Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2020-07-07 Regular
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 6:00 PM 6:01 PM Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance __X__Liz Strader __z__J oe B orton __z__Brad Hoaglun __X__Treg B ernt _____Jessica Perreault __X__ L uke Cavener __X__ Mayor Robert E. Simison z : Remote Participant Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance Item 3: Adoption of Agenda - Adopted Item 4: Future Meeting Topics Item 5: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Gem Innovation School (H-2020-0043) by Paul Bierlein, Bouma USA, Located at 5390 N. McDermott Rd. – Approved 1. Request: Annexation of 8.00 acres of land with the R-15 zoning district. B. Public Hearing for Villas at Twelve Oaks East (H-2020-0014) by Jim Jewett, Located at 115 S. Linder Rd. – Continued to August 4, 2020 1. Request: Annexation of 6.63 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district; and, 2. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-095715) to include the subject property and proposed development plan in the agreement and removal of the provision requiring an 8-foot tall concrete fence to be constructed. C. Public Hearing Continued from June 9, 2020 for Cedarbrook Subdivision (H-2020-0012) by Toll Southwest, LLC, Located at 4185 S. Linder Rd. - Denied 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. Item 6: Future Meeting Topics Meeting Adjourned at 10:23 pm Meridian City Council July 7, 2020. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:01 p.m., Tuesday, July 7, 2020, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Members Absent: Jessica Perreault. Also present: Chris Johnson, Adrienne Weatherly, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Alan Tiefenbach, Clint Dolsby, Tracy Basterrechea, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Liz Strader X Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, I would call this meeting to order. For the record. It is July 7th, 2020, at 6:01 p.m. We will begin this meeting with roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance Simison: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Adoption of Agenda Simison: Item No. 3 is adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 25 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 2 of Item 4: Future Meeting Topics Simison: Item No. 4, future meeting topics public forum. Madam Clerk. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we have two people signed in. The first of which is Koby Jargstorf speaking in support of proposed mask mandate and concerns regarding COVID-19 in Meridian. Simison: Koby, if you are here, if you could state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. Or maybe Chris -- Jargstorf: I'm actually very impressed that you said my name correctly. Thank you. My address is 1307 East Tuttle Street. 83646. Simison: Thank you. Go ahead, Koby. You are recognized for three minutes. Jargstorf: Right. Okay. I was a little leery that I was going to have to come up very extensively in defense of wearing masks, but I can see from the fact that most of you are wearing masks that you are very aware of the benefits. I can also tell by the fact that you are wearing masks you must be aware that masks serve to protect other people more so than ourselves and so I would very very strongly recommend that some sort of a mandate issued by the City Council to mandate mask wearing in Ada -- or, excuse me, not Ada county -- in the City of Meridian. Mayor Simison, I know that you have suggested that a mask mandate may be on the horizon and you made a public statement over the Fourth of July weekend in favor or wearing masks, but this is just another voice strongly strongly in supportive of wearing masks. We know very well now that cases of COVID are rising due to community spread in the county and we also know very well that masks are one of our greatest, cheapest tools in order to do that. I would say to any fellow resident of Meridian who claims that wearing a mask is in some regard an infringement on their civil liberties, I would say that your refusal to wear a mask and potential subsequent death of my grandmother has a much greater infringement on my own civil liberties and my right to the pursuit of happiness. So, I would strongly propose that the City Council adopt some sort of a measure or issue some sort of a mandate requiring the wearing masks in Meridian. Cities of Ketchum and Boise and McCall have already issued these mandates. That is very much precedent in the state of Idaho and I am very worried that I should not continue to have to worry about my grandma dying every time she goes to the grocery store, because we are not required to wear a mask. That's the extent of my testimony. Thank you. Simison: Thank you very much, Koby. Appreciate your comment. Just for the record, so the public is aware, the Ada County Board of Health met and just made a motion to not institute a mask order for Ada county at this time. They have authorized the Director of Central District Health Russ Duke to draft one in case one needs to be considered at a future meeting time, but at this time they have made a decision to not mandate masks in Ada county. That is a board made up of health professionals with input from our local hospitals that was part of that conversation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 26 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 3 of Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, second we have Cheryl Trinidad speaking regarding code enforcement on private property. Simison: Cheryl, if you could state your name and address for the record. Trinidad: My name is Cheryl Trinidad. My address is 1423 Kingswood Avenue in Meridian. I believe it's one of the first subdivisions built in Meridian back in the early 1970s. It has small two car and one car garages. The reason I'm here is code enforcement continued discrimination. Under Meridian Unified Development Code, Section 11-1-8D, quote, in the enforcement of this title it shall be deemed to apply equally to each citizen and each property in similar circumstances and shall not be enforced to discriminate between one individual and/or another individual or group as compared to all others. That's Ordinance 05-1170, dated 8/30/2005. Effective 9/15/ 2005. We have had six complaints at my address in the last year. Three of them had to do with my son's visiting with their vehicles. Three minutes. I don't have time to go into that. And one is our camper trailer that we had for ten years. I passed out pictures. We were told we had to put behind the six foot fence. We could not have it in the gravel on the side of our driveway, which you also see a picture of that gravel, not a weed in it. And if you see our house we keep our yard immaculate. And so at that time -- I'm losing time. At that time my husband came to code enforcement and talked to the head person and we asked if we could have an extension. That was in January. We were going to try and get it in the backyard, even though we didn't have room, but with the snow and everything we didn't want to ruin the grass in front. We were told we could not have an extension, even though there were trailers everywhere in the neighborhood. And, then, they cited us for not having house numbers on the house. And in June we start parking our truck on the gravel next to the driveway, because it gives us a little bit more room to bring the car in and out of the garage and it's keeping it out of the street, which I think is dangerous to have it parked there. We got another ticket. And we drove around and saw things that we saw last summer. Things haven't changed. We talked to the supervisor and I went up line talking, first of all, to code enforcement and who was in charge there and up and that's why I'm here now. By the way of the trailer, we ended up selling it for a loss, because we couldn't satisfactorily store it. Simison: If you could wrap up. Cheryl, if you could wrap up, please. Trinidad: Pardon? Simison: If you could wrap up, please. Your three minutes is up. Just wrap up. Trinidad: Okay. I have got pictures. We drove around this morning. We came to at least 142 violations and my proposed solution to 11-3-413 is to strike having to have the gravel base surfaced cement or asphalt. That would make everybody in Meridian clean up their act, because there is hundreds of them all over Meridian. Simison: Thank you very much. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 27 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 4 of Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: We are not allowed to comment, because you haven't noticed this, but I just want to thank you for your testimony tonight and sharing your experience. I'm sorry you felt that you have been unfairly targeted. I hope that's not the case. I believe our code enforcement wouldn't do something like that. But I think you continue to bring something to the Council's attention that we need to review and I appreciate that. Trinidad: Well, like I said, we just found 142 violations in a five block area this morning. Item 5: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Gem Innovation School (H-2020-0043) by Paul Bierlein, Bouma USA, Located at 5390 N. McDermott Rd. 1 . Request: Annexation of 8.00 acres of land with the R-15 zoning district. Simison: Thank you. Council, Item 5-A is a public hearing for Gem Innovation School, H-2020-0043. I will turn this over to -- I will open the public hearing and turn this over to Alan for staff comments. Tiefenbach: Greetings, Council. I'm Alan Tiefenbach. I thought I would introduce myself quickly to you. I'm the newest associate planner with the City of Meridian. I have been here for about three months. I came here from Colorado where I was a planner for 18 years in four different municipalities and prior to that I served six years in the United States military amphibious assault team. So, glad to be here in Meridian. Okay. So, this is a -- so, this is an annexation and zoning for approximately eight acres of land with the R-15 zoning district to develop a 40 -- about 42,000 square foot one story college preparatory school. The estimate of -- for children is approximately 600. This proposed annexation area it's contiguous to city annexed property. It's within the area of the city impact boundary. The future land use map designation of this property is medium density residential. The applicant is requesting R-15 zoning because schools are a permitted use in the zone district and this would result in a more expeditious review. Because adequate schools are so strongly emphasized in the comp plan, staff finds that this proposed annexation to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There are several large subdivisions that have been approved in this area over the last few years. The Oaks and the -- North and South and that's about a thousand lots total. Many of the lots in this subdivision are presently building out. The proposed school and the adjacent neighborhoods are generally developing along the same timelines. The school is proposed to be integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods via an internal road at the south. So, there is a -- north is up here. So, this is McDermott here and McMillan is down here. So, this will be integrated into the adjacent neighborhoods through what's called Gem Way, which is located here. There is also going to be several pathways, so they will Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 28 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 5 of help with pedestrian circulation into this. One of these pathways is down here and one on the Creason Lateral. This is on the south. There will be another connection, which is shown here. This was originally shown as a stub street. We have talked to ACHD about this and this is now going to be a pedestrian connection. You can see that here. Staff did have concerns with the amount of paving that they were originally proposing for the parking area. Staff did believe that there was a more efficient design that could be employed, which would result in less paving and more landscaping. We discussed that with the applicant. That was one of the concerns with the Planning Commission. Since that time the applicant has revised their plans. So, this is the most recent plan here where there is significantly less paving and significantly less trees that will have to be removed. There have also been some discussions about Gem Street to the north. On the original drawings Gem Street, which you can see here, this was all the way up against the property lines. Staff had concerns with this directly abutting residential. What happened was the applicant originally believed that there was a landscape tract that was going to be here. As it ends up with the adjacent subdivision to the north there is not an additional tract. So, with staff's recommendation and that the Planning Commission supported, they pulled Gem Street back. So, now there is this space here and you would be able to see that on your most recent landscape plan. So, this buffer here we recommend it. There is a -- there is a few things I want to clarify that aren't quite correct from the staff report. I originally noted that there was a 40 foot buffer along McDermott. It's actually 35 feet wide. Also I noted that sidewalks were six feet, whereas they are actually five feet, and the third one was at this southern pathway. I mentioned that would be 14, but it's actually ten. This went to the Planning Commission on May 28th. The Planning Commission unanimously -- oops, I don't know what just happened there. There we are. So, it went to the Planning Commission on May 28th. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for this. There was a couple of conditions that staff -- or, sorry, that the Planning Commission added. The first one was that there was an original condition that staff had in regard to require -- requiring tiling of the Creason Lateral. As it ends up that's already been done, so that is being stricken by the Planning Commission. Staff is fine with that. With the applicant's request there was also a suggestion to change the language that talked about tree mitigation. So, they have just massaged it a little bit better. So, instead of saying that they shall follow the tree -- the tree mitigation preservation standards, that they will work with the city arborist. Again, staff is fine with that. There were two issues that needed to be added. These two issues were added by Public Works later. They are both talking about reimbursement fees that needed to be added for the lift stations. We have passed this on to the applicant and as far as I know the applicant is okay with that and with that I will entertain any questions and staff again recommends approval, as does the Planning Commission. Thank you for letting me make this presentation. Simison: Thank you, Alan. Council, any questions at this time? Okay. I do not know if the --who is presenting on behalf of the applicant, but we will turn this over to the applicant for 15 minutes. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, he is joining us via Zoom. Paul. Paul, can you hear us? Mr. Mayor, it looks like we lost him. So, give me just a moment, please. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 29 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 6 of Simison: We have Bill and Paul with their hands raised. Weatherly: I'm going to move him over to a panelist. Paul, you should have the ability to unmute yourself and talk now. Bierlein: This is Paul Bierlein. Can you hear me? Simison: Paul, we can, but if you could speak up just a little bit. Bierlein: Okay. Paul Bierlein with Bouma USA. I'm from Grand Rapids, Michigan. 3033 Orchard Vista Drive. Can you guys hear me okay? Simison: Yes. Bierlein: Okay. I want to start by thanking Mr. Tiefenbach. He has done an excellent job in presenting this to the City Council and we really don't have anything more to add. Thank you for your support, Mr. Tiefenbach, and I would open up to City Council for any questions that you might have for me, but we have nothing to add. We agree with everything that -- you know, all the conditions that are -- that we are being subject to. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. We will see if there is anybody signed up to testify on this application. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, there is not. Simison: Okay. There is no one signed up to testify, but this is a public hearing. Is there anybody in the audience or online who would like to testify on this project? If you are online if you can raise your hand and we can move you into testify. Or if you are here step up to the mic. I am seeing neither at either location. I will ask the applicant if they would like to close with any remarks. Bierlein: Thank you again, City Council and Mr. Tiefenbach, and nothing more on my end. Simison: Okay. Thank you very much. Council, I will turn this over to you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I will just say, you know, how nice it is to see the addition of a possible new school in Meridian. You know, there -- clearly there is a need and it appears that they are trying to meet that need and I appreciate that -- that we are seeing what's in front of us, especially in a growing part of the city that clearly really needs one. So, it's well received from my perspective. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 30 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 7 of Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Unless anyone else has any other comments, I move that we close the public hearing for Gem Innovation School, H-2020-0043. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I echo Council Member Strader's comments and after having a chance to review the staff report, hearing from staff this evening and the applicant, I move that we approve the annexation for Gem Innovation School, H-2020-0043 as presented. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the application. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Villas at Twelve Oaks East (H-2020-0014) by Jim Jewett, Located at 115 S. Linder Rd. 1 . Request: Annexation of 6.63 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district; and, 2. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement Inst. #2016-095715) to include the subject property and proposed development plan in the agreement and removal of the provision requiring an 8-foot tall concrete fence to be constructed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 31 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 8 of Simison: Thank you very much, Alan. Appreciate it. And the applicant. Item 5-B is a public hearing for Villas at Twelve Oaks East. It's H-2020-0014. I will open this public hearing with staff comments and turn this over to Sonya. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next item before you is a request for a development agreement modification and annexation and zoning. This site consists of 6.63 acres of land. It's zoned R-1 in Ada county and is located at 115 South Linder Road on the west side of Linder just south of West Franklin Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is commercial. A modification to the existing development agreement for the multi-family development to the west is requested to incorporate this property as a subsequent phase of development in the agreement, rather than require a new separate agreement for this later phase. Because a buffer to this property, which was formerly residential, is no longer needed, the applicant requests removal of the development agreement provision, requiring an eight foot tall concrete fence or wall to be constructed along the subject property's west boundary. With the proposed development it is no longer necessary as the project is proposed to be integrated as one development with shared common areas and amenities. Annexation of 6.63 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district for the development of eight multi-family structures containing a total of 64 apartment units, at a gross density of 13.94 units per acre, consistent with the commercial future land use designation. Multi-family residential developments are a principal permitted use in the TN-R district. There is an existing home on the property that is proposed to be retained and used as an additional rental or manager's unit. The site plan depicts access via the extension of a driveway from the west boundary of the site and via South Linder Road. A pedestrian connection is required to be provided to the north to the commercial development for interconnectivity via an existing access easement. This property is planned to develop as a subsequent phase of the multi-family project currently under development on the adjacent property to the west as I mentioned and will share common open space and site amenities. The overall project exceeds the minimum qualified open space and site amenities required by the UDC. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the north side of the Ten Mile Creek from the east to the west boundary of the annexation area and within the street buffer along Linder Road in accord with the pathways master plan. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Linder Road. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown that are the same as those being constructed in the Villas at Twelve Oaks project in the earlier phase to the west. The design of all structures in this development are required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. The Commission recommended approval of the subject annexation and zoning request. Josh Beach, Sawtooth Land Surveying, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. Chad Herron commented. And written testimony was received from Josh Beach. Key issues of discussion were as follows: The applicant was in agreement with the staff report, except for Condition B-1-2, which requires sewer to connect to the north in accord with the master plan, rather than to the west as proposed. The Public Works Department reevaluated the applicant's proposed sanitary sewer routing, as well as previous e-mail correspondence with the applicant on the topic of routing and found that the current proposal is acceptable. Therefore, staff recommends the following language to replace that currently in Condition B-1-2. The applicant shall Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 32 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 9 of be responsible to determine whether adequate capacity exists in the receiving sewer system, including two lift stations, to accept the additional flow from this development. If upgrades are necessary, the applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with said upgrades. And next concern pertaining to traffic in regard to the amount of accesses via Linder Road in this area, combined with not enough access and interconnectivity in the adjacent development to the south, Whitestone Estates, with only one way in and one way out. Key issues of discussion by the Commission. They were in favor of the proposed two story, rather than three story structures, as they are more compatible with adjacent residential and commercial structures. The inclusion of this site in the adjacent development and common open space and site amenities proposed for the overall development. Parking in excess of UDC standards and provision of a pedestrian connection to the north. The Commission made the following change to the staff recommendation. They modified condition B-1-2 in Section 9 as requested by the applicant with the language recommended by staff that I previously covered. There are no outstanding issues for Council tonight and there has been no written testimony received since the Commission hearing. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Sonya, that proposed change, B-1-2, the applicant shall be responsible to determine whether adequate capacity exists, I'm struggling with that. I guess to me shouldn't the Public Works Department determine that and not the applicant? And shouldn't we have some basis for determining what that is? Allen: Mr. Mayor. One would think. It's not my condition. It's Public Works' condition. They are the ones that proposed the language, so I assume that they have a route to accomplish that that meets their satisfaction. Cavener: Perhaps the applicant maybe can speak to that, but that's -- just to frame the conversation. Simison: We have Mr. Dolsby on the line. Cavener: Okay. Simison: Perhaps he could weigh in on this topic for us. Dolsby: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, the reason we had the applicant come up with the total extent of their development, the anticipated flow of development, we had given them the information on those two lift stations, they would determine whether they think they were going to impact the capacity or over -- or overwhelm the capacity of the stations, but any analysis they conduct would be thoroughly Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 33 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 10 of reviewed by Public Works prior to acceptance and that's kind of what the condition was is they would propose their plan, we would review it and concur with it before we move forward. Simison: They do the work and we verify it. Dolsby: Correct. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Doesn't it seem appropriate to just add to that condition, then, so it's super clear that it should be approved by Public Works to their satisfaction or something? I kind of follow what Councilman Cavener is saying. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Sonya, is there a rendering that shows how this project will look with the existing house on the property? From remembering correctly -- and I'm -- I haven't been by that -- on that road for a while, but it seems like it's sort of skinny and that -- that that house takes up a lot of space, if I'm remembering correctly. I just would like to know what that looks like. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, Council, the site plan before you shows the footprint of the existing home. However, I have no renderings or photos -- Bernt: Okay. Allen: -- of the existing home. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff at this time? Okay. Do we have the applicant with us in the room or online today? It looks like he is in the room today. Mr. Jewett, if you could state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for 15 minutes. Jewett: Do either one of these work? Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Jim Jewett. 776 East Riverside Drive, Suite 204, Eagle, Idaho. This is a -- in addition to our existing Twelve Oaks project. This was contemplated some time back, it just took some time to get to this point. The existing phase is 98 percent complete and we are starting occupancy there. We are sharing all the common areas we have within the original project with a pool, clubhouse, tot area and a half-court basketball court. When we started this role over a year ago we did consult with Public Works, submitted our plan to them of flowing to the existing sewer station, and we got their tentative approval on that. But any Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 34 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 11 of final design they have to approve. So, we are comfortable with any language you put in there, realizing that Public Works has to eventually approve whatever we propose. On some of the slides we did show three story buildings. We are not proposing any three story buildings in this phase. They are all the two story buildings. We only had two three story buildings on the far west end of the existing Twelve Oaks. Some of the buildings to the left would be the only buildings you would see in this phase. There was a question about the existing house. I didn't quite get the question, so if Sonya could redirect the question to me maybe I can help answer it. With that I would stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Thank you, Jim. I just have a -- I just would like to know what that house is going to look like that's going to be existing. It's -- it's not a small house if I'm remembering correctly and if I'm remembering correctly this is just barely south of that commercial corner where there is a C-store, a gas station,Arctic Circle, I believe. Am I thinking about the same corner? Jewett: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners -- or Council. Sorry. Yes, it's just directly south of the Arctic Circle. Bernt: Okay. Jewett: It's not an overly large house. The garage sits underneath it and, then, it sits above. There is a bunch of outbuildings that make it seem much larger, but they are all being torn down. So, the only thing that will remain will be the existing home, which is not very large. It sits approximately 30 feet off of Linder Road. So, our buffer bare -- almost reaches the front of the house. So, I hope that answers your questions. But it's showing the footprint -- Bernt: Right. Jewett: -- and it fits in with all the parking and everything that we have proposed. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: The reason why you are wanting to leave that there so you can rent it out to someone? Is it going to be a rental property or -- Jewett: At some -- it's more of a -- it's more of my pet peeve. I just don't like to tear things down that have some value to them that -- some potential use in the future. We certainly can't-- it's -- it's-- because of the way it's tucked in we can't build anymore buildings there new and it would serve well as either a rental unit and/or a manager's unit, because with the addition of these 64 units it will be up 172, 1 believe, or 174, 1 can't remember, and that warrants an onsite manager and that possibly we could give a little better facilities Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 35 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 12 of than one of our apartments. I mean it can be tore down as well. I just -- I just don't like to see things go to the dump. It's just kind of a personal thing. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Jewett, appreciate you being here tonight. I was hoping you might provide Council some comments related to the concern that was voiced at P&Z about the traffic that this project could potentially generate. We have got a lot of multi-family in and around this area. I don't get really excited about a lot of multi-family that doesn't have close freeway access and this doesn't have that. So, if you can help me understand why this project makes sense there, being this higher density, and maybe speak to some of the concerns that you heard from Planning and Zoning. Jewett: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, most of the traffic-related questions were specifically to Linder Road and I indicated to them that Linder Road access -- access -- access -- sorry -- would be a right-in, right-out only. We have a full access on Franklin Road and we have a cross-access easement into the commercial area of Hark's Corner, which is on the corner, and it has a full access as well. And I developed that when I did the commercial phase of this project a couple years ago. So, it actually has three access points. And the one is restricted to a right-in, right-out and that would be Linder Road. The approximate to the freeway -- Ten Mile -- the new Ten Mile off ramp is about a mile and three-quarters to the east -- the west. Sorry. We are in excess of maybe a mile and three-quarters to two miles to the west. I think that has considerably good access to the freeway being two exits within two miles either direction and one with the eventual widening of Linder Road and a new overpass over Linder Road there will be another access point going south across the freeway to be able to access the same two interstate off ramps. So, from a transportation point I really would -- Franklin is -- is four lanes already. It's not overtaxed. It's easy to get out for me at least to get out onto Franklin Road. We haven't started to put residents in here yet. So, we can see how that traffic flows, but the roads all manage the traffic flow based on ACHD's staff report and the -- the restriction on Linder is primarily because of its proximity to this commercial exit that's just on our north boundary of that east entrance. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Jewett, so what I'm hearing, though, is the only access off of Linder is a right-in, right-out; correct? Jewett: That is correct. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 36 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 13 of Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Jewett, help me understand one of your residents wants to come to City Hall, I understand they would have to take a right out on Linder Road and, then, flip a U-ey somewhere along Linder. Jewett: No. They would simply go through the existing Twelve Oaks phase one and exit onto Franklin Road as a right-hand turn. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Jewett: All of our facilities, mailboxes, will all be located -- even for this project -- within phase one next to the pool and clubhouse. So, we see --the way we designed this phase, our main road coming into the crossroad has no access to the apartments off of it. They go onto another parking lot. So, it is more of a collector type road, anticipating the future growth that we have proposed here. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Jim, back on the questions with regards to Condition B-1-2 and the proposed language, the Council has brought up some -- some concerns that we might want to flush out a little more. So, if this proposed language were to proceed what ultimately happens if -- it sounds like maybe you would be agreeable to the analysis being done by you provided to the city and if the city determines in its review and ultimate decision that there is not adequate capacity, the draft says the costs are borne by you of any upgrades. But what happens? Let's say that -- what if there is a disagreement between you and the city? And, second, what if-- if you or whoever owns this project just doesn't --just doesn't want to pay for any upgrades? Jewett: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, like I stated in my testimony earlier, when we started this phase of the project, we went to the city and said how would you like us to service this, going to the west or under the master plan going to the north? And they asked us to submit our flows, which we did, and the engineering department reviewed it and got back to us saying that there was adequate flow within the system to handle the additional flow that we would propose. That was a tentative based on our plan a year and a half ago. Our plan hasn't changed. So, when they came back with the language at P&Z adding the responsibility for us to do the analysis, the analysis for us would be simply to provide to them our flows and they would, then, address their own lift station of whether or not there is capacity within it, which they already have commented a year and a half ago saying there is. But with our final plan they will do a final analysis and if there is any potential upgrades, that that's something we have to review. The option outside of that is simply go back to the master plan and go to the north and I just don't think that that's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 37 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 14 of really what the Public Works, nor the city engineering departments wants at this point in time. I think we all recognize that those lift stations that are currently in Whitestone will go away with the development of the Brighton property to our direct west. I think that's the eventual goal anyway is the lift station to go away. So, I'm comfortable with the language. I'm comfortable that -- that -- that we have already had enough dialogue with Public Works and we are comfortable with what we proposed and that it will all work out. So, I'm okay with the language as written. I recognize that we -- we have to get our final approval from Public Works when we submit a final engineering plan. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: But that -- that begs the question of the city's comfort, even with the -- with the proposed language and the question of what occurs if-- if there is -- if you disagree --you used the words we would review the city's decision, but my -- it sounded like the city's -- the way it would be applied is the city makes a determination that upgrades are necessary and -- and that's it and those upgrades either get paid for by the developer or everything comes to a grinding halt. If it's not that I guess I just don't want that condition to be lose with good intentions. It should be drafted, assuming there is a problem, so it has a certainly. I think other Council Members have expressed some concern that there is some certainty in not only who has ultimate -- the ultimate decision, but also whatever the consequence might be if there is a disagreement. Jewett: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, I don't know if I can fully answer your question, although I understand it. I guess it's not like any other condition that will be placed upon this or any project in town, it's just a condition that -- a condition that has to be met before the project can move forward. Like I have stated, I felt very confident that the capacity exists, because we have a-mails from the city engineer stating that it does -- Borton: Sure. Jewett: -- and so I guess we could -- if we want to clean up that language we could simply ask Public Works to further their study to determine exactly if there is any requirements to be made of us beyond the vagueness of if any and, then, put that into some conditions of approval. I'm completely okay with that. I can understand and appreciate not having a loose end out there, I just can only reiterate that I'm comfortable with what the language states, because I believe we have done the research already and, then, we are at a point where I believe that -- that the capacity does exist. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton, did you have a follow up? Borton: Not at this time. Thanks. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 38 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 15 of Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I would like the applicant's feedback if -- if the condition actually said the applicant shall view, you know, the appropriate analysis requested by the Public Works Department and the Public Works Department shall approve their sewer upgrades and associated --whatever you call that -- in their absolute discretion -- can you live with that? Because I really feel like that's kind of what -- what we have -- what we need is it should be in their discretion to approve whatever you are proposing. Simison: Can we have Clint come back up and, again, if you can give your best viewpoint on the situation to help bring clarity for all on what you think needs to exist. Dolsby: Sure. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, what we would need is -- as Mr. Jewett had referenced, if you would just submit a final flow -- we have got the language in there in case -- because there can be changes in the development before we reach this stage, because it was a year, year and half ago when we took an initial analysis of it and worked with Mr. Jewett and his engineer and came up with a plan that looked like it could service to the existing Whitestone lift station, which, then, pumps to The Landing lift station, both of which will be abandoned once Brighton's development gets there. But he did submit a flow, we analyzed it, and we double-checked to make sure it would work. So, what we would request is he would submit an updated plan with an updated flow, we would check the calculations that went into the flow, also check the lift station with the flow monitoring data that we have and check that -- to see if there is any upgrades required at that lift station and any upgrades that would be required as a result of the flow for his development or that may be required -- not would. Would be borne by the developer. So, we would get a flow from him and we would review the current lift station design and flows and see if there is upgrades required, which the preliminary analysis we did a year and a half ago, as Mr. Jewett referenced, indicated that there wouldn't be upgrades required. But we wanted the discretion to complete a secondary analysis now to that -- we have final flows, so that we -- if there are upgrades that are required they are borne by the developer and that's why the conditions are -- Simison: Mr. Jewett, do you concur with that description as outlined by staff? Jewett: Completely. Yes. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: A question for Clint. Just walk us through the process -- what if you run that course and the city says an upgrade is necessary and it comprises one, two and three. So, developer, you have to do one, two and three. At one stage in the process does that occur and what happens until those upgrades occur? I mean is it a stop, no permits, and everything is on hold until there is compliance? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 39 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 16 of Dolsby: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Borton, that would be my recommendation. Borton: And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: This gets in the weeds a little bit, but that's a question that may -- and for Mr. Nary perhaps as well, but just trying to understand in that unlikely or unfortunate circumstance what actually happens and so it's clear for the developer, too, whether it's a recommendation that that occurs it is a -- a certainty that that is a consequence. It's not a discretionary call, but it is a contractual commitment that that's the consequence. Just trying to understand, however a condition like this gets drafted, that it's crystal clear if there is some need for us to protect a concern than to ensure that the city has certainty in its -- in its remedy to make sure the concern gets addressed. That was some of the reasoning for my question. So, I don't know if that's a question for you, Clint, or for Mr. Nary. Nary: Well, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean -- I guess from what I have been listening to -- and I understand the condition -- I mean it is tied to occupancy, so I wasn't sure if Mr. Borton was concerned that even Mr. Jewett or a future owner of the property just wouldn't build it, so, then, it would sort of stifle the project, but it's certainly tied to occupancy and the city has to give final approval of the -- of the plans. I don't foresee any issue in the city's control of the -- of the -- the sewer system upgrade. It's the issue of whether it stalls out and Mr. Jewett's maybe not the owner, someone else is, and they don't want to make that level of investment and it sort of stalls the project, I think that that's all the risk that exists in any project, but I don't foresee any other issue that once it's tied to occupancy you are going to have to build it if you want to put people in the building, so -- Borton: Thank you. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Jewett. This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone signed up to testify on this item? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody who -- in the audience who would like to testify on this item or anybody online? If you are online and you would like to testify, please, indicate so by raising your hand in the zoom app. I see nobody who is -- would like to testify in either location, so would the applicant like any final comments? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 40 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 17 of Jewett: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if it alleviates some additional concern about the lift station, I would propose that we just add an additional change to the DA having a condition in there that any occupancy to this phase requires Public Works to sign off on any proposed or needed upgrades to the lift station. Simison: Thank you. Council, any further questions for the applicant on that topic or anything else? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So, along with what's been stated by my fellow Council Members in regard to the flows and -- my only other concern would be the -- the existing home and I know I spoke about it before, but I just wanted to be clear. According to our FLUM it says one of the uses of this proposed development would be multi-family residential may be allowed in some cases, but should be careful to promote a high quality of life with thoughtful site design, connectivity and amenities. And so I struggled with the fact that you want to build this nice, big, beautiful complex -- and I'm familiar with it. I drive passed it every day and it's -- it's nice. It's pretty. And you want to leave this ugly house in the front of it and for what? So, it just -- for it to be a rental? And in my opinion I just don't know how that fits with -- with the overall view of what the intended use would be for that area. My -- I don't know if I'm going to -- this is -- this is so important to me that I'm willing to, I guess, deny the project. I'm not saying that. But like I just think that, you know, there is so many other creative and cool things that you could do with that, that would be beneficial to those who would be living at this complex, other than having a big, ugly house sitting in front of it. Simison: Councilman Bernt, is it the aesthetics of it? If it were to match the rest of the property or is it the fact that it exists in and of itself? Bernt: Maybe both. I don't know. I just -- I just think that maybe mostly the aesthetics, I guess, but I think that there might -- I think there is a higher and better use for that property, you know, that--you know, I just don't understand why you are spending millions of dollars on this beautiful project and this really nice project and you are leaving an existing home that's right smack dab in the front of it. I just don't -- help me understand that. Jewett: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, I have no objections to having the house removed. Again, it was kind of my preference, but I certainly don't want to make it that big of an issue. So, if the Council wants to motion to have it stricken and move -- and removed as part of the project I'm okay with that. Bernt: And I appreciate that. And, hey, I'm one to six and so there is -- there is other opinions that--and we will for sure discuss it, but would you be opposed to putting another amenity there that -- that the residents would, you know, enjoy? And I don't know what that would look like, but just -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 41 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 18 of Jewett: I mean that would be something we would have to explore. I mean it is a limited area. We did design around it. We could probably create some additional open space. Possibly some additional parking. There was some discussion of that. So, if it's the desire of this Council that I remove the building, we would find an alternative use for that, whether it be a balance of additional open space and/or additional parking. Bernt: Again, I'm one to six, so we will for sure discuss it and I may -- I may be the lone wolf, so you might be okay. We will see. Jewett: I have had other people voice the same concerns. So, you are not alone. Just maybe on this Council. I don't know, but -- Bernt: Right. Jewett: -- I'm okay. Bernt: Thanks, Jim. Simison: Council, any other comments or questions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I think Councilman Bernt hit on something and that might be one of maybe several ways to address that concern. And I know it came up in P&Z, as well as -- this is designated commercial and -- and at least the way the comp plan reads it tries to provide some direction that attempts to really limit to somewhat special circumstances the application of multi-friendly residential and I know that -- there was concern expressed getting rid of commercial and putting multi-family here -- so, when you look at the benchmark, the comp plan tries to provide a high quality blank possible site design, connectivity and amenities, I struggle with this one as well in light of -- to clear the bar to warrant eliminating its planned commercial use and we just did the comp plan and this area didn't change for whatever reason. So, I just wanted to put that out there while you are there, Jim, and see if you had a unique comment on -- on if this rises to that higher standard. Kind of like the exception for what would otherwise not be allowed in a commercial -- or at least not intended to be put into a commercial planned area. Jewett: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, I will try to answer the question the best that I understood it. So, the -- under the comp plan and this is designated as commercial and we are proposing this residential. We actually considered putting right on the frontage there commercial, but the problem is tying it in with the existing commercial. We have one cross-access access with Hark's Corner and the staff is recommending that be a pedestrian access only. No vehicle access. So, trying to do a commercial project in there with having to access solely onto Linder Road is problematic in itself and is not wise. The nature of this ground and how it flows into our existing project flows much better than it Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 42 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 19 of would be into the Hark's Corner projects, which leads to our design versus the commercial. So, there is an option that we can still put some sort of limited commercial on that where the house is now. Small office building. I don't think retail would be suitable, simply because of the limited access on Linder Road. I think the comp plan does -- the comp plan clearly allows for the TN-R zoning within the commercial designation, which is what we are asking for, which allows this use. I'm sure I'm not answering all of your questions, Councilman Borton, but the way we evaluated this was what was existing on the ground with Hark's Corner and how the connectivity with it just didn't make a lot of sense for us and that's why commercial wasn't looked at very hard on this piece because of the lack of interconnectivity. So, I hope I answered your questions. If not, I guess you could redirect and I will try to answer again. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I think you did. I just wanted to give you a chance to -- I wanted to let you know the concern at least and give you a chance to speak to it, so I appreciate that. Thanks, Jim. Jewett: Thank you. Simison: Council, any other questions or comments or do I have a motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Always get things going. I move that we close the public hearing for the Villas at Twelve Oaks, H-2020-0014. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Council, I think we have touched on three or four different things on this application, a couple of which I'm not super comfortable editing or modifying on the fly. Councilman Bernt, I think you hit the nail in the head about that house. To me that was an ideal location. I looked at this for an amenity. It sounds like the applicant is open to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 43 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 20 of moving that house, but I -- I would feel much more comfortable being supportive of this project when I know what that is. Frankly, I would like to see commercial there. I have got some real concerns overall just with the -- with the access of this high density residential. I shared my concerns about putting multi-family. I think two miles away from freeway access is not ideal to me. Again, I may be alone on that one. I like the term lone wolf. That's good, Council Member Bernt. I like that term. And, then, ultimately -- I mean we have talked around this condition B-1-2. There has been a couple of suggestions on what that looks like. I get an easy wordsmithing some of that stuff on the fly and would feel much more comfortable to allow staff to work with the applicant to shore that condition up, something that we can all be comfortable with. So, I'm not supportive of approving this tonight. I would like to continue it for a later point in time to get some of these other issues addressed. I'm not sure how all the rest of you feel, but I think that's the right direction to head. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I couldn't agree more with -- with Councilman Cavener. I think it would be important to give Mr. Jewett some direction as well with -- with the continuance, if that's what the rest of Council is wanting. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm tracking along the same lines. I think it would be wise to see the applicant come back with a better flushed out -- maybe design plan or something to -- to modify what's --what's going on with the house, either proposing an amenity or commercial. We should probably discuss that if we have a common view. I think that would help the applicant significantly in how to move forward. I do have a -- just a general concern, which is, you know, we are so reliant on residential in general as a city. We are really trying to develop our commercial and seems like the more we sort of float, if that's the right terminology, these designations I get concerned about that, the more we do that. You know, that there is an underlying concern. I do think it -- you know, the -- the apartments themselves seem fairly thought out in terms of design, but I -- yeah, I just -- I'm kind of looking for more. I personally would like to see commercial, if it's viable. The applicant's saying it's really not. I have to listen to that as well, but -- but at least I would love to see some type of an amenity for the residents there and I will kind of defer to the rest of Council on what we would rather see in that -- in that spot. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 44 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 21 of Bernt: I think Councilman Borton and Council Woman Strader bring up some great points about the commercial aspect of this project. If it's the desire of this Council to move in that direction I would -- with all due respect to Mr. Jewett, I would hate for him to put forth more resources toward redesign of a residential project when this Council would prefer the existing designation to stay commercial. So, my opinion if it's the desire of this Council to keep it commercial, I think we owe it to Mr. Jewett to let him know that now, instead of having him spend a lot of time and resources trying to figure out what a residential component would be. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I can only speak for myself. I don't know where everyone else's heads are at. I am leaning that direction. Personally I would prefer it to be commercial. I just -- I'm concerned about how much we are floating residential. I don't think it makes a ton of sense for the city as a whole to be having that as a regular practice. But I'm realistic and if that's not where the rest of the Council is at I would rather see a modification to it, but that's my preference. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I tend to agree with Councilman Cavener and Council Woman Strader on that point as well and I think -- I think Councilman Bernt's advice is sound, but let's make sure the applicant is aware if that's one of the most fundamental concerns and I don't want to waste anyone's time and so that's my fundamental concerns as well. Commercial. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Sat here listening to my colleagues bring up some good points. You know, need to take a look at that commercial. You know, there might be some access issues is the only thing I see, but I think it's worth taking a look at and making sure everything is spelled out before we move forward on this and -- and see what -- see how this property can -- can develop to its highest and best use here. Simison: So, Council, your public hearing is closed. I don't know if you want to reopen the public hearing and hear from the applicant about the Council's desire for commercial or continuance or if you want to make your own decision based on what you have heard to this point so far. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 45 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 22 of Cavener: I'm always a fan of rolling to think collectively of allowing the public to testify, whether it's the applicant or members of the public. I have no issues if we want to reopen the public hearing, if the applicant would want to share any comments before we close and, essentially, make a motion. So, Mr. Mayor, I move that we reopen the public hearing for the Villas at Twelve Oaks, H-2020-0014. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing. Is there a discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Mr. Jewett, would you like to come up and provide some comments on what you have heard in the discussion? Jewett: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, so if I heard everything correctly, there is a sentiment wanting this to remain commercial. Would that be in its entirety or would there be some middle ground of making part of it commercial and part of it residential or apartments? Borton: That's -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: That's a tough one I think to answer. It's a fair question, but a tough one to answer. It's you know it when you see it. So, it depends. Which is not a very helpful answer. I think it's accurate, but not helpful. I wouldn't even know if there is a way to blend them both. You would be able to know that fast. But understanding that there is this pretty strong consensus that commercial needs to be involved in this property, if that means there is some small portion that remains residential and it's still a viable project, that it makes sense. I don't know if anyone would prohibit you, because you would probably be able to articulate here is why this makes sense to incorporate this small part of residential. So, I don't know if I could give you a better answer than it depends, but it depends. Jewett: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, let me redirect you to our original Twelve Oaks phase, which I developed five commercial lots within that phase. You can -- you will represent them in the drawing here to the west. The top left corner, northwest corner, is one lot and to the northeast corner there is four lots. So, our overall project already has a considerable amount of commercial that we have added to the existing Hark's Corner and, then, one that will have interconnectivity to Brighton's commercial project to our direct west. If we added another commercial lot over off of Linder Road where the existing home sits, it-- I think that that's a considerable amount of commercial we have added into the overall project. I will point out that of our five commercial lots that we done in the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 46 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 23 of existing phase, none of them are built on yet. There is a struggling market in the commercial world right now, specifically from COVID. You know, we are hoping that does rebound at some point in time, but we don't know that for sure. So, from a financial component, which I realize it's not a total bearing on what you -- how you guys make your decision, a complete commercial project, which is simply it financially would not be feasible from our point of view, because I feel like we would just be adding more development into an already saturated situation, but I wouldn't be objectionable to adding the commercial along Linder Road. That's an easy change. We simply remove the house and add a commercial pad, not unlike what we have in our four -- our northwest corner. And from a preference point of view I would rather rent to a business than rent to an individual. We find it less -- less difficult. But simply that's not what the market bears for us today. Apartments are in demand. I know there is a lot of them that have been developed in the city and I feel like there is a lot more coming as our population grows. We are in an area that's conducive to walking to the commercial that exists within Hark's Corner, which is beneficial to them adding our additional residential units. We don't -- we are not taxing any of the services because we are on existing well traveled, well maintained and well built roads. So, I'm agreeable to making an amenity change. I'm agreeable to adding some commercial in the front and even -- potentially even moving it farther back. The one thing that we would have to address with staff is we only have one cross-access with Hark's Corner and it exists in that northerly west corridor there and the staff right now is recommending that to be pedestrian only. A cross-access easement is essential when it comes to commercial and the lack of that would be detrimental from the physical point in time to construct this. So, I'm not objectionable to -- to some sort of continuance to facilitate some changes. Obviously, I would ask for guidance of how you would want that to change. I still believe that we put a lot of time and thought into this and we believe that because of our existing project the interconnectivity to it, the amenities we provided within the initial project and the commercial that we provided in the initial project, we have adequately addressed the comp plan's desire to have commercial in this area. But I'm here to -- to listen to your guidance and try to address it as best I can. I hope that answered the question. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, one wrinkle -- and, again, I don't know how long a continuance is being anticipated, but what was noticed for this project is a DA amendment, annexation, TN-R zoning, which does allow commercial, but no one's noticed commercial as a part of this project. So, it's never been discussed publicly of a commercial. So, amenities to the existing residential would be one thing. Adding a commercial component is another. So, if you are going to continue you are going to have to renotice it differently, because it has never been proposed to be a commercial project with commercial users. I don't know if that's going to require subdivision of the property, which isn't proposed either. Likely would. So, that's another component that would have to be noticed. So, just as you -- if you are going to move to continue, it may take a little longer than two weeks or three weeks, because now with notification, drawing of a preliminary plat now, finding the type of user configuration that would fit there may take a little longer. That's a little bit more significant amendment than what was originally proposed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 47 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 24 of Jewett: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it might just take us all the way back to the beginning, because we would have to have the neighborhood meeting process to identify a plat. A plat would start us back -- I mean that in itself would start us back to the beginning. Simison: So, I guess, Mr. Nary, from a process standpoint what--what is the best process way to move forward? Have the applicant withdraw this application? Have Council act on this application? Nary: Well, Mr. Mayor, maybe Sonya can weigh in as well. It seems to be -- I mean based upon that at the minimum we would have to remand it back to Planning and Zoning. The only issue is is the neighborhood meeting component normally is done prior to Planning and Zoning. So, I'm not sure if this is a complete do over if we are going to now add a commercial component to this that didn't previously exist because of that. So, I don't know if Sonya has an opinion on that. Otherwise, normally a remand would be sufficient, but I don't know that that's adequate from the preliminary plat point. Allen: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council, yes, Mr. Nary is correct. A neighborhood meeting is required typically before submittal of the application. However, this would impact the neighbors to the south and east. So, I think it's a good idea to reach out to them and, yes, I feel it should be remanded back to the Commission if we switch tracks in the -- in the middle of a stream. It's going to require new legal descriptions. A subdivision plat. It's -- it's a new project. And just for clarification, I heard something mentioned earlier about floating residential to this property. Residential multi-family and the TN-R zoning is actually a desired use in the commercial designation. So, this -- this isn't a request for a float, it is an allowed use. Of course that use is subject to Council approval. Jewett: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if -- if the desire of the Council is to go a different direction, a denial still leaves the option to come back, which is essentially what I'm going to do anyway. But at least-- I don't think we would be in favor of all commercial, especially in today's atmosphere. So, I would respectfully request that you take as much as you can of my plan, with some direction of how you want it to be changed and consider that and if it's something outside the realm I think that I will have to accept your poison I guess. But I think that our project is well thought out and I think it does blend well with our existing project. We have provided commercial. So, I would just respectfully request that you -- you give me the direction how this project could be approved, instead of that significant amount of change going back to all commercial. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: It's just -- well, first off, Jim, thank you for listening and thank you for being open to coming up with the best possible solution. I appreciate that. Looking at this --just at this property that's up on the screen right now, the frontage along Linder is pretty skinny. It's not -- there is not a lot of frontage there, which would be the prime portion for a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 48 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 25 of commercial component. Because of that I think that where I stand would probably make that -- that front northeast corner commercial and, then, I would -- I would be okay with leaving the rest of it residential. Ultimately, I never had any problem with the development itself. I understand my -- my colleagues' concerns. My only concern was that -- that front portion that we discussed. So, that -- that would be my take if that helps you out a little bit, Jim. We will see what everyone else says. Jewett: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, I think I have already testified that that would be an okay solution for me. I believe that can be done within -- within the DA and the DA mod. We can make some modifications to that front corner be commercial in nature and it can be part of our overall project and not be part of a plat. If we did want to eventually plat it off for separate ownership we could do that at a later date. So, I believe conditions of approval and modifications to the DA could address that being commercial without having to go back, because the commercial use is -- I guess I'm speaking out of turn so much for the city attorney I guess, because commercial was not part of our original application to our neighbors and I do have to be respectful to them and there is still a dilemma. I do appreciate and I'm agreeable to those scenarios if somebody just lays out the process for me to get there. If that's the wish of entire Council, then, that's the direction I will go. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: That might be the easiest thing we are talking about is the process. We have got -- we have got some experienced folks that can talk to you about the process here. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Jim, would it be acceptable at this juncture, since you are not clear what commercial would go there, how that would look, how to configure that with the street and flow and all of that, that simply be designated as open space with a potential for future commercial, which would, then, require you to come back for a development agreement amendment. Jewett: Completely. Nary: And, then, that way you could -- if the rest of the project is acceptable, basically what you would be designating is that's going to be open space with the ability for Mr. Jewett to request a modification to the DA at a future time if he decides commercial would be there. Now, if commercial isn't viable from his perspective, then, it's going to be open space. If it is viable, then, he can come back and do that without starting over at the beginning. The risk to the city or the risk to Council if you're concerned is that it ends up being open space and doesn't end up being any commercial at all on that location. But it Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 49 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 26 of would be, then, an amenity to that -- to the property, but I think he said, you know, it would probably be some additional parking and open space. So, that's an option to not have to start over completely and it would still require you to come back with whatever the plan is at that point in time that a commercial is a viable option for that location. So, that's an option for you to consider. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So, I would just open it up to my fellow Council Members to get their opinion on that. I -- my personal opinion would be this should -- you know, if we are going to change this do it right. But, you know, I would be interested to see what everyone else is thinking. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Borton. Borton: I just think it's too -- just too far afield. I appreciate the efforts, but I'm just not supportive of it. I don't think it gets to where we need to be. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Jim, I know you have been doing this for a long time, but it comes back to I think what Council Member Borton said, it's that it depends factor. You know, you have got six people up here with different perspectives. You know, I'm -- I'm one that I think there would need to be a little bit more of a commercial component than just that northeast corner. So, I -- I really applaud the city attorney. I always try and figure out a way that we can get to the yes and would hate to have you go back through this process again, but personally for me -- and, again, this is what was Council Member Bernt's perspective and his opinion. Mine's a little bit different. I would want to see a -- probably a smaller multi-family footprint and a larger commercial footprint. Simison: Just to help the applicant out, Councilman Cavener, there is eight buildings. Cavener: Oh, sure. Four buildings instead of eight? Is that your -- Cavener: And, Mr. Mayor, I think it really comes back to what's -- what's presented before us and I kind of touched earlier on tonight. I hate doing -- kind of building stuff on -- on -- on the fly. I think you are putting my back against the wall. I think you probably lose two buildings. Your two-- I guess the easterly buildings. I think that preserves a little bit larger commercial application along Linder. And this is me just kind of looking to the future and while Linder Road isn't connected now, it will be one day, and you can see this area is looking a lot like what I see, you know, at like Linder and Chinden. You know, you have Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 50 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 27 of got this kind of robust commercial component there with different types of retail and restaurants. I know we hear this all the time about ice cream. We have got ice cream already an Arctic Circle. There is other applications that we can put there -- could go there. So, that's more where I'm looking at is what this piece of property could be 20 years from now. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think I share the view. It's hard to pick a number of buildings. I'm really struggling with kind of like picking and choosing that. I think for me, too, would be like the bare minimum. I would much rather see three or even half the project, knowing what's going to happen along Linder is going to be pretty significant in the future. Nothing in life is guaranteed. I totally appreciate the economic aspect of this for you as a developer. Unfortunately, that's kind of an equity risk and we are trying to make decisions for the long term of the city. So, for me, you know, two of the -- two of the buildings would -- would be the minimum. That would at least feel like a significant -- or more significant portion is commercial. I don't -- I can't commit to that until I see a plan, you know, and see that it makes sense. So, I mean that's kind of a given. I wish I had more precise feedback for you. I'm sure we will do whatever process we can to try to strike the right balance and make sure the public has adequate, you know, notice and so forth. Hopefully everyone can hear me. I apologize. Jewett: Mr. Mayor, I want to point out, again, some of the constructive barriers we have. The only cross-access easement we have currently with Hark's Corner is the one to the north and west. There is no other cross-access easement with any of Hark's Corner from there to Linder Road. So, developing a commercial project clearly on one access off of Linder Road with potential cross-access with the apartments would be it. There would be no additional cross-access with Hark's Corner and I don't think I have ever seen a project where you can't interconnect your commercial projects. That is a barrier. There is an eight foot concrete wall currently that exists between this property and Hark's Corner. So, if I did develop the front half, it -- it's -- staff would have to change their opinion on whether or not that access is full access or just pedestrian and, then, we would somehow have to figure out how to get the commercial to one access point and, then, somehow talk Hark's Corner into letting us tear down at eight foot concrete wall that exists there now. And Hark's Corner now is owned by I think five or six different property owners. It's no longer one. So, I'm dealing with six Council people, six different property owners and I'm the lone wolf. So, I'm sitting here saying I don't know where I would go with that and even if I -- even if I lose two buildings and go to commercial I think that the city attorney has made it very clear that -- that would have to go back and start from the beginning. I would have to notice the neighbors again. That is -- that is a significant change from what I proposed to them. Simison: Council, one thing that -- if we do go back and have to redo this through the -- all the process I would suggest to Council to waive the applicant's fees for those costs, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 51 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 28 of so they don't have to bear that to make that sort of modification to go back. That's something for you to consider. Jewett: Mr. Mayor, may I suggest the following? Allow me a continuance to discuss it with Hark's Corner to see if I can gain another cross-access. I think it's imperative that we have that in that east end. So, let me talk to -- specifically Jackson's to see if I can get that. And, then, if I can obtain that let me discuss internally with our staff how we feel about moving two buildings and configure some buildings there, come back to you with that concept and if it's something that's acceptable we can, then, be remanded back. If I may suggest that. But give me some chance to figure out a few of these questions. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Jim, I think that sounds really reasonable. It gives us a chance to kind of see what you are bringing forth before -- you don't get too far ahead of your skis. I'm good with that. How long -- would you like to pursue a month? Jewett: So, what is your month from now hearing date? Make sure it's not a conflict for me being out of town. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, if we have to notice it, then, we are out until August 4th and, frankly, we are out to August 4th anyway. Excuse me. Starting at August 4th and beyond is pretty open. Simison: So August 11th? Jewett: Excuse me? Simison: August 11th? Jewett: I'm actually gone. But I'm here the 4th. But I'm gone on the 11 th. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I think August 4th is National Night Out or -- Simison: No, it is not. Cavener: Oh. Simison: It's been cancelled until October this year. Cavener: Okay. Simison: If it will even be held then. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 52 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 29 of Simison: If our deputy chief knows the actual date Council might benefit from hearing that. Or I can look. But we can follow up. Basterrechea: Unfortunately I don't. Jewett: So, would August 4th work? Is there a motion that we want to continue to that point in time? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I guess, Mr. Nary, we are just going to continue the public hearing, leave it open -- Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Cavener, right. We talked about commercial, but we are not noticing commercial, we are noticing a conversation. So, think just a continuance is adequate. Cavener: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue this public hearing for H-2020-0014 to August 4th. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing until August 4th. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. And we will continue this to August 4th. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Council, before we go into our last item we are going to go ahead and take a recess until 7:45. (Recess: 7:34 p.m. to 7:46 p.m.) Simison: Council, even though I don't see Mr. Borton yet we are going to go ahead and call us back in from recess. Up next is Item 6-E, a public hearing continued from June 9th, 2020, for Cedarbrook Subdivision, H-2020-0012. I will turn this over to Sonya for staff comments. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council -- just a moment here. Okay. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 118.58 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 4185 South Linder Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation on the property is medium density residential, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre. Annexation of a total of 118.58 acres of land with R-2 zoning, which consists of 9.48 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 53 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 30 of acres of the site, 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 designation. A preliminary plat is proposed that has been revised since the original submittal that's on the right there, consisting of 328 buildable lots for single family residential detached homes, 39 common lots, and four other lots on 118.58 acres of land is proposed. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,881 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,874 square feet. The gross density is 2.77 units per acre, with a net density of 4.4 units per acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in seven phases as shown on the phasing plan. Access is proposed via one collector street and two emergency access only driveways via South Linder Road. Two stub streets are proposed at the north and one collector stub street is proposed at the southwest boundary of the site for future extension. Unimproved right of way is proposed along the north boundary to the west at the northwest corner of the site. That is in this green area right here as a -- for future construction of a collector street if needed. Each phase of development is proposed to have two accesses for emergency services. The access from the north via Victory Road will be constructed with the first phase of development. 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 to Victory Road and the Amity-Linder intersection is planned to be reconstructed. Linder Road between Victory and Overland Road is planned to be widened to five lanes and the Victory Road and 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 pressurized sewer force main at the expense of the developer. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of the minimum ten percent required by the UDC. A total of 2.6 -- excuse me -- 22.44 acres or 18.9 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 pool house, a multi-use sports court, children's play equipment and a 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 fake rocks and boulders is proposed on the other large common area in the third phase. Pathways are proposed throughout this site as shown on the pedestrian plan. Two ten foot wide multi- use pathway connections are proposed from the sidewalk on Linder Road that merge into the common -- central common area and continues 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 northeast corner of this site. The applicant proposes to leave it open and improve the area's 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 as a water amenity as defined in the UDC, in which case fencing may not be required. Fencing is not proposed around the pond. If Council determines this presents a safety hazard a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 54 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 31 of condition requiring such should be added. A detail of the pond was submitted shown on the right there that depicts a safety bench, a shallow area before it drops off into a more deep area of the pond for public safety. 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 consist of a mix of finish materials with stone and brick veneer accents. Revised elevations were submitted for the homes proposed on the 40 to 45 foot wide lots as requested by staff and those are the ones shown on the right that include more design elements and materials to provide a higher quality of design than those originally proposed. The Commission did recommend approval of this project and I will go through the summary of the Commission hearing now. Sabrina Durtschi, the applicant's representative, testified in favor of the application, along with Deborah Nelson, legal counsel representing the applicant. Annette Alonso, Julie Langlois, Paula Connelly and Kenzie Ward testified in opposition. Written testimony was received from Julie Langlois, Brian Connelly, Kenzie Ward and Paula Connelly. Key issues of public testimony are as follows: Not enough transition in lot sizes to adjacent rural properties. Requests for one half to one acre lot sizes as a transition and a landscape buffer and berm at the west boundary. Protection of view sheds and rural lifestyle, right to farm, raise and process their cattle. Concern pertaining to capacity of various schools with the proposed development and all of the developments that have been approved in this area, but not yet developed. Concern pertaining to traffic and inadequacy of existing infrastructure to handle more development in this area with no plans to widen Linder Road until 2031 to 2035, which is currently a rural two lane roadway. Would like to see a greater setback along Linder Road, so that when the road is expanded in the future there will be -- still be enough green space and landscaping to keep their rural feel of the area and reduce impacts on landscaping. Concern that it's not an efficient way to expand the city's infrastructure with the project's location on the fringe of the city. Concern pertaining to the timing of this development, balancing the growth with the state of the economy. Supportive of the proposed detached homes, but opposed to townhomes and duplexes. Based on discussions with the neighbors, the Reinhimers and the Robertsons, the developer has agreed to provide a three to four foot tall berm with a wood style fence on top of the berm centered on the shared property line along the northern portion of the west boundary of the site adjacent to their properties, landscaped with trees at a spacing of approximately 25 feet along their side of the fence that they would maintain. The developer has also agreed to limit the height of homes to single story where they will be in direct view shed out of the physical house on adjacent property. And, finally, the developer also agreed to double the required rear building setback of 15 feet to provide a minimum 30 foot rear setback along the west and south boundaries of the subdivision. Key issues of discussion by the Commission as follows: The Commission asked the applicant where the additional children's play equipment recommended by staff would be located. The applicant responded it will be in a large common area by the swimming pool. Commission asked the applicant if the pond would be empty in the winter after irrigation season. The applicant responded, no, that it would have a permanent water level year around. Commission was generally not supportive of staffs recommendation to provide a variety of housing types, attached and townhomes within the development. Those have since been removed based on the Commission's recommendation. The Commission Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 55 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 32 of discussed extending the R-2 zoning along the southern boundary of this site and, finally, adequacy of the proposed transition in lot sizes and buffer to adjacent rural residential properties. The Commission made the following changes to the staff recommendation. They removed the requirement for a variety of housing types to be provided. The Commission was not in favor of the attached and townhome product at the northeast corner of the site proposed by the applicant in response to the staff recommendation based on comp plan policies. They included a development agreement provision requiring a berm and fence to be constructed on the shared property line adjacent to the Reinhimers and Robertson property as committed by the developer. They included a development agreement provision that limits the height of homes to single story where they will be in the direct view shed out from the physical house on adjacent properties. Staff recommended that the applicant address which specific lots will have single story homes at the Council hearing. They did submit an exhibit I'm sure they will be showing in their presentation on which lots those are. And they also submitted an exhibit that depicts half acre lots in the R-2 zone, which reduced the lot count by five in this area. They included a development agreement provision that requires a minimum 30 foot rear setback for homes along the west and south boundaries of the subdivision. There are only a couple of outstanding issues for Council. The Commission recommended Council consider whether or not there should be some funding or a partnership toward future intersection improvements at Amity and Linder Roads and a letter of testimony was submitted by Laren Bailey, Devco, requesting Condition B.1.1 is modified to require the construction of the sewer main line to Meridian Road with the first phase of development. Because this was previously discussed with the applicant, but inadvertently not included in the condition, staff is in support of this change requested and ask the Council include that. Several letters of testimony have been submitted that are included in the public record. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Sonya, thank you. If you could, please, pull up -- if we have our priority growth areas map -- and just point out where this would fall on that. It doesn't have to be at this exact moment, but that would help me to sort of contextualize exactly where this sits. Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. While -- while pulling that up or -- I have the same question along the same vein as Council Woman Strader. I was curious if that -- you know, this is on our fringe and, you know, that's typically -- I think I read not a priority for extension of city services. How -- I was curious -- I was trying to remember how far was the nearest annexed property or development that -- that is near this proposal. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 56 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 33 of Simison: I don't know if they are searching for a map, but I can tell you this is not in southeast Meridian and is not in northwest Meridian. That's as far as I can tell you from the growth priority map discussion. Strader: Thank you. That's helpful. So -- and I understand. I didn't mean to put anybody on the spot and we may not have that at our fingertips, but from -- I just wanted to check. My impression was that that did not fall within that initial area that we had outlined in the southeastern -- no. South -- yes. Anyway, you get what I'm saying. Simison: I would classify this as southwest Meridian, not southeast Meridian. Strader: Thank you. Simison: If you want to use Meridian Road as the dividing line. Strader: That would be perfect. Thank you. That -- that helps. Simison: Council, any other questions for staff at this time? Okay. If the applicant would like to come forward. Nelson: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. Deborah Nelson. 601 West Bannock in Boise. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Toll Southwest, LLC. Here with me this evening are members of the Toll development team and also our traffic engineer Sonya Daleiden with Kittelson is participating by Zoom and is available to answer your questions as well. We are pleased to present to you this evening Cedarbrook Subdivision. This presentation follows over a year of design and planning, meeting with interested parties. The input we have received have helped to shape and change the development that you are seeing this evening. We are proud to have a recommendation for approval from your staff, from your Planning Commission, from the ACHD commission. Commenting service providers have confirmed that this site and its residents can be served with sewer, water, fire, police and schools. I would like to briefly introduce Toll Brothers to you. Toll Brothers is an award winning Fortune 500 company that purchased Coleman Homes in 2016. While they develop throughout the valley, they sited their headquarters here -- right here in Meridian where they employ over 130 people. They also hire local contractors, consultants and vendors to build their communities throughout the valley. Toll's planning for this development began with your Comprehensive Plan. As Sonya noted the property is designated as medium density residential. It's down here located where the blue star is on the slide. This property has gone through two Comprehensive Plan updates and remained medium density residential. A change that did occur during the last Comprehensive Plan update was that the property to our west petitioned for the city to change them to low density residential and that occurred. This change certainly influenced our design and the transitional zoning that we proposed. The city has planned a vibrant area near this site. To our north and northeast is the Ten Mile area specific plan where the city calls for higher densities, employment and commercial activities. To our west just beyond the current county platted lots is mixed use neighborhood designation. To our east a similar activity node is at Meridian and Amity Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 57 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 34 of with a designation of mixed use community. Our property is conveniently located between these activity centers and between the two key interchanges at Ten Mile and Meridian. Our immediate adjacent properties are designated as a mix of low and medium density residential. As has been planned by Meridian, this residential area will provide the rooftops that are needed to support planned commercial and provide homes that are close to these planned employment centers nearby. Consistent with this Comprehensive Plan and based on discussions with city staff, we developed transitional zoning with the three zones that Sonya outlined for you, R-2, R-4 and R-8. As an accommodation to neighbors' request we have enlarged the lots within the R-2 zone. I will discuss that in more detail. But I want to note that the zoning areas and the site layout remain the same. We are not asking for any exceptions or variances to your zoning standards in any of these three zones. The city has approved other nearby residential developments and this will be responsive to your question, Council Member Hoaglun. Immediately across Linder from this site the property has annexed, zoned, and approved development of residential developments. These --these developments fall within the low and medium density areas that we saw on your comp plan for that central area and the approved zones range from R-4 to R-40, with densities ranging from 2.68 to over 14. Notably, none of these approved developments included an R-2 zone, even within or adjacent to low density designated areas on your Comprehensive Plan map. Our proposed zones transition nicely to these developments to the east. Our proposed density of 2.7 falls on the low end of the densities approved nearby and is below the three to eight range that the city had planned for this property. But we believe -- and I believe staff confirmed that we found the right balance to provide that good transition between the lower density to our west and the increasingly higher density to our east. We appreciate staff's and the Planning and Zoning Commission support of the proposed zoning -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? We can't hear. Simison: Okay. One second. And pause the time. Nelson: Is it a matter of my speaking up? Does that make it better? Hoaglun: That sounds great right there. Thank you. Nelson: Okay. Is there anything you needed me to repeat or were you able to catch some of that? Hoaglun: I think you can continue. Nelson: Okay. Thank you very much. The development team has had several meetings with Public Works, with Fire, Police. All of these providers have confirmed they can readily serve this project. We are literally down the street from the new fire station and will help provide the needed property tax base to support its operations. The water and sewer design is in accordance with city plans and approved by Public Works. We are agreeable to the request from the neighboring developer of the property, who asked for us to develop the sewer improvements in the first phase. ACHD has approved the plat and we agree Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 58 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 35 of with all of the conditions of approval. Turning to schools, Toll has also met with Joe Jochum several times and he has indicated that he has no concerns with this development. School age children in our neighborhood and throughout Meridian have many choices for schools and I think Joe and others recognize that the long-term impacts of COVID are yet to be understood. But surely there will be some additional students that take advantage of online school options and West Ada has responded with an enhanced and larger virtual school with its own principle. Regardless of those future long-term changes that may occur, all West Ada schools that serve Cedarbook currently have capacity. This reflects the near complete expansion of Mary MacPherson Elementary School. Additionally, the West Ada School District as a whole has capacity. In 2019 and projected for 2020 capacity is staying ahead of enrollment. The district also has new capacity coming online that's already planned, funded and underway to accommodate projected growth that will result in just over 3,100 new seats for students. Sonya spent a lot of time going through the pathway trail system, so I will just highlight the total linear footage. The regional pathway will have 4,600 linear feet. Other internal HOA pathways that will be maintained by the homeowners association are 3,000 linear feet, for a total of 7,600 feet. This doesn't include any of the sidewalks that provide similar connectivity and they are all detached. Cedarbrook has over 22 acres of open space at 18.9 percent. This is almost double what is required. In response to comments received, we increased the open space shown in this plan to include a new park area in the R-8 zone and added a second playground amenity. Cedarbrook will meet and exceed the city -- city's amenity requirements. I would like to show you some of those amenities. The pool and the clubhouse. Another shot. The playground structure in the R-4 and another play area will be next to the main amenity. A sport court with half basketball court. A large covered picnic area with picnic tables and another shot of this area to show the adjacent pond. Cedarbrook will offer a wide variety of housing opportunities from starter homes to larger estate homes. These elevations are for homes in the -- shown in this slide are for homes in the narrower lots on the northeast. These are detached product. All have two car garages targeting the entry level buyer at 1 ,400 to 1 ,900 square feet. The Garden Collection will be within the R-8 zone and will range from 1 ,200 to 2,500 square feet. These homes will offer functional living space and design. The Woodman Collection will be a majority of the R-4 zoning. This has an optional range from 1 ,580 to 2,890 square feet. It specializes in open floor plans and quality craftsmanship. The Countryside Collection includes estate homes and will be located in the R-2 zone. This collection offers larger homes that range from 2,900 to 4,500 square feet. This collection embodies elegance and luxury, with top of the line finishes. Toll has had extensive community outreach with the surrounding and the adjacent neighbors. They held three neighborhood meetings. They have also worked closely with our adjacent neighbors in the county, with numerous individual and group meetings, including even in recent weeks to continue to try to address their concerns. Many neighbors had concerns about their view shed. As a result Toll hired a consultant to take pictures from each neighbor's backyard and, then, produce renderings of how the development may look and, then, shared these renderings with the neighbors to receive feedback and request for mitigation. The result of these meetings is numerous concessions by the developer. We recognize we certainly cannot please everyone, but some individuals have expressed their appreciation for these concessions and they are significant. Some of the mitigation Toll agreed to is listed here Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 59 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 36 of and, then, I will walk through a few of these items. First, it's important to note that there is existing topography here that creates -- that presents an elevation change and any transition plan needs to take into account specific facts and circumstances. The neighbors along our southwest corner sit 33 to 35 feet higher than our lots and homes. As shown in these diagrams, you can see from one example where an existing home is 385 feet from the property line and another that's 288. Both sit on top of a ridge that ensures our homes will not obstruct their views. In fact, all of the county homes in the west and the southwest of our property are over two to four hundred feet from the property line. As I mentioned, Toll prepared renderings from each property. This is a picture taken by our photographer from southwest property along the rim. We were careful not to use any photos provided by individual neighbors. As you can see the homes are down in the valley. They do not obstruct any portion of the view of the distant hills. The closest structure that you can see in the foreground is actually a neighbor's existing barn right in the center. Toll has agreed to increase the setbacks, doubling the rear setback along the entire R-2 perimeter from 15 feet to 30 feet. Toll has also agreed to install buffers. Originally at the Planning and Zoning Commission -- this was along the western border and that was incorporated into the conditions of approval. They are also agreeable to extend this along the southwest border. They will provide a berm on the property line, a wood style vinyl privacy fence and trees every 25 feet. This is a rendering shown from one of the western properties, which is a flatter property and still you can see that these installed buffers create great mitigation that's also enhanced by the fact that the house is so far setback from the property line. Toll has also agreed to provide 60 percent single story homes along the R-2 perimeter, lined up with a direct view shed of the neighboring county homes. These single story lots are shown in red on the slide. This is a significant concession, because the larger lots in the R-2 is where you want the larger premium homes. Toll has also agreed after some careful consideration in numerous meetings with the neighbors and listening to their requests, also taking into account what your Comprehensive Plan says and what's feasible on this development to have a successful community and they have agreed that they can increase the perimeter lots in the R-2 zone to a minimum half acre. To provide a minimum half acre means that some lots range higher than this, up to two-thirds of an acre. This caused them to lose an additional five premium lots and I say additional, because from the very first neighborhood meeting where they began with 27, they are now down to 14 along this border. So, they have made significant concessions in the lots in the R -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I apologize to interrupt, but I -- she's just disappeared. I can -- I can -- I can barely hear some -- some mumbling. Nelson: Is this better? I tipped the microphone up. Does that help? Hoaglun: Yes. Thank you. Nelson: I would ask is there anything I can repeat from this slide? Or prior slides? Hoaglun: I think the slide you covered the details in writing it looks like. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 60 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 37 of Nelson: Thank you very much. This slide shows a comparison of the recent change from a third acre minimum along the perimeter to a half acre minimum along the perimeter and it really illustrates the significant change of the number of lots that would front each of these county properties and it's important to understand how significant that --that change really is to only have a couple of lots that front your property when we are trying to transition from a very large county subdivision into a city planned area for medium density residential. Another concession that the developer has pursued here -- there was a planned collector roadway along our western boundary. ACHD at our request, at city staff support and ACHD staff support, did agree to remove that collector roadway and to change their master street map. The neighbors to our west really did not want that road in that location. The road itself probably would have provided significant barrier to not require as much transition, but the neighbors did not want that road there and we helped to relocate that. One of our neighbors Julie Langlois stated in a recent letter to the Council that Century Farm by Brighton is an excellent example of a developer who made efforts to retain the rural feel and history of Meridian. We couldn't agree more that Century Farm is a really well done wonderful community. In fact, Toll acquired a piece of that master plan and developed it under the name of Orchard Creek. But it's important to note what they provide in this excellent example. If you compare our density and lot sizes and open space you can see that Cedarbrook has lower density, larger lots and more open space. Simison: Deborah, if you can wrap up, please. Nelson: I can. Thank you, Mayor. I don't need to go through these conditions of approval, because we did address them in our written communication and responsible to the staff report. They simply incorporate the concessions that we have agreed to that I just walked through as conditions of approval that we will be happy to accept and I would stand for your questions. Thank you. Simison: Thank you very much. Council, any questions for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Sonya or if someone on staff could bring up the slides about the school capacity. I will just start while we are pulling it up. I think what I'm struggling with -- I feel like I'm hearing two different stories and I -- I don't want to burden staff with something that --that can't be accomplished here, but I guess -- I'm trying to square this information on school capacity with the public testimony that was provided in written form by Annette Alonso, who also had a conversation with Joe Yochum regarding school capacity and following her math it looked pretty clear that the schools in this area would be at least 200 kids over capacity pro forma for this development and I'm just -- I'm struggling to figure out fact from fiction. I was curious if the applicant could just comment further on your conversations with the school district and I understand that we have the virtual schoolhouse, but I'm assuming that the Coronavirus situation won't last forever. I'm hopeful that it won't. Could you, please, comment further on your conversation specifically with the school district and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 61 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 38 of how they will handle this additional influx of students. Especially in light of approved developments. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, the Toll development team met with Joe Yochum at the school district on two different occasions, on February 28th and on June 29th and coordinated closely with their GIS analyst as well. They received information from the GIS analyst Eric on numerous occasions, including in particular on May 19th and in those discussions they did receive confirmation of the numbers that we have presented and that the school district was comfortable with the addition of this development. Obviously, what I have presented here is -- is current capacity. It also is looking toward projected capacity for 2020. The school district does take into account additional developments that are approved. As you know that's how they make some of their projections for going forward, so that they understand what the student load is going to be and based on the numbers that we have for the fall of '19 from actual numbers and for projection of 2020, they did not have any concerns with this development. We did also talk to them about-- I guess I don't have control over this. If you wouldn't mind advancing to the next slide. Because I think this is also responsive to your question. Looking at the district wide where the school district is taking into account all of the capacity, you have to think about some of this new capacity that's coming online and so district wide, but they also have -- they are keeping ahead of the capacity, ahead of enrollment from actual 2019 numbers and projected 2020 numbers and that's before any of this funded and programmed capacity comes into play that would cover these projected growth patterns, but perhaps are what is referred to in Ms. Alonso's testimony. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Deborah, if I --just on one point on this one. I mean I understand the Mountain View High expansion number, but that's really just replacing portables. That's -- there are -- they are not going to reduce or add more than what they currently have at that school. They are just in some portables now and they will be in physical structures. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, that -- those are the numbers in addition to -- for capacity that came from the school district. Simison: I understand that. But just to put it in perspective, that's not -- they are not adding that much more space at Mountain View High School. It actually just is going to remove the portables that are currently there for that space that they are currently occupying. It's a net zero essentially currently for the Mountain View expansion. Unless they decide to keep the portables there, but that's not their intention. So, that would make the 3,000 students -- Nelson: Mr. Mayor, if -- if the Council would like I do have some additional information that's broader to the West Ada --Ada School District that I can provide an additional slide if you would like. It's later in the presentation. I didn't have time to get to everything. But if you want -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 62 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 39 of Simison: I think Council Woman Strader has another question, so I will defer to her. Nelson: Yeah. Strader: Certainly, I would love to see the additional information in a minute. I mean I'm trying -- trying to just follow the math; right? So, right now the school district is very close to capacity based on 2019 actual numbers. If I give them the benefit of new school capacity of 3,000 units and I know that approximately -- call it 2,000 kids graduate per year, maybe I get to 5,000 or 6,000 in capacity. From what I understand from information I have received as part of the budgeting process, we have 7,500 units that are approved and entitled in the City of Meridian. So, I think the piece that's missing for me that I would like us to just work on collectively is what have we approved that we think will be delivered, so we can ourselves check as a city our own numbers on -- on -- with the school district's help on expected capacity and really what we think will be delivered from our end on what we have approved. I'm probably just boring everyone to death, because I keep bringing this up and I apologize that I'm very stuck on it. So, yes, I would love to see your additional slide. Nelson: May I have control of it? Okay. It's not advancing for me. There it goes. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, if I may respond to that. Council Member Strader, we have heard you say that question before. We understand the -- your line of questioning. It is outside the scope of our development. You know, we -- we presented to you the numbers that impact Cedarbrook, but we are not deaf to your question and so we did ask the school district for the current plotted lots. I believe this was as of this week. So, it's 13,840 plotted lots in the West Ada School District as a whole and the way that the school district projects growth in that, they multiply that number times point eight, I think as -- as you know, per lot, to estimate the number of students. They expect that those students will be generated from these various approved preliminary plats that may or may not come to fruition and are phased in over a period of time. They assume that will come in over a ten year period or approximately 1,100 new students per year. When you compare that to capacity, West Ada has planned capacity to cover that approved group and we have added the suitable numbers here, which is just at 26 students per year under that math, so it hardly impacts it. But if you look down at the tables below at current growth and capacity, you can see that the projected capacity stays ahead of the projected enrollment. The school district is planning forward as they look at updated preliminary plat numbers. As I know you know, the further the projection goes out it's not funded yet. That is part of the cycle. The newer immediate construction, the ones I highlighted, you know, are funded, they are bonded, they begin construction. The further out the projection goes they aren't yet funded, but that's just the nature of it, that they can't all be done at once. The school district has said very clearly in their capacity plan that they won't begin looking for a new school until they have the capacity numbers that would fill a new school and so, you know, they -- but they are, nonetheless, staying ahead of -- their projected capacity is ahead of projected enrollment. So, I hope that helps. This is what we have been able to acquire from West Ada. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 63 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 40 of Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: If the staff could, please, print me a copy of this slide, because I'm going to need a few minutes myself just to look at the data. Just to clarify, does the school district have a funding source only for the capacity expansion projects you showed on the previous first slide or do they have funding for additional expansion? And the reason I'm asking is, as we know, their supplemental levy recently failed. From what I understand they do not have a funding source to build additional schools. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, my understanding is from the school district that that list is a funded list that's under construction and does not include -- you know, for example, Blue Valley Elementary that was postponed from the choice about the bond. Simison: And, Deborah, I think you hit on it at least from a -- talk about schools. You know, if you look at the numbers who showed about the capacity, it's approximately 2,400 in high school, you know, so it's a very disproportionate number of stuff and in south Meridian elementary is the largest issue related to growth, specifically in the Hillsdale area, but it extends throughout the entire area and the two that are on there are in north Meridian from an elementary standpoint. So, it isn't always apples to apples, the numbers. The numbers are what the numbers are. The reality is sometimes somewhere between with what the numbers say for the different parts of the community. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, I completely understand and agree. Strader: Mr. Mayor, just one more. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: And, then, I will move off of this, because I'm just beating it to death today. I'm sorry, guys. I guess the last thing I would just say, hopefully -- hopefully everyone can hear me. I just -- if the school district is listening, I highly urge you to provide this same information and these same projections directly to city staff with our Planning Department so we can have a real conversation about the growth in Meridian, because it is an endless frustration for me that this information is provided to an applicant, but it's not being provided directly to the city. Unless I'm wrong. But my understanding is that it hasn't been and that, for me creates an untenable position where I have to choose between one set of facts that was very good from our applicant and, then, facts that are being given by the public without the actual source of the data providing the facts to us. Sorry. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: That's a hard one to follow. Well said, Council Woman Strader. Ms. Nelson, thanks for your presentation. Appreciate you being here tonight. I kind of want to dovetail Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 64 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 41 of a little bit off of Council Member Strader's questions. If I remember correctly from the staff report, this is a seven phase project. I didn't hear you -- and maybe I missed it -- touch on kind of the -- the calendaring of the plan for all seven phases, when one would begin and when the second phase would begin, so on and so forth and if you, in your comments, can articulate which proposed phases would touch on the various densities that are outlined -- you have that great map that shows kind of the three densities of your project. I think if you can highlight on that it would be very very helpful. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, let me see if I can -- I don't know that I have at my fingertips every answer to your questions, so I may need to call upon others to help, but at least here you can see the scale, the ordering, and also the development timing and so land development would begin in early 2021. So, next year. Homebuilding would begin summer 2021 . Occupancy of the very first phase would be in early 2022. There are years that are attached to each phase, you can see in this exhibit as well, that are estimated at this point, but that is the current plan. Cavener: Perfect. Thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: One question to follow up on Council Woman Strader's line of questioning. Deb, when the -- when you met with the school district and in light of, you know, this project, but also Brundage and Biltmore and Stapleton, did they provide to you locations of lots - - properties that they own for future, you know, unfunded, unplanned, but eventual school sites around this area and is there anything in the K-8 range near this development, at land from the school district? Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, my understanding -- but I believe it's more perhaps from looking at the facilities plan, but maybe also from Toll's discussions with the school district is that there is a -- a future high school site and a future elementary site near this property along Linder, but I don't have more specifics than that. I'm sorry. I -- in the facilities plan they do lay out general regions for future development and -- but I think largely it is in response to need. Borton: Understood. Okay. Thanks. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: I think that's Councilman Hoaglun or -- Hoaglun: Okay, Mr. Mayor. Question for Ms. Nelson. In your testimony you talked about removing properties on that western border and I'm looking at the phasing. Is this -- it Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 65 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 42 of looks like that's -- that's one -- was one of the original proposed phasing and platting of -- it looks like there is more properties along those Ada county rural properties than there are in the one -- the newly submitted -- submitted one; is that correct? Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, that's correct. This is the old lot layout. Hoaglun: Okay. And you said -- Mr. Mayor, to follow up -- reduced by about 14 properties. So, about -- that's what -- where is the area of those were reduced? Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, it perhaps would be easiest to look at the transitional zoning. I think that may answer your -- your question the best. You can see in the R-2 zone this is -- this is also the -- the previous plan and in that R-2 zone, which is pink here, we eliminated five lots in our recent concession that we have offered to the Council if you want to impose that condition to further increase the lot sizes and reduce the density in that R-2 zone. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. Ms. Nelson, so that would increase the lot size to the half acre, if not a little more in size? Nelson: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Hoaglun, that's right. We are committed to a minimum half acre, which means that some of them necessarily range up to two-thirds and that's all along the perimeter. Hoaglun: Thank you. Simison: Council, anything further at this time? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Borton. Borton: It's not here on the -- in the presentation, but to state the -- that facilities plan which is referenced, the school district's facilities plan does -- does reference school sites that they have planned for for future should -- should future funding arise and it's near this property. Simison: Yes, that is correct. There is future places near this property when funding is there. Okay. Thank you very much. Nelson: Thank you. Simison: Okay. This is a public hearing. Madam Clerk. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we had several people sign in. Mindy Lin is the first who wished to testify. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 66 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 43 of Simison: Okay. As your name is called if you would come forward or raise your hand on the Zoom app and you will be recognized for three minutes and, please, state your name and address for the record prior to starting your testimony. Lin: My name is Mindy Lin. Address is 4262 South Rustler. Can you hear me? Simison: Yes, we can. Lin: Okay. I actually -- I signed up to speak, as did my neighbor Wayne Martin, who is actually out of town (unintelligible) combine our time and our statements if that's okay and I would still be under the three minutes. Simison: You have three minutes. Lin: So, I will start with Wayne. Wayne is on record saying I would like it to be known at this evening's meeting for Toll Brothers have been nothing but divisive throughout this entire process. They have met with most of us on an individual basis and each time we were told something different than what they were actually planning on doing. I was personally told by (unintelligible) in New Jersey that they would provide one acre to three- quarter acre lots on the R-2 boundary and those homes would be one story. I think I explained that privacy was paramount for us and they both agreed with me. I also told Mr. Capell in New Jersey that they would -- that they would -- I was also told by them that they would create a six foot berm with a six foot fence on top of that with well populated trees and other vegetation. They also promised to stub out services for our rural community to take advantage of. Mr. Capell and Mr. (unintelligible) both agreed that they would provide the same writing as they told others the same prior to any city council meeting. I have attempted three times to reach out to them without a response. In my last face to face meeting with Mr. Capell and Mr. (unintelligible) I told them how disappointed I was that they did -- to pit one neighbor against another. I told both of them we did not want to get in the middle of any -- of any arguing. In their own words they have tried very hard to pit neighbor against the other. Most of the neighbors in these two communities are very close and most of us are very good friends. I find it despicable that they have -- that they have went to such lengths to attempt to separate our opinions from one another. I would like it to be known we are all on a united front and understand progress is necessary, but we also understand there is a right way to proceed and a wrong way. Toll Brothers has opted for the latter and has been very deceitful throughout the process. At this point I do not see Toll Brothers as a good neighbor, nor a good business partner for the City of Meridian. Each of us in these two neighborhoods have worked hard to obtain what we have. We chose these neighborhoods because we wanted the rural lifestyle that southern Meridian provided. Please do not allow Toll Brothers to take from us what we all love so much. Mr. Mayor and City Council, I, myself, would like to end my three minutes by pointing out what we all understand. In addition to burdening our schools, leap frogging over open land to develop this far out, it's important to remind this developer and future developers that in order for good reputations to remain intact, relationship management have to be prioritized. While they may have lovely presentations, make no mistake how they operate behind the scenes proves Toll Brothers Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 67 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 44 of does not understand this philosophy. You should know that we were recently told by the Toll Brothers representative that Toll Brothers and this model were already charted by the city as a model for developers breaking into rural communities. If this is the case the city is in trouble. We have consistently asked for one acre minimum transition. However, as Toll Brothers continues to refuse to work with us or put anything in writing, continues to respond to requests and makes changes at the 11th hour, even as late as last night at 10:30, continues to pick and choose neighbors to work with, while boasting that they have the model the city wants established, their strategy to divide and conquer has neighbors who are worn down from a year of lies and charades and now fearful that they should settle off the less out of worry for that -- that the city will not hold to their statements that occurred back in December. Please uphold what was said in December and protect our rural property by not approving the plan with anything less than one acre for R-2 and single story homes as an appropriate transition between our homes. As you will hear tonight from Mrs. Ward's testimony, there are so many other things that have been requested still not in writing at this point and we desperately need your help. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, next we have Wendy Webb, who has signed up speaking on behalf of the Southern Rim Coalition. Simison: If you could speak into that microphone real well so Councilman Hoaglun can hear you. Webb: If you don't mind I'm going to take off my mask -- my mask, because I know my voice is very soft to begin with. Good evening, Mayor Simison and City Council Members. For the record my name is Wendy Webb. My address is 2299 East Lodge Trail Drive in Meridian, Idaho. Thank you for allowing me a few minutes of your time tonight. I hope you have all had the opportunity to review the Southern Rim Coalition's thoughts that were submitted on this application. The amount of documents on this application are very impressive. I'm impressed that you have had the time to look at so much of them. In short, you have heard it all before. Please set the standard high. We have been really impressed with this new City Council, what a great job you are doing in that regard. Our biggest concerns as always are quality open space, proper lot transition, emergent services, schools, pathways, you know -- you know what we are concerned about. Tonight I'm hoping to give you some additional insight into the schools for this particular development. Like Council Woman Strader, I am also very zeroed in on the schools. I'm very concerned about our community and the capacity of our district. I have put together a little presentation to help us better understand the situation. So, go to the next slide. Do I have control over that? Okay. You have to forgive me, too, this is -- oh. Okay. Here we are. The first letter -- or the first line -- oh. Thank you. That would be much easier. The first line talks about how West Ada has experienced significant and sustained growth in student enrollment during the last ten years. Many of our schools throughout the district are operating at or above capacity. So, to start out with the district has told us -- most of their schools -- many of their schools are operating at or above capacity. With this new development -- next page -- Cedarbrook will have 330 homes. The other developments Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 68 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 45 of in the area that are feeding into the same schools are 1 ,550. Now, I have to tell you it is labor intensive to go through the city application and try and figure out how many residential units are planned. I put 1 ,550 plus, because I wasn't able to find numbers for what's left in Caven Ridge Estates, what's left in Ridgeline Estates, or what's in Southridge. And understand Southridge is an apartment complex, so the numbers are even lower. So, just so you know, it's 1,550 plus homes. Now, you add the Cedarbrook homes, that makes it 1,880 new homes feeding into those schools, which with the school board's -- the school district's calculation that creates 1 ,540 new students to feed into those schools. The elementary approximately 770 new student. Mary McPherson can take 69 of those students. That leaves 701 students. Okay. Now, granted, we are hoping -- hoping, hoping, hoping that more schools will pass in bonds, but let's just say 30 percent of those homes are built before Blue Valley comes, which is really reasonable looking at the slide a few minutes ago at early -- you know, the earliest we are going to get it would be the fall of '23. A hundred and sixty-two students will still need to attend other schools before that school even comes online. The middle school will be approximately 385 students that could feed to the middle school. Victory can take 31 . They are also competing with the rest of south Meridian where we have over 1 ,700 new homes that have been approved in the other area of just east of that. Victory can take 31 of those students. That leaves 354 students in this area to be bused to other schools and there are no other middle schools planned in the near future. A few months ago I went to a school board meeting and they talked about growth. I think, if I remember right, there is a site just north of Amity across from the new YMCA that's slotted for a middle school. If I remember right it was like '27 or something that -- when we thought it could be built. But that's -- you know, those projections could change. I'm not sure where the middle school students would go, to be honest with you. High school. There is approximately 385 students from this area. They will go to Meridian High School at this time. Meridian High School has the capacity, they can take all 385 of those students. That might change as other developments in the city add to Meridian High School's population. We all ask is this a boundary problem. That's a valid, valid question. I'm not sure that it is. (Unintelligible). Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, could you have Wendy -- I think she's turning her head, because she has -- she says a couple words and, then, a couple disappear, so -- Webb: Okay. I will try not to move. That's hard. Okay. So, Pleasant View came online and it didn't change any of our boundaries. That kind of makes me wonder and think that it's not a boundary problem. I also know that moving children to different schools frequently can be hard on their emotional and social well-being. And, then, I know that reportedly last October, talking to Joe Yochum, he said that there were a thousand empty seats in the elementary schools in West Ada. So, we know through the years some of those seats filled, but if you just take those thousand seats and you spread them over the 34 schools that are West Ada District, that gives each school less than 29 seats that are extra in the school and that's having the school classroom size be a size of 30. 1 -- I am not in favor of first grade classrooms having a capacity of 30 and so that's kind of a high number there. So, with approximately 24 classes per school, that's just like one, give or Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 69 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 46 of take, per home. Really that's not much of a cushion. I think the Kuna School District needs to have that kind of a -- Borton: Your audio is fading in and out again, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Yeah. Would you like to testify from the other location or do we want to use a -- try a different -- I know we have a handheld. Try that one. Webb: Maybe that will accommodate my moving. Sorry. Okay. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I apologize. Now it's totally no sound. Simison: They are working on turning the microphone on. Borton: Oh. Okay. Simison: Can you hear anything now from the applicant? Can you talk for a second? Webb: Can you hear me? Borton: No. Faint at best. Simison: Just want to make it so that -- so they can use the machine to advance their own slides and things of that nature. Try that. While they are getting set up, just for -- some of analysis that you are seeing is what the new position will be doing. Just a little bit more detail, because what they did showcase here was not the full boundary for Meridian High School, which has a fairly large boundary, which has a lot more development, but you get a fuller picture as well. Just so some of my Council Members know what will be coming soon. The position starts on Monday, so -- Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor, are you saying at the next Council meeting we will have some information? Simison: No. Soon. Johnson: Mayor and Council, this is Chris. Can you hear me in here? Simison: Yes. Johnson: Okay. We are going to ask Sonya to advance the slides out there. I'm going to turn Wendy over -- I couldn't bring it up. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 70 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 47 of Webb: I'm not a technology girl. Simison: Okay. Wendy, whenever you are ready to continue. Webb: Okay. Can you hear me? Hoaglun: Yes. Simison: Yes. Webb: Great. Okay. I'm trying to remember where it was at. Hopefully you remember where I'm at with the slides. I don't see the slides yet in front of me. I don't know if they are coming up. Okay. Thank you. Can you hear me still? Borton: Yes. Webb: Okay. Let's move on to the next slide. Just -- just to give you an idea of when they say a school is overcrowded or at capacity, these are some samples that we saw at Hillsdale in the last couple of years in 2018-2019 school year sixth grade classes were at 38, 39 and 39 students per class. This was documented by school staff. Only one teacher stayed for the next year. Imagine that. They were worn out. In 2019-2021 school year first grade classroom -- classes had approximately 31 students. As quoted by a parent, all the first grade classes were around the same number. The classroom limit for first grade is supposed to be 26. And Mary McPherson, which is the elementary school in this area that we are talking about tonight, cannot physically hold as many bodies as a -- as a Hillsdale classroom. They are really really small. I -- I was told by a parent that 25 is - - is pretty top end. Going to the next slide. So, our question where is the breaking point. As you know rapid growth is outpacing the school -- the school district's build after demand model. Neighborhood schools are overcrowded necessitating busing. District schools don't have capacity. No alternative funding for building schools is out there. And the bonds simply can't keep up. Parents just this week, where are the kids going to go to school? We always put the kids last when they are our future. Two weeks ago a Kuna realtor said you don't want to buy in Meridian, their schools are overcrowded. So, we all know that. With that letter I had a question about the last sentence where they said school capacity and transportation is addressed in Idaho Code. Future development will continue to have an impact on the district's capacity. I put the Idaho Code there. I don't completely understand it. I think it would be great if we understood what the school district meant by that sentence and maybe what Council translates that sentence to mean. Just one of my thoughts. It's a community problem. I -- I am not a finger pointer. I don't ever believe in laying blame on one person. I think the developers have good plans. It's not reflecting on them. It's just reflecting on our community. We need to work together and come up with a solution. And this final slide is not for children in Kuna, Nampa, or Boise. And that is all I have for you tonight, unless you have further questions. Simison: All right. Thank you, Wendy. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 71 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 48 of Strader: Mr. Mayor, I will take a bite. It's Liz. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, Wendy, for doing this amazing amount of analysis on your own. think it just speaks to your passion on this topic. Out of the developments that you analyzed to get to the different numbers you were talking about, the 770 elementary students, middle school, et cetera, are these developments that have already been approved and are entitled or what -- like how did you choose that population of new developments that are being delivered. Webb: Those are developments -- those are developments that already have been approved. As far as I know. Unless I have something wrong. I have tried to be really careful, but those are developments that have already been approved. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Council, any other questions? Borton: No. Simison: Thank you. Madam Clerk. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we have Kenzie, who signed up to speak on behalf of Rock Ranch Estates. Simison: It might be better to go in the room, just -- Council appears to be hearing better. Hoaglun: Yes, Mr. Mayor. And appreciate Wendy accommodating us. She had important things to say and definitely wanted to hear -- hear that, so we appreciate her making that switch. Ward: Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council Members. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak and share our concerns. My name is Kenzie Ward. I live at 4605 South Rock Ranch Lane and am representing my neighborhood Rock Ranch Estates. As immediate neighbors to the proposed Cedarbrook Subdivision we would like to share our concerns regarding several aspects of this application. All meetings with Toll Brothers have been held. Our concerns have not been properly met and we would like to see changes made to the proposed plan. It was a long road to get here, but I can tell you first none of us -- none of us want this development here. None of us want 332 neighbors. None of us want our schools to become even more overcrowded. None of us want the inevitable traffic congestion from the 3,334 vehicle trips this development will add per day for our two lane, four way country stop -- four way stop country roads that do not have improvements planned in the next ten years. None of us want our amazing views of beautiful farmland and mountain ranges to replace -- be replaced by rooftops. Some of us have been more vocal than others, but none of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 72 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 49 of us approve of this development. However, we are here to try to make this development the best we possibly can if it is to be approved. Throughout this process that began last year with the comp plan meeting with these spots to protect our rural lifestyle and agricultural practices, however, our rural designation was removed and we are now considered low density. However, this medium density development is not abutting low density whatsoever as is indicated on the future land use map. Our subdivisions are not three houses per acre. They are not even one house per three acres. Our neighboring properties are absolutely rural with one house on five acres or more. This is a medium density development neighboring rural estate properties. This makes your job as our city leaders so incredibly important and we look to you and your promises made last year during the comp plan meeting. So, hold true to your word. Commissioner Seal also remembered those promises made to protect rural residents from these encroaching developments as he spoke at the P&Z meeting on May 7th. When referring to continuing with larger lots around the perimeter he said, quote: 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, 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. End quote. Councilman Borton also spoke in support of protecting rural heritage and agricultural principles at the December 17th meeting, as well as protecting our area of southern Meridian by saying, quote: The open space in the rural context of southern Meridian in particular, in some circumstances it very well may be a one acre lot or two acre lot is the transition. It's a case by case basis. One acre might be too small for a transition. End quote. We absolutely agree with you, Councilman Borton. We are asking you to follow through with the promises of a proper transition when the time came and that time is now. We are asking for a minimum of one acre lots along both the western and southern border to transition from this dense development for a wide open space at the south. Commissioner Seal and Cassinelli were not in favor of approving this development and wanted to see the R-2 zone around the southern perimeter, not just along the western edge as proposed in the plat. We would also like to see the one acre lots around the perimeter, west, southwest and south perimeter to be a minimum of 200 feet wide with only single story houses in order to reduce the impact on our view shed. Another huge concern we have is that the promises that Toll Brothers have said they would put into writing are nowhere to be seen in the application that I can find, nor have they been put into writing and given to those promised, as Mindy's testimony and Wayne's testimony said. They have made promises of a four foot berm with landscaping and a six foot wood style vinyl fence along the perimeter and you can see in their final pre-plat landscaping there is nothing along the perimeter as far as berms and landscaping goes. Those are only five lots as specified in the update -- as of 2:00 o'clock this afternoon that they said they will put in a berm and fence, which is not acceptable. To quote Commissioner Seal from the P&Z meeting again, quote: I think if they are going to do a berm with trees and a fence along part of the -- that border, that they should do a berm, a fence, and trees along all of it and make it all R-2, even to the southwest and south portion of this and we absolutely agree. The promised berm and landscaping to serve as a buffer along the entire western and southern perimeters, including the Radfords and the Lowes properties Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 73 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 50 of to the south who also have five plus acre properties. Without that berm as a buffer there is nothing but a fence between our rural properties. Other promises have been made that they will stub utilities, including fiber optic internet to the property lines of both Stetson and Rock Ranch. Again, that is not anywhere in their plan, including their revisions letter that was updated on June 29th and we would like to have that in writing. Other than the one acre lots, the single story homes around the perimeter, we are only asking that the promises that have been made to our residents are actually put into writing in their plan, which includes a four foot berm along the western and the southern perimeter with trees, bushes and a six foot wood style vinyl fence, as well as the utilities stubbed to the property lines. We would also ask for there to be a provision in the development agreement that the homes will not be investor owned. Tolls Brothers has implemented a strategy when meeting with neighbors to divide and conquer and it appears to be exactly that, a strategy to divide the neighborhood individually so that Toll Brothers can say and promise whatever they want without it being refuted by others. The company absolutely needs to be held to a higher standard and not allowed to cut corners. We do not believe Toll Brothers will follow through with any of these promises unless they are forced to keep them. So, we asked you, our city leaders, please, do not approve this development without all promises in writing and in the development agreement, so that when it comes down to it we have something to hold them accountable to you. Thank you for your time and consideration. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, last on our list is Paula Connelly. Connelly: Good evening, Mayor. Can you hear me? Simison: We can, Paula. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. Connelly: My name is Paula Connelly. I live at 3878 South Rustler Lane and I'm here to represent Stetson Estates. Simison: Okay. You will be recognized for ten minutes. Connelly: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. The testimony I prepared last night was very lengthy and they were well prepared and this morning I woke up to an e-mail and to my surprise I had an e-mail from -- from Toll Brothers and that has totally kind of put my testimony off kilter. So, I apologize for anything that seems discombobuled. I am very frustrated with this whole process. Part of my frustration is getting the e-mail at 10:00 o'clock at night and when I find that in the morning I am trying to revise it while I'm at work all day trying to run my husband's and my business. My second frustration is that the city and the Planning Department allowed changes at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. As you could see and was pointed out by one of the Council Members earlier, the slides that Toll Brothers was using tonight didn't even have the accurate count number of properties on them, because what they are proposing now was turned in at 2:00 o'clock. That does not allow people to have any kind of time to prepare, especially when you are working or you are trying to run businesses, when you need to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 74 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 51 of try and communicate with neighbors because, as it's been stated before, we are a very close knit neighborhood, we do things together, we do communicate and we have been trying to be a united front on this. So, please, forgive me if this is a little bit off. I will stand for questions at the end for clarity if you need it, because I have completely rewritten my speech since sitting here this evening. It is our position as a community -- we are committed to one acre parcels (unintelligible) submitted until 2:00 p.m., today, leaving us no time for communication. We believe that there should be a minimum of ten days that should be required by the City Planning Department and the city as a whole to have this complete, so people have time to prepare. With that in mind I replied to say that Stetson Estates would like to see one acre parcels as a transition between our communities and Cedarbrook. The Cedarbrook application on page 11 states that Toll Brothers is willing to take our concerns into consideration providing an increased rear setback of 30 feet, instead of the required 15 feet to provide enhanced building separation and greater privacy. If you look at the picture on the upper left of the screen, those are landscape stakes that are staked 30 feet from my back house. That's 30 feet. I understand that's a minimum, but that is not a transition. I'm a very visual person, so let's take -- look at the next picture. The picture on the upper right is a picture of a 300 -- excuse me -- 3,556 square foot home on a half acre. As you can see, there is still not a very large transition in the back. I find it interesting that in their presentation they tout that there is 280 feet between our houses and where their houses will fit with that 30 foot setback. That transition comes from our rural properties, not what they are putting in. That's not a proper transition to what we already have and is existing and in the (unintelligible) 3.07.01A it states that all new developments are to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screenings, transitional densities, and other best practices. That means that their transition needs to be on their side of the fence line, not ours. I also find it interesting that while they feel that that is a proper transition, you have to remember that we do practice light agriculture and processing light agriculture -- we just raked our fields today. So, that means I'm not standing 180 feet from my fence line, I'm driving up and down with a tractor or my husband is or somebody else. Okay? I don't stand just at my back house all day long. I'm outside with the cows. I'm outside with the chickens. I'm outside doing all kinds of things. So, yes, their sight line that they say is not going to be an issue for us will be an issue for us when we are not right at our back door. We own properties that we farm on. That's why we want a proper transition. Those one acre lots protect the people who move into Cedarbrook as much as they protect our view sheds, our property values and our privacy. It's up to you to balance the property rights between those that exist and those that want to sell their property to develop. We understand that it's not just our property rights, but as City Council Members it's your awesome responsibility to figure out how do I balance between what's there and what's coming in to make sure that those neighbors become good neighbors. Let me state our position very clearly and, then, I will stand for questions. One acre parcels (unintelligible) would be like vinyl fence centered on the property line (unintelligible) -- Simison: Paula, can you, please, state -- go back to where -- it's about 20 seconds ago. We lost you on the audio. Connelly: What was I -- what was I talking about? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 75 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 52 of Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: If I remember Paula, you were -- you were kind of wanting to state something kind of unequivocally. You wanted to be very direct to a point and, then, at that -- you were getting ready to make your point and you went muffled. Connelly: Was it about agriculture? Cavener: You touched on that. So, it would be shortly thereafter. Again, to the Mayor's point about 20 seconds before we interrupted you. Connelly: Okay. A Voice: Paula, you were making it clear what our expectations -- our ask was. Connelly: Okay. So, let me state our position very clearly. One acre parcels would be the best transition, along with the berm. Awood-like vinyl fence centered on the property line with proper landscape screening provided in the R-2 areas and considering how often we as neighbors have communicated that we would like to have everything in writing, we would like to see an ask that you respectfully remand this project to include the above items and that they would be put into a development agreement to make it binding, so that there are no last minute 2:00 p.m. changes. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Paula. Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mrs. Connelly, thanks for your testimony. A couple of comments and maybe, then, a question for you. One think -- you know, you have kind of kept Council updated and the public updated through your process and want to apologize I think for the frustrations that you felt in information being delivered kind of, you know, to your perspective, last minute. I think staff did a good job -- at least at the Planning and Zoning Commission in kind of articulating where some of that -- why some of that happens, but I still wanted to apologize on behalf of the Mayor and the Council nevertheless. My question was -- it looks like even as early as this afternoon you have continued to have e-mail conversations with the applicant. I'm just curious if -- some of that is -- that has been updated with us at least from the applicant and I'm just curious if there is any information that you want to share with the Council since the e-mail that we received earlier this afternoon. Connelly: I can tell you from June 30th, last week, there was a planned meeting, both myself and Mindy Lin -- it would have been a little over a week ago we had received Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 76 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 53 of phone calls asking us if we would be willing to accept half acre parcels and those phone calls were both individual and myself I told them I could not commit to that without talking to all of our neighbors, because we had been communicating with each other about those things. Mindy Lin's conversation went the same route. She said we can set up a meeting, but we have to have time to talk to our neighbors, find out if we can all be there. We can have a meeting. We had our meeting on June 30th. They showed up with the same virtual plot of one-third acres, which is very disappointing to us. I'm not sure why they didn't come prepared to show us that half acre just because two of us said we could not communicate that without talking to our neighbors first. And then -- so, they sent over the half acre parcels to us on Wednesday last week. I believe it was in the 5:00, 6:00 o'clock p.m. hour. So, we tried to communicate the next day. Myself and several others were out of town because it was a holiday weekend and even though I was gone I spent my Friday of my 25th anniversary weekend with my husband writing up an e-mail and a proposal to counterproposal to them that we got sent back later -- I think in the 7:00, 8:00 o'clock time frame that evening and so it's frustrating because everything takes a little bit of time and, then, once we sent the proposal off I heard nothing on Monday until 10:00 p.m. Well, I'm already in bed. I have got my -- my stuff all written out and, then, they send it. I get up this morning, I see it, and I have to go to work. I don't have the luxury -- development isn't my job. I have a business with my husband that I'm trying to run and so I'm trying to do that all day and check applications and see what's been turned in. I start rewriting and revising some things, because I'm asking to see if the half acre plots have been turned in. On my lunch hour it had not been turned in, so I thought I was good to go, and, then, it -- you know, I come to find out one of my neighbors text me at 2:00 o'clock or 2:30 and she says they have turned stuff in. So, I think what I want to communicate to City Council and to the staff is if you don't allow and have a set time frame of when things could -- can be turned in or have to be turned in, we as a community struggle being involved and I know you guys are always asking the community members be involved in your process and it's not that we don't want to be involved, we find it frustrating for these -- for things that are like this. Any other questions? Simison: Council, any other questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a comment. I also feel for you and empathize and -- and we can hear the frustration in your voice. I know, you know, we have some process planning initiatives that are underway and I think we should just take that feedback to heart. You know, we really need to have a process that's fair for everyone. You are -- you know, a lot of people are working families. I get it. You don't have time to be checking this at the last minute. I couldn't agree more. So, thank you for staying part of the process, though, and for not giving up on it and still showing up tonight. We appreciate that. Connelly: Any other questions? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 77 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 54 of Simison: Council, any other questions? Okay. I understand we have reached the end of our people who have signed up at this point in time. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to testify or anybody who would like to testify on Zoom? You can do so by raising your hand and the clerk will identify you. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, online the first person to raise their hand was Denise. I will go ahead and move her over. Simison: Okay. Denise, if you could state your name and address for the record, please. You will have to unmute yourself. There you go. LaFever: Hi. My name is Denise LaFever. I live at 6706 North Salvia Way. One of the individuals that's been involved in this they asked me if I would take a look at the application process and I was actually quite surprised when I looked at the number of changes from P&Z to City Council and I was trying to go back through and track the open spaces, the plat, you know, some of the -- that changed and there was just -- to me there was just a lot of changes and even when I listened to tonight's testimony and I listened and I watched the plats come up for the staff, the developer, I'm really quite honestly not sure which plat you are going to incorporate in there. The developer brought up one that has these larger acre lot -- I mean these half acre transition lots. The staff had two different plots within their own -- within their own presentation. There was a really nice open space, one that was done at one time that had a connection on the -- on the west side that connected the neighborhoods with a pathway for any future expansion and those were different in the staff report. One of the things -- I did see they made a lot of changes to the amenities in the open space, which, you know, the amenities that they changed from the time I went to P&Z to the time where it is now is great. One of the concerns that I have -- and it was my brainchild. The developer had said that Century Farms had less open space in it. Just a reminder that the linear parkway, which was added into the calculation for qualified open space, that was a change that was done after Century Farm and that is now allowed to be in that calculation. In addition to that, when I go back and I looked at that, the other thing that came up was the lateral amenities. Yes, linear parks was something that I talked about when we were on the -- on steering committee and -- and I talked about using lateral areas as an amenity, but this one -- this one is not really vetted out very well. We talked about making them nice amenities so they don't become weeds. You're putting boulders in it, having -- having a pathway along it and really making it a feature in the neighborhood. This one here from what I see is just -- it's not really well vetted out and what I would hate to see is just like a concrete lateral out there that doesn't have a pathway, that's not incorporated, that's not an amenity and -- but, yet, it's a way to go back through and have a calculation within the open space. So, I guess when I look back at that, I mean lot size, width change, access change, setbacks changed, and amenities changed, open space changed. And right now I -- I know that one of the things that I just heard on this last conversation was there was a letter between the developer and the homeowners association, which is something that at bare minimum they may be agreeable to, but yet that's not incorporated into the Council's decision tonight and I'm going to leave with this. I'm still not sure what plat you guys are looking at approving. would like to see you guys send it back to P&Z and get all these staff reports updated. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 78 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 55 of Simison: Council, any questions for Denise? Okay. Thank you very much. Up next it looks like we have Sally Reynolds. Weatherly: That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Reynolds: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council, I'm actually out of state. Can you hear my audio okay? Simison: We can. State your name and address for the record, please. Reynolds: Certainly. My name is -- sure. My name is Sally Reynolds. My address is 1166 West Bacall Street in Meridian. I have served on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan steering committee in 2019 and I'm currently part of the city's open space and amenities work group. A major finding during the comp plan process was that residents wanted increased open space. Open space contributes to the city's overall livability and economic sustainability. The open space survey substantiated this. Some respondents defined open space as public parks, pathways, and gathering spaces and other said it's nature reserves or the preservation of farmland and ag practices. While not available as a survey choice, some residents often defined open space as the spacing between houses or what do they want to see when they drive down the road. There is an overall feeling that Meridian is becoming too dense and they see open space as a way to alleviate that. So, they don't necessarily want all open space to be usable by the public, they just don't want to live in a community where all they see is lines of black roof tops melding together in an unending stream of cookie cutter neighborhoods. Now, the Rustler Lane and Rock Ranch areas are two areas in Meridian that add character, variety, and open space to Meridian. They are rare estate properties with nature and farming capabilities. They are working and paying to maintain prime open space in Meridian without the city needing to maintain a city park, buy rural farmland to preserve it, or fund a nature reserve through taxpayer or developer impact fees. The Cedarbrook development is sandwiched between two low density residential areas, which really should have been labeled low -- ultra low density or rural. Throughout the comp plan process the entire steering committee, which included P&Z Commissioners, was aware of this unique square mile and as Ms. Ward quoted Commissioner Seal's comments, that was shown. Last year residents gave copious testimonies about retaining the rural designation or at least an ultra low density designation because we knew it was the only path to ensure proper transition between rural properties and new developments. Now, despite over 400 signatures on a petition and public testimony that did not happen. For me this is not a matter of has the developer offered the current residents enough or eliminated enough lots to, you know, try and justify their one half acre transitions. My question is a matter of principle. Do we believe that one third to one acre lots are really an adequate transition from five acre rural estate lots? And I'm going to add a sidebar here, just because of Ms. Connelly's testimony that a large single level home on a half acre lot is really going to eat up the majority of that lot. That footprint. And so what will that transition look like as residents drive down the road? Will it look like -- Simison- Sally, we lost you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 79 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 56 of Reynolds: -- a condition to have at least one row of one acre transitional lots. It would give a less jarring transition to the MDR neighborhood and maintain that rural feel and open space -- space that residents are so desperately asking for. The very least we can do is review this application on the case-by-case process it was promised and up -- and think of both the property rights of existing owners and the future that will be in Cedarbrook. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Sally. Just so you know, we lost your audio for about 15, 20 seconds. I don't know if you realize that or not. Reynolds: I was wondering -- I think it was just where I said it's one thing to have MDR right up against a berm on a housing -- was it that part that you missed? Simison: It was right after you said -- talked about a half acre home or a large home on a half acre. It went out right after that. Reynolds: Okay. So, I will just read that part. It's just -- so, what will the transition look like as residents drive down the road? Will it look like we are waiting for these residents to move out so more MDR can be added and I was saying it's one thing to see MDR as you're driving down the road on a berm, but it's another to see beautiful farms and, then, see three to ten lots abutting it. So, I asked if we could, please, add the condition to have one row of one acre lots for a less jarring transition and uphold the promise of the case- by-case basis that we had discussed previously. Simison: Okay. Thank you very much. I think that covers -- Reynolds: The missing part. Okay. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I apologize for the audio. Simison: I appreciate everyone working and adjusting to our technical challenges. Cavener: Nice to hear from you, Sally. Reynolds: Wonderful to hear from all of you. Thank you and have a great night. Simison: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody else online with their hand raised? Weatherly: Not at this time, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Okay. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Bongiorno. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 80 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 57 of Bongiorno: Thank you. Mayor and City Council, since this particular map is up, I just wanted to make a clarification to Sonya's presentation. I want to make sure that it's very clear that this particular sub has one way in and one way out. The two emergency accesses that are shown on the right do not fulfill the fire code. There is a third access that's not shown, that road that comes in on the east and kind of runs straight and, then, heads up into the corner, there is another emergency access that runs out to Victory. That was the only way that they could build this entire subdivision. So, Bill Parsons and I had a couple of conversations about this particular piece of property, mainly because if Linder was shut down for some reason no one would have had access to their property. It would have been done. So, that was when we worked with Toll Brothers to get that third access that is not shown on any of the maps that goes out to Victory. So, I just want to make sure that everyone understands that there is only one way in and one way out for normal traffic to this subdivision. Everything else is emergency access only. So, from an emergency standpoint it's not ideal, but it is functional. But, again, you're going to have all of that traffic from that entire subdivision going through that one intersection. Simison: Thank you, deputy chief. Well, it does appear that we have anybody else who is looking to testify at this time. Council, are we ready to have the applicant come back up? Okay. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I will try very hard to speak up and, please, let me know if you cannot hear me. I want to address just some of the comments. I will start with school and the comments that we heard from Ms. Webb. Ms. Webb has compiled it sounds like from the number of lots that are proposed in preliminary plats that have been approved, but she attributes them all to taking up capacity in a single year, saying that she came up with a number of 1 ,540 new students just from our immediate area would be added to our area schools. Instead, the correct calculation used by the school district would be to spread that out over a ten year period and, in fact, that -- that calculation has been shown over time -- from the facility plan, if you look at the 20 year average for all schools in the entire district, 927 students have been added and so 1,540 are not going to be added in one year just in our location. So, those numbers don't accurately reflect the immediate capacity demands on -- on these schools. In our meetings with Joe Yochum he did indicate that he expects the Blue Valley to come on in '22. That the new classroom sizes in the Mary McPherson expansion will be larger. I want to address the timing issues that there has been some concerns and response from the City Council and particularly the last comments from Ms. LaFever, just to put it in context. She talked about the number of changes to the application. I just want to be clear that except for the change in the larger perimeter lots that Toll Brothers has come forward with as a concession to the neighbor's demands, all of the other changes are requests by the Planning and Zoning Commission or city staff where they asked for adjustments, they asked for an additional playground, they asked for additional open space and, then, we were asked in the conditions of approval that were presented in the staff report before the Commission to provide that before Council, which we did, and so none of that is new information that wasn't already known that would be provided. It was laid out in the staff report before the Commission. The new information is our effort to continue to work with the neighbors to try to evaluate whether we can expand these lots Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 81 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 58 of and Toll Brothers has taken their request very seriously. The concessions that they have offered with the berming, with the installed improvements, these are significant and costly. Losing lots is costly. And they did try to share this with the neighbors as quickly as possible. As was noted they reached out, there was a meeting, they provided the R-2 example with the larger half acre lots last Wednesday. They also provided the single story exhibit of where they thought that that -- the single story homes could fit there last Thursday. The e-mail that they sent last night was in response to Paula's e-mail that she sent Friday night and so they are trying very hard to update the neighbors, to respond to the neighbors updated concerns and questions. They have worked hard to try to understand and address all of the neighbors' concerns. There was discussion about the transition and the Council's Comprehensive Plan, discussion about transition, and as you all remember, because it was very recent, there was a proposal to require a minimum of one acre lots when you are transitioning to county rural residential and the Council declined to -- Borton: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor? Sorry. Simison: Yes. Borton: The audio is cutting -- fading out again a little bit. Nelson: Is this better? Borton: Not yet, no. Nelson: Council Members, this -- if I stop moving so much does that help? I talk when I move and I move when I talk. Is that any better or do you want me to move? Borton: Very faint here. Bernt: Deb, you're doing fine. Hoaglun: I would call it fuzzy. Simison: Yeah. Maybe if you went into the other room. Nelson: Okay. Hoaglun: And there is the headline. Mayor sends people to their room. Simison: Can you pause the timer. Johnson: Sound check. Can you hear us okay? Borton: Much better. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 82 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 59 of Johnson: Okay. Nelson: Thank you, Council Members, for letting me know you couldn't hear me. I was talking about the Comprehensive Plan update where the Council declined to adopt the one acre minimum adjacent to rural residential, but I know that you still did care a lot about transitional and what you said at that time was that you didn't want to make that a boilerplate rule, you understood that that wouldn't fit in a lot of properties. Instead, you wanted to evaluate where transmission makes sense and you look -- you were looking to numerous factors to take into account and the language that was proposed at that time would have not required any transition if you had a buffer such as a roadway or open space intervening. Here, as I mentioned, we had a roadway removed, we have also got the significant distance from the home. Other factors that should take into account in this case-by-case basis and current circumstances, the changes in topography and all of the concessions that have been made, the single story, the constructed buffers, the double setbacks and maybe most importantly the fact that this property is designated as medium density residential and we are trying to accomplish the Comprehensive Plan's goals. The transition that has been provided here provides that perfect mix that addresses those case specific factors and there was a request from several of the neighbors to put this in writing. We couldn't agree more. That's why we proposed the conditions of approval that we did in the written response to the staff report. We tried to be clear. Some of these were already part of the conditions of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission and we ask to reflect the concessions that we were willing to make, that we have described to the neighbors, and that we have really heard from the neighbors. So, with that I would stand for questions. Simison: Thank you, Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I think what -- you know, a comment I have or a question would be if the school district gave you context for setting their ten year absorption period for this number of units and the reason I'm asking is it's just common sense. I mean I'm looking at your development, your development is delivering units into 2023. This is one of the biggest developments I have seen on Council. Granted I have been here for a short time. So, it is my first rodeo, but I'm thinking, well, you are -- you know, you are delivering your units in a time frame that makes sense from an internal rate of return perspective for your equity investors. So, it just doesn't -- I guess did they give you context for why they would take a ten year period? And, again, I apologize, because it really shouldn't be your responsibility to explain the school district's projections, but if you have additional color on that I would be curious to hear it. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, I will do my best with what I know and I don't try to speak for the school district, but we have learned from meetings from them, but also from their facilities plan and I think that they project over the ten year period, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 83 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 60 of because you don't know exactly how fast developments are going to build out. You don't even know if all preliminary platted lots will be final platted and built. You have families at different stages and there is an in and out through the school district as well as new students come in and others leave and so I -- but what I had cited to in the facilities plan I think is sort of the ground truthing where they looked at a 20 year average and came up with 927 new students in the entire district and so they are planning for that facilities plan was to plan for a thousand new. So, they increased it somewhat. I suspect the next time they come out with a new facilities plan that may be updated further. But they are planning to accommodate that much and that appears to be about what they are getting. I guess I -- one other point. I would remind you, if you -- if you recall the slide we looked at earlier where we had asked the school district for their current preliminary plats and it's just information that you often ask for, Council Member Strader, and when you looked at that number and applied that same formula, it was -- and you divide it over ten years, it was 1,107 students per year. So, not far off from the thousand target. So, that -- it seems to be playing out that way in their planning, in their 20 year history average, and what they have got before them right now with growth. Those are the points that I can -- I can -- I think that are responsive to your question, but I would welcome follow up if I didn't answer you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess just a comment. I think just from where I'm sitting there is a total mismatch and I'm missing something. Clearly I'm missing -- I'm missing some information. We are working on it. You know, our own Planning staff is showing 7,500 units that are approved and entitled, that -- that I think they expect to be delivered in a two to three year time frame in the city from other information I have seen and I guess it's just -- I know we are working on this and I'm happy that this planner is starting soon, Mr. Mayor, to help work on this. This is a big sticking point for me. I will just be really up front. This is a big sticking point for me and I -- I'm just -- I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around a projection that I'm hearing kind of via a game of telephone and no offense, ma'am, but from an applicant telegraphed from the school system who hasn't even done our own planning staff the courtesy of having that direct conversation -- and I really -- I have an issue with that. It's not your issue specifically, but, unfortunately, you are -- you are certainly going to be impacted by it from -- just from my seat, how I'm looking at it. Thanks. Simison: And just to put-- I mean the -- it was a district wide number. There are definitely pockets of the district which absorb a majority that at any point in time based upon where that number is. Could be in Eagle. Could be in north Meridian. Could be a south Meridian. So, the absorption rate differs. It's probably not in the area around Locust Grove and Fairview right now. I think we could all agree on that. Council, any other questions for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 84 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 61 of Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Nelson, thanks for your -- your update to us, kind of just articulating a little bit about the time frame. I recognize you do this on a -- on a fairly regular basis and, obviously, some of the neighbors this is something that -- that is not a regular occurrence for them and so I think at least you articulating that piece to me was helpful. I know that piece is something Council has -- has wrestled with a lot and we received public testimony today and we have really wanted to invite the public the ability to provide testimony up until the 11th hour and maybe we have got to find a better mousetrap to allow for testimony, but for the public to be able to testify on what's going to be before Council. But that's -- that's a conversation for another day. Ms. Nelson, my question was -- you touched a little bit about one story heights and I can't recall what lots were only going to be one story and as you probably well know, Ms. Nelson, we don't -- we don't condition height in Meridian, we -- sorry. We don't condition stories in Meridian, we condition height, and so getting some understanding about what that height maximum is going to be for those single stories -- proposed single stories would be helpful for me. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I probably need my development team to answer what a single story building height is or Sonya maybe knows. Is it 35 feet? Whatever your standard is for that is what they mean by that. They are not trying to push the envelope on whatever the standard single story is. On the agreement was to provide 60 percent along the perimeter of the R-2. At staff's request we delineated that. We selected the -- the properties that were directly in front of the view shed of the existing homes to best improve their views and, you know, that -- that's what we have proposed. Six single story through that R-2 perimeter. And I think that -- I do have a slide for that if that would be helpful, but we have identified exactly which -- which lots just so it could be very clear. Cavener: And it looks like your team is kind of assembling to find that for us, so thank you. I remember seeing the slide. Nelson: Here it is. One back. Two back. Here we go. All of the red lots are single story and they do line up with the view angles of the existing homes looking towards the distant hills. Cavener: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, a question for Ms. Nelson. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Ms. Nelson, while we are on that topic of the half acre lots in the single story, what is the -- the distance from the back of the house to the property line to the west or southwest where -- where those half acre lots are located? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 85 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 62 of Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, those properties have significant setbacks for their homes. They range from over 200 feet to over 400 feet. I can give you specific distances. To our -- to our west there are well over 200 feet for the Robertsons and the Reinhimers. For the Lins 288 feet. For the Martins 385 feet. The Randalls 209 feet. So, that -- that goes along the west and the southwest. So, that the homes are significantly set back, which is one of the existing circumstances that we suggest is very appropriate when you are thinking about how you might provide transition. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And I want to make sure -- does that include their property from the back of the house of the half acre lot to the property line is in some instances 200 feet or is that 200 feet from the back of their house to the back of the other house? Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, the numbers I gave you are the numbers between their house and the property line. On our property we have agreed to increase the setback to double the required setback from 15 feet to 30 feet. You know, obviously, we can't meet rural county estate planning types of setbacks, but between the two of them they create significant distance between the homes. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, to follow-up, a comment and question -- another question that -- yeah. I thought I had heard that it was doubled to 30 feet, but, then, I heard these longer distances and I just wanted to be certain I knew where the longer distances took place. Earlier on when you first did your -- your opening, you provided for me the slide that showed other approved developments and there was a development that was across on the east side of Linder Road, partly to the southeast of the property, and one of my concerns has been about being on the fringe and out there and the capacity for city services -- it costs more the farther out you go adds to the -- Weatherly: Council Member Hoaglun, I think you went on mute. Hoaglun: Sorry about that. But I -- now I know the feeling. Where did I leave off? Nelson: You were talking about the extension services to this area. Hoaglun: Yeah. The extension services just does cost more and I found in my reading where it talked about on the west side this is a mile to -- to the south of -- well, a mile to the north is the nearest annexed property for the City of Meridian. Can -- can you explain to me how you don't feel that this is leap frog development when -- you know, especially in light of Deputy Chief Bongiorno's discussion of there is only one access and there is an access to Victory, although looking at this -- this slide I don't see what that access is like. Typically we prefer more orderly growth, that it's contiguous and moves outward. This jumps over and, then, you have got a big gap and, in fact, it -- it connects to -- to nothing. So, explain to me how -- how you don't feel that's leap frog development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 86 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 63 of Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, thank you for the question. I might just -- I guess on the annexation we are contiguous to city limits across Linder from the development that the city has approved on the east side and so we do qualify for annexation under the standards set forth in your zoning code. As far as what you have planned, we are also within the area of impact. We are within the area that you have planned, even as recently as a few months ago when you have updated your Comprehensive Plan, still calling for this area to have medium density residential and so this is within the area that the city plans to have developed at this density. The services here I think are really what makes this location so great. We are -- we are maybe closer to the fire station than any new property could be and so not only do we have that excellent proximity, but, you know, this is going to provide the rooftops that has the property taxes that should surround your services to keep them operational and this area -- as I -- I tried to illustrate with walking through your Comprehensive Plan, is centrally located between these two key interchanges. It's centrally located between these activity centers that are along these major corridors. The Ten Mile area specific plan area is not an underdeveloped area, that area is developing with commercial and unemployment -- or, excuse me, with employment centers and we can provide the homes and the residents to go and serve in those employment centers and to cater to those commercial businesses. This is exactly what you called for here when you thought about how to develop and in some ways this part of your city is closer in to your downtown core than stretching out to further reaches of your northwest and your southeast core that are becoming the furthest reaches of your city. So, we understand that it is on the edge of your currently annexed property, that is just the definition of being --you know, as seeking annexation, that we are, by definition, outside of your current city limits. But we do ask you to follow your Comprehensive Plan and what you set forth to do with this property. You have got an applicant before you that is willing to invest in this based on your Comprehensive Plan to provide a very nice master planned development that can happen when you have acreage available like this. It provides a great opportunity to get this kind of layout and design and mix of housing and amenities. So, those are all factors I hope you will take into account when you think about this location and this request. Hoaglun: Thank you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Council Member Hoaglun, can you hear me, buddy? Brad, can you hear me? Simison: He's muted. Councilman Hoaglun, you are muted right now. Hoaglun: Yeah. I kept pushing my thing up and my mute button disappeared, so -- I can hear you, Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Okay. Good. I will continue. I don't doubt that this development is potentially going to look nice and has great amenities and is going to -- I have no doubt that Toll Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 87 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 64 of Brothers would sell these homes, honestly. I do -- I do have some concerns and I -- and I wanted to express these concerns before we close the public hearing, so that you have the chance to--to make comments. My first concern is rural roads and that ACHD doesn't plan to do anything with these roads until 2031 or '35. There is, obviously, a concern with the -- the lot transition between -- with R-2 development and the estate lots. I certainly would like to see those lots be bigger in transition. Access scares me a hair in regard to what Deputy Chief Bongiorno specified earlier, but, ultimately, I agree one hundred percent with Council Member Hoaglun and his comments about leap frog development. Ultimately, we have -- we have created two areas within our city where we are wanting to grow and that's in northwest Meridian and southeast Meridian and, obviously, we are focusing on in-fill development as a priority as well. I don't feel like this development, obviously, fits in that -- in these locations. It's certainly not in-fill. At the end of the day I -- I would consider this to be fringe development and there is a lot of problems with fringe -- fringe development. So, whether it be safety, whether it be a lot of different things, infrastructure, et cetera. So, those are my concerns and I will let Deb respond. Thank you. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, thanks for your comments and I particularly appreciate the opportunity to respond and kind of you to put that out when the public record is open. You know, on transportation, I'm looking at Linder, you know, you commented that is a rural road, but -- I mean that's the benefit of this kind of development coming in is that, you know, we are going to improve Linder Road. Building the half street on our side out to full width and adding the pedestrian and bike and safety, the multimodal improvements along that entire frontage, and so Linder will be, you know, ahead of schedule in the way it's improved because of the investment from this community -- this developer. The impact fees that will be paid by this developer, based on the current lot count of 322, is still over a million dollars and so that -- that makes development pay for itself and really leads, you know, as needed to the infrastructure that you are referencing here. We have already touched on some of the emergency services and the proximity. We are within five minutes to the police response. We are three minutes from the fire. Those are the types of infrastructure concerns and service concerns that I think you are getting at when you are worried about fringe development when you are asking the questions about whether or not this site is ready to be served. I think it's uniquely situated to be exactly ready to be served. It has better serviceability from your service providers than many in-fill locations and not -- and not all development can be in-fill, as laudable as a goal that that is, it is still only a portion of the type of development that is going to make Meridian the great city and continue the way it is. You have got plans for a variety of housing and a variety of price points and Toll Brothers can come in and fulfill a different niche than you have with in-fill development. So, we -- we ask you to, you know, look at the infrastructure that is available here, the services that are available here and, you know, have those facts in mind when you are thinking about whether or not this truly is too far and think about the -- the quality of the development that could go here. And thank you for the opportunity to respond. Bernt: Thanks, Deb. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 88 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 65 of Simison: Council, any other questions for the applicant? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Deborah, this -- I don't know who is controlling the slides right now, but the slide just prior to this one that's on the screen -- that's the one. I think-- you know, Councilman Hoaglun asked a great question and the -- the leap frog development concern and from services to the site concern, I think this roadway issue is one of the bigger ones, more so than police and fire, that I think begs the question that, you know, the property for the half mile going north is not yet annexed, so for a considerable amount of time, utilizing Linder Road, which is, you know, two lanes -- it will be improved just along this project site, which is a big help, but for a good ten to 15 years, perhaps, you have substandard transportation on Linder Road and because that's a unique issue I will just comment and let you respond, but I think that's a unique component that makes this feel more leapfrogged, for lack of a better term, than other ones. Understanding that it's -- it's adjacent to a city -- the city across the street, the annexation path, but it's not necessarily flowing inside out as efficiently as it could, because sometimes that raises more challenges than in others. So, in this one we have got the long delay for winter road improvements all the way to Amity. The ACHD staff report references at least some concern on site lines -- I understand it is compliant with -- with the setback references, it's 530 feet in the staff report, but this is one of the slides that I thought seemed to highlight why Councilman Hoaglun and -- were concerned with leap frog development in a less than efficient and orderly way that we grow. The comments from Deputy Chief Bongiorno seem to kind of exacerbate those concerns, if, for some period of time -- because you don't control the properties around it --you have them really coming in and out of Linder Road, which isn't going to be improved for a decade or so. So, that's what I thought more so than police and fire service. One of the biggest challenges that you are confronting when trying to address why this project which is beautiful, is appropriate at this location and at this time. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, thank you again for the opportunity to respond to that. I guess the key thing I am picking up from you -- and I want to -- I want to focus on it. When you were talking about, yes, we are going to improve Linder along our site, but, then, there is the rest of Linder and it's a long way out in ACHD's plans. It's going to remain a rural roadway. I guess a couple of facts that I think are just critical to understand about that. In ACHD's report, which I know you have read, they determined that Linder Road, even with our development, it's still meeting level of service standards. It still has sufficient capacity. So, yes, it is not yet a widened, improved road all the way through and it doesn't need to be for some time. So, I think that's the important thing to understand. We -- we are not causing that existing infrastructure to need more improvement than what we are currently providing along our frontage. We will be providing a southbound right turn lane and all of the frontage along our property, which expedites the improvements to Linder, and where we are not providing -- and as you noted to -- to our north, it doesn't need it to accommodate our trips. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 89 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 66 of Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I think on that -- just an interesting observation on that response, because we see so many applications, but that -- on an individual basis every application has a staff report, which says every application has road improvements that adequately address project traffic and all background traffic, which would make one believe that in every application every project adequately addresses all traffic, but yet there is traffic problems. So, that's what I think begs some of the questions on these applications is there is some disconnect, because everybody has a staff report which says every road can handle all the traffic that's being generated, yet we still get confronted with -- with enormous challenges with traffic problems. That's what led to some of the question on this one. Because you are right, I mean the report does reflect exactly what you said, but it just makes us scratch your head sometimes when report after report says the road improvements as required adequately address all traffic, including background traffic, and, yet, here we are. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, a fair question. I can tell you, though, that I have been involved with a number of applications that have had significant mitigation requirements. But I think also -- maybe more to your point, it's a reflection of ACHD's fair process to adopt an impact fee and because they adopt impact fees, then, they have planned improvements that are funded with those impact fees and case in point -- you know, we haven't gotten to this yet, because we have just been talking about Linder, but the intersection to our north at Linder and Victory is currently in ACHD's CIP to be expanded to a roundabout in the 2021 to 2025 time frame. So, sooner than other employees needed in this area. And they -- and they cause development to pay their fair share through impact fees, which here is more than a million dollars. So, it's not that we don't have mitigation, it's just spread -- is distributed fairly through impact fees and because that's a programmed improvement that ACHD already has planned, I'm sure they would allocate our impact fees in that direction. I also just want to point out that we are not the only developing property out here and there is interest from other properties in this very area to develop and Meridian, like other areas, has a housing -- has shortage of houses and a high demand for housing. The property to our immediate north where our -- a third emergency access point is has had pre-application meetings with the city and expects to come in soon. So, this isn't an isolated one off. I think all of these other developers are looking at the opportunities with the existing infrastructure and services. The same corridor issues that we are highlighting that create the opportunities being between Ten Mile, Meridian, and Linder is a fast developing corridor that people are excited about and so we won't be the only ones that are looking to act on the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Borton: Okay. I appreciate that. Simison: Council, any additional questions or comments? Or do I have a motion? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 90 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 67 of Borton: Just two -- two more questions. One is the school district's facility plan -- and I thought I would find reference to it in some of the applications, but I didn't. It shows a school district site -- a 66 acre high school site -- listed as though they own it and it's exactly where this project is. A high school. And I was just surprised it didn't come up. I mean it's on this northwest corner of Linder and Amity. Did that come up in any conversations? Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, yes, it did and I failed to mention it in my -- trying to race through my rebuttal, because in my primary testimony I mentioned that I believe there was a high school and elementary site near and, then, you indicated you saw that in the facility plan. In fact, my -- my clients confirmed for me in discussions with Joe Borton there is a high school and an elementary site together at Ten Mile and north of Amity. So, very near this site. Borton: Yeah. Nelson: The school district has already acquired the land as you noted. Borton: Okay. That's the 66 acre parcel. Nelson: Yes. Borton: Okay. That's all, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Simison: Council Woman Strader, did you have a follow up? Okay? Is there anything else or a motion from Council? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I'm not quite sure where this body wants to go -- tonight of maybe our last item on -- previous item on our agenda, opening and closing the public hearing, I don't know if Council wants to discuss things a little bit before we close the public hearing. I know we have done a little of that, the way things are going. Food for thought. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor? As a note, I do notice Denise has her hand raised again. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Simison: Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I will see if Council wants to take any additional testimony from the public, since we are in applicant wrap up element. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 91 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 68 of Strader: Personally I feel that I personally have all the information necessary to make my decision and I am perfectly happy to proceed under Councilman Cavener's suggestion of discussing if it makes more sense prior to closing the public hearing these days or after. Either way. Just -- that's just for me. But I don't have any further questions at this time. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I'm okay. I don't have any questions. I'm okay to close the public hearing. I guess we just -- I punt to Councilman Cavener, Council Member Borton and Hoaglun just to get their thoughts. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I'm supportive either way. Just -- we do have a good history of opening and closing or closing and reopening public hearings. That's all. Bernt: That's happened once or twice, that's for sure. Hoaglun: I'm fine with closing, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Mr. Borton, how about yourself? Are you -- Borton: I'm fine to proceed either way. If anyone wants to provide comment now, then, by all means. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I will -- I will -- I will give my opinion that I am at and maybe some more color for people. And, I'm sorry, took my mask off, but, man, that thing is rubbing on my ear right now I'm just going to get these thoughts out and put it right back on. I -- personally I am not supportive of this application at this time. My philosophy on the Comprehensive Plan is that it is a long term destination of where we are going. It doesn't mean we have to get there in a short time frame. I think we want to proceed in our priority growth areas. I do not consider this an in-fill development. Personally, even before I joined City Council, had provided an opinion that I thought we still needed a rural designation and I respect the previous Council's decision not to go there, but I do feel that a one acre transition makes sense when you are talking about properties that are of this size. I am very frustrated about the -- just confusion with West Ada School District. I will just leave it at that. I -- we really need to work on that and get on the same page. I do know -- common sense tells me that these developments are not coming in ten years. They are coming in two to three years. It just doesn't make sense to me. Even our own information that we have doesn't align well with that. So, I would encourage further dialogue with the school district. I also feel like it's really also the roads for me and that really resonated with me. I don't feel like these rural roads are ready for a development of this size and with that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 92 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 69 of development from ACHD so far into the future, I think we need to wait. To me it's not the right time. I have no doubt that this developer would do an absolutely beautiful job, but we are a debt free city, we don't need to rush, we can afford to take our time and I don't think -- yeah, I just -- I don't support moving forward on this one, because I don't feel that it's orderly growth. That's it for me. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Happy to chime in with -- with my opinions. I'm not in love with this project as presented. I think Council Member Strader touched on what I think is a big component of this project, which is those one acre lots and they have got to be there to provide that transition and I know that was something we -- as a Council Member who did approve the previous Comprehensive Plan that was something I was really really sensitive to is our folks that have -- they haven't been part of the Meridian city limits, but have been part of Meridian for a long time and as the city continues to grow that we provide a meaningful transition. I appreciate what the applicant's done to try and mitigate that. I just think there is more to do. That said, you know, we -- I guess I talk a lot about creative approach in building community and this application does it for me. This is a place where I think anyone in Meridian would be proud to call home. I -- I appreciate the concern about the roads, but with the increasing demands in road construction in Ada county, specifically Star, Kuna, south Boise, growth is going to be the places that are going to drive roadway improvements and so we can continue to wait for the roads to be improved out there and I think we will be waiting for a long period of time. In our previous application we talked about Linder and Franklin and what that's going to look like in ten to 20 years and I guess I'm looking at this place as well as what it's going to look like in ten to 20 years and with the Linder Road overpass, those road improvements will quickly follow. The biggest hang up is -- is that million dollar question that nobody seems to have a clear answer on is -- is the impact on our schools. Candidly, I think the phasing plan is a little aggressive. For the impact on our schools. If Council indicates there is some support to -- or to approve this application, you may -- I would be supportive of having a conversation about what that phasing plan looks like, so that we are not overburdening our schools. But overall I think that this is a really well thought out application for our community. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I do have to say this would be a very nice development someday, but not today. There is disagreement with folks out there right now over half acre versus acre. You know, those are things that we could probably fix with -- well, what's the berm going to look like, what's the fence going to look like, how much landscaping and do some things like that. But overall -- and I know, Ms. Nelson, you know, talked about the -- meeting the intent of the annexation is contiguous across the street and, you know, there is intent and, then, there is the spirit of the law and it just -- when I first went through this and reading Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 93 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 70 of about it, that-- that just kept bugging me -- because it's just too soon for this location right here and there has been some good discussion about the -- about the road systems. You know, I think of one roundabout where Ada County Highway District has put in the roundabout, it's there, I'm sure they are proud of it, over there on the Oaks area off of -- on McMillan Road and semi trucks are -- to Walmart and back on these rural roads and it really doesn't work. Yeah, we do have a nice roundabout there, but the roads are unimproved, there is no sidewalks, it's -- it's very tight, congested, and same thing would happen here with a roundabout without -- and -- and there is future development there. There is--setbacks are going to be there, everything is going to be there, but the money's not there to do it yet, so -- and that's -- that's a concern with this going out here at that location -- I know there is future applications that will probably come in for some of the land to the north and as that come -- comes in I just feel that's a more orderly way to go, instead of approving this out here and, then, possibly having something to the northwest tag into that corner and, then, something further to the west and all of a sudden you have this -- a lot of property in the middle that's going to be in-fill some day and we have a lot of that in Meridian here and there and as a Council we have faced those challenges of trying to fit in-fill development with existing development and it's -- it's really hard. So, I would prefer to see more orderly growth coming out to this. It is a good project. I have no doubt that it would be a very very nice development. But I think it's just a little ahead of its time at this location. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I'm not going to go into much detail. I have already given my thoughts. But to be quite simple, I think that I'm picking up what Council Member Hoaglun is putting down. His thoughts are exactly my thoughts. I couldn't have expressed them clearer, so -- Simison: Council, are we at a place where you would like to close the public hearing or other direction? And I don't want to deprive Mr. Borton of speaking, but -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I move we close the public hearing on Item H-2020-0012. Strader: Second. Simison: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 94 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 71 of Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I appreciate the thoughtful comments from my colleagues. Appreciate the application. I think I have got a good sense about where the Council lies on this and so with that, Mr. Mayor, I move that we deny Item 5-C, application H-2020-0012 for the following reasons: Lack of -- lack of transition between the neighbors. Concern about emergency access. Long-standing impacts to the school district. Roadway challenges. And overall inconsistency with Meridian's growth plans. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Future Meeting Topics Simison: Council, we are to Item No. 6 on the agenda, future meeting topics. Is there anything for this item? If not I would take another motion. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn the meeting this evening. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:23 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 95 of 590 Meridian City Council July 7,2020 Page 72 of 7 / 20 2020 _ MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 96 of 590 E N DIAN --- IDAHO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Item Title: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land use/development application. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting Meeting Notes: E IDIAN IDAHO Cheryl Trinidad \ � \ ƒ --- % �\ - \ %� / \ . # t 'i, ` \ � \ + f : « ' : . \ \ \ , � • < \ : « pp \ ƒ i k{ _ .F44 \ { ± . / &Ip 41 o i � \ . : . iq Ono i ot is I ! y, t asa� RL 4 400 jI y .• r Is Ism e� Is r Ilk 4407 elL �� � '• s Air R 4m Asw 46 PAP POP f At F INIrk . . � 'I . IMP fir V x' +I rr is PI Pop PP POP 06 rV4 . 1IN r f q JA VA /• � Ott �i r f ^. 1 IT IF AIR iL re CC a . t - ^� % OMBr ._ a ' TO any , , •� MIV 9 a ; ,• t, fi ` - NO dr e e A ` `A IF pp � , Q�.i?Y,*•i. f� � YRr may, 1 � • `-;. y ,,., t r e JOL It aw OIL • - � • - � a• ,'• tv w • rVAN w or sk AN asl ♦ • �. . �►' - is- r ^q . - e �. ,1 . 't j� �• mid i!: � � ' Fa 'a -t � .. �� ' a � - �" ? : � - • ? ` 16 r OOWNMAP L All ICY • �' . • _ . ` r = •t ttN •' w } . r. Ar nmk 5wal pro) Wit F �71 ,Ivr Nip film r.• .*'a . ,f.1: .i•` �i �f '. t .. r• � .t"jw� '17C lit lk te r+ oft All a- OR4 rr �� ,. . get lop Alp At STY Ni Ire 10 P . Ali iiV ; •� � / ` •po� • !- \ • ' �� 'mil P . �` VA- ,' 1{ rA i ± �3* � � � �'� . � Irvo •t�'� � � � .•�' " ray ! . ,� . � /' N' � ' ' • d � . i . ' . . ' � ` . • l�Y" • � 'r�C•� ++•' l '4 ' ` xi ' ai "� 7' F 4 ' p � 11�' 1 ' ; I ry eiP r`e' • ;.IL +. ,1`4 � , ,!► . • �gpr, , s ,a v , • ' ►� ` i s" rr !" 11 . '•4 �y� r` r e _ ;V 8 ,, :�aa. 4 t �` " +1 fit, 1_ A _• � ,• n •, -,� ' ' 1 •NF •.+�} Y.`. . ` ♦ :� pp,, • " a •' �' f � r r V1 • it\ \ | � \ } ' \ { • to'\ \ , ? , / / . \ \t ¥: It isI ( : K . c © , w : to to; / . � / : � � , rpm a : © > ® * y f � : . 91 tit � Z . , , » , 4 / \ > j \ tqy . IL } : ( tt \ � \ � � 10 , it - $ 9 ! t \ J . \ \ �� ` » a ; c it 9 : 4 it to to 2 7 • . / 2 PFF IN too 0 . : / . . f , / / : zP, , / \ to © 3e : « © $ : to / ' � \ . � \ � i /� ® aity w , � } � I / } ' r, his ON 0. t , mode won 401W FF hr C FFF r.4tt Fv. 1 Y in Oki All �l F ^ ' � EL WIN `� 1Nk F FFO4 r w � • � � wf . . K.YWA . R . ',� _ ,��, , •� .. '( t ' , yt+ goo .tn t AY it W Ogg* AgIft / geld M ; Or lie ..- .. - �I .�- • �7 did NIX MINO -, !.. Ink Ail It 4 r ' IF t too IIIL to r . L 9 40 It - .• 1,ot it iIt, . 1 r • t , � . y / W.Mop t IMP y' 'r` . Ir• . . It * ) ` ` yam + a; a • L oil too 00 ILI, I- ::. r, „ ' v :O ;IF Moot.jor ft I w 1 0 to It o6 9 t \ IllmIl ' ' Or I IFAr ft ` f ' .. So A,- It to Off 1 •0 A, , to It�. , tom• f• ' s11, r ' r t .00I Id Of 0 low'RJl' . 5111 It . a , Ar y too " jor I 0 fie to . " !► . Is I � e Aw VIt dir , . At '•rl 1 � elf if I In %.. 40, Aft .of As �* is ✓ Flo If i f 1 I I 1 i L Y i i} '' OP �.�! I loss Former— jFll OF jeos ' N sill jo. • ool - rff� vtsr witFill A�' . :ems T0 Sill _ � • • � . ^ - Al- fA INS p Lo lisle il is- 411k rrr FDA IF lei OF IN p 04 1 ♦ )/ / ' � •a�e s \ �` 1 VIA FF AMEN 1 J • j!# • %6 ' . - 1 f � I L W All R I O N se i ��� r III a ♦ ; Qti� v _ y } 1 61 .PA r . �" l a i 114 mC ; r j .. 5IF IIII0 It It PIT ,. Is a ' . .i•. r : is - afaqII INp VIVO no I f tarI n✓ _ - .. nic.r Ann Ia J IV, > ` I've "r�v- y - 4 rI VIA, ) c� 7 JYS , 3�pp IV ' w ty. . .` 'emsIn . , tii,AN ! 'ke LIPy1 i - v Ii ' r `` P R 5��kV � t I mo' } II o' rz am Ii ab i - <�c WO 48 L��`�Saw I' m wa A %A.1s .�iL fIlb _ . It 4 Arlds + � sN - ,; �• i1a ��; Alm- IPC. ' y r ti fall, AIL wog } ,y ow ow % RL pa Lam am IWO • - , owow 0 . �• I . _ - � 4 � _mooto ..., w as Am tT y Y R •t.Y a�- I. 9 - L Some mamma r � ; Y 3 1J a�+ ' „ ;� f Low, low at p Lot OL G%o ! t y T K I p � i : r _ r — ' � f r t -•--• w "�Ei�1. . � t 4614 fill • , r . � ' 1 , � . � tr 1 . ; . ,�• r T . Mob �;� ! ' • r i 'rr ' K l � i ` r T 10 oV 9,y _ VV �.' ".� ' II Y, ram' F. oa Fll _ MO r - , - -: r- _ r ti ` _ yisf �- o � t - r t r 1f O , Vl � . . wr rA A �4Alm I ' r - � . 1 iA ANl . - Aw AI I _ 1Aw 41s . . 1 '1 - rkA r ' S1 1 , t ' Fes£• ' �+` 1_ . �, - - - ' ; I yA A iL t I r _ r r'. r T a Al r"11 It Ilm Ak Or AV I mb 1 ' _ i - 3 '. All! i AP 3os s HO N3dp �i 1 , e ? � IV oat JtA, .Or 110 up / IA - :h'�` ' 1 r ' lo + s •� �' All t Yap a t r r . .K- ' ' �� err ' • ; ' � i , t - . ;�� t;, ; wp ! e ' r . . • i, - • t , ! . . AL Vail Of LL 44 wYe I I 1 a.R 1 fop 1 ` eee MI e:e 44 W. eee eIeIe eeeft ea. Is — — r ao see. �.i �) 9 , ` �}� �^lei . •"-• � � T`' `ram y a Alm r i. q 1 � Mi• . t ):XN aPT i f` ' /ft f L irwl • 1 �' 4 0 Joe Ad kk ••.t j r op s"`, ` - at 4 1., ` i , TV ; � � dd At �M h Ne ,. f4a •! 111 �? R `i VAL at zo 4 4 1 - IWO ds :�' . y _Y K i A4. r AIL ..:: • ��•'ram �;f� -��. 4 ` M .1�k ,� • � ► � e. � - � 1 , .G Ap two re r ., 1, so, uo- aft FhP TT , 7 C ;� �69 1 n a u p • - , os t ai do -40 sow der r% WI IDIAN --- IDAHO Planning and Zoning Public Hearings Staff Outline and Presentation Meeting Notes: Changes to Agenda: None Item #5A: Gem Innovation School (H-2020-0043) Application(s): Annexation & Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 8 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 5390 N. McDermott Rd, approximately ¼ mile north of the W. McMillan Rd / N. McDermott Rd intersection. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: The Applicant is proposing annexation & zoning of 8 acres of land with the R-15 zoning district to develop a 42,408 SF 1-story college preparatory school for grades K-12. Enrollment estimate is approximately 600 children. The applicant is Gem Innovation Schools. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. The FLUM designates this property as Medium Density Residential. The applicant is requesting the R-15 zoning district because schools are a permitted use in this zoning district and would result in a more expeditious review. Because adequate schools are so strongly emphasized in the Comp Plan, staff finds the proposed annexation to be generally consistent with the Comp Plan. Several large subdivisions have been approved recently in the vicinity. This includes the Oaks North and South which comprise approximately 1,000 lots total. Many of the lots in the Oaks South are presently building out. The proposed school and adjacent neighborhoods are generally developing along similar timelines and the school is proposed to be integrated into these surrounding neighborhoods via an internal road at the north and several pedestrian pathways. The first pathway is a 10’ wide pathway at the south perimeter of the property which will begin at N. McDermott Road and run along the Creason Lateral at the south perimeter of the property. The second pathway is a pedestrian connection into the eastern portion of the North Oaks neighborhood at Double Rock Road. There will also be a 10’ pathway constructed along N. McDermott road. Staff did have concerns with the amount of paving that is required for the parking areas. Staff believed a more efficient design could be employed which would result in less paving and more landscaping. The Planning Commission also shared these concerns and since the PC hearing the applicant has redesigned the site to result in significantly less paving. There had also been some discussion regarding Gem Way to the north. Currently this road directly abuts residential properties in the Oaks North Subdivision. Staff believes there should be buffering to the north of Gem Way. The applicant originally believed there would a landscape tract installed by the developer of Oaks North, but has later discovered this is not the case and has revised the plans accordingly. ACHD requested a traffic study, and has responded that they have no issues other than they will need to work with the applicant in regard to where school zone flashing lights are located. There are several items that will be clarified. Staff originally noted there would be a 40’ buffer along N. McDermott Road, this is actually 35’. Staff also noted the sidewalks would be 6’ whereas they are proposed at 5’. Finally, staff noted the southern pathway was 14’ whereas it is actually 10’. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Dan Henrickson and Bill Hadlock, Paradigm Design (Applicant’s Representative) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Dan Henrickson and Bill Hadlock, Paradigm Design (Applicant’s Representative) iv. Written testimony: None v. Key Issue(s):None Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Commission discussed whether Meridian Fire was supporting the proposed turn-around at the northeast portion of the site. Applicant responded that they did support it as proposed. ii. Commission discussed staff’s recommended condition to pipe the Creason Lateral. The applicant stated this had already been done. iii. Commission discussed the applicant’s request to change the condition of approval that the required the applicant to comply with tree preservation mitigation standards to “the applicant and staff will work with the City arborist to provide a tree mitigation plan.” The Commission was agreeable to this request. iv. Commission discussed staff’s recommendation for a 10’ buffer along the north side of Gem Way. The applicant was initially opposed to this because they believed the adjacent property owner had already designed a buffer tract into their development. As it ended up, they had not. Since this time, the applicant is agreeable to this condition and has revised the site plan and landscape plan accordingly. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Remove Condition a.viii that requires tiling of the Creason Lateral. ii. Change the language of Condition a. v.iii that requires the applicant to comply with all tree mitigation requirements to “the applicant will work with the City Arborist to provide a tree mitigation plan at time of CZC.” Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Fees in the amount of $265.25 per equivalent residential unit (ERU). The reimbursement fees for this application shall be paid with the first building permit. ii. The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades Reimbursement Fees in the amount of $185.43 per equivalent residential unit (ERU). The reimbursement fees for this application Shall be paid with the first building permit. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: - None Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number AZ H-2020-0043, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 7, 2020, with conditions as listed. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0043 as presented during the hearing on July 7, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0043 to the hearing date of ________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #5B: Villas at Twelve Oaks East (H-2020-0014) Application(s): Development Agreement Modification Annexation & Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 6.63 acres of land, zoned R1 in Ada County, located at 115 S. Linder Rd. on the west side of Linder, just south of W. Franklin Rd. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: A modification to the existing DA for the multi-family development to the west is requested to incorporate this property as a subsequent phase of development in the agreement rather than require a new separate agreement for this later phase. Because a buffer to this property, which was formerly residential, is no longer needed, the Applicant requests removal of the DA provision requiring an 8’ tall concrete fence/wall to be constructed along the subject property’s west boundary. With the proposed development, it’s no longer necessary as the project is proposed to be integrated as one development with shared common areas and amenities. Annexation of 6.63 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district for the development of 8 multi-family structures containing a total of 64 apartment units at a gross density of 13.94 units/acre consistent with the Commercial FLUM designation. MFR developments are a principal permitted use in the TN-R district. There is an existing home on the property that is proposed to be retained & used as an additional rental/manager’s unit. The site plan depicts access via the extension of a driveway from the west boundary of the site & via S. Linder Rd. A pedestrian connection is required to be provided to the north to the commercial development for interconnectivity via an existing access easement. This property is planned to develop as a subsequent phase of the multi-family project currently under development on the adjacent property to the west and will share common open space & site amenities. The overall project exceeds the minimum qualified open space & site amenities required by the UDC. A 10’ multi-use pathway is required along the north side of the Ten Mile Creek from the east to the west boundary of the annexation area and within the street buffer along Linder Rd. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. A 25’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along Linder Rd. Conceptual building elevations were submitted that are the same as those being constructed in the Villas at Twelve Oaks project in the earlier phase to the west. The design of all structures in this development are required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: In favor: Josh Beach, Sawtooth Land Surveying (Applicant’s Representative) Commenting: Chad Heron Written testimony: Josh Beach Key Issue(s): a. The Applicant is in agreement with the staff report except for condition #B.1.2, which requires sewer to connect to the north in accord with the Master Plan rather than to the west as proposed - The Public Works Department has re-evaluated the applicant’s proposed sanitary sewer routing, as well as previous email correspondence with the applicant on the topic of routing, and finds that the current proposal is acceptable. Therefore, staff recommends the following language to replace that currently in condition #B.1.2: “The applicant shall be responsible to determine whether adequate capacity exists in the receiving sewer system, including two lift stations, to accept the additional flow from this development. If upgrades are necessary, the applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with said upgrades.” b. Concern pertaining to traffic in regard to the amount of accesses via Linder Rd. in this area combined with not enough access/interconnectivity in the adjacent development to the south (Whitestone Estates) with only one way in and one way out. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: In favor of the proposed 2-story (rather than 3-story) structures as they’re more compatible with adjacent residential and commercial structures; the inclusion of this site in the adjacent development and common open space & site amenities proposed for the overall development; parking in excess of UDC standards; and provision of a pedestrian connection to the north. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: Modification to condition #B.1.2 in Section IX as requested by the Applicant with the language recommended by Staff. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0014, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 7, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0014, as presented during the hearing on July 7, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0014 to the hearing date of __________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #5C: Cedarbrook Subdivision (H-2020-0012) 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. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (3-8 units/acre) Summary of 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 consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. Preliminary Plat (revised since the original submittal) consisting of 328 buildable lots for SFR detached homes, 39 common lots and 4 other lots on 118.58 acres of land. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,881 s.f. with an average lot size of 9,874 s.f.; the gross density is 2.77 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 & two (2) emergency access only driveways via S. Linder Rd.; two (2) stub streets are proposed at the north and one (1) collector stub street is proposed at the southwest boundary of the site for future extension. Unimproved ROW is proposed along the north boundary to the west at the NWC of the site for future construction of a collector street if needed. 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. 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. & Linder Rd. intersection is planned to be reconstructed between 2021-2025. 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 pressurized sewer force main at the expense of the Developer. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of the minimum 10% required by the UDC; a total of 22.45 acres or 18.9% 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. 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, children’s play equipment and a picnic area next to a large st pond containing benches, a covered shelter and picnic tables are proposed with the 1 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 3rd phase. 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 Council determines this presents a safety hazard, a condition requiring such should be added. A detail of the pond was submitted that depicts a safety bench – a shallow area before it drops off into a more deep area of the pond for public safety. 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. Revised elevations were submitted for the homes proposed on the 40’-45’ wide lots as requested by Staff that include more design elements/materials to provide a higher quality of design than those originally proposed. Commission Recommendation: Approval 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Sabrina Durtschi, Applicant’s Representative; Deborah Nelson, legal counsel representing the Applicant b. In opposition: Annette Alonso; Julie Langlois; Paula Connelly; Kenzie Ward c. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: Julie Langlois, Brian Connelly, Kenzie Ward, and Paula Connelly e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Not enough transition in lot sizes to adjacent rural properties – requests for ½ to 1 acre lot sizes as a transition and a landscape buffer and berm at the west boundary; b. Protection of view sheds and rural lifestyle - right to farm, raise and process their cattle; c. Concern pertaining to capacity of area schools with the proposed development and all of the developments that have been approved in this area but not yet developed; d. Concern pertaining to traffic and inadequacy of existing infrastructure to handle more development in this area with no plans to widen Linder Rd. until 2031-2035, which is currently a rural 2-lane roadway; e. Would like to see 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; f. Concern that it’s not an efficient way to expand the City’s infrastructure with the project’s location on the fringe of the City; g. Concern pertaining to the timing of this development - balancing the growth with the state of the economy; h. Supportive of proposed detached homes but opposed to townhomes and duplexes; i. Based on discussions with the neighbors (the Rinehimer’s & the Robertson’s), the Developer has agreed to provide a 3-4’ tall berm with a wood-style fence on top of the berm centered on the shared property line along the northern portion of the west boundary of the site adjacent to their properties, landscaped with trees at a spacing of approximately 25 feet along their side of the fence that they would maintain; j. The Developer has also agreed to limit the height of homes to single-story where they will be in the direct view shed out from the physical house on adjacent properties; k. The Developer also agreed to double the required rear building setback of 15 feet to provide a minimum 30-foot rear setback along the west and south boundaries of the subdivision. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Commission asked the Applicant where the additional children’s play equipment recommended by Staff would be located – the Applicant responded it will be in the large common area by the swimming pool; b. Commission asked the Applicant if the pond would be empty in the winter after irrigation season – the Applicant responded no, that it would have a permanent water level year around; c. Commission was generally not supportive of Staff’s recommendation to provide a variety of housing types (attached & townhomes) within the development; d. The Commission discussed extending the R-2 zoning along the southern boundary of the site; e. Adequacy of the proposed transition in lot sizes and buffer to adjacent rural residential properties. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Remove the requirement for a variety of housing types to be provided – the Commission was not in favor of the attached and townhome product at the northeast corner of the site proposed by the Applicant in response to the Staff recommendation based on Comprehensive Plan policies (strike DA provision #A.1b in Section IX); c. Include a DA provision requiring a berm and fence to be constructed on the shared property line adjacent to the Rinehimer and Robertson properties as committed to by the Developer (see DA provision #A.1d in Section IX); d. Include a DA provision that limits the height of homes to single-story where they will be in the direct view shed out from the physical house on adjacent properties (see DA provision #A.1e in Section IX) – Staff recommends the Applicant address which specific lots will have single-story homes at the Council hearing. An exhibit was submitted as shown that depicts which lots will be restricted to single-story homes. Another exhibit was submitted that depicts ½ acre lots in the R-2 zone, which reduced the lot count by 5 in this area. e. Include a DA provision that requires a minimum 30-foot rear setback for homes along the west and south boundaries of the subdivision (see DA provision #A.1f in Section IX). 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. The Commission recommended Council consider whether or not there should be some funding or a partnership toward future intersection improvements at Amity & Linder Roads. b. A letter of testimony was submitted by Laren Bailey, DevCo, requesting condition #B.1.1 is st modified to require the construction of the sewer mainline to Linder Rd. with the 1 phase of development. “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 with the first phase of development.” Because this was previously discussed with the Applicant but inadvertently not included in the condition, Staff is in support of this change. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Several letters of testimony have been submitted that are included in the public record Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0012, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 7, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0012, as presented during the hearing on July 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 _________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) City Council MeetingJuly 7, 2020 h2 Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Item #AERIALZONINGFLUM 5A: Gem Innovation School AZ/Zoning Concept Plan (PC) Revised Concept Plan Revised Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Item AERIALZONINGFLUM AZ–#5B: Villas at Twelve Oaks East Conceptual Development Plan & Annexation BoundaryProperty Subject to Amended Development Agreement Conceptual MultiGarage & Carport ElevationsFamily, - Item FLUM AERIALZONING Zoning Map –#5C: Cedarbrook Subdivision AZ/PP Annexation & Zoning Exhibit Original Preliminary Plat/accessEmergency Landscape PlanUpdated Preliminary Plat/Landscape Plan Phasing Plan 7214653(7 phases) Original Qualified Open Space ExhibitUpdated Qualified Open Space Exhibit Site Amenities Entry Pathways Plan 6 Safety Bench Exhibit Detached Homes45’ Wide Lots-Updated Elevations for 40 Single2 Lot Exhibit-Acre R-HalfStory Homes- �E IDIAN^ ITEM SHEET IDAHO Council Agenda Item - 5.A. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: 0 Title of Item - Public Hearing for Gem Innovation School (H-2020-0043) by Paul Bierlein, Bouma USA, Located at 5390 N. McDermott Rd. Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing Council Notes: ATTACHMENTS: Commission Recommendations and Staff Report Staff Report 6/29/2020 Planning and Zoning Minutes Minutes 6/4/2020 REVIEWERS: t Clerk. Weatherly,Adrienne Approved 6/29/2020 - 12:33 PM Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 3 of 174 STAFF REPORT E IDIAN -� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 7/7/2020 legend DATE: ldFro:ec- !oca-or TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner 2 — ---- 208-489-0573 ------- ~~ Bruce Freckleton,Development Services Manager t 208-887-2211 s SUBJECT: H-2020-0043 r Gem Innovation School _ LOCATION: The site is located at 5390 N. McDermott Rd, approximately 1/4 mile north of the if W. McMillan Rd/N. McDermott Rd { n4 intersection, in the SW 1/4 of Section 28, Township 4N.,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation&zoning of 8 acres of land with the R-15 zoning district to develop a 42,408 SF 1-story college preparatory school for grades K-12. Enrollment estimate is approximately 600 children. The applicant is Gem Innovation Schools. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 8 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) SFR/Rural Proposed Land Use(s) Educational Facility Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-15 Neighborhood meeting date;#of March 3,2020—6 attendees. attendees: Pagel Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 4 of 174 b. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Three accesses are proposed.There are two accesses Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) proposed from N.McDermott Rd to the west,a collector, and there is a third northern access planned to connect Gem Street to a proposed stub street in the Oaks North Subdivision. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross The property is proposed to connect to a stub street in the Access Oaks North Subdivision to the north.The eastern stub street is not being extended into the site however,the applicant is proposing a pedestrian connection to the residential development.This connectivity has been coordinated with ACHD,Toll Brothers and the applicant. Existing Road Network No existing streets within the site,property will connect to a stub street at the north,N.McDermott Road exists to the west. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are no existing buffers or sidewalk along N. Buffers McDermott Rd at the west boundary of the site. Proposed Road Improvements ACHD is requiring applicant to construct McDermott Road as'h of a 36 foot with curb,gutter and detached sidewalk. There will also be a new internal road(Gem Way) connecting to the Oaks North. Distance to nearest City Park(+ 2.3 miles to Keith Bird Legacy Park size) Fire Service The building will provide fire sprinklers. There is a future fire station planned within the 5-minute response time. • Distance to Police Station 8.5 miles • Police Response Time There is no available data,but the expected response time to this area in an emergency is about 3-5 minutes. The average response time in the City of Meridian is just under 4 minutes. • Calls for Service 56 within 1-mile radius. • Accessibility No issues with the proposed access • Specialty/resource needs None • Crashes Between 3/l/2019-2/29/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 4 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Approximately 360-feet to the east in The Oaks North Subdivision. • Sewer Shed North McDermott Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 13.92 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan Page 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 5 of 174 Description Details Page Water • Distance to Water Services Applicant must connect water to the north in Gem Way to Oaks North Subdivision.Also, stub a water main and hydrant to the west at McDermott Rd. • Pressure Zone I • Estimated Project Water See Applicant ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 6 of 174 Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend — Legend 0P•o}eo'Lccalcm a leiPrajeoa Looaian Me di it um Densy G; w Don ���• _ Reidential Residential . tiled-High I Residential �• MU-jhl _ _ _. _ Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend Legend - - - P•o;ec'Lccalar Project Lceaim City Lnwt �g 74- RUT + R� — Pior*r,ed Parcels R74 R- RUT { a 4 R-8 R_4' T RUTli ti, nTi III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Paul Bierlein,Bouma USA.—445 Pettis, Suite 201.,Ada,MI 49301 B. Owner: Gem Innovation Schools—2750 E. Gala Street.,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Paul Bierlein,Bouma USA.—445 Pettis, Suite 201.,Ada,MI 49301 — Page 4 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020- Page 7 of 174 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 5/13/2020 6/19/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 5/12/2020 6/16/2020 Site Posting Date 5/14/2020 6/22/2020 Nextdoor posting 5/12/2020 6/16/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS a. Annexation: The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A. b. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /�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 applicant is requesting the R-1 S zoning district because schools are a permitted use in this zoning district and would result in a more expeditious review. A subsequent development agreement will limit the allowed uses to an educational facility in perpetuity. A DA is recommended as a condition of the 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. The MDR designation of the FLUM emphasizes the importance of adequate access to schools. Providing adequate schools is supported in the Comprehensive Plan as discussed below. Stafffinds the proposed annexation and zoning to R-IS with a development agreement that restricts uses only to an educational facility to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Medium Density Residential. c. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridianciU.org/compplan): Goals, Objectives, & Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics): Page 5 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 8 of 174 2.03.01 —"Jointly plan and site schools and subdivisions to ensure mutual benefits, neighborhood identity, and community health." Several large subdivisions have been approved recently in the vicinity. This includes the Oaks North and South which comprise approximately 1,000 lots total. Many of the lots in the Oaks South are presently building out. The proposed school and adjacent neighborhoods are generally developing along similar timelines, and the school is proposed to be integrated into these surrounding neighborhoods via an internal road at the north and two pedestrian pathways. The first pathway is a 14'wide pathway at the south perimeter of the property which will begin at N. McDermott Road and run along the Creason Lateral at the south perimeter of the property. The second pathway is a pedestrian connection into the eastern portion of the North Oaks neighborhood at Double Rock Road. The capacity of educational facilities has been a concern often raised in recent public meetings. The Gem Innovation School will be a charter school, open to the public, which is planned to serve approximately 600 children and is proposed to be developed along a similar timeline as the Oaks North and South neighborhoods. Facilities within an easy walk to the adjacent neighborhood is a mutual benefit to the school and the adjacent community. Also, local educational facilities are often associated with a neighborhood's identity and serve as community meeting places. 2.03.011)Ensure the location and design of schools are compatible with existing and planned neighborhoods and land uses. In general, a school is a community use that can be very compatible with a residential neighborhood. The more the school is integrated into the neighborhood, the more of a benefit to the community and the safer for the students. That said, compatibility with the neighborhood can also be a function of design. This proposal includes landscape buffers of a minimum width of 10'along the perimeter of the property as well as a 40'landscape buffer along N. McDermott Road. Building heights have been kept below 30',primary access is being directed to McDermott Road, and there are requirements of the UDC regarding lighting being downcast and shielded. In addition, the building design will be subject to the City's design review standards in the UDC and the Architectural Design Manual. 2.03.01E Work with West Ada School District to locate and connect schools to safe and accessible walking,bicycle,transit, and automobile routes. As mentioned, there are two non-motorized connections being provided into the adjacent neighborhood via a pathway along the Creason Lateral and from the eastern side of the school to Double Rock Road. There is an internal vehicular access to the local neighborhood at the north, and primary access occurs from N. McDermott Road, a Principal Arterial. There is also a 10'wide proposed pathway planned along the length of the property fronting N. McDermott Road. Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 9 of 174 d. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: An existing residence, constructed in 1940, exists on the property. This residence is proposed for removal. All structures should be removed from the property with development of the school site. e. Proposed Use Analysis: This proposal includes an approximately 42,500 square foot charter school providing education from kindergarten to 12th grade, including college preparation. This is considered an educational use and is allowed by right in the R-15 zone district, subject to the specific use standards below. f. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-14): UDC 11-4-3-14. (Education Institutions) requires elementary schools to be located within the center of neighborhoods with access encouraged from local streets. Middle and high schools may take access off a designated arterial or collector street. Elementary school locations adjacent to public parks or open space are encouraged. At least thirty percent (30%) of the perimeter of an elementary school site should be open to streets or open space areas. Gem Innovation School is intended to serve Kindergarten to Grade 12. The school is located adjacent to the developing Oaks North and South Subdivisions, and will be connected to the neighborhood via Gem Way (local street) at the north. There are also two proposed access from N. McDermott Rd, a collector street. A significant percentage of the site is open to streets and open space; a 10'wide multiuse pathway is proposed along the entire western perimeter of the site (adjacent to N. McDermott Road) and a 10' multiuse pathway is proposed along the southern periphery. In addition, 440'of the 775' eastern perimeter remains open by locating playfields in this area. g. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The zoning is proposed to be R-15. This requires a street setback of 25' (for garages), rear setback of 12' and interior side setbacks of 3' Landscape buffers of 25' are required along arterial streets. Building height is limited to 40'. The building maintains a street setback from N. McDermott Road and a rear setback from the property line of at least 170'. There is more than a 200'setback from the north property line and 75'from the eastern side property line. There is a 40'landscape buffer proposed along N. McDermott Road which is comprised of Kentucky Bluegrass, a 10' wide pathway and a landscaped berm of undulating height east of the pathway. The height of the building is proposed at 30', 10'less than the allowed maximum. As will be discussed in the landscaping section, landscape buffers are proposed along all four perimeters of the property as well. Page 7 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 10 of 174 h. Access/Traffic(UDC 11-3A-3): As mentioned above, three accesses are proposed. There are two accesses proposed from N. McDermott Rd to the west, a collector, and there is a third northern access planned to connect Gem Street to a proposed stub street in the Oaks North Subdivision. Three pedestrian pathways are proposed to connect the site. The first is a 10'pathway the applicant will construct that runs along the property paralleling N. McDermott Road. The second will be a 10'multiuse pathway along the southern periphery adjacent to the Creason Lateral. The third is a pedestrian connection into the eastern portion of the North Oaks neighborhood at Double Rock Road. ACHD did not express any additional issues regarding access and supported the road extension and McDermott Road access. Further, ACHD communicated to staff that the stub street on the east boundary did not need to extend into the site. Pedestrian connection would suffice. This was discussed with ACHD, and both affected land owners. However, Staff has not received a staff report from ACHD to verify the connectivity is acceptable by the transportation authority. i. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Parking requirements for Educational Institutions per section 11-4-3-14 of the UDC requires one parking space for every four hundred(400) square feet of gross floor area. Based on a proposed size of 42,398 square feet this amounts to 106 spaces. The concept plan shows 110 parking spaces of a minimum size of 9'x 19'as required by 11-3C-5 of the UDC. The conceptual site plan, circulation plan and landscape plan reflect multiple drive aisles and a design which shows separate drop off and pick up areas. Staff understands the incentive to ensure safety and satisfactory circulation but believes a significant amount of asphalt is being employed. If there were a more efficient design, less paving would be required. This would reduce heat island effects, reduce the amount of necessary drainage improvements and decrease impairment to water quality. Staff will discuss these issues with the Applicant at length during the subsequent Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC). j. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There is proposed 10 foot multi-use pathway proposed along N. McDermott Road and another 10 foot multi-use pathway proposed along the southern perimeter,paralleling Creason Lateral. This pathway is an extension from a future phase of the Oaks North development. Per UDC 11-3B-12C, the applicant shall provide 5-feet of landscaping along both sides of the pathway. Prior to occupancy of the structure, the applicant should submit and obtain approval of a pedestrian pathway easement from City Council. Further, the applicant should coordinate with the applicable irrigation district and conform to any requirements of the district. Page 8 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 11 of 174 k. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): No sidewalks presently exist along N. McDermott Road. The Applicant proposes to install a 10'detached walkway along the length of the property in this area. 6'wide sidewalks are proposed on both sides of Gem Street which connects the site to the neighborhood at the north. 1. Parkways(UDC 11-3A-17): No parkways are proposed with this application. m. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Creason Lateral runs along the south boundary. This proposal includes a paved walkway paralleling this area. The Applicant intends to culvert this ditch.Any improvements that occur within the easement area will require coordination with the irrigation district. n. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The landscape plan indicates 6'high vinyl coated chain link fence along the eastern portion of the site. The applicant will be required to comply with the fence standards in the UDC 11-3A-7. o. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The property will have an 8-inch water and sewer lines which will connect to Doublerock Drive. 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. p. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A landscape buffer of at least 35' is required along N. McDermott Road, an entryway corridor. A minimum density of one tree per thirty-five (35) linear feet is required in this buffer. A five-foot (5') wide minimum landscape buffer is required adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas, including driveways. Interior parking lot landscaping shall be required on any parking lot with more than twelve (12) spaces. No linear grouping of parking spaces shall exceed twelve (12) in a row, without an internal planter island. The conceptual site plan shows a landscape buffer of 40'wide along N. McDermott Road. This includes grass directly adjacent to the road, a 10'wide paved pathway, and additional landscaped area of widths varying between 20'and 25'east of the pathway, terminating in undulating berms. Based on a frontage length of approximately 776 feet, 22 trees are required within the buffer. It appears at least 28 trees are in this area. The final landscape plan will be reviewed at the time of the CZC. Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 12 of 174 q. Tree Preservation(UDC 11-3B-10): The UDC requires mitigation for all existing trees four inch (4") caliper or greater that are removed from the site. This mitigation includes equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred percent (100%)replacement. The Applicant has requested a "council waiver"of the required tree mitigation. According to their narrative, 37 trees must be removed, which amounts to a total caliper of 508 inches. The Applicant's calculations deduce this to be 254 additional trees of 2" caliper whereas they are proposing replacing the 37 trees being removed with 167 new trees. The Applicant states it is important to provide sufficient open space including sports courts and playfields and requiring additional trees would prove difficult. The City Arborist considered the Applicant's request and noted there are several trees which are probably in such a condition as to not require mitigation and is amenable to deeming them inappropriate for mitigation. However, staff is not convinced there are no other options for either retention of existing trees or replacement with new trees. Also, there is a significant amount of paving proposed for the parking area as well as the paved playfields at the eastern perimeter of the site. Staff believes there are additional opportunities to buffer the site and reduce heat island effects. Staff will work with the Applicant on the required trees and tree preservation during the subsequent Certificate of Zoning Compliance. A Council Waiver is not the appropriate mechanism; any deviations would occur through the Alternative Compliance process as indicated in Section 11-5B-5 of the UDC. r. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted colored elevations that proposes a flat-roofed design with muted earth tone colors and building materials including lap siding, hardie board, and metal panels. The proposed architecture will be reviewed in detail during the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and must meet the requirements of the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual and the site and structure design standards in UDC I I- 3A-19. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions and comments included in Section VII in accord with the Findings in Section VIII. B. The Meridian Planning &Zoning Commission heard this item on May 28, 2020. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ request. Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 13 of 174 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_: a. In favor: Dan Henrickson and Bill Hadlock, Paradigm Design (Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Dan Henrickson and Bill Hadlock, Paradigm Design (Applicant's Representative) d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony_ a. None 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Commission discussed whether Meridian Fire was supporting the proposed turn-around at the northeast portion of the site. Applicant responded that they did support it as proposed. b. Commission discussed staff s recommended condition to pipe the Creason Lateral. The applicant stated this had already been done. C. Commission discussed the applicant's request to change the condition of approval that the required the applicant to comply with tree preservation mitigation standards to "the applicant and staff will work with the City arborist to provide a tree mitigationplan." The Commission was agreeable to this request. d. Commission discussed staff s recommendation for a 10' buffer along the north side of Gem Way. The applicant was initially opposed to this because they believed the adjacent property owner had already designed a buffer tract into their development. As it ended up, they had not. Since this time,the applicant is agreeable to this condition and has revised the site plan and landscape plan accordingly. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Remove Condition a.viii that requires tiling of the Creason Lateral. b. Change the language of Condition a. v.iii that requires the applicant to comply with all tree mitigation requirements to "the applicant will work with the City Arborist to provide a tree mitigationplan at time of CZC." 5. Outstanding. issue(s) for City Council: a. Add the following Public Works conditions of approval: Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 14 of 174 1. The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$265.25 per equivalent residential unit(ERU). The reimbursement fees for this application shall be paid with the first building permit. 2. The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$185.43 per equivalent residential unit ERU). The reimbursement fees for this application Shall be paid with the first building permit. Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 15 of 174 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map O LAND SURVEYS engineering 1W EXHIBIT ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION GEM PREP MERIDIAN NORTH TAX PARCEL NO.5042832566 A parcel of land within the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and more particuiarly described asfollcws. COMMENCING at the Southwest Corner of Section 28 monumented by a found brass cap as described in CP&F Instrument No.2019-017185 at the intersection of N.McDermott Road and W.McMillan Road,thence alongthe section line,North 01'00'44"East,1315.33 feet to the S 1f 16 Comer to Sections 29&29,the southwest corner of the Gem Prep Meridian North parcel and the POINTOF BEGINNING; Thence continuing North 01'00'44"East,77430 feet to the northwest corner of the Gem Prep Meridian North parcel and the existing limits of Meridian City; Thence along the existing limits of Meridian City and The Oaks North preliminary plat boundary,South 89"2113" East,450.06 feet to the northeast corner of the Gem Prep Meridian North parcel; Thence continuing along the existing limits of Meridian City and The Oaks North preliminary plat boundary, South 01°00'44"West,774.77 feet to the southeast corner of the Gem Pr=p Meridian North parcel; Thence along the existing limits of Meridian City and the Oakwind preliminary plat boundary,North 89"19'10" West,450.06 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 8.00 acres more or less. Referto the attached EXHIBJT Survey Map. END OF DESCRIPTION Prepared by: Ronald M.Hodge,PIS 03-03-2020 LANp � d � C 8575 A 680 S.Progress Ave.,Suite#213• Meridian,Idaho 83642 *Tel:208-342-7957• Web;hmh-Ilc.com Equal Opportunity Employer Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 16 of 174 EXHIBIT SURVEY MAP AFC c S890 21' 1 YE 450.06 II � a EXISTING CITY I-ITWITS -- — 77 o ea ioo SCALE. 1"=100' a� 0 I a r ti ' d LU GEM PREP MERIDIAN NORTH �W TAX PARCEL No sr p SO42837566 O q 0 z a r� N fi 857 S1116 Comer •03•7 EwsnNGClrrufvtlzs � 4p q4 �• Paint of Beginning NW 19' '10'IN 45fl.06' �4❑ Y�Q LEGEND 29 2$ ANNEXATION BOUNDARY — — SECTION %JFRrw PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY 32 33 SURVEY MONUMENTS McMillan Road FOX LAND SURVEYS 20009-01 Legal Sketch.dwg (208) 342-7957 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 17 of 174 B. Revised Conceptual Site Plan(date: 6/22/L2020) + F? 24 m .10 rLL i i i i I I I I I E E E f A . ........ ... -*R-.9ma" Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 18 of 174 C. Revised Conceptual Landscape Plan (date: 6/23/2020) I t A :} 'G },# :{ I :4}: )x" I X. 44:4Y.4 .i .�.4:W:4.{�~�}:{ { w:axxroa4y Y.atb{�:`io o:�{,n5 6,',': }' } .': 4. }� {� ,bq:�a x�a:.a�4y�.� w axo: {hi:�� O �}x}rn:w:axp•.o{a i.}:a:{}:{}:w:•}; .{i 'aa:ax,a:axa • - o:n}:{ :ti}:a' .{�r.o 4Y4:4}:4?{•}:4}.4x.}: { {4 } }: x,}: ON w . 4}.4.{•}:4:t4'4�'y}'{•}: .• Q;t ry,¢ ;:o5Xo:oX3:o ON , . :n}:q:Q{a�.{;,}gqappt,,.y}y??x,}yq: +x+�y:q'.QaQtii:v} { off :4xy }:•:yyx,55, �{}. .{ :i5iVO .:.62STG�SL.S:2,�S'L�6��. *+ +•2�'.2� � � .��2 w:a:w,a}.a:w:a}:a{a,a.{a:w +++++++ {� .4:{�}: 41i{}"a :aYa: ax•.{a ? R: - x.r ..} t}. Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 19 of 174 D. Conceptual Circulation Plan j GEM WAY i I I I I I I I I I I I I j j I I I j I I I I I i ! ! s I I I I I I ' I I � I j I , i I j ❑ckiHE R�K RC I I j — I I I I j Lmtt I is i xE5'a�' RIB` � HK H��. •I, � 'i I� Ali �, GEM Bouma U A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 20 of 174 E. Conceptual Building Elevations (date: 3/27/2020) EXTERIOR FINISHES ❑ F,1 N 1-2"""111111111111 I--,-1,K: i " cn; T-- -------- KE E WEST ELEVATION - ---------------------------- -M CIL 121 FL 1 El E E oK Lj] LU SOUTH ELEVATION F1 F,1 17 -15 :�E L.Lj L--j 12 1 EAST ELEVATION IT I E, E =T ------------------- ------------------------------------ rRTli ELEVATION A200 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 21 of 174 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION a. 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: i. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan, conceptual building elevations, conceptual landscape plan and the provisions contained herein. ii. All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. An application for Design Review shall be submitted concurrently with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. iii. Applicant shall construct a segment of the City's 10-foot multi-use pathway along N. McDermott Road and the south boundary in accord with UDC 11-3A-8 and 11-3B-12. Prior to occupancy of any building,the applicant shall obtain City Council's approval of a public pedestrian easement and record said document. iv. Applicant shall comply with any ACHD conditions of approval. V. The applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal. vi. The only use allowed to develop on the property is an education institution. Said use shall comply with the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-14. vii. standards per UPC i 1 3B 10. The applicant shall work with Staff and the City Arborist to provide tree mitigation plan at time of CZC. viii. The applieant shall be required to tile the Creasen Later-a! in aeeerdanee with UDG�T 3A 6. Any i ts in the easement Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 22 of 174 ix. The applicant shall construct a 10-foot wide landscape buffer on the north boundary of Gem Street in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Applicant will be responsible for the off-site extension of new sanitary sewer and water mainlines to the east to connect with the mainlines in The Oaks North Subdivision. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for the water mainline extension in Gem Way, from the north boundary to N. McDermott Road. A stub and hydrant will also be required west to McDermott Rd. C. ACHD https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=190639&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi D. CITY ARBORIST https://weblink.meridiancitE.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188578&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi E. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188194&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi F. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188577&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi G. NMID https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=1875 78&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi 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: Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 23 of 174 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds annexation of the subject site with an R-1 S zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan MDR FL UM designation for this property use will be limited to educational facility by a subsequent development restriction (see Section V for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds that a map amendment to the R-1 S zoning district is consistent with Comprehensive Plan as the Plan puts high priority on the provision of adequate educational facilities. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city As the need for adequate educational facilities is supported by Comprehensive Plan, the Commission finds that the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 24 of 174 CAE I�iAIv ITEM SHEET IDAHO Council Agenda Item - 5.13. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: Title of Item - Public Hearing for Villas at Twelve Oaks East(H-2020-0014) by Jim Jewett, Located at 115 S. Linder Rd. Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing Council Notes: ATTACHMENTS: Commission Recommendations and Staff Report Staff Report 6/26/2020 Planning and Zoning Minutes Minutes 7/2/2020 REVIEWERS: t Clerk. Weatherly,Adrienne Approved 6/26/2020 -2:02 PM Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 37 of 174 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 7 , 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5B PROJECT NAME : Villas at Twelve Oaks East PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING July 7,2020 Legend x ' DATE: Project Lflcfl�ian _-- TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner -- 208-884-5533100 SUBJECT: H-2020-0014 Villas at Twelve Oaks East—MDA,AZ i LOCATION: 115 S. Linder Rd. in the NE 1/4 of Section 14,Township 3N.,Range 1 W. L��WTfT1T1�1If�ITf1TI"11I � I I I I I f f f f br�rr nl�Trr�'�`€i� I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 6.63 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district; and modification to the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2016-095715)for the associated development to the west to include the subject property and proposed development plan in the agreement, and removal of the provision requiring an 8-foot tall concrete fence to be constructed. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 4.59 Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Single-family residential(SFR)and agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family residential(MFR) Current Zoning Rl in Ada County Proposed Zoning TN-R(Traditional Neighborhood—Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) NA(property is not proposed to be subdivided) Phasing plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 64 multi-family apartment units of units) Density(gross&net) 13.94 gross/14.12 net Open Space(acres,total[%]/ 1.59 of an acre(34.6%) buffer/qualified) Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 38 of 174 Amenities 10' wide multi-use pathway Physical Features(waterways, The Ten Mile Creek runs along the southern boundary of this hazards,flood plain,hillside) site Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 17,2019;7 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-05-056(Hark's Canyon Creek Subdivision DA Inst. #106180812);MDA-13-008 (lsr Addendum to DA Inst. 113103818);H-2016-0100(21 Addendum to DA Inst.#2016- 095715) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires No ACHD Commission Action es/no • Existing Linder Rd.is improved with 2/3-travel lanes,between 32-33'of pavement,and no curb, Conditions gutter or sidewalk abutting this site.There is 55' of ROW for Linder Rd. (25' from centerline). • CIP/IFYWP Capital Imprwements Plan 10112)fiIntegrated Five Year Work glen(IFYWP); Lnder Road is wrrenlly undar construction to be widened to 54anes from Frariklln road to Pine Avenue. Linder Road is listed in the-GI P to bo wide ned to 5-lanes}ram Frank.Ii n Rand to Overland Road between 2031 and 2035. This rs to be a tohpt project mth ITT. • The intersaclinn of Franklin Road and Linder Road Is listed in the CIP le be widened to 5- lanes on the north leg, 64anes an the south, 74anes east, and 7-lanes an the wrest leg, and signallzed between 2021 and 2025. Access(Arterial/Collectors/State One(1)25'wide driveway access is proposed via S.Linder Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Rd.,an arterial street Traffic Level of Service Acceptable(Better than"E")—Franklin&Linder Roads Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross A cross-access easement exists to this site from the property to Access the north.A driveway at the site's west boundary is proposed to be extended through the site to Linder Rd. Existing Road Network None Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None Buffers Proposed Road Improvements None Page 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 39 of 174 Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.3 miles from Fire Stations#1 • Fire Response Time Falls within 5 minute response time • Resource Reliability 75%for Fire Station#1;does not meet the target goal of 80% or greater • Risk Identification Risk factor of 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project(see comments in Section VIILC) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds • Special/resource needs An aerial device is required;the closest truck company is 4 minutes travel time(under ideal conditions)—Fire Dept. can meet this need in the required timeframe. • Water Supply Requires 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours;may be less if building is fully sprinklered,which all are proposed to be • Other Resources NA Police Service • Distance to Police 2.5 miles Station • Police Response 3:5 minutes Time • Calls for Service 577 within a mile of site(3/1/2019—2/29/2020) • Accessibility No issues with the proposed access • Specialty/resource No additional resources are required at this time;the PD already services the needs area • Crimes 67 within a mile of site(3/1/2020—2/29/2020) • Crashes 26 within a mile of site(3/1/2020—2/29/2020) West Ada School District 1.Distance arm rm � es IN- (elem,ms, Perrone Elementary 56Z 650 hs) Meridian Mld@Ie!khoal lw5 12M ILA 2.Capacity of Nbaridan H4h Scher 1965 2400 .7 Schools 3.#of Students Due to the abu ndani a mpkinl of growth In the area.West Ada is actbm ly building new scN.uols,and buuridiprim are atways Enrolled ehafong.These future students could pozeniimpw 4tutnd Plea53nt view Elementary,and Owyhee H,gh School. 4.#of students 51 predicted for this development Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed Ten Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.9 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 40 of 174 • Impacts/Concerns Per the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan,this parcel is supposed to connect to sewer on the property to the north and ultimately to W.Franklin Rd.The current configuration has sewer going to the west.Under this configuration the sewage is pumped through two lift stations.It is unknown if the lift stations can handle the extra load.The City wants to avoid sending the waste to the west and through the lift stations.Please direct sewage to the north as shown in the master plan. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None Concerns • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map (fLegend High��Den Legend10 PraiectLflca-non ReSld�"tli F{o'e LocaTMar. Elr�plyment 1 ,O EAU- o �` `igin 1 i U-Re 5 luy� Ira 8Rl fiC Ill IY' W.J ILLn, S1d nfi I II Jill 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fin 7 Il1TffPrr'{"i�� Page 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 41 of 174 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R-4 L'-O L10 0 (fLegend @ Pro"ec- Lcca-cr R.. I Project Luca=or _-- -��I.IT-�- ' rLlfYllk �-- -- +- i Plonrr--d Porve a _ R1WTF.L. - C- -N - RU, R 1 R R1 R-8 l UT -----' R1 I I I I I I I f I� RF�n� �l1lTfFrr'�'41� IaF�r.� �l1lTfFrr'�'41� III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jim Jewett—776 Riverside Dr., Ste. 204,Eagle,ID 83616 B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Representative: Josh Beach, Sawtooth Land Surveying—2030 S. Washington Ave.,Emmett,ID 83617 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 5/15/2020 6/19/2020 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 5/13/2020 6/16/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 5/20/2020 6/25/2020 on site Nextdoor posting 5/13/2020 6/16/2020 Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020- Page 42 of 174 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated Commercial on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan . The Commercial 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. The proposed high density multi-family development will provide housing options in close proximity to the rapidly developing Ten Mile area where employment uses are planned to develop. The proposed project is an extension of the Villas at Twelve Oaks project to the west and will share amenities and common open space. A segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is planned along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek which will provide a pedestrian connection from Linder Rd.to the west to the future employment uses in the Ten Mile area. Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "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 high density multi family apartment units will contribute to the variety of residential categories in the City and in close proximity to the Ten Mile area as desired. • "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 and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "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 (i.e. mutli family apartments) is proposed in this development which contributes to the variety of housing types in this area. In the abutting Villas at Twelve Oaks project, duplex style and 8-and 12 plex multi family apartments were approved. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed multi family residential use and site design should be compatible with multi family uses to the west, commercial uses to the north and single-family residential uses to the east across Linder Rd. • "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. Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 43 of 174 • "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 are required to be provided with development. • "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 multi family residential uses are proposed which are an allowed use in the Commercial FL UM designation. Public services and infrastructure are proposed to be provided. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION&ZONING The Applicant requests annexation of 6.63 acres of land with a TN-R(Traditional Neighborhood— Residential)zoning district. A conceptual site plan and building elevations were submitted showing how the property is planned to develop with 65 multi-family apartment units;this project is planned to be an extension of the multi-family project(Villas at Twelve Oaks) in the development process on the adjacent property to the west(see Section VIII.C,D). Multi-family developments are listed as a prinicipal permitted use in the TN-R district per UDC Table 11-2D-2. All future development is subj ect to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the TN-R zoning district. There is an existing home on the site that is proposed to be retained and used as an additional rental/manager's unit. The site plan depicts access to the proposed development via the extension of a driveway at the west boundary of the site and via S. Linder Rd. A non-exclusive vehicular/pedestrian ingress-egress easement (Inst. 113099953) exists to this site from the property to the north that is located approximately 145.3 feet from the west end of the concrete fence along the north boundary; there is an existing 8-foot tall concrete wall constructed on the property line that prevents access between the properties. To facilitate connectivity between the residential project and the abutting commercial development,the Applicant should remove a small section of the wall(up to 24.5 feet in width as allowed by the easement)to allow for a pedestrian connection to be provided as a provision of the amended Development Agreement(DA). Because this property is proposed to be included as part of the multi-family development to the west,the overall common open space and site amenities should comply with the minimum standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-4-3-27. Staff has verified the overall common open space and site amenities exceed the minimum UDC standards. To ensure common open space and site amenities are shared between the two sites, Staff recommends a DA provision is included requiring such. The Pathways Master Plan depicts a segment of the City's regional pathway on this site along the north side of the Ten Mile Creek and along the west side of S. Linder Rd. The pathway along the creek is planned to eventually provide a pedestrian connection between Linder and Ten Mile Roads. With the original Twelve Oaks project to the west, a pedestrian bridge was required to be constructed across the creek for a connection from the residential neighborhood(Whitestone Estate Subdivision) to the south to the north to Franklin Rd. Because the Pathways Plan at that time didn't depict an east/west pathway along the creek, a pathway was not required between the east and west boundaries. In order to facilitate Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 44 of 174 an east/west pathway connection between Linder and Ten Mile Roads and the Ten Mile area, Staff recommends a 10-foot wide pathway is constructed on the overall Twelve Oaks project in accord with the Plan as a provision of the amended DA. With development, a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required to be constructed along Linder Rd., landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Typically,a detached sidewalk would be required within the street buffer along Linder Rd.,an arterial street,per UDC 11-3A-17; however, because a segment of the City's multi-use pathway is planned from the creek to the north, Staff recommends a detached 10-foot wide concrete pathway is constructed in lieu of a sidewalk in this location.The sidewalk south of the creek along Linder Rd. may be constructed in the future with the bridge widening project; ACHD is requiring a road trust for those improvements. Conceptual building elevations were submitted that are the same as those being constructed in the original Villas at Twelve Oaks development;no changes are proposed to the elevations in the DA(see Section VIII.D). All future structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Detailed review of the elevations for compliance with these standards will take place with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application prior to application for building permits. Based on the analysis above in Section V, Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the TN-R zoning and proposed development is consistent with the Commercial FLUM designation for this site and uses desired in this area. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. Additional land on the north side of the creek on the adjacent Villas at Twelve Oaks property to the west that was inadvertently not included in the previous annexation boundary legal description is included in the proposed annexation boundary to clean up the zoning in this area. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Because a DA exists on the associated project to the west,the Applicant proposes to amend that agreement to include the subject property rather than enter into a new agreement just for this property(see analysis below). Staff recommends additional provisions are included in the amended DA as mentioned above as a provision of annexation of this property. B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION A modification to the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2016-095715)is proposed to include the subject property and proposed overall conceptual development plan in the agreement, and removal of the provision requiring an 8-foot tall concrete fence to be constructed(provision#6.1.9.). A legal description for the overall property proposed to be included in the DA is attached in Section VIII.B. The concrete fence/wall was previously required along the east boundary of the original Villas at Twelve Oaks multi-family project to buffer the previous rural residential use on the property proposed to be annexed with this application. Because the residential property is now owned by the same developer as the adjacent project,a fence/wall is no longer needed as a buffer as the project is proposed to be integrated as one development with shared common areas and amenities. Staff is in favor of the proposed modification to the DA with the added provisions noted in Section VI.A. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation&Zoning and amendment to the Development Agreement per the provisions in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 45 of 174 B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on June 4,2020.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Josh Beach, Sawtooth Land Surveying(Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Chad Heron d. Written testimony: Josh Beach,Applicant's Representative L. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. The Applicant is in agreement with the staff report except for condition#B.1.2,which requires sewer to connect to the north in accord with the Master Plan rather than to the west as proposed- The Public Works Department has re-evaluated the applicant's proposed sanitary sewer routing, as well as previous email correspondence with the applicant on the topic of routing, and finds that the current proposal is acceptable. Therefore, staff recommends the following language to replace that currently in condition#B.1.2: "The applicant shall be responsible to determine whether adequate capacity exists in the receiving sewer system, including two lift stations, to accept the additional flow from this development. If upgrades are necessary, the applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with said upgrades." b. Concern pertaining to traffic in regard to the amount of accesses via Linder Rd. in this area combined with not enough access/interconnectivity in the adjacent development to the south(Whitestone Estates)with only one way in and one wad 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. hi favor of the proposed 2-stony(rather than 3-story) structures as they're more compatible with adjacent residential and commercial structures,the inclusion of this site in the adjacent development and common open space&site amenities proposed for the overall development;parking in excess of UDC standards; and provision of a pedestrian connection to the north. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Modification to condition#B.1.2 in Section IX as requested by the Applicant with the language recommended by Staff. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 46 of 174 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation&Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map 5awtooth Land urveyincj, LL 466 2030 5.WsShinyton Ave. J 044 Warthweat Med_,Ste.6 14 �"?.venue Eaat � Emmett, IQ 83G J 7 Caeur d'Akne,[a 83, 4 June, la 83338 �mt r 1 P: (208)338-8104 F={208}714-41544 F. (208)3c3�r303 F:{208}398-8I06 F={ 08}252 4463 F: (208)324-382 March 4,2020 Annexation Legal Description BASIS OF BEARING for this description is South 89113'17-East between a 5/8"rebar marring the N1 f4 corner of Section 14 and a brass cap mariang the section comer common to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, both in T 3 N., R. 1 W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho. A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 6,Block 1 cf Van Hees Subdivision as shown in Book 12 of Plats, at Page 683,Ada County Records and a portion of the Ten Mile Drain, located in the NE114 of the NE114 of Section 14,T. 3 N.,R. 1 W., B.M.,Ada County, Idaho,more palticulady described as follows; COMMENCING at a 513"rebar tap marking the N1/4 corner of said Section 14; Thence South 89013'17"East,€oincidentvah the north line of the NE14 of the NE1f4 of aid Section 14,a distance of 1993.41 feet; Thence South 0033'43"Wes#;,coincident with the west line of Lot 1, Block 1, of said Van Hees Subdivision, 296.60 feet to the NW comer of said Lot 6,Block 1,of Van Hees Subdivision and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 89113'17"East,coincident with the north line of said Lot 6,Block 1, of Van Hess Subdivision, 664.51 feet to the€enterli ne of S. Linder Road; Thence South 0033'08"West,coincident with said centerline of S. Linder Road, 233.15 feet; Thence Nolth 89026'52"West 24.99 fleet; Thence 37.45 feet along art of said curve and coincident with said south ban kof the Ten Mile drain, having radius of 76.40 feet,a central angle of 28°04'59", subtended by a chord bearing, South 89a18'15"West, 37.07 feet; Thence South 75015'46"West,coincident YvKh the north line of Whitestone Estates Subdivision, 624.62 feet to a 518'reba r PLS 972; Thence South 7500143"West,coincident with said north line of Whitestene Estes Subdivision, 689.45 feet; Thence Nolth 0033'43"East, 124.41 feet; Thence Nolth 75007'43"East,689.45 feet; Thence Nolth 0033'43"East,276.88 feet to the POINT OF BEGINING; The above described parcel contains 6.63 acres, more or less. P a g e I I 13:12019119393-TVVELVE OAKS EXPANSIGNISurvey%Drawings%Descriptions119393 annexation legal RE;! 1.docx Page 10 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020- Page 47 of 174 USIS GCE BEARING c��Y��i N 4 k.,cF C. 14 5 83°]3'17-F 7 57,89' fi"1275oUv?J7 r —- _ 664,47. 11 ,32 I VAN BEES SUPU1vLSfON T vMVF OAKS I — w r 2,BLz)cK 1 `n 5 8913,13'l]"E _664.51 r �639.43'1 LU VAN HEES RSWVRUO1J LOT 6,aocx i 41 L l ASS I9 2 a MILE 0 .LU e °p WWrTE5T014F FSFATE SLWR951CW LOTS9 a+.c"! i 4MF TAKE I CFi CtARvF TAX E ctiwv€ na�!€ti n� onrs1 Darn MR 1 M)RD OnAlAC 1 C?Z�o t€+ r c� 3 .as s.ao 2eaa459' s re.as v, 37.c7 LEGEND PROPER7v SCUWMR"Y LYVE EX�S TMG OfI€o oK r)T Uw kXW OF WA v FWO-V-9'AFW AS WTT0 4 FGA0 MARS CAP W'W'M6114A1CAF kS 141a2 # 5r: W'REBARICAP P7S J4221 CA.0j1A7.5ra r NT � 1' RtlQ3R�1f4F90.4�iM1T7Gfi St=CT30f�!14 � F�'1�F1xG�Orntiu�aER T3N„ R, 1W, F.M. 1 E WNFR Ctk� - 2030 S, WASITYOGTON AVE. owra d VILLAS A 1'71NEL1{E MS EMMETT, ID 83617 1 g$s �4 NEXA7ZCN EXHIE T OPEN RENTALS LLC P. (208)398-81&4 PRQIFCT/ MERIDFRN, IDAHO _ (20$)398-6105 14393 I SAFFT OATS. 9{4{c3720 l arx{ n�rj r}rf l -i} WWW SA TtjL�-C()M J j�`! Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 48 of 174 B. Legal Description&Exhibit Map for Property to be Included in Amended Development Agreement awto th Land Surveying, LL 2Q3Q S, Wssh.g on A— 11144 NKfhwe�.k blvd„Ste. G 1 4 1 1° A,,snua Exst Pmrrett, IP 53617 C.,?r d'Alenc.is 453814 jffo rm' 11)633- P: (208)39$5$J 04 F: (208)714-454.1 P: 120815P? )-5303 F; (20%3.�a'a,O5 F- i208)29 •$d53 F; 12Oi.1}324.352 1 March 12, 2020 Devebpment Legal Description BASIS OF REA1RM4 for tfli5 desoripaw is South 89013'17"East between an alum;rrum cap marking the N114 corner of Section 34 and a brass Cap marking the section corner com neon to-sections 1 i, 12, 13 and 14,k1cated In T. 3 N., R- 1 W., B,M-,Ada County,Idahm A parcel of lafld being Lots 1 and 2, Black 1 of Twelve Gt2kS&LtdiwlSion as shown in Back I IM of flats, at Page 15179 and a portion of Lot 6,slod( I of Van Heel 5ubc5ulsion as shown In Book 12 of Rats,at Page 688,Ada County Records and a portion of the Ten Mlle DraJn,kxated irk the NE11+4 of the HEt)4 of Section 14,T, 3 N,, R. 1 W-1 B,M.,Ada County, Tdaho, more particularly deSalbed e5 follows; COMMENCING at an alumlruurn cala marking the N114 corner of said Section 14; rtenue south ago 13'17"East, coincident vrlth t11e north line of sad NEI14 of Sectian 14, a distance of 1328,94 feex; to E 1)16 comer of Said Section 14; Therm South 0034'42*West, 49.nd feet to ttre NN!corner of said Lot 2, Stock t, Twelve oaks VJ41as Sub&.ri5an and the POINT CW BI:C,VWING, Thence Spud+890 I3'17'East, ooincident with the north line of said Lot 1 and 2 of$lock X,Twelve Oaks 5ubdivl5ion,a distancze of 5%,16 feet, Thence North 89030'ff East, 10&33 feet In a SM"tebar PI.S 5802 marking the Northeast turner of said 4Ct 1,Block 1, Twelve Oaks Subdlvi:�lon, Thence South Da33410 west,tolncident with the east fine of said Lot 1, Block 1,Twelve Oaks SubdIvi5lon,a diwinre of 25(l:,17 feet to a 5)8"rebar PLS 14221� Theme South 89°13'17'Fast, coincident with the north line of Lot b,Van Heel Subdivision, 639.51 feet to a W rehar PL5 14221, Tlwce South 0°33'08"West, M.25 feet to the South right of way of Ten We Drain and the begInni ng of a pork- tangent Curve to the left, Thence 37,45 feet along arc of said cow,aoinddent with 5ald sout#k right of way of Teti Mile Drain, having radius of 75.40 feet,a central angle of 28 I24 59", 9lbtefided by a chard bea ring South 890 18'15"west, 37.07 feet;; Thence South 75015146"West, coincident with saW south right oi'way of Tan Mlle Drain,624.62 feet to a 5/8'reber PL5 972; � Thence North O033'55*East, 129.41 feet toil 518"rebar pL5 14221; 'C E Thence South 1500 7 43"West:,coinckfent with Bald south right of way of Ten Mile drake, 689,45 feet 0 Thence North 0034'18"Bast, 710.64 feet to the POINT OF$6GI4NI1114i<s, OF Gt , The above described parcel Contains 14.019 acres, «acre or less, ' Poi( I I P:L2019%19393•TINELVF-OAKS E PANSON)Survey%DrewingskDoscripl*ona119393 0eve4aprnent legal.docx Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 49 of 174 &45S OF SIR W F 1116 GOR,SEC 14 OWLF 11gQ]o44s 23m.0, 11 !2 W.FAWLFN RQ14D #I1776-�20�5f - -- -- v S °23"27"F q `,,,.,..__...._., if L3 TVJML F OAKS I I vl SJJaDfvw0R 3r*+ I I for al i t I s � I I TmaVE OA)S T4221 5 891,13':7"J- &3J.s!• ac VRLAS +� SIJ8Eb1YJlQf71Y I PLS 14221 TM L �VLOCFf 1 I YAf9 Ff€ES SOP AeMON w1. L for6 61 I R095600210 r — ky p pi4+ - l '- C7 PIS N223 '`rn _ V6 WM7ffTOA'E€STATE �' � Sal&�P347529aIV r l J OT5 J-J,aOCK f - UNF TA FA F 0F5lAArE 'F I t IJ24.41. CLMVE TABLE €'UY{4F JADM _ �F%-Jti G'1+'4RR1.FNG7H CJCRPOEAW?iG MTA1WL�l.E ct io 584°Ja15 tir s" LAflf eN PRUPfR7YBVLN�W14YZL9E G} �} BIQSTDlG PM OR LOT C.I•NE SECTMALAL UWE RMW OF WAY OF +0UJ'rR 211µ+irrc,w W 1 0MffiffW C' * sET W61 f -V PLs 14221 d YAL W?33�POW 5,E OfV 14 { ++�:r 2wFa,ltr4�Tioa EU5T]hG COT NW ER F,3 A�,,J4. I ti'V., E.M. per, 200 5, WASHINGTON AVE. TWELVE COIA3 EMMETT,X 0617 2 9393- D VELOPMENT'AGREEMENT OPEN DOOR RENTALS LLC P.( 3M-8104 PRR]E�T* SQlA n4RY E]�WBlT F.' ( 8)399-8105 19,m ERTV r3/af�10 '+47/-tC; ffVVW.SAWrG9THLS.CQM J OF J Page 13 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020- Page 50 of 174 C. Overall Conceptual Site Plan to be Included in Amended Development Agreement(dated: 11/25/19) I I is .1 � 'ice r,� • � �u C - Ef"g '� INC r.b.Y '�c•��N- � 1tlLL�lilW i, Page 14 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 51 of 174 D. Conceptual Building Elevations &Floor Plans(dated: 5/6/16) ls A - 1 Y do �� . N .. k y I ' i 14 GDHCiT�1JAL OE'fIRN 7RtYlflpJ# S.O.T# I���* � 1r".;&SIN OF&PQN frM21S. c � L� r I LJ__k .0 Ur.d.Ha ITYDPL ME E fE%W"IrIVE 44 ' 1'rPrJa FWW ELfVAnOk M-PE i.113U Page 15 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 52 of 174 CONCEPTUAL OEWOM 0MOR M MAN I� •� -- i-� lei � 1-1 z` O - d a TFCAh SW RHMTdDh rME4I - ---- ,tea—= � ME u L L 11 H -wad Or E] 1jj '-.T 7 MML r 0[T!1?ftrk Nlkf=EikMR I lIN i I41�'.i 21141�4/kg1iRtEWi?ICH(Yb[1}11 GO NC EPTUAL DEIPM44 DRAWINGS S.5.10 � +Yil'4i �fICM Ellv4TFO1:IwE6TF � fl I 2 P—ELE4),rKW 4Ei4ETi u EMI ii 7#+6E se'+fimaw rnoR7H I 4,""FAtICEF{mm f N.p y Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020- Page 53 of 174 CONCEPWAL DEMON DRANIINGS SALIS T FRONT ELEVATION[DUPLEX❑1,D4,&D71 'l 8 m � _ � a Fj N a7 REAR ELEVATION MU PLEX 01,N.&D7) y I. J. - - - -— -- FXF.ELEUS iH PLEX AL IM�, IDI. SIDE ELEVATION P UPLEM D1.Ol.iL D7) 31DE ELEVATION(DUPLEX❑1.DA,&D7I q_....., 3,.-..- A6.71 CIDNCEPTLILSL IDEli9M QB:AWINIGB �F101It RF.YASRIId QSI RFJF�pEi Oq I Y �.4,u,a.rr,+w1l�,Iltraoe.6aa Luo ... ... ...... _ W UAW I- =C - 4"ELEVA71R110UPLFA[n w 5 L>.p �94E ELc4iTl[Y4�[L1'LE�.O20:i IMI FA '7' Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 54 of 174 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS 5.6.16 �' • �xoairx;�n��l a FROHT ELEVATION(OkJPLE%O3,06&391 7~ i _ r REAR ELEVATION P J PLE%b3,b9 8 D9] �._ a DLU LJJ _ L l-- .... _ DuaLEx 4 S.QE ELEVATION IDtJPLEX a3.D6&D9a 75iDE ELEVATION(DUPLEX D3p8&391 [DNtEfi TUA1 GE9YCN dll6YfiN69 SAS-ti ���� _ Lq 0 '.'S-BL WX ELE':W'IDh 14![M 419ftE.94CE ELE^T104 L. YFORITFhFW4n EN 4PEAR EI F%-AT,C+ r,y.s7 1 Page 18 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 55 of 174 CONC51 TIIAL DESIGN OR I INGS &6.16 TYPICAL SIDE ELEVATION 0 y Q1 � _. 2ERONT ELEVATION I M.ELEVS GARAGE 6 ruin 3:_-P REAR ELEVATION A6.8� CYACarTU LL SIWYE 1 raxxj+RI.jIvnTOW I 4696'L[-%-mA 34;OE F EvA* 4 A5J.00 Page 19 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 56 of 174 CPNCU"UAL DESON DRAWIM48 54,76 ' F 1 i I C m 1 SIDE ELEVATION 0 } F r 3FAONT ELEVATICN GARAGE# a�xu 4. REAR ELEVA7M..._� re imtm tuwx A6.84 5—Q I , qgL JF IS Em Ow I PLO PLO:IR ;tiff 4 P1A '��r]f10 F_CfA t'LIH.i►aE 7 ;AZ 1 Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 57 of 174 I�' e J t I' ' 4 ' � k •a fir_ ... I it I1 LEBEN? MTCE PPIPTES:�- Ly 1 1 Z !i f i�.17Y1•7r-!� aitYYiYl�l In lS iBd/MLJ/'1 T�F!1 1 t'14T FL"�I.P/I`�Itrft7 w 1' - rc:r�'. q�p w f Z - Ir ' T _ b nrEB Page 21 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 58 of 174 m 1 T'rPlvdi SIDE ELEVATION _7 0 Q} � ZFTw ELEVATION EXF.ELEI. GARAGE 5 �uaa 3REAR ELEVATION AB„82 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 59 of 174 E. Proposed Amendments to Existing Development Agreement Staffs recommended amendments are noted in underline text. 6.1.9 An 8 feet tall eener-ete fenee is r-equir-ed to be eensti-aeted along the east boundafy of th adjaeepA to the Ream pr-epeft-y(Par-eel No. R8956000200)to mateh the existing fenee along the 6.1.9 A pedestrian connection shall be provided between the Villas at Twelve Oaks East propeLty and the commercial property to the north(i.e.Van Hees Subdivision) as facilitated by the previously recorded access easement in the location and width specified in the easement(Inst. #1130999531 6.1.10 A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed along the north side of the Ten Mile Creek and a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed along the west side of S. Linder Rd. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the Villas at Twelve Oaks East portion of the development. 6.1.11 A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-use pathways on the site prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the Villas at Twelve Oaks East portion of the development. 6.1.12 The common open space and site amenities shall be shared between the Villas at Twelve Oaks and the Villas at Twelve Oaks East developments. IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The amended Development Agreement(DA)proposed by the Applicant, including new provisions recommended by Staff as a provision of annexation of this property, shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat or building permit application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. 1.2 ,this par-eel is supposed to eenneet to sewer-an the pr-apef�y plan.to the nofth aadultimm4y to W. Fr-a-flklia Rd. The etiffeat eenfiguFatian has sewer-going 4)the west.Under-this eenfigur-ation the sp. ed dffeugh two lift stations. 14 is tinknown i the lift stations ean handle the &Afa4 —, wants to a-void sending the waste to the west and thfough the lift sta4ions. Please dir-eet sewage to the aeAh as shown in the master- The applicant shall be responsible to determine whether adequate capacity exists in the receiving sewer system, including two lift stations,to accept the additional flow from this development. If upgrades are necessary,the applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with said upgrades." 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 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 60 of 174 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 I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 61 of 174 surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. Page 25 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 62 of 174 C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=186317&dbid=0&repo=Meridian Ciu D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188198&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=189330&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.orQ/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187167&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioy G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=186408&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridianciN.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=186721&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187589&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City J. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188453&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) hgps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.asp x?id=18 7880&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the 4pplicant's proposal to annex the subject 6.63 acre property with TN-R zoning and develop multi family apartment dwellings on the site at a gross density of 13.9 units per acre is consistent with the associated Commercial FL UM designation for this property. (See section V above for more information) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the regulations for the commercial district and with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 63 of 174 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed multi family residential uses should be compatible with adjacent multi family, single-family and commercial uses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 64 of 174 �E IDIAN^ ITEM SHEET IDAHO Council Agenda Item - 5.C. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: 0 Title of Item - Public Hearing Continued from June 9, 2020 for Cedarbrook Subdivision (H- 2020-0012) by Toll Southwest, LLC, Located at 4185 S. Linder Rd. Click Here for Application Materials Council Notes: ATTACHMENTS: Commission Recommendations and Staff Report Staff Report 7/2/2020 Planning and Zoning Minutes Minutes 5/12/2020 REVIEWERS: Clerk. Weatherly,Adrienne Approved 7/2/2020 - 11:14 AM Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 96 of 174 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 7 , 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5C PROJECT NAME : Cedarbrook Subdivision PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO eI� Q 2 C) 14 he �xA I { L4 �/l Gl r c. �2 �c� r/ � � S 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 STAFF REPORT lc� w COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING July 7, 2020 Legend DATE: Continued from:June 9, 2020 ( j - t TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ■ Bruce Freckleton,Development Services Manager r 208-887-2211 - ----- SUBJECT: H-2020-0012 - - Cedarbrook Subdivision LOCATION: 4185 S. Linder Rd. (Parcel #51226417250,in the SE 1/4 of Section o 26,T.3N.,R.1 W.) ' I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 Description Details Page Acreage 118.58 Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County(existing)/R-2,R-4 and R-8(proposed) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR)(3-8 units/acre) Existing Land Use(s) Single-family rural residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 330 SFR buildable lots/38 common lots/4 other lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 7 phases Number of Residential Units(type 330 detached SFR homes of units) Density(gross&net) 2.78 units/acre(gross);4.4 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 20.30 acres(or 17.6%) [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities Swimming pool,pool house,children's play equipment,pathways,multi- purpose sports court,benches and covered shelters Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 97 of 174 Description Details Page Physical Features(waterways, NA hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 8/29/19;48 attendees 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 (yes/no) 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 Gapltal"P%ovammts Plan ICIPY Intagrawd Fiv*Year Work Plan(IFYWP): The intersection of Array Road and Ten Mile Road is scheduled m the IFYb4P la b8 reconstructed as a multflene roundabout with 2-lanes on the narth lay,2-lanes an the eauttr, 2-lanes east.and 2-lanes an the west leg and will Include Ten We Sridge W 82 In 2021. Linder Rua3¢iu listed in die GIP to kye widened is 34ene3 from Amity Road IQ Victory Bond Wyman 2031 and 2035. Linter Road rs lama in the CIP to.M widened to 5-Pan"from Victory Rand to Oweflano Road between 2021 and 2025. The hr,lerswmrk of Arwl Road and Under Rom Is Gstiad In lt4e GIP to lye reconsi►dcled as a single-lane raundshoul with a westbpund right-tum bypass lane with 3-lanes an Kim nprlh lag, 2-lanes w the south, 3-braes on the east, anu 2-lanes on the wesl leg between 2031 and 21135. • The Interseellon of Victory Road and Linder Road is Ilsled In the CIP to bB recollslrueted as a single-lane roundabout with 24enes on the narlh leg, 2-tanaa on the south,24enes an the east and 24anes on the west leg between 2021 and 2025. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.9 miles • Fire Response Time 3:00 minutes(under ideal conditions from nearest station-Fire Station#6—can meet response time goals • Resource Reliability Target goal of 80%or greater—current reliability unknown as Station#6 just opened • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service • Accessibility Project and emergency access plan meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. Page 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 98 of 174 Description Details Page • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Police Service • Distance to Police 4.5 miles Station • Police Response Time Approximately 5 minutes from Police Dept.;response time goal for emergencies is 3-5 minutes. • Calls for Service 0(within a mile of site) • %of calls for service Mari fan RrLE -partment-Cedarbrugh Su rb split by priority LqABfMWdwyiiuF,.,•. 41, <Co. 1 05Urulkrnr.,aw mit*R4 jd +nr a'+ar W- curaslw19-a113lln?D mdorSrn zOLmM-OrlivuH %hc9adimgDrs4nctIAD W WAIIS1 #k�lrVlr+f >I�*tom;i?�I/�Ir�t4r�1rrh�i+ll�� ape 11*14M +r mn rY Itiwoft; 0t+of M4rwww Jrd4rariv J I P*VNrr? I PAN I IQ: JL,,#rid{R4mx w*nehm by a kwilly^.'AILVO JhnWrtF J hit ahioVry� ¢fit' CHIN W Swvka WSJ.CAR 4xL wFW&IA W',atW %nl Call4 FW WWk*%ok ter i4l F"In'A314"P is gF�ca's 93.d� e rd r+R ers a a� Crams 6NAd rebtl 0 ••crM6 CuLwt iota lV • 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, Jolnt School D-Istrkl No. � Idt a Weft Aida School Dlszm)has erperlerlced signlfkani the sustmined growth hs) nnr oilmem during the.-Ito ten years.Many aal otlr shoals bFC1V f 1QW rhg district are optriiling al air above capa qn u S c rn5k,%{fat a-wl<c#m pr"cl That these homes-when completed.will house ■ mn H as owce school aped chlldran.ApproNafof 1heCdarbrol7k SubdfyWoe will aff eel enrollments at the following school%Ir DINFIR. Enr011itw tt {�AaC1 y MLly LOW ha Xr4p1} Maryh4rTherson Ele"rdary" 555 Soo 119 VittOry Middle SCh001 $44 loop 11 Ma-Adian HIth Wool 1965 240D S.0 •Nrir%the:OJT 1 whmI year Mark MrRher3an's student capacity wHI Iptrebye to B25,due to the Current t1KpalnSv)m underway •_ • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled Wastewater Page 3 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 99 of 174 • Distance to Sewer This proposed development falls within the Interim Southwest Sewer Phasing Plan Services as developed by the Meridian Public Works Department. As such,it will require the construction of a temporary sewer lift station,trunk line,and pressurized sewer force main. • Sewer Shed Ten Mile Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer 330 building lots ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.83 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes—Within the Interim Southwest Phasing Plan WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5,and potentially future zone 4 • Estimated Project Water 330 building lots ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend J 0Praje-t Lccfliion lei - _ o ❑ h. �I ' LZ vf hke-diun'l RJ id Density. I �. ldellfla liL :Y 5 F LT S�H) MU N • 1 Page 4 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 100 of 174 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend -2 -8 (Legend 0Project Lcoafkm Rl RU. I Prcjea. Lcoflfia-n i- City Limils � R R-$ — Planned Parcels i ` R-4INC ` RUT t R' t 1 RUT R r R-4r�� A RUT A -BRUT o 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 City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 4/17/2020 5/22/2020 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 4/14/2020 5/19/2020 Applicant posted public hearing 4/22/2020 5/11/2020 notice on site Nextdoor posting 4/14/2020 5/19/2020 Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020- Page 101 of 174 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). 