking is kind of where my question came from again, is, again, you are the expert, I'm not, but when I look at -- when I look at your elevation, your map here, I see maybe one location where on-street parking is going to be compatible and that's in front of your common open space. Everywhere else I don't see it. So, out -- on the map, use the mouse, show -- show me where -- Noriyuki: I love it. Cavener: -- your residents are going to be able to park. Noriyuki: Okay. So, what you have got -- no. Thank you. This is critically important. So, if we just kind of roll around here, we got one car -- ah. I'm sorry. How do I go back, Sonya? There we go. Ah. Now we are fighting each other. Okay. One car here. One here. One here. Three here. One here. Three here. One here. One here. One here. One here. Here. Here. Here. And, then, the same over there. So, that's where the calculation comes from, because there is no question that where the driveways are together, yeah, you can't have a car parked on the street. So, we have run all the mathematics in that area to prove that out. Now, that's just showing that we are doing more. Now, when we do Selway Rapids, if you guys feel like you want us to clean up the Selway Apartment issue for the benefit of neighbors, that's where this stretch widens right here, because right now there is parking on the north side up against that sidewalk, but there is no parking along here on street. So, we are open to that. Cavener: And Mr. Mayor. Scott, the reason why I'm pushing back on this is because I really think the Selway problem is going to become your new owners problem and that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 59 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 40 of 62 you're going to have -- Selway residents are going to try to find places to park within your community and your parking spots are going to get full and your on-street parking is going to be full and your new residents who have bought these cool new townhouses are going to be upset at us, because we approved something when you have already -- and you're right, it's somebody else's parking problem, but you are contributing to that by -- by building something that's a little more dense here and so -- Noriyuki: Okay. Cavener: -- I'm trying to solve the problem before it starts. Noriyuki: Thank you so much and all due respect, if we didn't think we were building something that would make money, number one, we wouldn't do it. Cavener: Sure. Noriyuki: Number two, I have spent umpteen hours on this property working with Wright Brothers, who developed the -- the main storages and they just improved the frontage on McMillan. I have been there weekdays, mornings, evenings, weekends and I have to be honest with you, every time I go out there and I update the notification sign, I don't see a parking issue. I don't see overflow onto that entire Selway Rapids. Every time I pull out there -- and you can look at my notify -- notification pictures, I don't see anything. Now, I don't live there. Cavener: Right. Noriyuki: I'm just telling you I have been there Saturday, Sunday, 5.00 p.m., 8.00 a.m., middle of the day, holidays. I -- I think we are addressing it. Due respect. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor. Noriyuki: Not being from -- Cavener: A question. And, Scott, your elevations -- I got to be honest, I really value when a -- when a developer wants to build in Meridian they really get creative and we see a lot of diversity in architecture depiction. At least what's been provided to me I don't see a lot of that and so help me understand what you are doing that makes these, you know, units stand out as being unique and not just in terms of color. Noriyuki: No. Fair enough. That's an excellent question. So, I want you to look at the top left-hand and the bottom right-hand. I want you to see -- and sometimes it's really hard with modeling, because -- but the architectural modulation, these -- these particular buildings are dodging back and forth upwards of four, five, six feet and there is multiple materials. Now, I understand that you would like me to have this completely modeled, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 60 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 41 of 62 but at the onset of entitlement I need to give you an idea and I work with the conditional use and with Sonya or Bill to ensure -- excuse me -- ensure we have got -- we have got the modulation. I realize the lower left-hand side looks pretty bland and we could be conditioned to create some modulation there and I'm very open to suggestions when it comes to architecture. Cavener: Okay. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, I had a couple of questions, but I was hoping you could walk us through the timeline on when you acquired this property. Clearly it was zoned as light office and R-4 and what your thinking was -- in terms of what you were going to do with it -- and to me the zoning -- banking on a zoning change is an equity risk. Noriyuki: Agreed. With that said, I have got Taylor, who is going to come up, and I need him to further discuss that. The reasoning is very sound and I want you to hear why light office, in our opinion, as developers, investors, builders, it just hasn't worked out and why the property has come before this body multiple times and no developer is willing to build light office. With that said I will stand back for a moment. Strader: Mr. Mayor, if I could clarify my question a little bit in terms of what I was getting at. I understand from -- from reading the background materials for this application that office is not the highest and best use for the property, but what I'm curious about is, you know, were you intending on achieving a zoning change to this new residential use in order to make the project pencil? Like what was the thinking there and -- Noriyuki: Absolutely. Because what we have come forward with is the highest and best use from a personal investment and development standpoint. It's also a massive need within Meridian and Ada county, city of Boise, that's documented that townhouses are phenomenally wanted, needed, desired and underserved. Strader: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think I understand that. If there is more detail on the timeline I don't know how that would answer my question differently. Noriyuki: Timeline regarding the history or timeline for completion? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: What I was getting at with my question -- I was trying to understand if you are not the original owner of the property, the original owner, when they were, you know, working on this entire subdivision and that -- there was kind of a master planning overlay Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 61 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 42 of 62 concept at that time, there was a concept of a mixture of uses eventually and this became zoned with a mixture of uses, so there was a -- there was a use designated already in this area for high density residential and this was clearly zoned as R-4 and light office and what I want understand is did something change, like when you acquired the property -- I mean did you understand -- you know, I'm assuming you understood how it was zoned. Did your thinking change? I mean what was the original intention for the property and did you really just have to pivot into a higher density residential to make the project work? Simison: Scott, maybe if I could help out with this and maybe even ask Sonya to speak in on the concept of neighborhood centers and if I'm not mistaken, that's really where this concept came from and how that was at one point in time the city's viewpoint and how that has since changed. Allen: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, but the Comprehensive Plan land use designation is now mixed use community. The proposed development is consistent with that designation and with the density desired in that designation. Noriyuki: If I may interject. She's absolutely correct. It's a mixed use designation currently within this area, which has morphed over years. Development agreements have changed. The overall designs have changed. The overall uses have morphed to a degree. So, within the mixed use -- correct me if I'm wrong, Sonya -- three different -- distinct different characteristics. So, in this area we are actually providing a fourth. So, we have got single family detached classic subdivision to our east. We have high density, super high density apartments, rentals, to the north. We have -- to the east we have commercial, which is storage, and, then, further -- excuse me -- to the west. I may have said east, but to the west. And further to the west we have a massive commercial center now that you guys have developed, approved, created since this project even came on board and, then, we have a primary arterial road, which is McMillan. So, now what we are doing is we are coming in with a fourth use within the mixed use, which is townhouse, which in the comp plan that was adopted states that the City of Meridian desires and wants and needs a diversity of housing opportunities. In this area there -- in the immediate proximity there are no townhouses. There is -- there is rentals and there are single family detached. That's it. There is no diversity. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Could you expand upon, please -- you were mentioning you're open to widening that -- that road or helping to provide more parking along that road. Could you expand on your thoughts on what you would be willing to do to kind of bridge the gap between the R-4 zoning that you have and the, you know, desired zoning that you are trying to get? Noriyuki: Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. So, number one with the road and, then, I will address the zoning. Number one with the road -- and you can verify and speak to this. He will Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 62 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 43 of 62 give me the head nod. I -- I will design it with a 32 foot back-to-back curb as per ACHD standards, even though it's a private road -- it is a private road, but we have the access easement. So, I already have that in place. I don't have to negotiate it and, essentially, what we do is we take the northern side of our property or, if you will, this southern -- can you bring up the aerial, Sonya, please. Or the southern portion of that road, they are ready -- I'm just making sure everybody's tracking with me and, essentially -- okay. So, when we look at -- thank you, Sonya. So, when we come in here, Selway Rapids -- so, when you look at the aerial photography you can see the northern part of Selway Rapids has curb, gutter, sidewalk. On the southern half of it it's just curb. What we would do is we would come in and we would tear a hundred percent of that curve out and, then, we would take the asphalt and we would widen it by an additional --whatever the dimensional requirement is, whether that be four feet, six feet, eight feet, what have you, put in another curb and put in another sidewalk and what that does is that creates that additional on- street parking. Okay. From a zoning standpoint, I -- I think this is really critical to point out that you are seeing in the application that I'm applying for an R-15 with a DA. So, the DA caps it. All right? Because you only go R-4 -- within your code you go R-4, R-8 and, then, R-15 and, then, R-40. Selway was R-40. I'm -- right now, as I sit I'm at 8.8. I'm almost at eight units to the acre, where I could just do an R-8 and not freak anybody out. But the only thing I can do is go with the R-15, but I'm doing the DA where you guys -- I cut the contract between the land and the city that says, okay, that's great, you get the R- 15 zoning, because you have to comply with your development code. But you capped me -- and Mr. Nary can verify this -- with the development agreement you capped me at exactly what I designed, 41 units. I cannot go above that period. So, that gives assurances that when you give me the R-15 zoning, ideally, I hope, I can't play monkey business and come back and ratchet it up to 15 units to the acre. It is subject to my design and my layout period and my density. I hope that clarifies that. Strader: That does clarify my question. I, Mr. Mayor, have an additional follow-up question. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: How many -- how many additional parking spots I guess, if you will, would that add to that stream? Have you guys calculated that? Noriyuki: I didn't even calculate it, but if I -- I mean if we just run some simplistic math real quick -- Sonya, can we go to my layout or maybe I can figure out how to get to my layout. Allen: Let me drive. Bongiorno: Okay. So, Mayor, if I can interject while she's looking. Simison: Yes, chief. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 63 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 44 of 62 Bongiorno: So, Mayor and Council Woman Strader, just for clarification, Selway Rapids Lane right now is a fire lane. So, there is no parking allowed on that lane -- on that street whatsoever. That's why he's never seen any cars there. Noriyuki: Correct. Bongiorno: So, it's -- it's our only way in and out of that apartment complex. Other than there is one emergency access that is in there. So, according to city code all private streets are required to be fire lanes. So, it does give the option, though, in the code that the fire marshal can approve parking on a private street. Noriyuki: Awesome. Thank you. I just ran the math and I could provide -- I'm going to be conservative. I could provide 12 additional spaces on the south side of Selway Rapids, with his blessing. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: This gentleman that's to your right, he's Deputy Chief Joe Bongiorno. I would appreciate it if you would address him -- Noriyuki: I apologize. I'm sorry. I was aloof. I didn't mean it that way. Simison: Are there further questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Noriyuki: Thank you. Simison: So, this is a public hearing and since I didn't go through this beforehand, but anyone else coming up will have three minutes to testify, unless you are testifying on behalf of a group, that is an HOA president or a group, that you will have up to ten minutes and the applicant will have the last word. So, with that, Mr. Clerk, were there any signups? Johnson: Yes, Mr. Mayor. There were eight individual signups. Four indicated they wished to testify. And first as Janie Pollmann. Simison: And when you come forward if you could, please, say your name and address for the record. Pollmann: Hello. My name is Janie Pollmann. I live 5030 North Goddard Creek Way. I'm directly across from the Selway Apartments. So, what I would like to speak on today -- and I have learned that three minutes is not very long -- is the traffic and we -- we all realize that the City Council can do nothing about the traffic. It's ACHD. We understand that. But it is still a big problem for the community. I have here -- I pulled this off the ACHD today about the current traffic counts. Of course the top one is Goddard Creek right there at our T intersection, 3005 cars in a 24 hour period, and the next one below it is McMillan Road, east of Ten Mile, almost 10,000 cars in a 24 hour period go through there. So, I'm not sure where the applicant has been driving around looking. He is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 64 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 45 of 62 missing all this traffic. I don't -- I don't know how that's happening. But now if I could have the overview, please. Anyway, if we get that, what I wanted to also show about the traffic is that right next door to his portion is -- right there at Goddard and McMillan is a T intersection. Across the street from that is that big canal. Okay. A hundred and twenty- five feet to the east is the intersection of Palatine Road and McMillan Road and that is where the Hunter Elementary School is. So, in 125 feet we have two T intersections with the canal. So, there is nothing anybody can do about the road and we have buses going in and out of there and the traffic is -- is already such a problem for us that live in that area and you can see the traffic count is only going up and up and up in that area. We are more concerned in our area with the traffic than we are his project and that is why we really want the units to stay -- or, excuse me, the zoning to stay to the office. Now, I know that we have heard him before talk about they are going to say how -- how many cars come into a business and da, da, da, da, da. We don't agree with --with what he's saying compared to a family coming and going, coming and going, coming and going multiple times in that area. Between the large apartment complex on McMillan Road and Meridian Road -- I think it's called The Prelude, down to Ten Mile, we have almost 700 units right now without any more being -- being approved and right across from me is the high density Selway Apartments. We just -- this is just not compatible with -- with what is existing and we really are hoping and praying that the Council will not approve this project. Thank you. Simison: Are there any questions? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Pam Fiscus. Fiscus: My name is Pam Fiscus. 2393 West Apgar Creek Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. And I live in Kelly Creek Subdivision. And I live on the corner of Apgar Creek and Goddard Creek and thank you for pointing out the fire lane, Joe. And I wanted to say that the Planning and Zoning is against this project first off. Secondly, I wanted to say that Scott called meetings and never showed up and we weren't sure if meetings were really going to take place. So, the Willow Creek --we didn't know if that was really going to take place, because the meeting before he just didn't bother to show up or cancel with us. We -- when Meridian had a vision, when we first --when I first bought my home -- I'm an original homeowner -- of high density, medium density, low office, commercial, and Kelly Creek and Lochsa are medium density. Selway is very high density and as Janie said, we have a serious traffic problem on Goddard Creek. You can't even make a left out of -- onto McMillan in the morning or at night because the traffic is backed up all the way to Ten Mile and the street can't be widened. I wanted to find out -- I had a question for Scott about fire hydrants, how that he was going to place that in that complex with all those parking spaces, because you have to be 15 feet from a fire hydrant. I don't know if that's something that Council could address to him or maybe Joe could. Okay. When we asked Scott originally about the price points, he said 250,000 dollars and at the last meeting we had in City Hall here he said the sky is the limit. He wasn't sure and if he's talking about families jumping from an apartment to a townhouse, 400,000 dollar townhouse, that doesn't seem logical. We have a lot of townhouses right in the area on the corner of Linder and McMillan and on both the north and the south sides. Back in 2017 when we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 65 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 46 of 62 approached the Council to stop -- we were for the storage facility, but, then, they threw the apartments in there. I think there was 84 units or something like that. We were against that because of the traffic and the volume and I have submitted pictures to the Council and I'm sure you can see them -- about parking in front of my house. I can't even park in front of my house and guests can't park in front of my house. I have people park in front of my driveway, in front of my mailbox. We have recently lost a small section of Lolo Pass Lane because of something that happened in our association. It's something that's owned by the homeowners, but they went ahead and painted the curbs red, so that took away a lot of parking for homeowners and their extra cars, because some of our homeowners have seven cars, because they have a lot of children. Let's see. We have a private park that -- Simison: If I can get you to wrap up, please. Your three minutes is up. If you can wrap up. Fiscus: Okay. Okay. Real quick. We do have a private park and it's maintained by Kelly Creek and paid for by Kelly Creek, but it's used by the Selway occupants and hundreds of them use our park, even though our signs are posted, and I don't -- if there is not a big area for them to -- some type of common area for this new development that's asking for R-15 rezoning, I feel that our park is going to be utilized by these people also. Okay. Simison: Council, do you have any questions? Fiscus: Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Penny Fisher. Fisher: Hi. My name is Penny Fisher. I live at 2382 West Apgar Creek. I'm actually just across from Pam Fiscus. I'm kitty-corner from this project. So, I will be directly affected by this project. I do want to put on record that I'm opposed to this project. One, as I said, it's not necessarily about the parking, it's not necessarily about the overcrowding of schools. I understand you guys can't control that. It's about the quality of life. They are saying it's a great feathering. We -- it was proposed previously when they did the storage units to put it there, it was moved over and left this area. They did try to previously put apartments and they did propose apartments. It has been -- it was rejected based on the traffic overcrowding stuff that was --that they are saying that they are. The Selway Creek, where they were saying, is the -- it is a fire road right now. That is the only an entrance into the Selway, which is high density now and according to the original back -- the Comprehensive Plan, they had to put that as the high density. I do know things have changed and things have been updated, but they did still choose, even with this new, to leave the zoning and the only way that this project would be approved is if they change the zoning. But even the Comprehensive Plan over many many times has left it as the R -- the R-4. So, I'm asking for you guys to consider that and not change the rezoning, which would, then, make this project not possible. Again, it will -- he is trying to -- he said Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 66 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 47 of 62 it would feather it. Yes, what he is proposing -- he is saying that our homes -- our home values are higher than what he is trying to make this, because he is trying -- he is saying the apartments or rentals -- who is to say that they are -- do not come in and somebody comes in and buys -- because they are townhomes, whose to come to say that they won't turn into all rentals. We can't guarantee that, which, then, with rentals there is no guarantee that there is only going to be two cars per unit. The other thing is he says there is only going to be 34, 35 kids in a 41 unit. They are two to three bedrooms. I don't know about you, but if I have two to three bedrooms and a 41 unit, that's more than 35 kids and when I spoke to the principal they -- they don't have -- in Willow Creek right there in the mile -- they don't have room for anymore kids. The only way -- option they would have is to bus them. Yes, they do have plans right now. The only thing they have is a high school to be built. They do not have any other plans for an elementary. So, Hunter is overcrowded. Willow Creek is overcrowded. Paramount is overcrowded. So, I do not know where they would put those 35 or additional kids. I was told that they would be bussed. So, I would like you to take that into consideration and also the -- the Planning and Zoning denial -- that they recommended denial for this project. Again, this is the second time they have tried to put it in. So, again, I'm asking you to also decline this and do not do the zoning and decline this project. Thank you. Simison: Any questions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Can I ask you a question real quick?. Fisher: Okay. Borton: I was going to ask Pam the same question, but -- Fisher: Yes. Borton: -- amongst -- we read all the written materials that come in in preparation for the hearings and your December 5th letter was one of many that we got. Fisher: Yes. Borton: And you reference the petition that was -- Fisher: Oh, yes. Borton: --of the signatures gathered. The two questions are, one, if you know, how many signatures were gathered and -- and, number two, is if you can describe the process of how those were gathered, meaning at the neighborhood meeting, for example, or walking the neighborhood. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 67 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 48 of 62 Fisher: Okay. So, I'm not sure the final -- it was around a hundred petitions that we got, but we -- myself and Pam went house to house, door to door, with a bunch of other people in Lochsa Falls. We just explained -- we gave them a picture of -- with the card showing the proposed site. We gave them -- we showed them the view of what they wanted to build and we just asked -- we are saying where -- we -- you know, we explained to them this was our community and we didn't think that it was a good use. We asked them if they wanted to sign and we had over a hundred signatures -- or close to a hundred signatures when we did that. Borton: Okay. Fisher: We didn't hit the full entire neighborhood, we only stayed right there close to -- right there in the Kelly Creek -- I mean we only hit probably half of it due to time, but if we could have more time I'm pretty sure we could get more signatures, because I had plenty of people that told me -- because I personally did it myself. That's why I submitted some of those. But we did have plenty of people that said they would have signed it if they had time, but we were told it had to be turned in by a certain time. Borton: Okay. Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, we do have that in there in the public comments. It says 2019 -- twelve -- nine residents of Kelly Creek petition. So, it isn't the public record as well. The petition that Mr. Borton referenced is in the public record there as well to see those signatures if you choose. Borton: Okay. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I saw attachments to various letters. I hadn't seen a compilation of all of it as one. I must have -- I might have missed it. But I just saw it attached to your letter and to Pam's letter and -- Fisher: Yeah. Because we each went out and did it ourselves and so we -- we kept submitting them as they came in. Borton: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thanks. Simison: Any additional questions? Thank you. Fisher: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, your last of the pre-sign in is Sheryl Tolman. Tolman: City Council, Mayor, I appreciate your thoughtfulness tonight, making decisions based on existing neighborhoods and what's best for them. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 68 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 49 of 62 Simison: If I could get you to give you name and address. Tolman: Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sheryl Tolman. 2695 West McMillan Road. I get to deal with the 10,000 cars every day. Yeah. So, please, don't take tonight's attendance as an accurate representation of those in opposition. The sign had the wrong date for the longest time and now it's folded over on itself and it's -- I couldn't read as a passenger in the car, I had to get out and physically read it, but I did look up at the -- on the agenda to see it was tonight instead of last week when it was advertised for a long time. So, I have a few general concerns. First of all, there is a lot -- the fallacy that we need to put in the townhouses here, because Costco is going to need people to work or whatever. There is plenty of open space closer to Costco that hasn't been developed that won't affect existing neighborhoods that could be built on and as was stated who is to say that these townhouses don't become rentals. Years ago I had a concern -- who holds developers accountable? Because years ago at a neighborhood meeting we were promised by the adjacent neighborhood that we would have a right of way in case McMillan got too busy, which we laughed at at the time, because there was ten cars every half hour or so and now we are not laughing. There is a fence blocking it and we -- despite repeated requests and showing them our legal right of way, we still can't access it. So, we are left with this McMillan Road and, please, do not add more cars to it. In the past I have heard arguments like --just like -- it took so long because nobody, you know, wants to develop it or there isn't any -- there is definitely a need for R-4. It's just -- I believe that there is a higher profit margin for higher density. So, that's the route the developers choose to take. But we need the single family homes and their neighbors that don't need to suffer the effects of overcrowding. So, please, don't use the argument that they have already invested a ton of money, because they knew going into it it was R-4 and light office and what about the residents that live there, that have invested time and money in their schools, in their neighborhoods, in their homes, they have put in a lot of stock and a lot -- some of us have lived there for decades and I don't feel that we should always have to suffer at the developers' hand for their profit. So, please, remember the people who tried to be good neighbors, those who volunteer, those who have to deal with the traffic long after the developer moves on. Remember the kindergarteners who are stuck with 20 kids in their class, because growth isn't managed and remember those that have lost their view. Anyway, I appreciate you listening to the residents and I -- Simison: Sheryl, thank you. Were there any questions? Councilman Cavener? Cavener: Thanks for being here. Tolman: Thank you. Simison: All right. Is there anybody else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Please come forward. Your name and address for the record. Schmidt: Sure. Taylor Schmidt. Addresses is 4192 East Esperanto Street, Meridian, Idaho. I do work with the developer, but I'm also a residential real estate agent here in Meridian at Realty One Group Professionals. City of Meridian and the Treasure Valley as Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 69 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 50 of 62 a whole have a high demand for diverse stepped-up housing. We don't want the sprawl. City of Meridian wants the mixed use, vertical residential. Right now there really is a rental apartments and single family detached housing and with how the market's been going prices are soaring. I did a new construction sales analysis and in 2019 in northwest Meridian alone there were 866 new construction homes sold in 2019. Average sales price was over 390,000 dollars. Of those 866, only 11 of them were townhomes. Ten of those townhomes were over the price of 365,000 dollars. Next search I did was all active or pending new construction townhomes and as of today, January 21 st, 2020, and there were only nine townhomes. All nine were over the purchase price of 390,000. Right now it shows that we do need a stepped-up housing and we do need affordability. Goddard Creek Townhomes is a stepped up project. They are attached single family dwellings. Some are three units. Some are two units. Some face a MEW and some are more traditional. But they do have a two car garage and they will be affordable. It does fit the need in between the rental world and the traditional expensive of detached housing. Planning and Zoning Commission touched on this project as being a great project, just not in this location, and they would like it to be office. My last point is this. The developer, he's been developing for over 20 years here in the area and he has -- he does have experience in developing office buildings in the Treasure Valley and I can honestly tell you that if this was a good location for office, he would build it. It's not a good location for office and so I ask that you approve this project, Goddard Creek Townhomes. That's it. Thanks. Simison: Thank you. Any questions? All right. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this application? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward for final words. Noriyuki: Thank you, Mayor, Council. For the record Scott Noriyuki, Northside Management, 6810 Fairhill Place, Boise, Idaho. I'm -- I got a lot of things to cover here that I'm hoping that I can. I do want to clarify that there was -- and these are responses to the public testimony. I do want to clarify that we are not the original developers of the original applications regarding the development agreement modifications or the storage units or the apartment complexes. I just want that clarity. We are fresh blood. That original proposal of the 84 unit apartment complex, that is not us. We are 41 units. Significantly pared down. I do want to point out that with this project we are also providing some -- there were some comments that the only entrance and access point for Selway Rapids is the -- the Selway Rapids Road. With our particular project we did take some advice in our pre-application meeting with the Fire Department and we are providing a secondary egress out to McMillan. Now, that's not going to be an active, it's strictly for an emergency, which does create a relief valve not only for our project, but ultimately Selway Rapids. So, from a fire life safety health standpoint, I feel that's a positive. With respect to light office versus residential. Forty-one residential units. The calculation is 41 units produces 287 trips per day. Light office would produce 600 plus trips per day based off of what would be allowed by City of Meridian code. That's a significant difference. So, I just -- and that is per ACHD and the traffic guidelines and the calculations and what the codes are with the City of Meridian. These are not made up numbers. This is what's in writing. With respect to that, as far as the P&Z denial -- the recommendation for denial, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 70 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 51 of 62 I'm personally vexed, because we have met all of the code, the comp plan intent or requirements, the architects within the city who put this together and it was signed off by everybody. We meet all those items. So, I guess I can't say anything aside from I -- I'm vexed. I don't understand. As far as meetings missed, there was a neighborhood meeting that I was an absolute no show and that came down to a notification issue and ultimately we were continued. So, ultimately, I didn't show up. That was poor on -- on my end. didn't have phone numbers to call people, it's just -- I have a mailing list. I profusely apologized. That was one of four neighborhood meetings. Per code there is only one required. I have done four. All right. I flaked on one and I will take it on the chin. I'm just being honest. The traffic -- as far as all of the traffic, ACHD has set forth with this and ITD has and they have approved our design, our impact, and they pushed forward with the staff report that is in support of the project. I do want to also point out that along McMillan Road through our project we are -- the actual project is 4.6 acres, give or take, but the actual property is over five and with that we are conveying additional property on the McMillan right of way for the ultimate widening and expansion. However, that doesn't just happen until there is a trigger for ITD or ACHD. Once it hits a point of capacity that's when ITD and ACHD will allocate the funds and they will ultimately widen it. However, we have conveyed -- or are conveying that additional widening opportunity as the city grows. As far as fire hydrants, naturally through the final plat process and the development guidelines we have --we have to put them in. We don't have a choice. One every -- I believe it's 400 or 500 feet. We will absolutely, undeniably, conform to that. Otherwise we would never get a permit or a final plat recorded. As far as price points, thank Taylor for addressing that. We all know that market numbers -- it's kind of like stocks, they change all day long. However, this is high quality and it's needed. I want to thank him -- I want to thank him again as far as diversity. He was very good in the calculations of the need for the townhouses. I do want to point out -- and this isn't going to be a popular comment, but I do want to point out that within Kelly Creek Subdivision those roads that on-street parking, those are taxpayer roads, those are public roads. Everybody has a right to park on those, regardless of how anybody feels it is not private property. It is not owned by the subdivision or the HOA. Those are ACHD roadways owned by the public. Not popular. I'm just saying it. I do want to address open space. There has been concern that -- that the Selway residents have been utilizing the Kelly Creek open space. Number one, I have nothing to do with that. Number two, I cannot police that. That's not something that I can do or should be my problem. Number three, I do want to point out with our project we have multiple open spaces. We have a playground. We have a dog park. We have a gazebo with a barbecue area. We have multiple pathways and just generalized open space to throw a frisbee or throw a ball with your -- with your son or your daughter. We are taking on a tremendous amount of that -- providing a tremendous amount. I want to reiterate we have 22 percent of this project as qualified open space, but the true green area is 27 percent. That's very rare to see that in subdivisions or projects. And I am curious -- no. With that said I -- I conclude and I will stand for questions. I appreciate your time. Simison: Is there any questions from Council? Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 71 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 52 of 62 Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. Scott, I'm trying to -- I was a little confused by Taylor. He gave us some market analysis, but if these were constructed and they were on the market today -- and I realize market fluctuates, what is the price point that you are looking at? Noriyuki: I will defer. Hoaglun: Okay. Noriyuki: He is -- he is the expert on that aspect. Hoaglun: Taylor, same -- same question. Schmidt: Sure. Hoaglun: If they were built today what -- what would the price point of these particular units be? I know there is two bedroom, three bedroom. Schmidt: Sure. Taylor Schmidt. And we haven't comped out exactly what the price frame structure or vertical costs are, but we are projecting the two bedroom to be in about the 250 range and the three bedroom to be under 300,000. 1 mean on market today the average townhomes is 360 and above and we are looking to be below that. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, sir. Scott. In your earlier testimony you talked about developing your private street to ACHD standards. I only heard you reference curb and gutter. Is there going to be sidewalks? Noriyuki: Mayor, Council, yes, absolutely. We -- yes, we will have -- on both sides. The only reason why I was referencing curb to curb is that 32 foot wide section from back of curb to back of curb, that is what creates within the ACHD criteria, so that you can have on-street parking. But, yes, absolutely we will have sidewalks -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Noriyuki: -- on both sides. Cavener: Scott, here is the reason why I asked. And you have been doing this a long time. This process is all about trust. We as a Council trust the applicant when they come before they are going to be honest to the best of their ability. The public's going to be as honest to us to the best of their ability. Sometimes there is shifting of perspectives, you don't always see eye to eye. The part that really frustrates me when you had a simple Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 72 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 53 of 62 mistake and not show up to a meeting -- in your earlier testimony you went at great lengths about having four meetings when one was required. You reiterated that point time and time again. I took notice of it. I wrote it down as a note, because I was impressed. Then to hear from a member of the public that you don't show up. Didn't have to hear that from them. We should be hearing it from you and we shouldn't be making a joke about it, because it's people's time. Time with their families and their time is important, just like your time is important. But when somebody doesn't volunteer information like that to me it makes me wonder what else are they not volunteering. So, I got to ask silly questions like you are going to put in sidewalks. It's not a good place to be as a council member. It's not a good place for our public to be and I hope that we don't see that type of activity from you in the future. Noriyuki: Absolutely. And I do want to address -- okay. So, A number one, apologies. Apologies across the board. Number two, in the e-mail that-- of clarifications I sent today I did divulge that in my opening testimony I should have, so it's not a bait and switch, I'm taking full ownership. Simison: Any other questions? Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Just a question. Scott? Noriyuki: Yes. Bernt: Do you guys currently own this property or do you guys have an option on it? Noriyuki: We have an absolute option. The actual owner is here in the audience tonight that we are under contract with. Naturally -- Bernt- No, I get it. Noriyuki: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Scott, a question I had. You mentioned your traffic generating numbers. I have always been under the impression that that's about 9.8 per residential unit for a traffic count number, but the number you gave was less than that. Are townhomes having a different calculation from ACHD on your traffic count? Otherwise, you should be about 400 in the number you provided from my knowledge. Noriyuki: That was simply based off of the generations that ACHD creates the calculations with, based upon whether it be a two bedroom or a three bedroom. Not a lot of expertise on my part. That was just me presenting things and looking to experts as far as what their calculation is. Simison: So, I guess maybe my question is for Justin then. Justin, does ACHD differentiate in traffic count numbers based upon type of residential unit? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 73 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 54 of 62 Noriyuki: Wonderful. Simison: Just so we can be accurate in our numbers for the record. Lucas: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Members of the Council. For the record my name is Justin Lucas. I work for the Ada County Highway District. Business address is 3775 Adam Street, Garden City, Idaho. The short answer is yes. ACHD uses the Highway Capacity Manual. It's a trip generation manual to determine what estimated amount of trips are going to be produced by different types of housing, different types of commercial uses, whatever that may be. All of that information is located in the ACHD staff report, the trip generation numbers which you have, and so I don't have them off the top of my head, but if you're interested they are in the staff report and you can reference those. I don't know if it's exactly what the applicant said or not, I haven't -- I haven't checked, but -- but, yes, we do have national standards we use for those types of -- those type of calculations. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Are there any further questions for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Scott, my -- my opinion hasn't changed from the first part of your testimony that you don't got enough parking for this development to serve your residents. Have you had any conversations with you and your team about reducing the amount of units to accommodate for what I believe is more adequate parking? Noriyuki: Mayor, Councilman, yes, our original design was roughly 48 units. We have since pared that down to make it more palatable, but also we have built several of these projects in several different cities and counties throughout Idaho very successfully and we do have a minimum standard for parking. Otherwise, it will not be a sellable, palatable project and we have been successful with these. I do -- excuse me. I do want to reiterate that per City of Meridian code -- in the unified -- Unified Development Code the City of Meridian identifies for every single family unit that there are two cars parked indoors in a garage and two on a driveway. So, number one, we meet code period. We met code. The code you guys embody. You support. That's the rules of engagement. Number two, we do recognize that there are some on-street parking concerns, because these are tighter units. So, that is where we came in with the additional 16 parking stalls down on the south to ensure that on Thanksgiving or birthdays or Super Bowl Sunday, something like that, people have adequate additional places to park, so as to ensure that we are not a burden, as I have heard that Selway is on Kelly Creek. We are encapsulating all of our open space and our parking and our visitors. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. Question for Sonya then. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 74 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 55 of 62 Hoaglun: What is -- what is our requirement for how -- is it per unit? How many spaces per unit or how do we figure that? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilmen, Councilman Hoaglun, parking spaces are based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Hoaglun: Okay. So -- Allen: The analysis is in the staff report. Hoaglun: What I'm -- what I'm reading, Mr. Mayor and Sonya, it talked about 218 spaces for 41 homes. This is Scott's, you know, information he provided. More than double code and helps existing issues. So, I'm just trying to figure out, you know, if we have -- if they have 41 units times four is 164, visitor parking of 16, plus on-street parking, it would appear they do exceed code requirements. Is that accurate? Allen: Yes. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Are there further questions or comments? Thank you. Noriyuki: Thank you. I appreciate your time. Simison: With that I will sit here until Council has direction they would like to go for a motion. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I would like to discuss a little bit. Sometimes things move too fast for me and I don't get a chance to get my discussion in. You know, a couple of thoughts. I, you know, appreciate the applicant is trying to go above and beyond on the open space here to meet some of the neighborhood concerns and I appreciate that they are willing to widen the road. I think what I'm struggling with this as a city, you know, we are supposed to provide adequate services to our residents and at this point, you know, it's true that the McMillan Road is not in our control. It is a traffic nightmare. I don't think anyone can dispute that. The schools in this area are overcrowded. We have got this very frank letter from the West Ada District to us recommending denial and we have got a Planning and Zoning Commission -- Commission denial in front of us and to me, you know, an optioned potential owner of this property came into this with an equity risk, assuming that we would upzone this property and I have to say looking at it my own opinion is that I don't think that -- that this neighborhood, especially this area on McMillan, can support any density beyond the R-4. That -- that's my honest opinion. So, I'm leaning toward, you know, denying the application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 75 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 56 of 62 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I'm always one that I -- Councilman Hoaglun and I were talking a little bit about this during the break. Try to find the yes. And for me if a project contributes positively to our community I'm more apt to support it. Does it improve the quality of life for the people who live in that part of our community. Some ways yes and some ways no. For the residents benefit it wasn't the applicant who brought the numbers about the students, that's the school district's numbers. He relies on their data. The data shows that your elementary is under capacity, middle schools is at capacity, everybody knows Rocky Mountain is over capacity. That will change with Owyhee. From someone who has lived here my whole life -- I remember going on a bus seven miles to a school. Drove past five other elementary schools for a class, 22 kids in my class. So, our community has grown as long as I can remember. So, what I look for goes back to the initial point is how does this improve the quality of life for those that surround it and Selway Apartments contribute negatively to the quality of life in terms of the parking challenges and I tried to give I think the applicant at least a couple opportunities to address it. He feels he's done a sufficient job. I might disagree. You talked briefly -- I don't know if any other members of Council feel the same way -- that the architecture -- there is a lot to be desired in my opinion. I would hope for something a little more of a level up that really appeals to our committee, especially factoring in the price point. So, I'm struggling to find the win for our community with this particular piece, which is always hard for me. So, at least right now I'm -- when it comes to that, I go back to our Planning and Zoning Commission and I read the minutes and watched the video and while not the full commission was there, their comments all rang true to me that this is just not the right fit for this part of town. So, that's where I sit at least as of right now. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: This -- this is a -- this is a difficult one. I know neighbors thinks, oh, this would be a slam dunk, the developer thinks this a slam dunk, each from their perspective. But, you know, for what we want for our community, we want to -- we want to grow from the center out. I mean that's -- that's our desire. That's how we want to do it. So, here we have an in-fill project and we could deny. It might go that way. I don't know. It might be improved. But what happens, then, if R-4 is approved two miles down the road and say, oh, that's good, because we are going out beyond the neighbors and building where no one else is and you're going to contribute 700 cars coming down McMillan as they head to Eagle Road and there we are. This place is vacant, but we have just increased the traffic capacity and -- and we are -- we are growing from out and not in growing out. So, that's -- that's one of the conflicts I have. Someone brought up rentals. Very good point. You know, there is no guarantee that -- that someone buys that place and turns it into a rental. That -- that happens in every subdivision. I have got a house just down the street from me, I'm ticked off because it's a rental and you know how many cars are out there? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 76 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 57 of 62 And one of them's really loud muffler. I'm going to call code enforcement. But anyway. I need the number. So, that -- I get that. That's -- that's -- that's a problem everywhere. It's not unique to -- to just -- just to that situation. Parking. You know, I wanted to make sure it does go beyond the scope and when I look at the issue of-- this is a development under five acres and they are providing open space to -- to a big degree that's not something you are going to get with another one, even if it was a single family home development, that -- that becomes -- they wouldn't have to provide that space. So, are they going to be using the Kelly Creek Park, probably. So, there is -- there is that ying and that yang there of, okay, what -- what does this do. The office issue -- my folks live in a place -- a patio home where there was a strip mall type development behind them and it started out as office and, you know, 9:00 to 5:00 type of thing and, then, other uses came in and other uses were approved and now there is a restaurant and now there is another restaurant and it's horrible. I wouldn't wish that upon you at all. It really is a difficult situation for them and -- yeah. I hear about it from my mother, so -- anyway. Enough said there. So, those -- those are the types of things that --that really makes this a harder decision than I know what each of you -- each of the sides think, because there -- there are pluses and minuses to each -- each side and there could be worse development. The price point is something I pointedly asked, because one of the things I want to see in this community is a variety of price ranges. My kids just bought their first home in Meridian and it was difficult. They looked high and low. Finally kind of stretched and, yeah, mom and dad helped them out a bit, but this price point is not available in Meridian and a three bedroom home would have been perfect for them and -- and so you don't want to have people saying, well, you know, that -- pull up the gangplank, I'm a aboard mentality, we want to have a community that's available to young professionals, people starting families, all the way to people who are retired and wanting --wanting units. So, do we have that available? I'm always looking for that -- for that variety and at the same time -- but it does have to fit the area. It really does. So, as you can see I'm conflicted on this. I go back and forth, because there are qualities on both sides. I understand. And -- and I do like the fact that there is a -- an ownership component to that. I think that makes it good, although the rental thing is -- you can't prevent that, so -- Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Like Councilman Hoaglun and those who have spoke before me, I share some same concerns, some of the same potential advantages with this -- with this proposed development. The thing that strikes me the most is when I was on Planning and Zoning Commission before I was elected to this role, one of the very first -- I shouldn't say very first, but one of the applications that we heard was a townhome application somewhat nearby. It was on Linder. Just right around the corner. And the issue, in my opinion, with this area of our city -- they are just -- there is an oversaturation of higher density product. I'm a big believer -- and one of the advantages I believe that this proposed application provides is the price point. I love that price point that you propose. It's something that we need. A diversity of housing is extremely important. And with that I -- I like what I see. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 77 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 58 of 62 But sometimes in development it's just -- you know, sometimes it's not the right time and sometimes it's just not the right place and sometimes we just need to be patient and I know that's not what you want to hear. It's not our purview in City Council to make sure that things pencil. That's just not something that we -- we -- that is -- you know, dictates at least my decision by -- by any means. But decent -- another thing that I -- that I wrote down -- I have some notes in front -- sorry I'm bouncing back and forth. I know that your renderings -- I get that-- why you may not have provided more specific renderings, but in past applications it's very common for us to receive very detailed renderings in this process and the renderings that I see are quite simple. I think we could have done a better job there. So, those are my thoughts. I would like to gnaw on this a little bit longer, but that's where I stand right now. Simison: Do I have any further comments or is anyone interested in making a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we close the public hearing for Goddard Creek Townhomes, H-2019- 0068. Hoaglun: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Is there discussion on the motion -- or sorry. Sorry. Never mind. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we deny Item 6-F, Goddard Creek Townhomes, H-2019-0068. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I'm one that always takes pause before denial. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues here tonight. I know in the past Council has not been warm to substitute Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 78 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 59 of 62 motions and I'm not -- you know, that's not where I think we should head necessarily, but I'm -- I'm curious if this Council would be supportive of continuing this for a couple of weeks to give the applicant the opportunity to hear from the feedback from the Council and make some changes, provide those architectural depictions, address the parking challenges before we deny. I don't know if the Council has an opinion or a thought on that. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I could give you some feedback on my opinion on that. The concerns that I have had -- to Councilman Bernt's point -- is really -- we have some macro level issues in this specific neighborhood that I really think are widespread challenges that we need to tackle with overcrowding in the school district and with traffic on McMillan Road and I don't think that architectural renderings would change my decision and I would hate to waste the applicant's time and money and effort on that. The only thing that I -- I probably would be open minded about -- and maybe that's just a new version of this -- would be a reduced unit count, providing additional parking and a solution to the parking challenges off of Selway -- the Selway complex, but it would also have to meet -- be closer to the R-4 zoning designation. So, I would be looking for reduced density to try to meet somewhere in the middle here and that's a pretty big change to ask for. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: You know, at the end of the day for me -- and I -- those who know me I'm definitely not short of an opinion, but I also believe in being honest and forthright and I just -- the -- the -- my concerns that way, the things that I liked about this particular subdivision -- and, honestly, that's just what it boiled down to me. So, I don't want to waste anyone's time. I'm not in favor of this application. So, my vote will be no. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. Real quick. One of the things -- it's been a while since I have served and so I'm getting up to speed on things, but I think for this process -- the maker of the motion -- do we have to give reasons for this denial? I would like to ask Mr. Nary if I could about giving legal reasons or -- Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, so it is a -- it is a discretionary decision of the Council, because it's a development agreement. So, you can deny it because it's not in the best interest of the city. What I also heard, though, was you had concerns about the density and the impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and the impacts of the traffic which, are, although, again traffic is not necessarily fully within your purview, public safety is. So, I have heard all those concerns and if I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 79 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 60 of 62 understand that, that's part of the reasons it's not in the best interest of the city is the way I took that, then, I think that's adequate. Simison: Is there any further discussion or questions or should we call the question? Bernt: Call the question. Simison: All right. The clerk will call the roll. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I have this as a motion to deny. Simison: Correct. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: The ayes have it. The motion is denied. Or the motion carries to deny the project. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 20-1871: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-6-4, Creating Designated Positions in the Mayor's Office and Establishing a Hiring Method, Wage Determination, and Separation Benefit; Adopting a Savings Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: All right. Item 7-A is Ordinance No. 20-1871. 1 will ask the clerk to read this by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an ordinance amending Meridian City Code Section 1-6-4, creating designated positions in the Mayor's Office and establishing a hiring method, wage determination, and separation benefit; adopting a savings clause; and providing an effective date. Simison: Would anyone like this -- like the entire thing read? Okay. Seeing nothing. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Just a quick comment. Applaud you for bringing this to the Council. I think it's a forward looking approach to staff and will serve our city well, both now and into the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 80 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21,2020 Page 61 of 62 future. With that I move that we approve Ordinance No. 20-1871, an ordinance amending Meridian City Code Section 1-6-4 with suspension of rules. Hoaglun: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Strader: I have a little discussion, please, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think for the benefit of the public, what would be helpful -- I had asked Mr. Nary some questions previously about the guardrails around Council's oversight on compensation and how we make sure that we are not, you know, sort of letting go of our separation of powers and ability to oversee appropriate compensation for these positions and that we have some guardrails around, you know, how that would all be handled and I would like Mr. Nary to comment on that for everybody's benefit. Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Woman Strader. So, the question of separation of powers. This doesn't change anything in regards to that regarding compensation. Council is charged with the budget. This position is in the Mayor's Office regardless of what the compensation they receive or how it's received, it still has to have budgeted money for that. So, no compensation can be provided to an employee without it being in the budget, which is, then, approved by the City Council. So, I don't see any conflict between the executive branch and the legislative branch of the city by granting the authority and the powers that this ordinance does. This really is primarily written for administrative purposes and for some continuity of services and such in the Mayor's Office and it doesn't impact the budgetary responsibilities of the Council. Simison: And if I could just add, these positions are still classified by HR within a range for those positions. Strader: Mr. Mayor, if I may discuss further with some commentary. That is what gave me comfort around approving the ordinance is that we have the guardrails from Legal and HR as well. Not any commentary on you, but thinking of future mayors and future councils that may come across issues. Simison: Are there any other questions? If not, I will ask the clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion passes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 4,2020— Page 81 of 298 Meridian City Council January 21 , 2020 Page 62 of 62 MOTION CARRIED : FIVE AYES . ONE ABSENT. Item 8 : Future Meeting Topics Simison : Item No . 8 . Any future meeting topics ? Cavener : Mr. Mayor? Cavener : Councilman Cavener. Cavener : I appreciated hearing from SWAC today. It may be beneficial , I will leave it up to you and staff and SWAC to see -- but it may be beneficial in the future for Council to get a presentation about what service offerings the waste haulers in the region provide the jurisdictions they serve , what the cost is for their -- their customers . As we are continued to ask take a look at waste recycling , composting , to have a good understanding as to what the region pays , similar the way finance prepares that around property taxes and impact fees , that type of an analysis I think would be beneficial , either as a workshop topic or an overall SWAC presentation in the future . i Simison : I don 't think that would be a problem . I know they do that annually and keep E that up to date . So , I know it' s information they already possess . If not , do I have any other motions ? I Bernt : Mr. Mayor? Simison : Councilman Bernt . Bernt : I move that we adjourn . Hoaglun : Second . Simison : I have a motion and a second to adjourn . All those in favor signify by saying aye . Opposed nay. MOTION CARRIED : FIVE AYES . ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9 : 21 P. M . DIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS ) I " oe A�� 2. / y 12020 M OR R E T E . SIMISON �QOxPSEDA TE APPROVED ATTES i 1p � t • ity �r w ,, C.�VI E IDIANk� IDAHO CHR S ON - Y CLERK � SEAL F2r� ` 4 ROj the TRF �`` . CrE IDIZ IA*,-----N DAJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 5 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: 1/21/2020 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=414 1/1 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 1/21/2020 Hearing Type: Public Forum Active: There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2020 - City of Meridian, Idaho �/rE IDIS IAN*,----- �J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 6 A Item Title: Modified Final Plat for Creason Creek No. 2 (H-2019-0139) By CS2, LLC. Located on the East Side of N. Linder Rd., South of W. Ustick Rd. Meeting Notes: 01 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 6.A . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - M odified F inal Plat for C reason Creek No. 2 (H-2019-0139) by C S 2, L L C , L ocated on the East S ide of N. L inder Rd., S outh of W. Ustick Rd. C lic k Here for Applic atio n Materials C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taf f R eport 1/19/2020 RE V I E WE RS : Department R eviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 1/17/2020 - 4:09 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 4 of 153 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 1/21/2020 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0139 Creason Creek Sub. No. 2 - MFP LOCATION: East side of N. Linder Rd., south of W. Ustick Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant proposes a modification to the previously approved Final Plat (H-2018-0037) to increase the area of Lot 11, Block 1 and expand the subdivision boundary. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: CS2, LLC – 3363 E. Presidential Dr., Ste. 200, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Representative: Bob Unger, ULC Management, LLC – 6104 N. Gary Ln., Boise, ID 83714 III. STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant proposes to expand the subdivision boundary of Phase 2 to include additional land area planned for development in Phase 3 as shown on the approved (but not yet recorded) final plat in Section V.B and the proposed modified final plat in Section V.C. The common area where a dog park was previously planned on Lot 1, Block 1, Creason Creek Sub. 1 is proposed to be relocated to Lot 13 and portions of Lots 14 & 15, Block 1 as shown on the preliminary plat in Section V.A. These 3 lots were previously planned as buildable lots. The Applicant plans to re-subdivide Lot 1, STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 5 of 153 Page 2 Block 1 in the first phase of Creason Creek Subdivision in the future into two (2) buildable lots accessible via N.W. 13th Ave. The common area of Lot 1, Block 1, Creason Creek Sub. 1 consists of 16,183 square feet (s.f.); the proposed common area consists of 16,268 s.f. for an increase from that originally proposed. A copy of the approved landscape plan is shown in Section D; and the revised landscape plan is shown in Section E that depicts the proposed change to the plat. The proposed common area will have access via a pedestrian bridge over the Creason Lateral from a pathway on the north side of the lateral and will be fenced with a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence; landscaping within the common area is proposed to consist of grass with 3 trees in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E for open space areas. The Applicant feels the proposed change will provide better access and use of the area; Staff agrees. IV. DECISION Staff: Staff recommends approval of the final plat modification as proposed by the Applicant per the condition in Section VI. (Note: An amendment may be required to the recorded plat for Creason Creek Sub. 1 by the Ada County Surveyor before a subsequent plat for a re-subdivision of the common lot into building lots can be approved.) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 6 of 153 Page 3 V. EXHIBITS A. Approved Preliminary Plat (date: 4/23/2015) Former location of dog park Proposed location of dog park Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 7 of 153 Page 4 B. Approved Final Plat (date: 4/25/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 8 of 153 Page 5 C. Proposed Final Plat (dated: 10/7/19) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 9 of 153 Page 6 D. Approved Landscape Plan (dated: 4/2/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 10 of 153 Page 7 E. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 11/12/19) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 11 of 153 Page 8 VI. Planning Division – Conditions 1. Development of the proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the final plat shown in Section V.C and the landscape plan in Section V.E. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 12 of 153 E IDIZ IAN*---DAHO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 6 6 Item Title: Final Plat for Oaks North Subdivision No. 4 (H-2019-0136) By Toll Southwest LLC., Located at 6060 W. McMillan Rd. Meeting Notes: 0 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 6.B . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - F inal P lat for Oaks North S ubdivision No. 4 (H-2019-0136) by Toll Southwest, L L C , Located at 6060 W. M cM illan Rd. C lic k Here for Applic atio n Materials C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report (Revised 1-20-20)S taf f R eport 1/20/2020 RE V I E WE RS : Department R eviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 1/17/2020 - 4:09 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 13 of 153 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 1/21/2020 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0136 Oaks North No. 4 LOCATION: 6060 W. McMillan Rd., in the SW ¼ of Section 28, Township 4N., Range 1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Toll Southwest, LLC, has applied for final plat approval of 35 building lots and 8 common lots on 12.03 acres of land in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Toll Southwest, LLC – 3101 W. Sheryl Drive, Suite 100, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Representative: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, LLP – 1029 N. Rosario St., Ste. 100, Meridian, ID 83642 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the preliminary plat as required by UDC 11-6B-3C.2. There is a slight reconfiguration of buildable and common lots and the addition of a public street to the north (i.e. N. Christian Ave.) in the area where a common lot with a pedestrian pathway was previously shown. These changes result in the same number of buildable lots and a slight decrease in common area due to removal of the common lot with the pathway. Because the addition of the street was necessary to comply with block length standards and pedestrian connectivity to the north is still provided with the sidewalk along the street, Staff finds the proposed final plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. A sloped roof shelter with a picnic table and pedestrian pathway are proposed in Lot 5, Block 24; and a 10-foot wide regional pathway is proposed in Lot 14, Block 9 adjacent to the Creason Lateral as amenities, per the landscape plan in Section V.D. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 14 of 153 Page 2 IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in Section VI of this report. V. EXHIBITS A. Vicinity Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 15 of 153 Page 3 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 8/6/2013) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 16 of 153 Page 4 C. Final Plat (date: 11/19/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 17 of 153 Page 5 D. Landscape Plan (date: 12/3/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 18 of 153 Page 6 VI. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: 1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development (AZ-13-008, RZ-13-015, DA Inst. No. 114030972; PP-13-014). 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the City Engineer’s signature on the previous phase final plat, in accord with UDC 11-6B- 7 in order for the preliminary plat to remain valid or a time extension may be requested. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer’s signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 4. The final plat shown in Exhibit C in Section VI prepared by Land Solutions, stamped on 2/07/2019 by Clinton W. Hansen, shall be revised as follows: a. Note #10 - Include the recorded instrument number of the Development Agreement – Inst. “114030972”. b. Note #12: Include the recorded instrument number of the ACHD License Agreement. 5. The landscape plan shown in Exhibit D in Section VI prepared by Jensen Belts Associates, dated 12/3/19, included in Exhibit VI.D shall be revised as follows: a. In the Landscape Calculations table on Sheet L1.2, include the linear feet of parkways (minus 26’ for driveways) and the required number of trees in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. One (1) full-size copy and one (1) electronic copy of a revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Because each lot is designated as having a permanent easement for public utilities, pressure irrigation and lot drainage over the 15 feet adjacent to any public street per plat note #1, the front and side yard building setbacks as applicable shall be restricted accordingly so as not to encroach within this easement. 7. Future homes constructed in this phase shall comply with the elevations included in the development agreement (Oaks North and South Subdivision – Inst. No. 114030972) with materials and architectural features to be the same or higher quality as shown in the elevations. 8. Prior to the issuance of any new building permit, the property shall be subdivided in accordance with the UDC. 9. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide a letter from the United States Postal Service stating that the applicant has received approval for the location of mailboxes. Contact the Meridian Postmaster, Sue Prescott, at 887-1620 for more information. 10. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat and/or development agreement does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. Public Works General Conditions: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 19 of 153 Page 7 shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non-health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 20 of 153 Page 8 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 19. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20 -feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at (208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 21 of 153 Page 9 utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 22 of 153 �/rE IDIZ IAN'S- �J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 6 C Item Title: Final Plat for Three Corners Ranch (H-2019-0136) By Sweet Land Development, Inc. Located at 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct. Meeting Notes: M' I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 6.C . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: Title of I tem - F inal P lat for T hree Corners Ranch (H-2019-0141) by Sweet L and Development, Inc., L ocated at 1890 E . Dunwoody Ct. C lic k Here for Applic atio n Materials C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taf f R eport 1/20/2020 RE V I E WE RS : Department R eviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 1/17/2020 - 4:10 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 23 of 153 Page 1 HEARING DATE: January 21, 2020 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0141 Three Corners Ranch LOCATION: 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct. (R1966961610) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final Plat consisting of 44 buildable lots and 7 common lots on 31.06 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Sweet Land Development, Inc. – 1990 S. Cole Rd., Boise, ID 83709 B. Owner: David J. and Luane Dean – 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct., Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: Josh Beach, Conger Group – 4824 W. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat in accord with the requirements listed in UDC 11-6B-3C.2. The proposed plat depicts one (1) fewer buildable STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 24 of 153 Page 2 lot and the same amount of common open space as shown on the preliminary plat. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. IV. DECISION Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat within the conditions noted in Section VI of this report. V. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat (date: 7/9/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 25 of 153 Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 26 of 153 Page 4 B. Final Plat (date: 12/17/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 27 of 153 Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 28 of 153 Page 6 C. Landscape Plan (dated: 11/27/19) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 29 of 153 Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 30 of 153 Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 31 of 153 Page 9 VI. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: 1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development (H-2019-0006, Development Agreement #2019-104973). 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer’s signature on the subject final plat within two years of City Council’s approval of the preliminary plat (by August 6, 2021); or apply for a time extension, in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer’s signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 4. The final plat prepared by Sawtooth Land Surveying, LLC, stamped on 12/17/2019 by Kevin M. Borah, included in Section VII.B shall be revised as follows: a. Note #5: Remove note (the City does not regulate HOA’s) b. Note #7: Include the recorded instrument number of the ACHD License Agreement. c. Note #8: Include the recorded instrument number. d. Note #14: Include the recording date and recorded instrument number of the Master Perpetual Storm Water Drainage Easement. e. Note #15: Include the recorded instrument number of the ACHD sidewalk easement. f. Add a new note: “The bottom of structural footing shall be set a minimum of 12-inches above the highest established normal ground water elevation.” g. Revise the line type for “Sewer Easement” as it is too similar to the “New Easement” line type and therefore they are indistinguishable from each other. h. Depict the irrigation easement for the Karnes Lateral. City Council granted a waiver to allow the lateral to remain as an easement on the buildable lots. 5. The landscape plan prepared by Jensen Belts Assoc., dated 11/27/19 is approved as submitted. 6. The existing home proposed to be retained on Lot 2, Block 1 shall hook up to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in UDC 9 -1-4 and 9-4-8. The street address of this home will change as a result of this development. 7. Applicant shall complete the following improvements to E. Dunwoody Court as follows: a. Install three (3) street lights; b. Install “No Parking” signs along both sides of the street; c. Stripe the travel lanes and an 8-foot wide pedestrian walkway on the south side per ACHD standards; and d. Remove vegetation within ACHD right-of-way that obstructs site lines along the roadway. 8. Comply with the private street standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. 9. Submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Review letter for the “final plat.” Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 32 of 153 Page 10 10. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat and/or development agreement does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. Public Works Site Specific Conditions: 1. The easement for the sanitary sewer mainline crossing the east side of Lot 5, Block 1 shall be created via a separate easement document per General Conditions #23 below. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the final plat with dimensions and reference notation to the recording instrument number. 2. Water easement required for future water connection to the north from E . Commander Lane to E. Guinness Street. We prefer the easement to be located next to the sewer easement between Lot 5 & 6, Block 1, or the water easement can be located in Lot 9, Block 1. Water connecting at southern boundary from E. San Pedro Lane to cul-de-sac (N. Dvorak Place) to be 12", not 10". The easement(s) shall be created via a separate easement document per General Conditions #23 below. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the final plat with dimensions and reference notation to the recording instrument number. 3. Street name/addressing may change for the existing home that will remain on Lot 2, Block 1, as a result of this platting. General Conditions: 4. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing ma ins adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 5. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 6. 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. 7. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 8. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, prior to signature on the final plat. 9. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 10. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 33 of 153 Page 11 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 11. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non-health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 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. 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. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 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. 18. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3- feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 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. 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. 21. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898 -5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 22. 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 34 of 153 Page 12 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 23. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 24. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at (208)888- 5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 25. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed fr om service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 26. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 27. 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 January 21, 2020 – Page 35 of 153 EIDIAN*,----- IDAHO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 6 D Item Title: Final Plat for Verado Subdivision No. 4 (H-2019-0132) By C17, LLC. Located at 3090 N. Locust Grove Rd. Meeting Notes: [Yf I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 6.D . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: Title of I tem - F inal P lat for Verado Subdivision No. 4 (H-2019-0132) by C 17, L L C, L ocated at 3090 N. Locust Grove Rd. C lic k Here for Applic atio n Materials C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taf f R eport 1/20/2020 RE V I E WE RS : Department R eviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 1/17/2020 - 4:10 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 36 of 153 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 1/21/2020 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0132 Verado Subdivision No. 4 LOCATION: 3090 N. Locust Grove Rd. Southeast corner of N. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Ustick Rd., in the NW ¼ of Section 5, Township 3N., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final plat consisting of 74 building lots and 9 common lots on 9.09 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district for the fourth phase of Verado Subdivision. This is actually the second phase of development of the Verado West preliminary plat. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: C17, LLC – 4824 W. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: C4 Land, LLC – 4824 W. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, DevCo Development, LLC – 4824 W. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the preliminary plat as required by UDC 11-6B-3C.2. There is the same number of buildable lots and the same amount of common open space shown on the proposed final plat as depicted on the preliminary plat. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed final plat is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plat per the standards listed in UDC 11-6B-3C.2. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 37 of 153 Page 2 IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in Section VI of this report. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 38 of 153 Page 3 V. EXHIBITS A. Approved Preliminary Plat (date: 10/8/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 39 of 153 Page 4 B. Final Plat (date: 12/5/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 40 of 153 Page 5 C. Landscape Plan (date: 11/2/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 41 of 153 Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 42 of 153 Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 43 of 153 Page 8 D. Common Driveway Exhibit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 44 of 153 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 45 of 153 Page 10 VI. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: 1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development [H-2016-0047, Development Agreement (DA) Inst. No. 2016-119079; H- 2018-0085, DA Inst. No. #2019-000376]. 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the City Engineer’s signature on the previous phase final plat, in accord with UDC 11-6B-7 in order for the preliminary plat to remain valid or a time extension may be requested. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer’s signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 4. The final plat prepared by Sawtooth Land Surveying, LLC., stamped on 12/5/19 by Carl Porter, included in Exhibit VI.B shall be revised as follows: a. Legend: Include the recorded instrument number of the ACHD Drainage Easement. b. Include a note restricting access to Lots 71-73, Block 1 to E. Netley St.; access via E. Kamay Ct. is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-6C-3A.1. 5. The landscape plan prepared by Jensen Belts Associates, stamped on 11/2/19 by Kim Siegenthaler, included in Exhibit VI.C shall be revised as follows: a. A minimum of one (1) tree shall be depicted along the pathway in Lot 42, Block 1 as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C.2; if trees are not allowed in the stormwater drainage easement, either widen the lot an additional 5 feet to allow for the tree(s) to be planted outside of the easement or apply for Alternative Compliance to this standard as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5C. b. Where gravel exists between the curb and detached sidewalk along E. Ustick Rd., it shall be replaced with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 7C as depicted. c. Depict a break in the perimeter fence and a 5-foot wide pedestrian pathway through the landscaping at the south end of Lot 70, Block 1 to connect to the common lot (Lot 32, Block 2) in Chamberlain Estates Subdivision for pedestrian interconnectivity between neighborhoods. d. Correct the lot numbers in Block 11 consistent with that depicted on the final plat. e. Include mitigation information for the existing trees that were on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5; if no mitigation was required by the City Arborist (Elroy Huff 208-371-1755), submit documentation as such. f. The curb cut for the existing home on Locust Grove Rd. shall be removed and sidewalk and landscaping shall be extended across this area. Prior to signature on the Final Plat, applicant shall provide one (1) full-size copy and one (1) electronic copy of the landscape plan and associated landscape plan details to the Planning Division. 6. Stormwater detention facilities shall be designed and installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 46 of 153 Page 11 7. Homes constructed in this phase shall comply with the elevations included in the Development Agreement (Inst. 2019-000376) and shall have minimum 1-foot wide fire rated eaves on all four sides. 8. Structures adjacent to E. Ustick Rd. and N. Locust Grove Rd. are restricted to single-story in height as proposed by the Developer, with the exception of the following: Lots 43, 50, 53, 61, 64 and 69, Block 1. Home along the southern boundary of the development shall also be limited to a single-story in height (i.e. Lots 71-78, Block 1). 9. The rear and/or sides of 2-story homes constructed on lots abutting N. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. 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 that are visible from the adjacent public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 10. A Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to submittal of building permit applications for all single -family attached structures on the site. All attached structures shall comply with the standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM) and the conditions in this report. 11. The Developer shall record CC&R’s that require the HOA to be responsible for landscape maintenance of each of the lots within the subdivision; a copy shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. 12. An underground pressurized irrigation (PI) system shall be provided to each lot in the subdivision in accord with UDC 11-3A-15. 13. A storm drainage system is required for the development in accord with the UDC 11-3A- 18. 14. Prior to the issuance of any new building permit, the property shall be subdivided in accordance with the UDC. 15. Provide traffic calming near the intersection of E. Ringneck St. and N. Chianti Ave. to slow traffic where the micro-path is proposed; depict on the improvement plans. 16. Side yard fences that follow the side yard property line shall only be allowed whe re the side setback is 5 feet or greater per UDC 11-3A-7C.5. 17. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveways shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment; a copy of said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. 18. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide a letter from the United States Postal Service stating that the applicant has received approval for the location of mailboxes. Contact the Meridian Postmaster Sue Prescott at 887-1620 for more information. 19. Address signage shall be provided at the public street for the homes accessed via the common driveway for emergency wayfinding purposes. 20. Removal of all existing structures on the site shall take place prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 47 of 153 Page 12 21. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat and/or development agreement does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. Public Works - General Conditions: General Conditions: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non- health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 48 of 153 Page 13 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 19. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20- feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at (208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 49 of 153 Page 14 used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 50 of 153 EIDIAN+t- I DAHJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2019 Planning and Zoning Public Hearings Staff Outline and Presentation Meetina Notes: Changes to Agenda: None Item #6A: Creason Creek Sub. 2 - MFP (H-2019-0139) Application(s): ➢ Final plat modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site is located on the east side of N. Linder Rd. just south of W. Ustick Rd. History: The final plat for this project was approved in 2018. Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to expand the subdivision boundary of Phase 2 to include additional land area planned for development in Phase 3 as shown on the approved (but not yet recorded) final plat and th e proposed modified final plat. The common area where a dog park was previously planned on Lot 1, Block 1, Creason Creek Sub. 1 is proposed to be relocated to Lot 13 and portions of Lots 14 & 15, Block 1 (as shown on the preliminary plat). These 3 lots were previously planned as buildable lots. The Applicant plans to re-subdivide Lot 1, Block 1 in the first phase of Creason Creek Subdivision in the future into two (2) buildable lots accessible via N.W. 13th Ave. The common area of Lot 1, Block 1, Creason Creek Sub. 1 consists of 16,183 square feet (s.f.); the proposed common area consists of 16,268 s.f. for an increase from that originally proposed. The proposed common area will have access via a pedestrian bridge over the Creason Lateral from a pathway on the north side of the lateral and will be fenced with a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence; landscaping is proposed within the common area in accord with UDC standards. The Applicant feels the proposed change will provide better access and use of the area. Written Testimony: Bob Unger, Applicant’s Representative (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0139, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0139, as presented during the hearing on January 21, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0139 to the hearing date of ___________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #6B: Oaks North Sub. #4 (H-2019-0136) Application(s): ➢ Final Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 12.03 acres of land, zoned R-4 & R-8, located at 6060 W. McMillan Rd., north of W. McMillan Rd., east of N. McDermott Rd. History: This property was annexed w/a DA and received preliminary plat approval in 2013. Summary of Request: A final plat is proposed consisting of 35 buildable lots & 8 common lots on 12.03 acres of land in the R-4 & R-8 zoning districts. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for consistency with the approved preliminary plat and found there to be a slight reconfiguration of buildable & common lots and the addition of a public street to the north in the area where a common lot with a pedestrian pathway was previously shown. These changes result in the same number of buildable lots & a slight decrease in common area due to removal of the common lot with the pathway. Because the addition of the street was necessary to comply with block length standards and pedestrian connectivity to the north is still provided with the sidewalk along the street, Staff finds the proposed final plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. Written Testimony: Becky McKay, Applicant’s Representative (in agreement with staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval per the conditions in the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0136, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0136, as presented during the hearing on January 21, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0136 to the hearing date of _________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #6C: Three Corners Ranch (H-2019-0141) Application(s): ➢ Final Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 31.06 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct., east of N. Locust Grove Rd. & south of E. Chinden Blvd. History: This property was annexed earlier this year with the requirement of a DA and a preliminary plat was approved. Summary of Request: A final plat is proposed consisting of 44 buildable lots & 7 common lots on 31.06 acres of land. Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat and found there to be (1) fewer buildable lot and the same amount of common open space as shown on the preliminary plat. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Josh Beach, Applicant’s Representative (in agreement w/staff report) Commission Recommendation: Approval per the conditions in the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff & applicant testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0141, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff & applicant testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0141, as presented during the hearing on January 21, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0141 to the hearing date of _________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #6D: Verado Sub. 4 - FP (H-2019-0132) Application(s): ➢ Final Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.09 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at 3090 N. Locust Grove Rd. at the SEC of N. Locust Grove Rd. & E. Ustick Rd. History: This property was annexed with the requirement of a DA in 2016; and a preliminary plat was approved. Summary of Request: A final plat is proposed consisting of 74 buildable lots & 9 common lots on 9.09 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district. This is actually the 2nd phase of development of the Verado West preliminary plat but is being phased in with the original Verado development to the east. Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the preliminary plat and found there to be the same number of buildable lots & the same amount of common open space as depicted on the approved preliminary plat. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed final plat is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plat as required. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Laren Bailey, Applicant’s Representative (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff & applicant testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0132, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff & applicant testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0132, as presented during the hearing on January 21, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0132 to the hearing date of __________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #6E: Bach Storage (H-2019-0121) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of a total of 1.92 acres of land between two parcels – the northern parcel is zoned C-C and the southern parcel is zoned RUT in Ada County; the site is located on the east side of N. Eagle Rd., just north of E. River Valley St. at 2480 & 2500 N. Eagle Rd. History: The C-C zoned property was annexed in 2008 with the multi-family development to the east (Regency at River Valley); a DA was required as a provision of annexation. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R (mixed use – regional) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests annexation of one (1) acre of land with a C-C zoning district consistent with the MU-R FLUM designation; and a Conditional Use Permit for a self-service storage facility on 1.92 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. A site plan was submitted that demonstrates how the site is proposed to develop with a self-service storage facility consisting of approximately 600 climate-controlled storage units in a 3-story 100,000 s.f. structure & 25 traditional storage units in two (2) separate single-story structures containing a total of 8,400 s.f. to the north & south of the climate-controlled building. A revised site & landscape plan was submitted that reflects removal of a pedestrian connection between the residential development to the east and this property. Access is proposed via a north/south backage road along the east boundary of the site for access via E. River Valley St., a collector street to the south. A cross-access easement is required to be provided to the properties to the north & south for access via the backage road to River Valley. A temporary access via Eagle Rd./SH-55 exists on the Great Wall property to the north that is required to be removed once access is available via River Valley St., which will occur with development of this site. A secondary emergency access is required with the proposed development per the specific use standards for the use; none is proposed (except for that on the Great Wall property that is required to be removed). Because this property is in a Mixed Use designated area and located adjacent to a major transportation corridor and arterial intersections, interconnectivity between uses and integration of uses is paramount. Therefore, the Commission recommends the Applicant continue to work with the property owners to the east on a cross-access easement/driveway for interconnectivity between uses which would also serve as an emergency access for the storage facility via N. Records Ave. and provide a direct route to the commercial uses from the adjacent residential development without having to go around via the c ollector street (River Valley); the subject property and the property to the east are partially under the same ownership (Greg Rindlisbacher, the Applicant/Owner, is the Registered Agent of RAMI LLC, Bach Homes and The Regency at River Valley LLC, although the Applicant states there is also another owner in the apartment development). If a driveway connection is provided on the property to the east it would necessitate removal of 3 parking spaces & extension of a driveway across the existing buffer. At some point in the future, access may be available via the backage road from the north once the property north of the Great Wall restaurant redevelops and a bridge is constructed over the Finch Lateral but at this time no other access exists. A 35’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along Eagle Rd./SH-55 with a 10’ wide multi-use pathway & pedestrian lighting. A 25’ wide landscape buffer is required along the east boundary of this site as a buffer to the existing residential development. The Applicant requests Council approval of a reduced buffer width to 10’ as there is an existing 15’ wide buffer along this boundary on the residential property, which combined with the 10’ buffer will total 25’. A west side conceptual building perspective was submitted with this application which depicts building materials consisting of 2 different colors of EIFS with an accent color on the cornices, glazing, and metal canopies over the windows on the single-story structures. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Nick Mason, Applicant’s Representative ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Nick Mason, Applicant’s Representative (not in agreement w/Staff’s recommendation for a vehicular & pedestrian access between the adjacent residential development & the subject property) v. Key Issue(s) of Public Testimony: None Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The provision of vehicular and pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent multi-family residential development to the east; ii. Secondary emergency access to the site if the existing temporary access on the Great Wall property via Eagle Rd. is removed as required; iii. Preference for the existing temporary access approved through VAR-08-004 to the Great Wall property to remain (for better business access and for emergency access as required for the storage facility), until such time as the backage road is extended to the north of Great Wall since the Applicant doesn’t feel a cross - access easement/driveway from the multi-family development to the east is feasible; iv. Encouragement to the Applicant to continue to work with the owners of the multi-family development to the east on a cross-access easement/driveway connection between the properties, possibly a gated access only accessible by residents to restrict cut-through traffic. v. Concern pertaining to the impact the proposed 3-story storage facility will have on the resident’s views in the adjacent 4-story apartments and desire for Staff to do a very thorough design review on the structure for architectural appeal and compatibility with the adjacent residential development. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. The Commission offers their support to Council of the Applicant’s request for a reduced buffer width to residential uses from 25 to 10 feet along the east boundary of the site; ii. The Commission recommends the inclusion of a requirement for strict design review of all four sides of the proposed structures to ensure compatibility in appearance with the adjacent apartment complex to the east (see DA provision A.1c in Section VIII); iii. The Commission changed Staff’s recommended condition requiring the construction of a vehicular & pedestrian connection to the residential development to the east for interconnectivity to a recommendation for the Applicant to continue to work with the property owners to the east on a cross-access easement/driveway for interconnectivity between uses which would also serve as an emergency access for the storage facility (see condition #A.2k in Section VIII). iv. The Commission recommends the existing temporary access via Eagle Rd. on the adjacent (Great Wall) property to the north remains until such time as the backage road is extended to the north of the Great Wall property. (Note: Because the adjacent property isn’t the subject of this application, this isn’t a formal recommendation the Council should act on.) Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The Applicant requests City Council’s consideration and approval of a reduced buffer width to residential uses along the east boundary of the site from 25 to 10 feet, which added to the existing 15-foot wide buffer on the adjacent property would total 25’. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0121, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of Jan. 21, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0121, as presented during the hearing on Jan. 21, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0121 to the hearing date of ___________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #6F: Goddard Creek Townhomes (H-2019-0068) Application(s): ➢ Development Agreement Modification ➢ Rezone ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ Private street and Alternative Compliance (does not require action from the Commission/Council – Director decision) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.62 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at the NWC of W. McMillan Rd. & N. Goddard Creek Way. History: This property was part of the Lochsa Falls development approved in 2002 and received annexation w/a DA, CUP/PD and preliminary plat approval; the PD allowed office uses as a land use exception in the R-4 district. In 2017, a map amendment was approved from Office & HDR to MU-C and the property was included as a lot in Goddard Creek Sub. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C Summary of Request: A modification to the existing DA is requested to allow the development of SFR attached homes & townhomes to develop on the property instead of the previously approved office uses consistent with the map amendment to MU-C; and to exclude the subject property from the terms of the existing DA and enter into a new one that just governs development of this site and not the larger Lochsa Falls development. A rezone of 5.03 acres of land is requested from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. The proposed development plan consists of a mix of SFR housing types (attached & townhomes), which along with the multi-family to the north, the SFR detached homes in the vicinity, and the storage facility planned to the west, provides a mix of uses and residential housing options in the area consistent with that desired in the MU-C designation. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 41 building lots & 8 common lots on 4.62 acres of land in the proposed R-15 district; a revised plat was submitted today as shown in response to previous concerns. Access is proposed via a private street, W. Apgar Creek Ln., via N. Goddard Creek Way, a collector street; direct access via McMillan Rd. is prohibited. Private streets (24’ wide) & common driveways are proposed for internal access within the development. Although private streets are not typically intended for single-family developments, because the development is proposing a common mew through the site design & access via McMillan in restricted, Staff is of the opinion the private streets are appropriate. Because on-street parking is not allowed with 24’ wide street sections and parking is a concern in this area due to the existing apartment complex to the north not having adequate parking, the applicant is providing an off-street parking area w/16 spaces at the south end of the townhome units to ensure adequate parking for guests is provided within the development. Although the UDC does not require common open space & site amenities to be provided because the property is below 5 acres in size, the Applicant is proposing approximately 20% of qualified open space as shown on the open space exhibit & a tot lot, picnic shelter & dog park as amenities. Conceptual building elevations/renderings were submitted for the proposed townhome units. Because Staff recommended the front of the townhomes are oriented toward the abutting mew, the elevations submitted do not contemplate this design. All structures are required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Commission Recommendation: Denial Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Scott Noriyuki ii. In opposition: Bennett Hadden, Tami Kruger, Yori Del Rosa, Bernadette Reisbeck, Pam Fiscus, Penny Fisher, Rod and Angie Ludlow, Danner and Tina Patchell, Craig and Roxanne Patchell, Scott Gill, Lars Smith, Sayward Rowley, Chris and Connie Wilson, Chris Zimmer, Bre Forsythe, Ray Bradshaw, Mark, Allyce and Amber Mullenbach, Janie Pollman and signed petition with 46 signatures iii. Commenting: Ryan Krugar, Laurie Bower, Janie Pollman, Dan and Penny Fisher, Danner Patchell and John Bellamy iv. Written testimony: Many letters of testimony have been received (included in the public record). v. Key Issue(s) of public testimony: a. b. c. d. Saturation of high density residential in the area. Increased traffic on already congested streets. Proposed parking for the development. Preference to develop office uses as currently allowed under the development agreement. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Continuing the project because parent teacher conferences were occurring the same night as the October 24, 2019 hearing. ii. Differences between townhomes and multi-family developments. iii. Overcrowded schools in the area and the possibility of busing students to other schools. iv. Current thresholds of the roads and impacts that this development will have on them. Shifting the central open space along McMillan to the east as recommended by staff. v. Uses allowed under the Lochsa Falls planned unit development. vi. Commission’s action on the previous Goddard Creek applications; CUP denial of the apartments and CUP approval for the storage units. vii. Shifting the central open space along McMillan to the east as recommended by staff. viii. Office uses provides the third land use in conjunction with the Selway Apartments and storage facility in compliance with the MU-C land use designation. ix. Supportive of the design, open space and guest parking but wrong location. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Commission recommended denial of the townhome project in favor of office uses as allowed under the current PUD and DA. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since the Commission: Scott Noriyuki, Applicant’s Representative (in agreement w/staff report); many letters of testimony have been received (see public record) Notes: Possible Motions: Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0068, as presented during the hearing on January 21, 2020, 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-2019-0068, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21, 2020, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0068 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Proposed Final Plat Proposed Landscape Plan Approved Preliminary Plat Approved Preliminary Plat Proposed Final Plat Approved Preliminary Plat Proposed Final Plat Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Landscape Plan Recommended Cross-Access Recommended Cross-Access Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Preliminary Plat (revised) Preliminary Plat (original) �`jQ/rE IDIAN*,--IZ I DAHJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 6 E Item Title: Public Hearing for Bach Storage (H-2019-0121) By Bach Homes. Located at 2480 N. Eagle Rd and 3280 E. River Valley St. 1. Request: An Annexation of 1 acre of land with a C -C zoning district 2. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a self-service storage facility on 1.92 acres of land in the C -C zoning district. Meeting Notes: c✓ (U0- L6 I L S I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 6.E . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - Public Hearing for B ach Storage (H-2019-0121) by Bach Homes, L ocated at 2480 N. E agle Rd. and 3280 E . River Valley St. C lic k Here for Applic atio n 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 P lanning and Zoning Minutes Minutes 12/24/2019 P lanning and Zoning R ecommendations and Staf f R eport S taf f R eport 1/17/2020 RE V I E WE RS : Department R eviewer Action D ate Clerk.Weatherly, A drienne Approved 1/17/2020 - 3:34 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 51 of 153 1/21/2020 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=400 1/1 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 1/21/2020 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 6-E Project Name: Bach Storage Project No.: H-2019-0121 Active: There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2020 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 HEARING DATE: 1/21/2020 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0121 Bach Storage LOCATION: 2480 & 2500 N. Eagle Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of one (1) acre of land with a C-C zoning district; and, Conditional Use Permit for a self- service storage facility on 1.92 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1 acre (AZ); 1.92 acres (CUP) Future Land Use Designation MU-R (Mixed Use – Regional) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Self-service storage facility Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 8/6/2019; no attendees History (previous approvals) AZ-08-004 (Ord. 08-1392, DA #108131099 – Regency at River Valley) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 70 of 153 Page 2 Description Details Page  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Idaho Transportation Department No comments received Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Access via E. River Valley St., a commercial collector street, via a backage road along east boundary of site Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Access via E. River Valley St, commercial collector, from the south via a cross-access easement/backage road Existing Road Network None Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers There are no existing sidewalk/pathways on this site along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service See Section VIII.C Police Service No comments received Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0-Feet   Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunk Shed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See Application  WRRF Declining Balance 13.79  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes  Sewer Review Comments As designed, the northern building encroaches within the existing sewer easement. Water  Distance to Water Services 0-feet  Pressure Zone 3  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See Application  Water Quality Concerns None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns As designed, the northern building encroaches within the existing sewer/water easement. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 71 of 153 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Bach Homes – 11650 South State St., #300, Draper, UT 84020 B. Owner: Rami, LLC – 11650 South State St., #300, Draper, UT 84020 C. Representative: Nick Mason, Bach Homes – 11650 South State St., #300, Draper, UT 84020 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 72 of 153 Page 4 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper notification published 11/19/2019 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 11/26/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 12/6/2019 Nextdoor posting 11/26/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): MU-R (Mixed Use – Regional) – The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional 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. In general, the purpose of mixed use designations is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses within a close geographic area that allows for easily accessible services for residents and the workers. Uses may be mixed vertically or horizontally and should have interconnected vehicular and pedestrian networks. These areas are typically infill in nature or situated in a highly visible or transitioning area where innovative and flexible designs are encouraged. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas: • Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre. Not Applicable (NA) • 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. NA (a multi- family development abuts this site to the east) • A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed use area should be included in the application. The entire property is shown on the proposed site plan. • 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. NA • 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 a landscape buffer with a fence as a buffer and screening to the adjacent multi-family development to the east. • A mixed use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. Due to the small size of this infill site (i.e. less than 2 acres), only a single use is proposed; however, it does contribute toward the mix of uses already developed in this area (i.e. multi-family and commercial). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 73 of 153 Page 5 • Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed use developments. Although not a public use/facility, the proposed use will provide a needed service for residents in close proximity to this site. • 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. No public and/or quasi-public spaces or places are proposed. • All mixed use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians. No connectivity (vehicular or pedestrian) is proposed to the multi-family development to the east; Staff recommends a driveway connection with a pedestrian walkway is provided between the properties for interconnectivity. • Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code. NA (no public streets are proposed) • Because of the existing small lots within Old Town, development is not subject to the Mixed Use standards listed herein. NA The following items will be considered in MU-R areas: • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed Use areas. The proposed development generally complies with the applicable mixed use guidelines. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area at densities ranging from six to 40 units/acre. No residential uses are proposed on this site but do exist directly to the east at a density of approximately 20 units per acre. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area. No retail uses are proposed with this development but many such uses exist to the south (i.e. Mattress Firm and The Village at Meridian). • There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development:  “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.” (3.05.01J) The proposed storage facility will contribute to the variety of uses in this area.  “Encourage infill development.” (3.04.02B) Annexation and development of the subject infill property will provide more efficient provision of public services.  “Develop pathways to connect Meridian with Boise, Nampa, Kuna and Eagle.” (6.01.02C) A multi-use pathway is required within the street buffer along Eagle Rd./SH-55, which will connect to existing segments of the pathway to the north and south of this site.  “Consider needed sidewalk, pathway, landscaping, and lighting improvements with all land- use decisions along SH-55.” (3.03.02Q) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 74 of 153 Page 6 A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway, pedestrian lighting and landscaping is required to be installed within the street buffer along Eagle Rd./SH-55 with development as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4C.  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use developments on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F) Because the proposed use will almost entirely be accessed from internally within the structure, abutting properties should experience little adverse effects from noise; therefore, the proposed use should be compatible with existing residential uses.  “Require screening and landscape buffers on all development requests that are more intense than adjacent residential properties.” (3.06.01G) The site design of the proposed development with a 25-foot wide landscape buffer and closed vision fence for screening will be compatible with the adjacent residential development to the east.  “Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial and commercial development adjacent to residential areas.” (3.06.01B) The proposed use should result in little to no noise, odor, air or visual pollution since the majority of the storage units will be access internally and the site is screened from view of the public street.  “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) Urban services are available and can be provided to this property with development. A. Annexation & Zoning The proposed annexation of the southern one (1) acre parcel of land with C-C zoning is consistent with the zoning on the northern portion of the site and with the MU-R FLUM designation for this site. The development of the subject infill property as a storage facility will contribute toward the mix of uses already developed in this area, is in close proximity to the multi-family development to the east and will provide a much needed service to those residents, is located along a major arterial street close to major arterial intersections, and should be compatible with adjacent uses – all desired elements in mixed use designated areas such as this. The annexation area is an enclave surrounded by properties that have been previously annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary (AOCI). 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; additionally, Staff recommends the northern portion of the development area currently included in the DA for the Regency at River Valley property to the east, is no longer held to the terms of that agreement and is included in the DA recommended for this site. The Applicant should submit a legal description for the entire boundary of the site subject to the new DA. B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or site improvements on this site; however, there is an existing 20-foot wide sewer easement and 8-inch sewer main that lies under the proposed north Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 75 of 153 Page 7 building that is required to be relocated or the design of the site reconfigured so that the structure(s) does not encroach within the easement(s). C. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed self-service storage facility will consist of approximately 600 climate-controlled storage units (although the design/size of the units is not yet finalized so the number of units could increase) in a 3-story 100,000 square foot (s.f.) structure and 25 traditional storage units in two (2) separate single-story structures containing a total of 8,400 s.f. to the north and south of the climate-controlled building. A self-service storage facility is listed as a conditional use in the C-C zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-2 and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34, Storage Facility, Self-Service and the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-16, Self-Service Uses (see standards below). D. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): UDC 11-4-3-34, Storage Facility, Self-Service: A. Storage units and/or areas shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a self-service storage facility is specifically prohibited. B. On site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with chapter 3, article E, "Temporary Use Requirements", of this title. C. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty five feet (25'). Complies D. The storage facility shall be completely fenced, walled, or enclosed and screened from public view. Where abutting a residential district or public road, chainlink shall not be allowed as fencing material. Complies; a 6’ tall masonry screen wall is proposed to screen the facility from public view along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 where the drive aisles are located between structures and a 6’ tall vinyl fence exists along the east side of this site adjacent to the residential district. E. If abutting a residential district, the facility hours of public operation shall be limited to six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. The project abuts a residential district on the east boundary of the site. The proposed hours of operation are Monday thru Sunday 6:00 am to 11:00 pm and will be restricted to such. F. A minimum twenty five foot (25') wide landscape buffer shall be provided where the facility abuts a residential use, unless a greater buffer width is otherwise required by this title. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-9C of this title. A 10- foot wide landscape buffer is proposed on this site; City Council approval of a modified buffer width is needed as set forth in UDC 11-3B-9C.2. The applicant proposes the existing 15-foot wide wide buffer on the adjacent residential property to the east, resulting in a 25- foot wide buffer between uses, to count toward the buffer requirement. Staff is amenable to this request as it meets the intent of the requirement; however, Council approval is needed. Additional landscaping should be added within the buffer to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C, which require a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative ground cover that results in a barrier that allows trees to touch at the time of maturity. A 6’ tall vinyl fence also exists along the east boundary of this site which will provide added screening of the site. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 76 of 153 Page 8 G. If the use is unattended, the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-16, "Self-Service Uses", also apply, as follows: Any unattended, self-service uses, including, but not limited to, laundromats, automatic teller machines (ATMs), vehicle washing facilities, fuel sales facilities, and storage facilities, shall comply with the following requirements. The Meridian Police Chief or designee may approve alternative standards where it is determined that a similar or greater level of security is provided. A. Entrance or view of the self-service facility shall be open to the public street or to adjoining businesses and shall have low impact security lighting. The entrance to the facility will be open from the east side from the north/south backage road; the site is screened on the west side adjacent to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 as required by UDC 11-4-3-34D. Low impact security lighting should be provided. B. Financial transaction areas shall be oriented to and visible from an area that receives a high volume of traffic, such as a collector or arterial street. Not applicable – financial transactions will be handled inside the building in the office. C. Landscape shrubbery shall be limited to no more than three feet (3') in height between entrances and financial transaction areas and the public street. Not applicable – financial transactions will be handled inside the building in the office. H. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes. A cross-access easement is depicted on the site plan across the property to the north (Great Wall) for access via Eagle Rd./SH-55; however, that access was only approved on a temporary basis and is required to be removed and the street buffer extended upon completion of the backage road for access via E. River Valley Street (VAR-08-004). A viable secondary access is required either from the north or east through the multi-family development. I. All outdoor storage of material shall be maintained in an orderly manner so as not to create a public nuisance. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. Stored items shall not block sidewalks or parking areas and may not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Not applicable – no outdoor storage is proposed. J. The site shall not be used as a "vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. K. For any use requiring the storage of fuel or hazardous material, the use shall be located a minimum of one thousand feet (1,000') from a hospital. Not applicable – no storage of fuel or hazardous material is proposed. E. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development is required to comply with the dimensional standards for the C-C district listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3. F. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via a backage road along the east boundary of the site from E. River Valley Street, a commercial collector street to the south; cross-access easements exist to this property from the abutting properties to the north and south. Direct access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 is prohibited per the existing Development Agreement. A secondary emergency access is required to be provided per UDC 11-4-3-34H as discussed above. For access via E. River Valley Street to the Great Wall property and interconnectivity between the parcels fronting Eagle Rd./SH-55 in this area, Staff recommends a cross-access easement is granted to the properties to the north and south for use of the backage road. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 77 of 153 Page 9 Further, for interconnectivity between the abutting residential development to the east and the subject property and adjacent commercial properties fronting Eagle Rd./SH-55 as desired in mixed use designated areas, Staff recommends a vehicular and pedestrian connection is provided at the east boundary of the site in the location where 3 parking stalls current exist between two garage structures on the residential property. This will allow direct access to the storage facility for adjacent residents using the facility and access to other commercial uses, without having to go around via the collector street (i.e. River Valley St.). Note: The property owner to the north of the Great Wall property and the Finch Lateral at 2600 N. Eagle Rd. is working with ITD on a possible access via Eagle Rd./SH-55 and extension of the backage road across the lateral. If the backage road is extended across the lateral, secondary access could be provided from the north. However, because this is a mixed use designated area, vehicular and pedestrian access should still be provided between the abutting residential development and the subject property for ease of access between uses and interconnectivity. G. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B.1, which requires parking based on the gross floor area of the office space only (1 space per 500 square feet). The office is proposed to consist of approximately 1,200 s.f., which requires a minimum of two (2) parking spaces; a total of five (5) spaces are proposed in excess of the minimum standard. A minimum of one (1) bicycle parking space is required for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces; based on five (5) vehicle spaces, a minimum of one (1) bicycle space is required per the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. H. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within a public use easement and pedestrian lighting is required along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4C.3; details should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with these standards (i.e. type of post and luminaire, spacing, light source, etc.). There is a 7-8’ gap from the subject property’s north boundary to the existing pathway on the property to the north (Great Wall); for continuity and safe pedestrian access, Staff recommends the pathway constructed on this site is extended off-site to the existing pathway with consent from the adjacent property owner. I. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required along all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17; detached sidewalks are required along arterial streets (i.e. N. Eagle Rd./SH-55). The multi-use pathway required in UDC 11-3H-4C discussed above will meet the sidewalk requirement and should be detached with a minimum of 5 feet of landscaping on the street side of the pathway. J. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscaping is required to be provided on the site with development as set forth in UDC 11-3B. A minimum 35-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, an entryway corridor, per UDC Table 11-2B-3, measured from the ultimate curb location as anticipated by ITD in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.1a., and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 7C. If the unimproved right-of-way along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 is 10 feet or greater from the edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property line, the developer shall maintain a 10-foot compacted shoulder meeting the construction standards of the transportation authority and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative groundcover as set forth in UDC 11 -3B- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 78 of 153 Page 10 7C.5; depict accordingly on the landscape plan. A license agreement will be required between the property owner and the transportation authority for any landscaping improvements within the right-of-way. Perimeter landscaping is required adjacent to parking and vehicular use areas as set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C.1; the proposed landscaping complies with UDC standards. The project is exempt from the standards for internal parking lot landscaping because the parking lot has fewer than 12 spaces, per UDC 11-3B-8C.2. A 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses is required to be provided on this site along the east boundary adjacent to residential uses as discussed above per UDC 11-4-3-34F (unless otherwise modified by Council), landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. Landscape buffers are required to facilitate pedestrian access from residential development to abutting commercial district and vice versa per UDC 11-3B-9C.3; therefore, a pedestrian connection should be provided between the proposed use and the multi-family development to the east – this can be satisfied through a combined vehicular and pedestrian connection between garages 3 and 4 depicted on the site plan, which would also satisfy the requirement for a secondary emergency access to be provided to the site as required by UDC 11-4-3-34H discussed above. Landscaping is required on either side of pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C; landscaping should be depicted on the landscape plan in accord with these standards adjacent to the multi-use pathway along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 in addition to the street buffer landscaping. K. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): There are no waterways on this site. L. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): There is a 6-foot tall vinyl fence along the east boundary of this site; no new fencing is proposed. M. 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. As designed, the northern building encroaches within the existing water and sewer easement(s) that serves the multi-family development to the east. This easement(s) and associated water and sewer mains should be relocated; or, the design of the site should be reconfigured so that structures do not encroach within the easement(s). See Section VIII-B below for Public Works comments/conditions. N. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): A west side conceptual building perspective was submitted with this application as shown in Section VII.D. Building materials consist of 2 different colors EIFS with an accent color on the cornices, glazing, and metal canopies over the windows on the single-story structures. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 79 of 153 Page 11 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation and zoning and conditional use permit with the comments and conditions listed in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on December 19, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and CUP requests to City Council. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Nick Mason, Applicant’s Representative b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: Nick Mason, Applicant’s Representative (not in agreement with Staff’s recommendation for a vehicular & pedestrian access between the adjacent residential development & the subject property) e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. The provision of vehicular and pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent multi-family residential development to the east; b. Secondary emergency access to the site if the existing temporary access on the Great Wall property via Eagle Rd. is removed as required; c. Preference for the existing temporary access approved through VAR-08-004 to the Great Wall property to remain (for better business access and for emergency access as required for the storage facility), until such time as the backage road is extended to the north of Great Wall since the Applicant doesn’t feel a cross-access easement/driveway from the multi-family development to the east is feasible; d. Encouragement to the Applicant to continue to work with the owners of the multi-family development to the east on a cross-access easement/driveway connection between the properties, possibly a gated access only accessible by residents to restrict cut-through traffic. e. Concern pertaining to the impact the proposed 3-story storage facility will have on the resident’s views in the adjacent 4-story apartments and desire for Staff to do a very thorough design review on the structure for architectural appeal and compatibility with the adjacent residential development. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. The Commission offers their support to Council of the Applicant’s request for a reduced buffer width to residential uses from 25 to 10 feet along the east boundary of the site; b. The Commission recommends the inclusion of a requirement for strict design review of all four sides of the proposed structures to ensure compatibility in appearance with the adjacent apartment complex to the east (see DA provision A.1c in Section VIII); c. The Commission recommends inclusion of a requirement for the Applicant to continue to work with the property owners to the east on a cross-access easement/driveway for interconnectivity between uses which would also serve as an emergency access for the storage facility (see condition #A.2k in Section VIII). d. The Commission recommends the existing temporary access via Eagle Rd. on the adjacent (Great Wall) property to the north remains until such time as the backage road is extended to the north of the Great Wall property. (Note: Because the adjacent Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 80 of 153 Page 12 property isn’t the subject of this application, this isn’t a formal recommendation the Council should act on.) 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant requests City Council’s consideration and approval of a reduced buffer width to residential uses along the east boundary of the site from 25 to 10 feet, which added to the existing 15-foot wide buffer on the adjacent property would total 25 feet. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 81 of 153 Page 13 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 82 of 153 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 83 of 153 Page 15 B. Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 84 of 153 Page 16 C. Landscape Plan D. Building Elevation Perspective Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 85 of 153 Page 17 E. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Property Subject to Development Agreement Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 86 of 153 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 87 of 153 Page 19 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Annexation & Zoning Comments: 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. Development of the northern portion of the site (Parcel #S1104233970) shall no longer be subject to the terms of the Development Agreement for the Regency at River Valley project recorded as Instrument No. 108131099. b. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the site plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. c. Future development shall comply with the structure and site design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Strict design review of all four sides of the proposed structures to ensure compatibility in appearance with the adjacent apartment complex to the east is required. d. Direct access to the site via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 is prohibited. Prior to the City Council hearing, the Applicant shall submit a legal description & exhibit map for the entire boundary of the site subject to the new DA. Conditional Use Permit Conditions: 2. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses along the east boundary of the site as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and 11-4-3-34F unless such width is modified by City Council. A reduction in the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required (i.e. 25’). The Applicant requests approval of reduced buffer width to 10 feet, which combined with the existing 15-foot wide buffer on the adjacent property to the east will total 25 feet. b. Depict additional landscaping within the buffer along the east boundary of the site adjacent to residential uses to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C, which require a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative ground cover that results in a barrier that allows trees to touch at the time of maturity. c. Include the required vs. provided number of trees within the street buffer and along the multi-use pathway adjacent to Eagle Rd., the width of the street buffer and the street Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 88 of 153 Page 20 frontage calculation in the calculations table on the landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3,11-3B-7C and 11-3B-12C. d. Depict a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 measured from the ultimate curb location as anticipated by ITD in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.1a. e. If the unimproved right-of-way along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 is 10 feet or greater from the edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property line, the developer shall maintain a 10- foot compacted shoulder meeting the construction standards of the transportation authority and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative groundcover as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.5; depict accordingly on the plan. A license agreement will be required between the property owner and the transportation authority for any landscaping improvements within the right-of-way. f. Depict landscaping on either side of pathway along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C in addition to the required street buffer landscaping. g. Depict low impact security lighting on the plans in accord with UDC 11-3A-16A and 11- 4-3-34D. h. Depict bicycle parking as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G per the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. i. Depict a secondary emergency access to the site as required by UDC 11-4-3-34H. Note: The existing temporary access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 on the Great Wall property to the north does not qualify as it’s required to be removed once the backage road is constructed. j. There is a 7-8’ gap from the subject property’s north boundary to the existing pathway on the property to the north (Great Wall); for continuity and safe pedestrian access, the pathway constructed on this site shall extend off-site to the existing pathway with the adjacent property owner’s consent. k. Construct a vehicular and pedestrian connection to the residential development to the east for interconnectivity. This access will satisfy the secondary emergency access requirement noted above. Although not a requirement, the Applicant should continue to work with the property owners to the east on a cross-access easement/driveway for interconnectivity between uses which would also serve as an emergency access for the storage facility, which is a requirement for the use. 3. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within a public use easement and pedestrian lighting is required as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4C.3; details should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with these standards (i.e. type of post and luminaire, spacing, light source, etc.). 4. The subject property shall be addressed from E. River Valley Street. 5. The facility shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34, Storage Facility, Self-Service, included but not limited to the following: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 89 of 153 Page 21 1. Storage units and/or areas shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a self- service storage facility is specifically prohibited. 2. On site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with chapter 3, article E, "Temporary Use Requirements", of this title. 3. The hours of public operation of the storage facility shall be limited to six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-34E. 6. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within a 14-foot wide public use easement and pedestrian lighting is required as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4C.3; details should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with these standards (i.e. type of post and luminaire, spacing, light source, etc.). Landscaping is required on either side of the pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-12C. 7. A cross-access easement shall be recorded granting access to the properties to the north (#S1104233802), south (#R7476320020 and R7476320010) and east (#R0748300100) via the backage road proposed along the east boundary of this site; a recorded copy of the easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the site. 8. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation for the multi-use pathway along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. B. Public Works Department Site Specific Conditions: 1. The existing water and sewer easement(s) (Inst. #111092020, recorded on 11/10/11) and associated mains that serve the multi-family development to the east (located where the northern structure is proposed) shall be relocated; or, the design of the site shall be reconfigured so that the structure(s) does not encroach within the easement(s). General Conditions: 2. 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. 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 90 of 153 Page 22 document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being developed shall be tiled 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, and at a minimum, a compacted gravel road base shall be in place prior to applying for building permits. 8. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 91 of 153 Page 23 Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. Fire Department 1. Fire Flow: Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with International Fire Code Appendix B to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix C. 2. Water Supply: Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department or their designee in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have a Storz LDH connection in place of the 4 ½” outlet. The Storz connection may be integrated into the hydrant or an approved adapter may be used on the 4 1/2" outlet. b. Fire hydrants shall have the Storz outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. c. Fire hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. d. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. e. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the Storz outlet. f. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the Meridian Water Dept. Standards. g. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3. Water Supply: There shall be a fire hydrant within 100’ of all fire department connections as set forth in local amendment to the International Fire Code 10-4-1. Over 100 apartment units without an approved sprinkler system or over 200 apartment units with an approved sprinkler system will require a secondary access per International Fire Code Section D104.3. The access roads shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line as set forth in International Fire Code Appendix D104.1. 4. Roadways: Roadways shall be 26’ in width for ladder truck access. 5. Roadways: All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 6. Roadways: Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have traffic calming devices installed without prior approval of the Fire Code Official. National Fire Protection IFC 503.4.1. 7. Access: Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all-weather surface are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4. 8. Access: Provide a Fire Department Key box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as set forth in International Fire Code Section 506. 9. Access: The Fire Department will require Fire Department locking Connection caps on all FDC inlets. IFC 102.9. Caps can be ordered at www.knoxbox.com Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 92 of 153 Page 24 IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation & Zoning 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 proposed map amendment to the C-C zoning district is consistent with the MU-R FLUM designation and the Comprehensive Plan (see Section V for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment complies with the regulations for the commercial districts in that the subsequent development of the property will provide a needed service for the community. 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 should not be significantly detrimental to the public. 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 the proposed map amendment will not adversely impact the provision of public services within the City. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of City. The Commission finds the proposed annexation with C-C zoning is in the best interest of the City. B. Conditional Use Permit The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request 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. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the C-C zoning district if a Council modification is approved to the width of the buffer to residential uses as proposed. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed use is harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan (see Section V for more information). 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 93 of 153 Page 25 The Commission finds the operation of the proposed self-service storage facility should be compatible with other uses in the vicinity and the intended character of the area and not adversely affect such if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If the proposed use complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII, the Commission finds the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 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. Because the site is within the City’s Area of City Impact boundary, the City has planned for the provision of public services to this property; therefore, the Commission finds the proposed use should be served adequately by essential public facilities and services. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons or property or affect the general welfare by any of the means listed. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) The Commission is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance in this area; however, finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 94 of 153 EIDIAN?- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 6 F Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from December 10, 2019 for Goddard Creek Townhomes (H-2019-0068) By SI Construction. Located at the NW Corner of W. McMillan Rd. and North Goddard Creek Way. 1. Request: A Modification to the Development Agreement (Inst. #102012598) to allow the development of SFR homes (i.e. townhomes) instead of offices 2. Request: A Rezone of 5.03 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district 3. Request: A Preliminary Plat for the re -subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Goddard Creek Subdivision consisting of 4.62 acres of Land into 44 building lots and 8 common lots. Meeting Notes: 1� r I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 6.F. Presenter: S onya Allen Estimated Time for P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from December 10, 2019 for Goddard Creek Townhomes (H-2019-0068) by S I C onstruction, L ocated at the NW Corner of W. M cM illan Rd. and N. Goddard Creek Way C lic k Here for Applic atio n 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 Recommendation from P lanning and Z oning C ommission S taf f R eport 1/21/2020 Minutes from Planning and Z oning Commission Meeting C over Memo 12/6/2019 Memo R equesting C ontinuance to 1-14-20 C over Memo 12/6/2019 November 7 P lanning and Z oning C ommission Minutes C over Memo 12/10/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department R eviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 1/17/2020 - 4:10 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 95 of 153 1/21/2020 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=413 1/2 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 1/21/2020 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 6-F Project Name: Goddard Creek Townhomes Project No.: H-2019-0068 Active: Signature Name Address HOA Name HOA Represent For Neutral Against I Wish To Testify Sign In Date/Time Janie Pollmann 5030 N Goddard Creek Way Meridian ID X 1/21/2020 1:52:51 PM Angie Ludlow 2347 W Apgar Ceek Dr X 1/21/2020 5:42:41 PM Rodney Ludlow 2347 West Apgar Cr Dr X 1/21/2020 5:43:55 PM Pam fiscus 2393 w apgar creek dr Kelly Creek/Fulfer X X 1/21/2020 5:50:59 PM Noah patchell 2196 w kelly creek dr Kelly creek/fulfer X 1/21/2020 5:50:59 PM Penny Fisher 2382 W Apgar Creek Dr X X 1/21/2020 5:58:28 PM 1/21/2020 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=413 2/2 Sheryl Tolman 2695 W. McMillan Road X X 1/21/2020 6:08:15 PM Danner Patchell 2371 W Apgar Creek Dr Kelly Creek X 1/21/2020 6:15:42 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2020 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 HEARING DATE: January 21, 2020 Continued from December 10, 2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0068 Goddard Creek Townhomes LOCATION: Northwest corner of W. McMillan Rd. and N. Goddard Creek Way. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION  Modification to the recorded Development Agreement (Inst. #102012598) to allow the development of single family attached homes and townhomes instead of offices;  Rezone of 5.03 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district; and,  Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 residential building lots and 8 common lots on 4.62 in an proposed R-15 zone; and  Private street to provide access to the townhome development. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 96 of 153 Page 2 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Community Metrics Description Details Page Acreage 4.62 Future Land Use Designation MU-C Existing Land Use vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential Current Zoning R-4 Proposed Zoning R-15 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 41 SFR building/8 common Number of Residential Units (type of units) 41 (SF attached and townhome units) Density (gross & net) 9.528.87 units/acre (gross); 11.92 (net) Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 1.045 acres, 22.62% Amenities Children’s play structure, pedestrian pathways, covered picnic and barbeque area, passive open space and dog park Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: February 7, 2019; 10 attendees History (previous approvals) This property was granted annexation, preliminary plat, and a conditional use permit as part of the Lochsa Falls Subdivision in 2002 (AZ-02-010, PP-02-009, CUP 02-012) and has a development agreement (Instrument #103012598). These approvals granted office uses in the R-4 district. In 2017, the property received CPAM approval from Office and High Density Residential to Mixed-use Community. A PP and FP were also approved. A concurrent RZ, CUP and MDA was proposed to develop the property with 76 multi-family units however, that request was withdrawn. A PP and FP were also approved (H-2017-0007 and H-2018-0014) to develop the self-storage protion of the development. Written Testimony Written response from 9 residents in opposition of the project (see public record). Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Willow Creek Elementary: +/- 1 miles Sawtooth Middle School: +/- 1.2 miles Rocky Mountain High School: +/- 1.1 miles Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 97 of 153 Page 3  Capacity of Schools Willow Creek Elementary: 650 students Sawtooth Middle School: 1000 students Rocky Mountain High School: 1800 students  # of Students Enrolled Willow Creek Elementary: 685 students Sawtooth Middle School: 1043 students Rocky Mountain High School: 2485 students  Anticipated school aged children generated by this development The project is anticipated to add 35 students. Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0  Sewer Shed White Drain Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s 41  WRRF Declining Balance 13.69  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facili ty Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns None Water  Distance to Water Services 0  Pressure Zone 2  Estimated Project Water ERU’s 41  Water Quality Concerns Yes – The current plan results in two 330 LF dead ends which is a concern for water quality. This concern can be mitigated by looping the water mains together at the north edge of the site and connecting to existing water main in W Apgar Creek Ln.  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns Applicant to extend and connect proposed water on the east side of the site to the existing water in W Apgar Creek Ln to provide redundant connection. Also, loop proposed water mains at the north edge of the site. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 98 of 153 Page 4 Applicant to eliminate water mains in shared drives, replace with water services. Connect water to the north. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 99 of 153 Page 5 B. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Gibson Family Revocable Living Trust PO Box 88 Notus, ID 83656 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 100 of 153 Page 6 B. Representative: Scott Noriyuki, Northside Management 6810 Fairhill Pl. Boise, ID 83714 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 9/13/2019 1/3/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 9/17/2019 12/31/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 10/14/2019 1/10/2020 Nextdoor posting 9/17/2019 12/31/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is designated MU-C on the future land use map. The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving 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 Mixed Use - Neighborhood areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional 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 three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. When the FLUM was changed in 2017, staff had analyzed the viability of three different land uses on the subject property. At the time, of the FLUM change, the plan consisted of multi-family and a self- service storage facility. In determining the appropriateness of the land use change staff determined that other commercial and office uses approved next to the storage and multi-family development would serve as the third land use type to support the requested FLUM change. Prior to City Council’s action on the previous development, the applicant of the multi-family project withdrew their CUP application. Therefore, the subject 4.62 acre parcel is still governed by the original development agreement which allows office to develop on the property. The applicant now desires to develop the site with 41 single family attached and townhome units. Staff has evaluated the existing land uses and zoning in the area to determine if this stand-alone residential project is attainable. This area is primarily developed with single-family homes with the exception of the apartment complex to the north. Because the applicant is proposing to provide housing diversity in the area and include useable open space and amenities as part of the development, staff believes the plan is consistent with the MU-C designation. The project also falls within the target density of 6 and 15 dwelling units per acre; as proposed gross density is 8.87 dwelling units to the acre. DESIGN: The design of structures on this site is required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. The development should incorporate high quality architectural design and materials consistent with the MU-C designation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 101 of 153 Page 7 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):  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) The proposed development will contribute to the variety of residential categories that currently exist in this area (i.e. low and medium density). Staff is unaware of how “affordable” the units will be.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) Because of its location in close proximity to nearby shopping centers (the corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road), and major transportation corridors, this property is  “Require common area in all subdivisions.” (3.07.02F) The subject property is under 5 acres in size and the UDC does not require that the applicant provide common open space. To ensure the project is compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods, the applicant is proposing to provide 24 percent common open space for the development and include three amenities as follows: tot lot, covered picnic area and dog park.  “Amend the Unified Development Code and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to ensure a wide variety of housing types can be developed and properly zoned and land is available” (3.07.01A) The area in the vicinity of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road is limited in housing options. The proposed project would promote housing diversity and provide greater opportunities for residents to live near their place of employment and shopping centers.  “Adopt land use designations that will allow for housing opportunities for all income levels.” (3.07.01D) Few of the major employment areas within the City are adequately supported with enough housing options. Density near employment centers allow for workforce housing and promote community resiliency, potentially reducing commute times and expenses, and allowing for increased community and economic engagement.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) The UDC (11-3A-3) restricts access to arterial streets when access is available from a local street. Access tto and from the development is provide along the north boundary via a private street (W. Apgar Creek Lane). Access is not proposed to McMillan Road. REZONE The applicant requests to rezone of the 5.03 acres of land from the R-4 zone to the R-15 zone consistent with the MU-C FLUM designation. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION The applicant is requesting to modify the recorded Development Agreement (Inst. #102012598) to development the site with 41 single family attached homes and townhomes instead of offices. The applicant is requesting to exclude the subject property from the boundary recorded DA and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 102 of 153 Page 8 enter a new one that governs the site. Staff’s recommended DA provisions are include in Exhibit VIII. below. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of 41 building lots and 8 common lots on 4.62 acres in a proposed R-15 zone. 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 zoning district. The proposed plat complies with these standards. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via a private street, W. Apgar Creek Lane and access via McMillan Road is prohibited. Therefore, internal private streets are proposed on Lot 34, Block 1 for internal access within the development. Private streets are not typically intended for single-family developments; however, because the development is proposed to be designed with a common mew and access is restricted to McMillan Road, staff is of the opinion the internal private street is appropriate. However, the townhome units proposed for lots 36-49 should be oriented with the front of the units on the mew. Private streets are required to comply with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. The proposed private street is 24 feet wide with 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. To ensure adequate guest parking is provided, the applicant is proposing a guest parking area along the north side of the private street across from Lots 16-20, Block 1. Additionally, the private street standards prohibit common driveways from taking access from private streets, unless approved by the director with an alternative compliance application. Alternative compliance has been requested in accord with 11-3F-4A.6, to allow the two (2) common driveways to be accessed off the private street. Because this a mew development and is a small compact, infill development, the Director approves the request for alternative compliance. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3) All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Two (2) 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 are not taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s) is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 103 of 153 Page 9 Signage should be provided at the ends of the common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes as requested by the Fire Department. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscaping is required within street buffers (11-3B-7C), and within common open space areas (11-3G-3E) in accord with UDC standards. Note: The only required landscaping for the site is the 25-foot wide landscape buffer along McMillan Road. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G-3): The UDC does not require the applicant to provide any qualifying open space because the project is less than 5 acres. However, the applicant recognizes that this is an infill development and the surrounding residential developments have ample open space. In order to complement the surrounding developments, the applicant is proposing to provide approximately 20% of qualified open space within the development; this also includes the following amenities: tot lot, covered picnic shelter and dog park. The existing utilities to serve this development are stubbed in from McMillan Road. The alignment of these utility stubs are offset from the central open lot (Lot 18). In order to facilitate, the logical expansion of City services, staff recommends that the applicant relocate this open space along the east boundary of lot 20. Further, the applicant should coordinate with the fire department to determine if the access road for the Public Works Department can be utilized as the secondary emergency access. Staff is supportive of the amenity package and qualified open space for this development. 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. Each of the units are required to comply with the parking standards set forth in UDC 11-3C-6. Because of the proposed 24-foot wide street section, on street parking is restricted. As mentioned above, the applicant is providing 16 guest parking stalls to provide additional parking for the development. Parking stalls are required to measure 9’ x 19’ in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-5. NOTE: Parking is concern in the area. The City has received multiple complaints from residents in the area because the existing apartment complex does not have adequate parking. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 104 of 153 Page 10 Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations are proposed as shown for the townhomes. The applicant has not provided elevations for the single-family attached units. As noted above, staff also recommends that the applicant orient the front of townhomes abutting the mew. The townhomes submitted with the application do not contemplate this design. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant provide three distinct elevations for the development. Prior to the Commission hearing, the applicant should provide the two additional elevations planned for the development. All structures within the development are required to comply with the residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An administrative design review application must be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications; one design review application may be submitted for the overall development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 105 of 153 Page 11 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezone, development agreement modification and preliminary plat and the Director approved the private street and alternative compliance applications per the conditions included in Section VIII. in accord with the Findings in Section IX . B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard these items on October 24, and November 7, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject RZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Scott Noriyuki b. In opposition: Bennett Hadden, Tami Kruger, Yori Del Rosa, Bernadette Reisbeck, Pam Fiscus, Penny Fisher, Rod and Angie Ludlow, Danner and Tina Patchell, Craig and Roxanne Patchell, Scott Gill, Lars Smith, Sayward Rowley, Chris and Connie Wilson, Chris Zimmer, Bre Forsythe, Ray Bradshaw, Mark, Allyce and Amber Mullenbach, Janie Pollman and signed petition with 46 signatures c. Commenting: Ryan Kruger, Laurie Bower, Janie Pollman, Dan and Penny Fisher, Danner Patchell and John Bellamy d. Written testimony: See above e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. b. c. d. Saturation of higher density residential in the area. Increased traffic on already congested streets. Proposed parking for the development. Preference to develop office uses as currently allowed under the development agreement. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Continuing the project because parent teacher conferences were occurring the same night as the October 24, 2019 hearing. Overcrowded schools in the area and the possibility of busing students to other schools. Current thresholds of the roads and impacts that this development will have on them. Shifting the central open space along McMillan to the east as recommended by staff. Differences between townhomes and multi-family developments. Uses allowed under the Lochsa Falls planned unit development. Commission’s action on the previous Goddard Creek applications; CUP denial of the apartments and CUP approval for the storage units. Office uses provides the third land use in conjunction with the Selway Apartments and storage facility in compliance with the MU-C land use designation. Supportive of the design, open space and guest parking but wrong location. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Commission recommended denial of the townhome project in favor of office uses as allowed under the current PUD. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 106 of 153 Page 12 VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 107 of 153 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 108 of 153 Page 14 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 10/15/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 109 of 153 Page 15 C. Landscape Plan (date: 10/18/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 110 of 153 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 111 of 153 Page 17 D. Rendering & Conceptual Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 112 of 153 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 113 of 153 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 114 of 153 Page 20 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Within six (6) months of Council’s approval of the findings for the rezone and prior to submittal of a final plat application, the developer shall sign and obtain Council approval of the development agreement with the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall comply with the preliminary plat, landscape plan, color rendering and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated 10/15/19 shall be revised as follows: a. The existing utilities to serve this development are stubbed in from McMillan Road. The alignment of these utility stubs are offset from the central open lot (Lot 18). In order to facilitate, the logical expansion of City services, the applicant shall relocate this open space on the east boundary of Lot 20. Further, the applicant shall coordinate with the fire department to determine if the access road for the Public Works Department can be utilized as the secondary emergency access. b. Depict zero lot lines on those lots that have shared walls. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated 10/18/19 shall be revised as follows: a. Provide the details of the site amenities with the submittal of the final plat application. b. Applicant shall relocate Lot 18 further to the east per site specific condition 2a. above. c. Applicant shall provide the common open space and amenities as proposed. d. All fencing constructed in the development shall comply with UDC 11-3A-7. 4. Private streets within the development are required to comply with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. Exception: Alternative Compliance was approved to UDC 11-3F-4A.6 to allow the common driveways off of the private street. 5. Parking is only allowed in the designated guest parking area as shown on the attached plans. The private streets shall be posted with “no parking” signs. 6. Off-street parking shall be provided for this site as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-5 and 11-3C-6. 7. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application for the lots accessed by the common driveway that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D. Driveways for abutting properties that are not 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 115 of 153 Page 21 8. Provide address signage at the street for homes on Lots 11-14 and 21-23, Block 1 accessed by the common driveway for emergency wayfinding purposes. 9. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for the common driveway, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 10. All structures within the development are required to comply with the residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An administrative design review application shall be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications; one design review application may be submitted for the overall development. 11. The front of the townhome units proposed on Lots 36-49, Block 1shall be oriented towards the mew. 12. The applicant shall provide three (3) distinct elevations for the development. Prior to the Commission hearing, the applicant shall provide the two additional elevations proposed for the development. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. As currently proposed, the water and sewer serving this project connects to existing mains in W. McMillan Road and then traverses northerly into the development. Meridian city standards requires a minimum of a 14-foot wide compacted gravel roadways over each utility within a 20-foot wide easement (30-feet for two utilities). No large trees are allowed within the easement area. Applicant should reconsider the location of Common Lot 20, Block 1 to be in alignment with the existing sewer and water mainline stubs. 2. The current plan results in two 330 LF dead ends which is a concern for water quality. This concern shall be mitigated by looping the water mains together at the north edge of the site and connecting to existing water main in W Apgar Creek Lane. Applicant to eliminate water mains in shared drives, replace with water services. General Conditions of Approval 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 116 of 153 Page 22 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 17. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 117 of 153 Page 23 18. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Work with the addressing agent to install city approved signs at the common driveways. 2. The Common driveways shall be signed "No Parking Fire Lane". 3. Fire Flow: One and two family dwellings not exceeding 3,600 square feet require a fire- flow of 1,000 gallons per minute for a duration of 1 hours to service the entire project. One and two family dwellings in excess of 3,600 square feet require a minimum fire flow as specified in Appendix B of the International Fire Code. Fire Hydrant spacing shall be provided as required by Appendix C of the International Fire Code. 4. Roadways: All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 118 of 153 Page 24 5. Roadways: Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20’ wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 80,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked “No Parking Fire Lane” per International Fire Code Sections 503.3 & D103.6. 6. Roadways: To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project which serves more than 30 homes, as set forth in International Fire Code Section D107.1. The two entrances should be separated by no less than ½ the diagonal measurement of the full development as set forth in International Fire Code Section D104.3. The applicant shall provide an additional stub street to the property. 7. Roadways: Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have traffic calming devices installed without prior approval of the Fire Code Official. National Fire Protection IFC 503.4.1. 8. Access: Secondary emergency access routes shall be protected from illegal entry by a gate or collapsible bollards as set forth in IFC 503.5. An example would be the MaxiForce Collapsible bollards that is hydrant wrench activated or an approved equal. 4. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177333/Page1.aspx 5. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177314/Page1.aspx IX. FINDINGS A. 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 proposed density and associated R-15 zoning designation is not consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to the MU-C future land use map designation for this site and supports office uses developing on the site. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission does not find that the proposed map amendment and subsequent development will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the northern portion of the City. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare with the increase traffic. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 119 of 153 Page 25 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Because this application is for a rezone, this finding is not applicable. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT (UDC 11-6B-6) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; The Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, The Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission recommends the Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Council’s attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. The Commission recommends that the Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff and Commission are unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. C. PRIVATE STREET (UDC 11-3F-4) In order to approve the application, the Director shall find the following: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 120 of 153 Page 26 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article; The design of the proposed private streets complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. See analysis in Section V for more information. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons, property, or uses in the vicinity; and Staff does not anticipate the proposed private streets would cause any hazard, nuisance or other detriment to persons, property or uses in the vicinity if they are designed as proposed and constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4B. 6. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. The location of the private streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or the regional transportation plan. Both ACHD policy and the UDC prohibits access to McMillan Road if local street access is provided. With the development of the property to the north, staff finds that local street access has been provided via a private street. 4. The proposed residential development (if applicable) is a mew or gated development. The proposed residential development includes a mew. D. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE In order to grant approval for alternative compliance, the director shall determine the following findings: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR Access to this development is provided by a private street and the UDC restricts access to McMillan Road, an arterial street. Because the property is not served by internal public streets, the Director finds strict adherence to the UDC is not feasible and approves the request for the common driveways to take access from the private streets as proposed. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the infill development proposed by the applicant as a whole provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements in that it contributes to the unique character of the area, provides open space and amenities in excess of UDC standards and provides diversity in housing types available within the City. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. The Director finds that the proposed alternative means will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended use/character of the surrounding properties and will actually contribute to the character and variety of housing types in this area of the City. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 121 of 153 December 6, 2019 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council CC: City Clerk, Bill Nary FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor RE: Goddard Creek Townhomes (H-2019-0068) December 10th, City Council Meeting Mayor and City Council, Staff has been made aware that the applicant for the Goddard Creek Townhome application failed to post notice of the public hearing on the property for the December 10, 2019, City Council hearing. Staff is requesting the Council continue the public hearing to January 14, 2020, so the applicant can post the site in accord with City Code. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 135 of 153 GOd U C�-j c/ L f � -2 0) Current Counts Designed to be viewed with a tablet or larger Filter by Street Name IGoddard Creek Way Street Name Filter b Ci Name a City Name - 4 Filter by Street Name OR City Name. Filters must be blank to display all STREETS LOCATION CITY DATE 24 HR DIRECTION AM PM COUNT PEAK PEAK ._........... ..._..... - GODDARD NORTH OF Meridian 09/17/19 3005 NB 187 84 CREEK WAY MCMILLAN RD -= SB 64 153 Approach & Total Current CountS Designed to be viewed with a tablet or larger Filter by Street Name 1mcmiilan Street Name Filter by City Name 1..,.. ............. ..........' } City Name Filter by Street Name OR City Name. Filters must be blank to display all STREETS LOCATION CITY DATE 24 HR DIRECTION AM PM COUNT PEAK PEAK MCMILLAN EAST OF TEN Meridian 01/31/18 9963 EB 452 471 RD MILE RD "= WB 390 501 Approach & Total EIDIAN,? -- � J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 7 A Item Title: Ordinance No. 20-1871 Meridian City Code Section 1-6-4 Creating Designated Positions in the Mayor's Office and Establishing a Hiring Method, Wage Determination, and Separation Benefit; Adopting a Savings Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.A . Presenter: Chris J ohnson Estimated Time for P resentation: 2 minutes Title of I tem - Ordinance No. 20-1871: An Ordinance Amending M eridian C ity C ode S ection 1- 6-4, C reating Designated P ositions in the M ayor ’s Office and E stablishing a Hiring M ethod, Wage D etermination, and Separation Benefit; Adopting a S avings C lause; and P roviding an Effective D ate Ordinance Amending MC C 1-6-4 C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Ordinance A mending MC C 1-6-4 Ordinance 1/16/2020 RE V I E WE RS : Department R eviewer Action D ate L egal.Weatherly, A drienne Approved 1/16/2020 - 4:20 P M L egal.B aird, Ted Approved 1/16/2020 - 5:22 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 151 of 153 ORDINANCE SUMMARY AMENDING MCC § 1-6-4 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20 -1871 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 1-6-4; ADOPTING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, certain designated positions within the Mayor’s office serve a unique role in the administration of the duties and functions of the Mayor’s office; WHEREAS, due to those unique roles and responsibilities the Mayor needs flexibility in filling and maintaining those positions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That section 1-6-4 is amended in the Meridian City Code as follows: 1-6-4: EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR DESIGNATED POSITIONS IN THE MAYOR’S OFFICE: A. Executive Assistant Duties And Responsibilities: Designated Positions in the Mayor’s office: The Executive Assistant The following designated positions in the Mayor’s office: Chief of Staff, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Community Relations Specialist, and Programs and Events Specialist shall have a job descriptions that is are approved by Human Resources. B. Executive Assistant Hiring: Designated Positions in the Mayor’s office hiring: The Mayor may choose to hire an executive assistant to assist with the duties of the Office of the Mayor. such designated positions in the Mayor’s office as described above. Such assistant All such positions shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor as an at will employee, and removal may be for any reason or no reason, as deemed by the Mayor in the best interests of the City. The Mayor may select this these employees by whatever employment process deemed reasonable by the Mayor, in consultation with the Human Resources Director and City Attorney. C. Executive Assistant Salary: Designated Positions in the Mayor’s office wages: Initial salary wages and any salary changes, of the Executive Assistant Designated Positions shall be set determined by the Mayor and implemented by Human Resources. , and said salary shall be in conformity with the Citywide Compensation Program for general employees. D. Designated Positions in the Mayor’s office separation due to a change of the Mayor: If the Mayor were to separate from the City the designated positions shall be eligible for a severance separation benefit from the City. The benefit shall be equivalent to the employee’s wage of one (1) week per year’s of service in the designated positions up to a maximum of twelve (12) weeks. The employee would only be eligible if they were terminated by the new Mayor, without cause, from their designated position within thirty (30) days after the date of separation of the previous Mayor. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 21, 2020 – Page 152 of 153 Section 2. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof or in conflict with this ordinance are hereby voided. Section 3: That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with as the second and third reading and they are therefore combined as one (1), and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 21st day of January, 2020. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 21st day of January, 2020. APPROVED: RAJA IT I, Mayor ATT T: a°�Rz City of w &01ERIDIAN� chils Jo C SEAL �. 05 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. William L. M. Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20 -1871 An Ordinance amending Meridian City Code section 1-6-4, creating designated positions in the Mayor's office and establishing a hiring method, wage determination, and separation benefit; adopting a savings clause and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at Meridian City Hall, 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date' of publication of this summary. ORDINANCE SUMMARY AMENDING MCC§ 1-6-4 ��/rE IDIZ IANC-- �J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 8 Item Title: Future Meeting Topics Meeting Notes: