The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-05-07MERIDIAN PLANNING AND IDIAN - ZONING COMMISSION WE, N MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, May 7, 2020 at 6:00 PM Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance Lisa Holland Patricia Pitzer Andrew Seal Nick Grove Rhonda McCarvel X Bill Cassinelli Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairperson Item 2: Adoption of Agenda — Adopted 3. Consent Agenda [Action Item] - Approved A. Approve Minutes of April 23, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Good Apple Taphouse (H-2020-0036) by Rob and Carmen Bienapfl, Located at 1728 E. McMillan Rd. Item 4: Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned city planner. Following Staffs report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they may be allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the public's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. A. Public Hearing Continued from March 19, 2020 for Victory Commons (H-2019-0150) by BVA Development, LLC, Located at 130 E. Victory Rd. and 3030 S. Meridian Rd. - Recommended Approval to City Council 1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 12 building lots on 16.74 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. B. Public Hearing Continued from April 2, 2020 for Teakwood Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) by Hesscomm Corp., Located at 1835 E. Victory Rd. - Continued to June 4, 2020 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 building lots and 5 common lots. C. Public Hearing for Cedarbrook Subdivision (H-2020-0012) by Toll Southwest, LLC, Located at 4185 S. Linder Rd. - Recommended Approval to City Council 1. Request: Annexation of a total of 118.58 acres of land with R-2 (9.48 acres), R-4 (65.45 acres) and R-8 (43.66 acres) zoning districts; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary plat consisting of 330 buildable lots, 38 common lots and 4 other lots on 118.58 acres of land in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. Meeting Adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 7, 2020. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 7, 2020, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Patricia Pitzer. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen and Joe Dodson. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance X Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel X Andrew Seal Nick Grove Patricia Pitzer X Bill Cassinelli X Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Fitzgerald: So, at this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the date of May 7th and let's start with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Fitzgerald: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Just a quick rundown, see if we can run this through real quick on how we are going to run things via Zoom. On your screen you will see the Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting. Also on the call you will see city staff, the city attorney's office, and staff of our Planning Department will be on the call to present and help us with the applications. Everyone else that is online on the Zoom call are attendees. You may observe the meeting and we can see that you are here. However, your ability to talk and be seen will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and able to comment. As we mentioned before we are going to try to make sure everybody has the ability to be on screen if you would like to be and so we will work with the clerk's office to take care of that. The clerk will run the presentations for the applicant, any other presentations that were submitted by the public, and, then, they will also assist with presentations if there is a need. Please raise your hand via the bottom -- there is a -- kind of participant area. You can raise your hand in the participant button down below that will allow you to raise your hand and ask the clerk if there is a question, so we can stop and get you squared away. When public testimony is open the clerk will call the names of those who have signed up to testify on our website. You will be unmuted and the chair will call you individually. Please make sure you state your name and your address for the record and we will give you three minutes to address the Commission. I do believe we have one HOA at least that -- one Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 4 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 2 of 60 of the representatives to give them a full ten minutes to speak on behalf of Stetson Estates. Once all the folks who have signed up in advance are called I will also open it up to make sure we call on who -- anybody who else is wishing to testify that hasn't been called in. If you do have an issue, as I said, raise your hand and, then, Chris will take care of you. We will stop the meeting and make sure you are taken care of. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, please, make sure the ones that you are not using to speak through are muted, so we don't have an echo. And, then, after we do close the public testimony we are not able to take additional public testimony -- or public comment. Excuse me. It allows us to just -- to deliberate and make a decision hopefully. And so with that we will move on to our first item on the agenda, which is the adoption of the agenda. We don't have any changes on the agenda tonight, so can I get a motion? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move we adopt the agenda as presented. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of April 23, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Good Apple Taphouse (H-2020-0036) by Rob and Carmen Bienapfl, Located at 1728 E. McMillan Rd. Fitzgerald: Second item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have the approval of minutes for the April 23rd, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Good Apple Taphouse, file H-2020-0036. Any changes or things need to be pulled out for that? Okay. Hearing none, could I get a motion? McCarvel: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 5 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 3 of 60 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from March 19, 2020 for Victory Commons (H-2019-0150) by BVA Development, LLC, Located at 130 E. Victory Rd. and 3030 S. Meridian Rd. 1 . Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 12 building lots on 16.74 acres of land in the C-G zoning district Fitzgerald: Very good. So, moving to the first item on the Action Item agenda is a public hearing that was continued for March 19th, 2020, for Victory Commons, file H-2019-0150, and let's start with the staff report. Bill, do you want to take this one, sir? Parsons: I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. First item on the agenda this evening is the Victory Commons preliminary plat. The site consists of 16.74 acres of land, currently zoned C-G in the city limits. There is two parcels as part -- and they are being resubdivided as part of the preliminary plat this evening. One parcel's address is located at 330 South Meridian Road and the other parcel is 130 East Victory Road. You can see in the slide before you this evening in the future land use map, the zoning map, and the aerial map, you can see on the FLUM's designation that this property is commercial and on the zoning map it is currently zoned C-G, which is consistent with that future land use map. Chris, if you want to go to the next slide, please. So, history on this site -- or excuse me. I'm sorry, Chris. Could you go back one slide, please. So, the adjacent land uses -- to the north we have office and residential, zoned L-O and R-8 and R-4. To the south we have residential. So, an R-15 and R-4. To the west we have office, zoned L-O, and to the east we have residential zoned R-4 as well. History on this particular property. It was annexed in 2003 and went through a combined preliminary/ final plat at that same time. It also received development agreement approval with the original annexation in 2003. In 2019 the applicant brought forth a development agreement modification that the City Council took action on and they, essentially, replaced the original DA with a new DA that currently governs the site. In the last several months the city staff has approved three administrative approvals on this site for an urgent care facility, a retail paint store, and a flex building, which is all consistent with the concept plan that was approved with that development agreement. Next slide, please. So, the applicant is here this evening to discuss a preliminary plat consisting of 12 commercial lots on 16.74 acers of land. You can see in this exhibit before you this evening that they are proposing to develop it in two phases. The area highlighted in red will be phase two and the --which is the southern half of the development and everything north of that would be developed with phase one. You can also see that I have highlighted the proposed access points for the development. I would let the Commission know that the access point along Meridian Road, which is oriented towards the south of the slide, was re- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 6 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 4 of 60 positioned from the northernmost portion of the project to this current location here and that did receive city approval and ITD approval for that access to be relocated in this location. It will also be designed as a right-in only access point. The applicant is required to construct a center median in Meridian Road, along with providing a northbound deceleration lane into the proposed development as part of ITD mitigation measures. The access onto Victory Road, which is oriented to your east or the right-hand portion on the slide is a full access to Amity Road. ACHD also provided comments on this application and they stated that given the amount of trips generated for this proposed development that the roadway is operated within operable thresholds as anticipated consistent with their policies and, therefore, no additional road mitigations are required to -- or excuse me -- East Victory Road. Next slide, Chris. The applicant is required to do landscaping in accordance with UDC standards. So, for the landscape buffer along Meridian Road it's a 35 foot landscape buffer, which is an entryway corridor and, then, along Victory Road is a 25 foot landscape buffer and those -- the landscape plan that was submitted with this application did not include the buffer requirement along Victory Road here. You could see the southern half it's labeled as not a part, when, in fact, it needs to be revised and included as part of phase two for this particular development and the applicant's conditioned to modify their plan and include a 25 foot wide buffer along Victory Road. The other -- as I noted previously in my presentation is this property does abut residential uses along the northeast and east boundary of the site. The UDC does require a 25 foot landscape buffer when you have commercial land uses -- or zoning up against residential zoning. Typically that buffer is constructed with lot development. So, although the plan shows it along the northeast portion, that will not happen until actual development occurs on that development. If you also look at the eastern side of this project here, you can see that the plat does not incorporate a 25 foot wide landscape buffer. The applicant has been conditioned to do that on Lot 9, Block 1, and, again, that would happen with lot development. Conceptual building elevations were not submitted with this application, but they were provided with a development agreement that was recently approved by City Council. Nothing to share with the Commission at this point, other than the fact that we have approved -- again we have approved three CZCs for this site to develop three buildings consistent with their phasing plan. That development is occurring in the northern half of the development and they did meet -- their elevations that were approved did comply with the architectural standards manual, the amended development agreement, and the standards in the UDC. I also wanted to note to the Commission that I had a chance to view the public record this evening and did identify that public comments were provided on this application from Kurt Warner, Jeff and Pam Layton, and Jerry Pollard. After reviewing that information it was clear that they were providing comments on a project that the city has not even processed yet, so it looks like a neighborhood meeting was held for the property on the southwest corner of Meridian Road and Victory for some apartments, but, again, we have not had an application submitted. So, those -- the comments that were provided as part of that public record for this project aren't relevant to the project that we are talking about this evening. The project that we are talking about this evening does not have a multi-family component. It is all proposed and slated for commercial development in the future and that is consistent with their concept plan that was approved by City Council a few months ago. So, staff is recommending approval of this applicant -- application as -- with the conditions in the staff report and I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 7 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 5 of 60 would also note that staff did not receive any comments from the applicant, but all indications are they are in agreement with the staff report as well. With that I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Appreciate it. Any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Bill, I have a couple. First of all, without seeing any elevations, can you give us an idea -- are these all single story? Parsons: Yeah. Commissioner-- Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Cassinelli, that's -- that's a good point that you bring up. If you had a chance to read through the staff report -- and particularly the Comprehensive Plan section, we were looking for compatibility with the adjacent residential subdivisions. There were some neighbors that were opposed to the DA modification when it went forward, because they were concerned about the buildings blocking their views and so as part of that process the City Council did add a provision to the recorded development agreement that restricts the height of the buildings on this site to no more than 35 feet. So, everything in here -- although could that be a two story building? Yes. But, again, the maximum height limit in this particular development is restricted to 35 feet, consistent with a residential district. Cassinelli: Okay. And another -- another question there. There is a -- on the -- I guess it would be the north -- the far northeast corner of that parcel -- and I'm not sure off the top of my head what phase that's in, but there is a path from the adjacent subdivision there. Is that going to be a path to nowhere or there is -- will that be -- will that head out to -- to Meridian Road somehow? Do you know where I'm -- where I'm looking at? Parsons: Just clarification. Mr. Commissioner -- or Commissioner Cassinelli. Is it the northeast corner or their north -- the northern portion? Cassinelli: Repeat that. Parsons: Is -- are you talking about northwest -- northeast portion of this site or just the north -- northern area in general? Cassinelli: Well, it's -- I would say it's -- can't really point on this. It's -- it's -- if we are looking at this slide here it would be on the bottom left of that slide, which I think would be the -- in the northeast corner. No. Further -- so, is that -- is the other parcel not part of it or has that been -- is that the additional phase? Parsons: Yeah. Commissioner Cassinelli, the -- the portion highlighted in red is the phase two line. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 8 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 6 of 60 Cassinelli: Okay. So, then, I'm talking -- so -- so, if that's phase two, then, phase one -- where you are at right now with your -- your pencil, go to -- go up above that just a little bit. So, when you get over to there -- right about there there is a path coming in from -- from there. There you go. Parsons: Perfect. Yes, I -- so, Commissioners, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, as part of that DA amendment that was required to be extended into this development and ties into the pathway network along Meridian Road. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for staff? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just a quick question on the phasing in the -- essentially how the -- the two access points to it. Is there a condition -- struggling to find where -- there is a condition to, essentially, make sure that those two come through and meet in the middle? Or the access is granted from either one of them? I mean is there -- I guess my concern is that phase one goes in and it's, you know, two or three years down the road and there is still only that one access point and all of a sudden we have all these businesses in there. So, is there something in there that basically requires that that second access is granted as part of phase one? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there is a requirement in the staff report in a development agreement to get cross-access with the entire development. So, the way it's structured now staff is supportive of the phasing plan as proposed by the applicant. The Fire Department is going to determine whether or not a secondary access is going to be needed based on the square footage that develops on the site and also if you -- if Chris can go back to the presentation and go back to the plat, slide number two of the preliminary plat, the developer also has a cross-access with the C store along -- and so there will actually be two access points to Meridian Road with the first phase. It's just that -- that letter-- that later access to Meridian -- or Amity may or -- excuse me. To Victory may be a little bit longer, but it's still -- there is still dirt road and if the Fire Department needs emergency access the applicant owns the property, so they have the ability to make that happen. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for staff? Holland: One more question, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 9 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 7 of 60 Holland: Bill, the caveat that you mentioned about landscaping buffers needing to be adjusted, I'm assuming we capture that in the staff report and we wouldn't need to include that in a motion; right? Parsons: That is correct. Yeah. The recorded DA actually requires a landscape buffer to happen along Victory Road with the first building on the site and that's currently under construction. So, the applicant's going to have to get the plan amended and get it to staff pretty quick, so they can get that built per their development agreement. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Mr. Wardle, welcome, sir. Wardle: Good evening. Can you hear me? Fitzgerald: Yes. Wardle: All right. Fitzgerald: Please give us your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours, sir. Wardle: All right. So, I'm Geoffrey Wardle, I am counsel for the applicant on this application. My address is 251 East Front in Boise. We are glad to be here in front of you. I think Bill did an excellent job of describing what -- what we have proposed and -- and the background. We think the background of this site is -- is pretty important. So, if you could click to the next slide. In 2003, 2004, as he indicated, it was annexed into the city, was zoned C-G with a development agreement. The development agreement and the zoning at that time were consistent with the then existing Comprehensive Plan, which had designated the area for commercial development. The DA was amended in 2006 to make some technical changes to some of the design elements, because the original developer of this had a western theme for the entire project and in conjunction with that 2006 amendment, the original Mussell Corner Subdivision was platted. So, if we can move on, we had modified the development agreement from the original 2004 and 2006 through a process that we went through with the City Council last year and that was done primarily for two reasons. One, to eliminate the requirement for western themed construction and, two, to modify the site plan. In 2019 a new development agreement was recorded reflecting the changes for what, essentially, is a replat and a redevelopment of the remainder of the Mussell Subdivision as Bill outlined. In that development agreement significant conditions of approval were imposed addressing the issues of height, addressing the issues of screening, the buildings and mechanical systems located on the buildings and addressing the issues associated with connectivity to the neighborhoods to the east. Next slide, please. The modified site plan contemplated and was approved as -- as depicted, with the intention that the first phase of this project have a variety of retail components and flex office, flex light industrial uses. As Bill indicated, essentially, if you look at this site plan, the northernmost building is an urgent care for Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 10 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 8 of 60 Saltzer Medical Group. That is under construction and both a CZC and building permit were issued. A -- the paint store that he discussed is the southernmost building there on the left against Meridian Road. And, then, we have initiated the application for the first of those flex buildings, which is the northern -- the northern element. Next slide. So, with that modification we replaced the prior 2004 and 2006 development agreements as to this portion of the property. We modified the site plan. As Bill indicated, we modified access, because historically there had been access in that project at the extreme north of the property and we worked with ITD and with the City Council on getting that modified to the right-in, right-out that you have heard described farther to the south and we also eliminated the requirement that it be western themed. Next slide. So, this preliminary plat is in furtherance of the development agreement. It implements the site plan that was reviewed and approved and attached to the development agreement and is a resubdivision of Lot 2, Block 2, and Parcel A of the original Mussell Subdivision. The original Mussell Subdivision is how the C store and other retail services that are located there at the corner were constructed approximately ten, 12 years ago. Next slide. As Bill indicated, the intention is to develop this in two phases. The first phase is the northernmost piece. As Bill indicated, one of the original conditions -- or one of the conditions from the 2019 development agreement modification was to connect the micro path that exists currently from the subdivision to the east down through the property and, then, onto the path system that exists adjacent to Meridian Road. That is conditioned and is being constructed right now -- or will be constructed as part of the construction of the urgent care, which is occurring right now. So, that pathway connection will be completed this summer with the completion of the urgent care. As Bill also indicated -- go ahead. Next slide. Ultimately with this -- with this plat we are dealing with 16.74 acres of land. It's a C-G zoning district. It's been a C-G zoning district for nearly 15 years and we are proposing 12 new building lots with the northernmost piece upon Meridian Road and the south located against Victory. When we come back with that southern piece there will be some additional work that we have to do with staff, because the planning associated with that didn't happen. But, again, there were condition -- I mean the ultimate planning as to what structures are going there has not yet occurred, but in the development agreement process we agreed and kept elements of the prior project, including the existing landscaping and existing landscaped pond, as part of that element. Next slide. Currently the northern most parcel -- the northern most lot -- what will be the northern most lot is an urgent care for Saltzer Medical Center--for Saltzer Medical Group. With that the access and the other improvements on Meridian Road will be completed. The second retail use is just to the north of the existing retail portion of the prior Mussell Subdivision improvements. Next slide. We are generally in agreement with the conditions of approval. We agree with Bill that we need to make those modifications to address the issues that have been done. We also agree that the conditions that have been proposed by staff are consistent with the development agreement and are ready to move forward with that, are in the process, once we are done with this preliminary plat process, we will come back with the final plat for phase one and move it forward. Next slide. So, conclusion, property is already zoned C-G. Those decisions have been made by the City Council over the course of three development agreements in 2003, 2006 and 2019. The proposed buildings and the uses that we have outlined and that have been -- that are under construction or have been approved already with CZCs, are consistent Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 11 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 9 of 60 with your existing code and comply with the UDC requirements and we request approval of this preliminary plat as conditioned and recommended by staff and with that I will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. Any questions for the applicant? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: Just a quick question on -- if I remember the piece of property right where the existing residents -- residences are, kind of on the -- the northeastern side of the subdivision, that is actually elevated from the piece -- from the property you are developing; is that correct? Wardle: That's correct. The property to the northeast is elevated and it sits on the other side of an irrigation facility that has been tiled and that there is a fairly wide buffer there. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Well, thanks, Mr. Wardle. We appreciate it. We will come back to you if there is public comment and let you close, sir. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone on the line that would like to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we had one other person sign up besides Mr. Wardle and that's David Wyler. Fitzgerald: Okay. If we can plug Mr. Wyler in. Johnson: Mr. Chair, this is Chris. I do not see him in the attendee list, unless he is calling in by phone. So, if you are in here, Mr. Wyler, if you could press the raise hand button or if you are on your phone press star nine, we can identify who you are and get you able to speak. Fitzgerald: Hearing no -- Chris, can you give me a check on whether you are hearing anything? Johnson: I'm hearing nothing, Mr. Chairman. Fitzgerald: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to raise their hand via Zoom or hit the star nine and click in that we would like to -- if you would like to testify on this application. Hearing none, is there any additional questions for the staff or for the applicant? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 12 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 10 of 60 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Bill, I'm not seeing any -- this is for staff. Bill, I'm not seeing any specific numbers for parking. Are we -- are we -- where are we sitting at that? Are we just at the minimums? Can you give me an idea on that? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Certainly don't have any numbers for you on parking. This app -- this particular project is zoned C-G, so as we -- we have discussed many times at the hearings, parking is always based on square footage of commercial structures and so that's being developed and looked at when they come in for staff level approval. We don't get into the weeds on what the parking count is for a development when we are doing a subdivision approval. All we are doing at this point is just creating parcel lines to allow the applicant the flexibility to change ownership and sell off parcels as users come forward. And, again, staff is looking at that when there is actually a use proposed for the site. So, I don't have any specifics for you at this time, but all I can tell you is we have approved three buildings for the site and they wouldn't have gotten approval if they didn't meet the minimum parking standards. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Mr. Wardle, do you have any additional comments, sir? Do you want to close or -- do you -- are you good? Wardle: We are good. Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Well, if there is no additional questions or comments, can I get a motion whenever it's appropriate? Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing and move to deliberation. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0150. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay, team, what do we think? Anyone want to take a -- take a shot? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I will throw something out there. I'm -- I really have very little to say about it. I mean it looks like an appropriate use of -- of the land. I'm happy to see that there isn't going to be a lot of school aged kids coming out of this. Some businesses. Looks like Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 13 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 11 of 60 they have taken care of their access points and providing what's needed for the Fire Department to safely access as everything gets developed. So, I really see nothing in here that's concerning to me. Fitzgerald: I think I'm in agreement. Absolutely. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I like that there is a right-in, right-out on Meridian, because that was one of my biggest concerns originally is that just Meridian Road is tough getting in and out of from the highway, but I think they have done a nice smart site plan here. I would much rather see commercial along this corridor than a bunch of multi-family or another housing complex. I think it's a smart use. Seems to match what we have got in the comp plan and I think really it's more of a formality for them to get the preliminary plat just so that they can go off and subdivide the pieces of space, sell them off, and build them. So, I'm -- I don't see any big concerns. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I like that this is -- developing this commercial, I'm just -- I guess wondering where I'm going to go get my trees now. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Cassinelli, do you have any additional thoughts, sir? I think I'm in agreement with all that's been said. Cassinelli: Yeah. I'm -- no, I'm -- I'm -- I'm in agreement as well. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I will just throw out a motion here. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council file -- file H-2019-0150 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 7th, 2022. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2019- 0150, Victory Commons. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 14 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 12 of 60 B. Public Hearing Continued from April 2, 2020, for Teakwood Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) by Hesscomm Corp., Located at 1835 E. Victory Rd. 1 . Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 building lots and 5 common lots. Fitzgerald: Mr. Wardle, thank you for being here tonight. Good luck, sir, and we will see you soon I'm sure. Moving on to the second item on the agenda, we have a public hearing that was continued from April 2nd for Teakwood Place Subdivision, file number H-2020- 0006, and let's kick it off with the staff report. Joe, are you taking this one I believe? Dodson: Yes, sir. That is correct. Sorry. I had to unmute myself there. Good evening, Commissioners. Glad to be here. The project before you -- this is for Teakwood Place Subdivision, for annexation and preliminary plat. As you can see on these maps, the future land use zoning and aerial, we do have -- no. Wait. I did not correct those. That is my fault. That is not the right pictures. I could have swore I did that. I apologize. Next slide. The request before you is for annexation and zoning of 7.35 acres of land, with a request to rezone the property R-8, and a preliminary plat consisting of 20 building lots and four common lots to be built in two phases as proposed. For vicinity, this is near the corner of Locust Grove and Victory Road. It's to the east of Locust Grove, just to clarify. The gross density is 3.95 dwelling units per acre and the net density is 5.64 dwelling units per acre, with the minimum property size in this development being approximately 4,900 square feet, with an average lot size of approximately 7,342 square feet. According to the submitted plat, all buildable lots appear to meet the UDC dimensional standards for the R-8 zoning district. The first proposed phase will provide all public streets and 24 of the 28 proposed building lots. Access is proposed via extending an existing local street, East Fathom Street, in the neighboring subdivision to the west, which is Tradewind Subdivision, and that is the only access -- the only normal access into the property. An emergency only access is proposed with phase one as well and they will connect the extended local street, East Fathom Street, to East Victory Road and it is right along the western boundary of the property. North on this preliminary plat is to the left of the screen. The entry and access into the development will be via extensions of five foot attached sidewalks on local streets. The micro pathway that runs next to the emergency access road and connects to the front of the improvements on East Victory Road is also proposed. Additionally, a small section of ten foot multi-use pathway is proposed to be constructed on the Eight Mile Creek in the northeast corner of the property and will eventually connect with the large open space near the center of the development. The -- to be clear, the Eight Mile Creek is not on this property and so there is no discussion regarding keeping it open or anything like that. It's not on their property. The applicant is proposing to keep the existing home, some of its accessory structures, and its existing access onto East Victory Road until phase two development and, then, an additional four building lots will be developed with accesses onto the local street within the development Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 15 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 13 of 60 and not onto East Victory Road. In addition, the applicant is requesting that the existing home does not connect to city services. Staff is not supportive of the phasing plan as proposed. Staff recommends the development be constructed in one phase and the applicant amend the plat to include the existing residence on its own lot and block in the subdivision and require the home connect to city utilities with a new access to the proposed extension of East Fathom Street or remove all of the existing structures identified as phase two and develop the four additional lots as proposed. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3GF-3B is required. Based on a proposed plat of 7.35 acres, a minimum .74 acres of common open space -- qualified common open space should be provided. The applicant is proposing approximately 52,737 square feet or 1. 2 acres of open space or 16.47 percent, consisting of a ten foot multi-use pathway, common lots with open space, and half of the arterial street buffer to East Victory Road. The applicant's open space exhibit labels 42,000 square feet of that 52,700 square feet as qualifying, which is approximately 13.13 percent. The open space is proposed to be available across both phases, with most provided in phase one. However, staff notes that the open space calculation does appear to duplicate area. It appears to include the paved emergency access and does not remove the paved area from the temporary cul-de-sac that does not count towards any open space, qualifying or not. And that temporary turnaround, as you can see, is off -- was on the north side of the proposed entrance to the east. After removing redundant open space and the paved areas on the common open space lots, staff calculates approximately 29,600 square feet or .6 acres and 9.25 percent of qualified open space, which is below the minimum required ten percent. Staff removed the area for the temporary cul-de-sac proposed on one of the common open space lots and the 30 foot wide emergency access easement area from the open space. I did this because the emergency access easement is not shown to be landscaped per UDC requirements and, therefore, staff does not find it appropriate to include this area in the qualified open space. If the applicant were to pave 20 feet of that 30 feet -- 30 foot easement as required for emergency access and, then, landscape the five feet on both sides of it per UDC standards, that area could be added back into the qualified open space calculation. In addition, if the required temporary turnaround is flipped and placed on the south side of East Richardson Street, and on one of the adjacent buildable lots more open space would be available to the residents in this subdivision immediately. The temporary turnaround also does not have to be a cul-de-sac, it could be a hammerhead type turnaround that would only make one lot unbuildable until the road is extended, rather than two with the temporary cul-de-sac. Staff recommends this change because there is little guarantee to the city that the property to the east will ever develop and, therefore, little guarantee that the temporary turnaround will not become a permanent turnaround and the development loses out on that open space. Approximately 4,800 more square feet of qualified open space would be added to this project with the recommendation regarding the temporary turnaround. Following this recommendation and the landscape recommendation regarding the emergency access, approximately 9,200 more square feet of qualified open space would be added, making a total of 38,834 square feet, exceeding the minimum ten percent required by code by approximately 6,000 square feet and staff has added conditions of approval within the staff report for all of these comments regarding open space and phasing and access. The applicant did respond to the staff report regarding this open Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 16 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 14 of 60 space and provided another revised open space exhibit. They removed some of the area on the emergency access and they also added more open space to the large open lot in the center, but that still does not address staff's concerns with phasing and the temporary turnaround. But I do want to note that to the Commissioners. Next slide, Chris. Thank you. The applicant also provided staff with conceptual elevations of the proposed single family homes. The single family homes are depicted as mostly single story, with a variety of finish materials, stone, stucco, brick, lap siding and combinations. Some homes are also depicted with extra large garage spaces for at home RV storage. All single family homes appear to meet design architectural standards. Upon review of the density proposed use and the submitted elevations and request for the R-8 zoning and the density proposed meet the future land use designation of medium density residential. There was also multiple submittals of written testimony for this subdivision. Most of those dealt with the single access point to the property being from the west and through Tradewind Subdivision. Most of the concerns were, obviously, about increased traffic, safety, and that--you know, the standard concerns regarding that. We did have some other concerns regarding the multi-use pathway in the northeast corner of the property, but, again, that is -- that is not going to be -- or impede on the Eight Mile Creek, because it is going to be well outside of its easement and the Eight Mile Creek is not on this property. So, the applicant cannot do anything with that. In addition, there is some concerns with pathway connection to the subdivision to the south. The resident Mike McClure from the Tuscany Subdivision stated that he would hope a connection could be made from their subdivision to the south to this one. However, their existing pedestrian pathway is too far to the east and does not abut the area of this property that is owned by this owner. It is actually a different owner. So, unfortunately, that is not something that staff could condition. Overall staff does recommend approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a development agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat, but only with the conditions of approval noted in the staff report. And with that I close my presentation and will stand for questions. Thank you, Commissioners. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. And just to be clear, the -- the conditions you have written are for approval. There is a lot that are there. Just to make sure we are clear, there are a lot of things -- pieces, parts that are adding up to this. Dodson: Agreed. Yes. I do recommend approval, but only with the conditions listed. Staff does not support a multi-phased project at this time. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you for the guidance. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Holland, you are muted. Holland: Yeah. I know. I realized that. One question for staff. With the cul-de-sac the way that it's laid out, it looks like there is a lot of different lots on that cul-de-sac. Were there concerns from the Fire Department or were there any requirements put in the staff report -- and I'm sorry if I missed this -- related to no parking on the street for that cul-de- sac? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 17 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 15 of 60 Dodson: From what I remember there is no specific conditions. However, that is a standard comment made by Fire that, yes, that -- that entire cul-de-sac is going to be no parking and that -- that does lead to the -- the standard concerns that we always have with trash pickup and -- and parking in general on the street. But there is not a specific condition regarding that, no, ma'am. Holland: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for staff? Hearing none, is the applicant with us? Johnson: Mr. Chair, he's on his way in. He's coming into the panel list now. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. And, Chris, who is that? Who is the applicant? I'm sorry. Johnson: Dan Lardie is joining us. Fitzgerald: Okay. Dan, I see you pop up there. If you will unmute yourself and, please, introduce yourself and provide your address for record and the floor is yours, sir. Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Dan Lardie. Leavitt and Associates. 1324 1st Street South, Nampa. 83651 . So, this evening before you -- first -- first let me say thank you to Joseph. I know it's been kind of an interesting road, but he's been -- he's been helping us out and we have been working back and forth on this particular project and we finally made it to -- to hearing. So, with that -- let's see. So, the next slide, please, Chris. So, I won't restate the staff report to you, but some key points on there. You know, the proposed -- the proposed land use does -- does meet the -- the future land use map and the comp plan. It is -- it's 28 lots total, with 24 being developed in the first phase. So, with a little bit of history on that -- next slide, please. So, the -- the homeowner has lived there -- and they live on the front there off of Victory. I can see their home -- I don't know if I'm pointing or not, but up front along -- between the creek and the subdivision along Victory. They have lived there since the 1990s. They have watched the ground develop around them and now they have wanted to take on less responsibility and they want to exercise their private property rights and develop their ground without being uprooted from where they are. They have come to enjoy Meridian and their location there. They prefer it. So -- which is the reason why we -- we are asking for the phasing request. The phasing request allows the homeowner to live in their home because they enjoy it. The majority of the project, again, will be phased in phase one. The homeowner would like to continue to live on the oasis that they have -- that they have grown to love in -- there in Meridian. The homeowner's driveway -- and they would like to maintain that driveway. They are already in the park -- they are already in the traffic count for ACHD's traffic count on this particular sub. They are not going to increase until they develop phase two and phase two will take access off of the internal roadway. ACHD has granted of this allowance. Also about the turnaround. The turn -- the turnaround on the -- the one that heads to the east -- originally we had shown that as a hammerhead turnaround and we submitted that to ACHD and ACHD did not allow the hammerhead turnaround, even though it is what we discussed with staff originally. ACHD said, no, they don't believe that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 18 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 16 of 60 that's going to be -- going to be developed anytime soon, so they would prefer that it be a cul-de-sac turnaround. Next slide, please, Chris. Thank you. So, this is an exhibit just showing the current phase or what we propose is the phase line -- and the buildings are in red. The home is to the east with a garage and a shop as an outbuilding, with the driveway connecting out to Victory. That's what their hope is is to have that stay like that until phase two develops and phase two -- when phase two develops they will probably vacate the home and, then, we will probably raze the home and all the structures on there and perform the platting before -- plat the land as we see -- as you see before you. Next slide, please. So, this is the revised open space exhibit that Joseph had alluded to in his -- in his discussion. We have got -- we got staff's report and, then, we started looking at it and flipping that cul-de-sac to the south, it encumbers those two building lots there, which is probably too big of a burden to ask for the developer to -- because that basically renders those two lots unbuildable and unusable until that road ever goes forth. It connects to the east. And per the staff report they believe that it's not ever going to extend to the east or make that connection. At least not for some time. This -- next slide, please. The next slide is just the table that's on there. That way you guys can actually see it. It was hard to read on the other slide. So, total acreage is 7.35. The open space is still 17.36 percent, but the qualified open space we would like to reflect that it's 11.14 percent and, then, we have provided a clarification on the calculation there for staff. With -- with that we would prefer that it get -- it get -- that if it does get approved this evening that we do staff -- that we -- we make some modifications to the staff report and I sent these into Joseph and they are not in record. It's a -- and I guess I should have put them in the slide or here, but it's actually per Section 8 -- 8-1-B. We would like that to be -- request the phasing as planned and Part C, existing home to remain with current utilities until phase two develops. E. Closing the existing driveway to be -- excuse me. Existing driveway to be closed with development of phase two. A ten foot multi-use path to be constructed with the development of phase two. Major improvements to be constructed with phase two and, then, the qualifying open space, 11 .14 percent. And, then, Part 8-A-2A, temporary cul-de-sac is okay as shown, instead of incumbering the two buildable lots to the south. And, then, 8-A-4A, temporary cul-de-sac okay as shown. With that we could accept the approval -- or appreciate the approval of the staff report and that if those could get modified that's what we request. Next slide, please. So, this is a picture of the frontage of our property along Victory Road. This -- this is -- Victory Road is already -- so, that construction sign off in the distance, that's the -- that's about the edge of our property and this irrigation structure that's up close to us, that's our western boundary. So, this -- Victory Road has already been widened to its full width -- to its proposed full width and there are mature trees up front and I just thought maybe you should be -- you would be interested in -- in seeing that particular picture. I appreciate your time this evening. I -- I appreciate your consideration for approval. With that I will stand with any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Mr. Lardie. Is there questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead, sir. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 19 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 17 of 60 Cassinelli: Dan, I didn't--didn't see a whole lot in ACHD's approval with regards to access off Victory. Obviously, long term they are not allowing it, yet we have got access from the -- from the north side of Victory. What were your conversations with ACHD to ultimately have access -- not just for the existing residents, but for the subdivision in general to Victory? Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, the ACHD staff was supportive of not having any internal access out to Victory and they stated that clearly in their staff report, except for the fact that they would allow this driveway to remain until the development of phase two. They said that the traffic was so limited and such little impact that they didn't see a need to request the closure of it at this time, being how it's still the only -- the single home that's accessing Victory. Cassinelli: All right. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland? Holland: I was just trying to -- I was trying to capture all of the requests that the applicant had on modifications that they would like, but I'm loading the reply that they had to staff. I think all those are written in there if I remember right. But I may come back and ask you to recap that for us, just to make sure we don't miss what you were asking for, so we can have it written down to discuss. Lardie: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, thank you. I can surely address that again. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Dan. Additional questions? Dan, I do have one. I -- the concern I have on the -- the temporary turnaround, I understand you went to a hammerhead look on that. The challenge I have is when we -- when we take away -- when we phase this out the -- there could be a long-term impact for not having open space if we decide to never do phase two. Can you comment on that? Because I think that's our -- or at least my concern is we are going to lose control of it from the city side after this is -- you know, phase plan goes in, we don't have control or have, you know, ability as a city to track that, it never gets built out and there is -- then there is no real common area for the residents in phase one. Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, the majority of that lot is already open space and, yes, it does -- it only gains you 4,800 square foot of open space by when that -- if that hammerhead ever -- or that roadway ever connects through and we -- and we can recapture that cul-de-sac. The majority of this open space is in phase one. It -- it doesn't have the -- the pathway connection, you are correct, out to Victory or the multi- use pathway that is on lot -- it's really hard here -- I think that's Lot 5 or 6. But the easement it will be grant -- or the easement could be granted there across that property currently without -- without ever platting it, if that was -- if you so necessitate. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Any additional questions for Mr. Lardie? Dan, we will come back to you and let you close after public testimony, if that works. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 20 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 18 of 60 Lardie: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, do we have individuals who would like to testify? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, yes, we do. The first one signed up -- I know she was on earlier. We were having a hard time seeing if she's still connected, but that's Beth Williams. Beth, if you are here can you raise your hand? Williams: Hi. This is Beth Williams and David Andrus. We own 1975 East Victory and we are the property to the east. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, ma'am. Williams: Can you hear me? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Thank you. Williams: My name is Beth Williams and David Andrus. We own the property to the east at 1975 East Victory. We have the Eight Mile Creek and the road is dead ending into our property. The questions that we have -- and our concerns are -- as I hear they say -- you know, about our property and wanting to access our property and whatnot eventually down the road, which I'm curious about and I think he just stated something about requiring an easement on our property, which I'm hoping is not correct. But why we only called in was to find out what the -- what the builder was going to do and if he was going to build a berm behind our--you know, behind -- in between our property and the property that he is constructing. Fitzgerald: Ms. Williams, we will see if we can have the applicant address that in his closing comment. Was there anything else you wanted us to be aware of? Williams: I'm curious about how the road is going to dead end and who is going -- who is able to access that road -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Williams: -- when it dead ends. Fitzgerald: Perfect. We will have him -- we will have Mr. Lardie address that when he's closing his comments. Williams: Great. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have Sandy Blaser. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 21 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 19 of 60 Fitzgerald: Ms. Blaser, are you with us yet? I see you. Blaser: Yes. Thank you. This is the first time I have used Zoom, so -- Fitzgerald: You are doing well. We are all newbies as we grow through this. So, thanks for your patience. Please introduce yourself and your -- state your address for the record and the floor is yours, sir. Blaser; Thank you. My name is Samuel Blaser. Or Sandy is my nickname. I reside at 3370 South Como Avenue. We are on the western abutment to the proposed development and you have my -- a copy of the basic letter that I did. I did send in an e- mail letter that you have for your records there. Two major concerns. The major concern, of course, is Fathom. All of us that are in Tradewinds -- we have like approximately 40 -- 41 homes and we didn't expect to be subject to a situation where we are going to have traffic that's total for almost 78 homes. So, that's a major concern for quality of life for us. And the -- the other concern I have, which I think has been mitigated by the elevations, is that I recommended or would like to see that whatever homes are on Como, most of which are single story -- we have some two story -- that the homes on the Teakwood development sort of mirror that -- that type situation where we have a single story abutting to a single story on Como and there is a two story or a higher elevation that it -- that it backs up to the two story homes on Como and those are really the only two concerns that I have. Fitzgerald: Well, we appreciate you being here tonight. Thank you for sharing your concerns with us and we will have the applicant address that as well. Blaser: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Blaser: Take care. Fitzgerald: You, too. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, last on our sign-up list is Patrick Thacker. Fitzgerald: Mr. Thacker -- we heard from him earlier. Is he back on? Johnson: He is now in the room. He may just now be hitting his unmute. Thacker: Yeah. Can you hear me now? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Mr. Thacker, we can hear you. Please state your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours, sir. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 22 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 20 of 60 Thacker: Okay. My name is Pat Thacker. My address is 1033 West Newfield Drive, Eagle, Idaho. I am an Idaho native and I represent the sellers, the people that want to retain the phase two property and continue to live there. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you very much for allowing me a little time to speak. The owners are in favor of the project. They do want to see it go through. They are longtime residents. They have lived in Idaho for years. I have known them for over 30 years myself. They are getting on in years, but they do want to continue to live there and continue to have a couple of their old mares and one of their shops. They are going to give up the barn and a lot of the property and so their -- their concerns are the plat that we were looking at with the open space is a little bit different than we were expecting to see. The Block 2 area that's open space that goes around the partial cul-de-sac that everybody's worried about, on the plat that we are -- we are -- we were working on with Mr. Hessing, we were assuming that part was all included in phase two. So, that would be one issue. Now, the sellers might be willing to accept the plat as proposed. We -- I would have to talk to them and see if they -- they would be willing to give up that, because the way that currently is that was going to be pasture and the fence was going to go along the edge of lots one, two and three and, then, go around that cul-de-sac back over to the east to where Williams and Andrus live. So, that part was going to be included in the preliminary plat that we were expecting to see tonight. But we -- we might be able to work that out with the developer, depending upon what is needed, but the main concern is that the remaining open space that's needed that is on phase two, that that would not be required for them to develop in any certain amount of time. They are -- they are moving on towards 70 years of age and I don't know how long they want to live there, but they want to live there as long as they can. So, we would not want that to be a condition of development that they have to develop within a certain amount of time. They also do want to keep their existing driveway. They would like to keep their well and septic, although we are willing to entertain issues as far as city services. I also spoke with Gary Inselman with Ada County Highway District and I do know that he was -- he had no problem with them keeping their driveway and when I spoke with ACHD they didn't want sidewalks on Victory Road along the parcel that they are keeping, because they already just finished that, there is a bunch of irrigation boxes and pipes along there and nobody could really figure out how to mitigate those current issues for the irrigation systems that are in place for a lot of the downstream players. So, those would be some of our concerns that we would want. But we are in favor of the development. They have lived there since the '90s, but they have been long -- you know, in fact I think Skip is a native. I believe Vickie is as well and they have been friends of mine for well over three decades. Fitzgerald: Mr. Thacker, can I ask you a quick question? I think the -- the concern I have is -- with a couple things you mentioned is what -- it sounds like there -- there may be disagreement or confusion with the -- who is -- who is developing the property and the people who are selling it and the open space is a big deal for us, one. And, then, two, when we annex something into the city, that's our one shot to get people to connect to the city sewer and pay their piece of that and I know that's something you always want to do, but that's -- this is our one opportunity to do that. So, I think the challenge we are going to have is we don't have an opportunity to take a second run at that and so kind of when you develop in-fill like this, you kind of got to do it all at once and you kind of got to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 23 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 21 of 60 bite the bullet and go and so I understand the wanting to keep the house and we do that a lot, but there is other pieces you kind of got to balance out. Thacker: Okay. Yeah. You know what, they -- they would be willing -- because we have talked to the developer about it and he was very -- very cooperative that if we have to he -- he will -- he would help us and we would be willing to hook up to city services. So, that would not be a -- something where we would put our pick in the ground and say, no, we won't do it. That is something we would be willing to go along with. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thacker: So far we have had a real good relationship with the developer and the engineers and I know sometimes -- especially lately it's been so hard to have meetings where we can meet face to face and kind of work out issues and I was -- I didn't get to the staff report as soon as I want and I hadn't seen this particular -- we had -- we have had five or six different conceptual drawings and the current one is one of the ones we had seen, but we were --we have gone back and forth on different portions, so that Block 2 that I believe is of Lot 4, we are also willing to make some compromises there for open space and I know that when I spoke with the developer he was -- he was also willing -- I haven't had enough time to talk to Dan. I know he's been busy and I have been busy. But I know the developer was willing to go ahead and, you know, if they had to pave and landscape that emergency exit and, then, maybe if we could modify the way Lot 4, Block 2, is for the open space for phase one, maybe we could take up part of that park that is on -- that goes behind Lot 1 and 2 -- you can see where phase one and phase two -- that line -- the very easterly most line that goes between -- it runs east and west, but it divides phase one from phase two. If that line were continued straight out to the center of Lot 2 and we could grab that portion for phase two and leave the rest of that for phase one -- I mean we have been working with the developer quite well. So, we would be willing to, you know, work on some of those issues to satisfy both the city and the developer. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Thank you. Any additional questions? Hearing no --thanks. Really appreciate you being here. Thacker: Can I -- can I -- can I just bring one -- one more thing up? On that open space, if we can work out some sort of a compromise there, the one thing we do want is we don't want a limitation on how soon the Richardsons would have to move or-- or develop phase two, because they have lived there a long time, raised a lot of dogs and horses and babies there, and so that's -- you know, it's their home and in the last, you know, like five years they have spent a lot of money on a remodel, so it's a pretty nice house and it's pretty specific for what they need in their -- you know, as they get older. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Thacker: Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone else wishing to testify? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 24 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 22 of 60 Weatherly: Mr. Chair, no one else has signed up, so I suppose we are at the point if we do have anybody in the waiting room that has their hand raised. Johnson: Mr. Chair, we do have Sandy Blaser. Blaser: Yes. I just wanted to add just one additional comment that I didn't -- I didn't state on my first time if I could. Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Quickly. Blaser: Okay. I -- I agree that it should be a -- it should be planned as one phase rather than phase one and phase two. I also really don't understand why we can't have -- why ACHD is against having access -- having access to Teakwood from Victory Boulevard. I just don't understand it. There are a lot of single family homes and small plots further east that have access to Victory and I don't understand what their concern is. We are not -- we are only talking about 28 or 30 homes and if we keep Fathom buttoned up we won't have access out of-- out of Victory on their property. So, it would only be the homes -- it would only be limited to the homes on their development. So, that's -- that's the only other comment I wanted to add to my statement. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Blaser: Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Chris, did we have anybody else who raised their hand on that process? Johnson: Mr. Chair, you have not. Fitzgerald: Okay. With that is there any other questions for staff right now before I give the -- Mr. Lardie a chance to close? Hearing none -- Dodson: Commissioner Fitzgerald? Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Fitzgerald, Commission, I just wanted to clarify to both the representative of the sellers and to the Commission regarding this open space. There have been multiple renditions of this open space exhibit and Dan has worked tirelessly with me in order to try and get something that we would be willing to approve. We are working to try and get more open space in phase one, because, again, we don't know how long it would be until phase two. If there is a second phase, you know, in order for that to develop, but I can assure you that staff is not supportive of taking further open space away from -- from phase one -- as again -- and that is reiterated by the representative for the sellers that it's probably not going to be anytime soon. So, having that temporary cul-de-sac and, then, less open space on that lot really doesn't leave a lot for these residents, because that other open space lot on the western portion is a drainage Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 25 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 23 of 60 lot, so it's not going to be really conducive to kids playing and kicking balls around and things like that and, then, the one on the north is going to have a pathway in it, which, again, more pedestrian foot traffic, rather than actual open space to be used. So, I just wanted to reiterate that and -- and, hopefully, the representative of the sellers does understand that this is one of many renditions that we have had and I apologize that it hasn't been relayed to you, but we have been working to try to get this right for everybody. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. And, Dan, I think as we are preparing for -- to let you close I think one of the concerns I -- and I will not speak for all of our Commissioners, but getting everything finalized before we get here, because we don't want to act as your intermediary between your seller and -- and what is final in front of us, so I will let you go ahead and close, but I think there is some concern there that we are still in not final phase of what we are seeing. So, in regard -- especially in regards to the open space issue. Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. I was surprised to hear that the representative of the seller was on this evening with the -- with the quote that he had. I -- I was under the impression that my client had worked this out with them, had showed them this and was very clear on what was needed or at least what the city had been requiring. So, I do understand the reason to get things finalized before it gets to you, because decisions are important. With that I can address Ms. Williams' concerns. No, we are not planning on building a berm along the eastern boundary. There is a slightly -- the lots will be slightly elevated from -- from the current situation, especially at the roadway. So, the roadway would stop short and it would grade down to her property. So, the road would be about four foot shorter and give us a chance to get back down to natural ground on her side, maintaining all our drainage on our side. And let's see. So -- and road access -- so, the road access -- again, ACHD will require us to plant a barrier and place a barrier at the end of the road with a road -- a sign that says this road will be extended in the future at some point in time. When that will be I'm not sure. The -- and, then, Mr. Blaser's comments -- so, the traffic -- I apologize, I don't know what to do about the -- the access out to Victory Road and Fathom is our only access. Fathom is the access that this particular property has. It was granted by ACHD. I can't change ACHD's mind as far as trying to get us access out to Victory Road. They were very -- they were -- they were lenient enough to allow us the access to the existing driveway, because it is already there. Let's see. The last one -- oh. And the proposed homes that -- so, the elevations that were shown in the -- in the staff report are the homes that they are planning on building or -- or at least similar in kind. They will maintain the Planning and Zoning -- they will make sure that they meet the ordinance for height restrictions in this zone. R-8. I don't have it in front of me. I'm trying to remember what the height restriction is at this particular location, but they are not going to build any skyscrapers. With that I can stand with any questions. Holland: Mr. Chair? And I know you're on mute, but if you mouth to me -- one of the questions that was brought up was whether -- and I know you were talking about height and differences of how they would align, but I think the question was can you pair the single family homes with single family homes and the two story homes with two story Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 26 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 24 of 60 homes to make sure that they are compatible? And I'm sorry if you already said that, but could you help kind of capture that for us again? Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Holland, the homes -- again, you know, it's -- it's not -- it's not normal. I mean it's not required in the ordinance for them to be paired together. Most of these homes will be -- I believe will be mostly first -- or single story with possible bonus room over the top. So, the height restriction -- or the height restriction is -- is provided by the zoning ordinance and, you know, if-- if you wanted to put something in the -- in the development agreement that would restrict their height further, I would assume that would be your prerogative, but, you know, the homes that we are building, they are -- they are going to be similar in kind. I don't know how to -- I don't know how to go forth and tell people they are restricted to build a two story home next to a two story home or a one story home to a one story home and I don't know the avenue to do that. Does that help? Holland: Thank you. I wanted to make sure that we addressed the question that was asked, so I appreciate the follow up there. Lardie: Okay. Holland: One more follow up if I may, Mr. Chair. So, it sounds like there still might be a little bit of a disconnect, which I know our chair mentioned here, too, between the seller's representative and -- and the developer and I'm wondering if we should explore a continuance for you, so that you can work out some of those things about, you know, phasing and where the open space exists, because as we mentioned -- and I know open space is a big deal for us and planning for it at some point in the future that is undefined doesn't work very well when you have got an application like this in play. So, I don't know -- I just wanted to get your thoughts on that. Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Holland, if a continuance is -- is -- is valid, I would certainly probably appreciate that more and I know my client would probably appreciate that more than a denial at this particular point in time. No one likes -- no one likes denial. Johnson: Mr. Chair? This is Chris. Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Chris. Johnson: Mr. Thacker, the representative for the homeowner, has raised his hand a couple times. I know you have gone to the applicant, which closes that, but I wanted to let you know he did have his hand raised in case you wanted to address -- allow him to address you. Fitzgerald: Fellow Commissioners, is that kosher? I mean I -- what I don't want to turn this into is --we are negotiating --we are going to act as an intermediary. That's not what I want to do. So, if we need to continue this thing out and let everybody go to the table -- I know it's not easy right now that we can't be together, but we want to make sure we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 27 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 25 of 60 are providing the best recommendation we can for City Council. So, what's the will of our Commission? Because I -- I'm -- I'm leaning towards the fact that we are not done. We are -- this has got some issues. I think Joe is concerned. I think there is some -- there is some issues to be worked through and so instead of spending more time spinning, I would rather either request a continuance and move this thing back to the -- the parties and let them talk through it and, then, bring us back a final decision. My concern is that we are not there on open space, we are not there -- I'm concerned about the road. I think there is some cul-de-sac concerns, too. But what is the will of the Commission? Pogue: Mr. Chair, this is Andrea Pogue from Legal. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Pogue: I would say that I would recommend the course of action you just proposed versus allowing further discussion. That's just my input. Fitzgerald: I'm -- that's where I'm leaning, but I want to make sure that my fellow Commissioners are there. Holland: Mr. Chair, I would agree. I think -- I don't want to open it back up and have a discussion back and forth between the applicant and the client, so I think it would be better to let them kind of spend some time working that out and come back to us with a solid plan of what they would like to move forward with. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I agree. I think this just isn't quite ready yet. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Cassinelli, do you have any additional thoughts? Seal: Mr. Chair, I'm in agreement that it's -- it's not quite ready. I would like an opportunity to have a few additional comments after the open hearing piece is done, but I think at this point -- Fitzgerald: That's why I keep it open, so if you want to throw those in now I think it's -- because we will continue it and not close the public hearing, so -- Seal: Okay. Mr. Chair, just --just in looking at the -- I mean along with the other concerns that are there, the phase two to me just has a very very unfinished feel to it. It just looks like there was kind of some lines that were drawn on the map -- on the map to show that maybe something will happen there in the future and it doesn't speak well to how things are going to transition. The great big long -- big lots back there don't -- they just don't fit in with the rest of it. So, I'm scratching my head on how -- how well that will work. I mean Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 28 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 26 of 60 the other part of this is there is nothing preventing them from just selling that piece of property outright or willing it to somebody or something along those lines. So, I'm very concerned about that transition into a phase two if they did do it in phases to begin with. So, I just -- I think there is a lot of work left to do on this application. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: If I can add a couple more comments. I would agree with Commissioner Seal's comments there. I -- phase two looks a little bit funky to me as well and I think it would be cleaner if they just made it one lot with the existing home that's on it and tie it in with the subdivision as staff recommended and put it as one phase and if they decide to sell that house at some point in the future and raze it for future development, they would come back with another plan at that point in time. Fitzgerald: Agreed. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead, sir. Cassinelli: Yeah. I'm in support of a continuance as well and a couple of comments. I have actually -- a couple of questions for Joe if I might. Joe, is -- what -- is there a maximum allowable number of lots? And, if so, what is that? From one -- off a one access. Because we have got one access point and it could be indefinite off of Locust Grove. Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli and Commission. The limit, from what I understand it for Fire, is 30 homes. However, this is -- this was not stated outright to me, but I'm using some deduction here. The emergency access out to Victory Road is why that is there in order to allow more than 30 homes off of the singular -- singular access through the Tradewind Subdivision. Cassinelli: Is there a -- is there a limit, though, even with -- not from -- not from the Fire standpoint, but just from a development standpoint, based -- based on regular traffic. I mean we have got that emergent -- that emergency access is there, but, again, that for -- for Fire, but I'm just -- I'm talking about for regular -- from a regular traffic standpoint. Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, Commission, I do not honestly know that off the top of my head if there is a limit. I believe there are limits to whether or not there are a number of homes -- if it's a -- one cul-de-sac, so to speak. So, it was just a straight cul-de-sac. In our subdivision code that I just pulled up it does say cul-de-sac streets may serve a maximum of 30 dwelling units. However, where that street begins and where it-- it is kind of a question mark here, you know, because technically if we are doing just the -- the entire subdivision, then, we are under that 30 homes, because as soon as you get into Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 29 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 27 of 60 the Tradewinds you have additional streets. So, we are walking a fine line there. Just wanted to be clear on that. Cassinelli: Okay. And the other -- the other issue I have if -- if -- assuming that we continue here, if-- I would like to see some additional information, because I don't -- from ACHD the only traffic studies they have are on -- the only numbers they have are -- are Victory. We are not even accessing Victory here. There is nothing on Locust Grove. So, if you could encourage -- reach out to ACHD and the next time we see this have -- have some information on Locust Grove that would be helpful. If you could, please. Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, absolutely. Understandable on that one. That makes sense. Thank you. Cassinelli: Thank you. Holland: Mr. Chair, one other thought for consideration. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Go right ahead. Holland: My only other concern looking at this way out the way that it is is the cul-de-sac. It just looks like an awful lot of homes based off of one cul-de-sac and I know we always have issues when we look at trash enclosures and where is everybody going to put their -- their carts. People will park on the road even if there is signs that say don't park on the road in cul-de-sacs. It just tends to be a challenge. So, I don't know if you are -- you are reconfiguring and looking at things, I might ask you to consider looking at how that cul- de-sac is laid out and see if there is a way it could be reconfigured to have a few less homes off of just a big cul-de-sac entrance. Dodson: Commission, if I -- Fitzgerald: Any additional comments? Sorry. Dodson: No worries. Commission, this is Joe again. May I offer another -- Fitzgerald: Yes. Go right ahead, Joe. Dodson: This is more to Ms. Beth Williams' comment. I'm just wanting to --when it comes to development and providing a stub street to a property -- I apologize, my laptop is -- all right. The -- we are stubbing it, we would -- it's proposed as stubbing to her property and I think her question was more in concern that somebody else is going to develop her property and just to be clear for everybody on that, that her property could not be developed until such time that she were to develop it or sell it off. So, just wanted to be clear for that and there would be a barrier there that people would not be able to drive through her property and, then, also to clarify for her, the easement that he was speaking to -- that Mr. Lardie was speaking to was regarding the multi-use pathway that is on this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 30 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 28 of 60 property and not her property. It is -- it is on this property along the open space and along the Eight Mile Creek. Just --just wanted to clarify that for her. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. I think that's important. I appreciate that. My next question to you is going to be really not very fun. When do you want to do this again? I -- Dan, are you still on? Lardie: Yes, Commissioner. Yes, I am. Fitzgerald: I would guess that you are going to want this as soon as possible. Our -- our calendar is crazy, so is it first available is what you are thinking, Dan? Lardie: Unless you have something sooner, Mr. Commissioner. Fitzgerald: Okay. Dan, I hope you got what we were -- kind of the gist of the statements that are coming around. Do you have any questions? Lardie: I do have one comment, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Holland, the cul-de-sac-- you know, the code actually requires a certain amount of frontage along the cul-de-sac. I know -- I know what you are talking about as far as the parking and we try not to commit -- or create any hassle, but they do all -- all those lots do meet the dimensional standards set forth in the code. Not that that helps any. Holland: You know, one thought to consider, if I may, Mr. Chair. I have seen some cul- de-sacs where they bulb it out a little bit bigger, so that they can put kind of an island in the middle for some parking. That might be something to consider that would be helpful, if there is a way to -- I don't know, just kind of reconfigure that a little bit if you are looking at the layout. Just a thought. I mean it's just a suggestion, but we will be excited to see what you come back with us. Lardie: Commissioner Holland, thank you for your input. I really do appreciate it. Holland: Thanks. Fitzgerald: So, Joe, with that information in hand, when do you think, looking at your schedule and the schedule of our upcoming meetings and special meetings -- so, we have got stacked up, when is the next available time frame we can be adding this to the list? Dodson: Right. I mean it depends how much you want to bury me or not. I have two -- Fitzgerald: That's not my intention. Dodson: Understood. Yes. I have two on the June 4th already. I have two on the June 17th already. Or 18th. Or whichever one that next is, so -- and, then, I have also additional meetings every week of May and into June. So, we are very busy. I don't -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 31 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 29 of 60 don't know if doing it now or later is going to make that big of a difference for my workload. I do have, I admit, two conditional use permits on the 4th. So, I guess adding this to then would be easier than bumping it to the -- the next one, which has some bigger projects. Fitzgerald: Any other special meetings? Do we have anything going on the 27th? Is that the next meeting? Dodson: The 28th? Yes, I also have two on that one. Fitzgerald: Okay. Weatherly: Commissioner -- or sorry. Chairman Fitzgerald, on the 28th there are, actually, five hearings scheduled for that evening already. Fitzgerald: Let's don't do that. Weatherly: Yeah. There is actually, to be frank with you, Chairman, none of your meetings have less than four hearings through June 18th. Fitzgerald: Yes. So, Commissioner Holland is going to lead and I'm going on vacation. Is that what I just heard? Holland: It sounds like we are going to have some late nights. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Exactly. So, Joe, I mean do we have on the 4th -- Madam Clerk, do we have four on that day? Weatherly: Yes, Mr. Chair, you do. So, this would be number five if you added this one. Fitzgerald: So, we have two conditional use permits that Joe's got and, then, if we added this one to that? Weatherly: Yeah. You have got a conditional use permit, a rezone, and a preliminary plat and annexation and another annexation and preliminary plat as well. Fitzgerald: I'm feeling sick. Sorry. Weatherly: No. I'm sorry. My bad. That last one was for June 18th. So -- yeah. So, you have the conditional use permits, then, the rezone with a preliminary plat and, then, an annexation. Fitzgerald: Is everybody okay with moving it to the 4th? Get this thing moving down the road. Holland: Mr. Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 32 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 30 of 60 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move to continue file number H-2020-0006 to the hearing date of June 4th for the reason that the applicant work with the client and the landowner on finding more appropriate open space balance, reconsider the phasing, take a look at the cul-de-sac and some of the other items discussed tonight. McCarvel: Second. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Do we need to close the public hearing before we make the motion? Fitzgerald: We keep it open. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks for the clarification. So, I have a motion and a second to continue file number H-2020-0006, Teakwood Place Subdivision, to June 4th Planning and Zoning meeting. All those of the favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: We appreciate you being here, Dan. Thanks very much and we look forward to seeing you on the 4th. Lardie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Have a good evening. C. Public Hearing for Cedarbrook Subdivision (H-2020-0012) by Toll Southwest, LLC, Located at 4185 S. Linder Rd. 1 . Request: Annexation of a total of 118.58 acres of land with R-2 (9.48 acres), R-4 (65.45 acres) and R-8 (43.66 acres) zoning districts; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary plat consisting of 330 buildable lots, 38 common lots and 4 other lots on 118.58 acres of land in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. Fitzgerald: You, too. Okay. Anybody need a break before we go into the next one? Because I would guess it's going to be long. Good? Plow forward? Okay. I'm going to turn it over to -- as we open the public hearing on the next item on our agenda, which is H-2020-0012, Cedarbrook Subdivision, and, Ms. Allen, it's all you, my friend. Are you ready to go? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 33 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 31 of 60 Allen: Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 118.5 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 4185 South Linder Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. There are residential -- excuse me -- rural residential agricultural properties consisting of five acres and larger lots and parcels, zoned RUT in Ada county. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre. Summary of the request. Annexation of a total of 118.5 acres of land with R-2 zoning, which consists of 9.48 acres. R-4 zoning, which consists of 65.45 acres. And R- 8 zoning, which consists of 43.66 acres, consistent with the medium density residential future land use map designation. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 330 buildable lots, 38 common lots, and four other lots on 118.58 acres of land. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,828 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,814 square feet. The gross density is 2.78 units per acre, with a net density of 4.4 units per acre. This subdivision is proposed to develop in seven phases and that phasing plan is shown on the plat that's included in your staff report. Access is proposed via one collector street, West Cedarbrook Drive, and two emergency only access driveways from Linder Road. Two stub streets are proposed at the north and one stub street is proposed at the southwest boundary of the site for future extension in accord with UDC standards. Each phase of development is proposed to have two accesses for emergency services. The access from the north from Victory Road will be constructed with the first phase of development per the emergency access plan approved by the Fire Department. The existing roadways in this area are rural in nature. There are no roadway improvements planned in this area until between 2031 and 2035 when Linder Road is planned to be widened to three lanes from Amity Road to Victory Road and the Amity-Linder intersection is planned to be reconstructed. Linder Road between Victory Road and Overland is planned to be widened to five lanes and the Victory Road-Linder Road intersection is planned to be reconstructed between 2021 and 2025. The proposed development falls within the interim southwest sewer phasing plan as developed by the Meridian Public Works Department. As such it will require the construction of a temporary sewer lift station, trunk line, and pressure sewer force main at the expense of the developer. This will not be constructed as a city project. The applicant has proposed an alternate location for the lift station and Public Works has no issue with their proposal in principle. However, the applicant shall be responsible to construct trunk lines sewer back up to Linder Road and along the Linder Road frontage. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of the minimum ten percent required by the UDC. A total of 20.74 acres or 17.5 percent is proposed consisting of a large central common area with a pond, linear open space with pathways, common areas greater than 50 feet by 100 feet in size. Parkways along streets and collector and arterial street buffers. Site amenities are proposed in accord with UDC standards from the quality of life recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system categories. A swimming pool and clubhouse -- excuse me -- pool house, a multi-use sports court and picnic area next to a large pond containing benches, a covered shelter and picnic tables, are proposed with the first phase of development and a pocket park with play structures consisting of faux logs and boulders is proposed on the other large common area in the third phase. Next slide, please. The staff recommends an additional amenity is proposed -- excuse me -- provided consisting of children's play equipment, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 34 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 32 of 60 such as a climbing structure, slide, swings, etcetera. Pathways are proposed through -- through this site as shown on the pedestrian plan on the right. Two ten foot wide multi- use pathway connections are proposed from the sidewalk along Linder Road that merge in the central common area and continue one to the north boundary along the collector street. Internal pathways are proposed for interconnectivity and detached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development adjacent to streets, with tree lined streets. The Calkins Lateral crosses the northeast corner of this site. The applicant is proposing to leave it open and improve the area as a linear open space with a pathway. Fencing is required to be installed to deter access to the waterway, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that the waterway serves as or will be improved to be a water amenity as defined in the UDC, in which case fencing may not be required. Fencing is not proposed around the large pond. If the Commission and Council determines this presents a safety hazard, a condition requiring such should be added. Sample photo elevations of the types of homes planned to be constructed in this development were submitted as shown. Homes are a mix of one and two story units of varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consists of a mix of finish materials with stone and brick veneer accent. Staff is recommending the elevations proposed on the right for the homes on the 40 to 45 foot wide lots are revised prior to the Council hearing to include more design elements and materials to provide a higher quality of design. Because Comprehensive Plan policies address providing a variety of housing types to avoid any one housing type in a development and to provide more options to meet the financial capabilities of future residents, staff is recommending a variety of housing types. For example, attached duplex and townhomes added to the proposed single family detached are provided. Only single family detached homes are proposed within the development. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for a mix of attached and townhome units. Next slide, please. As shown consisting of 24 units at the northeast corner of the development, resulting in an overall increase of some more units and an increase in density from 2.78 to 2.82 units per acre. There have been several letters of testimony submitted on this application. I'm just going to read through those. They were kind of submitted within the last couple of days -- several today, so I'm just going to hit the highlights of those so the Commission's aware of those. First letter was received from Julie Langlois and there were also letters from Clark and Michelle Robinson and Wayne Martin and Jimmy Lin. They -- they all have roughly the same concerns pertaining to the following issues. Protecting their right to farm, raise livestock, process their cattle and enjoy the view shed. Capacity of various schools with all the previous developments that have been approved, but not yet constructed in this area. Inadequacy of existing infrastructure to handle more development in this area, with no plans to widen Linder -- Linder Road in the near future, which is a two lane rural road -- roadway with four way stops at nearby intersections, which they believe is inadequate to serve existing traffic, let alone traffic generated from already approved, but not yet constructed development and the proposed development. Inadequate transition and lot sizes to adjacent five to ten acre rural residential properties. They request a greater transition in lot sizes to one half to three quarters of an acre in size, with a four and a half to five foot tall rolling berm with fencing at the bottom of the berm on the Cedarbrook side on the boundaries adjacent to Rock Ranch and Stetson Estates, with landscaping on the berm consisting of a deciduous tree and an evergreen tree every 60 feet with a maximum height of 15 feet, with three Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 35 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 33 of 60 shrubs between each tree. Specific species requested in her -- in the letter. A letter from Kenzie Ward. She has similar concerns as those previously noted and requests the following: A greater transition in lot sizes at a minimum one half to one acre in size. A greater setback along Linder Road, so that when the road is expanded in the future there will still be enough green space and landscaping to keep the rural feel of the area and reduce the impacts on landscaping. Traffic concerns, school capacity concerns, and belief that it's not an efficient way to expand the city's infrastructure with the project's location on the fringe of the city. A letter from Paula Connelly. She shares the previously mentioned concerns pertaining to not enough transition in lot sizes to adjacent rural properties and inadequacy of existing roads to handle more traffic against the eventual stub street to the west on the adjacent property to the north discussed in the ACHD report. Letter from Brian Connelly, concern pertaining to the timing of this development, balancing the growth with the state of the economy, requests the Commission and Council consider if it's the right time to add 330 more homes to the 1 ,055 already approved in this area or if we will have too many houses on the market and create another housing crisis, in which homes sit vacant and are a target for crime and vandalism. A letter from Dennis and Judy Radford. They are not opposed to the proposed single family residential detached homes, but they are not supportive of townhomes or duplexes. Letter from Tina Dean. She believes the proposed project is leapfrog development and will require additional costs and infrastructure and that it would make more sense for the city to develop out from current developed areas to build the transition and is inadequate to adjacent rural properties and will deny adjacent existing residents the opportunity to continue practices they currently enjoy. Concern that the lack of buffer proposed will affect the well being of livestock and other animals. She feels there is demand and ability for the developer to provide one half to one acre lots of the transition to rural property properties and feels because this is a request for annexation that the developer has an opportunity and a responsibility to meet a higher level of expectation in regard to amenities for its residents, as well as protecting current property use in this area. And, lastly, a letter from Therrin and Amy Robertson. They request one half to three quarter acre lots provided adjacent to the entire border of their property. A berm planted with shrubs between each tree and the maximum amount of trees for best health. Types to be determined at their discretion. And fencing constructed on top of the berm. The center of the berm to be on the property line with a maximum of ten feet from the property line with an understanding the adjacent maintenance would be theirs, since it will be on their property. Staff is recommending approval of the project with the requirement of a development agreement for the provisions in the staff support. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. I appreciate it. Any initial questions for staff? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: The pond that's going to be -- that's depicted, is that something that they are going to create or is that based on something that's already there? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 36 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 34 of 60 Allen: Mr. Chair, Chairman, it is a pond that they will create. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions, Commissioner Seal? Anybody else? Okay. With that is our applicant ready to go? Durtschi: Yes, I am ready. Hello and good evening. Fitzgerald: How are you? Durtschi: Really well. Thank you so much. Fitzgerald: Thank you for joining us. Please state your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours, ma'am. Durtschi: Absolutely. Thank you again. Hello and good evening. For the record my name is Sabrina Durtschi and I'm here on behalf of the applicant Toll Southwest, LLC. My business address is 3103 West Sheryl Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Next slide, please. And this evening we are so excited to present to you via Zoom our application for annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat for Cedarbrook Subdivision. And behind me I have a wonderful team tonight to help support me in this endeavor. Adam Capell, Toll Brothers and Land Development. Ryan Hammons in our forward planning. And the lovely Deb Nelson will be available during the Q&A. Next slide, please. First I would like to tell you a little bit about Toll Brothers. We are an award winning Fortune 500 company that purchased Coleman Homes back in 2016. We are proud of our Idaho division. While we are a national builder, we consider our Idaho division a local company that employs local residents. But Toll also hires local contractors, consultants, and hires local vendors to build their communities within the valley. I also want you to know that Toll Brothers are not land developers. What we are are community builders. Land development is just a small component of what we do. Our end result is to build beautiful homes and communities that individuals and families love to live in. We are not just developers looking for quick approvals to flip the development. Instead Toll is committed from the very beginning of initial design to the last house being sold. Next slide, please. The pride of ownership can be seen in our site plan for Cedarbrook. Since Sonya did such a great job detailing our project within the staff report, which, by the way, we are in complete agreement with and her presentation, I will not sit here and regurgitate everything that she previously covered. Next slide, please. What I did want to cover and as Sonya has mentioned, is that we are designated as medium density residential. One thing I did want to note is that this piece of land has gone through two Comprehensive Plan updates with the same medium density residential designation. But the one thing that has changed was the area to the west of our site. As you are aware, the residents of Stetson Estates heavily petitioned to change the low density designation within your new Comprehensive Plan. This change within the plan greatly influenced our layout and zoning requests. Not only do we want to honor the City of Meridian's new Comprehensive Plan for our proposed project, but we also want to harmoniously transition our medium density residential to low Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 37 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 35 of 60 density residential to match our neighbors to the west. Next slide, please. As mentioned we wanted to honor the updated comp plan with zoning that fits the area, but also provides transition. Therefore, we determined that not one zone would work for the entire site. Instead we felt three zoning designations for this area would be the most appropriate. And as Sonya noted, 9.49 acres will be designated for an R-2 that's adjacent to the property to the west and shown in pink. We will, then, transition to 66.45 acres of medium density R-4 that is in purple and, then, 43.66 acres to R-8. That's in green. We feel that this is an appropriate transition from low density to medium density, then, to the approved subdivisions east of the property that I will touch on in my next slide. I would also like to note that within all of our three zoning designations -- and we are not asking for any exceptions or variances, we are going to be meeting the zoning requirements for each zone. Next slide, please. In this slide we really wanted to highlight that transition from our development application into the approved existing subdivision. You can look at the R-2 transition -- transitioning to the R-4, then, to the R-8 and we think that it blends perfectly into the approved subdivisions to the east of us. Next slide, please. The other item I wanted to highlight is that really this site is in the center of the valley. It's minutes from everywhere. The Ten Mile interchange has really transformed this area making, it, again, minutes from your downtown core, eight minutes -- ten minutes to the Nampa- Garrity interchange, 17 minutes to downtown Boise -- or to downtown Boise and minutes from -- to anywhere in Meridian. Next slide, please. Timing. After approvals we are estimating to begin in 2021 . Paving the summer of 2021 . And homebuilding starting around that same time. We don't estimate first occupancies to be until 2022 early. Next slide. Thank you. Utilities. Pressure irrigation. We have a private system with sufficient water rights. Water will be consistent and meet the standards of the Meridian water master plan and water is in Linder and sewer is consistent with the Meridian wastewater master plan. Next slide. Thank you. Within each community that Toll Brothers builds, open, usable space is extremely important. It sets our foundations for our community amenities, pathways, and interconnectivity that makes our community special. Here in Cedarbrook we have designated 20.78 acres, 17.5 percent, equally distributed open space for our community. This can be seen in our main common area, our pocket parks, but also in the landscape islands and detached sidewalks that we have throughout the site. Next slide, please. Extensive coordination has been done with all outside agencies. We have had -- held multiple pre-application meetings with the City of Meridian to hone in on the perfect site plan. We have also met with the school -- for West Ada. We met with Meridian police. We met with Meridian fire and we have coordinated and worked with ACHD and we were in full agreement with their staff report. Next slide. Thank you. We also have provided extensive community outreach with the surrounding and adjacent neighbors. We have held three neighborhood meetings. We had two last year and one earlier this year. We have also worked closely with our adjacent neighbors. And the map shows in red all the neighbors we have personally reached out to. This outreach includes meeting with the majority of the surrounding neighbors on the project to address our project and their individual needs in person. Some of the neighbors address concerns with their view shed. We hired a consultant to take pictures of each neighbor's backyard and view and, then, produce renderings of how the development will impact their view. We sent out the renderings to the neighbors for feedback and worked closely on their individual needs concerning mitigation. Next slide, please. Here is an example of one of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 38 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 36 of 60 the renderings that we did. This is for the Lin property. And it shows you our community built out, landscaping, but what it also shows you is that it doesn't impede their view shed. A lot of the homes -- adjacent homes are at a higher elevation and we are a lower, so -- but this gives you a great example of the communication that we have had with the adjacent neighbors. Next slide, please. Excuse me. One of the things that -- after we assessed everyone's comments and concerns from the neighborhood and individual meetings we had, we were able to commit to the following mitigation measures. Transitional density was a topic during our neighborhood meetings and that we want to address and we feel like we have with the R-2 zone. These are transitional estate lots that range from 16,000 to 24,000 square feet. Dark sky lighting was a priority for the neighbors and something that we are providing. We had several stub roads the neighbors were concerned about, including that mid mile collector at the northwest -- northwest corner of our site and those have been removed. Separation was a big concern of the neighbors and we have committed to increasing our rear setbacks in the R-2 zone from 15 to 30. So, we are going to be doubling our rear setbacks. One of the things that wasn't very popular was the white vinyl fence that we proposed in the renderings and the neighbors really didn't like it, so we have committed to doing a wood style privacy fence. And, again, we are committed to reducing our homes to two story homes in locations that would impede our neighbors view shed. Next slide, please. Our pathway connectivity and walkability are a priority for Cedarbrook. As seen in our pathways exhibit, red shows a regional pathway that is going to be dedicated to the City of Meridian. Yellow shows all of our detached sidewalks that we have throughout the site. And the blue shows the internal pathways owned and maintained by the HOA. We closely coordinated with Kim Warren at the City of Meridian on these pathway locations to ensure that they meet the City of Meridian's long term regional pathway goals. We have 4,600 feet of regional pathway being designated, plus 3,000 feet of the HOA pathway, for a total of 7,600 feet provided in our project. Also the pathway located in the northeast section of the site is along the Calkins Lateral. We have requested a waiver to leave that -- this lateral open to allow it to be a water feature adjacent to our pathway system. Next slide, please. Cedarbrook will meet and exceed the City of Meridian's amenity requirements by maximizing all the ample open space by incorporating the following. Of a pool, a pool house, a main playground, sport -- sport court, pocket parks and benches along the pathways. Next slide, please. Here is a beautiful view of the pool that we will be providing. Next slide, please. Another great shot. Can't wait for summertime. Next shot, please. And here is some more additional renderings. Sonya did mention in the staff report that she wanted to see us incorporate an additional playground and we are more than happy to accommodate that requirement. Next slide, please. So, now I would like to address our wonderful product types. Cedarbrook will offer a wide variety of housing opportunities from starter homes to larger estates. This one here is the garden collection and it will be within the R-8 zone. This will range from 1 ,200 to 2,500 square feet. These homes will offer functional living space and design. Next slide, please. The Woodland collection will be -- a lot of it you will see in our R-4 zoning. This housing option will range from 1 ,600 to 2,900 square feet. This collection specializes in open floor plans and quality craftsmanship. Next slide, please. And our Countryside collection. These will be -- you will see these homes in our R-2, our estate homes. This offers a larger home ranging in 2,900 to 4,500 square feet. The Countryside collection embodies elegance and luxury Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 39 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 37 of 60 with top of the line finishes. Next slide, please. And this is our single family townhome attached. Again, Sonya's staff report recommended we provide an additional residential product type to our site. So, we were able to incorporate this attached townhome within our northeast corner of the property. We feel that this is a great location and a great addition for our project. Next slide. And that brings me to the end. Again, we are so excited to be able to present this to you guys this evening. We thank you for all your time and thoughtful consideration and respectively request a recommendation of approval to Council and I will stand for questions that you may have. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sabrina. We appreciate your presentation. Are there questions for the applicant? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: I will ask on the pond again. Is the pond something that you guys have your heart set on? Durtschi; Chairman, Commissioner Seal, I believe, yes, we do need to have the pond. It's going to be for irrigation purposes, as well as aesthetics. We do understand the concern of safety and we -- in our ponds that we have built in Meridian and throughout the valley we have what's called a safety bench on all the ponds. These are five feet -- or a foot down and five feet wide. So, it's like a step down, so that if a kid did fall in the pond they are safety precautions. It's not an immediate drop. Seal: Okay. And, then, on the lateral is -- I mean are you guys -- it sounds like you are wanting to leave that open instead of cover it. Can you -- I mean say as far as safety is concerned there. Not that I wouldn't want to see that as part of the beautification, but I'm always concerned when things like that are left open. Durtschi: Chairman, Commissioner, I believe that we will -- we will finish that. It will be open iron probably, I'm assuming, style fence. But, yes, for safety measures that lateral we will have -- Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Cassinelli: Sabrina, did you consider at all layouts with R-2 along the -- the full western border, including that-- kind of that-- that half moon shape on the southwest abutting that property down there off Amity? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 40 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 38 of 60 Fitzgerald: Hey, Chris, can we go back to the slide, so we can have the plan in front of us, so we can take a look at what Commissioner Cassinelli is mentioning? Thank you. Durtschi: Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, we have not looked at that. We felt that the R-2 -- that was a good transition point based on the comp plan and that was the location we had ended the zone at. Fitzgerald: Any follow up, Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: That's all. Thanks. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, you look like you're getting ready -- ready to ask. I will just give you -- no? Okay. Any additional questions right now? Okay. Sabrina, we really appreciate it. Thank you and your team. We will come back to you with additional questions and allow you to close. Durtschi: That sounds wonderful. Thank you so much. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have folks on the line I would guest to testify? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have four people signed up. The first of which is Annette Alonso, speaking on behalf of a homeowner's association, the Southern Rim Coalition. Fitzgerald: Okay. Alonso: Yeah. This is Annette Alonzo. I'm at -- live at 2204 East Hyperdrive in Meridian and I am representing the Southern Rim Coalition. I think that all of us agree that annexation into Meridian -- it should be set at a higher bar and we need to ask is this development good for the City of Meridian? Can it provide all the necessary services to all of the residents and is just good enough a standard for approval. I just don't know that that's right, a recommendation to City Council. First of all, I'm going to start with the buffer to the estate lots on the south and the west property line and these lots -- the lots that are bordering this are five to ten acre parcels and there has been a lot of discussion within the city government and the necessity of the proper buffer zone and density transition from these estate lots to the new higher density developments and in this situation we believe it's appropriate to ask for a minimum of a half to one acre lots starting at Lot 14, Block 4, which is down on the southern -- the southeastern portion of that, which pretty much starts at one of the larger estate lots and running west and diagonally and, then, north along the property line to the Stetson Estates and -- and, then, all the way north to Lot 6, Block 1. 1 think that's what it is. At the far northwestern side. The neighbors we have spoken to would also like to see a buffer berm and fencing along the property line. In this instance, of course, vinyl fencing would not be appropriate and I heard Sabrina say that they had changed that to wood. As sometimes the estate lots burn their fields and vinyl fencing is just going to melt and we believe this is -- this should be discussed with the landowners on the larger lots to decide what they want and apparently that has Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 41 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 39 of 60 already been covered. We hadn't seen that in any of the documentation yet. Density and open space. The staff recommendation to increase the density to higher end of the MDR is totally opposite of what the comp plan stakeholder survey and goals of the objectives call for. The MDR allows for a large range of density and since this application is adjacent to rural estate properties, the developers should come in at a low end of the range of the allowed density and lot dimensions, but the high end of the open space and amenities. That should be part of the appropriate transition and although this development meets the minimum requirements for the City of Meridian, over ten percent for the open space, there is -- there is really not a whole lot of space in that R-8 area for the children to play. There is no open space within the R-8 whatsoever, but little triangular pieces that appear to be at the end of where the lots were. If you will notice in that R-8 there is really no open space within there -- within phase six or phase four. I'm sure they could walk down to the pool, but in reality those are the ones that are going to be using that area the most and -- and the pool is a nice amenity. However, it could only be used for four months of the year and, then, that area is closed off. The pool deck and the pool are closed off. So, in reality, for months that area is not going to be able to be used. The pond is also nice in concept, although it is only -- the idea is it really is for irrigation. But the children can't play on that and the pond itself takes up 25 percent of their open space and that's put in the staff report. Let's see. It says -- let's see. Lose my place here. Meridian Fire report states that current resources would not be adequate to supply service to the propose -- to the proposed project because of the risk factor which includes an open waterway. Water rescue teams would have to be mutually aided from another department. I think that's a major red flag for us here with -- obviously there is going to be a lot of children in this development and I think that pond is a detriment where it's placed right now. It should be placed -- if it's going to be used for irrigation purposes should be placed somewhere where it can be fenced out of the way of -- of the children playing. Of course, the main thing are West Ada School District. Our schools are in crisis due to severe overcrowding. The school district has chosen not to hold the bond election for the time being, which would have provided for the construction of the Blue Valley Elementary School near Overland and Linder. This has been pushed out indefinitely and approving this application at this time lowers the bar for educating our future leaders in Meridian. Grossly overcrowded classrooms and busing students out of their neighborhoods devalues our Meridian's quality of life and devalues Meridian's reputation. Other proposed new schools in the area are not slated until 2024 to 2026. That's up to six years from now and that's if the bonds are set forth and approved. This development, according to Joe Yochum with the West Ada School District, which I spent a lot of time with on the phone and I actually sent a report to City Council on this as well. It will add approximately 264 children to the system and with the current approved new construction, which Toll Brothers pointed out those new constructions, that is approximately 1 ,053 homes, not including this 334 homes. So, that's going to add -- right now the capacity of the schools -- the capacity that's left right now without all these new developments coming on, there is a capacity for 649 kids between Mary McPherson, Sienna, Victory Middle and Meridian High and there are 800 and some children -- 886 children proposed, including these. I don't know where we are going to put these kids. I mean we are going to overcapacity our schools by 200 children after some of them are already over capacity? You know, I think -- you know, we appreciate you guys allowing us to talk on behalf of the Coalition and it's not that we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 42 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 40 of 60 disapprove of this development with some improvements to the plan, it's just, you know, we are concerned citizens and I think it's not no, but it's not right now, and with this lift station that-- this gravity station they are going to have to put in for the sewer, not having a lift station there, I think crossing over Linder just creates a whole other can of worms that I'm not sure the city wants to get -- get into. You know, I think in the staff report it says that-- that with the master plan it says the slow progression -- I'm paraphrasing this. The slow progress -- progression of city limits by discouraging fringe area development and encouraging development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within the city limits and it says this is not a priority area for Meridian services. So, why would we approve 334 houses when our schools can't handle it, our sewer can't handle it, we need a lift station -- I -- I just -- I think it's too much at the wrong time. So, I appreciate guys allowing me to speak and if you have any questions for me let me know. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Mrs. Alonso. We appreciate it. Excuse me. Any questions from --from Commissioners? Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate you being part of this tonight. Madam Clerk -- who is next on our list, ma'am? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have Julie L. representing Stetson Estates Homeowners Association. Fitzgerald: Okay. Julie, I see you are chimed in and, please, unmute yourself if you haven't. Or maybe Chris can unmute you. There we go. Julie, can you hear us? Langlois: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. We appreciate you being here tonight and we know you are representing an HOA, so we will give you a little bit of additional time. Please introduce yourself and your -- give us your address for the record and the floor is yours, ma'am. Langlois: Great. Thank you. Thank you to the Commissioners for -- for allowing us to comment on this application. My name is Julie Langlois. I live at 3556 Rustler. It is more than difficult to testify about an application that was still being revised today. As numerous other resident neighborhood advocates have testified previously regarding other applications, it is discourteous to your resident stakeholders to ask us to testify about applications that have not been complete for ten to 14 days prior to a hearing. These are land use decisions that will directly impact our neighborhood identities and our properties' market values. An application that is a moving target leaves little time for residents to thoughtfully review and discuss. However, this application has had glaring flaws present -- flaws present in its every iteration, proving it is not worthy of annexation approval. The ink is hardly dry on our new Comprehensive Plan, a plan that is -- that is the painstaking result of stakeholder surveys, thousands of staff and steering committee hours, and the city's sizable monetary investment. That guide to our future growth clearly states the following pertinent Meridian goals and objectives. Preserve prime farmland within the area of city impact to maintain rural character and provide opportunities for local produce and continued farming operations. Encourage the continued use of land for farming near area of the city impact boundaries to effectively transition from rural uses to urban. Slow Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 43 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 41 of 60 the outward progression of the city's limits by discouraging fringe area development and to support appropriate agriculture operations within the area of city impact. We are here tonight to echo those goals that are so important to the residents of Meridian as you deliberate over whether this application supports those goals. We contend this application does not support those goals and objectives and, therefore, it is not in the best interest of the city to approve it. The Cedarbrook Subdivision is an enormous opportunity to support the spirit and intent of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and to manage growth that will complement and enhance the quality and character of southwest Meridian, yet it fails on several levels. Annexations are important decisions and we believe the timing is wrong for this one. These 334 homes will tax our city's ability to provide services. We also believe this development should complement and build on southwest Meridian's rich rural culture practices and identity. This development should respect and enhance our area's natural assets and resources by maintaining viewsheds, providing a generous transition to neighboring rural properties, protecting our existing farm practices, like processing cattle in our fields and by incorporating architectural elements that honor and celebrate southwest Meridian's proud rural story. We believe this application should be denied. However, should you consider its approval, the new Comprehensive Plan calls for Legacy neighborhoods. This land use decision -- decision should require Cedarbrook to be such a place. Let's avoid a cookie cutter development in southwest Meridian. Meridian residents do not want to become Anytown USA. We honor pathways, open space, amenities and gathering spaces. We love our rural ambience. This annexation will be adjacent to rural estate property. So, we ask that you require appropriate transition and landscape buffers, minimal lot ratios, generous lot dimensions, the highest standard of open space, pathways, and amenities and rural or semi-rural gateway entrances. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Any questions for Julie? Not at this time? Appreciate it. Thank you very much, ma'am. Langlois: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Appreciate you being here. Weatherly: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Weatherly: Next we have Paula. Fitzgerald: Paula, I see you. Maybe Chris can unmute you or you can unmute yourself. Okay. The slide's up. Chris, can you unmute Paula, please. Thank you, sir. Johnson: Yeah. I was doing three screens at once. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 44 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 42 of 60 Fitzgerald: I wasn't -- trying to -- rushing you. I apologize. Paula, thank you for being with us tonight. We appreciate it. And, please, state your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours, ma'am. Connelly: Okay. My name is Paula Connelly. I live at 3878 South Rustler Lane, so I'm part of Stetson Estates. If I can have the pictures -- they came out in different orders. Can you, please, move them to the cows. Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners and Planning Staff. Chairman. More than ever light agricultural practices are needed in our country and in Idaho. No matter what new source you turn on meat shortages are occurring as meat processing plants are shutting down due to the COVID-19 crisis. I don't say this to scare people. I say it because it reinforces the lifestyle that I and my neighbors wholeheartedly practice. It's what many of us have been doing for years, what we have taught our children and what we will continue to do in the future. In an effort to be a good neighbor to the houses that will be constructed behind us, I believe it is in their best interest, as well as ours, to limit how much we affect each other. The question becomes how is that best done? On the one hand there are property rights of the existing owners in Rock Ranch and Stetson Estates. We want to protect our open air views and our way of life, which creates noise from animals, dust from planting, plowing, and harvesting crops, smells from fertilizing and what some would deem unsightly realities of slaughtering animals in the field. Can you -- next slide. Actually, go two slides, please. As you can see from my pictures, agriculture isn't for everyone, and I don't want neighbors complaining about this, because I won't change my ways because there is a house behind me. Of course the landowner behind us wants to protect his property right, so he can sell his land for as much as he can and the developer wants to operate his business to make money and build and maximize their profit. And then there is the city who would like to expand their tax base and, in my opinion, that is a detriment to our agriculture in Meridian. Here is my answer. If you want to protect the new neighbors from our dust and noise, I would ask that Toll Brothers put in a minimum of a half acre lot against any five acre parcel and one acre lot bordering anything ten acres or bigger, instead of the one third to one half lots that they have on their site plan, of which I only counted four half acre lots. It seems reasonable to have a one to ten ratio since our neighborhood is more fitting as a rural estate than R-2. These are more proportional for their -- excuse me. These are more proportional for their largest houses as well. They said that the largest ones would be 2,900 to 4,500 square feet. Put that on a third acre lot and it's going to be eaten up quickly. This affords a better visual transition in house sizes from our neighborhood to theirs. It means more density on the east side of the development which allows a larger tax base for the city that creates a proper transition to the existing neighbors. There will be less lots affected from our dust and noise and the landowner can still sell his property. I also want to dispute the notion in the staff report that there are no significant natural scenic or historic features that need preserving. Can you move the pictures back to the birds of prey? As you can see from my -- excuse me. This statement may refer to the land, but it's the habitat the land provides that needs to be protected for the birds of prey and wildlife it supports. As you see from my pictures we have hawks, kestrels, and owls, which we have added nesting boxes for on our property. Putting in dense populations throughout this area means less habitat for these animals. I respectfully ask that you remand this application, so it can include one to ten ratio in lot sizes against the existing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 45 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 43 of 60 properties of Stetson Estates and Rock Ranch. Perhaps even a few of those large parcels can raise chickens and gardens and will rely less on markets for hard to find products during this time of our crisis. The only other thing that I would like to highlight, because it's the first time that it was seen tonight by myself, was the rendition that was shown of the view shed was of the highest property within our subdivision. There are other parcels -- or five and ten acre parcels that are on flat areas and so they are not going to be looking down. In fact, directly behind my house the elevation goes up. So, those people behind me will be looking down into us and it will affect my view shed more so than the one that was shown and that also means that every October when the cows are killed out here somebody's not going to be happy and I don't know what to do about that when they are going to be looking into my backyard and I kill my cows. Thank you. I will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks for calling. We appreciate it. Any questions for Mrs. Connelly? Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate you being here. Connelly: Thank you. Weatherly Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Weatherly: Last on the list we have Kenzie Ward. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Kenzie, we see you. Can you hear us? Ward: Yeah. I wasn't planning on speaking though. Fitzgerald: Okay. If you -- do you -- any comments or you are good? Ward: I agree with what Stetson Estates and Southern Rim Coalition and all that, like same -- same comment, same concerns with Rock Ranch as well. Fitzgerald: Can you -- just for the record can you say your name and your address for the record just so -- Ward: Kenzie Ward. 4605 South Rock Ranch Lane. Fitzgerald: Thank you so much, ma'am. We appreciate you being here and being a part of this. Ward: Thank you. Fitzgerald: And with that, Madam Clerk, I think we are done with the list. Is there additional folks that would like to testify on this application that haven't done so already? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 46 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 44 of 60 Please raise your hand via Zoom or hit star nine and touch base with Chris, our clerk. Madam Clerk or Chris, do you see anybody else? Johnson: Mr. Chair, nothing yet. There are quite a few people in the attendees, but no hands yet. Fitzgerald: We will give it a couple seconds to look through that list. Is there any questions for staff while we are making sure that everybody has a chance to make sure they have been heard? Sonya, do you have anything you wanted to add? I saw your name pop up. Do you have anything else you want us to be aware of? Allen: No, Chairman Fitzgerald. I'm fine. Thanks. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. So, Chris, I think we are good. If that's -- and I will let the applicant close. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Oh. Yes. Seal: And this -- this is more a question that will be directed to the applicant. I mean they said in the statement that, essentially, they had worked a lot with the -- the folks in this -- on the surrounding properties to make sure that they were coming up with something that would be amenable to everybody, although I'm looking at all the public comments and I'm looking at all the -- I'm just counting up the number of properties that are around it and the number of people that are, essentially, against it in one way or another on these larger, you know, farmstead, you know, development -- developed properties here and I would just like to hear something about what it is that they are willing to do. I mean there has been a lot of talk about putting in a berm and a fence and all kinds of stuff. So, I just want to make sure that that's covered as part of this. I would also like to hear what they have to say about increasing the -- the density of the lots or not -- or decreasing the density of the lots, something into more, you know, half acre or above and how that would continue along not only the western side, but also the southern side of the property all the way out into Linder Road. Fitzgerald: Sabrina, do you want to take it from there and I think this -- you switched partners, so -- Nelson: Thank you, Chairman. Yes. I'm not Sabrina anymore. This is Deborah Nelson. My address for the record is 601 West Bannock Street in Boise and I am also representing the applicant this evening and Sabrina did not go far. She may get hooked in here to answer any further questions or jump in. I just want to try to run through a few of the items that we heard from the Commissioners and also from the neighbors. We did not revise the application today, we simply were providing an option for the Commission to have a look at based on the request that we received from Sonya in her staff report. The application was submitted and complete and accepted, but we were happy to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 47 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 45 of 60 accommodate the request from Sonya for additional housing types and that's been presented to you as an option for your consideration. We -- I also want to address that we heard some comments about the schools and in particular the representative from the neighborhood association said they had met with Joe Yochum many times. So did the applicant, met with Joe Yochum and made sure that he was comfortable with this development and he said that he had no concerns. In fact, all of the schools show that they currently have capacity. As you know from hearing all kinds of development applications they don't always all have capacity, but as schools reach capacity and even become over capacity is when the school district can begin looking at new opportunities for schools. They don't build empty schools. And so in this situation where we are all under the --the school district did not have any concerns. Mrs. Alonso also testified about -- that we should be at the high end of the open space range and the low end of the density range and that's exactly what we are. Only ten percent open space is required. We are providing 20 acres at 17 and a half percent. So, it's definitely on the high end with some very high end amenities provided in there. We are also at the low end of the density range. Medium density residential calls for three to eight and we are under three purposefully to provide that R-2 zone on the western side to lower the density and to provide that transition that the neighbors are asking for. There was talk of a berm request and a fence. The applicant has worked really hard with neighbors and they -- they have gone above and beyond and they have reached agreements with neighbors where ever they could, where ever neighbors were willing to work with them and particularly on the western edge of the property where it was testified that there are some flatter lots -- in fact, those are right along the western -- far western edge and those property owners, the Robertsons and Rinehimers have agreed with Toll to put a berm right on the middle of the property line. The fence would go on top of that to create even more height. That fence would, then, fall right on the property line and they were happy with that arrangement and Toll was happy to do that and Toll was also going to provide them some landscaping for that that they would, then, continue to maintain. The request from some other neighbors to put a berm on our side of the property creates problems with stormwater runoff, with creating strips of common area -- areas that can't be maintained easily or accessed. There is really no need for that, because the properties that are to the southwest corner there are the ones that are elevated. They are at least 30 feet higher than the development. They also get the advantage of having their homes that are far setback from the property lines and Toll has agreed to double the rear setback along all of those western and southwestern properties. And so with the distance that you have from their large setbacks to our increased setback, these homes are two to four hundred feet from each other. So, they are elevated and they have great distance apart. So, a lower elevation, berm, and fence isn't going to do much for them. But, in any case, the perimeter will be fenced. The applicant has done a lot of working with them about dark sky lighting, limiting two story homes and the view sheds, all of the things that you heard from Sabrina. There was discussion about continued right to farm. Of course we respect the neighbors agricultural way of life to the extent they have it. Some of these properties do. And Mrs. Connelly discussed that. Mrs. Connelly, however, lives to the north of the property. Her property does not abut this neighborhood. So, while I'm sure the neighbors would understand right to farm laws, that they are coming to this, they won't be seeing the back of her property and those activities, because she's not immediately Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 48 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 46 of 60 adjacent. But certainly that is an understanding that those properties exist and that's why we have created all the transition that we did here. There was concerned about property values. These homes are going to be high quality. Even the low end of the range is going to be in the high two hundreds, two hundred thousand range, all the way up to over 750,000, three quarters of a million dollars. That provides a really nice estate quality product to be next to these larger estate lots that were developed in the county, providing a high value base, creating a nice tax base for the city and also providing that much needed housing. I think that Toll Brothers has really exemplified what's appropriate for this type of large scale development. They have provided this nice design. They provided all of these great amenities, centrally located open space connected by a network of pathways. They are in a quickly developing corridor along Linder. They are surrounded by other approved developments to the east that butt right up against this. This is the next stage of development for the city and it's consistent with what you called for in your Comprehensive Plan. It's providing that medium density residential, while also providing transition to these existing county lots. And with that I think we would stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Questions for the applicant? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I mean my question is -- is -- I mean are you at a firm no on providing larger lot sizes against that? I mean I understand everything that you are saying, but it's kind of been a long battle for the folks that have the --the properties there. So, I mean this is the first time that we have heard from them as far as their concerns about what would be developed and now we are seeing what is being developed. I just want to understand your position on that. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Seal, the lots that are being provided here all along the western edge and along that southern edge are all over a third acre now and there are several along that corner that are over an half acre. The lots to their immediate west are those that they have -- the developer has worked out arrangement for the berm and the fence. The properties that are further to the south under what's shown there as phase two have not raised objections here and their homes are also further back and they also have the benefit of the elevation. I think you had asked earlier about whether they -- the R-2 was considered there. It -- you know, certainly all of that was on the table when they were thinking about this in order to meet the density that's requested in your Comprehensive Plan, but also to provide transition where it makes sense. I think they have done what they would. So, I guess to more directly answer your question, I think these are the lot sizes they are proposing. Certainly that's within your prerogative to request additional, but I think it is also important to understand where they have worked out arrangements with neighbors and those that are really still vocal here on the corner -- at that southwest corner are the ones that have 300 and 400 foot setbacks from the homes -- in between their homes and the higher elevation and so, you know, adding a different lot size below them is going -- is going to have very little impact. Those are also Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 49 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 47 of 60 the ones that we showed in the rendering where you could see their view scape is not impacted and when you look at those houses that are down below it's hard to imagine how a wider lot at that point is going to make much difference in that location. So, we tried to be sensitive where that -- where it makes sense to be sensitive, but, then, still provide the right density overall. Cassinelli: Follow up, Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Deborah, can you, with your cursor, kind of give me an idea of -- of the berm that is being discussed, where that's going to -- where all that exists? Nelson: I don't think -- Johnson: Mr. Chair, I'm going to attempt to turn control over, otherwise, you would not have the person, so -- Cassinelli: Okay. Johnson: Let me know -- you should be able to control that. Nelson: Yeah. Thanks, Chris. It's the far western side where it's straight up and down on the west side of phase five. Excuse me. Yes. Right here. Johnson: Most of you have control of the presentation if you need to go to another slide as your full presentation on the screen. Cassinelli: So, Deborah, it's going -- that -- the portion of the parcel that is -- that is true north and south, all those lots there in -- in phase five that are R-2, that's where the berm will go? Nelson: That's right. This is where there isn't -- right up -- down to about this property is about where the line is at the -- the south end of the Rinehimers. The Rinehimers and the Robertsons have had discussions with the applicant and were agreeable to put a berm and -- on -- right on the middle of the property line or requested that and the applicant is agreeable to that and to put the fence right in the middle on that boundary. Down in this corner this is the Lins and the Martins and it -- this is where there is a great deal of elevation change. Seal: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm not seeing a pointer on the map. Cassinelli: Neither am I. Nelson: Okay. So, it's not sharing. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 50 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 48 of 60 Johnson: What I have done is I have sent a request for you to be able to control it and it says it's waiting for you at the top -- Nelson: Oh. Okay. Johnson: You control the screen and move the slides -- Fitzgerald: Try your cursor. Nelson: Do you see that now? Fitzgerald: I did a second ago. It disappeared. Nelson: Okay. Is it changing the slides for you? Okay. And, then, can you see the cursor now? Some yes, some no. Seal: Yes, I see it now. Nelson: Okay. I appreciate your patience and being willing to do this virtually by the way. So, I was just describing -- so just in case you didn't see. So, here is where there will be -- or where the applicant's been able to work with adjacent neighbors to put a berm and a fence on top of that and, then, you come around this corner down to the southwest and this is where you have got a great deal of elevation and as you come also further around you have got property owners down here who have not objected or have been comfortable or willing to accept the development. For example, you heard from the Radfords in some testimony that they were supportive of the development. Their only concern as of today was the -- they didn't want the new attached product, but they were happy with it before that. So, you know, each -- obviously no one is excited to have new development next to them, but I think a lot of them realize that this is what was expected and planned here and so -- the other thing the developer did to be responsive to your question about working with them is looking at the -- where they would put two story homes and we are very cognizant to limit the two story homes down to single story where they were in the direct view shed out from the physical house from each of those properties. So, they have tried to be very specific to the -- the landowners where -- depending on the elevation, depending on their home location, depending on what their particular requests were and to the extent that the developer could do it, then, they have -- they have provided that accommodation. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Mr. Cassinelli, did you have -- did that give you a clear picture? Cassinelli: Yeah. That is what I needed to know. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Okay. Any additional questions? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 51 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 49 of 60 Johnson: Mr. Chair, this is Chris. Just for notification purposes, you do have folks who have testified previously raising hands. I know your practice is not that, but I did want you to be aware so you could address that. Fitzgerald: I appreciate that and it's -- it's our practice they get a chance to speak and, then, we let the applicant close. That's how we do our normal process and we are going to stick to that tonight. So, additional questions for the applicant? Any other questions or concerns? Questions? Comments? Commissioner Holland. Holland: Mr. Chair, I think one -- one quick question. Staff had mentioned they would like to see a tot lot or some sort of addition somewhere and Sabrina mentioned that Coleman --or that Toll Brothers is open to that. Do you know where that would be located at by chance? Or whether they would consider replacing that? Nelson: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Holland, they will have -- now with the addition of this playground, they will have a playground here and, then, they will be adding a playground also to the larger park centrally. And here, of course, they already had the pool and the picnic structure here and they will be adding a playground there as well. Fitzgerald: And can you -- just in regards to -- you guys are moving the lift station to where -- where is that location going to go? There was a suggestion on temporary location. What's that? What's the plan? So, is there -- okay. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, the temporary lift station will be up here in this location now and that's still consistent with the city's overall sewer master plan. They just had planned a lift station along here and rather than it being down here it is up in this location. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Deborah, question on the pond. Since that's part of the irrigation I'm going to assume that that will be -- that will be dry from October to April. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, they -- they will have a supplemental well to keep that full. Cassinelli: So, it will be -- it will be full year round? Nelson: That is correct. Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant before we move on and close the public hearing? Hearing none, Deborah, thank you for joining us this evening. We appreciate it greatly. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 52 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 50 of 60 Nelson: Thanks very much. Fitzgerald: And we will deliberate and see where we go from here. With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing on this application? Holland: So moved. Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have multiple motions and a second to close the public hearing on H-2020- 0012. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Somebody want to leap -- take a leap off, give us your thoughts? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I mean -- I will start with the positive, because I think the subdivision itself -- I think they did -- I mean they were painstaking in what they have laid out as far as the transition of homes. I like the amenities. I like the layout. I like the fact that it's well connected with paths and fits into the community path plan as well. So, I mean there is -- it does have a lot of things going for it as far as that's concerned. I would really really like to see this land somewhere else and, then, I would have no problems with it. The issue that I have is -- is the property that it butts up against and the long conversations we all had about eliminating, you know, essentially, what is -- what would be a rural designation. So, this piece of property in particular was one of them that was pointed out as far as, you know, what happens when a subdivision goes in against this and our answer to that at the -- at that point in time was, well, it will come before us and we will have control, you know -- or not control. We will have our ability to say what we would like to see in there. So, as part of that I know they have worked with some of the neighbors, but I mean if some of the neighbors want, you know, a berm and a fence and lower density, then, I think what's good for one neighbor is good for all neighbors personally. So, I think I would like to see the R-2 extend down further, simply because I think those properties are going to be around and even if they are not that's something that can just benefit everybody, especially as subdivisions like this move forward and abut the properties that are the five to ten acre lots and I think that's why there is people here whose property isn't right up against this subdivision are adamant -- you know, are opposed to seeing it developed like this, because, you know, they were told that, you know, we were -- we would help give them a voice if something like this comes in. So, for me I just -- I don't -- I guess I would help to lend a voice to the people that have the five to ten acre lots, because that's what we said we would do and, then, we got rid of the rural designation and now we are down Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 53 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 51 of 60 to, you know, three to eight houses per acre here, which is -- you know, if it were my five to ten acre lot it's not something that I would enjoy. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Additional comments? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I would have to echo Commissioner Seal's comments. It was very well said. I, too, would like to see R-2 extend along the southern -- the southwest border there. You got -- right now it's proposed to be R-4 up against the low density. So, I would like to see that transition. Just because that neighbor didn't comment doesn't mean that -- that that shouldn't be done and perhaps if a berm needs to be extended -- I realize the applicant stated that there was an elevation change there, but I would -- I would prefer to see that. I know there was a comment earlier -- I forget who made it -- about possibly adding some more open space -- I think kind of up in the northeast phase. What we are looking at here, phase four and phase six, there is along that -- the lateral up top, but -- but nothing kind of in the center of that. So, maybe -- maybe some added open space in -- in that. I will reiterate, too, the -- the positives. It is well laid out. The -- you know, looking at the future land use map you have got the -- the medium density sandwiched in between low density. It is what it is. Those are my comments. Fitzgerald: So, two quick things on that. The Radfords' property is the phase two, 2021, gray property, and they did submit public comment. They said they are not opposed to the Cedarbrook Subdivision. Just not -- they don't like the duplexes. So, just for the record that's -- that's my understanding is that's their property right below that, if that -- Cassinelli: Okay. Still -- still transitioning from R-4 to the low density, which to me it should -- a better transition is R-2 to that. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland or Commissioner McCarvel, do you have any comments? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I guess -- I don't have quite as much heartburn with the R-2 over there. That is a pretty significant height difference. I just -- I'm not a fan of the attached home product. I just think it's trying to cram too much difference into this space, but I guess my bigger concern is -- is what -- all this is coming out of one entrance onto Linder Road and Linder Road is -- it is just barely a farm road. I mean it's paved, but there is no -- it's two lanes and I know just to the north of this there is -- there is kind of a -- there is a hill that blocks the view, I guess, so the -- I mean the traffic -- they are coming -- coming at that. I mean until that's improved I'm -- and I know we don't want to wait, you know, for development Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 54 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 52 of 60 out here until 2035, but there is a lot of development coming here and I'm -- I'm just hoping that that was going to be addressed a little sooner, but all that traffic coming out onto Linder, I didn't hear anything about, you know, a light or anywhere where this is meeting up with other subdivisions, if there is a planned -- planned light or stop or -- it's probably not -- it's the -- I don't think it's the mid mile, so it just seems like a lot of traffic coming out of one spot there and that's cul-de-sac'd in a lot of places that doesn't anticipate a whole lot of other connection. But overall I like the amenities. I like all the other -- the other transition. I think it's well thought out, especially for the topography of what's there. Fitzgerald: Hey, Chris, can you go to the plat that actually shows the connections? Thank you. McCarvel: So, we get one to the north eventually. Fitzgerald: A stub to the southwest. McCarvel: I guess there is two there. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Coming out on Linder. Thank you. Fitzgerald: And this one -- I like the layout of this property. I think it's -- it was well done. I think with the way they did the comp plan, the way they did the future land use map, we have -- and this is the first one we are going to see like this, they put us in the middle -- medium density residential transitioning into rural and there is nothing in code that talks about that specifically, which makes it not very fun for us. It's a -- we are going to have this dilemma no matter what gets brought to us in this realm, so I -- but I understand where you guys are -- the concerns that are out there. I do think -- one of the things I think I would like to see -- and this is -- is -- these bigger neighborhoods -- or maybe all neighborhoods -- in north Meridian a lot of the things they did were -- if they wanted something to develop within this it's a little bit further out from where others are being developed, they brought the sewer and they also brought the lights. They bought traffic control. And that's something that I -- out there four lane stops in the next six months to a year and a half isn't going to work and so that's something I think has got to be discussed is -- is off site coordination of how we are dealing with traffic and so Linder and Amity being right there, I'm not sure why ACHD is not asking them to put a -- either put a light in or bond for it for later purposes, because that's -- traffic coming out of this subdivision is going to add to that. So, that concerns me that we are not doing that. That happened a lot with a lot of the neighborhoods -- the Bainbridge, the Paramounts, those kinds of things that are happening in north Meridian. I'm not sure why we are not doing it in south Meridian. So, that's just an initial concern just to think about. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 55 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 53 of 60 Holland: I don't -- I don't usually go last, but I kept my mouth shut this time for a while. You know, I think the applicant did a really nice job in laying out the -- the lots and the way that the subdivision flows and the pathways and I like a lot of the amenities that are there. It's challenging when you look at something that's 118 acres, because we are used to seeing 20 acre projects that we are evaluating, not 118 acres. So, I think when you look at it it does look like a lot, but when you actually zoom in on the size of lots they are pretty spacious and most of them are low density, even though it might look like they are a little more dense than they-- they actually are, because we are looking at a bigger piece of land here. So, keeping that in mind, I think my -- my concern -- I would echo Commissioner McCarvel's comment that having one main access in and out of the site -- and it looks like there is a secondary access off of Linder, but I would also echo -- echo our Chair's comments about signals at some of those major crossroads. Linder is becoming a busier road and I know there is a community to the south that is also developing rather quickly and a lot of people use Linder Road as another corridor to commute on. There is not planned improvements from ACHD on Linder for a while, but over time it will become a road that connects kind of Meridian from the north to the south again, similar to what Ten Mile does and what some of those other roads do. So, I don't know that I want to condition that they are responsible for the entire stoplight going in there, but it might be something worth throwing out to Council to consider is -- is there something that we should be thinking about related to signals that help with traffic flow near the subdivision, because there are a few other neighborhoods around this that will be developed. My other heartburn was -- I know when we were in the Comprehensive Plan process I sat on the comp plan committee. We spent a lot of time talking about south Meridian and -- and this area and we got a lot of heartburn, because we knew that we were going to face challenges where medium density faced the rural and how do we create those appropriate transitions and I know we -- we wanted to spend more time on it to -- to really make sure we have a good plan in place, but I think we did the best that we could in trying to make sure we had a cohesive plan that represented the interests of the residents and citizens and opportunities for developers. So, I don't think we can restrict them and say we don't want to see medium density here when it's medium density is what it's planned for. I think they have done a very nice job of planning the low density transitions between them. They -- it sounds like they have been talking with their neighbors. There is certainly a lot of -- a lot of comments to consider and -- and things that could be changed. I don't feel too much heartburn about the -- about making the full stretch of the perimeter R-2. I think they have done a fairly reasonable job of providing those transitions. I don't know that I agree with staff on wanting to put the attached product in there. I see where they were coming from in wanting diversity of product, but that was something that just kind of made me stop and go, uh, I don't know about that one, because it's -- it's going to be medium density kind of all around it, along with low density and I don't -- there is not a lot in the comp plan to provide for that higher step up in transition there I don't believe. But I can't remember what's -- what's going in the north -- northeast corner of that property and what it would abut to in the future. That's my comments. Fitzgerald: I -- I agree with all those comments. I think there -- I think we are probably trying to shoehorn in something that may not fit and where this is especially in regards to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 56 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 54 of 60 -- it just -- it's like an afterthought and I -- I think we are going to have challenges as we start to transition and development is going to come this way and we have got to work out how to do it. I do greatly appreciate the applicant going out and working with each of the neighbors, talking to Joe Yochum, talking to the fire chief, talking -- like making that effort. I greatly appreciate that, because I think it would make all of our lives a lot easier if that forethought is brought to every project and we are not having to deliberate over it here. So, thank you hugely for that. We appreciate it greatly. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Commissioner McCarvel and I think you -- you alluded to it as well -- access points onto Linder. I'm only seeing the one. Fitzgerald: So, at the edge of the -- I guess 45 degree angle, it's right down below that. Cassinelli: Down in the bottom? Fitzgerald: No. Northeast before it takes out 45. Cassinelli: Is that just -- that's an emergency access, isn't it? Seal: That's an emergency access off a shared driveway. Allen: Mr. Chairman? Chairman? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Allen: That is an emergency access driveway only. Fitzgerald: Okay. Allen: And there is also an emergency access south of the main entry as well. Fitzgerald: And a pathway there? Allen: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Cassinelli: While we are on that subject, Sonya, do you have anything that's showing access into the -- to the other -- to the planned subdivisions to the east? Allen: Across the street to the east of Linder? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 57 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 55 of 60 Cassinelli: Correct. Allen: I do not in my slides, but I believe the applicant had some slides that showed the overall area and the developments that have been approved out there. I'm not sure exactly which slide it was, though. Seal: That looks like it. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have a follow up there? Cassinelli: Yeah. I can see it. Yeah. They are just -- there doesn't seem to be any access directly. It doesn't look like that's being developed directly across the street. There is a small parcel that's -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- being developed, so that doesn't -- that doesn't line up or connect up, so, you know, I was just curious about that. Fitzgerald: So, what are we thinking? You want to parcel it out? Is there -- I got the R-2 piece along the southwestern border. I think that's -- there was discussions around that. Commissioner Cassinelli or Commissioner Seal, do you have a feeling on the multi-family attached product, zero lot line up to the northwest, whether that is appropriate or not? Seal: Mr. Commissioner, I agree with Commissioner Holland. I think that was the -- it was a good attempt to throw in what was requested by staff, but looking at it -- it -- it just -- I don't know that it fits. I think there is enough diversity in -- in -- in what's already in there, you know, and, again, I think if they are going to do a berm with trees and a fence along part of it that borders that, they should do a berm, you know, a fence and trees along all of it and make it all R-2 and -- and, you know, come back with the biggest lot size they are willing to give at this point, you know, and, again, that just comes from this transition from a rural into this specific piece and knowing that, you know, whatever is approved or disapproved here we are going to have to fight this battle, you know, more times as -- as this land is developed. So, personally, I'm just looking to kind of put a stake in the ground for--for what we are expecting them to do for, you know, the larger estates that are there. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Cassinelli: And I said -- I -- I agree on the -- on -- on those attached units, that I don't feel that that's -- that that's needed. But, again, it's exactly what Commissioner Seal set up. I would prefer R-2 and -- and at least a berm on that angle piece, if that's necessary there. Until you get to that -- the -- the height variance, then, a berm would not be necessary. Fitzgerald: I think the height is on the angle. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 58 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 56 of 60 Cassinelli: On that 45 before it shapes -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. The height on the angle and, then, it shapes around, flattens back out. That's the 400 -- the 350 to 400 foot with the -- with the higher elevation change and, Sonya, you can correct me if I'm incorrect there, but that was my understanding. From the applicant. Allen: Mr. Chair, I -- I am not sure, so I will not confirm what the applicant said. Thank you. Fitzgerald: So, thoughts, folks? Holland: So far to confirm what I have heard from everybody and I want to make sure we are not missing something and I don't necessarily have to be the one that makes the motion, I just want to recap what we have all said. I think the consensus was to remove the attached product that's on the northeast corner and return that to single family. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Yes. Holland: Another consideration would be to ask Council to consider whether there should be some funding put towards a future intersection, stoplight, at Amity and Linder. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: I think -- Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. McCarvel: Correct -- somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't I see where the actual -- the intersection at Amity and Linder was supposed to be a roundabout here like in -- Fitzgerald: Sonya, can you -- McCarvel: I know Ten Mile and Amity is going to be a big roundabout, but I thought there was a smaller one for Amity and -- Fitzgerald: They are doing a lot out there, so it wouldn't surprise me. McCarvel: I guess my -- my concern was more the condition of Linder itself. I mean they have -- they have gone out there and it's farm roads and they have gone in and they have tried -- you know, they have patched them and done the sewer lines and stuff and it's all patched and rough and just -- as this all develops I would -- I would like to see Council do whatever they can to push something forward to at least improve the condition of that road. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 59 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 57 of 60 Holland: One more quick question to staff. Sorry, Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: That's always ACHD's issue, but I mean whatever we can do to -- Fitzgerald: Move them along. McCarvel: -- forward a little, instead of waiting until 2035 with all this going in. Fitzgerald: And there is no way they are waiting until 2035 out there. There is no way. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Sorry, Commissioner Holland, you got cut off. I apologize. Holland: That's okay. I didn't mean to cut anybody else off. Question to staff. I don't remember on that section of Linder -- is there already a median turn lane that would access into this neighborhood? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Holland, no. It's just a rural two lane roadway. Holland; Follow up to that. Are they required to add a turn lane as part of this development? Allen: I believe there was a requirement. It would be in the ACHD staff report, if you would like me to look. Holland: I just couldn't remember. I know I skimmed through it, but I couldn't remember what was required there. Allen: Yeah. I'm -- I'm pretty sure there was a turn lane required. Seal: I believe a turn lane was required and they also required additional -- additional recommendations along Linder to provide for -- as far as how the sidewalks were going to be defined and the setbacks were going to be drawn. Holland; I don't know if that helps Commissioner McCarvel, but I think there were some conditions in there to help with Linder Road a little bit. McCarvel: Yeah. I -- Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, ma'am. McCarvel: Yeah. I think in general I'm in support of the overall design and the amenities and everything else. I just -- I was not in favor of the attached home product up there. I just think it's too much trying to cram in too many different things. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 60 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 58 of 60 Holland: I think the last big thing that we -- that we were all discussing was the R-2 that's around the property line and if there was any modifications that we wanted to request there. I know Commissioner Cassinelli and Commissioner Seal were -- it sounded like you were leaning towards wanting to have some additional buffering or some additional lot -- lot changes, but I wanted to stop and summarize what everyone else was thinking. I felt okay with what's there, but I'm not opposed to having something else in there, too, if the Commission feels like that's what we need to do. Seal: I would like to see the -- you know, again, along the west and south boundaries bordering the larger estates I would like to see the, you know, R-2 along that entire stretch, as well as, you know, berm, trees, shrubs. Again, this is just--you know, this is something that the people that have the larger estates asked what could be done if we didn't keep the rural designation, what could be done when something like this happens against them. So, you know, again, our answer was, well, we can help modify that in the future. So, we had a lot of people that are asking for that, we are going to have people ask for it in the future and I think it would be wise of us to recommend that to the city if-- if we go through with an approval on this. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Didn't we -- didn't we have the testimony from the resident that lives up there into -- his one house and I think it's -- they were okay with the R-2 -- or the -- what was going in next to them and I think that house has been there a lot longer than the other -- those big five acre lots going down the west side. Fitzgerald: That was the Radfords. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Their -- their comment was they are not opposed to the subdivision. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Understood it to be single family home, not townhomes or duplexes. McCarvel: Yeah. I think that property was quite a bit up on a hill. Fitzgerald: So, I understand where Commissioner Seal is going in his thoughts. I think what is-- is challenging is we can't always see elevations when we are meeting with these things and so having -- I mean putting things in place that are going to be of no use to the people that are asking for it and -- or, yeah, people that are not asking for it, I -- I don't want to just ask the applicant to spend money because it's not worth putting a line in the sand. So, I get the balance, but I -- I -- maybe there is a compromise between the R-2 and the berming, because I think -- I don't want to take it -- I don't want to leave out the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 61 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 59 of 60 fact that they did go meet with all those applicants -- or all those residents and say what do you want us to do and so they are taking the initiative to go talk to those folks and they are putting a berm where it's necessary along the agreement they have had on the eastern -- or northeast border. So, I -- it's -- it's a balancing act for me a little bit. I understand what you are saying -- I understand your point exactly. Just -- I would love to have the elevation so I could say that there is already -- some of the mitigation already taking place, but that would be my thoughts there. Fitzgerald: I can't look at you and throw things or something. If I could like show someone or -- do something. I can't make a motion, so -- Holland: I mean I could attempt to throw one out there. I just don't know if we -- if we are ready or not, if anybody else wants anything else in there. Want me to try it? After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2020-0012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 7th, 2020, with the following modifications. That the applicant would add the playground structures as described in the Planning and Zoning meeting. That they would remove the attached product that was presented for the northeast corner of the site and return that to single family homes. That Council would consider whether or not there should be some funding or partnership towards the future intersection improvements of Amity and Linder and that they would -- as the applicant mentioned, they were going to have increased widths behind the homes to create that transition on the south and west perimeter and that they would fulfill that. I'm not sure how to word that. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: Okay. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020-0012. Is there additional discussion before I call for a roll call vote? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Could I ask Commissioner Holland to clarify that last -- Holland: You didn't like my language in that? Cassinelli: No. You wanted to -- Holland: Yeah. Well, they -- I know that Deb Nelson at the end was talking about how they had an additional buffer zone that they were putting in for all of the homes on the boundary. That was beyond what code required and I can't remember what the number was she used, that's why I stumbled there, because she gave a number of how far apart the houses would be. Can anyone help me out there? McCarvel: Additional setbacks as described by the applicant. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 62 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission May 7,2020 Page 60 of 60 Holland: Okay. Let's modify it to say that all the homes on the southern and west perimeter would have the additional setbacks as described by the applicant. Parsons: Yeah. Deb said 30 feet. Holland: Thirty feet. Fitzgerald: Is there a second or -- concur with the adjusted motion? McCarvel: Second concurs. Fitzgerald: Okay. Any other additional comments or discussion before we vote? Okay. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please, ma'am. Roll call: Fitzgerald, yea; Holland, yea; Seal, nay; McCarvel, yea; Pitzer, absent; Cassinelli, nay; Grove, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thanks, guys. I appreciate Deb and the team. We appreciate all the input for the community and from the Toll Brothers team. We appreciate you guys being here tonight. With that we have one more motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say aye. Thank you all. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:06 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 5 21 2020 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 63 of 148 E IDIAN IDAHO 10morw PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING Agenda Item Number: 3 A Item Title: Approve Minutes of April 23, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Meeting Notes: �E IDIAN:--- Council Agenda Item - 3.A. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: 0 ITEM SHEET Title of Item - Approve M inutes of April 23, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Meeting Minutes Minutes Upload Date 4/27/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 3 of 148 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 23,2020 Page 40 of 40 Fitzgerald: That's awesome. Perfect. Thank you. Parsons: Thank you. Pogue: No group phone calls. Fitzgerald: Thank you all. Thanks, Andrea. Does anybody have any questions for staff before we have one more motion? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: 1 move we adjourn. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: Okay. Have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Want to hang out? Thank you all. Have a wonderful evening. Stay safe. Stay healthy. We will talk to you soon. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:04 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 5 I 7 ' 2020 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK By Adrienne Weatherly, Deputy Clerk E IDIAN IDAHO 10morw PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING Agenda Item Number: 3 B Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Good Apple Taphouse (H-2020-0036 Meeting Notes: ITEM SHEET Council Agenda Item - 3.13. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: 0 Title of Item - Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Good Apple Taphouse (H-2020-0036) by Rob and Carmen Bienapfl, Located at 1728 E. McMillan Rd. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Findings Findings/Orders Exhibit A Exhibit Upload Date 4/29/2020 4/29/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 44 of 148 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND 100141y1130 _KIJ.701' C �E IDIAN1-- iDAHO In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for Good Apple Taphouse, Located at 1728 E. McMillan Road in the C-N Zoning District, by Rob and Carmen Bienapfl. Case No(s). H-2020-0036 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: April 23, 2020 (Findings on May 7, 2020) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 23, 2020, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 23, 2020, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 23, 2020, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 23, 2020, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2020-0036] Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 45 of 148 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of April 23, 2020, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 1I- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of April 23, 2020, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of April 23, 2020 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2020-0036] Page 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 46 of 148 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the May_, 2020. COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND, VICE CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL COMMISSIONER PATRICIA PITZER COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE ,anXzgerald, C Irman By Adrienne Weatherly, Deputy Clerk 7th day of VOTED AYE VOTED AYE VOTED AYE VOTED AYE VOTED AYE Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: NadV - 6" _ Dated: City Clerk's Office 5-7-2020 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2020-0036] Page 3 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 4/23/2020 DATE: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2020-0036 Good Apple Taphouse LOCATION: 1728 E. McMillan Road L PROJECT DESCRIPTION C� fIEN DIAN�-- AHO Legend FE11Prolect Location Request for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a Drinking Establishment on 0.96 acres of land in the C-N zoning district, by Rob and Carmen Bienapfl. This CUP request is in a newly constructed commercial building near the northeast corner of E. McMillan and N. Locust Grove. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Acreage Future Land Use Designation Existing Land Use(s) Proposed Land Use(s) Lots (# and type; bldg./common) Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: History (previous approvals) B. Community Metrics Details 0.96 acres Commercial Commercial Commercial One (1) building lot March 9, 2020; no attendees AZ-07-014, PP-07-019, FP-08-003, MDA-15-004, A- 2018-0126; and several building permits for structure. Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report (yes/no) Comment letter with no specific conditions of approval. • Requires ACHD Commission No Action (ves/no) Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 48 of 148 C�c a III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Rob and Carmen Bienapfl — 549 E. Peach Springs Street, Meridian, ID 83646 Morgan Development — PO Box 1604, Idaho Falls, ID 83403-1604 C. Representative: Jay Rice, Advantage Architecture — 5145 S. Heyrend Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83401 IV. NOTICING Newspaper Notification Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date NextDoor posting V. STAFF ANALYSIS Planning & Zoning Posting Date 4/3/2020 3/27/2020 4/8/2020 3/31/2020 City Council Postine Date A. Future Land Use Map Designation(hgps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Commercial - This designation will provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail, restaurants, personal and professional services, and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi -public uses. Multi -family residential may be allowed in some cases, but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity, and amenities. Sample zoning include: C-N, C-C, and C-G. The subject site is already annexed, zoned (C-N), and built with a new commercial building. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan): "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods." (5.01.02D). Good Apple Taphouse operates within an existing commercial building that has received certificate of zoning compliance and design review approval for its building design, parking lot improvements, and its landscaping. All of these already existing elements have created a building that meets all UDC and design criteria requirements and has created landscape buffers to the residential zone to its east. Because of this, Staff finds the proposed use of a drinking establishment will not have adverse effects on these elements or on any surrounding use or structure. • "Work to encourage a diversity of housing, recreation, and mobility options to attract and sustain the local workforce." (2.06.02D). Craft brewing and consumption, whether done onsite or not, is a very popular recreation activity across the nation. Adding a locally owned and operated drinking establishment Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 50 of 148 that provides craft hard cider would add to diversity of activities and employment opportunities in the area; Staff is unaware of a similar business in this area of the City. For those who begin their employment career in these types of places, it can be the start of a love that grows into their own business, furthering the economic sustainability of these businesses and adding to the culture within the City. "Support the inclusion of small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments as part of the development plan, where appropriate." (3.06.02A). Good Apple Taphouse operates in a small commercial building with a majority of residential uses surrounding it. The inclusion of a business that attracts activity and resides in close proximity to residences provides for a more walkable area, helping to eliminate the need for nearby residence to drive to find recreational activities. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The main structure on this site is an existing commercial building that was recently built. All site improvements have been completed including the parking and landscaping. In addition, the property has a 20-foot wide landscape buffer with a 6-foot tall vinyl fence that lines its east property line creating a barrier between this commercial lot and the residential development to its east (zoned R-15 and R-8). The residential development to the east (Earl Glen Subdivision) has not yet developed but is proposed and approved as a combination of single family and multi family lots with the lot closest to this business being a large common open space lot. The open space lot is approximately ninety (90) feet in width creating an even larger buffer between Good Apple Taphouse and any future residential structure. D. Proposed Use Analysis: A "Drinking Establishment" is a conditional use in the C-N zoning district, as shown in UDC Table 11-213-2. It is also subject to specific use standards per UDC 11-4-3-10. The business owners are operating a taphouse where onsite brewing does not occur. Only the sale of alcoholic beverages are taking place in this business and customers may also bring their own food so there are no kitchen facilities within this establishment. See narrative included in the application for more specific details on the proposed use. Staff notes that the owners received temporary alcohol licensing to operate prior to obtaining a conditional use permit due to staff error at the time of obtaining certificate of occupancy. Because this error was made on staffs side, the Director has made the determination that they may continue operating under their temporary license and occupancy while the conditional use permit is processed. E. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): A Drinking Establishment is subject to specific use standards as outlined in UDC 11-4-3- 10: A. The facility shall comply with all Idaho Code regulations regarding the sale, manufacturing, or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9- 15-2005). This business shall continue to comply with all state and local jurisdiction regulations regarding the sale, manufacturing, or distribution of alcoholic beverages. Page 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 51 of 148 B. The drinking establishment shall not be located within three hundred feet (300) of a property used for a church or any other place of worship, or any public or private education institution, nor shall the drinking establishment be located within one thousand feet (1,000') of an adult entertainment establishment; provided, that this limitation shall not apply to any duly licensed premises that at the time of licensing did not come within the restricted area but subsequent to licensing came therein; the expansion of an existing establishment may be allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit as set forth in section 11-5B-6 of this title. (Ord. 16-1672, 2-16- 2016). Staff is unaware of any church or other place of worship, or education institution within 300 , nor is staff aware of any adult entertainment establishment within 1,000' of this proposed drinking establishment. C. For properties abutting a residential district, no outside activity or event shall be allowed on the site, except in accord with chapter 3, article E, "Temporary Use Requirements", of this title. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005). The temporary use requirements describe an outside activity or event as one that occurs occasionally and is truly an event, i.e. a carnival or concert. A residential property that is zoned R- 15 and R-8 abuts this property to the east and this business currently has a small patio for guests to enjoy drinks and any food they have brought with them in the landscape buffer between the two properties. Staff does not find that this outdoor patio and its outdoor dining and drinking constitute an "outside activity" as described in city code. If such an event or activity were to occur, the Applicant shall comply with this specific use standard. F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The existing commercial structure meets all dimensional standards. G. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is provided via existing driveways from public streets and the associated commercial parking lot built with this development. The only access to E. McMillan, an arterial roadway, is via the driveway that connects to N. Beethoven Ave., a local street. Direct lot access to McMillan is prohibited. H. Parking (UDC 11-3C): The existing business is located within one suite of this building and occupies approximately 1,500 square feet. In commercial zoning districts, commercial businesses have a required parking ratio of 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Therefore, this business requires a minimum of 3 parking stalls. The entire structure where this business is located is 9,591 square feet, requiring a minimum of 20 parking stalls. At the time of development, 43 parking stalls were installed and 3 bicycle parking spaces were included. Drinking establishments are known to have higher intensities of parking and clearly 3 parking stalls would not be sufficient. However, the entire site houses 43 parking stalls, as noted above, and staff finds this amount of parking will be sufficient for this drinking establishment. Staff notes that this business has been operating and there have been no reported issues with parking thus far. As future tenants move into this building, the availability of parking will be monitored for compliance with UDC standards. In Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 52 of 148 addition, if a kitchen were to be added to this business, the parking standards would change and parking would have to be reevaluated by Staff. At this time, Staff finds the existing parking is currently sufficient for this use but understands that parking may have to be reviewed again in the future. I. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): There is existing five-foot (5) detached sidewalks along E. McMillan Rd. and N. Locust Grove Rd. There are existing sidewalks along the front and sides of the building that also connect to N. Beethoven Ave. to the southeast of the building. No additional sidewalks are proposed; all sidewalks meet UDC Standards. J. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): There is no additional landscaping proposed and the Applicant has stated that all existing landscaping will be protected in place. The existing structure was required to install a twenty foot wide landscape buffer between this building and the residential district to the east; this buffer currently includes two trees and shrubs per UDC requirements. Due to the existing 20' landscape buffer and common lot that abuts this property from the east, Staff finds the existing landscaping to be sufficient for this use. K. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6,11-3A-7): All existing fencing will remain in place and no additional fencing is required. The existing fencing meets UDC standards. Staff finds the existing 6-foot vinyl fence located at the east property line also serves as adequate screening for this business and proposed use because of its inclusion with the existing 20' landscape buffer and the residential common lot that abuts the property. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 6 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 53 of 148 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan (date: 6/4/2019) t \ \ §� Z p 01H d a \ \ � �-� }| \ WOODLAND COMMERCIAL 81Tr! PLAN H 5 VF 1 0 § \�§j§;\��( ` | ) ) §� /� \ WARNING �T& Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 54 of 148 B. Applicant Narrative (date: 3/l/2020) March 1, 2020 Rob and Carmen Bienapfl, owners of Good Apple Taphouse are submitting this application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow our business to operate as a "drinking establishment" in a C-N zoning district. We are leasing a space on the east end of the existing Woodland Springs complex owned by Morgan Construction/Development, and located at 1728 E. McMillan Rd Ste 160, Meridian, Idaho. Our establishment consists of approximately 1450 sq. ft in addition to a paved and fenced patio which includes a 6' vinyl fence on the east and north ends. Our building occupancy is 52 and there are approximately 50 parking spaces provided at the Woodland Springs location. The purpose of our business is to provide an inviting and comfortable venue for patrons to experience a wide variety of craft beers and ciders as well as some wine. We also provide the opportunity for customers to purchase their favorite craft beer "to go" in sealed and labeled containers such as crawlers and growlers. Good Apple Taphouse strives to become a neighborhood gathering place for friends and family to meet and get to know one another. We feel Idaho breweries have so many good flavors to offer that aren't getting exposure in Meridian. Our tap wall will focus on beers and ciders from our Idaho breweries with further offerings from the northwest region. Our business opens no earlier than 11:30am and closing time is 10:00pm. In addition, we are a 21 and over business and do not allow smoking inside our building. We require our employees to take a course that teaches safety in serving alcohol and how to recognize if a patron should no longer be served. The Owners and Management Staff of Good Apple Taphouse intend to closely monitor noise and events to ensure we do not become a nuisance to our surrounding residences and businesses and our hope is to become a well-known and respected business in the City of Meridian. Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 55 of 148 C. Landscape Plan (dated: 6/04/2019) All u ! tin ILI 5 ag, 51 it gj T 021 161 z. "R, WE iq go wi WOODLAND COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE PLAN •g. hg g! 11 its; 'S 421 "ji P...j Sli, fi iq 'NE I 'I I I i ilil 'g 5 in eta N -H, hllu IM 1? F i K Is Ni Page 9 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 56 of 148 D. Building Elevations (date: 2/5/2019) FM - Page 10 — -q: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 57 of 148 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-10 Drinking Establishment, including but not limited to the following: a. The facility shall comply with all Idaho Code Regulations regarding the sale, manufacturing, or distribution of alcoholic beverages. b. The drinking establishment shall not be located within three hundred feet (300') of a property used for a church or any other place of worship, or any public or private education institution, nor shall the drinking establishment be located within one thousand feet (1,000) of an adult entertainment establishment; provided, that this limitation shall not apply to any duly licensed premises that at the time of licensing did not come within the restricted area but subsequent to licensing came therein; the expansion of an existing establishment may be allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit as set forth in section 1I- 5B-6 of this title. C. For properties abutting a residential district, no outside activity or event shall be allowed on the site, except in accord with chapter 3, article E, "Temporary Use Requirements", of this title. The existing outdoor dining area is allowed to remain as is. 2. The maximum number of allowable clients/guests at the facility at one time shall be limited to the maximum occupancy determined by Building and Fire Code. 3. The hours of operation shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. per the standards in UDC 11-2B-3B. B. Ada County Highway District (ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciV.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=186145&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianC i &cr=1 C. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) https: //weblink. meridianciU. orglWebLinkIDocView. aspx?id=185205&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 D. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) https: //weblink. meridianciV. orglWebLinkIDocView. aspx?id=185516&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianC ity E. Meridian Fire Department (MFD) Meridian Fire Department made no comments on this project; they have no concerns at this time. IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 58 of 148 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 site meets all the dimensional and development regulations in the C-Nzoning district. Therefore, Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Commission finds the proposed drinking establishment will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis in Section V of this staff report. 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. Commission finds the operation of the proposed drinking establishment, with the specific use standards followed, should be compatible with the other commercial and residential uses in the area and will not adversely change the essential character of the surrounding area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If the proposed drinking establishment complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII as required, 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. The proposed use is within an existing commercial building and these services are already being provided to the business. Therefore, Commission finds the proposed use will be served adequately by all 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. 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. As with any business that serves alcohol, noise could be an issue. However, this business has been operating for a few months and there have been no complaints regarding noise, smoke, fumes, etc. In addition, this business is located within a small commercial enclave and is no closer than 100' from any residential structure while being separated by a 6- foot vinyl privacy fence and landscaping. Further, the hours of operation will be limited Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 59 of 148 from 6am to IOpm. Therefore, Commission finds the proposed drinking establishment should not be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare. 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) Commission is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site; thus, Staff finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 13 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 60 of 148 C�E IDIAN*,----IZ DAJ PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Outline and Presentations Meeting Notes: nning 0 0 ommission Zoning 44eetin ay 7, 2020 a MINIM 11 NOUN � , ■,,,,' : � � � = _ •• •• � I IIII I I 1 I1111 �_ t � - � 01 11111111111 + MEOW ■■M■ N _� mom �pop ��■!• ■Y 1 ■� 1 ■1■1 � I mu.. on t 1 II IIII - � � ■ ��_ _ � I�Ir■ _, :' INS + ■ == _ _ I I I I I I I I - � _ : • Tyres a � "::: � ... 7■ :- - = - _ .. ' I �_ MIME 1 1 _ Z -e ? .: uuri I r. r' hd milli IN M IN ■ ■ ` i� �� ■■MW ■ ■■■ _ Z � wu■: _ ,11i it l■ IN mm ■ ■ MEN -■ 111111 ma ■ ■Era■■ �� ■ ■ 2 2 r�... ■■■■■■■■■Ely �Y ■ ■■■NEEN i _� _ . IN Y�■� il��ul�■17u ■ � � �■ -� uw ' ` i L �_��_ IIII -_■■� 1 ■E■IN �■1 III =- ■M1.1 • _ � _ _ = IIII =- r �—'— ■1 - _ — �{-_� �_—=- � �1 0 _ ■■ ■1 M RL �" � � lumiuu— I I I I =i MI■ 1 N � �_ _ I I I II -i 1■ 1 u■1 ti� � mimimimil uli au 111 ■ ■�■1■ 1 � 1 111 ■ ��I■ 1 Ilnt::■■■■�i■...� _9rr1�:::��:'may'--� ■111:::1i 111111 S MINI■ R �Y-IIII111111 S MINI■ 1 umi miu.� 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIiR,l1mii11ll�S1■i1- 1 ■■NMMM■ MM■ ■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIMI1mi11ll■11■11• 1 u■Iulnl ■l1 i�l,', - ......... TfIll �lll=rj==•�r.,i•li1 o'•—:..... .u. mill - - ■liyuiu IN IN �mimi "ndl�l•� �Ylllllllll��i� L i��•� 1 ■1■1 ■ ..� N" iiiii l Proposed Preliminary Plat „ems L PRELIMINARY PLAT ey'A ]E�L3PM.HTFOR T5W Wl'.'CATCR IXi, �I.fiE,C!111 836 �1HW 3214' elr]�C! VICTORY COMMONS SUBDIVISION F.uc+eE SITUATED IN A PORTION OF GOUT LOT d, SECTIION 19, T.3N., R_1E., B.M. Y CIF Y OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO I.E RL{Ny oesa Table C-2019- me�z� urve I ' CONTaGT: fL098ll�ESUME.P£ I •.... [y FRCT2 BfgfeEll P.LA. I I�p� ml�n JewL� � jf� i I SHEET HOE% I 9 � . rzn [.aLrNR, f e I IAc Fl IEp6TPoCT 92AFRPRO.[E '[ a, a. a ..TE�fR�.�CER a •- hCUL\i4Y JLPoEClCTCW na�n>texr� �[no->ti�[rn' �nw I R�IChTONi Q3lf✓•.T �rcE auuuwr .[.sn[• LCR 8LMANY%wr akAa f 0 R 1ffi IBC 9 - I S:,L2r_ffi f I I I I I j i I Y I I 7t1 9 /// I t_eO AC T: •I I I gl®f®YL�1Hilll //j!/, % I awwrawrwi r. N av� I � I ' _v- 2 xeN[«n u•�.varc- I. nP1.>uli=Q:RIroYlI6lLvWC.-E.l_,Iwr_Fi __�CO_Cc:r-1J..nxu�e.-n.'--lu-i_1_e xwIX MOTES 1.7 17 ACr.i .n � ..._ ...0 I iL I tt i _________ = T -I 19G AC � __ _ _ _ -t - -4T_❑ a CllLLulm Pert [mr %r ,Q 2.42� �I . 12 %.Yri'ED6G AMA IH IY1' n 1f a I ter!/ A{ �y.1 •�•wc - I Ali. xl.Ecr: _•. a =--- -- _ -- ='.b >•..�.e...�. ` J J i� l` 2 s �I�=_I.scra _:-:: -.-:- .-._ - -._•.� r.,eur r� ! I-MAC� ( .v sou=_=oFls==:. •____ _ _ _ _ __ ___ �. oawsarraa' �' � � � ��. h � I n_ieAc-�,.. 'fir � n t.73ne ••� M1- z _�_ _ _ .__-.� On,.{L� :L_-_FY =.{U_tt CR � 4 h e a '� rvn� I I I I 3 .�L L�Ti YTi '_eC F.1• IrE 61AECTTO CRE6!'Q188 �{ L'ly,ALy, ___________ ------ +------ __ r i �I 1C. PR:5iIR=F]iit:.4-OY LJJ�IO BECpliAlVEO WINH Ie — — I — m —rl I AI AIArM E�EELEAT �NIEN JO/aiFfl IXfi&DE CF Fll1NJC �-� � Ne'�`iH£ &6py — Ln Jtt EYie LE AT. �13 41 — yw ar, d ow I �o � wmxMaLT srsa sRe[�m�eee� ' Nor ■nulr II �� iax; mw r�. PP1.0 PJf£ } ff3 Im I Proposed Landscape Plan 119 n rctivic I-L t I III ■ ■1 111l111� MI-LL"AN' Illllllllr ��'t1■ � � � ��,�+1��1 �■oi■■��ri-'' I Ill uMl19 ;1��■ SEES SEES■■ ;,� ` -- r O o , _, d i ■ SEES SEEMS■'. , J �. o .� MCM�ILLAN 1 low � '�/��r►1�� t�i�ll� - - iF 'rPllf•. ,y T �IIrr1■ri� ri■rrr■ti � � -� � � _�.. _ 4 45IN, ail a° ; b� ■ UNErYPES: Lu —11 SIR, � S-1 TEAKWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION -scW-ER ---------------------- ----- ------------ �l 0 -N, OF E, —. — -1— — — PRELIMINARY PLAT ---------- ----------- o ox ux Nu R T3N, RlE, SEC 29 . . . . . . . . moo- N„unoAM Y -:,N-NNN, 3 M MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, ID - ---- -- ---- - — - — ---------- —r—l— !:z 2019 --------- ! ----------------------- �E— sm—A I— M—011— < Lu - 11 . S-RI -j IN IN - IN NTE- NOTES: v V1111 —IRS — 1 CURRENT DNIK C—DWIN: 711 PROPOSED ZONING IS RA 1,01I DE— RESIDENTAl- 1 - ----------------- ml OT 11I ANN M lCH 2 =1 IENPI — Ill I ENTF101— 111 -111 11 1 1 mu -------------- - 3 AAPEB O-W -- IF THE... IN L. ,I... 011-LA, -,I— 1 —1 wLL DE SI, PJI AN a MERIEM — 1=11 "IMP . ..... .... .... .. I —ENT UNE SMON.+5,I( BFNI 1 —1— ,F 0 IIN 111— MI. 1— ------------ U --- ........ . aN To reryioN IF wnnN ... ------- REB-11, —E 11 Ix A.O- ,N— OU/BO — , �q :�� ,ua° erg ��I]�T 11— IMF' f-IN-11I URI 'IS,;"T C, T., NET OB OF I, ETI 4m"O'C'm: �4 " MOM v.-R, W E— I LIT 1 1-1 1 11 IF --R " N, N—M— A — T.7%I= .= -- gcxr I— I — IRE W —11 1111T Il— RENJIREC Br � SEUI Y — LISTRIS1. PFBINNI E-Iln - I IRNI.SM 2ou1- - PTORIWW'MLOT 6, — 2r 13 NESCOMFEC ' I C-... 1 7 T� BE "IF0 MI. 111— 1 T-1 —INO 11. 1. HI vi F N EFS OBUIC, — C.1 . 0, — OF —E 'I. LIT E— 1 11 51WEIN TO IN —111 11 11 11— — M— MI LITITITI SYMBOLS: IIIIIIIIIIIT ANT WILL ADUSE A Y W—Y TO BE OPINED ME Mn— BY THE HOMEMNEE5 —1—N. —MW BMN N— - - - UNPLATTED F -- — E-40 vow- EI PHASE 1 0 - - - - -------- 14 1—❑Ln --- --- --- ------ EXISINO 02! I M -ER IN, E WI IIIBFN� ILL-11 --F D (N IRE H10— 7� A B BF -I, ------ Lu 7 11 plE.1 ---- — ----------- F- p.rl I . I . 9L\ —1 —R UCI ................. R ET-?EXJ- EISH 0 FMMUBF. I.— -- -------- --------- - Cqq ENENT I N— LA 1w BLOCK 2 Ell, ICMI I-ENI E-1 ............. -IN �4 . ..... Q) fir NSFE A/ N—... ov ib #1 0 re 0 a Lm 6-10, 8 K 2) rLsr oc I ME IN % I— ON, 22 9 HE 1— 2- '0, E r.3 qJ. -10 N 1111fiffl— NONE ol w o eon MIR.2 = LIN- ITILI AIDE EL. L—NG S. HIESSING 210VIE. I g, F IONN- Tl� 2 I —l—Y TO CO 0, C`,,` ..p AWRNATIONS: S, C.—STED N —2 EXIST' E UIU.- FHAB 2 M 'ENTEB U-.-- N, ,E ....... . ......... 216 j O� L, 0 Z . R 0 00 7 IC97 .1 Yl--- ON 1/1. PNRP— UNE ----------------- --- Xcom I E - POINT OF -- ---- ----------------- TIT FRESSURE Ill— INI I Ml LOCK I SE N- 1. -ETNO I 'I INARR .7 R—H 21 — --------- ---------- --- N— MINT I Rl-RPURNEPP ESOB ST. 21.7gr c, NRAN oh ---- ---------- - TRA017W] IDS NO. I WOK 108 �ACE 14,59 B QRMIE B. 6 T 4 FR GWTY FIL il-1 T,,r- -Ira - - - ----------- ----------------- F" T THIZ E0CUWLT IS TH- PRDP�RTI OF I EAll I, AISOC �W - DES,GN AND TI N - NOT E- E., —111 'C"'I'EMS. INC AND TH I ... B Al TF, Il TO B USFD IN MOI OR PART All�EBJT �T —, - = E _ M, ENR�,.A— 65 WKWA OF LEA07 & Assoclm�s N�INEPRS. IND E—Ol I— E— Open Space Exhibit I _ I I w FIIiI.PiF P E 2 O Q I I 5 a 90'11'29E 5926T l' I I II 4 ''15�501 w K� s rS ei BNPLAT7ED TWE ICS NO. 1 BOON 106 ME 14,594 OPiN 'w16 a uuew WI q__ dW H OW O2 Yfl W aW 7 ~W a IMENER©0 ®® AD ..ate - - ti .o NEW Submitted Conceptual Elevations w Jr. VIE min L IN IN IN IN IN IN ME We IN IN IN IN IL L _1 � • �_II � L:i � �_II ON wj IN 0 Annexation & Zoning Exhibit z Proposed Preliminary Plat/ Landscape Plan .,� w Qualified Open Space Exhibit 7 CIFEN SPACE CRLEULPLTIONS Quafdied Open Space Area 5F Acres Parks and Pathways 1 24,434 0-33 2 11,649 0.27 3 94,705 2-17 4 16,&% 0.43 5 95,120 1.95 6 36,562 084 7 4,860 0.11 S 8,340 019 9 4,020 0.09 10 10,665 024 11 157.406 3.61 12 16,080 0.37 13 23,270 0.34 14 9,065 0.21 Lett l Street Pat*wmv 180,567 4-15 {Exr ludeE 323 drlveways at 26'x8) tnlimlarLan&capeAuffer 203,969 4-69 Arteflal Landscape Buffer 33,803 0.79 (-%%of 67,605 sfj TOTAL 4.74 Parcel Area rEs) 118.55 ""OR Open $Pwe 17.5% Uj L — f r SOLE 1 . ! FEET - 15C 20 sca I '3 ~ AMITYROAD — = GRAPHIC SCALE tinch =,'100fl, CEDARRRaOK SUBDIVISION ToR Brothers OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT a - April302020 oa w, fn�i a,f,,. avd pO,❑ eacss ream AMERICArS LUXURY HOME BUILDER .w -ft jr �. s W. won 1 4 !• 1 1 1 1 1 ! — Pa41 o- �' +.. wor :I' 1� '+1lIII III �. r Pathways Plan is tea. Blo k �, IF4,00 •W, It" Ileum; M" Mft� a Detached Homes --Orr rM - on- Homes Proposed for 40-45' Wide Lots (not approved) Proposed Attached & Townhome Units and Revised Lot Layout Changes to Agenda: None Item #4A: Victory Commons (H-2019-0150) (SLIDE 2) Application(s): ➢ Annexation and Zoning, and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 16.74 acres of land, currently zoned C-G in the County, located at the 3030 S. Meridian Road and 130 E. Victory Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North — Office and residential, zoned L-0 and R-8 and R-4; South — residential, zoned R-15 and R-4; West — Office, zoned L-0 and East — residential, zoned R-4 History: AZ-03-038; PFP-03-007; H-2019-0091 and DA inst. #2019-119405 and Three (3) CZC approvals - A-2019-0361; A-2020-007 and A-2020-0063 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial. The current zoning of C-G is consistent with this designation. Summary of Request: (SLIDE 3) The request before you is for a preliminary plat consisting of 12 building lots and 4 common lots on 16.74 acres of land — to develop in two (2) phases. The first phase consists of the northern half and the second phase is the southern half as shown. The site is currently developed with a commercial nursery and a multi - tenant building. There is a urgent care facility that is currently under construction along the north boundary of the site. Other uses approved for the site include a retail paint store and a multi -tenant flex building. The primary access to this site is proposed via S. Meridian Road, a state highway (right-in/right-out only) and full access via E. Victory Road, an arterial street. The approved development agreement for this property allows these accesses to remain in accord with ITD and ACHD policies. No other access points are approved or proposed with this development. ACHD staff has concluded that the proposed development meets the current thresholds of the adjacent roadways and is not requiring any further roadway improvements to Victory Road. ITD and the City has required the existing access to Meridian Road close in support the new access as shown, predicated on the it being restricted to a right-in/right-out only, construction of a center median and a northbound right turn lane into the development and dedication of additional right-of-way for future expansion. All lots in this subdivision are subject to cross -access and parking easements per the note on the plat and the recorded development agreement including the two commercial properties at the intersection of Meridian and Victory Roads and the R-4 property on the east boundary. (SLIDE 4) A 35-foot wide buffer is required along S. Meridian Road, an entryway corridor, and a 25-foot wide buffer is required along E. Victory Road, an arterial street. The buffers along S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road should be depicted on the plat on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer maintained by the business owners' association. Per the amended development agreement, the applicant is required to construct the 25-foot landscape buffer along E. Victory Road prior to occupancy of the first structure on the property. The required landscape buffers shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way as anticipated by the transportation agencies. A 25-foot buffer is require when C-G zoned property abuts residential uses. The applicant has shown the required buffers in accord with UDC standards however, the buffer is required to be installed with lot development. Conceptual building elevations were submitted and approved with the amended development agreement. As noted above, several buildings have been approved for construction within the proposed development consistent with these elevations and the ASM. All future structures are required to comply with the elevations in the amended development agreement, the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and those in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony: The public record indicates the City has received public comments on this application from Kurt Weiner, Jeff and Pam Leaton and Jerry Pollard. They have indicated that they oppose multi -family project from developing in the area. Staff has held a pre -application meeting for a multi -family development on the SWC of Meridian and Victory and believes these comments are in response to a neighborhood meeting that was recently held. The project before the Commission tonight does not have a MF component to it. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/ conditions in the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0150, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 7, 2020, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2019- 00150, as presented during the hearing on May 7, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0150 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #413: Teakwood Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) (SLIDE 5 "MAPS" Application(s): ➢ Annexation and Zoning, and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 7.35 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in the County, located at 1835 E. Victory Rd.. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North — Residential use, R-8 zoning; East — Residential use, RUT zoning; South — Residential use, R-4 zoning; West — Residential use, R-8 zoning. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: (SLIDE 6) The request before you is for Annexation and Zoning of 7.35 acres of land with a request to zone the property R-8, and a preliminary plat consisting of 28 building lots and 4 common lots to be built in two (2) phases as proposed. The gross density is 3.95 du/ac and the net density is 5.64 du/ac with the minimum property size in this development being approximately 4,909 square feet with an average buildable lot size of approximately 7,342 square feet. According to the submitted plat, all buildable lots appear to meet UDC dimensional standards. The first proposed phase will provide all public streets and 24 of the 28 proposed building lots. Access is proposed via extending an existing local street, E. Fathom Street, from the neighboring subdivision to the west, Tradewinds Subdivision. An emergency only access is proposed with Phase 1 development that will connect the extended local street to E. Victory Rd., offering easier emergency access to this development. Pedestrian access in the development will be via extensions of 5-foot attached sidewalks on local streets. A micro -pathway that runs next to the emergency access road and connects the frontage improvements on E. Victory Rd. with the sidewalks on the proposed extension of E. Fathom St is also proposed. Additionally, a small section of 10-foot multi -use pathway is proposed to be constructed along the Eightmile Creek and will connect with the large open space lot near the center of the development. The Applicant is proposing to keep the existing home, some of its accessory structures, and its existing access onto E. Victory Rd. until Phase 2 development and then an additional 4 building lots will be developed with accesses onto the local street within the development and not onto E. Victory Rd. In addition, the Applicant is requesting that the existing home does not connect to city services. Staff is not supportive of the phasing plan as proposed. Staff recommends the development be constructed in one phase and the applicant amend the plat to include the existing residence on a lot and block in the subdivision and require the home connect to city utilities with a new access to the proposed extension of E. Fathom Street OR remove all of the existing structures identified in phase 2 and develop the four additional lots as proposed. (SLIDE 7) A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required. Based on the proposed plat of 7.35 acres, a minimum of 0.74 acres of common open space should be provided. The Applicant is proposing approximately 52,737 square feet (or 1.21 acres) of open space (or 16.47%) consisting of a 10-foot multi- use pathway, common lots with open space, and half of the arterial street buffer to E. Victory Rd. The Applicant's open space exhibit labels 42,034 square feet of the open space as qualifying (13.13%). The open space is proposed to be available across both phases with most provided in Phase 1. However, Staff notes that the open space calculation appears to duplicate area —it appears to include the paved emergency access and does not remove the paved area from the temporary cul-de-sac that does not count towards any open space, qualifying or not. After removing redundant open space and the paved areas on the common open space lots, Staff calculates approximately 29,634 square feet (or.68 acres, 9.25%) of qualified open space which is below the minimum required 10%. Staff removed the area for the temporary cul-de-sac proposed on one of the common open space lots and the 30-foot wide emergency access easement area from the open space calculation. The emergency access easement is not shown to be landscaped per UDC requirements and therefore Staff does not find it appropriate to include this area as qualified open space. If the Applicant were to pave 20 feet of the easement (as required for emergency access) and then landscape five feet on either side of it per UDC standards, this area could be added back into the qualified open space calculations. In addition, if the required temporary turnaround is flipped and placed on one of the adjacent buildable lots to the south of the large common lot (i.e. lots 21 or 22), more open space would be available to the residents in this subdivision immediately. The temporary turnaround does not have to be a cul-de-sac, it could be a hammerhead type turnaround that would only make one (1) lot unbuildable until the road is extended. Staff recommends this change because there is little guarantee to the City that the property to the east will ever develop and therefore little guarantee the temporary turnaround will not become permanent. Approximately 4,800 more square feet of qualified open space would be added to this project with this recommendation. By following this recommendation and the landscape recommendation regarding the emergency access, approximately 9,200 more square feet of qualified open space would be added, making a total of 38,834 square feet, exceeding the 10% minimum required by code by approximately 6,000 square feet. Staff has added conditions of approval for all of the comments above. (SLIDE 8) The Applicant also provided staff with conceptual elevations of the proposed single-family homes. The single-family homes are depicted as mostly single -story structures with a variety of finish materials with stone, stucco, and lap -siding combinations. Some homes are also depicted with extra -large garage spaces for at-home RV storage. All single-family homes appear to meet design and architectural standards. Upon review of the density, proposed use, and the submitted elevations, the request for R-8 zoning the density proposed meet the Future Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential. Written Testimony: Karen McLafferty, board member of Tradewinds Sub. HOA — Additional traffic through their subdivision as the only access to this propped project; Emergency response times; Concerns over the drainage pond and its correct engineering; Height of homes abutting the east side of Tradewinds. Trisha Garcia -Brown, Tradewinds Sub. resident — Concerns over the singular access into Teakwood through their subdivision. Mary Dechambeau, neighbor — Concerns over: multi -use pathway in NW corner of this subject site running into her property; Construction vehicle traffic not utilizing their private road for access; Drainage concerns if Eightmile Lateral is modified. Sandy Blaser, Tradewinds resident — Concerns over single access into Teakwood through their subdivision and; concern over building height for those homes directly abutting Tradewinds Subdivision. Mike McClure, Tuscany Subdivision resident — Concerns over pathway connections from his subdivision into this one. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat but only with the conditions of approval noted in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 7, 2020, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0006, as presented during the hearing on May 7, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0006 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4C: Cedarbrook Subdivision (H-2020-0012) [SLIDE 1] Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 118.58 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 4185 S. Linder Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Rural residential/agricultural properties, consisting of 5 acre and larger lots/parcels, zoned RUT in Ada County. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (3-8 units/acre) Summary of Request: [SLIDE 2] Annexation of a total of 118.58 acres of land with R-2 (9.48 acres), R-4 (65.45 acres) and R-8 (43.66 acres) zoning districts consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. [SLIDE 3] Preliminary Plat consisting of 330 buildable lots, 38 common lots and 4 other lots on 118.58 acres of land. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,828 s.f. with an average lot size of 9,814 s.f.; the gross density is 2.78 units/acre with a net density of 4.4 units/acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in 7 phases. Access is proposed via one (1) collector street (W. Cedarbrook Dr.) and two (2) emergency only driveways via S. Linder Rd.; two (2) stub streets are proposed at the north and one (1) stub street is proposed at the southwest boundary of the site for future extension in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. Each phase of development is proposed to have two (2) accesses for emergency services; the access from the north via Victory Rd. will be constructed with the first phase of development per the emergency access plan approved by the Fire Department. The existing roadways in this area are rural in nature. There are no roadway improvements planned in this area until between 2031- 2035 when Linder Road is planned to be widened to 3-lanes from Amity Rd. to Victory Rd. and the Amity/Linder intersection is planned to be reconstructed. Linder Rd. between Victory Rd. and Overland Rd. is planned to be widened to 5-lanes and the Victory Rd. and Linder Rd. intersection is planned to be reconstructed between 2021 and 2025. [SLIDE 4] Qualified open space is proposed in excess of the minimum 10% required by the UDC; a total of 20.74 acres or 17.5% is proposed consisting of a large central common area with a pond, linear open space with pathways, common areas greater than 50' x 100' in size, parkways along streets, and collector & arterial street buffers. [SLIDE 5] Site amenities are proposed in accord with UDC standards from the quality of life, recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system categories. A swimming pool & pool house, a multi -use sports court, and a picnic area next to a large pond containing benches, a covered shelter and picnic tables are proposed with the 151 phase of development; [SLIDE 6] and a pocket park with play structures consisting of faux logs and boulders is proposed on the other large common area in the 3rd phase. Staff recommends an additional amenity is provided consisting of children's playground equipment (e.g. climbing structure, slide, swings, etc.). Pathways are proposed through this site as shown on the pedestrian plan. Two 10' wide multi -use pathway connections are proposed from the sidewalk along Linder Rd. that merge in the central common area and continue as one to the north boundary along the collector street. Internal pathways are proposed for interconnectivity and detached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development adjacent to streets. The Calkins lateral crosses the NEC of this site; the Applicant proposes to leave it open and improve the area as a linear open space with a pathway. Fencing is required to be installed to deter access to the waterway unless the Applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the waterway serves as or will be improved to be a water amenity as defined in the UDC in which case, fencing may not be required. Fencing is not proposed around the pond; if the Commission & Council determines this presents a safety hazard, a condition requiring such should be added. [SLIDE 7] Sample photo elevations of the types of homes planned to be constructed in this development were submitted as shown. Homes are a mix of 1- & 2-story units of varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials with stone/brick veneer accents. Staff recommended the elevations for the homes proposed on the 40'-45' wide lots are revised prior to the City Council hearing to include more design elements/materials to provide a higher quality of design. [SLIDE 8] Because Comp Plan policies address providing a variety of housing types to avoid any one housing type in a development & to provide more options to meet the financial capabilities of future residents, Staff recommended a variety of housing types (e.g. attached, duplex, townhomes) besides just SFR detached are provided. The Applicant submitted a concept plan for a mix of attached & townhome units consisting of 24 units at the NEC of the development resulting in an overall increase of 4 units and an increase in density from 2.78 to 2.82 units/acre. Written Testimony: • Julie Langlois, Clark & Michelle Robinson, Wayne Martin and Jimmy Lin — Concern pertaining to the following issues: 1) protecting their right to farm, raise livestock, process their cattle and enjoy their view shed; 2) capacity of area schools with all of the previous developments that have been approved but not yet constructed in this area; 3) inadequacy of existing infrastructure to handle more development in this area - no plans to widen Linder Rd. in the near future which is a 2-lane rural roadway with 4-way stops at nearby intersections which she believes is inadequate to serve existing traffic let alone traffic generated from already approved but not yet constructed development & the proposed development; 4) inadequate transition in lot sizes to adjacent 5-10 acre rural residential properties - requests a greater transition in lot sizes to''/z to 3/ acre in size with a 4.5-5' tall rolling berm with fencing at the bottom of the berm on the Cedarbrook side on the boundaries adjacent to Rock Ranch & Stetson Estates with landscaping on the berm consisting of a deciduous tree & an evergreen tree every 60' with a max. height of 15' with 3 shrubs between each tree (specific species requested in her letter). • Kenzie Ward — Has similar concerns as those previously noted & requests the following: 1) a greater transition in lot sizes — at a minimum,'/z-1 acre in size; 2) a greater setback along Linder Rd. so that when the road is expanded in the future there will still be enough green space & landscaping to keep the rural feel of the area and reduce impacts on landscaping; 3) traffic concerns; 4) school capacity concerns; and 5) not an efficient way to expand the City's infrastructure with the project's location on the fringe of the City. • Paula Connelly — Shares the previously mentioned concerns pertaining to not enough transition in lot sizes to adjacent rural properties & inadequacy of existing roads to handle more traffic; against the eventual stub road to the west on the adjacent property to the north discussed in the ACHD report. • Brian Connelly — Concern pertaining to the timing of this development - balancing the growth with the state of the economy. Requests the Commission/Council consider if it's the right time to add 330 more homes to the 1,055 already approved in this area or if we'll have too many houses on the market & create another housing crisis in which homes sit vacant and are a target for crime & vandalism? • Dennis & Judy Radford — Not opposed to the proposed SFR detached homes but not supportive of townhomes or duplexes. • Tina Dean — Believes the proposed project is leap -frog development and will require additional costs & infrastructure and that it'd make more sense for the City to develop out from current developed areas; feels the transition is inadequate to adjacent rural properties and will deny adjacent existing residents the opportunity to continue practices they currently enjoy; concern that the lack of buffer proposed will affect the well-being of livestock & other animals; feels there is demand & ability for the Developer to provide'/z to 1 acre lots as a transition to rural properties; and feels because this is a request for annexation that the Developer has an opportunity & a responsibility to meet a higher level of expectation in regard to amenities for its residents as well as protecting current property use in this area. • Therrin & Amy Robertson — Requests'/z to 3/4 acre lots are provided adjacent to the entire border of their property; a berm planted with shrubs between each tree & the maximum amount of trees for best health (types to be determined at their discretion); fencing constructed on top of the berm, the center of the berm to be on the property line with a max. of 10' from property line with an understanding the landscape maintenance would be theirs since it will be on their property. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/the requirement of a DA per the provisions in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0012, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 7, 2020, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0012, as presented during the hearing on May 7, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0012 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) E IDIAN IDAHO 10morw PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING Agenda Item Number: 4 A Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from March 19, 2020 for Victory Commons H-2019-0150 Meeting Notes: �E IDIAN:--- Council Agenda Item - 4.A. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: 0 ITEM SHEET Title of Item - Public Hearing Continued from March 19, 2020 for Victory Commons (H-2019- 0150) by BVA Development, LLC, Located at 130 E. Victory Rd. and 3030 S. Meridian Rd. Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Upload Date 5/5/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 61 of 148 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING May 7, 2020 DATE: Continued from March 19, 2020 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0150 Victory Commons LOCATION: 130 E. Victory Road and 3030 S. Meridian Road, in the southwest'/4 of Section 19, T.3N. R.IE. C� fIEN! DIAN�-- .►AHO I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat consisting of twelve (12) building lots on 16.74 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Acreage Future Land Use Designation Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use(s) Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Lots (# and type; bldg/common) Phasing plan (# of phases) Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: Details 16.74 Commercial Multi -tenant building and Commercial Nursery Mix of commercial C-G NA 12 building lots 2 NA April 20, 2020; 7 participated via Zoom and one inquired via email Page 1 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 62 of 148 History (previous approvals) AZ-03-038; PFP-03-007; H-2019-0091 and DA inst. #2019- 119405 and Three (3) CZC approvals - A-2019-0361; A- 2020-007 and A-2020-0063 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Fire Service • Distance to Fire 2 miles from Fire Station #6 Station • Fire Response 4 minutes under ideal conditions Time • Resource Current reliability is unknown at this time for this station as it will open in Reliability March of this year. • Risk Identification This proposed commercial development has a risk factor of 4, in which current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this propose project. Risk factors include industrial buildings with unknown uses or chemicals involved. This entails a greater risk for the occupants as well as first responders. Fire, life safety systems and occupant training are critical for this development. Other hazards may be found once the development is completed. • Accessibility This project meets all required access, road widths and turnarounds. Any building over 30' in height will need 26' drive aisles around it for ladder truck access. The roadways shall be maintained 365 days a year for fire, EMS and police responses. • Special/resource This proposed project will require an aerial device. The closest truck company needs is 7 minutes travel time (under ideal conditions) to the proposed development, and therefore the Fire Department can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. This fire station is approximately 2.5 miles from the project. In the event of a hazmat event, there will need to be mutual aid required for the development. In the event of a structure fire an additional truck company will be required. This will require additional time delays as a second truck company is not available in the city. • Water Supply Requires 2,000 gallons per minute for 2 hours; may be less if building is fully Police Service • Distance to Police 3 miles Station • Police Response The expected response time to this area in an emergency is about 3 1/2 Time minutes. The average emergency response time in the City of Meridian is just under 4 minutes. • Calls for Service 449 Page 2 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 63 of 148 • % of calls for See comments in Section VIILD service split by priority • Accessibility The Meridian Police Department has no concerns with access into the proposed development. • Specialty/resource The Meridian Police Department already serves this geographic area and does needs not require additional resources at this time. • Crimes 81 • Crashes 56 • Other Reports The Meridian Police Department has no outstanding issues concerning this development application. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed Ten Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project See application information Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.83 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns Additional 3,758 gpd of commercial flow and 296 gpd of infiltration flow committed to model. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None Concerns • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns There are two existing 8-inch sanitary sewer stubs that are not being utilized and must be abandoned at the main. One stub is located off of Meridian Rd and the other stub is located off of Victory Rd. Page 3 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 64 of 148 INIII 'I Ili iP� ■ +.� :� III i �gy �' •,1 � .. MENEM oss _ Y I II111111 - i y.., + ■ ■...:■....MEMO■ MIN IN MEN - ■ ■1 loll F - - III _�+ii+,1 + -F. s•� - - o -III II II III S 11111[ �4 � i` ?_+2L'�r" � 4 ■1.1.1 IIII �IIIISiI �Hi - '.k- �"111�111 11111111l R•i 11 r �- �jQQ � �� `� I.I.jHIII +} r Y Idaho Falls, ID 83402 IV. NOTICING Newspaper Notification Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet Public hearing notice sign posted on site Nextdoor posting V. STAFF ANALYSIS Planning & Zoning Posting Date 4/17/2020 4/14/2020 4/7/2020 4/14/2020 Comprehensive Plan(https://www.meridianciU.orglcompplan): City Council Posting Date This property is designated Commercial on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation provides a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail, restaurants, personal and professional services, and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi -public uses. Multi -family residential may be allowed in some cases, but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity, and amenities. As noted above, the subject property is currently zoned C-G and the amended development agreement for this property depicts a mix of commercial uses to serve area residents as follows: medical office, retail and flex space which is consistent with the land use designation. 3.02.00 - Maintain, improve, and expand the City's infrastructure to meet existing and growing demands in a timely, orderly, and logical manner. The property is currently using City services. Public Works has no concerns with further intensification as the proposed development is extending City infrastructure in accord with the adopted water and sewer master plan. 3.02.01 G - Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer, police, transportation, schools, fire, and parks. The proposed development is already being provided City services and should not increase the impact to these facilities. The commercial development will not impact the local schools or City parks. The transportation agencies (ITD and ACHD) have assessed the impacts to the transportation network. ACHD is not requiring any further improvements to the Victory Road and ITD and the City Council approved the relocation of the Meridian Road access with the approval of the amended development agreement. The applicant has secured the necessary permits from ITD to construct the new access, including the construction of a deceleration lane on S. Meridian Road to mitigate traffic concerns. 5.01.02D - Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. With the approval of the amended development agreement, the Council approved a conceptual site plan and building elevations for the development. The conceptual site design depicts buildings along the periphery and parking internal to the development. Due to the existing topography of the area, the commercial development is several feet lower than the adjacent residential development and the existing 60 foot Kennedy Lateral easement provides adequate buffering. The Council was also sensitive to the concerns of the surrounding residential development and limited the building height to 35 feet in the amended DA. To integrate the Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 66 of 148 commercial and adjacent residential development, the pedestrian pathway constructed with the residential development is being extended into this development with the construction of the Urgent Care facility in the northern portion of the development. A. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of 12 building lots on 16.74 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. This is a re -subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1 and Parcel A of ROS 8699 of Mussell Corner Subdivision. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The site is developed with a commercial nursery and a multi -tenant building. There is a urgent care facility that is currently under construction along the north boundary of the site, approved with file No. A-2019-0361. Other uses approved for the site include a retail paint store and a multi -tenant flex building. Dimensional Standards (UDC Table 11-2B-3): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. The C-G district has no minimum lot size or street frontage requirements. Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in two (2) phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.A. Phase 1 consists of the northern half of the development and phase 2 is the southern half. Access (UDC 11-3A-3,11-3H-: The primary access to this site is proposed via S. Meridian Road, a state highway (right-in/right- out only) and full access via E. Victory Road, an arterial street. The approved development agreement for this property allows these accesses to remain in accord with ITD and ACHD policies. No other access points are approved or proposed with this development. All lots in this subdivision are subject to cross -access and parking easements per the note on the plat (note #9) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Further, the applicant is depicting a shared driveway with the C-store on the south boundary of Lot 4, Block 1. There are two other parcels the abut this site that also require cross access per the amended DA. Prior to signature on the first phase of the plat, the applicant shall grant cross access to parcel #R5915720030, R5915720042 and R6242270030 in accord with the amended development agreement. Traffic: The applicant has submitted a traffic study to ACHD for review and approval. ACHD has reviewed the traffic's impact against current ACHD policies. ACHD staff has concluded that the proposed development meets the current thresholds of the adjacent roadways and ACHD is not requiring any further roadway improvements to Victory Road. As mentioned previously, the Council and ITD approved the relocation of the S. Meridian Road access with the approval of the amended development agreement. The applicant did provide a traffic study to ITD to analyze the relocation of the access. ITD required the existing access to Meridian Road close and supported the relocation of the new access predicated on the it being restricted to a right-in/right-out only, construction of a center median and a northbound right turn lane into the development and dedication of additional right-of-way for future expansion. Both ACHD and City staff recommend that the applicant comply with ITD requirements. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): The UDC requires a 10-foot multi -use pathway along the Meridian Road frontage. Currently, there is a five foot detached sidewalk constructed along this frontage. With the closure of the northern most access, the applicant is responsible for extending a portion of the 10-foot pathway Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 67 of 148 in the area of the access closure and connect the new segment of 10-foot pathway to the existing 5-foot sidewalk. The City is not requiring the extension of the pathway along the entire frontage, however, it is the desire of the City to have a 10-foot pathway installed along the entire frontage some day. For now, the applicant shall record a pedestrian easement over the new segment of the pathway and existing sidewalk to facilitate expansion in the future per the amended development agreement. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 17. A 5-foot detached sidewalk exists along E. Victory Road in accord with UDC standards. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C- G zoning district in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. As noted above, there is an existing 60-foot wide Kennedy Lateral easement along the northeast boundary of the development and significant slopes. Constructing a buffer between the commercial property and the residential use is not feasible. The UDC allows the existing lateral to act as the adequate buffer to the residential use provided the applicant construct a 5-foot wide landscape buffer outside of the easement and landscape the area in accord with UDC 11-3B-9 or gain NMID approval to construct the buffer within the easement as proposed on the submitted landscape plan. However, on the east boundary, the property does abut a residential property, zoned R-4. With phase 2 of the development and when development is proposed for Lot 9, Block 1, the applicant will be responsible for constructing a 25-foot wide landscape buffer on the east boundary with trees that touch at maturity in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C. A 35-foot wide buffer is required S. Meridian Road, an entryway corridor, and a 25-foot wide buffer is required along E. Victory Road, an arterial street. The buffers along S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road Way should be depicted on the plat on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer maintained by the business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-313-7C.2b. Per the amended development agreement, the applicant is required to construct the 25-foot landscape buffer along E. Victory Road prior to occupancy of the first structure on the property. The applicant shall revise the submitted landscape plan to include the 25-foot landscape buffer per the amended development agreement. The required landscape buffers shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way as anticipated by the transportation agencies in accord with UDC 11-3B-7Cl.c. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-�: The Kennedy Lateral traverse the along the northwest boundary of the development and is piped in accord with UDC standards. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. The delivery of surface water is provided by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The pump house is constructed on Lot 5, Block 1 of Mussell Corner Subdivision, located in the northeast corner of the development. Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 68 of 148 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 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted and approved with the amended development agreement. As noted above, several buildings have been approved for construction within the proposed development consistent with these elevations and the ASM. All future structures are required to comply with the elevations in the amended development agreement, the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and those in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat per the conditions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. Page 8 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 69 of 148 VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat (dated: 11/20/19) & Phasing Plan PRELIMINARY PLAT U r E W oev[ a.re ae FOR Q VICTORY COMMONS SUBDIVISION �9,gE, lu' Er LATEC IN A PDR7ION OF GCV`T LC7 d, 5EC711CN 19, 7.3N., R.IE., B.M. I _ _ y0,..�Il X w.nn,e CITY OF MERIOLAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAF,O -201 & G cart e�E-�sn fLVe Table !' f .pub _ie.n• , a eRr --- � 11 �A in i----------- Page 9 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 70 of 148 B. Landscape Plan (date: 11/26/2019) N7 Page 10 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 71 of 148 �--I4L--'----4-r-------- ----------- OWK+---4 - - - — - - — - - — - z c� BAER o a�m PkL%19.19l0 w�gay� 14 7 C P o� CJ] y C Q E Q > �p i C a❑ �a m J L1.1 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 72 of 148 kyk�V, L WHE I I AT 'I" T IF I I T ru 4 6 I 2 'TREE PLANTING DETAIL G 1-- mnnm ,tFi 4P (5)-'OULDERR-ANI-IVALL E.��l H-1 E T 7' E I E -.V Page 12 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 73 of 148 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division 1. All development shall comply with the terms of the Development Agreement (Inst. 2019- 119405) and any future amendments to that agreement as applicable. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.A, shall be revised as follows: a. The buffer along S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road shall be depicted on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer maintained by the business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2b. b. Direct lot access is prohibited to S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road. c. Grapically depict the Kennedy Lateral easement on the face of the plat. d. Prior to signature on the first phase of the plat, the applicant shall provide a recorded cross agreement or add a plat note that grants cross access to parcels #R5915720030, R5915720042 and R6242270030 in accord with the amended development agreement. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.B shall be revised as follows: a. Include Phase 2 in boundary of the landscape plan. A 25-foot wide landscape buffer along E. Victory Road shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the first structure in accord with the amended development agreement. The landscape buffer shall be installed in accord with UDC 11-313-7C. b. Construct a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along the northeast boundary of Lots 1, 2, 5 and 8, Block 1 and the east boundary of Lot 9, Block 1 in accord with UDC 11-3A-9. The required landscaping on these lots shall occur with lot development. If installation of the buffer is prohibited within the Kennedy Lateral easement, the applicant shall provide a 5- foot wide landscape buffer outside of the easement area and install the required landscaping in accord with UDC 11-313-9C. c. The required landscape buffers along Meridian and Victory Roads shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way as anticipated by the transportation agency in accord with UDC 11-313-70.c. d. Prior to signature on the first phase of the final plat, the applicant shall record a pedestrian easement over the new segment of the pathway and existing sidewalk along S. Meridian Road to facilitate expansion of the 10-foot pathway in the future per the amended development agreement. 4. Development of subdivision shall be generally consistent with the phasing plan included in Section VII.A. 5. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained on the final plat within two (2) years of the City Council's approval of the subject preliminary plat, the preliminary plat shall become null and void unless a time extension is obtained as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 6. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. Page 13 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 74 of 148 7. All fixture structures constructed within the development shall to comply with the elevations in the amended development agreement, the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and those in the Architectural Standards Manual. 8. Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review applications are required to be submitted to the Planning Division for approval of all future buildings on the site prior to applying for a building permit. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancily.orgzpublic works.aspx?id=2 72 1.2 There are two existing 8-inch sanitary sewer stubs that are not being utilized and must be abandoned at the main. One stub is located off of Meridian Rd and the other stub is located off of Victory Rd. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 75 of 148 to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non -domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 76 of 148 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.oMIpublic works. aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https: //weblink. meridiancity. orQ/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=181965&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianCity D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https: //weblink. meridiancity. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=182146&dbid= 0&repo=Meridian City E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) https: //weblink. meridiancioy. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=182236&dbid= 0&repo=Meridian City F. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH https: //weblink. meridiancioy. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=182157&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCity G. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) https: //weblink. meridiancity. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=182869&dbid= 0&r0o=Meridian City H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) https: //weblink. meridiancioy. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=182144&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianCitX I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) hggs: //weblink. meridiancity. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=183003&dbid= 0&repo=Meridian City Page 16 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 77 of 148 IX. FINDINGS Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Stafffinds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 17 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 78 of 148 Kuna V'Icto H-2019-0150 LLC Victory Commons Preliminary Plat CLARK WARDLE Preliminary Plat Background Annexed in 2004 Zoned C-G per DA Zoning per 2002 Comp Plan DA amended in 2006 Initial Mussell Corner Subdivision Platted do CLARK WARDLE Preliminary Plat Background Original DA Western Therned Construction Different Site Plan do CLARK WARDLE Preliminary Plat November 2019 DA Modified eLYICWXTV RECCHOER IXI EUC �79,�19�0fi 9OpE ILWK] Ppr��NXOL10tn OM 11Ri RU1i 11:163W 1 [w,4 wno J DEVELOPMENT ACREWF.wr PAISI'111 L. Citydfhkridien L Kum Vlcmry, LLC,Owrrer 1 HYA D—Up—,JAC Dndoper 7}{[5 DEt'F RYTf±NT AGREEMENT (rbia kgrnement), is made end —A 'iota dtis� dPy of Ipfyf --. 2019, by and bet�xvo City f M-Wee, a murdc'pa1 a rporaziom o[doc Sufic oF]daho, lleruBcr celled CrN +.t—.d4— is 33 r. Rcoedwey Avenue Meddiao, kbbu Emu and K—Mciary, LLC,whwe ddrcasjOOI Pier view priee, Saitea2pl, ]dahu rdl� ]delro U402. her oroeRa cakled O W N6:R and BVA DPa+tlppnnt, I.LC, avltoPx eddrega is2775 W. hfavigaror [k_ Sehe Ul, Mandl., idtlro S3642, I—LoeOcr ceIkd DEVELOPER. t. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, 0— islhe sole pvncr, in law -&n—quity, oFc twin I t o[Lerd in Oc OoulMy of Ade, Smic of ldnho, cl—nbcd in Pxlabil " A", whidh is eue h d harm and by Hole reit:tence I—p-ftd hxdn ae if sd Fedh fie fi11, herein fte re&ned m as" Prdpeay:and I.i WHEREAS, Weho Cnde§ 67.65 L I A pmridee dl l u6m mey, by drdi Ue,k, require or pami[. a candi[ion nF arming Lu the Ihuoe 93—Lnpec make e waillem co—iih—W ccrnanirrg the we m d—kpm nd of the subject rroi-ly. ettd 1.3 WHEREAS, City ha mc, i bd im mhuoq aurherltj' by ilk mncllneln of Secnoo l l -5H-3 dLhe which whoiu3 development egm ft upon Yae mmrnalianaMUdrr-cdmng ofland, errd 1.4 WEIEREA8, Owns ald+dr D—Ie per has submitted an applicdw. ibr mmlfc lon W an alimina Devaluon r Ajimnxnr, recorded in Ada C—Iv u loffl, crA M L04153422 end nm Addendum to Developm l Apfcmed ax ]¢sl —LN 106155M3 mddifgidg nosh pnordoxnn nM nsthcyrdMc to the pmperty dmcrib d i. the Mlached Ladd 'A- and es su@jocl 10 NO Agra —n end 1.5 WHEREAS, Os,ncpDmla"r mbdc re{nese Wians at the public timing tic%lc 1ILe Mendion City Counul, on to how the Pmperty will he dnaLaped &W wg.m ilmpr kerns will bemedk nitd 1.6 WHEREAS. Ihu --d of Ibc pcoaeedlNe for the Modification of D—Ikq—t Ag[neloent an the Riupl y held before che Cay Couxll, h PELOIIrEMACAEgXgrt-Va-n}r �Xxpl-Xn9 1A PMa Idf9 W Men C�Caraf Yai,e Yprda rN.wrBw �. �10 - FnaE 1 m d �2 CLARK WARDLE Preliminary Plat November 2019 DA Modified • v 4 � of T .w. do CLARK WARDLE Preliminary Plat H-2019-0091 — DA Modification Approved November 6, 2019 Replaced prior 2004 and 2006 DA Modified Site Plan Modified Access Modified Design requirements CLARK WARDLE Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat of Victory Commons Sub This is a re -subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1 and Parcel A of ROS 8699 of Mussell Corner Subdivision. Implements 2019 DA that Council Approved in November CLARK WARDLE Preliminary Plat PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VICTORY COMMONS SUBDIVISION;4'� ® SITUATED IN A PORTION OF GOUT LOT 4, SECT110N 19, i.3N., RE., B.M. ®,nca�e CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IOAHO .� IN -2(11S 7 Eli f e M,eay.ssccci�rc..A�v�ucuo.Easumx — 'w`w""�- I E --0, SIN Yrax�c fr� �II�II� PP1.D Preliminary Plat 12 building lots 16.74 acres of land C-G zoning district Contemplate Two Phases North along Meridian 10 South along Victory do CLARK WARDLE Preliminary Plat Current Development Northernmost Parcel is Currently Under Development as Saltzer Urgent Care Second Retail use on Meridian Road just to North of Existing Improvements CLARK WARDLE Preliminary Plat General Agreement With Conditions of Approval Conditions are Consistent with DA Will Proceed with Northern Phase 1 CLARK WARDLE Preliminary Plat Conclusion • Property already zoned • Proposed buildings and uses permitted • Comply with UDC requirements • Request Approval as Recommended CLARK WARDLE E IDIAN IDAHO 10morw PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING Agenda Item Number: 4 B Item Title: Public Hearing Continued form April 2, 2020 for Teakwood Place Subdivision Meeting Notes: �E IDIAN:--- Council Agenda Item - 4.13. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: 0 ITEM SHEET Title of Item - Public Hearing Continued from April 2, 2020 for Teakwood Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) by Hesscomm Corp., Located at 1835 E. Victory Rd. Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Type Staff Report Upload Date 5/4/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 79 of 148 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 5/7/2020 DATE: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2020-0006 Teakwood Place Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located at 1835 E. Victory Road, approximately'/4 mile east of S. Locust Grove Road, in the NW '/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 29, Township 3N., Range 1 E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION C� fIEN DIAN�-- AHO Legend 10 Project Location Annexation & zoning of 7.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat consisting of 28 building lots and 4 common lots, by Hesscomm Corp. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Acreage Future Land Use Designation Existing Land Use(s) Proposed Land Use(s) Lots (# and type; bldg./common) Phasing Plan (# of phases) Number of Residential Units (type of units) Density (gross & net) Open Space (acres, total [%] /buffer/qualified) Amenities Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Details 7.35 acres Medium Density Residential Residential and Agricultural. Residential 32 total lots — 28 single-family residential; 4 common lots. Proposed as two (2) phases. 28 single-family units. Gross — 3.95 du/ac.; Net — 5.64 du/ac. 52,737 square feet, or 1.2lacres (42,034 square feet qualified open space; approximately 13.13%) 1 amenity proposed — 10' multi -use pathway Eightmile Creek runs along the northeast corner of the property. Page 1 Further analysis pg. 7&8. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 80 of 148 Details attendees: History (previous approvals) N/A B. Community Metrics Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report (yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action (yes/no) Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via extension of a local street from the Hwy/Loca1)(Existing and Proposed) west (E. Fathom St.). The existing home is requesting to maintain its access onto E. Victory Road, an arterial. An emergency access is proposed on the western boundary from E. Fathom St. to E. Victory Rd. Traffic Level of Service "F" Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross This subdivision's main access is from an existing stub Access street (E. Fathom St.) and is proposing a new stub street to the east for future development and future connectivity. Existing Road Network No Existing Arterial Sidewalks / None Buffers Proposed Road Improvements None Distance to nearest City Park (+ 1.6 miles to Renaissance Park (6.5 acres) size) Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.3 miles from Fire Station #4 • Fire Response Time 3:00 minutes under ideal conditions (this meets Meridian's Fire response goal time of 5 minutes). • Resource Reliability Fire Station #4 reliability is 78%. • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2 — residential with hazards (open waterway) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access, road widths, and turnarounds. Police Service See Agency Comments (Section VIII.D). West Ada School District • Distance (elem, ins, hs) 0.6 miles to Siena Elementary; 3.2 miles to Victory Middlc School; 2.3 miles to Mountain View High School. • Capacity of Schools Siena Elementary — 800; Victory Middle — 1000; Mountain . View — 2268. • # of Students Enrolled Siena Elementary — 970; Victory Middle — 1085; Mountain View — 2237. Wastewater EM • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed — • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's 46 WRRF Declining Balance 13.88 • Project Consistent with WW YES Master Plan/Facility Plan Water Page 2 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 81 of 148 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Bruce Hessing, Hesscomm Corp. — 6700 Linder Rd., Meridian, ID 83646 B. Owner: Charles & Vickie Richardson — 1835 E. Victory Rd., Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: Leavitt & Associates Engineers, Inc. — 1324 1" St. South, Nampa ID, 83651 IV. NOTICING Newspaper Notification Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet Site Posting Nextdoor posting V. STAFF ANALYSIS Planning & Zoning Posting Date 4/ 17/2020 4/14/2020 4/17/2020 4/14/2020 City Council Postine Date A. Future Land Use Map Designation(hgps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Medium Density Residential — This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The annexation area is near existing public services and not on the periphery of corporate city limits; existing City of Meridian zoning and development lay to its west, north, and south. The proposed land use of single family residential is consistent with the recommended uses in the FL UM designation. The proposed project has a gross density of 3.95 du/ac and a net density of 5.64 du/ac, meeting the required density range listed above. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed preliminary plat and requested R-8 zoning district to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Medium Density Residential. 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.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.otglcompplan): (Staff analysis is in italics after the cited policy) "With new subdivision plats, require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities" (2.02.01A). This new subdivision and plat offers additional sidewalks, open space, and a new segment of multi - Page 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 83 of 148 use pathway that will help connect this project to adjacent subdivisions. The multi -use pathway section is the only qualifying site amenity proposed with this project (per UDC 11-3G-3 standards, in order for an open space lot to be considered an amenity, it must be at least 20, 000 square feet above the required minimum of 10016). Because the section of multi -use pathway used as the qualifying amenity is a small section and the open space is not large enough to qualify as an amenity, Staff is recommending an additional amenity be placed on one of the common open space lots to further increase the quality and availability of amenities in the area. Staff is also concerned with the Applicant's proposed open space proposed on the preliminary plat and is offering further conditions regarding these concerns (see Section VIII.AI). If the conditions of approval of this report are met, Staff finds this project in compliance with the policies established in the new Comprehensive Plan. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer, police, transportation, schools, fire, and parks" (3.02.01G). All public utilities are readily available to this project site due to the existing subdivision to the west. ACHD notes the excessive traffic that already exists on E. Victory Rd and nearby intersections but has also noted in their staff report (see Section VIII.H) the low number of estimated vehicle trips from this subdivision will not require additional mitigation or road improvements. West Ada School District has offered comments on this project regarding school enrollment —the closest schools to this project are not yet over capacity according to their original letter and West Ada estimates 22 school age children will reside in this development. However, Staff has received letters from West Ada on more recent projects and Sienna Elementary and Victory Middle are now shown as overcapacity. Staff is aware of the overall overcrowding issues facing nearby public schools, however, the low number of school age children expected in this development should be easily absorbed in the district. School enrollment numbers of the closest schools to this development are listed above in the Community Metrics section of this staff report. "Encourage infill development" (3.03.01E). Teakwood Place Subdivision is on the cusp of being an infill development by definition. Staff finds that the already annexed and developed properties residing to the north, west, and south make development of this property a logical and orderly progression of City limits. In addition, all public utilities and services are readily available for this subdivision including planned road improvements at the nearby intersection of E. Victory and S. Locust Grove. "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices" (3.07.01A). The site design of this project proposes density that matches the subdivision to the west and the underlying FL UM designation. The subdivision to the south is of lower density zoning (R-4) but the applicant has proposed larger lot sizes on those lots abutting the subdivision to the south. Overall, Staff finds the site design to meet the intent of this comprehensive plan policy. "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross -access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity" (6.01.02B). Access into this subdivision Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 84 of 148 is through an existing and developed subdivision (Tradewinds Sub.) via an extension of a local street. This will mean one less additional access point on E. Victory and S. Locust Grove Roads, arterial streets. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home on this parcel that is proposed to remain until Phase 2 develops. In addition to the home, a number of accessory structures and two large barns currently exist. The largest barn that resides towards the southern part of the parcel will be removed upon development of Phase 1 and the pole barn closest to the existing home will remain until Phase 2 development. All structures can be seen on the submitted plat and landscape plans. As noted below staff does not support the phasing of the proposed development. Any structures that remain on the property must comply with the dimensional standards of the R-8 zone or be removed. D. Proposed Use Analysis: Detached single-family residential homes with local streets within the development and a new stub street to the east are being proposed. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. This subdivision is proposed to be developed in two (2) phases. The first proposed phase will provide all public streets and 24 of the 28 proposed building lots. The existing home is proposed to remain until Phase 2 development and then an additional 4 buildings lots will be developed with accesses onto the local street within the development and not onto E. Victory Rd. The minimum property size in this development is approximately 4,909 square feet with an average buildable lot size of approximately 7,342 square feet. In addition, each buildable lot appears to meet the minimum street frontage requirement by providing no less than 30 feet of frontage for those lots that front on a curve or cul-de- sac. Therefore, according to the preliminary plat, all lots appear to meet the required UDC dimensional standards for the request R-8 zoning district. Staff is not supportive of the phasing plan as proposed. Staff recommends the development be constructed in one phase and the applicant amend the plat to include the existing residence on a lot and block in the subdivision and require the home connect to city utilities with a new access to the proposed extension of E. Fathom Street OR remove all of the existing structures identified in phase 2 and develop the four additional lots as proposed. E. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): All proposed lots and public streets appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted preliminary plat. This includes property sizes, required street frontages, and road widths. In addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3)—the proposed preliminary plat adheres to the standards therein. F. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via extension of a local street from the west (E. Fathom St.). The existing home is requesting to maintain its access onto E. Victory Road, an arterial. In addition, an emergency access is proposed on the northwestern boundary connecting Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 85 of 148 from E. Victory Rd. south to E. Fathom St. A note should be placed on the face of the final plat prohibiting any direct lot access to E. Victory Rd. The owner is proposing to keep the driveway for the existing home onto E. Victory Rd. which does not comply with ACHD district policy or the City's UDC. The Applicant has also proposed an emergency access only driveway that connects E. Fathom St. to E. Victory Rd. E. Fathom St. is the only access into this development and therefore, Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the emergency access be constructed prior to any issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, or with Phase 1 if there continues to be phasing proposed; this is commensurate with the condition of approval from the Meridian Fire Department (see Section VIII.A1). Pedestrian access in the development will be via extensions of 5-foot attached sidewalks on local streets. A micro pathway that runs next to the emergency access road and connects the frontage improvements on E. Victory Rd. with the sidewalks on the proposed extension of E. Fathom St is also proposed. Additionally, a small section of 10 foot multi- use pathway is proposed to be constructed along the Eightmile Creek and will connect with the large open space lot near the center of the development. G. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Future development should comply with these standards. No parking plan was submitted with the application. H. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): A 10-foot wide multi -use pathway is proposed along Eightmile Creek at the northeast boundary of the subdivision in accord with the Meridian Pathways Master Plan; its development is proposed with Phase 2 after the existing home will be removed in the same phase. The applicant is proposing the 10-foot multi -use pathway be located with a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement within a 20-foot wide common lot in Phase 2. The multi -use pathway has other pedestrian connections via 5-foot attached sidewalks within the development. Again, Staff finds the timeline of developing portions of this project in multiple phases as an issue. The multi -use pathway may not yet have connection with additional miles of pathway but it will actually serve as an amenity if it is built in one phase or in Phase 1 due to its connection of E. Victory and the open space lot within the development. I. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Five (5) foot attached sidewalks are proposed along all internal local streets, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A five-foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along Victory Road. J. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E. Victory Rd., an arterial street, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide common lot is depicted on the plat; this common lot also houses the proposed multi -use pathway that Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 86 of 148 will run along Eightmile Creek. The correct number of trees appear to be shown on the submitted landscape plans (see Section VII.F) Landscaping is required along all pathways (including micro -pathways) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of pathways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to correct this on the landscape plan and provide a revised copy to staff at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space should be corrected in the Landscape Calculations/Requirements table along with the required number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. The landscape plan should to be revised to reflect the revised phasing plan and preliminary plat provided to staff. A condition of approval regarding this comment is in Section VIII.3. K. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required. Based on the proposed plat of 7.35 acres, a minimum of 0.74 acres of common open space should be provided. According to the Applicant's provided open space exhibit (Exhibit VII.D), the Applicant is proposing approximately 52,737 square feet (or 1.21 acres) of open space (or 16.47%) consisting of a 10-foot multi -use pathway, common lots with open space, and half of the arterial street buffer to E. Victory Rd. The Applicant's open space exhibit labels 42,034 square feet of the open space as qualifying (13.13%). The open space is proposed to be available across both phases with most provided in Phase 1. However, Staff notes that the open space calculation appears to duplicate area —it appears to include the paved emergency access and does not remove the paved area from the temporary cul-de-sac that does not count towards any open space, qualifying or not. After removing redundant open space and the paved areas on the common open space lots, Staff calculates approximately 29,634 square feet (or .68 acres, 9.2501o) of qualified open space which is below the minimum required 10%. Staff removed the area for the temporary cul-de-sac proposed on one of the common open space lots and the 30- foot wide emergency access easement area from the open space calculation. The emergency access easement is not shown to be landscaped per UDC requirements and therefore Staff does not find it appropriate to include this area as qualified open space. If the Applicant were to pave 20 feet of the easement (as required for emergency access) and then landscape the five feet on either side of it per UDC standards, this area could be added back into the qualified open space calculations. In addition, if the required temporary turnaround is flipped and placed on one of the adjacent buildable lots to the south of the large common lot (i.e. lots 21 or 22), more open space would be available to the residents in this subdivision. Staff recommends this change because there is little guarantee to the City that the property to the east will ever Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 87 of 148 develop and therefore little guarantee the temporary cul-de-sac will not become permanent. Approximately 4,800 more square feet of qualified open space would be added to this project with this recommendation. By following this recommendation and the landscape recommendation regarding the emergency access, approximately 9,200 more square feet of qualified open space would be added, making a total of 38,834 square feet, exceeding the 10% minimum required by code by approximately 6, 000 square feet. Therefore, Staff is recommending conditions of approval to correct the open space calculations to reflect the usable open space and then provide Staff with a revised open space exhibit and revised preliminary plat showing the new location of the temporary cul-de-sac at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing (see Section VIII.4). L. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat (7.35 acres), a minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. The applicant has proposed one (1) qualified amenity, a 10-foot multi -use pathway. This amenity meets the minimum UDC standards. Although the proposed multi -use pathway is a qualified site amenity, staff is concerned about its usage because it is a relatively short segment and does not directly connect with other portions of existing pathways. Because of this, Staff is recommending a condition of approval to include an additional amenity from one of the categories in UDC 11-3G- 3C on common open space Lot 4, Block 2 and provide a revised landscape plan at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. M. Waterways (UDC 11-3A--A): The Eightmile Creek is a protected waterway and runs along the northeast corner boundary of this development but is not on the subject parcel. The applicant is proposing to add a 10-foot multi -use pathway outside of its easement as an amenity to this project site. Because Eightmile Creek is a protected waterway, it must remain open with development of this site. No additional requirements exist due to the creek being off -site. N. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6,11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and shall be corrected per the conditions listed in this staff report (see Section VIII.3) for the lots abutting the micro -use pathway. In addition, open vision fencing along the proposed pathway facing Eightmile Creek and any common open space is required. O. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single-family homes for this project (see Section VII.E). The single-family homes are depicted as mostly single -story structures with a variety of finish materials with stone, stucco, and lap -siding combinations. Some homes depict extra -large spaces for at-home RV storage. All single-family homes appear to meet design and architectural standards. Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 88 of 148 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII.A per the findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 10 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 89 of 148 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION FOR TEAKWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION A parcel of land located in the NW 114 of the NW 114 of Section 29, 73N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of said Section 29 from which the N114 corner of said Section 29 bears North 89°59`41" East, 2,680.68 feet; thence along the North boundary line of said Section 29 North 89°59'41" East, 620.22 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said North boundary line North 89°59'41" East, 328.84 feet to a point on the approximate centerline of Eight Mile Lateral; thence along the approximate centerline of Eight Mile Lateral the following 2 courses and distances: thence leaving said North boundary line South 04°36'20" East, 80.22 feet; thence South 39°10'20" East, 71.96 feet; thence leaving said centerline South 00*11'29" East, 781.92 feet to a point on the northeasterly boundary line of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision No. 2 as filed in Book 94 of Plats at Pages 11,351 through 11,354, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence along said northeasterly boundary line North 73'13'33" West, 420.37 feet to the northerly most corner of said Tuscany Lakes Subdivision No. 2; thence along the East boundary line of Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1 as filed in Book 106 of Plats at Pages 14,594 through 14,596, records of Ada County, Idaho and the southerly extension thereof North 00°11'26" West, 263.65 feet to the NE corner of Lot 6, Block 2 of said Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1, said point also being on the South boundary line of Lot 5, Block 2 of said Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1; thence along said South boundary line North 89°59'41" East, 21.79 feet; thence along the East boundary line of said Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1 and the northerly extension thereof North 00"11'29" West, 532.67 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 327,836 square feet or 7.53 acres, more or less. 7729 }OM 2I25Izn1`'nl Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 90 of 148 S.19 S.20 E. VICTORY RD. BASIS OF BEARING 589'59'41"W 2680.68 1-/_45_24 S.30 S.29 620.22' N$9'S9'4t"E 32$.84' — 173t.62" V " 5.28 L--- B 1 BLOCK 1 I S4'36'20'E 80.22'� �T I 14�0 ♦ o S39'10'20"E 71.96' -te 1 \ 1 z 0 I� l { I IN BLOCK 2 m ' I o I� i 111335 E. VICTORY RD. I O I 327836 s.f. 7.53 o. c. � a I G 14 IIj- m I r11 1 i I � R U a� w NNp ® 1 #n ' r< j N89-59'41"E tGF- S .0 E a 7729 cJ , o 0 �� 7I? tk' P- ri of \10 w 9 , 1 'r Ock l �'5CAN), N _ 7313 1 tA® S W 4z0�� I SUB, Na. 0 O IDAHO EXHIBIT _ DRAWING FOR 19-324 Q. o9y5"'�`�P'`"'' TEAKWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION 5"�'"° IIISURVEY BOISE ua"0e 1 GROUP LLC WCAIM IN THE NW K OF rKE NW 9 OF SECTION 29, T3N., RAL. 9-M., pW6 DATE ADA COUNTY. IOAHO 1/25/202C Page 12 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 91 of 148 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 3/25/2020) Alift DDNI=n NAJ. 7 OndIS NOISIAicans -ON30VId QOOM>IVBI 'n I NOISIAIGS 9 9O;UOOOMNV3i SB.LVIOOSSV 'R -UIAV3l r N -S 7U. 9 vi p -Z L -77, ----------- rnl - ------------- -- Page 13 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 92 of 148 C. Landscape Plans (date: 1/23/2020) m z n 4 m P¢ r r a f duo e E� n m j0 �-N `Z, 0 � � 3 n t .I Cl m� 0 a is?F , mp N ,IN lor --- -- - J TEAKNHJOG PLACE SUBDIVISION AER,oaN,NAHo TEAKWOOD PLACE suaDivIsioN _ ? LEAVITT R, ASSOCIATES ENOINEERS, INC- STRUCTURAL `CIVIL NE83COMM CORP, + - REVISIONS UNDER ROAR MERIGIAN, Ia 836J6 PHONE1208]]89-0061 SURVEYING Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 93 of 148 x0W 0 N x r am �P hJ a r 00 h9:d v �zr [lll fll l�.:, x I - z z ZZ ly — .. . t3y ci i i �r r 0 0 m z o a O � 6 -_= n "n fix. k �E- mom - LEAV ITT & ASSOCIATES - " TEAKWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION - ` \, ENGINEERS, INC. tab MER—N, 0-0 TEAKWOOD PLACE — u~._•-r .., SUDDIVISION STRUCTURAL' CIVIL ��.- sursverlrJc �? DDATE BY DESCRIPIICN MERIDIAN, 1083B48 a o:, JA6 -T '•+uu•• �esseisaTsmeeT sou+w nnuanionuo easc� REVISIONS Page 15 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 94 of 148 Ufa I m z 3s7, a^? OtQc� _ -REVISIONS —_--- t i ! t s� I i I ij I z ! z In m t •.� �i0 2 x - Kill 7-1 1' II II i J "r i Qi f \S - 7 - -7 LEAVITT ASSOCIATES NOOD PLACE SUBDIVISIONs. MEgIogN ogHo TEAKWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION y r-NOI ENGINEERS, INC. sraucTMRAcaavu HESSCOMM COpR P. 0700N CINDER gOg6 MERMAN, D e3e48 MHONE12091]HBApBA f rn„nn^• SURVEYING qp�---�— Page 16 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 95 of 148 D. Open Space Exhibit (date: 2/24/2020) � BBCN B1 PICE B,B5B iV'JNC-tiLLll'Nti N ----- 444�` ___ m\J\ J - ,. TRo{ f re O g $ l ;. t E. PENMBIDN ST ms a ➢y ��i S� �� 2N mT; !" F e -FXy' i. "u' 60'r R .. IL z4 Sg :r I TEAKWOOD PLACE SUODIVISION .EHIo�AH.�o�Ho TEAKWOOD PLACE LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT STRUCTURAL'CVIL tj �; No HESSCCMM CORP. 6i00 N. LINVER300 bEAnIgN, l0 0L846 PHONE (208I ]89-0864 SURVEYING BE6CRIPT BNB REVISIONS Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 96 of 148 E. Conceptual Building Elevations Page 18 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 97 of 148 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. This subdivision shall be constructed in one (1) phase and the applicant shall amend the plat to include the existing residences on a lot and block in the subdivision with a new access to the proposed extension of E. Fathom Street OR remove all of the existing structures identified in phase 2 and develop the four additional lots as proposed. c. If the existing home is to remain, the home shall connect to city services with the first phase of development and access shall be provided from a local street, E. Fathom Street. d. The emergency access on Lot 5, Block 2 shall be constructed prior to any issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. e. Upon development, the existing home shall close its driveway access to E. Victory Rd. and add a new access point to the extended E. Fathom Street. f. The 10-foot multi -use pathway shall be constructed with the first phase of development in accord with UDC 11-3A-8 and UDC 11-3B-12. Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 98 of 148 g. All street frontage improvements and landscaping along E. Victory Rd. shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the development. h. An additional qualifying amenity (per UDC 11-3G-3C) shall be added to the plat and landscape plan and placed on Lot 4, Block 2 with Phase 1 of the development. i. This development shall provide no less than 38,834 square feet, or 13.3%, of qualified open space. For those lots abutting E. Victory Road, a residential arterial roadway, any building fagade facing the street shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step - backs, and pop -outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single -story structures are exempt from this requirement 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated 03/25/2020, shall be revised as follows prior to submittal of the final plat application: a. Revise the plat to show the temporary cul-de-sac on the south side of the proposed E. Richardson St., on Lot 21 or 22, Block 1 and add a note stating that said lot is non - buildable until such time as E. Richardson St. is extended. b. Add a note prohibiting direct lot access via E. Victory Rd. for those lots abutting the arterial roadway. Submit a revised plan (electronic copy) to the Planning Division at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated 11/20/2019, shall be revised as follows prior to submittal of the final plat application: a. The Landscape Calculations/Requirements table shall include the following: 1) the total linear feet of pathways and the required number of trees per UDC 11-3B-12); and 2) the total square footage of common open space and required number of trees per UDC 1I- 3G-3E. b. The Landscape Plan shall be corrected to reflect open vision fencing along all pathways and common open space areas, as listed in the standards in UDC 11-3A-7. The Landscape plan shall be revised to reflect a single phase per the conditions in this report. d. Revise the Landscape Plan to show landscaping along the emergency access road — common lot 5, Block 2. Said lot shall be developed with a 20-foot wide paved surface and five feet of landscaping on each side in accord with UDC 11-3B-12. Submit a revised plan (electronic copy) to the Planning Division at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. 4. The Open Space Exhibit included in Section VII.D is subject to the following corrections: a. Show the temporary cul-de-sac on Lots 21 or 22, Block 1 rather than on the common open space lot. b. Correct open space calculations to reflect conditions of approval contained herein regarding qualified open space. Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 99 of 148 Submit a revised plan (electronic copy) to the Planning Division at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for all proposed zoning districts. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Any structures that remain on the property must comply with the dimensional standards of the R-8 zone or be removed. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The street naming and addressing of any structures proposed to remain, will change to the new naming and addressing with this subdivision. 1.2 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting, LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 100 of 148 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non -domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 101 of 148 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_ works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink. meridiancily. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=183649&dbid= 0&redo=MeridianC ity D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink. meridianciU. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=184717&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianC ity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink. meridianciU. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=185209&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianC hty F. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) https:llweblink. meridianciU. orglWebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=184507&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianC hty G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDH) https:llweblink. meridianciU. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=184494&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianC hty H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) https:llweblink. meridianciU. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=185262&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianC i &cr=1 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 102 of 148 L WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) https: //weblink. meridiancity. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=183904&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianC iv IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-513-3E) 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; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-8 and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will allow for the development of single- family detached homes, which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose statement of the residential districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 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 Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City per the Analysis in Section V and with the conditions of approval contained in Section VIII. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision -making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in Section V of this report for more information) Page 24 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 103 of 148 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff 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; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and approves of the overall project. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 25 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 104 of 148 �E IDIAN:--- Council Agenda Item - 4.C. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: 0 ITEM SHEET Title of Item - Public Hearing for Cedarbrook Subdivision (H-2020-0012) by Toll Southwest, LLC, Located at 4185 S. Linder Rd. Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report (Revised) Staff Report Upload Date 5/6/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 105 of 148 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 5/7/2020 DATE: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2020-0012 Cedarbrook Subdivision LOCATION: 4185 S. Linder Rd. (Parcel #51226417250, in the SE 1/4 of Section 26, T.3N., R.1 W.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION C� fIEN! DIAN�-- .►AHO Annexation of a total of 118.58 acres of land with R-2 (9.48 acres), R-4 (65.45 acres) and R-8 (43.66 acres) zoning districts; and, Preliminary Plat consisting of 330 buildable lots, 38 common lots and 4 other lots on 118.58 acres of land in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Acreage Existing/Proposed Zoning Future Land Use Designation Existing Land Use(s) Proposed Land Use(s) Lots (# and type; bldg./common) Phasing Plan (# of phases) Number of Residential Units (type of units) Density (gross & net) Open Space (acres, total [%] /buffer/qualified) Amenities Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Details 118.58 RUT in Ada County (existing)/R-2, R-4 and R-8 (proposed) Medium Density Residential (MDR) (3-8 units/acre) Single-family rural residential/agricultural Single-family residential (SFR) 330 SFR buildable lots/38 common lots/4 other lots 7 phases 330 detached SFR homes 2.78 units/acre (gross); 4.4 units/acre (net) 20.30 acres (or 17.6%) Swimming pool, pool house, children's play equipment, pathways, multi- purpose sports court, benches and covered shelters NA Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 106 of 148 Details P attendees: History (previous approvals) None B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report (yes/no) Yes (draft) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action Access One (1) access (Cedarbrook Dr.) is proposed via S. Linder Rd., an arterial street, (Arterial/Collectors/State with a dedicated southbound right -turn lane on Linder at Cedarbrook Dr. Linder Hwy/Local)(Existing and Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes, 22' ofpavement & no curb, gutter Proposed) or sidewalk abutting the site. Traffic Level of Service A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for this development. Linder Rd. — Better than "E" (acceptable level of service) Amity Rd. — Better than "B" (acceptable level of service) Stub Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension as depicted on Street/Interconnectivity/Cross the plat. Access Existing Road Network No existing streets within the site and no stub streets to the site; Linder Rd. exists along east boundary Existing Arterial Sidewalks / There are no existing buffer or sidewalk along S. Linder Rd. at the east boundary Buffers of the site. Proposed Road Improvements Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)/ Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP): • The intersection of Amity Road and Ten Mile Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be reconstructed as a multi -lane roundabout with 2-lanes on the north leg, 2-lanes on the south, 2-lanes east, and 2-lanes on the west leg and will include Ten Mile Bridge #1182 in 2021. • Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Amity Road to Victory Road between 2031 and 2035. • Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Victory Road to Overland Road between 2021 and 2025. • The intersection of Amity Road and Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be reconstructed as a single -lane roundabout with a westbound right -turn bypass lane with 3-lanes on the north leg, 2-lanes on the south, 3-lanes on the east, and 2-lanes on the west leg between 2031 and 2035. • The intersection of Victory Road and Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be reconstructed as a single -lane roundabout with 2-lanes on the north leg, 2-lanes on the south, 2-Vanes on the east and 2-lanes on the west leg between 2021 and 2025. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station • Fire Response Time • Resource Reliability • Risk Identification • Accessibility • Special/resource needs 1.9 miles 3:00 minutes (under ideal conditions from nearest station - Fire Station #6 — can meet response time goals Target goal of 80% or greater — current reliability unknown as Station #6 just opened 2 — current resources would not be adequate to supply service Project and emergency access plan meets all required access, road widths and turnaround. Project will not require an aerial device; can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. Page 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 107 of 148 • Water Supply • Other Resources Police Service • Distance to Police Station • Police Response Time • Calls for Service • % of calls for service split by priority Details Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour, may be less if buildings are sprinklered. No comments submitted 4.5 miles Approximately 5 minutes from Police Dept.; response time goal for emergencies is 3-5 minutes. 0 (within a mile of site) Meridian Police Department - Cedarbrook Subdivision Local ion of new devel o plra nl i.•I n-,j Corner of 5 Linder Road 8 W Amity Road Time Frame - 02/02/2019-01/3I/I020 Level of Service (LoS)- Delivered By Reporting District (RD • M766/AIISI Galls far SaVles ICFS]: Respome Timm_ Dispatch to Arrival (all units) Average Response Times by Priority: 'City of Meridian' PrIonry 3 3:49 Priority 2 7:09 Priority I 10:34 Average Response Times by Priority' All 15'• Prismfty 3 S:DS PnMry 2 6:54 Priority 1 6:47 Calls for Service (CFS); Calls occurring In RD'A115" CF5 Count Total ig % of Call s for Servic a split by P r lority I n 'A 115' % of P3 CFS 0.0% * of P2 CFS 93.8% %of PI CFS 6.3% Y. of PO CF3 0.0% Crime Count TaUd D "Crash Count Total 6 • Accessibility No concerns • Specialty/resource needs • Crimes 0 (within a mile of site) • Crashes 0 (within a mile of site) • Other Although located near the edge of City limits, service can be provided if this development is approved — no outstanding issues. West Ada School District • Distance (elem, ms, hs) Enrollment capacity Miles ioeu. to Schaol3 Mary McPherson Elementary" 556 500 1.9 Victory Middle School 969 1000 1.8 Meridian High School 1965 2400 5.0 • Capacity of Schools • # of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services • Sewer Shed • Estimated Project Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance This proposed development falls within the Interim Southwest Sewer Phasing Plan as developed by the Meridian Public Works Department. As such, it will require the construction of a temporary sewer lift station, trunk line, and pressurized sewer force main. Ten Mile Trunk Shed 330 building lots 1 13.83 Page 3 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 108 of 148 • Project Consistent with Yes — Within the Interim Southwest Phasing Plan WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5, and potentially future zone 4 • Estimated Project Water 330 building lots ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Page 4 - Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 109 of 148 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Leg -end let Project Laoaiian i- cry Lir„rig — Planned Parcels III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Toll Southwest, LLC — 3103 W. Sheryl Dr., Ste. 100, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Larry & Marianne Williams Family Foundation — PO Box 8126, Meridian, ID 83707 C. Representative: Sabrina Durtschi — Toll Brothers, 3103 W. Sheryl Dr., Ste. 100, Meridian, ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 4/17/2020 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 4/14/2020 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 4/22/2020 Nextdoor posting 4/14/2020 City Council Posting Date 0 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Medium Density Residential (MDR). Page 5 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 110 of 148 The purpose of the MDR designation is to allow small lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents." (2.01.02D) The proposed medium density single-family detached homes will contribute to the variety of residential categories in the City; however, there is no variety in housing types proposed within the development. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services." (3.03.03F) City water service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Sanitary sewer service can be made available via the interim southwest phasing plan approved by the Public Works' Department and City Council. This will require the Developer to construct a temporary lift station, trunkline and off -site force main to an existing discharge point. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City." (2.01.01 G) Only one housing type is proposed in this development (i.e. single-family detached); a range of lot sizes are proposed ranging in size from 4,828 to 23,897 with an average of 9,814 square feet (sf.) which will accommodate a variety of housing styles consisting of 1- and 2-story units. Staff recommends a variety of housing types are proposed (i.e. single-family attached, 2-family duplex, townhouse). • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed single-family residential development and site design with large lots provided at the west and south boundaries as a transition to adjacent rural parcels should be compatible with existing residential uses. Transitional zoning (i.e. R-2) is also proposed at the west boundary. • "With new subdivision plats, require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities." (2.02.01A) The proposed plat depicts a total of 20.74 acres (or 17.501o) of qualified open space, much of which is usable, and quality amenities consisting of a swimming pool, multi purpose sports court, pathways, children's play equipment and shade structure with benches. A future City park is planned approximately a half mile to the east. Because this site is located in a rural area, there are no sidewalks along Linder Rd. that will provide safe pedestrian and bicycle access to schools. For this reason, Staff recommends the detached sidewalk along the project's entire frontage adjacent to S. Linder Rd. is installed with the first phase of development. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems; services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe." (2.02.02) Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 111 of 148 The proposed project is located on the fringe of the City and will require extension of City services and the construction of an interim lift station, trunkline and an off -site force main in order to provide service on the west side of S. Linder Rd. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities." (3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. • "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided." (3.03.03) The proposed development plan is consistent with the City's vision in terms that medium density residential uses are proposed; however, only one housing type is proposed rather than a mix of housing types as desired. Public services and infrastructure are proposed to be provided. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map (MSM), generally at/near the mid - mile location within the Area of City Impact." (6.01.03B) The MSM depicts collector streets along the north and west boundaries of this site at the mid -mile. A collector street is proposed through the site from S. Linder Rd. to the project's north boundary in accord with the MSM. Because there is a newly constructed home and large shop on the adjacent property to the west at the northwest corner of the site, the Applicant proposes the east/west collector street is provided a little further to the north rather than on this site - ACHD and City Staff agrees. Because low density residential uses are planned to the west, ACHD Staff, at the recommendation of City Staff, recommends a modification to the MSM to remove the north/south collector street south of the east/west collector along the project's west boundary as only a local street is needed in this location. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits." (4.05.03B) The proposed project is in the City's `fringe" area; therefore, it's not a priority area for extension of City services and development. Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density and transportation if a variety of housing types (i.e. single-family attached, 2-family duplex, townhouse) are provided as recommended by Staff. With the addition of more dense housing types, the density of the development will increase which will be more consistent with that desired in the MDR designation. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS (UDC) A. Annexation & Zoning: The proposed annexation area consists of one parcel of land designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Medium Density Residential (MDR). The proposed use (single-family detached dwellings) at a gross density of 2.78 units per acre and zoning (R-2, R-4 and R-8) is in general conformance with the MDR FLUM designation. However, due to the large size of the proposed development, Staff recommends a variety of housing types (i.e. single-family detached, single-family attached, 2-family duplex and/or townhomes) is provided in order to provide diversity in housing types in this area as desired in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 112 of 148 The annexation area is on the periphery of the City; the only City annexed land currently on the west side of S. Linder Rd., south of I-84, is a mile to the north. The property is within the Area of City Impact Boundary (AOCI). A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed plat consists of 330 single-family residential buildable lots, 38 common lots and 4 other lots for common driveways on 118.58 acres of land in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,828 square feet (s.£) with an average lot size of 9,814 s.f.; the gross density is 2.78 units/acre with a net density of 4.4 units/acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in seven (7) phases as depicted on the plat (see Section VIII.B). Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and accessory structures on the site that are proposed to be removed with development. All existing structures should be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-2, R-4 and R-8 zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2A-2. Dimensional Standards (UDC LL-2: Development of the subject property is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-4, 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-6 for the R-2, R-4 and R-8 zoning districts respectively. Block length is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F. Block faces should not exceed 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley unless a pedestrian connection is provided, then the block face may be extended up to 1,000' in length. The face of Block 1 on the west side of W. Silverberry St. is 1,000'+/- and does not contain a pathway or intersecting street or alley — the plat should be revised to comply with this standard. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3) Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common driveways and block face. There are four (4) common driveways proposed; such driveways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. A perpetual ingress/egress easement 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. An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common driveway; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street, the driveway should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway. Address signage should be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. Access (UDC 11-3A-3) One (1) collector street (W. Cedarbrook Dr.) and two (2) emergency only accesses are proposed via S. Linder Rd.; two (2) stub streets are proposed at the north and one (1) stub street is proposed at the Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 113 of 148 southwest boundary of the site for future extension in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. Each phase of development is proposed to have two (2) accesses for emergency services; the access from the north via Victory Rd. will be constructed with the first phase of development per the proposed emergency access plan approved by the Fire Department. Because S. Brook Land Ave. is proposed to stub at the north boundary and is longer than 150' without a Fire Department approved turn around, the Fire Dept. requests a Type III barricade is placed at the intersection of S. Brook Land Ave. and W. Twin View St. to prevent access until the street is extended in the future. The construction drawings should be revised to include this change. Staff has concerns about the location of the stub street (W. Green Gables Ct.) to the narrow (80'+/-) parcel (#51226417350) at the north boundary of the site and the redevelopment potential of that parcel and the associated parcel under the same ownership (Kruse) at the northeast corner of the site. Specifically, if this property and the property further to the north (Parcel #51226142251) develops without these parcels, what development potential for this property remains? Staff encourages this developer to work with the Kruse's to see if they're interested in redeveloping their property and possibly including it in the subject development plan. Staff recommends the Applicant submit a concept plan showing how this area could possibly redevelop with the current plat configuration or, revise the configuration of the plat in this area to better integrate with these parcels for future development. Transportation: The existing roadways in this area are rural in nature. There are no roadway improvements planned in this area until between 2031-2035 when Linder Road is planned to be widened to 3-lanes from Amity Rd. to Victory Rd. and the Amity Rd. & Linder Rd. intersection is planned to be reconstructed. Linder Rd. between Victory Rd. and Overland Rd. is planned to be widened to 5-lanes and the Victory Rd. and Linder Rd. intersection is planned to be reconstructed between 2021 and 2025. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Future development should comply with these standards. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan depicts a segment of the City's multi -use pathway system along the north side of the Calkins Lateral. The Applicant has worked with the Park's Dept. pathway coordinator on an alternate location for the pathway through the common areas within this development; two (2) pathway connections are proposed from the sidewalk along S. Linder Rd. which conjoin and extend as one to the north boundary generally in alignment with the collector street. The pathways are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement. Other micro -path connections are also proposed for pedestrian interconnectivity and access to common areas within the development. All pathways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaping shall be provided on either side of the pathways as set forth in UDC 11-311-12C. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-1 : Detached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets and within the street buffer adjacent to S. Linder Rd. in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 n: Eight -foot wide parkways are proposed adjacent to all streets and are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-7C. Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 114 of 148 Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to S. Linder Rd., an arterial street, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 33-foot wide buffer is proposed with landscaping in accord with UDC standards. As noted above, Staff recommends the detached sidewalk along the project's entire frontage adjacent to S. Linder Rd. be installed with the first phase of development to ensure pedestrian safety along the arterial street. Parkways are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of pathways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. Landscaping is depicted in common areas in accord with UDC standards. There are existing trees on the site that may require mitigation if they are proposed to be removed. The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins, the City Arborist, to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-10C.5 if existing trees are not proposed to be retained on site. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3 : A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required. Based on the area of the proposed plat (118.58 acres), a minimum of 11.86 acres of qualified open space should be provided. The Applicant proposes 20.74 acres (or 17.5%) of qualified open space consisting of a large central open space area with a pond, linear open space where pathways are located, common areas greater than 50' x 100' in area, parkways along internal local and collector streets, the collector street (W. Cedarbrook Dr./S. Brook Land Ave.) buffer and half of the street buffer along the arterial street (S. Linder Rd.), which exceeds UDC standards. See qualified open space exhibit in Section VIII.D. A pond is proposed on Lot 1, Block 5. Open water ponds may comprise up to 25% of a required open space when developed with at least one site amenity as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.7; the proposed pond appears to comprise over 25% of the open space area and should be reduced in size to comply with UDC requirements. All ponds with a permanent water level are required to have recirculated water and be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.7. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3 Based on the area of the proposed plat (118.58 acres), a minimum of five (5) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. A swimming pool with a pool house and multi -use sports court is proposed in the central common area with the with a picnic area next to a large pond containing benches, a covered shelter and picnic tables on Lot 1, Block 5 in the first phase of development. Segments of the City's multi -use pathway are proposed through the site from S. Linder Rd. to the project's north boundary. A pocket park with play structures consisting of faux logs and boulders is also proposed on Lot 4, Block 13 in the third phase of development. Staff recommends an additional amenity is provided consisting of children's playground equipment (e.g. climbing structure, slide, swings, etc.). Amenities are proposed from the following categories listed in UDC 11-3G-3C: quality of life, recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system, in accord with UDC standards. Renderings of the proposed amenities are included in Section VIII.D. Details of these amenities should be submitted with the final plat applications for the phases in which they are Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 115 of 148 located. Staff recommends the landscape plan is revised to depict site amenities on the plan prior to the City Council meeting. Storm Drainage: All storm drainage run-off is proposed to be collected on site within common lots via underground seepage beds. Irrigation: A central irrigation pond is proposed where a pump station will be installed to distribute pressurized irrigation to each lot; the system will be owned and maintained by the HOA. Irrigation water is provided from the New York Irrigation District. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Calkins Lateral runs across the northeast corner of this site within a 51-foot wide easement. The Applicant proposes to leave the waterway open and improve the area as a linear open space with a pathway as allowed by UDC 11-3A-6B.2. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan. Six-foot tall vinyl fence is proposed along the perimeter boundary of the site and along side yards adjacent to the street; and 4-foot tall vinyl fence is proposed along pathway corridors and common open space areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The Calkins Lateral is required to be fenced with an open vision fence at least 6' in height and having an 11-gauge, 2" mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to the waterway unless the Applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the waterway serves as or will be improved as a part of the development to be a water amenity as defined in UDC 11-IA-1 in which case it is not required to be fenced, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6C. If it's improved as a water amenity, construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho shall be submitted to both the Director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. Fencing is not proposed around the pond; if the Commission and Council determines this presents a safety hazard, a condition requiring fencing should be added. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted sample photo elevations of the types of homes planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VIII.F. Homes depicted are a mix of 1- and 2-story units of varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials with stone/brick veneer accents. Staff recommends the elevations for the homes proposed on the 33% 35' wide lots are revised prior to the City Council hearing to include more design elements/materials to provide a higher quality of design. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the swimming pool facility. An administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted for all single-family attached dwellings and townhomes, as applicable, prior to submittal of building permit applications. Design of these structures is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Design review is not required for single-family detached homes. Page 11 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 116 of 148 VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IX.A per the Findings in Section X. Page 12 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 117 of 148 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description & Exhibit Map OETIARBiR0OK SODDIVE10N DATE. December 4. 2019 ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRII>TION A 111ARCET. OF LAND BEING A. I?OT T1ON OF T1 R S13114 OF SE 1.'IOIN 26, TOWNSHP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNW, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, COMI 0NCING AT THE E 114 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26, MONUMEATTIID BY A 2 112" ALUMINUM CAP (CORNER RECORD NO. 2017-084 ] 55), FROM WHICH THE SE OORNER OF SAID SEG''I ON 26, MONU& ENTSD BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP (CORNER RECORD NO. 2415- 109760L BEARS SOUTH W31'26" WEST, A DLSTANCB OF 2652.39 FEET; TII1 C,E COINCll?tdP!'f` WITH THE BAST LINK OF 'THIS SE 114 01� SAIL) SECTION 26, SL]I TII 00� ] '26" WEST, A DL19TANCE OF 570.20 FEET TO TI IE POE NT OF BEGINNING; THENCE C OI'NC DENT Wi'1'11'I'H13 bAS'1' LINE OF THE SOiTI-HEAS-I' QUA RTER OF SAID SEC' 10N 26, SO= OV-1V26" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2082-19 FEET TO 11JL SOUTHEAST CORNED, OF SAID SECTION 26; TI-TI?NCF. I,12,A'V1NO SAID EAST LIME, C:01NC:1D1k. T'1' WV1'1` VrHF SOUTH LINE OF Tf]P- SOUTHF,AST QUAR1ISR OF WD MT10N 26,?+10]nfl 99°14'54" WEST, A =I'ANCIiOF 175,453 FFF r-, TT- EKCE LLAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, NORT1146°UU'12" WEST, A DISTANCE DC 279.40 FEET: TIJWCIT NORTE 59gW12" 1h+EST, A DISTANCE OF 3 $fl OO FEET, THE KCLNORTll 7V1 V12' WEST, A DISTANCliOTC 60SA0FEET, THENCENORTTT 72" 1512" WTsST, A DISTANCE OF J00.00 FE, , THENCE 73¢50'12" WEST'. A DISTANCE, OF 300,00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 46°3g'12" WI T, A DIT17ANCF OF 540,00 FFE4T, THENCE NORTH 43°05'12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 300.00 FF,FP, -RIEIdCENORTH 40-1012" WFZT, A DTSTANCTx OF 300,00 FF,R7 TO THE WEST T.TA1F OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 261 'I'HENOE, COINCIDENT WrM THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26, NORTH 00"3T48" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1105.1S FEET TO TEM NORTHWEST CORNElt OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (CENTER 114) OF SAID SECTION 26; TAENCE LEAVING SAID WEST L241� COINCIDENT WITH T M NORTH LINE OF THIS SOU'11MAST QUARMR OF SAID SI3t.'rTON 26, SOUTH 89.11'1V EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1490.70 FELT, TFTF.NCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 43'44'18" BAST, A DISTANCE OF 120.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTI4 P-11'18" LAST, A DISTANCE OF 610,00 FEET, Page 13 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 118 of 148 TFTJENCE SOUTH 43n0'S6"EAST. A DISTANCE OF 675.61 FT-1-rTO TIIh POENTOP' ST.(�1NN ING. SAID PARCELCONTAINJNG5,165,+494 SQUARE i±EETOR 1 lS,58ACRE3 MOR13 CAR I.FSS_ TOGETHER +NI`I'II AMID SUBJECT T TO COVENANTS, FABFTuSF..NTS, AND RlEs FtI[-17I()N S Cal+ RFLORD, TNP. BASIS OF BEAR] NG511OR THIS PARCFL IS SOUTIF 00°3 J'26" WFIST 5ETV4r-Mi THE FAST 1 /4 CORAJEk Or? SAID SECTION 26 AND THE SOUTHEAST WP N]?R OF SE,i TION 26. TMym2JA 6TFIt. P_I..S_ _ _LMENO 10729 B D OF DESCRIPTION 10729 !!�'41 6P } P. Page 14 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 119 of 148 C 1 4 CORNER SEC CN 26 OORrIER RECORD NO- 100034036 tam 'ma.(W M43D5 :ir74.014' i d S 1/4 OORNER SECTION 2$ 2 1 f2" AtUI4pNULA CAP CORNER RECORD Ha 112045471 ANNEXATION LEGAL EXHIBIT A PARCEL OF ,LAND BEING A PC1RTIOjV OF SE1 4 OF SECTION 26, T- 3 N-, R- I W., BOISE ME'R MAN, ABA COUNTY, IDAHO f� OALMIC LA1ERA4 E 1/4 CCRNFIR EhSW-D r PER € SECTION 26 R65 411 � 2 1/2" AI.UM114UM CAP +30 C k€�HS LJsTFF2S4L CORNIER RECORD NO. SBS+'I€JWE �652,70' CLAW fASE EN 2817-084155 E 1496.70'17.Ai' psiaarj 40.19' - - AbN)4E9AT€CW PAPEEL 5,1155,494 SCLrT TTREB ACRES 540fl4' 3Ua.ao' M72'15'12'IW 121-31 S78fi9' -F- w H .1 f, -7ch, 2111 W Alpm twy, sea iro 2M342b40U FW 20&9A -S 3 +ro-rcA"6re,wh SP9'11'18� � �yy 67Cv v �{ E OF I, momm 50' C&PNS LATERAL a5EKiE€JT PER I �♦ 9 w # \ p \ \ �.1� N7a150'17'W 605,00' 3@IC6 Hb9' I4i$4"W_ n 175,63' 1 366.34'-- 56314'54"E 2653, 74' W AWnY ROAD (PUBLFC) N4£tl4't2i4 279,+a' 10729 '1 Page 15 - SWTHEAST CORNM SECT CH 26 5" ALUM114UM CAP CORNER RECORD Na 2U15--109760 NOT 7D SCALE � bf 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 120 of 148 Legai Llescrotion Cedarbmok SWai rision — RUT to R2 Rezone A parcel being a portion of the SE 'A, of Section 26. Township 3 North, Range t West. Boise Merldisn, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northeast corner of said SE Y'. from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the southeast corner of said SE '/, bears S 0°31'26' W a distance of 2652.39 feet; Thence N 89"11'18" W along the northerly boundary of said SE'/, a distance of 2475.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving Bald northerly boundary S 0'48'42' W a dlstanoe of 86.98 feet to a point; Thence S 0`00'00" E a distance of 55.00 feel to a paint; Thenva S 7'3615' W a distance of 65.37 feet to point; Thence S 0'32'48` W a distance 590.83 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 79.98 feet along the arq of a 100.O0 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 45'47'46' and a long chord bearing S 22°21'05" E a distance of 77.62 feet to a paint; Thence S 45'14'58' E a distance of 201.84 feel to a point_ Thence S 44°45'02" W a distance of 163-50 feet to a point; Thence S45*14'58" E a distanta of 1052.0U feet to a paint; Thence S 44"45'02" W a distance of 41,5E feet to a point; Thence a distance of M.16 feet along the arc of a 100.00 fooL radius curve left, said cur" having a central angle of 21'61'43' and a IQng Chord bearing S 33"49'11" 4N a distance of 37.93 feet to a point; Thence S 22'53`20" W a distance of 30.49 feet to a paint„ Thence N 73'50'12" W a distance of 128.08 feet to a paint; Thence N 46'38'12" W a distance of 540,00 feet to a point Thence N 43'05'12" W it distance of 300.00 feet to a point; Thence N 46°10'12" W a distance of 300.00 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of said SE '14: Thence NO* 32'45- E a distance of 1105A 5 feet to a 518 inch dlameter rebar rn sing the northwest oorner of said SE X. Thence S 89'1 i'18' E a distance of 176.41 feet to the POINT OF BEG IMIN rNG. This psrcel Contains 9.42 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clintan W H- insen, PL$ Land Solutions, PC January 23. 2020 Page 16 p,L Ley Np W Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 121 of 148 CEDARBROOK SUBDIVISION - REZONE EXHIBIT RLff TO R-2 ZONE JI/4BEINNNING OINT OF UhrIATTT UNPI. 5 i T{ f1 N891V11rW 2476.29' 5MP'18"E 1314,29' Y i 1162 00' — SmYl#k"E 61[LO4' LINE TABLE LK 0 L&Gm OPECT 1-ON u DL98, S0148'42'w L2 55600' S0144'94"i: L3 65.37' STs'15'W L4 204.64' $45-1 qWE L5 143.50' S4-0-51y W 111-6 41.6G' 5#4'#S'02'IN L7 30,49' S22'53'21TV LB 128.09' N7S50'12"w �. `0 i a ! C ROCK RANCH ESTATES SUIR MSION $ SK 1K PCs 14052-14M 0 10� goo �o� UNE TAW UN,- 0 LENCIH DRMTIOM L9 3¢p W 443V512W L10 3614W N#07UI Yf L11 1)6At' S8971'18'E L12 175.63' H 9'14'5+ W L13 279,44' N46-'00'12 * L14 WJD$ NJ29 Ww 05 171,92' t173"50'12-W 111-16 1aa00' S43.4-' E CUM TABLE {3JRYE j LENGTFI RADIUS OELTA 9EARINIG CHCM CI 7g.93' 1WOd 45'47'46' 522'21'OYE 77.52' C2 38.16' i40,00' 21'51'43' S33'49'1,'W 37.93' i X# UPPLATTED 4 2439.11' _ N6914'5#"W 2B53.74'I,y�i'I' RJ Page 17 - L12 lotions Land Surveying and Consulting 231 E VHSr, PE.A MIRIUAN M 63647 K*ti f'Un75aub spr A9 4120--m Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 122 of 148 Legal Description Cedarbraok Subdnrision - RUT to R4 Rezone A parcel being a portion of the 8E '/. of Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an Aluminum Cap monument marking the southeast corder of said SE 'l, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northeast corner of said 5E % bears N 0°31'26" E a distance of 2652,39 feet: Thence N 89'14'54" W along the southerly boundlary of said SE' a distance of 175.63 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly boundary N 4VD0312" W a distance of 75-61 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence canlinuing N 46°04'l2" VV R distance of 203.79 feet to a point; Thence N WODA2" W a distance of 380.00 feet to a point; Thence N 71)'50'12" W a distance of 605.00 feet to a point; Thence N 7201512" W a distance of 300.00 feet to a s)oint; Thence N 73"50'12" W a distance of 171.02 feet to a point; Thence N 22'53'20" E a distance of 30.49 feet to a point; Thence a drstanoe of 38-16 feet along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve right, Said curve having a central angle of 21°51'43" and a long chard bearing N 33'49'11" E a distance of37-93 feet to a point; Thence N 44°45'02" E a distance of 4 1. 56 feet to a point; Thence N 45'14'58" W a distance of 1052.00 feet to a point; Thence N 44°45'02" E a distance of 163.50 feet to a point; Thence N 45'14'58" W a distance of 201.84 feet to a paint; Thence a ftta>tiCe of 79.93 feet along the nro of a 1 p0,00 fool radius curve right. Said curve havrng a central angle of 45°47'46` and a long chord bearing ICI 22°21'05" VV a distance of 77.B2 feet to a point; Thence N 0'32'4a" E a distance 590,63 fast to a palrit; Thence N 716" S" E a distance of 65.37 feet to a Faint; Thence N 0000'00" VV a distance of 55.00 feet to a point; Lldn 2olsatinns Cedadmuok Subdivision Jab No. 20-00 Pyge 1 of 2 Page 18 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 123 of 148 Thence N 0"48'42" E a diatanoe of 66.96 feet to a polni on the northerly boundary of said SE Y4; Thence $ 89'11'18" E along said norlherly boundary a distance of 1314.29 feet to 8 p0lnt; Thence leaving Said northerly boundary S 43°44'18" E a distarKr Qpf 107.93 feet to a paint; Thence 5 39°36" f2" W a distance of 21 0.81 feet to a point; Thence S U*33'36" VV a distance of 114.27 feet to a point; Thence 5 X3126" W a distance of 745.DO Feet to a point; Thence S 2°49'54" W a distance of 229.46 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 62.96 feet along the arc of a GOO. DO foot radius non -tangent curvo left, said curve having a central angle of 75515" and a long chard bearing S 65°30'56" E a distance of 82. as feet to a point; Thence S 69'28'34" E a distance of 674.06 Feet to a point. Theme 5 0"3126" W a distance of 216.50 feet to a point; Thence $ $9'28'34' E o distance of 163.50 feet to a point; Thence S U'31'26' VV a distance of 466.DO feet to a poinl; Thence S 69'28'34- E a distance of 153.50 feet to a point; Tnance S 0'31'26' W a distance of 605.84 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 65.45 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W. Hansen, PLS N� L t.A &D Land Sialutions, f C �T Lt Jf inuary 23, 2*20 k, 'J1i18 ,r o ko° VV IL.a'Jr�t;�f�Sc'a tutia�� Cadaibhmalt Subdlwaan Jaz Na. 20-06 page 2 at z Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 124 of 148 CEDARBROOK SUBDIVISION - REZONE EXHIBIT RUT TO RA ZONE 9f4- LIS U&PLAIIED JNFLAFTl) 53011'1�'E 26 .JO' /4 S3916'12'W 218.81' IL} { IROCK RAHpi ESTATE5 SLl1WV&OH !�6 9K 104, KS 14051-14M "i A U� 589Z8'34"E 21f,5�' �r saw S8$`28'34� S89'28'34'E' °O f °w .SEE SHEET 2 FOR LINE AND CARVE TABLES � POINT 0 249914'54'W 2643,74' Z AW[TY R(" 35 M LI m Q *ii -La4n'-i'dilolutlons ° i n 5unreyi►rgand consulting of �+ BI E SrH Sr_ S4 A W. „ r. li:y il5ris. Y i FFT 1 YF 2 Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 - Page 125 of 148 Legal DcscrlptiQn Cedarbrook SubdVsbri — RUT to RG Rezone A parcel being a portions of the SE Flo of Section 26, Townsbip 3 North. Range ] West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. and more particularly described as follows: Gommencing al an Aluminum Cap monuEment marking the northeast corner of said SE 'l., from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the southeast corner of said SE '! bears S O'31'26" a distance of 2652.391eet, Thence S 0"31'26" W along the easterly boundary of said SE Y. a distanum of 570.26 feat to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing along said easterly boundary S 0'31'26" W a distance of 2062.19 feet to the Aluminum Gap monument marking the soul heast corner of said SE'/a; Thence N 89°14'54" VV along the southerly boundary of said SE 114 a distance of'175.63 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly boundary N 46°00'17.' W a distance of 75.61 feetto H Point: Thence N 0031'26' E a distance of 605,84 feet to a paint; Thence IN W20'3.4" W a distance of 153:50 feat to a point; Thence N 0'31'26" E a distance of 466.00 feet to a point:; Thence N 89°28'34' W a distanaa of 163.50 feat to a point. Thence N 4°3'f'26' E a distance of 216.60 feet to a paint; Thence N 89628'34" W a distance of 674.53 feet to a point; Thence a distance of B2.95 feet along the arc of a 6 00. 00 foot radius ourve right, Said curve #laving a central angle of 7'55'15' and a long chord bearing N 95'34'56" W a distance of 82.88 feet to a point; Thence N 2"49'S4" E a distance of 229.46 feet to a point; Thence N 0'31'28" E a distance of 745.00 feet to a paint; Thence N 3B°33'36" E a distance of 114.27 feet to a point; Thence N 39'3812" F a distance of 21B.k3j felt to a point; Thence S 4$'44'16' E a distance of 12.07 foet to a point; Thence S SI 11'1B' E a distance of 610.00 feet to a point; Thence 5 43120'56" E a distance of 675.01 feat to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parwl svr'#ams 43.66 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W_ Hansen, PFS WLAN* Land Solutions, PCy�oT s January 23. 2020 ,r ¢ _ Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 126 of 148 CEDARBROOK SUBDIVISION - REZONE EXHIBIT RUT T -8 ZONE Uri P,f.; iLD U�PLATT�O C 1 f4 SST11'18"E 26 X Sffi3'I1'1�� 14E0.70' �� N39� 21 81 � S8911'18"E 610 I C� m� �1$ UNE TABLE LINE # LENGTH nlnc-n0N Li 125.83' NQ914'54'W L2 M61' N46�'WW L3 114.27 NM•$3'36'E L4 12LO S43•A4'181 L5 MAO' N46�d12•'N L6 3WjDG' N7T15'12"1Y L7 3W. ' N73�0'1 rW L9 3D6-W N43V5'1VW L$ 5M.DD' W14'12'W Lt0 107,9]' S43##'18"E CURVE TABLE CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEANNG CHORD 0 82.45' 610W n5'15' NO-T- ww W-& RCX RrH{>i ESTATES SUW14FACN fx 104 M 14051 �-140:1 0 200 40D 800 V. N 89'28'34-"W 216-5d NU'3l'26J'E 163.50' N80'28734" W co fv o T_ �/ 153.50' N89�8'3�'�'UNPLATU k 2479,11' f L1 25 �yrt�+LAAr, iH"s•i+'s+'14 a5s3,3a' W. Aikl1'f4AD 3 36 6 ' �r )1z.,� � IL t 1 o n � �-,11 Land unreyin g and onse�ItirxU y�f .` Md�iDJNH.+D 836 7 wrrr.4ntlsv4li:xabi• -Who ?v-Ji Page 22 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 127 of 148 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 4/30/2020) & Phasing Plan PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CEDARBROOK SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SE=N 26, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE I WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 7 U." . Ta 21,?� 1 25 �1 HT -j z1A 0 U Lnu Lu rr - - - - - - - --- E) Page 23 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 128 of 148 •u a C. Landscape Plan (date: 4/30/2020) Page 24 CEDARBROOK Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 129 of 148 \ 1 i o f , +L 1 01 uLU _ N rt, F NOTES: PLANT PALEffE i��xrxwrws c axc, wm eus rmx 9.nr.a n. w �.us wmx mm 4ms u rm ® sn.0 xm �.�whp wmn f tF uhv uE— w cnun ux[s o �N n —.Taum.T xo 11 L tiS#VS i rv�TEs_ PLPNT PALEffE �s wxc, wm -arc uaTx s.wrA.s ni au nus wmn Sx�wu9 A E tu'M N5cx IFAxxE 5xu1 PE ] dd RE rp�Kdi ..w.amwix wxxm.c. �o a,wwryr •� � \ S E \_ e .�.a m�En,��nwEx— Page 25 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 130 of 148 w ' I Ili n A Ltt y �-' �I -L L.USE x � x - warm 77 NOTES_ q-/�E pqu�E �c wxc, .m n:s r�rsm s.xr..E n. xu nus wmx Page 26 - b i 0 i F i 6a e . k ik i I��,: 1111111111�� Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 131 of 148 T �. 3- «3 i m - —.^ m m ot NOTESR MEMO P1-ANT PALETTE :T ix c axc, :xm "•� oxm s.xr.a n. w �xas :xmx \_J .m ' ra�oLwW,mx. x. x.L sa r xs e o— —.Va� aH:��HwE �H�TaH.�,x�TaLLTM.xo !� 4 P ---------------------------------------------------- NOTES PI-NfT PALETTE .1 �x_ E wxc, wTM eus E.xm s.xr..c .. nu Oxus .nmx O ' ""` O ,m,wuww. 5H41 xp, eE oLwlW MmN'. LF ..R,-E—w Vnun uxLq s �08 ov q •.1 � - x �q Ski e PPA.5 Page 27 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 132 of 148 OF I ANDSCAFIF CAI CUI ATIONS -UT --PE BUFFER. NOTES. Page 28 - mi Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 133 of 148 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit & Site Amenities 1M91E COU HUMTANTS OPEN SPACE CALCULATIOR5 4vafkee ns sr eArea krts 1 19,934 0.33 2 1L690 0.]7 3 90.703 ].37 4 B 86,120 195 6 1 8 9 ]u 11 3] 19 36,861 9,860 B,390 9,820 ]o,Ma ls],906 ]s,oso 9,035 0.8l 0.11 0.19 0.W au 361 n3] 0.]] fnnls,ree, Pa�MwaY legs] 4,15 IEvalutles 323tldsreways at26'aal fnllsmr Landscape Buller 383.969 468 MerWl Landscape Buller 33.803 an IBO46 0167605 sf WTeL 20,74 Parcel Area 11&5 Percene Opea Spae I7 CEDARBROOK SUBDIVISION OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT April 30, 2020 Page 29 `roll Brothers AMERICA'S LUXURY HOME BUILDER' Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 134 of 148 l0 Main Entry Page 30 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 135 of 148 46. - - - qpW . —r 'Ni MLv s tl I P' -k n I3IF 4 • � tf -art. -*. � .. Jill 11It ,s V, Ik. !I kr - ` .-W, a . Im4W4� + rt•>:r is 1 �, a Feq } ylrF"'► r.+ti 4 `ti ' - ft , *r . I i i-- 00 o 0 00 Lot 4, Block 13 j j A 0j Im - ....x'-RBROOKw � ka Page 33 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 138 of 148 E. Pathways Plan (dated: 5/4/20) PATHWAYS LEGEND - - ---- � REGIONAL PATHWAY - HOA PATHWAY COMMUNITY SIDEWALKS CEDARBROOK Page 34 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 139 of 148 F. Conceptual Building Elevations Page 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 140 of 148 Product for 30' — 35' wide lots: NOT APPROVED Page 36 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 141 of 148 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, phasing plan, landscape plan, qualified open space exhibit and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. Staff recommends the elevations for the homes proposed on the 30'-35' wide lots are revised at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing to include more design elements/materials to contribute toward a higher quality of design. b. A variety of housing types (i.e. single-family detached, single-family attached, 2-family duplex, townhouse) shall be provided within the development in order to provide diversity in housing types as desired in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends a concept plan is provided at the Commission hearing depicting this change. The preliminary plat, landscape plan, qualified open space exhibit and elevations shall be revised accordingly at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. c. The detached sidewalk in the street buffer along S. Linder Rd. shall be constructed in its entirety along the frontage of this site with the first phase of development. 2. The final plat(s) submitted for this development shall incorporate the following changes: a. A Type III barricade shall be depicted on the construction drawings at the intersection of S. Brook Land Ave. and W. Twin View St. to prevent access until the street is extended in the future at the request of the Fire Department. b. The face of Block 1 on the west side of W. Silverberry St. exceeds the maximum block length allowed in UDC 11-6C-3F.3 — the plat should be revised accordingly. c. Emergency access to the site shall be depicted on the construction drawings consistent with the emergency access plan approved by the Fire Department; all fire lanes shall have a 20-foot wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 80,000 lbs. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VIII.A.3, dated 4/30/20, shall be revised at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing as follows: a. Landscaping shall be depicted on either side of pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. Calculations shall be included for the linear feet of pathway and the required vs. provided number of trees in the Landscape Calculations table. b. If existing trees are proposed to be removed from the site, the Applicant shall coordinate with Matt Perkins, the City Arborist, to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-10C.5. Mitigation information shall be included on the plan. If existing trees are proposed to be retained on site, they shall be depicted on the plan. c. The pond proposed on Lot 1, Block 2 shall not comprise more than 25% of the open space area in accord with UDC 11-3G-3B.7. Page 37 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 142 of 148 d. Depict fencing adjacent to the Calkins Lateral as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6C unless the waterway is proposed to be improved as a water amenity. In such case, documentation shall be submitted as set forth in UDC 11-1A-1 and 11-3A-6C.2 for approval by the Director. e. The location of site amenities shall be depicted on the plan; a detail for each of the amenities shall be depicted on the plan or submitted separately. An additional amenity consisting of children's playground equipment (e.g. climbing structure, slide, swings, etc.) shall also be provided. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-4 for the R-2 district, 11-2A-5 for the R-4 district and 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 6. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via common driveways; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street, the driveway shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. 7. Address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 8. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for the common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. 9. All existing structures shall be removed from the site prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. 10. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the 10-foot wide multi -use pathways proposed within the site, prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 11. All ponds with a permanent water level are required to have recirculated water and be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.7. 12. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the swimming pool facility. 13. An Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for single-family attached dwellings and townhomes, as applicable. Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from this requirement. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 This proposed development falls within the Interim Southwest Sewer Phasing Plan as developed by the Meridian Public Works Department. As such, it will require the construction of a temporary sewer lift station, trunk line, and pressurized sewer force main. Applicant has proposed an alternate location for the lift station, and Public Works has no issue with the proposal in principle, however the applicant shall be responsible to construct trunk line sewer back up to Linder Road, and along the Linder Road frontage. 1.2 The applicant has proposed in several locations, sanitary sewer main and/or water mains outside of public right-of-ways and across common areas. In these instances, and in accordance with Meridian Page 38 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 143 of 148 Public Works Design Standards, the applicant shall be required to construct at a minimum, a 14-foot wide compacted gravel access road over said utilities. 1.3 Provide easement for potential future water main connection from the SE end of W Green Gables Court to Amity Road. 1.4 Each phase must be modeled to ensure fire flow. Second water connection may be required at first phase. 1.5 Existing wells must be decommissioned according to IDWR rules which include employing methods to ensure grout fills the annular space outside of the well casing. Record of abandonment must be provided to the City prior to final plat signature. 1.6 As noted in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared by GeoTek Inc., all artificial fill materials on site must be removed. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. Page 39 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 144 of 148 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non -domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C- 3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. Page 40 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 145 of 148 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https: //weblink. meridiancity. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=187486&dbid= 0&repo=Meridian City D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https: llweblink. meridianciU. orglWebLinkIDocView. aspx?id=186397&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCiU E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT hyps:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=185339&dbid= 0&repo=Meridian City F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) https: //weblink. meridianciU. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=185866&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianCiV G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https: llweblink. meridiancity. orglWebLinkIDocView. aspx?id=184566&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCiiy H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) https: //weblink. meridiancioy. otylWebLinkIDocView. aspx?id=187415&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCioy I. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https: //weblink. meridiancity. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=184501 &dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCitX J. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) https: llweblink. meridiancioy. orglWebLink/DocView. aspx?id=184916&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCiU K. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https:llweblink. meridianciV. orglWebLink/DocView. aspx?id=184495&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianCitX L. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) https: //weblink. meridiancity. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=184483&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCitX X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Page 41 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 146 of 148 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; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-2, R-4 and R-8 and proposed development is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section IX. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the mix of lot sizes proposed combined with the mix of housing types recommended by Staff, will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that a range of housing opportunities will be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 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 Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section IX. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision -making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Stafffinds that the proposed plat, with Staff's recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Stafffinds 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; Page 42 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 147 of 148 Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.). (See Section IXfor more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 43 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 7, 2020 — Page 148 of 148 Cedarbrook Subdivision Planning and Zoning Commission May Th 2020 CEDARBROOI< 3103 West Sheryl Drive, Suite 100 1 Meridian, ID 83642 1 208-424-0020 'roll Brothers AMERICA'S LUXURY HOME BUILDER' -10 /", ppppwp T. lit. __ Toll Brothers /;A�l is Award winning, FORTUNE 500 company • Founded in 1967 The nation's luxury home builder • 2016 purchased Coleman Homes • Idaho Division headquartered in Meridian Idaho • Over 130 employees FORTUNE 1sT IN HOB++ EBUILDI G WORLDS MO-ST 6 YEARS IN A ROW ADMIRED .243DFORTUNE Medls1PIJMUCL COMM IS the d Lw, rMr II[artse- 'roll Brothers AMERICA'S LUXURY HOME BUILDER' 0101CNZV,1OIL1UAL4410 Comprehensive Plan Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Med-High Density Residential High Density Residential xr.�i r r `Toll Brothers AMERICA'S LUXURY HOME BUILDER`' 0 R-2 R-4 R-8 Area in 9.48 65.45 43.66 Acres Lot Count 21 151 158 Gross 2.22 units 2.31 units 3.62 units per acre Density per acre per acre Average Lot 16,048 11,705 7,481 square feet Size square feet square feet Surrounding Approved Development Brundage Estates (PP H-2016-001) Zoned R-4 366 building lot 2.68 dwelling units per acre Edgehill Subdivision (H-2015-0005) Zoned R-4 116 building lots 2.89 dwelling units per acre Biltmore Subdivision (PP-14-004) Zoned R-4 159 building Lots 2.83 dwelling units per acre Graycliff Subdivision (H-2019-0129) (PP15-012) Zoned R-8 & R-40 202 building lots 4.90 dwelling units per acre Stapelton Subdivision (H-2018-0129) Zoned R-15 212 Building Units 6.25 units per acres. +�f a'��i� a1'.iw abY• dq EDOEHILL - APPROVED & Ala, BRUNDAGE ESTATES9 UNDER CONSTRUCTION :ii�re APPROVED Of ,� � �1 � �_. r - * wiiiria •� -� BILTMORE - APPROVED &=yM��■H - t 7` F UNDER CONSTRUCTION_;}*�= ., ti.4.'... ■■■■■r■sill s r! •'� ` 1 J �': . Iria9fliil 1. H r-:4a„��a��_ •,.r li �1l� err �'i."r.'r � �j �''�;f• �� ROOK STAPLETON - APPROVED CEDARB� �-. } La Vs f' �r GRAYCLIFF - APPROVED, Located in the center of the Valley 5 min to the Ten Mile Interchange 3 min to Fire Station 8 min to Meridian's Downtown core 11 min to St. Luke's Meridian 4 min to Victory Middle School 5 min to Wa I m a rt/Lowes • 10 min to Nampa 17 min to Boise downtown Timing • Land Development — Begin early-2021, Pave Summer 2021 • Home Building — Begin Summer 2021 • Occupancy— First occupancy early-2022 Utilities • Pressure Irrigation • Private system w/ sufficient water rights • Water • Consistent w/ Meridian Water Master Plan • Sewer • Consistent w/ Meridian Waste Water Master Plan Qualified Open Space Agency Coordination • West Ada School District • Met with Joe Yocum Mary McPherson 556 Fall 625 Victory Middle 969 1000 Meridian High 1965 2400 • Meridian Police • Met with Scott Colaianni and Shawn Harper • Estimated response time to be 5 minutes or less • Meridian Fire • Met with Joe Bongiorno • New Fire Station # 6 has a response time of 3 min (under goal of 5 min) • ACHD • Full agreement with Staff Report Community Outreach with Surrounding & Adjacent Neighbors -- % • �� ■ � �� ■| ■ � | a a � > �� `Toll Brothers AMERICA'S LUXURY HOME BUILDER`' lwwI Mitigation for Neighbors • Transitional Density • Dark Sky Lighting • Removed stub roads • Increasing rear setbacks • Wood style privacy fence • Reduced two-story homes Pathway Trail System PATHWAYS LEGEND REGkCNAL PATHWAY HOA PATH WAY COMMUNITY SIDEWALKS Amenities • Landscaped Pathways • Pool • Pool House • Main Playground • Sport Court • Pocket Parks • Benches along Pathways 'roll Brothers AMERICA'S LUXURY HOME BUILDER' ED �■ "!illl llliillll U:jjlll�tllIljl11llllIl lllujl[IIII!fI'llliilRlM' �Il �]rII II 3ry3ryFF Iro��y j�M OnIm ill a. tlil� III Illlilullw!llfl�l��n7.rul ■:�. ;;I IIII �Il��l�_�sll ILIIri■ .~. _ __ - ..IIu111I _...! p�� . S � ,r,. .,', '..pl,l,r�■,■, IF -PIP- • aelfll�� Illll��ll jfj� ■ .G. fwry r �'.. As; _: YyA R� � �" I ;� l��rll�� I ^■r 'roll Brothers AMERICA'S LUXURY HOME BUILDER' z :.9 CC'"q� � �: psi Y ■ '�il� ��. a 'Y� 41 xwAr F . Il �� ■ �' Ili 1141�1 •+'S�n � `roll Brothers AMERICA'S LUXURY HOME BUILDER A- L The Garden Collection W-4jo 1 The Woodland Collection 1 The Countryside Collection - --- - ----- f- 4 Inn Single Family Attached PM-P NI t 'roll Brothers AMERICA'S LUXURY HOME BUILDER' 1711L\Ci:ICi6I9 19. FW 10 mqk I #i• .i WA4 rI • I I I kt I . ,rr - � z ;� '�+,�" -...fir;- _.:• . 7.1 li +P . _ _ --, _�. � �:,�:.�. � - � - i � �--; --�,� _ �- - - _ _ � - ._ �- �--� ;-ter•-.- " ..µ. _ `ern w ",�.r; -- - ^ 1� - � .r-y - • . _ -- _. - ._ _ '_ _ _ - .. - :�ra4+.J:ti+r ! »��...-i �y�r—e'++,*R+sai m'L w �� V �1Fa.. . - •_ 'J ••n _ yrih.M1.f-, - =ram .�^.• sue~' •' ~I wr J _2}f� _ _ -=:�-._�A-y .Tj +r4�::rF1.,-~''r `• sf'Yr - r, M'y ..:.-...� "`H.. .,•p LA +�'+ _ I' -. rlr - �x. -' I � •.r� +f�- - � fro..:: � rry +'�: `• ' ' ,na e �-v . � .._ .w i � •..A' "+@�.+f �'J Y.w �' � .'�",�':r �-,a h5,y'*Ei� l� rr��Z ".�,,,��--Y'�,�i'��'�"�^��,"i'^'' -iS�• � "��``'' , h, '�iR-, n.M., ••' _ ar4 - � [.� f �• ,� .. r`r�.- Y,,/�•�S - ,Ye9: � ��•e'•�'n1,!*j�y+?��;�fti•�. s r� tc� .+�• �. �., n • r� -�•.�� • ...•'•titr{,.�e - ` _t e' - .ti�; i., ��; G:i ��:._..tn ,};+�w1�Y •>,'aa7!"• :Yr �-t �.11iflf� '. V,il P r ... -. •i't�i � wL -'�.. �' 1. ,r- r 'r ''-- 1i-�7�-.: �.;,t��•1'•x•��'' !"� S:�I,,, kk . •�. y•a t _ ..ter � - .- i� J r ','�� tn'f !"� - f;' r L�. r.� _:�"- .. - � �i � :'[•n; p'(y,, �. � jn.l� �..::'• i� � �ji. r .7 [��r � r �. ; rsti'r�• �fi��'': � l.l�tlR1�� .._ t ,' * • . '7S