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 17.5916) 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) Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 102 of 174 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) 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."(6.01.0313) 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 Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 103 of 174 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. 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 VIIL 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.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 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 11-2): 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-31 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. Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 104 of 174 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 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 11-3 : 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 11-3B-12C. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 n: 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. Page 9 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 105 of 174 Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : 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. 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 Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 106 of 174 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 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 1LL 1-3A-m: 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 11-1A-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 July 7,2020— Page 107 of 174 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. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on May 7, 2020. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. I. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Sabrina Durtschi,Applicant's Representative;Deborah Nelson,legal counsel representingthe he Applicant b. In opposition: Annette Alonso; Julie Langlois; Paula Connelly; Kenzie Ward c. Commenting:None d. Written testimony: Julie Langlois, Brian Connelly, Kenzie Ward, and Paula Connelly e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Not enough transition in lot sizes to adjacent rural properties—requests for'h to I acre lot sizes as a transition and a landscape buffer and berm at the west boundary b. Protection of view sheds and rural lifestyleght to farm,raise and process their cattle; C. Concern pertainingto o capacity of area schools with the proposed development and all of the developments that have been approved in this area but not yet developed; d. Concern pertaining to traffic and inadequacy of existing infrastructure to handle more development in this area with no plans to widen Linder Rd. until 2031-2035,which is currently a rural 2-lane roadwa; e. Would like to see a greater setback along Linder Rd. so that when the road is expanded in the future there will still be enough green space&landscapin to o keep the rural feel of the area and reduce impacts on landscaping;. f. Concern that it's not an efficient way to expand the City's infrastructure with the project's location on the fringe of the Cites g_ Concern pertaining to the timing of this development-balancing the growth with the state of the economy; h. Supportive of proposed detached homes but opposed to townhomes and duplexes; i. Based on discussions with the neighbors(the Rinehimer's &the Robertson's),the Developer has agreed ed to provide a 3-4' tall berm with a wood-style fence on top of the berm centered on the shared property line along the northern portion of the west boundary of the site adjacent to their properties,landscaped with trees at a spacing of approximately 25 feet along their side of the fence that they would maintain; The Developer has also agreed to limit the height of homes to single-story where theX will be in the direct view shed out from the physical house on adjacent properties; k. The Developer also agreed to double the required rear building setback of 15 feet to provide a minimum 30-foot rear setback along the west and south boundaries of the subdivision. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Commission asked the Applicant where the additional children's plu equipment recommended by Staff would be located—the Applicant responded it will be in the large common area by the swimming pool; Page 12 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 108 of 174 b. Commission asked the Applicant if the pond would be empty in the winter after irrigation season—the Applicant responded no,that it would have a permanent water level year around, C. Commission was generally not supportive of Staff s recommendation to provide a variety of housingtypes(,attached&townhomes)within the development; d. The Commission discussed extending the R-2 zoning along the southern boundary of the sib e. Adequacy of the proposed transition in lot sizes and buffer to adjacent rural residential properties. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Remove the requirement for a variety of housing types to be provided—the Commission was not in favor of the attached and townhome product at the northeast corner of the site proposed b, t�pplicant in response to the Staff recommendation based on Comprehensive Plan policies (strike DA provision#A.1b in Section IX); C. Include a DA provision requiring a berm and fence to be constructed on the shared property line adjacent to the Rinehimer and Robertson properties as committed to by the Developer ,see DA provision#A.1d in Section M d. Include a DA provision that limits the height of homes to single-story where they will be in the direct view shed out from the physical house on adjacent properties (see DA provision#A.1e in Section IX)—Staffrecommends the Applicant address which ,Epecific lots will have sin l�e-story homes at the Council hearing. e. Include a DA provision that requires a minimum 30-foot rear setback for homes along the west and south boundaries of the subdivision(see DA provision#A.1 f in Section 5. Outstandingissue(s)for City Council: a. The Commission recommended Council consider whether or not there should be some funding or a partnership toward future intersection improvements at Amity&Linder Roads. Page 13 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 109 of 174 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map CMAR13ROOK SUBDIVISION DATE. Dezember 4.2019 ANNEXATION LEGAL DIr5 R PTION A FAI.tC,6f,OIa LAND BETNO A FOR170N OF'1"1<iI S13114 OIL SE TLON 26.TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANCE 1 WEST,OF THB BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHp,MORE PARTICULARLY DhSCMDED AS YOLLC]WS, C:O14LMRNCING AT THE E 114 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26,€1+IONLI Eh1=BY A 2 112" ALUMINUM OAP(CORNER RECORD NO.20 17-9 84 155),FROM WHICH THE SE MRNEk OF SAID SSC.'T ON 26,MOLD BY A 3"ALTJM1VUM CAP(C ORMR RECORD NO.20 L 5- 109760),BFARS SOUTH.OT3€'26"WEST,A DTSTANCE OF 2652.39 FSBT; T111s1qCE COIN CIDENT WFEH THE BAST LINE OF THE SE 114 OF SAft)SEC-1-10N 2-6,SOUI-11 00�31.26"WES'X,A LISTANCE OF 570.20 FEET TO T11I3 POM OF 11LG1NNtNC.; TF ENC E C OINC IDLrNT WITH THE 13 ST LINE OF Tf1E SOLWHt?AS-f'QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26,SCUM 001131126°WEST,A DISTANCE OF 20a2-1917aT TO TIT SC tJ TI-MAST MRNER OF SAID ShCTION 26; T1T1±NC:1?IAI?4W NC SAID FAST LINE,{:OINCIDI3WI"tiVilli'I1Ir: OU`Y14 LIME:OF TIDE S013'I11FsAM-QUART K OF SAID$22170N 26,NOATII R9°>;4'44"iW&-,T,A DTS'UANCR of 17S,63 r-F- 7; TI4UNCE LEAVING SALT}SC1UD1 LINE,N(.)R-114 46'00'12"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 279.40 FEET TIMgCZ NORTH 591TY 121 WEST,A DISTANCE Of 3 Ei{ OO FEET, TI C75NORTH 7V5Y12`1kT-,S ',A DISTANCE OF 605.00 M- U ; THRNCR NORM 72015'12" WFST,A DISTANCE 300.00FETS7, TH-RNCF.NORTH 731150112" W13W.A PJ1KTANCF OF 300.00 TTET; THENCE FORTH.46 38'12." W-.W, A DI STANCE OF.540.00 F BF.7', THENCK NORTH 4300512" W P-;M A DI4 fANCE OF 100.00 F TE IENC°E NORTR 00 10'G 2" WF-';T,A DISTANCE OF 300.00 FF..7 TO THE WEST J,WE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Ole SAM SECTION 20; "['HENCE,COINCIDENT WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE-SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID S1T=OAI 26,NORI'1I UQ¢32'4S"EAST,A DISTANCE OF 1105.15 FEET TO' T-MNORTHV'FLST CORNER OF'I'HS 5UUTHRAST QUARTER(CENTER 114)OF SAID SECTION 26; "1MNC'E LEAVING SALE]WBSTL NE,COINCIDENT WEN THE NORTH LINE OF THE s41rI'H> AS'i QtJARTEIt OF Sr 11 -S3st7[Q7d 26,SUUTH 89-11'18"EAST,A DISTANCE OF 1490.70 THWCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE,SOU77143'44'18"EAST,A DISTANCE OF 120.00 FEET; TTTTNCL SOUTH 8SPI N 8"EAST,A DISTANCE OF 610,00 FEE'[', Page 14 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 110 of 174 7T Tf?IkICE SOUTH 43°WSV'EAST.A DISTANCE OF V 5,61 F T TO TIE POINT OF E EA.INNING. SAIL]PARCEL CONTAINING5,165,+494 SQUARE FEET OR €€E,58AORF 3 MORK OR LE.54_ 10GET1 LER W Ell AND SUBJECT 70 Ci7VI'NANTS,EASZMFNTS,AND RESTRK{EIONS Ot RECORD. THR BASES OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PARCEI,IS SOUTH 4091'26"Wirt911-TE WEHN THl3 FAST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26 AND THE SOUTHEAST OORNF?R OF SECTION 26, END OF DESOREMON 1072 � N OF 50* P,F4`° Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 111 of 174 ANNEXATION LEGAL EXHIBIT A PARCEL OF LAND DELNG A POR770JV OF 1/4 OF ,SECTION 26, T- 3 N-, R- I W., BOIT,SE MERIDIAN, ADA COUJ TY, IDAHO 2019 54' CAiJ M L,lTPA E 1/4 CORNER C ]//4 CORNER I EST PER SECTION 215 SEC�IOW 26 RAS 4C$ I 2 1/V Al.L MINUM CAP OORf�ER RECORD I +�54 UMS LATERAL CORNER REGARD NO. Na l4Qf)34638 $6SrP'I8'E .�6',L27d 'CLa�ER�ASFKNT 26i7-�3 155 S99"11'IH't 14 0.70' 761ver 543' 41f1'E S99'11'19�E f— —� 420.CQ' eiJ JrNT OF r BECINWNG 50' CALKINS LATERAL SEEiEHT PER 11&�B ACRES I \\ mrn \ 30f1.f11Y � o I 1874'15'1�1N � I F{7�TQ'12'w I bd5,QfJ' J I I �78.69' 3810.�6' i — In N$e'ta'Sa"w � I� 175. S ,36.3 S 1/4 OORNER SWT14FAV CORNFIR SECT10N 2A SECTLIN 215 2 1/2"ALLIWNtIM CAP W, AYNY ROAD fPUBLfr, 279.40' ALUMINUM C4J' CORNER MCOND Na OORKR RE=D NU 112045471 44�'4 .6 10729w H P Tc I-fi th, - - �1111� b�8YWI.W 1� l k K ROUT R) SCAL€`vaxe000 Wxoa :245sxs w.*r.r�dfroam 1�. Page 16 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 112 of 174 Legai (description Cedarbrook Subdivision-RUT to RZ Rezone A parcel being a portion of the 95 !of Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 Writ, Boise Meridian,Ads County.Idaho,and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an Alwminurn Cap monutnant Marking the northeast earner of said SE X,from which an Aluminum Cap monurneM marking the sautheast corner of said SE IN bears S 0°31'26'W a distance of 2852.39 feel; Thence N,89`11'18"W along the northerly boundary of said SE'l,a distance of 2475.20 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leavfng said northerly boundary S D'48'42'VV a dlstanee of 86.98 feet to a point; Thence S 0°OV00"E a distance of 55.00 feel to a point; Thence S 7°3618"W a distance of 85.37 feet to a po4nt; Thence S 0'32'48"VV a distance 590.$3 feet to a point; Thence a dsstanoe of 79.93 feet along the arc of a 100.OD foot radius curve Ieft,said carve having a central angle of 45�47'46"and a long cliord bearing S 22'21'05'E a distance of 77.52 feet to a paint; Thence S 45'14'58'E a distance of 201.84 feet to a point,- Thence S 44'45'02"W a distance of 163.50 feet to a point; Thence 5 45"14'68"E a distan�e of 1052.00 fleet to a point; Thence S 44"45'02"W a distance of 41.66 feat to a point; Thence a distance of M.16 feet along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve left,said curve Craving a central angle of 21'51'43*and a long chord bearing S 33"49'11"VV a distance of 37.93 feet to a point; Thence S 22°53'20"W a distance of 30.49 feet to a point; Thence N 73'50'12"W a distance of 1213.08 feet to a point; Thence N 46'38'12"W a distance of 544,00 feet to a point; Thence N 43'05'12"W a distance of 300.00 feeet to a point; Thence N 4D°1012'W a distance of 300.00 feet to a paint on the westerly boundary of said$7 Y.; Thence N 0'32'48"E a distance of 1 105.15 feet to a US inch diameter rebar marking the northwest comer of B aid SE'/4; Theooe 5 89'1 I'18'E a distance of 178.41 feet t4 the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 9.40 acres and 9s subject to any easements eYi0ng a irk use. Clinton W.8@nsen,PLS p,L LA,y� Land Solutions,PC sT p Jan Lie ry 23,2020 m l �-4°a �N W Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 113 of 174 CEDARBROOK SUBDIVISION - REZONE EXHIBIT RUT TO R-2 ZONE POINT OFur;r�a a 1/4 BEGINNING N19211'18'w Z47629' Y �f4 L9 S9911'18'E 13i4.77 � 11$2.80' 7h 125 SE9'li'I$"E 61�QQ' "" UNE TA&E UNC TAJLE ui UK I LE1fGTK DW-CIMN LINE � LMTH n1RECTION v Cv. I 3 L1 B6.99' S0'4W4fW 1.9 MW N43V512 W w o0 # U 55.00, SQY OOT L10 3mw N4owrWw L3 6S-37' S U'15'w L11 176,41' E991IWE } L4 W-84' $4514WE L12 175,5.' N8!V14'54 W L3 1.63.50' -,W45'il ` L13 2n.40 446'0612'M 72 24 LB 41.66' 5#4'4542i4 L14 3C W N7R15'1:%,w 48 ACRES L7 A49' M,53'21T* L15 171.1W #73'502'W 113 t3 LB 1s.49' N $*�131 '1R LIS 1M00' S4#'4410E w m ra CUM T1 �u�S iURV� g LEWN ROW DELTA KhRix [1iM � irE 79.93' 10a00' f5.47W 522'N)WE 77.82' F C2 3B.16' MOO' 2111'43' 533'49'11'W 37AV V i ROCK RANCH ESTATES 5LI6dMSIN r t74 $4 10k PGS 14051-14063 1 WOPLATTE7 za I- — 2470.11' — Lit 2b 36 1�i -— - - L-LA&r.0 N8914'54"14 26 74' W. AN1 J5 % a. 0 2 ou IWO 800 e". F Land Surveying and CmsLA ng 231 A s1H Sr-MLA faue�3Ae•}aaa 27o6r7�rSF7rk +••ir UnCf�V.lrsbr J49+1�9�m Page 18 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 114 of 174 Mal Des_crip on Cedarbroak SubdMs[on - RUT to R4 Rezone A parcel being a portion of the SE '/t of Section 25, Township 3 North, Range 7 West, Bois Meridian,Ado County, Idaho, arui more particulafly described as follows, Commencing at an Numinum Cap monument marking the southeast corner of said 8E 'l, from which an Aluminum Cap mflnurnertt ma*iN the fior€heast corner of said SE % bears N W31'26" E a distance of 2652,39 feet: Thence N 89'14'54" UU along the southeriy boundary of said SE 'l.a distance of 175.63 feet to a polfit; Thence heaving said southeily boundary N 46`00'12"W a dL2,Wnee of 75.61 feel to the POINT O BEGINNING; Thence continuing N 46"04'12"W a distance of 203.78 Feet to a point; Thence N 59'00'12"W a dtslanee of 350.00 feel to a point; Thence N 70'50 12"W a distance of 605-00 feet to a point; Thence N 7201612"W a distance of 3D0,00 feet to a point; Thence N 73'50'12"W a distance flf 171.02 feat to a point; Thence N 22'53'20" E a distance of 30.49 feet to a point, Thence a dislanre of 38_t 6 feet a lon the arc of a 100-00 fool t'4diu3 Curve right,Said Curve having a central angle of 21"51'43"end a long chord hearing N 33'49'11"E a distance or37-93 feet to a point, Thence N 44'45'02" E a distance cf41.56 feet to a paint; Thence N 45'14'59'W a distance of 1052.♦}0 Feet to a point; Thsnce N 44"45'02" E a distance of 163.60 feet tp a paint; Thence N 45'14'58" W a distance of 201-84 feet to a point; TheRoe a d18Faaee of 79,93 fit along the arp of a 100.D0 foot racius curve right,said curve hearng a central afigle of 45W'46" and a long chord bearing N ZZ62'I'45"W a distance of 77.U2 feet to a point; Thence IN 0'32'4V tt a distance 590,153 Feet to a point; Thence N 7'36'16'E a distance cf 65.37 reek to a paint: Thence N D"00'00"W a distance of 56.00 feet to a point; Lr�1n�blutlons Cadaahrook Subdiwisiora �..e...i-y,...c:..wa 9 Job No.20-09 Poge 1 of Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 115 of 174 Thence IN 0148'42"E a distance of 66.98 feet to a palm an the northerly boundary of said SE'1.; Thence 8 89'1118" E along said northerly boundary a distance of 1314.29 feet to a polra; Thence leaving said northerly boundary S 43'44'18"E a disc, nee of 107-03 feet to a poirit; Thence S W36"12"VV a distance of 219_81 feet to a point; Thence S U*33'35"VV a distance of 114.27 feet to a point; Thence S 0"31'26"Wa distance of 745.Dd feet to a point; Thence S 2°49'54"VVa distance of 229.46 feet to a paint; Thence a distance of 82.90 feet along the arc of a 6n.IKI foot radius nun-tangent curve left,said curve having g central angle of 7`55'15"and a long chord bearing S B5°30'56" E a distance of 92.98 feet to a point; Vence S 89'28'34'tr a distance of 674.06 Feet to a point; Thence S 4"3V26"W a distance of 216.50 feet to a point; T'denoe S 89'ff34' E a distance of 163.60 feet to a point; Thence S Y31'26'4Va distance of 466.DO feet to a poinl; Thence S 89"28'34-E a distance of 153.5A feet to a polnt; Theme S a`31'26"W d drStanre of M.B4 fee#to the POINT OF EECINNING. This parcel contains e5.45 acres and is subject to any easements exlstirrg or in use- ClirFton VV. Hansen,PLS ptPL LAND Land Solutions,PC 411 January 23,2020 - ff�.3(ze {{ GP k4 r vuo- l #� Csdarbraak$ubdIww,an job Na.20-OB Page 2 at 2 Page 20 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 116 of 174 CEDAR BROOK SUBDIVISION - REZONE EXHIBIT RUT TO RA ZONE UNPLAFiLJ �MPLAr rU C 114 'S91P518'E Z ,7i7 /4 L19 r' ' 58� V 18`E 1314.2$' T i 218.81 a n W k 65 45f ACRES a 5� elk 60 Y W� A SAW � n 2:1S69 8' 4' EIK AiO4r KS 14O51,141W erg ti 44 ti S39'28'34'E_ 1 LINPLATTEO $ .SEE SHEET 2 FOR LINES_ AND CURVE TABLE 28 POINT OF ` ca St 24W1' T _ EIEGINIVIh _ t125 25 WA9 I4'54' ?65174' Y W AIHN ROO � 36 4 � Z,�.�7--,. 0 zaU 400 800 ., a F ,0 c,� i_--" nd Surveying and ConsuftirYg O�y Mk"f�M iZ3 O` ? www+nnrn�,Vnlr 51-iF£T T OF 2 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 117 of 174 Legal Dcst=fip4Qn Cedarbrook Subdivision —RUT to R8 Rezone A parcO Wing a portior► of the 5E 114 of Section 26. Township 3 North, Range 1 West. Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and more partirWarfy described as Follows: Commencing all.arc Aiurninum Cap manument marking the northeast corner of sari SE S/4,frorn which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the southeast corner of said SE '! beers S 0'21'�t3"W a distance of 2652.39 feel, Thence S 0131'26"W along the easterly boundary of said SE'4.a distance of 570.26 fie:to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing along said easterly boundary S D'11'26" W a distance of 2082.19 feel 10 the Aluminum Gap monument marking the southeast corner of said SE'Ji: Thence N 89°14'54"W along the southerly boundary of said SE 714 a distance of 175.63 feet to a point; Thence teauing said southerly boundary N 4V00'1?."W a distance of 75_61 feelto a point: Thence IN 01312r E a distance of 605.S4 f@-et to a point; Thenw IN WX34"W a di8tance of 153,50 feet to a point; Thence N 4°31'24Y E a distance of 468.00 feet to a point, Thence N 60'28'34'W a distance of 963.50 feat to a point. Thence N 0'317C'E a distance A 216.60 reet to a point; Thence N 89628'34"W a distance of 674.06 feet to a point; Theme a distance ofB2.95 feet along the arc-of a+300,QQW radius rurveright saidc.pivehaving a central angle 07'55'15' and a long chord bearing N W34'56"W a distance of 82.88 feet to a point. Thence N 2"49'54"E a distance of 229.46 feet to a point; Thence N 0'31'26'E a distance of 745.00 feet to a paint; Thence N 38'33'38"E a distance of 114.27 feet to a point; Thence N 39'36'12"E a distance of 71 U31 feet to a po+rrl; Thence 5 43044'18'E a distance. of 12.07 Feet to a point; Thence S SVIV18'E a distarj a Df 610.00 feet to a point, Thenco 5 43'20'66"E a distance of 675.61 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 43.66 acres and is subject to any easements exisiing or in use Clinton W_Hansen,Pr,S aN�LA Land Solutions, PC No -7 s January 23,2420 ALg 0 NO, W. � Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 118 of 174 CED 1 BROO SUBDI ISION - RE ON1 EXHIBIT RUT TO R-8 ZUNL - IMYLfiliE13 u���lki rEo C 1 f+ 80011R"E 26 70' S85'I1'1$'� 149Q7i1' �}� � 25 30, T1'10E 61C}.04' r UNIE TABLE LANE L-M11i biREC71ON L1 Ina 14e91-rlrle f LZ M61' N46'1 IVW LO� PCHNT OF 1-3 1d1- r#'�8'�$'36'E � 4 BEGINNING L4 Q.07 S4$44'181 - 43.86 AGES LB 3D-W 147715'12'i4 i n Le 3d6-w N4315'1z'w < 03 I L8 3W.W N4Q'14'12"W env ` ; 1 Lt0 N89'2534"W -� ii Lei CURVE TMLE CURVE LENGT#1 RADIUS DELTA 9EAMHO CHORD ?63N89'2?'3.50 � x I „ D o C1 I 8Z95' 64@.0d r55'15' f♦65'3�'S6 W W-W r � � M LLJ AWK RAW!IH ESTATES SUmnoN 9K 14�, PGS 14d5�J=14ilfr3 +}� I 48 153.50' NM8'34"'w UNPLATrED 0 2479.It' sLt26 25 p1-LAArD N"14'54"w � 2953,74` W. ANT( R4Aa 35 3s � tlrts � 06 t� iolutions Landsurm*ing and ConwIting ImI EP20ta 1 ZN s SIW wwrr.l�dloKtllrxaAl[ KB�a xal Page 23 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 119 of 174 B. Preliminary Plat(date: 4/30/2020) & Phasing Plan-REVISED 6/24/20 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR - CEDARBBOOK SUBDIVISION E LM=W TW AaMEABT Ol1Q9MR OF WOWN M TO'WWW 3 MOM-rt RMW I WMT, 1 DDEE AE[.MK ABA CQUIfiY.UAW _ I iUl l i _ 3; y, ,� jil ` li x n, � I • I ; �- — — � ,�,rsu-wx y T z n a■ D -.,..,,.... � .wx.i •4\!■ V� I - a I � — .n•tee El: T+ ■\ ` , ••4\• �............. _ S •+• �� err \ ice- ..�. • ' .{F- I ; 4 Fzy� - -- ---` • �.•m �r.4-ie Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020- Page 120 of 174 CO G dq a }M ° ° ° m w ° �° ^ . °� I m in IsQ a C m In 0 o a a 0 n 0 aa I a a o o a� El 9 m o P R a o vy � a a ° ro TO m 10 m m o a h a ° r o o �_ m o i 0 0 0 0 FYw1 3 a. i 0 ■ L7 0 L CF; E O V 4 m d 6 4 ° m Q C3 W lai d 4 I, d 13 cm d a '4 r a d A m m P — m13 .x p O r Y or O 0 0 O a Q 0 m r ■ 0 o a a •' 2) o 9 d v 0 0 ❑ '. L ° 0 M ' 0 0 0 0 m fl r a a ED R Iy fir. --��p ' E em u m 0 O R-{r ■ ■ I 0 ARM G1 ll r�� yQ I � e Page 25 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020- Page 121 of 174 C. Landscape Plan(date: 4/30/2020)—REVISED 6/26/20 / } ��e CED RDROOK Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 122 of 174 1. A 1 t P z}fp g +" 1 • 1 fJ IiAl t , PUJ•if PwtfTTE nirrsu wi nrr.erx mre vrix vmxi xa rres w,w fwa r.�W,r�.v ' Sr�a�ry.'ncr.ni w x4�m i{n iia*rtH n�mc�xo a f �'••• '�r3G.A� '�B�W=BCF:S emeo'P����ttwn 54 i5 wx.%:'am,'e4i uai iprs.rt " was win Mn�sun a oer r av�rc _ w.n rw.ti,un"e�r wi�rna a+n,rsx,e[uvwo ,�r-�, [ �,� �• PPA.1 1 1 ri_Y .x L 1 Z • ..m �.: -.. Poe �� � � s r '" �• - :.. �I „ _ 8 PIfJJT P.4fiiE wr wq.,•.am r.nrn cw�a n,.�nc�vm_ - q?��vaneS -�-i�— �rI �"[¢tu uy�wugt f�.0 e[ a w� 5 u °`me ir'iia u t1 ra 1 a,iu Meinn°' - '•• :'��'�JP^'• ':"�i7 L"RA.p �rt'i��F'ter��o smn�x b.a,aeo�eY i:. . � L ,n r e no.unex � w.«crnarv[e.v,�.e m�xorx �y �unr Y Page 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 123 of 174 .'f -- - , •-� � � � gad 7 ` ' ,Zlit r , • ----------C--_-_ ANT P.44ET 1 H3 Ec: j PLiE -- ^ -- Lug •«_ �:h'wF•" �RI'.^,.,$R �v[c a6,af�[ in^[f�Wf B[N k•�rM+ait'N&�i gulp�m 1j 1 • [[rrp 7a"tt Va,q y�lnn�.��n � - I1 w•14 R4 R .rwx RlVII m•.a i w•rt r[rtRn ]Nfff lafl " Ell — — c > � yr,• 4 x0 nmr PL(I{P-fi PALETTE m[rn w,m rvn[unn ur.Kc��n� lex wr• •0. � :c�Su.•_— ��� M w'� [ac—T.v Y]!']14.RR!•:r rcMi[w[n _ PPn _ g� •� �119_R...-. � � .• i,[0 r�•r Slw lra,nH SN-nll4ER�rn,ii6 R[!n4 B[[6•�:[BE�_ wv. Kv�': r °rtA�o•I�x�mD�.M a0 �r x owavn '�R �i of'u'�`se�Aua Z v rawaiMT,irs Ri`:`wn �x tti R 5r•mc�i�,w lsa! '-f"-,.CFx rt�a� PpAA 4 Page 28 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 124 of 174 -------------- *ew--------------- � .sw ----- •� PLA�ff PALETTE I - 1 1 ", .. 0 Er•�tld~ c. :ittrim:ur� „"xrr^w i.a[ i I ...�.,....l.�.'. _ ..-..�- •� nnr ra i �i V�. n ay'"`"n kw.n'ti OVPrp'�:l+.X.iin HP.7943Vx H7:0H@4iiS w5w� Z 'M n n.ra�s a•N rv.rr..wa n••Lwnc•rr r'r reed �w�a.Lrtna "'TTT"' -�y _ � Pnae - 5 B • �- w- — ,--_� r•��-a� a�,�.-.�.1i7�iG7�'�rf T.r-. .. _ l .w l hll I 1 I ' x ff "ah S 1 l may:-.-w--:s.w--------------w --w-'�'i'"',� .ww -w. .•,rt _: PIAPR PALETTE Lr.-�i¢err ar.N•wr r.Rr svwx r ri n¢r we. —`�•+� 7yICBN,-., •dt?b',b-. �`"" u�S :�^[�xos^wu_L.w .w wiYn.¢rx� ••' 6 3 � ��(_' ""•`�• � � � , LBi,Gi.7F_ sn[rinrml i•[¢i uvc ..q[f w c rsx.rr"s ui¢� }] ��S �— w�'1R^. i•��T�BF�� �nLo�[..,S��i'ttm.tt aix�.x5�axi e4i�,x°a�ro'f:n� ._. e wrN.na N Lw:[R RN aarY gLQ}Lc[x -[�1 J'1 e . Page 29 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020- Page 125 of 174 [ 'w.---- W--------j------ + ---- --- I- 1 k.,�Y:ter •':...•-•— .y y— ? :j �:P` .c f hII o�y' r 1 � I 1 s , 1 —W.Amw Raw(na c} tiN PUNT P.A ETTE ,Ss ur.ri r>Rr�u r�.a.e rr�.,�.a.�ui,•m.�� I r41H5E•.,. %41lK.. �S"L •wl �'' A�L w<un�v.[rc°"Irrc,.ice s mAll ; 4 I _LL i�Yk__ i sue,wui.wre`rw,ram.x �irrora..,.asmxxu lon. „ sd ••+ +I �p 4i[m.�anc�. w�wra cmrcx.sonu�c S-j „•„ f � �' w,.r�n aa.,.�riiiin.e�r o��xv'lu�cm oo-a�lrin.rr en f .�' .�•••� --- R Er .I la mr s,•..,n.,..nen �r[r N..em ...gip.. «..i.�.. — E.n ''S,6��aral o,w•mrw 0. mn nm �d - ja n.•cn�r.o. r. T !1 51 raN�l Rg,it rE[4[5[xr.lr[Np S9[/I iY.GO�r�Np.�o \fir . I`rl olx.G rwaxk.l.l.aaur�[w�rs9�fur�� �- � - I I� w LfE1�5^Ap[I,�l[ 4 I RIM[PALETTE_ :ra n.u�,a•[�w�mM,n.,�.-. I 76' �v o n a5�•-.a�_y :C _ sNw•�rs4 rxie m[mf-WTI a. �r •.f V[.W��pYi Ve 112 _ .� I Illrnia�.r-+�c[_K. f--w-Mn 0.. i.- dw.rTY:RViom�wx•^x.TSr•ul.ilx� 2 -. z tg \ p ` - --- - :a"¢.�L',.aW..e.�,.' NOW [tl # ,rump n.rc�a u�"m'��'��x•"' w ?'�.5 go PP Q4arx. n [�r .., ram ' „^'^ r" rc• ,`oa� eie�eeeel`oi^m',M wa•�x ninx V t • .- - - �- :d''_�9�'.-..,.- �Pk6Q.. P°3 nx •,w.rr.w.. }�1 � FPO •I PP A6 .� :I nwry I !I.iro`• - _ ..............-•.•.. .....-.• ... M1fv.�.�w n u�i w¢wr�`.'�jp,[�u. --------------- I "07 n-• M= .tiwr• LAHCSr APE i.iLi.LILAWNS ■ --- IfW..�,Y ... snr¢,L.roac. �� �® � ' 1RR.MRiGl Sil,[IIIG n V ..rq;[p t-RA+Y..a.. r•. V! .T,•m' ti v. �II �'��.I� �mi, �rR[� .xrxr Y�'a �yl� N��c•Icx nswKvrtnrs y �. VIWL7R O,• FEWE .•.�.......r...r�.-�.., pP.Ad rm9MT-- s . Page 30 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 126 of 174 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit& Site Amenities—REVISED 6/23/20 OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS 2 '.y�alifrcd xe Pie SF ^.kits Parks and F-Afi ay, 1 14,873 0.25 _ E 1LSd0 1f.77 3 2.5W R9fi � � 9a7C6 217 S 1&643 ad3 7 V 5G1 aM g 8 CHO 0.I1 71 — 9 1],I9] a39 10 4,76 0.11 _ 11 8.3d0 0.19 1i 9,1iyp am Id 1Q666 u.24 19 S .4n 4.13 1S 1L.agp 0.a] 15 UU2A7 aw 1� 9,035 0.21 la 2.YW oa Encal sleet Perkxay 18;,6� 4." '0 ercluaes allarlvrwa far 26ti (11w.r dBalfar 211.04 S." Arterial 1--ffi a ftff T n m an •� 5016or6]5055f � T[➢FAl a.AS Parml A—(Ayes 11S Vn[ad FEFT 1. AMITY WAD GRRPFfIC SCALE t Pltlra pp R ESE CONSULTANTS CEDARBRQQK SUBDIVISION as OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT 'roll Brothers �R .aw-n.unn car June 23,2020 AMERICA'S CUXURY HOME BUIE,OEM' Page 31 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 127 of 174 kJ �J ■ M-a1I1 Enhy ■zw m !t- .LT _ F Page 32 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 128 of 174 { Lot 1,Block 5 ' •� I Pawl etid ring — ENN -NOWP ti Page 33 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 129 of 174 .— .. - `ijy�._. fir.:• - _ r�'� Side Pool VIL-W, INN 9 �l Sport COTH-t by Ap ool Pond& Picrue Area Page i Meridian • •Agenda July 7,2020 '.•- 130 of CEDARBROOK SUBDIVISION POND AREA June 19, 2020 - Meridian, Idaho Z IL baAms"m liar:% rLL . LFIIIJ Cr 40' - . - - L �- I r � f r rff R. .."'IS V r V r POND AM SPACE lkil€A RAM 75 }: kA P&b AS A PEYtdW 2F dPBt Wya AV-- I a {� I rrmnrar �r*r� �FJt°N SOLE 1 inm= 150 ESE CONSULTANTS Toll Brothers �K- Fwd io-- AMERICArS LUXURY HOME BUILDER' •aaryaF� Page 35 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 131 of 174 nNII HOTTOSCALE ESE CONSULTANTS CEDARBROOK SUBDIVISION }r POND SECTION Toll Brothers '""" .•, """" June 26,2027-Meridlim Who AMERICA'S LUXURY 140HE BUILDER' I -r - (D , 0 Lot 4,Block 13 _ '- Q.B�f�1[91f - ..-Page 36 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 132 of 174 d . 1 } Pocket Park Play Area l Page 37 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 133 of 174 E. Pathways Plan (dated: 5/4/20) i Y ' PATHWAYS LEti£Ibb R[41OMRL MOXRAI �rax vAiM w.ar �. COMMOMIV IIOMRLKG w E D B K Page 38 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 134 of 174 F. Conceptual Building Elevations .9 LIM i J. a ire ���� - r f IL ■ ir .64 Page 39 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 135 of 174 • 11 / 1 1' lots: pm _ . •a •_ 40 Meridian • •Agenda July 7,2020 '.•- 136 of IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION I. 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 40-45'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. The applicant submitted revised elevations as requested b. , duplex,townhouse) shall be provided within the development in order-to pro diversity iff housing types as desir-ed in the Compr-ehensive Plan.StWreeommends a eeneeptplan is provided at the Commission hearing depie&*this Mang,- Th preliniinatypkt-,landseape plan, quakfied open spaee exhibit and elevations shall b 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. d. A 3-to 4-foot tall berm with a wood-style fence on top of the berm shall be constructed by the Developer centered on the shared property line along the Rinehimer (#R7125500040) and Robertson(#R7125500020)properties on the northern portion of the west boundary of the site. The Developer shall landscape the Rinehimer and Robertson side of the berm with trees at a spacing of approximately 25 feet,which shall be maintained by those property owners. e. The height of homes shall be limited to sin l�ry where they will be in the direct view shed out from the physical house on adjacent properties—Sta�frecommends the Applicant address which specific lots will have sin l�r;y homes at the Council hearing. f. A minimum 30-foot rear building setback is required for homes along the west and south perimeter boundaries of the subdivision. 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. Page 41 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 137 of 174 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 11-313-12C. 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 11-3B-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. 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. Page 42 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 138 of 174 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 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. Page 43 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 139 of 174 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C- 3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 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. Page 44 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 140 of 174 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=187486&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=18639 7&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=185339&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=185866&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=184566&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.ory WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=189494&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitE I. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL hggs://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=184501&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU Page 45 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 141 of 174 J. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=184916&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU K. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.or zlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=184495&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity L. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) h yps://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=184483&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X. 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; The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds the mix of lot sizes proposed is 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; The Commission 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 The Commission 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. The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds that the proposed plat, with the provisions noted in Section IX, 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 Page 46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 142 of 174 information.) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property 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, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission 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, The Commission 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. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 47 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 7,2020— Page 143 of 174 E IDIAN I DA 0 H Cedarbrook 0020-424-| 2083103 West Sheryl Drive, Suite 100 | Meridian, ID 83642 July 7, 2020Meridian City Council Subdivision Introduction Toll 130 employeesOver •MeridianIdaho Division headquartered in •2016 purchased Coleman Homes•builderhome The nation’s luxury •Founded in 1967 •company FORTUNE 500 winning, Award •Brothers Comprehensive Plan Zoning Surrounding F)-14.18 un/ac (MF)-4.90 un/ac (S40-R& 8 -R(2019)Graycliff15, 6.25 un/ac-R(2018) Stapeltonun/ac 4, 2.83 -R(2014)Biltmore 2.68 un/ac4, -REst. (2016)Brundageun/ac4, 2.89 -R2015) (Edgehill Development Utilities and Services Commission approved; all conditions are acceptable •ACHD•Meridian Waste Water Master PlanMeets •Meridian Sewer•PlanMeridian Water Master Meets •Meridian Water•min response time3 -Fire Station #6 New •Meridian Fire •5 minutes or less-response time Estimated •Meridian Police • Schools 24001965Meridian High1000969Victory Middle625556ElementaryCapacityEnrollment Cedarbrook currently have capacity. : All West Ada schools that will serve West Ada•: West Ada, Charter, Private, OnlineSchool options• West Ada School District 41,93240,612 Projected 2020 40,60940,451 Actual 2019CapacityEnrollment3125TOTAL+ 1917Owyhee High+ 468Mountain View High Expansion + 115Star Elementary Expansion+ 625Pleasant View Elementary under construction:New school capacityThe West Ada School District as a whole also has capacity: Pathway Trail System Qualified Open 18.9% (10% required)22.45 acres (11.85 required)Space Amenities Amenities Amenities Amenities Amenities Amenities Variety of Homes The Garden Collection The Woodland Collection The Countryside Collection Community Outreach neighborsNumerous individual and group meetings with County •3 formal neighborhood meetings•Meetings with NeighborsIncreased perimeter lots•and landscapingBerming•style privacy fence -Wood•story homes-Reduced two•Mitigation for NeighborsRelocated planned roadways•zone R2setbacks in rear 30’ •ightinglsky Dark •Transitional density• Elevation Change Rendering from Southwest Increased 400’ from property line -200’Existing homes are over •perimeter to 30’R2Doubled rear setback along •Setbacks Installed Trees every 25 feet •fencestyle vinyl privacy -Wood•Berm on property line•Buffers Rendering from West Single of existing homelined up with view shed •Homesstory - Increased 27 to 14lots from perimeter reduced application, over course of •premium lots Eliminated 5 additional •Range: 1/2 to 2/3 acre•ZoneR2perimeter of Minimum 1/2 acre lots along •Lot Sizes Relocated boundaryNo stub road to western •collectorsStreet Map for future modifications to Master ACHD approved •Roadways Century Farms Comparison 15%18.90%Qualified Open Space1/3 Acre1/2 AcreLargest Lots8,859 AC10,058 SFAvg. Lot Size3.0 Units/Acre2.72 Units/AcreGross DensityCentury FarmCedarbrook.”to retain the rural feel and history of MeridianFarm by Brighton is an excellent example of a developer who made efforts “Century :LangloisJulie Conditions of Approval presented to City Council.plan zone shall be a minimum of 1/2, as shown on the updated R2the The perimeter lots along the west and southwest boundaries within new.zoneR2within the of the subdivision perimeter boundaries and southwest homes along the west foot rear building setback is required for -A minimum 30 1.f\[Add lot and block numbers to designate single story.\] 1.e.\]RandallsMartins and , Lins\[Add properties along southwest perimeter owned by 1.d Thank you Changes in Land Use Phasing and 2022-occupancy earlyFirst –Occupancy •Summer 2021Begin –Home Building •Summer 20212021, Pave -Begin early–Land Development •Timing Kruse Property Pond Safety County Existing Setbacks Schools and Growth and CapacityCurrent Growth + Cedarbrook Current Growth and Capacity 1,71944,59942,87820222,10243,84941,74520211,32041,93240,6122020CapacityAvailable CapacityProjected EnrollmentProjectedYear students per year. 26 Cedarbrook, which will add growth and for that approved for planned capacity : West Ada has Capacity•year.per new students or 1,107 period, year -over a 10there are approx. 11,072 students Ada. At 0.8 students per lot, : Currently 13,840 platted lots in West Approved Growth•1,77344,59942,82620222,13043,84941,71920211,32041,93240,612202 0CapacityAvailable CapacityProjected EnrollmentProjectedYear Approved Preliminary Plats year period-Students added over 10 102777015373,3344,167 Meridian High 72454310842,3512,939 Victory 5283967901,7142,141 McPhersonMary Highto addedStudents Middleto addedStudents Elementaryto addedStudents TotalStudentsEstimated Plat LotsPreliminary School Area Sewer Master Plan Vicinity Map DowntownMeridian min to 8 ••Stationmin to Fire 3 •Lowes•Crossing6 min to Ten Mile •InterchangeMile Ten 5 min to • ACHD FYWP & CIP Projects SITE2035 CIP-20312030 CIP-20262025 CIP-2021FYWP Access Sight Distance 555’ required>1000’>900’ E IDIAN IDAHO Public Testimony South West Meridian Schools and Development Forecasts Growth When an application is being reviewed are these numbers there for you? . SouthridgeEstates, Timberline Estates, CavenRidgeIndigo, Percy, , Stapleton, , Biltmore, Edgehill, BrundageLocal projects include: (# homes X 0.8 = number of school age kids)= 1540 new students1880 new homes1550+ homesattending the same schools adds another Other local developments approved and •: 330 homesCedarbrookNumber of homes for • ElementaryWhat does this mean for students in this area?385 students-Meridian High School approximately 385 students-High School homes are finishedLeaves 354 students to be bussed no other schools planned in the near future before 31 students -Victoryapproximately 385 students –Middle of 2023) 162 students will need to attend other schoolsIf 30% of the homes in the development are built before Blue Valley comes(at earliest fall Leaves 701 students 69 students -Mary McPhersonapproximately 770 new students - Is this a Boundary problem?wouldn’t the district have changed some boundaries? boundaries on the south side of town. If it was a boundary problem A New Elementary School is opening this fall. It did not affect our • •class. Really the district needs a cushion of 1000. have 30 kids? With approximately 24 classes per school that’s just 1 give or take per 29 seats per school with an average class size of 30. Who wants a first grade class to If you spread 1000 seats over 34 elementary schools that gives each school less than approx 300 elementary?)new students per yearA significant amount of seats were filled by new students. (the district estimates 600 . Adaschools in West Reportedly there were 1000 empty seats last year in the elementary •emotional and social well being.Moving children to different schools frequently can be hard on their What does an overcrowded classroom as many bodies as a Hillsdale classroom.* A Mary McPherson classroom cannot physically hold 26.”(parent)classroom limit for first grade is supposed to be grade classes were around the same number. The st the 1grade classes 31 students. “All st 2021 school year 1-2019–teacher stayed for the next year.students per class (documented by school staff),only one grade classes 38, 39, and 39 th 19 school year 5-2018–Look at Hillsdale samples:•look like? South Meridian Schools Bonds cannot keep up–No alternative funding for building schools–District schools do not have capacity –necessitating busing Neighborhood schools are overcrowded–model Rapid growth is outpacing “build after demand” –Where is the breaking point?• What are people saying:Meridian their schools are overcrowded.”Kuna Realtor: “You don’t want to buy in •our future”“We always put the kids last, when they are •school?”Parents: “Where are the kids going to go to • School letter: What does this mean?.transportation considerations associated with future developmentAn analysis of public school capacity and —School Facilities and Transportation (c)•such characteristics as total population, age, sex, and income.A population analysis of past, present, and future trends in population including —Population (b)•, Idaho Code.chapter 80, title 67prescribed under the declarations of purpose inproperty values or create unnecessary technical limitations on the use of property and analysis as policies, restrictions, conditions and fees do not violate private property rights, adversely impact An analysis of provisions which may be necessary to ensure that land use —Property Rights (a)•specifies reasons why a particular component is unneeded.the following components as they may apply to land use regulations and actions unless the plan situations for each planning component. The plan with maps, charts, and reports shall be based on conditions, trends, compatibility of land uses, desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future all land within the jurisdiction of the governing board. The plan shall consider previous and existing review and update a comprehensive plan, hereafter referred to as the plan. The plan shall include to conduct a comprehensive planning process designed to prepare, implement, and commission It shall be the duty of the planning or planning and zoning PLANNING DUTIES.6508.-67•6508-Idaho code 67 development will continue to have an impact on the district’s capacity.” future –6508 -“School capacity and transportation is addressed in Idaho code 67 This is a community problem! We solution!need to work together towards a Let’s not bus our Children to or BoiseKuna,Nampa New homes in Hillsdale area of Impact sent to other schools. take 74 more students? Other students will be 668.5 new students Hillsdale can -Elementary •Approximately 1337 new students•homes.develop ment coming soon. Total 1773 new phases of Pinnacle Brighton’s new already approved another 357 in the first two 1416 new homes in the development process •numbers from January 2020 through July of 2020 Elementary Other 195 students will be sent to other schoolsMountain View High School can take 139 more students approximately 334 students-High SchoolOther students will be sent to other schools Lake Hazel Middle School?students from new developments west of Meridian Rd)Victory can take 31 new students(but is also taking approximately 334 new students -Other 402 students will be sent to other schoolsSienna can take 123 studentsdevelopments west of Meridian Rd69 but is also taking students from new appoximatelyMary McPherson can take Other 594.5 students will be sent to other schoolsHillsdale can take 74 more students? approximately 668.5 new students – 30’ set back – 5000 sf home 3556 sf house on .5 acre 3000-4500 sf homes on 1/3 to ½ acre Community on one acre parcels E IDIAN I DA 0 H tl* CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Item Title: Future Meeting Topics Meeting Notes: