Loading...
2020-10-15 WE IDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Chairperson Ryan Fitzgerald Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Steven Yearsley ABSENT Commissioner Lisa Holland Commissioner Bill Cassinelli ADOPTION OF AGENDA-Adopted Motion to adopt agenda made by Commissioner Seal. Seconded by Commissioner Yearsley Voting Yea: Chairperson Fitzgerald, Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] -Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Seal, Seconded by Commissioner Grove. Voting Yea: Chairperson Fitzgerald, Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley 1. Approve Minutes of the September 17, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] DEPARTMENT REPORTS 2. Community Development: Discussion Regarding Building Permits Per School Attendance Area ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Tara's Landing (H- 2020-0048) by Mike Homan, Located at 5025 W. Larry Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 6.34 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 29 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 6.14 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Motion made to Accept Withdrawal of the Application by Commissioner McCarvel, Seconded by Commissioner Grove. Voting Yea: Chairperson Fitzgerald, Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley -Application Withdrawal Request Accepted 4. Public Hearing for Teakwood Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) by Hesscomm Corp., Located at 1835 E.Victory Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 22 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots. Motion made to Recommend Approval to City Council by Commissioner Seal, Seconded by Commissioner McCarvel. Voting Yea: Chairperson Fitzgerald, Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Date November 17, 2020 S. Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Ada County Coroner (H-2020-0085) by Lombard Conrad Architects, Located at 173 N. Touchmark Way A. Request: Rezone of 1.77 acres of land from the I-L to the C-G zoning district. Motion made to Recommend Approval to City Council by Commissioner McCarvel, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Chairperson Fitzgerald, Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Date to be Determined 6. Public Hearing for Landing South (H-2020-0005) by Jim Jewett, Located at 660 S. Linder Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots and 2 common lots on 2.27 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. Motion made to Recommend Approval to City Council by Commissioner Seal, Seconded by Commissioner Grove. Voting Yea: Chairperson Fitzgerald, Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Date to be Determined 7. Public Hearing for Spurwing Sewer Easement Annexation (H-2020-0087) by Shari Stiles, Engineering Solutions, LLP, Generally Located North of W. Chinden Blvd./Sh 20-26, Northeast of N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 0.60 of an acre of land with an R-4 zoning district. Motion made to Recommend Approval to City Council by Commissioner Yearsley, Seconded by Commissioner McCarvel. Voting Yea: Chairperson Fitzgerald, Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Date to be Determined 8. Public Hearing for Skybreak (H-2020-0079) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, Located at 3487 E.Adler Hoff Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 353 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Motion made to Continue Application to November 19, 2020 by Commissioner Seal, Seconded by Commissioner McCarvel. Voting Yea: Chairperson Fitzgerald, Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley -Application Continued to November 19, 2020 FUTURE MEETING TOPICS / DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 15, 2020. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 15, 2020, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Members Absent: Commissioner Lisa Holland and Commissioner Bill Cassinelli. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove X Patricia Pitzer Bill Cassinelli X Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Fitzgerald: So, at this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the date of October 15th and let's start with roll call. Thanks, Madam Clerk. First let me welcome our esteemed former colleague, the guy who actually taught me how to do this. Commissioner Yearsley, it's so nice to see you again. Sorry I'm not there in person to see your face in person, but we are still happy to have you back. Someone to call on if I can't call on Commissioner McCarvel to take my place and Commissioner Holland is on maternity leave again. Nice to have you here, sir. Yearsley: Thank you very much. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Fitzgerald: First item on our agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We are going to do a little bit of an adjusting tonight. Item No. 8 on our agenda tonight is requesting continuance to November 19th and I would like to move that item up to number three, so we can hear about the community development discussion about our schools, but, then, handle that issue. So, if anyone's in the audience or on Zoom that wants to talk about the Skybreak Subdivision we can deal with that up front for a continuance. Is that -- anybody have any issue with that? Seal: None here. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 5 Page 2 of 60 McCarvel: No. Fitzgerald: So, with that can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Seal: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the September 17, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Fitzgerald: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which is the approval of minutes for the September 17th Planning and zoning Commission Meeting. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] DEPARTMENT REPORTS 2. Community Development: Discussion Regarding Building Permits Per School Attendance Area Fitzgerald: So, moving to the first item on our agenda is -- going to turn it over to Miranda and the staff as the community development discussion regarding building permits per school attendance area to -- it's going to help us be better informed about -- you know, I think Commissioner Grove and I know, Commissioner Seal, you guys have both talked Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 6 Page 3 of 60 about this a lot and I think the staff's done a great job of bringing us more information about all the building permits that are going on in an area and how that's going to impact schools and so I'm going to turn it over to Miranda to talk through kind of this new tool we have and I think she's been warned that we may have her back for additional meetings as we get a pretty significant dump of information and, then, how that qualitative information will play into our discussions and contemplation. So, Miranda, do you want to take it from there, ma'am. Carson: Okay. You should be able to see my window with the table on it. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. I can see it. Carson: Okay. So, this is a school impact table. This is a new tool. Fitzgerald: Sorry, Miranda. Can I get you to introduce yourself. Your name and -- Carson: Oh, yes. Sorry. Fitzgerald: -- and who you represent. Thank you. Carson: I'm Miranda Carson. I am a comprehensive plan associate planner in the Community Development Department. So, looking at long range planning for transportation and schools mostly. I'm fairly new to the city. I think I have been here three months. So, I was hired on for school and transportation planning. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you. Carson: All right. So, one of the first charges I got after being hired on was to come up with a way to show how developments might be impacting schools. This tool is, again, a might be. This is what -- there are several assumptions that I will re-do as I show you the table about the assumptions that I had to make to come up with this data and to come out with the outputs of the different data that was collected. This tool is not meant to be a decisive tool, it is meant to be a reference tool for the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as City Council to use just for a reference of how a development might impact the schools that are around it. So, I will just go ahead and jump right into it. So, this was an example table for Prescott Ridge development. Some of the data might look a little different than the original table, because this is just an example table, it's not intended to be the table for Prescott Ridge. So, Prescott Ridge is in the Pleasant View Elementary, Star Middle and Meridian High School boundary. So, this is looking at the schools that it is currently zoned to. The schools can be -- the school attendance areas are analyzed based on the current attendance areas when the report is created and those can change anytime between the school year and occasionally change during the school year. The distance will be based on the data that's provided in the West Ada School District agency letter. If that's not available, then, it will be provided from the neighborhood opening to the school and when I say the neighborhood opening I mean the geographical opening. So, where the neighborhood is shown to go out onto a main street. The school capacity Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 7 Page 4 of 60 is provided by West Ada School District and these are the most recent capacities that were updated. The enrollment information is based on spring 2020 enrollment counts and, then, there is an adjustment made based on students that moved to Pleasant View Elementary. So, Pleasant View Elementary is a new school, they did not have students in spring of 2020, but with the help of the planning and development administrator I was able to move the students that now attend Pleasant View out of their old schools to come up with a number for Pleasant View and to reduce the numbers at those schools. We are using spring '20 counts because of COVID. So, when and if COVID ever subsides we will be looking at current counts. Until that happens with students out of school and students doing online school and virtual schoolhouse, we will be using the spring '20 counts. The estimated West Ada students generated by the development. This is looking at the number of residential units that a development will create, be it multiple family or single family. This student generation rate is the number of students that are generated per unit. So, the student generation rate for a single family house for the West Ada School District is .7 students per single family residential unit. That is based on census data and based on the school enrollment data. That number was created in conjunction with the West Ada School District and that is the number that they also use in their planning. The multi-family student generation rate, students per multi-family residential unit, so one apartment generates .1 students. There are significantly less students generated by apartment complexes, which is why that number is significantly lower. That is, then, calculated out by grade level. So, this -- the .7 students per single family residential unit is the number of students -- all West Ada students. So, then, that has to be generated out into elementary, middle, and high school students. So, we have to divide that number up based on the grades. So, we come up with an elementary student generation rate, a middle school student generation rate, and a high school student generation rate. Are there any questions on the student generation rate? I know that can be -- okay. So, the number of students generated by the development will be based on how many single family and multi-family units it has and, then, will be multiplied by the appropriate multiplier and it will be 105 students in Pleasant View, 52 -- 52 students in the Star Middle School boundary, and 70 students in the Meridian High School boundary. The next columns that you are going to see are based on building permits. So, this is the 2016 dwelling units that were approved in building permits. So, a building permit may have more than one dwelling unit if it's a multi-family unit. So, a single family unit is typically one building permit, but an apartment building may have 50 units and still only be issued one permit. So, this is the dwelling units that are in the permits. Does that make sense? Okay. So, these are the 2016 actual dwelling units. These are the 2017 actual dwelling units and you can see the change from the previous year. 2018 and the change from the previous year. So, we can see that the area is growing. The 2019 and the change from the previous year. And, then, the 2019 percent of citywide total. So, this shows you that in the Pleasant View Elementary School boundary, to simplify it, 15 percent of the city's residential growth is happening in the Pleasant View Elementary boundary. Thirty-nine percent of the city's residential growth is happening in the Meridian High School boundary, as a very simplified way of saying it. So, then, the 2020 dwelling units as of 8/18 -- as of when the report is created. And, then, I estimated out the '20 -- end of year 2020 dwelling units based on the monthly average. So, if we continue issuing building permits in the same monthly average that we have up to August 18th, then, by the end of the year we Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 $ Page 5 of 60 will have issued 536 -- we will have issued permits for 536 dwelling units in the Pleasant View Elementary boundary and, then, using the same student generation rate for the building permits, the number of building -- the number of dwelling units based on building permits issued would be 173 students generated for the West Ada School District in the Pleasant View Elementary boundary, 90 students in the Star Middle, and 235 students in the Meridian High. So, this shows you that even if you stopped approving developments these students are still likely coming. These are the students that are coming based on the building permits that we are issuing. So, then, there is a column that shows you the estimated West Ada enrollment after the permits and the development. So, this is simply the addition of these students generated by development and the students generated by 2020 permits and the current enrollment. So, the estimated enrollment after permits and development compared to the capacity of the school shows the percent that the school would sit at. So, if these permits -- if this is the correct number of permits that are issued at the end of 2020 it will generate this many students and if this development is approved it will generate about this many students and with both of those counts it would put the school around 104 percent capacity. So, let me just check and make sure I hit all of our assumptions here. So, the growth data is analyzed only for the City of Meridian based solely on building permits. Preliminary plat data is not currently included and the West Ada School District does have areas outside of the city. So, anything outside of the city that's growing that also falls into this, for example, Star Middle School, is mostly comprised of other cities, not Meridian. So, other cities growth is not shown in this data. This is strictly growth of the City of Meridian and it's strictly growth based on building permits and not preliminary plat data. At some point in the future we hope to add preliminary plat data to this report and when that happens I can come back and explain that data as well. The dwelling permits -- or the dwelling units are based on -- on the units for the building permits, including any units with age restrictions. So, for the purpose of this report, with all the variables that it has in it, units with age restrictions were counted the same way that every other unit was counted and that is based on -- the student generation rate is based on census data, so it will already include age restrictions, because census data is based on the number of households, not the number of households that don't have age restrictions and I think that covers all the assumptions that were used to create this data. So, if you have any questions I'm happy to take those. Fitzgerald: Miranda, one of the comments you made during our pre-meeting today was this doesn't include private schools; correct? Carson: Correct. This is strictly West Ada students. So, the student generation rate was created looking at students per household per census data and, then, looking at what percentage of students about in the census records -- what percentage of students go to the West Ada School District. So, these are strictly West Ada School District numbers. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you, ma'am. Are there any questions for Miranda? Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 191 Page 6 of 60 Grove: Miranda, thank you for this. This is going to be a useful tool. I look forward to reading more about it as -- as it continues to roll out. The only question I had -- and it's probably just a typing error, but is the middle school generate -- student generation on assumption two for multi-family, is that .023? Those are the only ones that look different than the rest. Carson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, ma'am. Carson: Yes, that is a typographical error. I will correct that. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Miranda? I think if you -- oh, Commissioner Seal, go ahead. Seal: Yeah. Mr. Chair. Just a quick question on -- and because -- and I just want to ask this question, because you have probably been dealing with the West Ada School District a lot. When -- when the numbers are published like that we have a -- you know, a percentage in there. Is there a particular pain point where they are -- you know, I mean a hundred percent -- anything over a hundred percent, obviously, is something they don't want to, you know, attain or have to deal with, but at the same time is there -- where is their pain point on that? I mean where do they want to see us try and tap the brakes I guess? Is that information something that's available through here or -- I mean is there -- is there thresholds we should definitely be looking at more seriously where -- you know, I know schools basically have to push the thresholds in order to justify having more schools available to them, so I just want to make sure that that data point is captured in here somewhere as well. If possible. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Miranda. Carson: Commissioner Seal, that is -- the capacity that you see there is the design capacity. So, schools have two capacities. The design capacity is the capacity that the school was actually designed at. How many classrooms does it have. The program capacity is how many students can it actually hold. So, every school has individual programs, whether it's gifted and talented, English language, preschool classrooms, special needs classrooms, all of those programs take up classrooms that general education students can't use during the day. So, that significantly in some cases reduces the capacity. So, at this time there is not a full list of program capacities for the West Ada School District schools, because it's a moving target. I don't say that in any criticism of West Ada School District that they don't have that list. The programs change yearly based on what the student's needs are. So, that list would be extremely difficult to create, but they are working to create that list. When that list is created it may or may not be added to this report, it will really depend on how often it's changing and what kind of things they are putting in their agency letter, whether I add the program capacity to this report. So, to answer your question the percent capacity--there is not one number. In some schools, like Rocky Mountain High School, has been severely over capacity for a few years, but Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 Flo] Page 7 of 60 the principal has miraculously found a way to make it work by having teachers that float rooms and things like that, where other schools that might look like they are not at capacity really are over, because they have programs that need to be in the school that are using classroom space as well. So, the percent gives you kind of a general idea of how many students are living in the area that the school is in and how full the school will be, but there is not a cap that you can put, there is no one standard number that could be applied to every school. I can reach out to the school district and see if they have an opinion on some percent, but I can tell you they are probably going to give that same answer. Seal: Okay. Thank you. And that -- yeah. I was going to say that would be good information to have from -- from West Ada. This helps us all out to have -- have more information. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Miranda, is there a desire from the Mayor or City Council to have this include charter schools and private schools or is this going to be pretty much just West Ada? Carson: At this time it's only intended to be West Ada, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. And, team, the -- this document can be in the agency comments folder, so it won't be in the staff report. That will -- the numbers in the staff report will stay as West Ada's numbers, but Miranda's analysis will be in the agency comments for future applications. So, if you are looking at the staff report and this isn't seen in there, you will see that in her agency comments section. Carson: Mr. Chair, if I may. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am, go right ahead. Carson: I would also like to point out that in the West Ada agency letter they are going to list the schools that the students will be attending based on current caps, current boundaries. So, for example, if you see -- they will put a caveat in if there is a cap for enrollment, which is when a school has reached enrollment, but they don't change the boundary, they cap the enrollment and say any students that live here are going to now go to this school, any students that live there are now going to go to that school, but they don't actually change the full school boundary. So, if they cap a school they are going to list in their agency letter the school that they will be sending the students to based on that cap. My report will always show the school that the students are actually zoned to go to and that is because I want to give you a geographical idea of where students are living. So, their report is more qualitative data and this report is strictly quantitative. Fitzgerald: And I think, Commissioner Seal, you have talked about that several times about kids getting bused to different areas, but I guess it's kind of that balance between -- you will see the difference between the two sets of information. Seal: And Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 Fill Page 8 of 60 Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead. Seal: On that is there a way to see kind of the other side of this where when schools are -- when schools are being built and how that's going to impact the numbers that you see here, meaning that if people that -- if the students that live in the -- where -- Prescott Ridge, using this as an example, if a new school was built in that school boundary, when that would be opening and what those numbers -- how those numbers would be affected as far as weighing things out, because sometimes what we are faced with is we have, you know, something come through that we are looking at and to have the data in front of us that within two years -- you know, and I don't know if West Ada has planned out that far, but if they have something in the works for an elementary school or something along those lines, that would help ease these numbers -- because a lot of subdivisions are going to take, you know, a year or maybe two to even get residents in them. Fitzgerald: Miranda, is that something you guys are working on? Carson: Yes. So, the school district does have a plan, I believe it's a ten year plan, it's their facilities plan is what you can look for it on their website it's called. Their agency letters do include information about schools that they are working on building or know they will be building. The key there is schools they know they will be building. So, they can plan out ten years. But unless the bonds are approved those schools will not actually get built on any time that they know. So, they can only plan -- they can only really plan after a bond has passed. They can hope that a bond passed and they can start planning and in a few rare cases they might start some design work, but until a bond is passed there is not a lot that they can do. So, their letters will include a school maybe being built. My data will not include that. Fitzgerald: Thanks, ma'am. Commissioner Seal, do you have a follow up? Seal: No. Just thank you very much for this information. I think it's going to be very helpful. We really appreciate it. Carson: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Miranda? Nice seeing you, Miranda. Thank you again. We appreciate it. I second Commissioner Seal's comments. This is going to be a helpful tool and as we balance issues going forward it's going to be great information to have. So, thank you very much for the effort. Carson: Thank you for the opportunity to share it with you. Have a good night. Fitzgerald: You, too, ma'am. Okay. As we move on down our agenda let me pause for a minute and explain the hearing process for our public hearing portion of the -- of the evening. As we start on our agenda we will open each item individually and start with the staff report. The staff report will provide the findings and -- regarding how each application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F12 Page 9 of 60 recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and will respond to staff comments at that time. The applicant will have 15 minutes to provide those comments. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony and since our challenges with the pandemic we appreciate everybody's patience as some of us are there in person -- Commissioner Yearsley, thanks for taking one for the team, being there in person and the rest of us are on Zoom and we also have folks from the public, both in attendance in person and participants on -- on Zoom as well. So, be patient as we work through that process. We will make sure everybody gets a chance to be heard. One thing I do want to point out is you have one chance to speak tonight. We will not take additional comments. So, if you are speaking individually you will have three minutes to do so. If you are speaking on behalf of an HOA -- we may have one of those tonight -- we will give you an additional --we will give you ten minutes if you are speaking on behalf of a group of people as the representative for that HOA. But we have had situations in the past where we have had attendees requesting additional time after the applicant closing. So, please, utilize your time wisely. Focus on issues that may not have been brought up to the -- to the Commission, so that we can make sure we get the breadth of issues to take into consideration on each application. So, after all testimony has been heard by the public we will give the applicant another ten minutes to have a chance to respond to the testimony that they have heard, as well as answer any questions and, then, we will also probably have questions from the -- from each of the Commissioners. At that time we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have a chance to deliberate and be able to make a recommendation to City Council on -- or a decision on the application. ACTION ITEMS 8. Public Hearing for Skybreak (H-2020-0079) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, Located at 3487 E. Adler Hoff Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 353 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Fitzgerald: So, that's kind of the process for the evening and so we will shoot into our first application, which is adjusted, it is the public hearing for Skybreak Subdivision, H- 2020-0079, and they are requesting a continuance of this application to November 19th of 2020. Sonya, is there any issues we need to be aware of or is this just a straight continuance, ma'am? Dodson: She's coming up to the mic. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F13 Page 10 of 60 Parsons: Mr. Chair, this is Bill. I will speak on behalf of Sonya this evening. So, yes, as you know we have issued out the staff report and the applicant received that and, then, it's based on staff's recommendation of that they have requested continuance of that application to continue to work with staff to address some of the concerns that we raised in that report. So, certainly it's -- it's up to you tonight if that's something you want to do this evening and request that, we will just ask that you act on that accordingly. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Any questions from Commissioners on the continuance for this application? If not, I would always entertain a motion. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move that we continue public hearing for Skybreak, H-2020-0079, to the date of November 19th, 2020. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing for H-2020-0079, Skybreak Subdivision to November 19th, 2020. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. We will see you all on the 19th. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Tara's Landing (H-2020-0048) by Mike Homan, Located at 5025 W. Larry Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 6.34 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 29 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 6.14 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district Fitzgerald: Moving on to the next item on our agenda, we have the public hearing continued from September 17th for Tara's Landing, file number H-2020-0048. This applicant is requesting withdraw of this application and so all we need from the Commissioners is a vote to allow this application to be withdrawn by the applicant. I don't -- I think we have seen this one enough and there has been some things along the way, so I think we just need to move forward with the motion. Unless someone has comments. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move we accept the application be withdrawn on H-2020-0048. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F14 Page 11 of 60 Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to allow the withdrawal of the application for Tara's Landing, H-2020-0048. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you for that. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Teakwood Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) by Hesscomm Corp., Located at 1835 E. Victory Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 22 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots. Fitzgerald: So, moving on down the agenda, we will reopen the continued public hearing -- oh, the returned -- remanded, sorry, public hearing for Teakwood Place Subdivision, H- 2020-0006, and I will hand it over to Joe for the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As noted, this project was remanded back to P&Z by the City Council on the August 25th hearing after your recommendation of denial. Since then they have made some revisions to the plat and I will make sure I highlight those, but just for our new commissioner and just so we are all on the same page, I will go over the whole thing quickly. This request before you is for annexation of seven -- actually, I apologize. Let me share my screen first. Here we go. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Dodson: Absolutely. It's for annexation of 7.35 acres of land, with a request for an R-8 zoning designation and a preliminary plat consisting of 22 building lots and four common lots. Of the 22 building lots one is reserved for the existing home that is to remain. The future land use for the site is medium density residential, which allows detached single family homes and requires a gross density reside between three to eight dwelling units per acre. The applicant's revised plat has a gross density of 2.99, which is rounded up to three, and complies with the comp plan. As noted there, is an existing home on the subject site and it's on the left part of the screen. It is intended to remain and reside on its own lot within the subdivision. This is a change from the very first time you guys heard this. In addition, some of the existing accessory structures on the property are proposed to remain as well. Current access to the property is via a driveway connection to East Victory Road and now the applicant is agreeing to close this access and comply with the UDC. Instead, the current residents will take access internally via the new driveway access, which is right here, to the extended local street East Fathom Street. The applicant is also proposing to construct an emergency access that connects from this new local street extension to Victory Road. Staff is recommending a conditional approval that this Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F15] Page 12 of 60 emergency access be constructed prior to any certificate of occupancy and this also helps solve an issue for the Tradewinds Subdivision that technically does not meet fire code by only having one entrance and exit and having more than 30 dwellings. Parking for the development is required to be provided according to the standards listed in the UDC for detached single family homes based on the number of bedrooms per home. The proposed street sections are 33 feet wide with five foot attached sidewalks and will accommodate on-street parking where there are no fire hydrants or driveways. In addition, the applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac with a 57 foot radius, which is nine feet wider than the standard and, therefore, allows on-street parking along the perimeter of the cul-de-sac also where there are no driveways. In most cases a five foot wide detached sidewalk is required along the street frontage along Victory Road. However, because there is no sidewalk adjacent to the site on either side and this section of sidewalk would be less than 300 feet in length, the UDC allows for the sidewalk to be attached. The applicant has proposed to construct a seven foot attached sidewalk in line with ACHD requirements. This is one of the changes from previously. The sidewalk should be constructed within the required 25 foot landscape buffer along Victory Road. A 25 foot wide easement is depicted on the plat and per the UDC staff has given the applicant the option of placing the buffer within the easement as shown or revising the plat to add a common lot. The submitted landscape plans do not show the correct amount of vegetative ground cover and the existing trees that are to remain within the buffer are too close together to meet UDC requirements. Therefore, staff has recommended conditions of approval to correct these items and the applicant has agreed to that -- the main points with those regarding the spacing with the trees along Victory and also just the additional vegetative ground cover beyond just trees. So, shrubs and grass. Based on the proposed plat of 7.35 acres, a minimum of .74 acres of common open space should be provided. According to the open space exhibit, the applicant's proposing approximately 37,800 square feet of qualified open space, which is about 11 .8 percent, which is an increase from the previous time you guys heard this. The open space consists of common lots and half of the landscape buffer to Victory Road. The largest area of open space is located at the southern end, as seen on the right hand of the screen, and is more than 20,000 square feet in size. To the north and across the cul-de-sac from this open space lot is the next largest open space and also contains the proposed amenity, which is here. A water feature with seating around it. This open space also has a micro path that continues north to the temporary cul-de-sac on the new east-west street in the center of the project, adding another pedestrian connection to the project. The applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single family homes for this project. The single family homes are depicted as mostly single story with structures -- with a variety of finished materials of stone, stucco, and lap siding. Some homes depict extra --also depict extra large spaces for RV at home storage. All single family homes appear to meet the design architectural standards, but there are no conditions or requests to limit them to single story. I will go over quickly some of the main points from the written testimony that have -- there has only been one since the previous hearing, but it's still -- I know they are the same concerns. So, the additional traffic going through the subdivision -- the Tradewind Subdivision as that is their only access for Teakwood. The concerns of how drainage will be affected here and concern over the building height for those homes adjacent to the Tradewind Subdivision. Those have been reiterated by numerous Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F16 Page 13 of 60 members of the public and I just wanted to go over those quickly. Staff does recommend approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat and I will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. We appreciate it. Are there any questions for staff? Hearing none, is the applicant with us and would like to join us for -- either in person or on Zoom? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, he is on Zoom. I'm transferring him over now. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Commissioner Yearsley, I'm going to use you as my eyes when I need to survey the audience. I usually call on Commissioner Seal to do that job -- Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: -- but I got to start coming in person here soon. I'm being a slacker. Weatherly: Mr. Lardie, you should have the ability to unmute yourself. Lardie: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Dan Lardie. Leavitt and Associates. 1324 1 st Street South, Nampa. Here -- here we are again. I just want to first make sure that I say thank you to staff and I also want to say thank you to City Council. They allowed us to come back and address your concerns and, hopefully, we can gain a recommendation for approval back to City Council and move ahead. So, with that I'm going to -- I'm going to share my screen. I think. See if I can get it pulled up. Okay. This -- this is a little cleaner copy of what was there. See if I can zoom in. There we go. So, some of the key points that I -- I don't want to reiterate the -- all of Joseph's staff report, because he did a -- he did a wonderful job. So, again, the access -- the homeowners have decided to go ahead and -- and -- and give up that access. We have got them to agree on that finally and we are providing access via the extension of Fathom Street at this location and we also have provided a connection through which -- was which -- which came up in our last Commission hearing about this particular open space and this turn around. Since we have the turn around, we provided it as open space to surround -- since it sounds like it's going to stay for a while and provide a -- a pathway connection and an amenity of some park benches and a pondless water feature to allow for some trickling water and some -- and some park benches there to relax and enjoy that -- that area. We still do have the enlarged -- or not the enlarged -- the enlarged cul-de-sac per the Fire Department's request and trying to meet the zoning commission's need for parking. We originally -- I think at one point in time we had some parking in the middle. The Fire Department said, no, they wouldn't allow the parking in the middle. They did allow us to go with a larger -- with a larger cul-de-sac. The -- the large area in the back -- the open space area -- it is in the back. It's at the end of the cul-de-sac where -- where we should allow for people to play or utilize the area fairly safely. It also provides a buffer for our change in zoning to our Tuscany neighbors and, lastly, the -- I just missed the sidewalk and we have proposed a sidewalk -- attached sidewalk along Victory. With that I hope we have addressed all your -- all your concerns from previous hearings and look forward to a recommendation of approval. With that I can stand for any questions. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F17] Page 14 of 60 Fitzgerald: Thank you, Mr. Lardie. I appreciate it. Are there questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley, go right ahead. Yearsley: So, Dan, this is Steven Yearsley. I -- looking at your photos for your homes I have concerns that you can actually -- can you actually fit those homes on your lots? You have got several lots that are very small and these homes that you are showing are very wide. I'm a little concerned about a bait and switch of homestyles. Lardie: I believe -- make sure my -- I'm still unmuted. Okay. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, the homestyles that are there -- I believe they will fit. I don't have a footprint -- I didn't see the footprint exactly. I believe it can be done with these -- with these particular lot sizes. Again, our -- our goal is not to build something small or that it's not commensurate with the neighbors to our -- to our west and to ourselves. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley, do you have follow up, sir? Yearsley: You know, I don't. And, you know, without -- without actually looking at how wide those are compared to the lots -- I just -- looking at the lot sizes they are fairly small and narrow and I just -- like I said, I have concerns, especially with -- they are showing a three car garage with some home frontage, those are typically fairly wide. So, I just have concerns, since I live out in that area and understand what the other adjacent neighbors are concerned about. Fitzgerald: Mr. Lardie, do you have widths on these or width and depth, so we can -- I see one, it's 73 feet wide. Yeah. Go right ahead. Lardie: Can I ask -- could I ask Joe to pull up his preliminary plat. I don't have it in my slide presentation here. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Dodson: Thank you, Dan. I will go ahead and reshare my screen. I don't -- I don't think can zoom in, unfortunately. Lardie: Oh. Okay. I believe -- I believe that's a line of 64s on the -- on the west boundary right here and I think that is some of the -- some of the larger lots are back here, but I believe 64 is the running -- the running theme. Yearsley: Thank you. Fitzgerald: I will say, I -- I do appreciate your guys' efforts to kind of understand where we are coming from. There is two questions I have and I think you have addressed them, but just -- I think that Chief Bongiorno -- I think he expressed that he was okay with this, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F18 Page 15 of 60 but the -- the half cul-de-sac turnaround, the Snoopy if you will, that's a permanent lot; right? An unbuildable lot. So, when -- if and when that goes through that will become -- it will get torn out and become a common area; correct? Lardie: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Or it can remain. They can plant a basketball hoop. It's going to be curb, gutter, and sidewalk all the way to the boundary and so if they wanted to they could plant a basketball hoop there. Fitzgerald: Okay. And my understanding also is that the emergency access that you have onto Victory, that's the only access this property will get to Victory; correct? Lardie: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Mr. Lardie? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: Just quickly, because I couldn't find anything on the concerns on drainage. I'm sure that's probably something that's been touched on in the past, but I know it's still a concern. Is that something that can be -- that you can speak to a little bit -- the applicant can speak to just as far as concerns that are out there and how you plan on mitigating that? Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Seal, so the site is -- I'm not exactly sure what the concerns were for the drainage. The site will drain and be collected in an underground storm drainage system. Actually, it will probably be a pond with a -- with a below surface infiltration window and it's been graded preliminarily to grade back to the end of the cul- de-sac into the open space. The lots in between -- all the lots will be graded prior to -- prior to construction of those sites -- or at least fine graded after the construction of those sites, but they will -- they should be graded to allow for drainage to be collected and not run off onto their neighbors. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, if you have any water questions you can ask Commissioner Yearsley, because that's what he does for a living. Seal: Excellent. Fitzgerald: But I will say that one thing they do have to do is -- you have to keep your own drainage on your own property. That's one of the -- the storm drainage is one thing, but everyone else has to keep their -- they have to maintain their water on their own property. So, hopefully, that's -- that's maintained. Commissioner Yearsley, do you have any thoughts on that? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F19 Page 16 of 60 Yearsley: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I guess my biggest question -- Dan, have they done a study to figure out what the seasonal high groundwater is out there and are you going to be above that seasonal high groundwater? Lardie: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, so groundwater is fairly shallow there. We are -- we are attempting to grade the site, so that it will be above the high groundwater and make sure that we meet DEQ requirements for separation between groundwater and our drainage. Yearsley: Okay. Have you done that study just so you figure out what that seasonal high groundwater is? Lardie: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, I don't have it in front of me. I was thinking that it was about four and a half feet to three and a half feet deep is what our -- is what the geotech I believe reported. Yearsley: Okay. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner -- oh, Joe. Go ahead. Dodson: Thank you. And for the benefit of the Commission, the public testimony that we got regarding the storm drainage showed a lot of pictures of the -- the drainage ponds that are in Tradewinds. My understanding is that that same type of storm drainage will not be used here, which is good. I think that is definitely an improvement and will have the underground infiltration bed as discussed. So, I'm hoping that that is a better option for both these residents and to quell some of the concerns of the neighbors. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Any additional comments or questions? Okay. Mr. Lardie, thank you. We will take public testimony and come back to you and let you close, sir. Lardie: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone who would like to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we had one person sign in and that's Sandy Blaser. Yearsley: Please come up and state your name and address for the record, please. Blaser: This is an improvement over last time. Fitzgerald: Spoken like a true former chair. I love it. Blaser: My name is Sandy Blaser. I'm a resident at 3370 South Como Avenue. I'm one of the residents on the properties just west of Teakwood and I appreciate the -- the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F20] Page 17 of 60 Commissioners and Planning in regards to the concerns we have had with matching heights of property to our -- our areas and the other issues with drainage. Our biggest concern -- my biggest concern and some of the others has been the -- the situation with the traffic through Fathom out to Locust Grove and at one of the hearings one of the Commissioners asked have we -- have we talked to ACHD about the traffic load on Locust Grove compared to -- to Victory and the reason I'm bringing that up and the other people in the development are bringing it up is because ACHD stated that Victory is a major arterial and they don't want to have a typical entrance and exit out to Victory and I'm submitting that Locust Grove at this point in time, not way back when they planned this -- this road, Fathom Road, to go into the property to the east, it's becoming a major arterial, because it's drawing traffic, people are looking at Eagle and they are looking at Meridian Road and they have now decided that Locust Grove is a good way to go between the two and with all the hundreds and hundreds of homes that are going to be developed south of us off of Eagle and Kuna, I think we are going to have a problem. We also know --just found out that there is a development just west of us of duplexes and triplexes that's being developed on the -- I believe it's the southwest corner, which is just opposite our entrance and also that the property on the northwest corner is going to be developed with housing. So, I think we are going to have a problem and I think the solution -- we all feel the solution is to have a typical exit off Victory for egress and in and out of Teakwood for their people there. I just think it's going to be a major problem when we try to unload everyone off of-- I forgot the name of our entrance, but for our entrance in and out is all centralized along Locust Grove. Coastline and Locust Grove. And I think it's just going to be a mess and I would really like to have the Commission talk to ACHD about their logic of not permitting an entrance for Teakwood on Victory and having it all stream through Fathom out to Locust Grove to the west. And that's basically my concerns and I think a number of the homeowners concerns. The quality of life being affected by the traffic. Yearsley: Thank you. We will have the applicant answer that after. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Mr. Blaser. Any additional -- any additional attendees in the audience that would like to speak on this application at this time? Please raise your hand. Or if you are online, one of the attendees, please, raise your hand via Zoom. Yearsley: I don't see anybody in the audience wanting -- raising their hand, so -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks, Commissioner Yearsley. Madam Clerk, I don't see anyone online either. Is that correct? Weatherly: That is correct. Fitzgerald: Okay. Mr. Lardie, do you want to take a few minutes and close, sir? Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Joe, go right ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F21 Page 18 of 60 Dodson: Sorry. Try again. If I may I can address Mr. Blaser's questions. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Joe. Give us more information. That would be great. Dodson: Absolutely. Sorry. I -- following the previous Commission hearing I -- and while writing the staff report I did reach out to ACHD regarding why Locust Grove was not included and why Victory Road was. Short answer is that this property abuts Victory Road and is the arterial that it has frontage on, so, therefore, that's the road that was discussed. Secondly, Victory Road is already failing as an arterial road -- arterial road with its current access points. So, ACHD, period, was not going to allow any further access, other than what's there now. That leads into Locust Grove, which they understand is busy and continuing to get busier, which is why from Victory Road north Locust Grove is slated in the next five years in their integrated five year work plan to be widened to five lanes and a roundabout is slated to be built at that intersection. With those two new conditions coming to fruition in the next -- within the next five years ACHD finds that they will have enough capacity to support more development using this entrance, especially for the backup that occurs south of Victory on Locust Grove currently. With a roundabout it's designed to keep traffic flowing and especially if they are continuing north will have more lanes available to be used and keep the traffic moving north. So, that was the discussion that I had with ACHD. Trying to get that for the Commission and the public. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Appreciate the information. Mr. Lardie, do you want to close up with any additional comments, sir? Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thanks, Joe. First of all, I -- I was going to see if you could defer, because I know you have had some discussions with ACHD and I notice they were in their staff report. You know, I -- I hope that we have addressed your concerns or at least addressed -- or attempted to address your concerns and that I look forward to a recommendation of approval if you can give it. With that I will -- I will stand for any more questions or sit down -- sit back down quietly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Dan. Any additional questions for the applicant or staff? Seeing none -- or hearing none, can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Move that we close the public hearing for H-2020-0006. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for H-2020-0006, Teakwood Place Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F22 Page 19 of 60 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Anyone want to lead off or start the fun and excitement? We have talked about this one a lot. Commissioner Grove comes off of mute. Yes, go right ahead, Commissioner. Grove: I will jump in real quick. I don't have a whole lot, other than to say that the access for the residents that is remaining coming off of the new development, rather than Victory, makes a big difference in how they connect to the open space, made this a -- a lot better project in my opinion and so I like the changes and the work that they have gone into -- to address the concerns that were raised the first time through. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Joe, go ahead. Dodson: Sorry. I have more information for you guys. Fitzgerald: Okay. Dodson: Regarding the groundwater. I looked up the geotech report and it looks like they found groundwater at seven feet. Fitzgerald: That's much better than four. Dodson: Correct. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you for that. That helps, too. Well, first, I want to tell Mr. Lardie and Joe, both, thank you for your work. I think the conversation I had -- or my comments on this were very much -- if you start development you kind of got to either develop or not develop and that was -- there was a desire to keep access and do some things with their horse trailers and the house that's existing and I think this is a much better transition and it's -- it's better than it was -- much better than -- I think this is the third or fourth time we have seen this thing. I think the chief is happy with the fire access and emergency access he has. Obviously, we all have a connection to the north, but that doesn't seem like it's going to be for a long time and it seems like it's reasonable to -- this is not that many houses and I understand the impact it does have on the neighbors to the west, but I understand that ACHD is not going to allow anything else to access Victory and so we are in a -- in a weird spot there. But I do appreciate the work that's gone into the common areas, the -- you know, the amenities that were put in and utilizing that unbuildable lot as a turnaround for the fire department. I think those are all good improvements. I do share Mr. Yearsley's comments on -- that was one of our comments early on, but I -- we have gone a long ways from where we were where there was going to be no improvements on Victory, no sidewalk, no -- they weren't going to take access off of the internal road. We have come a long ways from there. So, I do appreciate that and so I do see the improvements and the effort being put forward. It's just a matter of does this fit within the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F23] Page 20 of 60 communities around it and I think that's what the Commission gets to determine. So, additional comments? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I share some of the same thoughts that -- that he just went through on this and I do -- I really like the addition of the pathway in there. I know that's something that Commissioner Holland also -- I think that was originally her -- her original thought was to kind of put a pathway through there, open that up a little bit more, provide for some more connectivity within the subdivision. So, you know, basically adhering to the, you know, what-- the staff recommendations on -- as far as Victory Road are concerned with putting in the sidewalk, closing off access and everything. I know the sidewalk and the improvements that are going to go in out there are no easy feat. I remember the picture that they showed us of that, you know, with the irrigation boxes and -- and the different grades that are out there, it's -- it's not going to be easy for them to accomplish that. So, I very much appreciate the fact that that is something that's now in the plan and, again, I know that that's -- that's not going to be easy to accomplish, so -- and, again, this is --this is a long ways from where it started and I think it's a very good compromise, especially for an in-fill piece, which are always incredibly difficult to get those in and -- and just with a regular subdivision, much less something that wants to retain the original property in there as well. So, overall I think it's a good job with a -- with an in-fill piece. I'm very pleased with where it's landed. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I have -- you know, for the most part I'm -- you know, the subdivision looks okay. I do have some concerns about the homes fitting on the lots. You know, they are looking at three -- three car garages with fairly large frontages with only 68 foot facings of most of the lots. That's really leaving no -- you know, that's -- that's really tight and I don't think that it can hit -- that those -- unless they shrink them up quite a bit. I do have concerns with the groundwater. I don't know when the -- the geotech report was done. We have huge groundwater influences from the canal that's close by. We have it in our subdivision, because I live in Tuscany, but not near this subdivision at all, but we have areas that we have -- our -- our drainage basins fill up with water during the summer because of high groundwater. So, my recommendation would have them do a -- a seasonal high groundwater check to make sure that they can do the drainage appropriately on that. So, not knowing when their current groundwater deal was done I question that it -- that they have seven feet. So, those are my concerns. Fitzgerald: Would you have that done before Council if we go for a recommendation? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F24] Page 21 of 60 Yearsley: Unfortunately, the canals have gone out of the water and so your groundwater is starting to go down. They need to get it done immediately to test to see where it's at, because we are starting to see our drainages start to go down as well. So, I would recommend that they have that checked almost immediately to see where that groundwater is and -- and -- and report back that to Council. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I think I'm at a place where I could support this. You know, we have spent a lot of time on this little piece and I appreciate the changes that they have finally come back with, but I would agree I'm not sure that the homes that they have shown us -- I appreciate Commissioner Yearsley's pointing that out. I'm not sure that those homes that they have shown us are going to fit on those lots. But, you know, they might be predominantly the two car garage version with only a couple of threes out there I guess. But I do think it's night and day from what we had to deal with before. Fitzgerald: Agreed. And I think, you know, the request if -- if I was -- and I can't make motions, but if -- you know, I think an immediate groundwater or a pit test or whatever -- high water -- high groundwater test prior to Council, as well as doing -- making sure that the elevations they are providing Council will fit on the--on the lot, so that they understand what they are getting into, I think that's totally appropriate. I do think we have come far enough to -- to recommend an approval to the Council, because I do think it's -- I think it makes sense -- and much like Commissioner Seal said, for an in-fill property from where we started to where we are now I think it works. But I think there is some questions we could help answer before they get to Council with some additional information. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Joe. Dodson: Yes, sir. Thank you. Members of the Commission. Commissioner Yearsley. The report has a letter date of December of last year with a request made in October, about this time last year. So, when they did this site testing was definitely the fall, winter. Yearsley: Yeah. So, that's your -- my concern is your groundwater is not accurate. Dodson: Understood. Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts or comments or motions are always in order, so -- Seal: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F25] Page 22 of 60 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I will take a stab. I don't have the -- I don't have my cheat sheet in front of me, so -- after hearing all application testimony and information on file number H-2020-0006 for Teakwood Place Subdivision, I recommend -- I recommend that we recommend approval to City Council with the following caveats: That an immediate high groundwater check is done and, then, reported to City Council, as well as some updated elevations that are guaranteed to fit the plot sizes. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020- 0006, Teakwood Place Subdivision, to City Council. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Mr. Lardie, Thank you guys. Good luck with Council and I hope the neighbors understand that we are trying to get as much information as -- to give to Council as they can and, hopefully, that will be good -- good logic for them to decipher on, so they can make good decisions -- a good final decision. 5. Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Ada County Coroner (H-2020-0085) by Lombard Conrad Architects, Located at 173 N. Touchmark Way A. Request: Rezone of 1.77 acres of land from the I-L to the C-G zoning district. Fitzgerald: Turning to our agenda we have the next -- next item, which is file number H- 2020-0085 for the Ada County Coroner's office and we will start with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Sonya, are you ready? Go right ahead, ma'am. Allen: Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a rezone. This site consists of 1.34 acres of land. It's zoned I-L, light industrial, and it's located at 173 North Touchmark Way. Adjacent land uses to the west consist of retail stores zoned C-G, industrial to the north, zoned I-L, vacant land to the east, zoned I-L, and Franklin Road and vacant land to the south, zoned L-O. This property was rezoned in 2009 with the requirement of a development agreement. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is industrial. The abutting property to the south is designated commercial. The applicant is requesting a rezone of 1.77 acres of land, including land to the centerline of adjacent streets from the I-L, light industrial, to the C- G, general retail and service commercial district. Because the adjacent future land use Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F26 Page 23 of 60 map designation and zoning of the property to the south is commercial and a public, quasi-public use, Ada County Coroner's office, is proposed to develop on the combined properties, staff deems it appropriate to apply the future land use map designation of the adjacent property to this property, because such designations are not parcel specific. Rezone this subject property to C-G consistent with that of the adjacent property to the south will create uniform zoning for the overall property. Although the UDC does not prohibit multiple zones on a single parcel, split zoning does make it problematic to decipher which of the two standards, industrial versus commercial, to enforce. The rezone to C-G will ensure that the development meets the dimensional standards of one district versus two. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that depicts a 35,000 square foot, two story building, oriented north and south on the site with the entry fronting on South Touchmark Way. Mr. Bill there, you are -- you are touching the screen. Fitzgerald: He's going to go faster. Sorry, Sonya. Allen: I'm getting zoomy zoomy. One entry and exit and one exit only is proposed via North Touchmark Way and one entry only is proposed via East Lanark Street, both classified as industrial collector streets. No access is proposed or approved via East Franklin Road, an entryway corridor. Per the recorded development agreement direct lot access to Franklin Road is prohibited. Staff is supportive of the access points depicted on the proposed concept plan. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. A minimum of 70 parking spaces are required, 117 public parking spaces and 51 secured employee parking spaces, for a total of 168 spaces are proposed. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Franklin Road, an entryway corridor. The staff report states a 20 foot wide buffer is required along Touchmark Way and Lanark Street. However, when the final plat was recorded these streets were designated as local, instead of collector streets. For this reason staff will amend the analysis in the staff report to reflect a ten foot wide street buffer requirement with future development along Touchmark and Lanark. Conceptual building elevations and perspectives of the proposed buildings were submitted as shown. Written testimony has been received from Deborah Phillips, Ada county. She is the applicant. In agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval without the requirement of a new development agreement, as the existing development agreement will suffice. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Sonya, thank you very much. Are there any questions for the staff? Hearing none, is the applicant in -- in quarters or online, ready to join us? Yearsley: They are here. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F27 Page 24 of 60 Brosa: I'm Brenda Brosa. Business address is 1231 Shoreline Lane, Boise, Idaho. I'm one of the architects that's been working with Ada county to develop their new coroner's facility. As Sonya mentioned, Ada county has purchased two adjacent parcels of land near the corner of Franklin Road and Touchmark. They were planning on combining these two parcels in order to build the new coroner's facility on it and after multiple conversations with the Planning and Zoning staff it was recommended to us that we go ahead and change the zoning of one of those parcels, so that we could combine them as a single zoned parcel, so we weren't dealing with a split. So, this application is to fulfill that request that they have made. As you can see the current design of the facility -- it still respects the uses of the adjacent properties on both ends. The administrative end of the facility is towards the commercial side that faces Franklin Road, whereas the medical and back of house functions are located towards the industrial parcels to the north. Given this arrangement the proposed layout is compatible with the surrounding properties at both ends of the site and from the concept views included in your agenda packets and shown up there on the screen, you can see the design of this facility is shaping up to be a pretty attractive piece of architecture that should enhance Meridian's image along one of its entry corridors. Are there any questions that I can answer? Fitzgerald: Are there any questions for the applicant? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go ahead, please. Seal: Just -- in some of the elevation samples that are given in here I just see that there is a lot of solar that seems to be depicted on there. Is that something that's going to be concentrated on the building and something that's going to be true or is that something that's just in there to make it look nice? Brosa: That's been proposed as an alternate right now. It is a goal for it to -- to be able to maximize that, but as we know with our low electricity rates here it doesn't always pan out. So, that is as an alternate right now. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Great question. Additional questions? Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate it. If there is public testimony we will give you an opportunity to close. Brosa: All right. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Madam Clerk, is there anyone would like to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we had two people sign in, none wishing to testify. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F28 Page 25 of 60 Fitzgerald: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to testify or anyone online, please, raise your hand so Commissioner Yearsley can see you or I can see you online. Yearsley: Is there anybody here that wants to testify? There is nobody here. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Commissioner. Would the applicant like to come up and close? Or is there any additional comments? Yearsley: She's good. Fitzgerald: Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on file number H- 2020-0085, Ada County Coroner's Office. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Kudos to Lombard Conrad, because I do think the building is very unique and it's cool. Setup -- I think the way it is aligned with the office and administrative glass and metal -- I'm a glass and metal guy, so great work. Very cool building and it kind of steps down with the landscape that is over there with the elevation change. I think it's a very nice laid out building. I think it will be a good addition to that area. So, I have no concerns. I would like to see the -- the solar come to fruition, too, but that's -- I guess that can only be a hope. Additional comments? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I agree with your comments. I like the look of the design. I think it's an appropriate location and so I think -- I think it's good. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, you are off mute, so I'm going to call on you. Grove: I forgot. Yeah. Nothing much. I think it makes that area -- it's a good addition to that area from an aesthetic standpoint and the function. I hadn't really thought of how she described it, you know, going from commercial towards the Franklin area to the more industrial aspects towards Lanark makes sense and I like it even more. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Mr. Chair. Yeah. Same comments, basically. Again, hopefully the solar does -- is something that comes to fruition on that. Glad to see an Ada county building landing in the area of impact of Meridian. So, that's nice to see as well, that Meridian is starting to, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F29 Page 26 of 60 you know, get on the list of where we need to have facilities out there. So, it's-- it's always a good thing to see. Pretty impressive building for sure. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Commissioner McCarvel, go ahead. McCarvel: No. Mr. Chair, I was just going to go ahead and make a motion. I think it's pretty straightforward and it is a very striking building. Kudos to the architects. So, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I -- I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0085 as presented in the staff report on the hearing date of October 15th, 2020, with no modifications. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020- 0085. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? That was delayed reaction time. Motion passes. Thank you. And we wish you guys good luck in your next steps in the process. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for Landing South (H-2020-0005) by Jim Jewett, Located at 660 S. Linder Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots and 2 common lots on 2.27 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving to the next item on our agenda, I guess it's -- tonight's theme is things we have seen before. So, moving to the next item on the agenda is file number H-2020-0005, Landing South, and we will turn it back over to Sonya for next steps, ma'am. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a preliminary plat. This application was previously heard by the Commission, along with a request for a rezone, and a recommendation of denial was forwarded to the Council based on the belief that the development plan was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Issues with the turnarounds and access drives and the revised plat and didn't address previous concerns of the Commission. The City Council heard the application and remanded it back to the Commission for review of a revised plat meeting the R-4 dimensional standards. So, I will just review real quick with you -- remind you of the original plat on the left that was submitted. There was a combination of single family attached -- excuse me -- not attached, they were actually duplex buildings on the lots fronting on Linder Road and, then, single family residential detached on the eastern portion of the development. The Commission requested some changes to the plat. The applicant came back with the plat on the right there and, then, the Commission, then, made a recommendation to Council and forwarded the application on to them for their review and the plat on the left there is the current revised plat that is before you tonight for review and I will just go through the -- the application again, since it's been a while since you guys have seen it. This site consists of 2.27 acres of land. It's zoned R- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F30 Page 27 of 60 4 and is located at 660 South Linder Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning are single family residential properties surrounding this site, zoned R-4 and R-8. This property was annexed back in 1994 without the requirement of a development agreement. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as medium density residential on the future land use map, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre. The proposed revised preliminary plat consists of eight building lots and two common lots on 2.27 acres of land in the R-4 district for the development of single family residential detached homes. The minimum lot size proposed is 8,018 square feet, with an average lot size of 8,199 square feet. Access is proposed via the extension of an existing stub street, South Spoonbill Avenue from Joshua Street from the north boundary of the site, which ends in a cul-de- sac. No access is proposed or approved via Linder Road. An emergency access only exists off site to the north via Linder Road. Off-street parking is provided in accord with UDC standards. Two on-street parking spaces are available in front of the two northern lots, but parking is not allowed within the cul-de-sac. Staff is concerned there may not be adequate on-street parking for guests. However, the UDC does not have standards for on-street parking. The Kennedy Lateral runs along the northern boundary of the site and has been piped. The pathways master plan depicts a ten foot wide multi-use pathway along the frontage of this site adjacent to Linder Road. However, because there is an existing sidewalk that is in good condition in this area, the Parks Department is not requiring it to be reconstructed and is only requiring an easement for a future pathway. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Linder Road. Because this site is below five acres in size, the qualified open space and site amenity standards in the UDC do not apply. An open space exhibit was submitted that depicts .32 of an acre of common open space, consisting of the street buffer along Linder Road and the area along the north boundary where the Kennedy Lateral lies. No amenities are proposed. Wrought iron fencing is proposed to be constructed at the back edge of the street buffer along Linder Road and along the Kennedy Lateral easement. And the exhibit on the left there is the open space exhibit. Although not required, the applicant did submit thatjust to show what areas are common open space and the concept elevations on the right represent elevations for single family residential detached homes proposed to be constructed in this development. The applicant submitted written testimony. He is agreement, except for conditions A-3-B and A-3-C in regard to tree mitigation requirements. The applicant states that the -- incorrectly states that 67 caliper inches of trees are required for mitigation, but that the city arborist only determined that 17 inches are required based on retention of an existing 50 inch maple tree. So, staff is okay with this change to those conditions. Written testimony previously was submitted on this application. I'm not sure if it necessarily still applies, but it is on the record from Chris and Candice Johnson. They are requesting Joshua Street is allowed to extend to the west and connect to Linder Road as a permanent access, instead of emergency access only, or, at the very least, the construction traffic is allowed to use this access for development of the subdivision and that a no outlet sign be installed at South Tylee Way where it intersects Waltman Drive to notify drivers the dead ends -- the street dead ends to prevent unnecessary traffic. Jeff Bolen submitted testimony. He requested direct access via Linder Road is allowed for this development. Staff did reach out to ACHD to see if an access via Linder would be allowed and it would not, as it does not meet district policies. The site does not have sufficient frontage to meet spacing requirements from Gander Drive to the south and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F31 Page 28 of 60 Pintail Drive to the north. With the proposed development factored in traffic volumes on Gander Drive are anticipated to be well below what is allowed on a local street. Kenneth Scott Grapatin submitted testimony. He's concerned pertaining to the continued provision of irrigation water to his property, which currently runs through the north side of their proposed project and accessibility of the ditch for repairs and cleaning. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed preliminary plat with a modification to conditions A-3-B and A-3-C as requested by the applicant. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. We appreciate it. Are there any questions for the staff? Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Sonya, just a question about the parking that you mentioned. Is there -- is the road wide enough between this subdivision and the one to the north for parking on street on that roadway? Allen: Commissioners, I -- as far as I know it is. I believe it is. The applicant could probably answer that question. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, do you have any follow up or are you good? Okay. Any additional questions for Sonya? Hearing none, is the applicant available in some form? Yearsley: He is coming up. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks, Commissioner Yearsley. Jewett: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Jewett, 776 East Riverside Drive, Eagle, Idaho. Yearsley: If you can speak into the microphone a little closer. Jewett: Do you want me to repeat the address? Yearsley: We are good. Jewett: Thank you. As Sonya stated, this application came prior as a rezone with some more dense smaller lots and some duplexes. We subsequently after City Council discussion decided to withdraw the R-8 rezone, come back with a straight R-4 plat and asking for none of the previous requests before, the duplex, the common lots, common driveways and just a straight plat. We are in agreeance with the staff report and would stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Are there any questions for the applicant? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F32 Page 29 of 60 Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir. Grove: Same question that I asked Sonya in regards to the parking between this subdivision plat and the road that it comes off of to the north. Is there parking along -- access on those -- or on that street? Jewett: As currently constructed there is no restrictive parking from the cul-de-sac to this cul-de-sac that we are proposing, albeit there is that canal easement that's in there, but there is no requirement for no parking in front of the canal that I'm aware of. So, yes, there would be additional parking between our boundary and the next property boundary to our north for at least one vehicle per side, if not two. Grove: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for Mr. Jewett? Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being here tonight. Jewett: Thank you. Fitzgerald: And we will let you come close if there are additional public testimony. Jewett: Thank you much. Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone who would like to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not. Fitzgerald: Okay. Is there a show of hands on -- if there is anyone in the public in the chambers that would like to testify or please raise your hand via Zoom if you would like to testify on this application. Yearsley: No one's indicating they want to testify. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Commissioner Yearsley. Mr. Jewett, did you want to say any further closing remarks, sir, or are you good? Yearsley: He said he's good. Fitzgerald: Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Grove: So moved. Seal: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F33 Page 30 of 60 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2020-0005. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Commissioners, what are your thoughts? Commissioner Seal. Seal: Mr. Chair. Recurring theme tonight. In-fill property that we have seen a number of times. Fitzgerald: Yes. Seal: I -- compared to the layouts that we have seen before I like this -- this concept in here for this piece of in-fill. It's because of the restrictions on roadway access and how it's, you know, basically blocked in here, I think this is about as good as it's going to get. It's -- I really like the idea that they had as far as the -- some of the properties facing the frontage on -- on Linder Road there. I was, you know, a little sad to see that go, but I can -- you know, like I said, seeing this layout and how it works and flows a little bit better, I'm happy to see this is where it landed. The only concerns I have are, you know, the same as -- that Commissioner Grove shared, just the parking is going to be an issue in here. So, you know, you have one -- one Super Bowl party over here and the next thing you know you are going to have people parking up on the -- you know, into the next subdivision there. So, you know, it's -- it's a similar problem everywhere. So, it will just be a little bit more of an issue here I think. So, that and, you know, trash delivery days and things like that are going to be interesting in here. But, you know, I seeing cul-de- sacs like -- like this. They seem to work it out in the end. So, again, for a piece of in-fill property like this I think it turned out pretty well. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I will just echo everything that Commissioner Seal said. This is a difficult one just based on its size and I don't know how much different you could really go and still do something with this. So, I appreciate them coming back and -- and trying this again and it -- we have seen it a few times. So, this is easily the best one we have seen, so -- Fitzgerald: I agree. I didn't get to -- I wasn't here for the first one, but I was here for the last two or three, and I think, if I recall, this was the request of the neighborhood. The neighbors next door where -- can we just match it up to what we have got next door and I think they did a good job of doing that. I think -- if there was a theme I can say tonight is our staff's pretty talented in regards to working through things before they get to us and, you know, just like giving direction to our -- our development community out there is they kind of know what we are -- where we head a lot of times in our conversations. Listen to them, because it saves everybody some time and effort. But I think -- I agree with the comments that Commissioner Seal and Commissioner Grove made, this is a much better Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F34 Page 31 of 60 and much more improved -- with not having access to -- to the Locust Grove, I think it's -- or to Linder, I'm sorry, I think it's going to be a very limited opportunity without doing something like this. So, I'm in agreement. This is probably the best we are going to get. I think where we are dealing with cul-de-sacs everybody -- they seem to manage through it, you know, whether it's neighbors or the trash trucks that are racing to get through it. So, I think this is probably a significant improvement from where we were. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I totally agree. This is by far the best we have seen and probably the best configuration is going to work in this little corner and I do appreciate the thought to have the different product along the frontage road there, but it just -- it just was putting a square peg in a round hole for this piece, so I agree. This is something I could support and probably just recommend as big a driveway as you can get. Fitzgerald: That's totally true. Commissioner Yearsley, do you have any thoughts, sir? Yearsley: I -- there is nothing more to say than what's been said. It's -- it is what it is and I much prefer the R-4, to be honest with you. Fitzgerald: Well, team, I am ready for motions whenever you are. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 4th, 2020, with the following modifications: That A-3-A and A-3-B are remediated to reflect the -- the reduction in tree mitigation to the 17 inches as proposed by the applicant. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: Is that A and B or B and C? McCarvel: Mr. Chair, I have B and C. Seal: Do I have that wrong? Fitzgerald: Sonya, can you clarify that? McCarvel: Sonya is nodding. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F35 Page 32 of 60 Fitzgerald: Sonya is nodding. Okay. So, Commissioner Seal, that's B and C. Would that be your revised motion? Seal: My revised motion will be for A-3-B and A-3-C. That is correct. Fitzgerald: Does the second -- second agree with that? Grove: Second. Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Second's seconding. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020-0005, Landing South, with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Appreciate it, Mr. Jewett. Good luck. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing for Spurwing Sewer Easement Annexation (H-2020- 0087) by Shari Stiles, Engineering Solutions, LLP, Generally Located North of W. Chinden Blvd./Sh 20-26, Northeast of N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 0.60 of an acre of land with an R-4 zoning district. Fitzgerald: The last item on our agenda for this evening is the public hearing for Spurwing Sewer Easement and Annexation, file number H-2020-0087. Before we get started I need to check in with my fellow Commissioners. I live in Spurwing and I will be honest with you and tell you I have -- people have asked me about this thing and I have given some information about what I thought it was, mostly before when it was in front of Ada county. I haven't given anybody my opinion, but I told them what I -- what they saw on the notifications they got in the mail. I don't think that puts me in a place where I should recuse myself, but I will let the Commission make a combination -- or that call. So, I think I can be impartial on this discussion, but I also want to give that -- I have provided some information when people ask me about the application that was in front of Ada county. So, if that is an issue with anybody I'm happy to step away, but want to give that -- that opportunity for you guys to comment -- or any comments you might have. McCarvel: I'm good. Fitzgerald: Okay. Seal: I was going to say, being that you are chair and you can't make the motion, I think we are safe. Fitzgerald: That's probably a good call. Commissioner Yearsley, any concerns? Yearsley: I'm good. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F36 Page 33 of 60 Fitzgerald: Okay. Well, we will start with the staff report and I will turn it back to Sonya. Are you ready to go, ma'am? Allen: Yeah. Just a second here. Fitzgerald: Is Bill breaking your computer again? Allen: Yes. Alrighty. Sorry about that, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning. This site consists of .6 of an acre of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located north of West Chinden Boulevard and State Highway 20-26. Adjacent land use and zoning are single family residential properties in Spurwing Subdivision, zoned RUT in Ada county, and single family residential properties in the development process in Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision, zoned R-4 and R-8 in the city. And the Spurwing Golf Course, zoned RUT in Ada county. The history on this project. A lot line adjustment was previously approved by the county in 2007, which included the subject property. The county denied a conditional use permit modification application recently to build an emergency access road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential, which calls for three or fewer units per acre. The applicant is requesting annexation of .6 of an acre of land into the city with an R-4 zoning district consistent with the future land use map designation of low density residential. The annexation area is a portion of Lot 2, Block 2, Spurwing Subdivision, which was developed in the county. Typically the city does not annex a portion of a parcel or lot. However, it has been deemed appropriate in this case due to the county's denial of the site modification and the city's requirement for an access to maintain the public utility. The property proposed to be annexed is developed as part of the Spurwing Golf Course and contains a 20 foot wide Meridian sanitary sewer easement with a 12 inch sewer main line and an eight inch Suez water main line. An emergency vehicle access easement is proposed in this area to satisfy the fire department's requirement for secondary emergency access to Olivetree of Spurwing Subdivision. Emergency vehicle access for this subdivision was previously planned via West Chinden Boulevard at the Chinden-Ten Mile Road intersection. However, since the time the preliminary plat was approved improvements have been made to the intersection, which require an alternate location for emergency access. For this reason emergency access is proposed where the sewer easement lies and public access will be restricted through the use of gates at each entrance with a Knox Box as required by the Fire Department or Fire Department access only. This road will also provide access to any manholes within the sewer easement area in accord with city requirements and access to the Suez water main lines. The Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision cannot develop without an approved secondary emergency access, which the applicant's proposal provides. If Council denies the applicant's request an alternate emergency vehicle access will be required for any development over 30 building lots in the Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision or the applicant has the option to provide fire sprinklers to any additional homes beyond the 30. The subject property is nonbuildable as it's -- it isn't a legal parcel or lot eligible for a building permit and doesn't meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-4 district. There have been several letters of written testimony received on the project and I will go through those. Apologies in advance if I Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F37 Page 34 of 60 mispronounce your name. Robert Trerise and Gretchen Tseng. Carrie Franklin. Eric and Mary Klein. Qing-Min and Erin Chen. Tom and Andrea Nist. Greg Stock. Steven Leavitt and Rick Mauritzson. The majority of the concern pertains to construction of the street -- a street and public access between Balata Court and North Crantini Way in Olivetree at Spurwing. And just to reiterate, there -- there is no public access proposed or approved with the subject application. This is only for utility easements, as well as emergency access and maintenance of those easements by the city and Suez. Staff is recommending approval with the requirement of a development agreement that states the annexation area is nonbuildable and, as I stated, shall only be used as an easement for city sewer and Suez water, emergency vehicle access and an access road for maintenance of the city and Suez water facilities in the easement area. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. Are there any questions for Sonya on this application? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, go right ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just following along with what I'm reading through all the public comments in there, has -- has Ada county been contacted and where are they at on this parcel? I mean is there a -- is there some kind of legal action that's pending on it for real or is that just something that people are talking about? Parsons: Mr. -- Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, yes, there is an active case pending in the county and they are waiting to see what action the city -- city will take on the annexation of this property is what we have been told, so -- Allen: And, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the -- the county has been copied with the staff report and has been involved with the city's process on this. Seal: So, follow up to that, I guess where are they going to lie -- lie on this if-- if this goes forward for approval are we stuck in the middle of a lawsuit here or are they looking for us to approve it, so that there doesn't need to be one? Pogue: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I think depending on the outcome of the application it could render the substance of the county's litigation moot and the county would have to act accordingly. This -- this lawsuit that -- it doesn't involve the city and won't involve the city regardless of the outcome of this application. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, did you have any follow up there? Does that help? Seal: I just wish I understood that a whole lot better. But, yes, it does. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Okay. Any additional comments or questions for Sonya or the -- the staff at this point? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F38 Page 35 of 60 Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Sonya, just to reiterate, kind of going off of all of the public testimony reference to the original emergency access, it -- is that completely off the table for reasons due to the change of that intersection or is there something else that is preventing that from being done? Allen: Chairman, Commissioners, if you are referring to the -- are you referring to the emergency access via Chinden at the Ten Mile intersection? Grove: Correct. Allen: Yeah. ITD is no longer allowing that emergency access. It's been a significant period of time since that was approved, 13, 14 years ago, something like that, and since that time there -- there have been intersection improvements there and a -- and a traffic signal installed and it's just not conducive to an emergency access in that location any longer. Fitzgerald: And, Sonya, my understanding is they are going to gate both ends of that with a Knox Box or a padlock, it is only allowed for anyone to access it besides -- or, Sonya, even if Meridian city wanted to come access that road, they would need the chief's key or a firetruck to come access that -- that gate; is that correct? Allen: That is correct, Mr. Chair. Again, there is a sewer easement through there, so our Public Works Department or sewer department would be able to access that easement as well. But it would definitely not be open to the public and there would not be any keys or access codes or any such things issued to the public. Fitzgerald: And do they -- what -- do we understand what the gate is going to look like? Is there a -- is it specified somewhere on your-- did I miss that in the staff report? Allen: Not that I know of, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Okay. Maybe the applicant could help me there. Allen: Yeah. I'm sure -- I'm sure Becky can provide you with a lot more information on her presentation, so -- Fitzgerald: Perfect. Any additional questions before the applicant comes up? Hearing none, Becky, are you available in person? Allen- She is in person, Mr. Chair. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F39 Page 36 of 60 Fitzgerald: Thank you. Becky, thanks for being with us tonight. Please state your name and your address for the record. The floor is yours, ma'am. McKay: Thank you, sir. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm here representing the applicant. The applicant in this matter is Spurwing Limited Partnership, along with Pacific Link Limited Company. What's before you this evening is, as Sonya indicated, an annexation of a .62 acre parcel for the purposes of establishing an emergency vehicle access, sanitary sewer and water maintenance roadway. This is the first Spurwing Subdivision that you see here. This was approved back in 2007. 1 have been working on this project for 15 years, which is a long time. When we obtained our initial approval, obviously, the recession hit and so we kind of slowed down to -- to kind of wait that out. Can I do the -- let's see. Will it let me do my arrow? But they can see -- there we go. So, the -- the subject property at the time that we annexed and zoned it into the City of Meridian, the utilities were coming from the northwest corner, which was Suez water and City of Meridian sewer. Our pathway of annexation -- Clang it. I'm having difficulties with my arrow. Our pathway of annexation was there on the southwest corner at Chinden Boulevard. This was a platted lot. As part of the original Spurwing development it was always intended that -- that it would be developed with some patio homes and as I indicated, once we obtained approval we started working on some of the issues. One of the conditions of approval, as you can see in this staff report issued in February 6th of 2007 from the fire department, was that a secondary emergency access, 20 foot wide, capable of handling 75,000 gross vehicle weight would be required with this project. It also indicated in our staff report that this roadway would have to be equipped with emergency rolling or swing gate and it would have to have a Knox Box and would not be allowed for any parking on that access. So, initially when we obtained our approval we put in for a permit with Idaho Department of Transportation. This is the permit that -- that I submitted back in May of 2008. As you can see in the very low right-hand corner this permit was issued and signed and approved on 6/18/2008 by ITD's district three engineer. So, what we did is we designed an emergency vehicle access and as you can see this screenshot is from Shona Tonkin at Idaho Department of Transportation. We constructed the -- why does my arrow want to disappear? There we go. We constructed this emergency vehicle access. It had certain design criteria that ITD mandates and once constructed they inspected it and approved it and so we established our emergency vehicle access in 2008. However, we did not construct the subdivision, we wanted to wait until the economy improved. Then in 2012 Spurwing Challenge development to the east came to my client and Mr. Anderson indicated that he wanted to extend the sewer from down the golf course and through our subject property and you can see the -- the patio homes located right here and so they -- they submitted and were approved design plans and extended sewer all through our project and over to the Spurwing Challenge development. My client granted an easement to the City of Meridian for that sewer extension and as you can see Mr. Anderson constructed a 12 -- a 14 foot wide all weather gravel access roadway for that sewer line and the sewer came out of Spurwing Greens, it came down and across over and down. In 2014 1 was contacted by Dave Splett, who worked at district three, and he indicated that due to the Walmart that had been approved by the City of Meridian and ACHD at the intersection of McMillan and Ten Mile, one of their conditions of approval was to expand Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F40 Page 37 of 60 the Ten Mile intersection at Chinden and to install a traffic signal. He indicated to me that this would -- this improvement would basically -- they would have to remove our emergency access in order to expand the intersection, install the signal. In this particular letter he said the applicants and the city should be aware that a traffic signal is under construction at US 20-26 intersection with Ten Mile. The new site approach is being constructed, but the signal design does not include facilities for any southbound traffic from this subdivision and so they -- they basically made our permit, which we had completed and had installed the emergency access, null and void and they removed our access. This gives you a picture of -- of what that intersection looked like after the improvements. As you can see, the emergency vehicle access that we had installed was removed and in its place is that signal pole. Here is another picture of that, the existing improved intersection there at Ten Mile and State Highway 20-26. In my conversations with Mr. Anderson he stated that they had installed ribbon -- concrete ribbon curb and, then, they had installed a gravel base and, then, a perma bark cap over the sewer line right here. You can see the manhole here. He indicated to me that, then, they laid gravel down here and through our sight. He said over time that gravel sunk into the -- the soil as the years passed -- as you can see this is 2016 -- and basically disappeared through here. When we got ready to develop the Olivetree at Spurwing patio home project we were required to come up here and to extend Suez water. There is an eight inch sewer water -- Suez water main that we extended into the project and, then, looped that back onto Balata Court. The sewer was already a 12 inch sewer line, was already constructed and ran through our project and out and over to Spurwing Challenge. We were required by the City of Meridian to install a 14 foot all weather gravel surface over that sewer and water easement and so we submitted plans to Public Works, to the Planning Department. We also had to do a modification of our final plat application, because we had to modify the landscape plan to accommodate that access. The Fire Department -- we got -- obtained approval from the Fire Department. This is a letter that Warren Stewart, the city engineer, provided to me stating that for many years the City of Meridian has required water and sewer infrastructure to be installed in easements and to have a gravel access road to accommodate regular operation and maintenance activities. The sewer lines and manholes must be regularly cleaned in order to function properly and minimize odors and he also stated that it -- if the city is to continue to provide sewer service to its customers on this line, we must have the ability to properly operate and maintain the infrastructure and this requires a gravel road that will support the vehicles necessary to perform the work. This is a picture that Mr. Stewart sent to me that shows a vac truck that they regularly use and it weighs -- it is full of water and it weighs a lot and he said we need it to be able to hold 75,000 gvw. This is their TV truck where they go through and TV the lines on a regular basis as far as properly maintaining the facilities. This is what we started to construct out at the site, since we had Fire Department approval, Public Works approval, Planning approval, Council approval and so we came in and we cut in and put in a base and that's when we received a stop work order from Ada county and Ada county indicated this access is in the county and you do not have any permits from Ada county. We submitted them all of our city approvals, our approved construction plans, and they said, well, then, you need to apply to Ada county, we don't care that the City of Meridian has approved anything, where this sewer-water lies and where this emergency access is proposed lies within the county. So, they asked that we submit a traffic and development Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F41 Page 38 of 60 plan modification of the original 1994 approval of Spurwing Subdivision. They also asked that we submit a grading and drainage plan for this facility. We did comply with all their requirements. We submitted it. It was a staff level review. The staff reviewed it and, then, the staff denied our request to construct this. So, we asked what -- what is our recourse. So, they said your recourse is to appeal staff's denial to the county commissioners. So, Mr. Terry Copple, the attorney for my clients, submitted an appeal to the county commissioners. So, we did go to the county commissioners hearing. We submitted all of our documentation and the county commissioners said, well, we feel that you have other alternatives. We told them we don't have any other alternatives for emergency vehicle access. This is an issue, a life safety issue. It is also an issue of these utilities and proper maintenance. We submitted this letter to the county from the Spurwing. Mr. Anderson signed it, stating that he will not allow Pacific Link to have any emergency access across the golf course and out to Chinden Boulevard, because it would interfere with development of the golf course and its functioning. Also another issue is ITD is expanding Chinden Boulevard. They have also been acquiring additional right of ways and so that particular green will -- or fairway may become narrower and he said that any other impediments that we were to put on there would severely impact the functionality of the golf course. We did meet with Mr. Wagner. Mr. Wagner has a couple of acres at the corner of Chinden. Mr. Wagner supplied a letter stating that -- that under no circumstances is he in a position to grant any emergency access out through his property and to Chinden. He said I'm fearful that adding any access or encumbering my property could impair its future marketability and use and you must find an alternative access for your property. There we go. So, this is what we -- was approved by the city staff. This is what we showed the county commissioners. This is a 20 foot wide gravel surface. It has ribbon curb on each side, gravel underneath, and, then, it would have a perma bark cap over the top of it, which is like that landscape type rock. So, it blends in, would not look, you know, like a typical gravel road. It would have a gate at the north end here and, then, a gate at the south end. The gate -- whoa. There we go. The gate would be a swinging gate. This is what --this standard is an emergency access gate. According to Meridian Fire Department this is their -- these are their specifications and what they would require of us. It would have a Knox Box that would only be used by emergency services or for the city Public Works Department or Suez water to maintain it. I will wrap up here. This is the Fire Department approval that we received by Perry Palmer and I also received a letter from Joe Bongiorno supporting the emergency vehicle access to the north. So, basically -- and that's a Suez letter. Basically what we are doing is we are coming to the city to, obviously, protect city services and the county commissioners looked me straight in the eye and said, well, if Meridian has facilities here and they want a gravel access road, then, maybe you should annex into Meridian and so that is why we are here this evening annexing into Meridian and I asked that the Commission support this application to, obviously, protect the emergency access and maintenance road, which is one and the same, and there is no adverse impact on these adjoining properties. This is all at grade and there is significant landscaping between us and the adjoining properties and this is -- lies solely upon the golf course. Thank you. And I will answer any questions. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F42 Page 39 of 60 Fitzgerald: Thanks, Becky. One question I have is -- is your plan going to return it back to the original picture you showed with the ribbon curb and black covering that's -- what's like on the other side of that course there? Is that the plan is to make it look similar? McKay: Mr. Chairman, that -- that is correct. We will emulate exactly what has already been installed to the manhole on the west side with the ribbon curb, the gravel underneath and, then, a perma bark concrete cap so it blends in. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Are there additional questions for Ms. McKay? Hearing none, Becky, we will let you close after we hear from public testimony. McKay: Thank you, sir. Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, I would guess we have folks who would like to testify. Do you want to start in chambers and go from there or wherever you go. Weatherly: Sure, Mr. Chair. I have Greg Stock first. Stock: My name is Greg Stock. I live at 2915 -- Yearsley: Can you speak into the mic. Sorry. Stock: My name is Greg Stock. I live at 2915 West Balata Court. I stand here in opposition to this. But I would like to make two points of order before I begin. First, I would like to-- I can't remember the name -- I missed the name of the Commissioner who lives in Spurwing and I would ask that he recused himself. I think it's inappropriate that he's involved in this. The second thing I would ask is another point of order, is that the council -- or the committee is flexible with those of us here as attendants on the time as they are with Ms. McKay, who ran over her time by a minute and a half. So, having said that -- I don't know if it's appropriate we stop and let you decide those two points or I should go on. Fitzgerald: Mr. Stock, go right ahead. We are pretty flexible in the time frame. Stock: Okay. It's impossible to tell who I'm talking to, but we will go from here. Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Stock: Okay. Having read the staff report this afternoon I'm concerned and I'm concerned that, number one, even in the staff report it mentions it was made up -- or it was decided on based only on the narrative input from the applicant. We were told on October 8th, City Council, that we would have our input in 72 hours in advance, so that it could be included and reviewed by decision makers. I can only hope that you have read that -- that material now or you will before you take a vote. I go into a lot of detail and a lot of different facts. But there are several facts that are right off the bat inaccurate. First off, the county's denial of the site modification only included the emergency access. It did Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F43 Page 40 of 60 nothing to the City of Meridian's easements and, in fact, the lawsuit would return that property to its actual pre-July 4 state and return the access that's now been 15, 17 months since the applicant essentially destroyed it. Secondly, ITD did not completely reject the applicant. I have in this package I can give you a copy of a letter that's December 19th -- December 9th, 2019, where ITD said they would understand and they would stand -- back up. I can give the exact language. They would approve access -- shared joint access with Mr. Wagner into that access that was originally approved. Point being part of that access that Mr. Wagner is now denying is an easement that the applicant granted him sometime in the past. As far as the letter from Spurwing that they won't allow the access across the golf course, that's a matter of aesthetics and the truth is is that Spurwing, the golf course, is a tenant of the applicant. The applicant owns the property and under the law I don't believe a tenant can refuse a landlord access to his property for reasonable improvement and if a fire access road is not a reasonable improvement I don't know what the definition would any longer be. I would like to go on real quickly now and get through a couple of these things. This annexation request is really about two issues, sewer and water maintenance, which can be kept and the fact that at this point the city needs nothing. Rejecting this application or not acting on this application gets the city back the access that they need and the question, then, is where is the fire access. Nobody's questioning the need for it, but it's appropriate where it was originally approved. The impact is less on the neighborhood and it's -- that's the right thing. I -- it appears here that -- that the applicant is attempting to manipulate the city into helping him avoid the jurisdiction of Ada county court and I hope that the city is not that easily -- easily manipulated that they would allow that to happen to themselves. I sincerely hope that's not the case. I would ask that this annexation request be judged on the impact, the negative impact of the neighborhood, and that other alternative routes do exist. The applicant does not want to use them and that's his problem, not ours. I appreciate your time. I will answer any questions. I would only ask, again, that you do review the material that's been passed to you via the Council -- or the City Clerk's office. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Mr. Stock, we appreciate you being here tonight. We do appreciate the information you provided. We had those in our packet last night -- or earlier this week and have reviewed them. It was a significant amount of information. We appreciate that. Any questions for Mr. Stock? Thank you. Madam Clerk, who is next on the list? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, that would be Gretchen Tseng. Tseng: Hello. My name is Gretchen Tseng and I live at 3075 West Balata Court. I have also put some information in that I hope you review, but just wanted to quickly go over this. Throughout -- throughout this long -- very long process with both Ada county and now the City of Meridian, I have been very disheartened by Engineering Solutions mistruths and hope that you have been able to communicate with Ada county about all the history of this road. The fact that once the application was finally submitted to Ada county they denied the road and, then, when once Mr. Hewitt appealed he lost his appeal and was ordered to restore the road to its original condition. He's refused to return it to its previous condition and is now being sued by Ada county as you are aware. It would be very disappointing to have Meridian city allow the annexation and ignore the fact that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F44 Page 41 of 60 Ada county has already determined twice that this emergency road is detrimental to homeowners and it would only serve to reinforce Mr. Hewitt -- to Mr. Hewitt and others that they can go ahead and do what they want regardless of the law. The original plans for Olivetree development showed the emergency road connecting between the southwest corner, as you guys all know, and I do want to reiterate that we do have a letter from ITD saying it's still an option. You guys brought up the possibility of sprinklers. hadn't heard about that. If sprinklers being installed in each of these homes is a viable option, then, why not go that route, since Ada county has already denied this road -- denied this as detrimental to homeowners. I bought a home directly on a golf course and now have a 25 -- 20 foot wide road next to it. Prior to the -- I just want to make it very clear to you guys that prior to the construction of this unapproved emergency road there was never a gravel road next to the length of my home. I have lived there for seven years and there has never been gravel next to my home. It's been grass from my home to the golf course. As far as the sewer access on the other side of the golf course is what was next to my house before, just stub roads, grass, and, then, stub roads and I mean that's -- that's sufficient over there, it should be sufficient over here. We -- we have letters also from the sewer saying that it's not required to have a road. She's trying to combine an emergency road with this and they are two separate issues. I want to make it clear that just so that you know the detriment -- like I said, I bought a house on a golf course and I am not kidding you, all day long -- that is an access for people to walk -- to walk their dogs, to ride their bikes. Cars have driven down it. This has become a thoroughfare for people that walk by and we actually did the responsible thing and had to rehome a dog, because for his entire life there was no one walking by and having people walk by made him start to get aggressive. So, we were responsible and I have lost a dog in this situation as well. Please do the right thing and do not reward Mr. Hewitt for his actions of building this unapproved road. Ada county has spoken. Please just -- I just ask you to review everything and be conscious of this. It's been pretty horrible. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am, for being here tonight. Madam Clerk, next on the agenda -- or next on the list of -- Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I'm not sure -- Mark, did you want to speak? Thank you. That brings us to Rick Mauritzson. Mauritzson: Hello. Can you hear me? All right. Commissioners, my name is Rick Mauritzson and I live at 3028 West Balata Court and I am a resident of Balata, as well as a member of the Spurwing homeowners board of directors. I have a few highlights I want to highlight from my submitted statement. So, I strongly urge the Commissioners to rule in opposition to the staff's recommendation and to reject the developer's request for relocation of the previously approved emergency access road. Furthermore, the city should not entertain annexation of the parcel of land in question until the land has been returned to its original condition, including the sewer access stub roads, which Ada county has already demanded, and not to rule until any active Ada county litigation has been settled or wait until any active litigation has been settled. So, my arguments against the relocated emergency access road or the proposed new road, as Gretchen Tseng said, will have a significant negative impact to her property and the adjacent properties. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F45 Page 42 of 60 neighbors directly adjacent to Tsengs purchased a home on a fairway, not a home on a 20 foot wide gravel road. If this new road were to be approved they would lose their pristine view of the fairway. Also the proposed road is not required for either sewer or water access. At least not a continuous road is not required. The previously existing stub roads from both the north and the south are sufficient for sewer access and these stub roads are exactly what Ada county is demanding the developer restore. The proposed road was partially constructed by the developer unlawfully without Ada county approval and has been denied twice by Ada county development and the Ada county commissioners. In regards to the original road location, the originally approved location between the Olivetree Sub and the Chinden-Ten Mile intersection is the best, most reasonable placement for the emergency access road. It provides the quickest, least redundant secondary access to Olivetree Sub and does not retrace 60 percent of the primary access route that's being proposed by the developer. The developer has submitted a letter from the Club at Spurwing stating they will not allow the road in it's original proposal occasion. However, the Club at Spurwing has no authority on this matter as they are the tenants and leased the property in 2011 with knowledge of the planned emergency access road as a public record since 2006-2007 time frame and it was in the final plat approval in 2008 by Meridian city. So, the tenants knew this. The developer let his original ITD permit for the original emergency access road approach connecting to Chinden and Ten Mile to expire in June 2009. You did not hear that from Ms. McCabe and the developer has made no effort since then to renew it. In December of 2019 ITD reiterated that an option to connect emergency access road to Chinden and Ten Mile still exists. I implore you to go look at my exhibits three and four of my submitted public testimony and you will see the letter from ITD there. In summary, annexation is not required for the developer to meet his requirements for water and sewer access or emergency access. All requirements were met with the pre-existing stub roads in the original 2008 approved plat map. The request by the developer to annex this strip of land is only a means to circumvent Ada county's twice denial of the proposed road and to null and avoid the act of litigation that's now pending with the county. Thank you. Any questions? Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have Carolyn Mauritzson. Carolyn has chosen to pass on her time. So, that would bring up Tony Tseng. He is also choosing to pass. His neighbors have said everything that the -- that he agrees with. Tom Nist. Nist: Good evening. My name is Tom Nist. I live on 2932 West Balata and I'm opposed to the annexation. Am I -- is it possible for me to yield time to someone who has already spoke? Weatherly: No, sir. It's one person per -- unless the chair-- unless the chair has another opinion on that. Thank you. Nist: Rick and Greg have done a lot more research on this than I have. However, I just want to point out and have a request -- a request that you really take time to review what Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F46] Page 43 of 60 was submitted in the public testimony and really do your own research in the facts. It's very dangerous to take the developer's narrative at face value, because they have had a history of not telling things -- inaccurate things and, frankly, lying and we heard tonight Becky here--let me just give you one example. Becky said that the ITD was not a solution when, in fact, it is. I'm looking at a letter in 2014 where that's entirely not accurate. So, I just would urge -- because there has been a history of things like that where they are literally saying things that are not true, I would just ask that you really take time to review all of the public testimony and take into consideration that it's been denied twice from Ada county. So, thank you for your consideration on that. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. We appreciate it. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, that is all the signups we had. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience or online that would like to testify that hasn't so far? If you would, please, raise your hand online. Yearsley: There is a gentleman that wants to testify in -- Fitzgerald: Sir, please, state your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours. Wagner: My name is Rod Wagner. I'm at 3240 West Chinden. That's where I reside. Just -- I just wanted to say the crazy thing about all this -- it looks -- sounds like there is a lot of emotions here it looks like, I can feel it, about moving this thing over towards my property. So, this road -- my thoughts are this road does not have any impact on anybody's actual yard property. It's -- it's away--you know, it doesn't impact any of theirs. One thing I have never gave anybody permission to -- back in 2008 or whenever it was, I never -- Seal: Mr. Chair, he's incredibly hard to hear. Could we have him step up to the mic? Fitzgerald: There you go. Thank you, sir. Wagner: I wanted to -- I heard that I was -- they -- they said that I had given permission to access my property or use it for this easement road, which is untrue. I never have. I would like to see a documentation that says that. But I have never -- I have always supported all this development. I have been there for 35 years. I have got documentation that shows that I have had -- that property's been there for 126 years, the house that I live in. When all this development came around to my -- near my property I never opposed any of it. I supported it. I belong to the irrigation district that they get water out of. I have been president of that lateral. I support everything they have ever done -- always done. So, it's kind of crazy, they want me to give up some of my property for this road when this is not even impacting any of theirs. So, I just -- and, again, I'm just denying any access on my place for this road. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F47 Page 44 of 60 Yearsley: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Mr. Wagner. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the audience or online that would like to testify? If you are online and would like to testify, please, raise your hand via Zoom. Commissioner Yearsley, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to testify? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, there is one gentleman that wanted to testify. He signed up, but he -- he earlier recluded. Do you want to allow him to come up? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Yearsley: Okay. Please come on up. Name and address for the record, please. T.Tseng: Hello. I'm Tony Tseng. I live at 3075 West Balata Court. I just want to point out something that was brought to my attention -- that was just stated by Mr. Wagner and this is part of public record where Ms. McKay has -- and I can submit this to you guys -- where she says -- I'm going to read what was -- it's down on paper and so this is in her words. So, we worked with -- so, we -- dot dot dot -- we worked with -- with some traffic engineers and came up with a solution. I did Olivetree at Spurwing. The patio homes over here at Spurwing golf course. So, I went to Jock Hewitt and Rod -- Rod Wagner. Also talked to Jock and we asked him would he be willing to give us access and an easement, so that we could align with the future expansion of Ten Mile intersection. They will -- they will come along with Costco that will -- that will -- and it's written they will -- but that will come along with the Costco development. He has agreed. Came to office said draw up the paperwork. That's fine. We went to ITD, reported back to them, took the site plan. ITD said the only thing that we ask for --for you is for the traffic engineer to prepare a turn analysis. So, I'm just using this as a time to bring that point up. Part of this whole situation that's just -- is disturbing is there is a lot of lying going on. We had a community meeting, everyone came out, and she started the meeting with just to let everyone know this has been approved and it was just --there is so much deception and misleading going on in this whole process and us as homeowners -- yes, it's emotional, because we sit there and we feel powerless. We feel we don't have the ability to -- we are not sitting here lying. You know, it does impact us. There wouldn't be ten grown adults here to oppose this if it meant nothing. If it didn't impact us why would we be here, you know, and there is -- it's very emotional, especially for me and my wife. We are impacted the most and -- and I want to thank my neighbors and everyone to sit there supporting us and the whole street, because there is multiple issues in Spurwing where the developer, Mr. Hewitt -- we had a cul-de-sac -- it's no longer a cul-de-sac. I know that's not part of this meeting, but it's one thing after another. They do what they want. I know Idaho is growing up. It's different now. But it's -- parts of it doesn't feel that it-- it feels like a good old boys network. They get to do it without permit on the 4th of July. We were out of the country and luckily our neighbors would look out saying there is a road being built literally in our backyard and we have pictures of cars and it's -- it's a traffic zone and it's in my backyard. So, yes, it's emotional, because it impacts our livelihood every day. So, thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F48 Page 45 of 60 Fitzgerald: Thank you. Parsons: Mr. Chair, may I just try to clear up some -- I think some confusion in the room, if you would allow me maybe three minutes to talk about that access to Chinden and how that got established. So, if you can see this exhibit here before you, you see the C-C zoned property right next to the -- the point of where Spurwing -- or Olivetree at Spurwing was contiguous with city limits. Mr. Wagner came through the city in 2019 and annexed that property. At the time of annexation he had a concept plan that showed an access to Chinden for his property, but in order for it to align up with the intersection improvements at -- and make it a safe access for his property, we asked him and Becky to work with Jock Hewitt, the applicant, to make that access in the right location, so it aligned properly at that intersection and that's where some of the mis -- the mis-information that's coming from. So, yes, if Mr. Hewitt is going to develop the property consistent with his annexation plan, we are going to want that access to align and those property owners to work. That's how ITD is saying we support an access there, because they -- those are the discussions we had with them during the annexation of that property. So, can that still work today? Absolutely. But as Mr. Rod Wagner testified, he lives there. It's not a commercial development. He is still a single family residence. So, if he is not willing to further develop his property, the city just can't make him grant access to this owner if he is not willing to work with him until he's ready to develop his property consistent with his agreement with the city. So, I just -- again, I just wanted to go on record, clean that up, that, yes, that access in theory is approved there when Mr. Wagner develops and works with the adjacent property owner to get that access built. So, I just want it to be on the record to -- to at least let you know what those conversations were and -- and it goes to the testimony that the gentleman was just referring to and reading into the record. Yearsley: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill, very much appreciate it. Are there questions for Bill? Hearing none, anyone else -- last call on opportunity to testify that haven't spoken yet, either via Zoom or in the audience. Commissioner Yearsley, seeing none -- Yearsley: I see no hands. Fitzgerald: Okay. Are there any questions or additional comments or questions for the staff? If not, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Yearsley: Do we want Becky to respond to -- Fitzgerald: Oh. Sorry. Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. Becky, do you want to come up and close, please, ma'am? McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. We are going to do kind of a two pronged rebuttal here. I just want to make a couple of statements that have been made. I have been doing this 30 years. I have been coming before the city -- the City of Meridian for 28 years. I have never misconstrued, lied, or said anything that was Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F49 Page 46 of 60 not true. There are no easements -- no signed easements between Mr. Hewitt or Mr. Wagner. What we had hoped to accomplish we did not. Mr. Wagner is still living in his house. His property did not develop as a C store. As far as removal of the improvements, I called the city engineer and I said they are telling me we have to remove all of the gravel improvements that we put in and Warren Stewart's comment to me was, no, you are not. So, I was caught between a rock and a hard spot. He said we need access over our sewer. I have a letter from Suez saying we want access. So, access over those utilities is critical. It is important. And when we tried to -- when we got our final approval from the city -- I have an e-mail here from Bruce Freckleton to Sonya saying let's make sure the required compacted gravel access road over the sewer main is in place, please. I mean it's not just an issue of an emergency vehicle access, it's an issue of access over utilities. It's a dual use. It's going to be there one way or the other. This is the only way I can satisfy my conditions of approval and I have tried to reason with these people, I -- I have been called names, obscenities, Clang near hit with a golf cart. It's been kind of a little -- a little raveling on my end, too. I will turn this over to Mark. Freeman: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Mark Freeman. Yearsley: Speak into the mic. Pull it up. There you go. Freeman: Mark Freeman is my name. My business address is 953 Industry Way in Meridian. Foley and Freeman Attorneys. I represent the applicant. A couple comments. There is -- obviously there is some emotion here, which is not uncommon and that's the tough job that you all have to do as Commissioners to deal with that type of emotion. This is not a -- this work did not occur in the middle of the night on a July 4th while someone was out of town. This work on the easement, which was stopped by Ada county, occurred after my client obtained the approval of the City of Meridian to -- to -- the construction plans were approved. The Fire Department was contacted, as you have seen. The letter is in the record. There was approval obtained. So, this is -- it is not -- my client is, unfortunately, being tagged as this big good old boy who pushes people around and -- and the actual facts are quite different than that. He applied with what he thought was appropriate and Ada county put a stop to it. It's interesting, because we have learned from the City of Meridian engineer that there are a number of other locations in the -- in the county where there are similar gravel easements for sewer and water which do cross between the city and the county and -- and we haven't ever heard of that situation occurring where -- where that kind of work was stopped by the county. There has been a comment that the -- the applicant lost -- lost two appeals or-- and there has been some question by one of the Commissioners about what's the status of the issue with the county. The county did file suit to have the property restored. The applicant originally appealed the decision of the commissioners to deny the original application, but decided based partially upon the recommendations of Commissioner Visser that they should proceed to this -- this is a City of Meridian issue, it's a City of Meridian sewer, it's a city of Meridian -- Meridian's required easement access, that they should go there. So, the applicant actually chose to dismiss its appeal and proceed this way through the City of Meridian. You know, I think it's clear -- I was going to talk quite a bit about the fact that there really is no other emergency access available. There just is not. And I appreciate Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F50] Page 47 of 60 staff's comments. Unless Mr. Rod Wagner changes his mind, which he has indicated he is not inclined to do, frankly, I understand that. If he owns the property and he thinks it's going to be somewhat detrimental to some potential purchaser, why would he agree to do anything. But there is no other access. So, that's the bottom line. There is no other emergency access available at this property. It has to come somewhere else and this location is the best place for it to come and, really, the only place it can come for this subdivision to be developed as it was originally proposed. Other than the access to fully develop this Olivetree Subdivision requires an emergency access and the city approved it previously, but the -- the other issue is this access was not lost, it was not due to inactivity. It didn't disappear. The access that ITD granted was not lost, it was taken away by ACHD -- or, excuse me, by ITD. They -- they removed it. They took it away. So, any comment that -- that the applicant was lax or allowed it to be taken or didn't proceed in the appropriate manner is just absolutely incorrect. This was taken by ITD, which resulted in my client having to look for another location for access to the property. There has been discussion about what was there before. Somewhat relevant, somewhat maybe not relevant. Again, I think Becky made the point -- these improvements are at grade. This is nothing that sticks up. And there is -- and there has been since, oh, 2000 and -- I think the existing sewer easement -- the original gravel road -- or excuse me. I'm calling it a gravel road. I should call it a sewer easement with gravel on top of it. Has been there since 2012 or '13. Yes -- and you can see it on the exhibit that Becky introduced. It existed. It was there. It may have not been there all the time -- I mean it's been there apparent for a number of years. It's gravel. It's sunk in. It has deteriorated overtime, but there is and has been gravel -- a gravel roadway in that exact same location and there has been comment about people using it and even cars driving on it. Well, the -- the actions of Ada county actually prevented my client from improving it and putting the barricades and lock boxes up, which would actually have prevented these people from using it. So, it's not designed as public access, it can't be public access, it never will be public access and what's the difference between the use before this application request came through and after if it's granted, the difference is that in addition to vehicles owned by the City of Meridian or Suez water to do maintenance on their sewer and water lines respectively, the only other people that are going to use this easement are going to be emergency vehicles and they are going to have to open that Knox Box either way to get in or out. That's it. There is nobody else going to use it. So, that should take care of the issue of people riding their bikes on it or cars going across it. I think that's basically a moot point when that happens. Finally, the -- I have got some time. The --there is already a public dedication. There is already an easement on this piece of property. Yes, it's owned by my client, but it's subject to an existing easement -- two easements, actually. One to the city -- or one to the City of Meridian for the sewer line and presumably one to Suez water for the water line. These easements, like most easements of this type, require the property owner to refrain from doing certain things with their property. So, in other words, my position is that there already is, in essence, a public interest in those parcels. Mr. Hewitt can't plant trees in the middle of those easements. You can't put bushes there. There is a lot of things he cannot do because it interferes with the city's rights in the property and by granting and agreeing to allow the emergency access at this location, what it does is it -- it will actually, in some respects, provides the city with not only Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F51 Page 48 of 60 emergency access, but better access for its sewer and -- and -- and also to Suez water. I think I'm done. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant? Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Grove: Mark, question for you. On this --just pulling out some of the stuff from the staff report and from one of the public testimony, in regards to the option for installing the fire sprinklers in the homes above -- that go beyond the 30 home limit, is there a reason that that is not something that has been discussed in this forum? Freeman: It's -- it's an expensive option. It increases the cost of each home. It doesn't solve the emergency access issue that will be there anyway, regardless of how many homes are constructed in the development. I don't know exactly what the cost of -- the additional cost is per home, but that's the reason. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, do you have follow up? Grove: Not at this time. Fitzgerald: Okay. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions if you don't mind. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So -- so, my understanding, the easement's already there. It was gravel at one time per city code. Is that a requirement per code or -- and maybe the city can help with that. I don't know. So, you could -- you could put the gravel -- replace the gravel to get it back to city code without a fire access is kind of what I'm -- I'm kind of playing Devil's advocate on this, because, again, I understand the concern of the neighbors and it was in the staff report that if you have over 30 homes you could sprinkler without having a fire access, if I'm not correct. Is that correct? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. -- Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that -- that is correct. That -- Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: -- comes right from the fire chief saying that if they go -- so, if you also saw in the staff report you know the city is also monitoring the amount of permits that are being issued in that development until we get this issue resolved. So, as of today there is 22 permits that have been issued out there in that development, so they are approaching their 30 before they are needing either to fully sprinkler the homes or provide that secondary access per the fire code. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F52 Page 49 of 60 Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: And we did discuss that with the applicant at the pre-application meetings early on is that would be the -- our preference, so that we could avoid some of these discussions in front of a public forum, because there are other ways to do it. So, I hope that the neighbors know we hear you, we understand your concerns and -- and we as staff tried to vet all options with the applicants. But, ultimately, they have the right to go through the process and go the way that -- Yearsley: I'm not -- I just want to just clarify a couple of items. Parsons: Oh. I wanted to also just kind of chime in on the gravel road, too, so -- I -- I did a lot of these projects out here, so I'm very familiar with the history and I'm very familiar with a lot of these neighbors, because I have talked with them about the other road situation as well. But just to clarify, there wasn't a gravel road that went through the golf course, there was gravel -- or improved surfaces to provide manhole -- access to the manholes. So, if there was no manholes it was still vegetated and did not have any disturbance of the ground cover. It was only a gravel or that perma bark over to the manhole cover. So, if you look at old photos -- Google photos you will see how it was developed, but -- so, that's -- that's kind of the premise of what the commission wanted -- the Ada county commissioners wanted them to restore back to the original approval back in 2012 when it was run through. But the portion that Becky showed you it was gravel through the Olivetree portion, because they were going to put a public road over the top of it at some point, which they have now. Yearsley: So -- so, I know being on the Commission before -- and I realize that this is my first time -- day today -- a lot of times Public Works with sewer easements or water, they would prefer that be paved, is that not the case? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you are correct. If -- they do require -- even through common lots they will require that gravel road through the city's common open space lots as well -- Yearsley: Yeah. Parsons: -- to get to those manholes and sometimes -- again, there is always circumstances, but majority of the time, yes, that is a requirement. A 14 foot compacted gravel road. Yearsley: Okay. Just--just kind of wanted to make sure I can wrap my head around this to make sure I understand. I guess -- I don't know if I have a question now, since I have -- the city's answered that. So, I don't know if you have a comment with what my comments were. Freeman: Yeah. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Yearsley, I do have a comment. First is Becky informed me that the cost of the fire suppression in the -- in the individual homes Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F53 Page 50 of 60 increases the value -- or, excuse me, increases the cost of the home by about 12,000 dollars per -- per home -- per unit. So, it's a substantial cost and I -- not to belabor the point, but on this issue of what was there, that entire line -- entire line was graveled over the top and was gravel for a period of time, not -- not just to the manhole, but all the way through -- all the way over to where it connects in the roadway on its way to the Challenge course at Spurwing. So, that -- so -- and that's what you see. I acknowledge when you look at those aerial photographs you don't see just a gravel road, what you are seeing is the remnants of a gravel road that some grass has grown -- is growing through, if that helps at all. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant at this time? Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Just out of curiosity, are -- are the homes that are going into this subdivision planned to be like entry level priced homes? Freeman: I'm probably not the best -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Grove, I'm probably not the best one to answer that, but I would say -- because I have seen them, they are definitely not entry level homes, they are patio homes, and they are not inexpensive and they are not entry level homes. Grove: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any last call for questions? If not, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing when the Commission is ready. Seal: Mr. Chair, just -- the width of the path, the -- whatever is being proposed to be put in here, what -- what is the -- the width of that? Freeman: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Seal, the -- the width is 20 -- the easement is 20 feet. The old easement that's in existence today is -- is 14 feet, I believe -- 14 feet of gravel. Fifteen feet. So, the width is 20 feet of the emergency access, if this recommendation is made to approve it. Seal: So, the -- so, the gravel that will be put on top will be 20 feet wide? Freeman: Yes. There is a -- again, there is a ribbon curb to hold the gravel in and there is a perma bark cap on top of the gravel, which is basically identical to what was previously located in the -- the north portion of this property that's subject to the annexation, between West Balata and the first manhole. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F54] Page 51 of 60 Fitzgerald: Bill, can you roll back to those aerials or do you have those? So, I think that -- so we can look at that -- so the Commissioner can see that. Is there -- was that in -- or was that in Becky's presentation? Parsons: Yeah. Sonya will try to pull it up, Commissioner. Fitzgerald: Okay. Parsons: Can you see that, Commissioners? That's -- that's what it looked like 2012 -- what was it -- 2012 was probably when it went in. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, does that help? Seal: It -- it does. Part of what I'm trying to formulate here is what -- if this were to go in what would make everybody happy and -- I mean if it were a pathway instead of a gravel road maybe everybody would be happy about it, so -- and I don't know that for sure, but I mean it's pretty obvious that something was put in there at some point in time. You know, what that was or how significant it was we will never know, but -- Freeman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Seal, as you -- if I can -- maybe I can't do this, but I should be able to. I can't. The -- the -- the northern portion, let's call it, from the sewer line to the road is similar to how this will look. We talk about a gravel roadway. It is gravel, but it's going to have the perma bark cap on it, just like this black portion that you see up above on the property and it will have the curbs along the side. I can't represent you that what's there is exactly the same width, because I think that's the -- the sewer easement, which is like 15 feet, and this is going to be 20 feet. But that's how it's going to look when it's done. It will not just be gravel and the perma bark keeps the dust down. The curbing keeps the gravel and everything in place and, again, it's all at grade, if that helps. Yearsley: So, Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Oh. Commissioner Yearsley. Sorry. Yearsley: So, this little piece here that's already there, they are going to take it out and widen it to 20 feet for the fire access; is that correct? Freeman: That will become part of the fire access. I -- I think it may have already been taken out, but I -- in anticipation of being replaced that's where the problems with the county came up. Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: After all the approvals were obtained from everybody, except the county. Yearsley: Right. Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F55] Page 52 of 60 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead, sir. Grove: Mr. Chair, thank you. Question comes from what Commissioner Seal kind of mentioned is was this ever -- is this -- was this considered a pathway at any point? Because I know that -- I mean that's what it looks like from the image that we see, like I mean instead of using gates, using bollards. I don't know how -- if that's possible or not. I'm just curious. Freeman: Mr. -- Commissioner -- Commissioner Grove -- or Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Grove, this has never been a pathway. Before the development of Olivetree to the south of what we are looking at here -- you can't really see it -- it was just a field there. I can't tell you that nobody ever walked on the golf course. It's a golf course. But you can see -- what you see there that you -- that appears -- you class -- you categorize it as a pathway, it's really what's left of the gravel road that was put over the sewer line. That's what you see. And over time, again, that has degraded, there is no question about that, and -- and to grant this approve -- this recommended approval -- this -- this pending application will result in an improvement to some degree in the nature of what -- what's up to the north. The -- when it's complete it will have lock boxes -- Knox Boxes and gates, so it won't be able to be accessed by vehicles, bicycles, people -- the general public is not allowed on the golf course, but sometimes people do walk across the golf course and they are not authorized to do that and that potentially could happen here, like it could happen anywhere, but there -- there won't be any interconnectivity, if I can say it that way, that's public between Olivetree and the road that these neighbors live on that they have been testifying about. Fitzgerald: And, Commissioner Grove, I think the neighbors are hoping -- they don't want to have access, because that would connect the Olivetree to that road on the -- that's to the north I think is what they were saying before, if I'm explaining that correctly. Grove: Yeah. I didn't know if that was solely pertaining to vehicles or if it was also to pedestrian traffic as well. Seal: Yeah. Mr. Chair, on my previous remark by -- by -- what I meant by pathway was simply everybody likes a pathway. You can ride a bike on it. You can walk on it. It looks pretty -- sometimes there is nice things that go along with it, but, you know, a little gravel road back there is maybe off putting to some people. So, at any rate, whatever is put back there would, you know, need to be limited to pedestrian and bike traffic on the norm and, then, any kind of vehicle accesses as described in the application. So, again, I mean when I -- I will -- I can -- I will have more comments since we close the --the public hearing part of this. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, did you have any questions or did you come off of mute for -- McCarvel: No. I think I will wait until our discussion. I don't have an actual question, just a comment. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F56 Page 53 of 60 Fitzgerald: Okay. Well, Mark, I think we are good. So, thank you very much, sir. appreciate it. Freeman: Thank you. Fitzgerald: With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing? McCarvel: So moved. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2020-007. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? It sounds like we are good and motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Anyone want to lead off? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: A few things in here. I think there is other things that could happen on this. I'm -- I'm kind of leaning towards a continuance on this to explore some other options. One is to have a formal application to ITD to at least explore the option of what would happen with trying to do a joint access with Wagner Farms. We have already heard from Wagner Farms that they are not going to do that, but, basically, it will put that to bed. If -- if that was the deal. Because they are -- they are not going to move the signalized intersection to accommodate this. If they don't do that there is not enough room for the road. I mean I can see that by simply looking at the street view on Google Earth for this, so -- but it is a question that's been raised. It's something that could possibly happen, so maybe if they go down that path something might happen with it. I highly doubt it, but it might be worth looking at. The second, you know, reason I would think a continuance might be in order is just because instead of doing, you know, a gravelized access road, maybe a pathway type system is something that would be better served here. So, I don't know if they can do a pathway system and still allow a 75,000 -- or 75,000 pound vehicle on it. I have doubts about that as well. But, basically, give a little bit of time to explore every option that's out there and, then, if those do not come to fruition, then, I mean it makes total sense to me to go ahead and, you know, allow this to annex in. Personally, you know, I mean putting sprinklers in all the homes is -- I guess if I were a homeowner and I had to choose between looking at a gravel path and as far as I can tell it's not out the front of anybody's home, it's to the back of them, or somebody else's safety, I would choose somebody else's, you know. So, I would choose somebody else's safety over, you know, any objections that I had to something that's purely aesthetic. But that's -- that's where I'm at on it. I understand both sides of it. The simple answer is just put the thing in and let it go, but since there is a lot of people that are involved with this that are -- you know, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F57 Page 54 of 60 are saying that they are going to be impacted by it and that there are other alternatives, then, I think there is time to explore the other alternatives and if they don't pan out, then, they come back before us and we look at it from that perspective again. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I think there was definitely a gravel road there -- a gravel path at one time. I -- I disagree that we want to explore the option of it being a walking pathway. I don't-- I mean on the fairway of a golf course. That's not where you want people randomly walking and I think that's what the homeowners are -- around there are trying to avoid is having more people walking back there. I would say if-- if this is something we consider, that there is actually signage that this is not public access. But I can see where -- I mean that -- that has been gravel in the past and it's just looking to improve it and the -- having the perma bark and everything on it I think would improve the look of what was there and, obviously, keep the dust down from the exposed gravel. But I think making it a pathway along a fairway is not where you want people walking. Yearsley: So, Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: First of all, I want to address the -- one of the person's comments about you recusing yourself from this testimony or our decision. I have no personal problems with it, but I don't want to give it an option for a reason for an appeal I guess and I would look to counsel for direction on that. Pogue: Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Chair, at the top of the action the chair did put it on the record and, you know, stated he could be objective and neutral and he asked Commission -- the body if they had any concerns and they did not. So, the matter was addressed at the top of the agenda -- at the top of this action when it was opened. So, that's all that's required at this point. Yearsley: Okay. Pogue: So, I don't have any concerns about it. Yearsley: I appreciate that -- that counsel, just to make sure we -- we have addressed to the applicant -- or to the gentleman who gave the testimony. So, I'm kind of torn, because my guess is it was never a gravel road or a gravel pathway, what it was is they just never restored it after they put in the sewer line is what it looks to me and it's just grown back from what has been done before. But on the city side, knowing what the city has and what they do, they would more than likely like some way to get through there if they actually have to go work on it by any means. So, as a city side I think to protect our interest it would be behoove us to -- to annex it and to at least let the applicant put that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F58 Page 55 of 60 gravel pathway in to protect the city's assets. Do we allow that to be a fire access -- at that point it becomes a moot point to me that, you know, there is -- the likelihood of them using it is slim to none, but they always want to make sure that they have a second way out if-- if something happens. So, how do I say that. So, I -- at this point I think I would recommend -- because I -- I can almost guarantee the homeowners are not going to want -- they don't want a gravel path, they are not going to want an asphalt path behind their house so -- and, to be honest with you, they are going to put gates on it, but the likelihood that someone could walk underneath the gate and get through it is -- is if they want to do a loop or something like that it's going to happen. They can't stop that. They could stop the vehicles or the bikes become a lot harder from the one side to get their bike underneath the gate, but those can happen and I don't know what to do about those. People are people. We can put no trespassing signs or whatnot. So, at this point I'm in favor of moving forward and allowing and recommending we annex this property. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: When I first read this I thought this was going to be -- before I got into all of it it looked super simple on paper, nothing to it, like --yeah. Like just reading the --you know, the narrative and kind of going through the staff report it seemed pretty straightforward. Reading everything else and listening tonight, I have gone back and forth on like where I'm at on this, understanding both arguments why it should or why shouldn't isn't. Still somewhat on the fence as to not having been shown enough like flexibility in what they presented as options, but there are severe limitations on what their options are. I wouldn't be opposed to approving this to go to Council. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I think it's in the city's best interest to protect the asset there and so if it's -- you know, there is going to be the significant improvements to protect the asset, you know, I guess what difference does it make if it's the emergency access as well, because you are -- it's rarely if ever going to be used as that. It's -- it's more about the -- getting access to the sewer lines -- sewer and water lines. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, was there additional information that you think you could gather. I guess that's my question. I generally think, though, with the ITD application is you have to have the interested parties sign an agreement that they are giving their consent to an application. If Mr. Wagner has said he's not giving his consent that application is DOA. It doesn't go forward without a consent. So, that's the challenge with that piece of it. Is there other information that you think you need? Seal: No. And I understand that, I just -- you know, I think it's something that could be run to ground, basically, was, you know, my point in that. As far as the access, you know Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F59 Page 56 of 60 -- and I understand. I mean as far as the access, the access is there. The manholes -- you can access it from either side without having to drive through it. So, as far as anyone from the city mandating that there be anything put on that, they can't mandate it without it being annexed. So, I guess that's the rub for me at this point is I agree that if it needs to be covered in order to provide access, then, it becomes a moot point. That said, I don't think that it needs to be covered in order to provide access, because access is being provided from either side to the manholes that they do access. If they needed to go somewhere in the middle of that, absolutely, then, they are -- you know, that's going to cause issues at some point in time. But, again, that -- if that is Ada county property, then, it doesn't matter what anybody in the City of Meridian says about it, it's not theirs to say at this point. So, that's -- that's the rub that I have with it, so -- you know. And that's -- that's just where I'm at with it. I think there is some things that could be run to ground on it. Again, if it is the only option, then, I'm for annexing it and going forward. But I think a little bit -- you know, just a little bit more footwork could run that to ground and, then, it makes that statement true of there isn't -- there are no other alternatives and if that becomes true, then, people might look at it differently. You know, I know they are looking to develop that as fast as they possibly can. They running up against the numbers as far as how many they can have in there without the emergency access. That said, there has been things that have come through that we have slowed down from even going in in order to do it -- you know, we get one chance to do it, let's do it right. So, I think that a little bit more groundwork on this could prove that out. My personal belief -- you know, and I'm not an attorney and I don't work for ITD or ACHD, I'm not a road engineer. Personally I think that exactly what you lined out will happen. They are going to go to Wagner Farms and they are going to say no and that basically negates any access that's going to be capable of coming through there based on that alone. That said, I think it's something that should happen just to prove that out, show that, you know, everybody has done what they could in order to make something else happen. When it can't happen, then, we move forward with the annexation. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Is -- is that something that would be appropriate or possible to put into a condition of approval? Fitzgerald: Joe, if you want to take that one. Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I mean certainly it's annexation. So, if that's something -- I know this Commission on it has regularly moved something forward and given the applicant time to work on those items before City Council. So, you could certainly do that. Or, again, this is annexation and you could deny it and say that you have got an approved access with your plat back in 2007 going through that site or you could also continue this out if you think -- you can almost treat this like a conditional use permit and see if the applicant and the neighbors are willing to work on some additional landscaping and screening or doing something to try to mitigate impacts to the adjacent Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F60] Page 57 of 60 property owner and, then, certainly require that signage, that we have no public use over top of that easement, because certainly we do not want -- that is private property and people shouldn't be walking down that emergency access roadway. It is a golf course, they could get hurt. And the other thing that we can't do is -- and I'm not a golfer and I -- but I know golf balls bounce very high off of hard surfaces, so I imagine if you paved it and someone hooked a ball and it hit the asphalt, it would probably end up in someone's backyard at a higher velocity than probably perma bark. So, again, there is a lot of different scenarios here for you. I guess my -- my opinion on really the access -- I'm not ITD, I'm not ACHD either, but we have the applicant -- Rod is only required to provide an access when he develops. So, if ITD would grant that access based on the current location of their path of annexation to Chinden, that's up to IDT to determine that. If that's something that you guys want to move this along this evening predicated on them getting a definitive answer from ITD prior to the City Council, I think Becky would be amenable to that as well. Again, you also have the option of opening up the public hearing and at least talking to the Tsengs and Becky as to what they would like to see as far as the mitigation along their property and, then, make -- you know, see if you want to amend or continue this project for some more additional information. A lot to digest there, but, again, you do have some options. I gave you the PC answer. Sorry. Fitzgerald: The kitchen sink, Bill. Thanks. Parsons: Yes. Fitzgerald: With that information is there additional comments from the Commission? The only other comment, Commissioner Seal, that I want to make sure that we are clear on is if we are -- I mean I don't think it's just access to those manholes that you are worried about, I do think you are actually-- you are worried about protecting that-- that sewer line and that is Meridian property and that is Meridian -- that is a Meridian asset, so we do have to make sure we are protecting something in there. So, we do have a piece of this. It's not just county property, we do have a piece that's running through the middle of it and don't have it -- I mean right now I guess we have a gravel bed that's sunk into the ground, but I think that's what Public Works would like to have is the ability to make sure that they have access for their trucks to get in and clean those things out when they need them, but also to protect it for--from future issues would be my guess and Commissioner Yearsley could probably explain that better than I can. Yearsley: Mr. Chair-- and I don't-- I don't want to speak for the city. I know Bill mentioned that they want access to the manhole at least. We might could table it and ask for a recommendation from the Public Works what they want to see on the rest of it. Are they okay with it. You know, that would be an option and that would give an option for Becky to try to work with the adjacent owners for maybe some additional screening, you know, which I don't know if they want -- there maybe some lower shrubs that they can not see the pathway, but see the golf course, you know, as an option as well, to, you know, come back with some additional information. Fitzgerald: Thoughts? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F61 Page 58 of 60 Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Grove: I -- I think I agree with Commissioner Yearsley and Commissioner Seal for the most part, but I think where I'm landing is sending it to Council with -- with those pieces as conditions before they get to Council to have those discussions and to have the -- that entered into the -- the record for Council. But I don't -- I don't necessarily see this as an issue where I would recommend continuance. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. McCarvel: I would agree with Commissioner Grove. I don't -- I really don't think there is enough here that we would have to see it again. I think we could make recommendations and move it on to Council. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Yearsley, thoughts? Yearsley: I'm okay with that. Fitzgerald: Okay. Somebody want to take a stab at a motion or -- Commissioner Seal, did you have a comment? Seal: I almost did, but I will just see what the motion sounds like. I guess if I were to make a point, if we recommend approval based on information that would be coming back from ITD or something along those lines and it kind of puts it to where we are now waiting on something to happen. So, I do agree that if ITD comes back and says, no, you can't have that access, there is -- I mean at that point there is no reason for me to see it again, because the option is what we are looking at, which is annexation and putting the path in. So, I guess -- I guess it will all be in how carefully worded the motion is and if you notice I'm not volunteering to make one. Fitzgerald: I got that. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2020-0087 as presented with the staff report for the -- for the hearing date of October 15th, 2020, with the following modifications: That Public Works provides description of its -- what recommendations they would recommend to have between the two manholes for a surfacing or what they would prefer. Also to give time for Becky to work with the adjacent homeowners to see if Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F62 Page 59 of 60 there are is some additional mitigations that they could do to hide the pathway as best as possible and also potentially if Becky can get a letter from ITD saying that they wouldn't provide access. We already had testimony that Mr. Wagner -- I hope I said that right -- was not going to provide an easement. So, those three things is what I would recommend. And I guess the question for the hearing date -- or no. We approved it. Never mind. That's my motion. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: Okay. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020-0087 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Parsons: Mr. Chair, before we wrap up on that, I just want one clarification on the motion. Would that also include the additional signage for that area? Just to make sure that it's private property and if that's something you want Council to do. Yearsley: I'm okay adding that condition. Or do we need a revote on that with that condition? Fitzgerald: Yeah. We need a separate motion on that one. Yearsley: So, I would -- I would amend my motion to include signage for no -- no public access on the gates. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: Second has -- as we revise our motion I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of H-2020-0087 to City Council with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS / DISCUSSION Fitzgerald: Thank you to everyone involved. Appreciate it tonight. I need one more motion. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move that we adjourn. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 15,2020 F63 Page 60 of 60 McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:18 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 10 122 1 2020 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 3 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the September 17, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. September 17, 2020 F96 Page 93 of 93 McCarvel: I move we continue file number H-2020-0047 to the hearing date of October 22nd to allow the applicant and the Fire Department and staff to come to agreements on access and -- to all portions of the project and to provide illustrations of items discussed with medical campus and the townhomes. Fitzgerald: I hope we worked in that second -- that last piece. Does that include that, just for clarification? McCarvel: The last piece of the Fire Department? Fitzgerald: The last piece of that -- McCarvel: Oh, yeah. Yeah. To show us a complete proposed medical campus. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing on H-2020-0047 to the hearing date of October 22nd. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Stephanie, we will see you on October 22nd. And, Patrick, you guys have a good night. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: One more motion. I move we adjourn. Go to bed. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the meeting and go to bed. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed to not going to bed? Please don't talk. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thanks, team. Appreciate all the comments and all the work. Commissioner Seal, thanks for being there in person again. We appreciate you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :34 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 10 115 12020 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 2. 97 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Community Development: Discussion Regarding Building Permits Per School Attendance Area Item 2. F98 (:�WE IDIAN:--- IDAHG-. MEMO TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Request to Include Topic on the Agenda From: Miranda Carson, Comprehensive Associate Meeting Date: October 15, 2020 Coordination Planner Presenter: Miranda Carson Estimated Time: Topic: Community Development: Discussion Regarding Building Permits Per School Attendance Area A School Impact table has been created to provide information on a development area's growth based on individual school attendance boundaries. The table will highlight schools likely to be impacted by a residential development based on a current application. The intent is to provide the entitlement and building permit data in the areas affected by an application to enhance future planning for both the City and the School District. An example table will be presented for review and discussion. em 2. 99 Development Application School Impact Review EXAM E Prescott Ridge 2019 Estimated Estimated Estimated Percent of 2020 Estimated WASD WASD WASD 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 City Wide Dwelling 2020 End Students Enrollment Estimated Students 2016 2017 Dwelling 2018 Dwelling 2019 Dwelling Total Units of Year Generated after Permits Enrollment Distance Generated by Dwelling Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Built Dwelling (as of Dwelling by 2020 and v School (miles) Capacity Enroll ment'i Development2 Units° Units 1 Change Units I Change Units 1 Change 1 Units 8/18) 1 Unitss 1 PermitS2 Development3 Capacity Pleasant View ES 2.4 650 397 105 153 273 78% 337 23% 458 36% 15% 335 536 173 675 104% Star MS 6.9 1000 704 52 153 273 78% 388 42% 541 39% 17% 350 560 90 847 85% Meridian HS 6.1 2075 1965 70 523 824 58% 1513 8477 1206 -20% 39% 1114 1782 235 2270 109% Assumptions: 1. Capacity and Enrollment are provided by West Ada School District(WASD).Enrollment data is based on Spring'20 counts with adjustment at the elementary level to account for the new Pleasant View Elementary. 2.Estimated WASD Students Generated is based on a Student Generation Rate(SGR)of 0.7 students/single family residential unit and 0.1 students/multi-family residential unit.By grade level this calculates to:Elementary SGR:0.323;Middle SGR:0.162;High SGR:0.215 for single family and Elementary SGR:0.046;Middle SGR:0.23;High SGR:0.031 for multi-family.This estimate does not include students in charter,private,and home schools. SGR does not vary for units with age restrictions for the purposes of this analysis. 3.Growth data is analyzed only for the City of Meridian and based solely on building permits through EOY 2020;preliminary plat data is not currently included in this analysis.WASD attendance areas include portions outside of the City that may have planned growth that affects school enrollment as well. 4.Dwelling Units are the additional units in a year based on the building permits that were issued in that year.This includes units with age restrictions. 5.Estimated 2020 Dwelling Units is based on the assumption that the remainder of the year growth will continue at the same monthly average it has been year to date.While City wide growth estimates are available from the City Growth Committee,area specific data is used in this analysis. 6.School attendance areas analyzed are based on current WASD attendance areas at the time of analysis.Attendance areas can change anytime during or between school years. 9/2/2020 Planning and Zoning Hearing Outline and Presentations Planning & Zoning October 15, 2020Commission Meeting Item AERIALZONINGFLUM Maps–#5A: Teakwood Place Subdivision, AZ/PP Revised PlatPreliminary Landscape Plan Open Space Submitted Conceptual Elevations Item #5: Ada County Coroner Rezone - Rezone AreaSite Plan Elevations FLUM Original Plat (as requested by Commission) Reconfigured Plat Revised Plat Revised Landscape Plan Revised Open Space Exhibit Conceptual Building Elevations Item #7: Spurwing Sewer EasementAnnexation & Zoning Changes to Agenda:  Item #3: Tara’s Landing – AZ, PP (H-2020-0048) – The property owner rescinded their consent for the application; therefore, Staff recommends the Commission acknowledge withdrawal of the application. th  Item #8: Skybreak – AZ, PP (H-2020-0079) – Applicant requests continuance to Nov. 19 in order to review & address the concerns noted in the staff report. Item #4: Teakwood Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) Remand NOTE: This project was remanded back to P&Z by the City Council on August 25, 2020. Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning, and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 7.35 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in the County, located at 1835 E. Victory Rd.. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North – Residential use, R-8 zoning; East – Residential use, RUT zoning; South – Residential use, R-4 zoning; West – Residential use, R-8 zoning. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: Request for AZ of 7.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning designation and a preliminary plat consisting of 22 building lots and 4 common lots (one of the 22 building lots contains the existing homes that is to remain). The future land use designation for the subject site is medium density residential which allows detached single family homes and requires that gross density reside between 3-8 du/ac. The Applicant’s revised plat has a gross density of 2.99 du/ac which is rounded up to 3 and complies with the Comp plan. As noted, there is an existing home on the subject site that is intended to remain and reside on its own lot within the subdivision. In addition, some of the existing accessory structures on the property are proposed to remain as well. Current access to the property is via a driveway connection to E. Victory Road and the Applicant is now agreeing to close this access and comply with the UDC. Instead, the current residents will take access internally and via a driveway access to the extended local street, E. Fathom St. The Applicant is also proposing to construct an emergency only access that connects the proposed E. Fathom Street to Victory Road. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that this emergency access be constructed prior to any issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Parking for the development is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6 for detached single-family homes based on the number of bedrooms per home. The proposed street sections are 33-feet wide with 5-foot attached sidewalks and would also offer on-street parking where there are no fire hydrants or driveways. In addition, the Applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac with a 57-foot radius which is 9 feet wider than the standard requirement of 48 feet, therefore allowing on street parking along the perimeter of the cul-de-sac as well. In most cases, a five-foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed with the required frontage improvements along Victory Road. However, because there is no sidewalk adjacent to the site on either side and the section of sidewalk is less than 300’, code allows for the sidewalk to be attached. The Applicant has proposed to construct 7-foot attached sidewalk in line with ACHD requirements. This sidewalk should be constructed within the required 25-foot landscape buffer along Victory Road. A 25-foot wide easement is depicted on the plat and per the UDC, Staff is giving the Applicant the option of placing the buffer within the easement as shown or revising the plat to add a common lot. The submitted landscape plans do not show the correct amount of vegetative ground cover and the existing trees that are to remain within the buffer are too close together to meet UDC requirements. Therefore, staff has recommended conditions of approval to correct these items and the Applicant has agreed. Based on the proposed plat of 7.35 acres, a minimum of 0.74 acres of common open space should be provided. According to the open space exhibit, the Applicant is proposing approximately 37,842 square feet of qualified open space (11.82%). The open space consists of common lots and half of the landscape buffer to Victory Road. The largest area of open space is located at the southern end of the development and is more than 20,000 square feet in size. To the north and across the cul-de-sac is the next largest open space lot that also contains the proposed amenity, a water feature with available seating. This open space lot also has a micro-path that continues north to the temporary cul-de-sac on the new east-west street in the center of the project, adding another pedestrian connection to the project. The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single-family homes for this project. The single-family homes are depicted as mostly single-story structures with a variety of finish materials with stone, stucco, and lap-siding combinations. Some homes depict extra-large spaces for at-home RV storage. All single-family homes appear to meet design and architectural standards. Written Testimony: Karen McLafferty, board member of Tradewinds Sub. HOA – Additional traffic through their subdivision as the only access to this propped project; Emergency response times; Concerns over the drainage pond and its correct engineering; Height of homes abutting the east side of Tradewinds. Trisha Garcia-Brown, Tradewinds Sub. resident – Concerns over the singular access into Teakwood through their subdivision. Mary Dechambeau, neighbor – Concerns over: Construction vehicle traffic not utilizing their private road for access; Drainage concerns if Eightmile Lateral is modified. Sandy Blaser, Tradewinds resident – Concerns over single access into Teakwood through their subdivision and; concern over building height for those homes directly abutting Tradewinds Subdivision. Mike McClure, Tuscany Subdivision resident – Concerns over pathway connections from his subdivision into this one. Karen McLafferty, Tradewinds Subdivision resident (commented since previous Commission hearing) – Concerns over drainage and possible pond system used within Teakwood; singular access going through Tradewinds Sub.; potential of two story of homes along the western property boundary. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 15, 2020, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0006, as presented during the hearing on October 15, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0006 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #5: Ada County Coroner (H-2020-0085) Application(s):  Rezone Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.34 acres of land, zoned I-L, located at 173 N. Touchmark Way. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Adjacent land uses to the west consist of a retail store, zoned C-G; industrial to the north, zoned I-L; vacant land to the east, zoned I-L; and Franklin Rd. and vacant land to the south, zoned L-O. History: This property was rezoned in 2009 with the requirement of a DA. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Industrial; the abutting property to the south is designated Commercial. Summary of Request: The Applicant requests a rezone of 1.77 acres of land, including land to the centerline of adjacent streets, from the I-L to the C-G zoning district. Because the adjacent FLUM designation & zoning of the property to the south is Commercial & a public/quasi-public use (i.e. Ada County coroner’s office) is proposed to develop on the combined properties, Staff deems it appropriate to apply the FLUM designation of the adjacent property to this property because such designations are not parcel specific. Rezoning the subject property to C-G consistent with that of the adjacent property to the south will create uniform zoning for the overall property. Although the UDC doesn’t prohibit multiple zones on a single parcel, split zoning does make it problematic to decipher which of the two standards (industrial vs. commercial) to enforce. The rezone to C-G will ensure that the development meets the dimensional standards of one district versus two. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that depicts a 35,000 square foot 2-story building oriented north/south on the site with the entry fronting on S. Touchmark Way. One (1) entry/exit and one (1) exit only is proposed via N. Touchmark Way & one (1) entry only is proposed via E. Lanark St., both classified as industrial collector streets; no access is proposed or approved via E. Franklin Rd., an entryway corridor. Per the recorded Development Agreement (DA), direct lot access to Franklin Rd. is prohibited. Staff is supportive of the access points depicted on the submitted concept plan. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards – a minimum of 70 parking spaces are required, 117 public parking spaces & 51 secured employee parking spaces for a total of 168 spaces are proposed. A 35’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along Franklin Rd., an entryway corridor. The staff report states a 20’ wide buffer is required along Touchmark Way & Lanark St. – however, when the final plat was recorded, these streets were designated as local (instead of collector) streets. For this reason, Staff will amend the analysis in the staff report to reflect a 10’ wide street buffer requirement with future development along Touchmark & Lanark. Conceptual building elevations & perspectives of the proposed building were submitted as shown. Written Testimony: Deborah Phillips, Ada County (Applicant) – in agreement w/staff report Staff Recommendation: Approval (without the requirement of a new DA – the existing DA suffices) Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0085, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 15, 2020, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0085, as presented during the hearing on October 15, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0085 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #6: Landing South (H-2020-0005) Application(s):  Preliminary Plat These applications were previously heard by the Commission & a recommendation of denial was forwarded to the City Council based on the belief that the development plan wasn’t consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, issues with the turnarounds & access drives, & the revised plat didn’t address previous concerns of the Commission. The City Council heard the application & remanded it back to the Commission for review of a revised plat meeting the R-4 dimensional standards. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.27 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at 660 S. Linder Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: SFR properties surround this site, zoned R-4 & R-8. History: This property was annexed in 1994 without the requirement of a DA. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (3-8 units/acre) Summary of Request: The proposed revised preliminary plat consists of 8 building lots & 2 common lots on 2.27 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district for the development of SFR detached homes. The minimum lot size proposed is 8,018 s.f. with an average lot size of 8,199 s.f. Access is proposed via the extension of an existing stub street (S. Spoonbill Ave. from Joshua St.) from the north boundary of the site which ends in a cul-de-sac. No access is proposed or approved via Linder Rd.; an emergency only access exists off-site to the north via Linder Rd. Off-street parking is provided in accord with UDC standards; 2 on-street parking spaces are available in front of the two northern lots but parking is not allowed within the cul-de-sac. Staff is concerned there may not be adequate on-street parking for guests, however, the UDC does not have standards for on-street parking. The Kennedy Lateral runs along the north boundary of this site and has been piped. The PMP depicts a 10’ wide multi-use pathway along the frontage of this site adjacent to Linder Rd.; however, because there is an existing sidewalk that is in good condition in this area, the Park’s Dept. is not requiring it to be reconstructed and is only requiring an easement for a future pathway. A 25’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along Linder Rd. Because this site is below 5 acres in size, the qualified open space & site amenity standards in the UDC do not apply. An open space exhibit was submitted that depicts 0.32 of an acre of common open space consisting of the street buffer along Linder Rd. & the area along the north boundary where the Kennedy Lateral lies. No amenities are proposed. Wrought iron fencing is proposed to be constructed at the back edge of the street buffer along Linder Rd. & along the Kennedy Lateral easement. Conceptual building elevations for SFR detached homes were submitted for the homes proposed to be constructed in this development as shown. Written Testimony:  Chris & Candace Johnson – requests Joshua St. is allowed to extend to the west & connect to Linder Rd. as a permanent access instead of emergency only – or at the very least, that construction traffic is allowed to use this access for development of the subdivision; and that a “No Outlet” sign be installed at on S. Tylee Way where it intersects Waltman Dr. to notify drivers the street dead ends to prevent unnecessary traffic.  Jeff Bolen – requests a direct access via Linder Rd. is allowed for this development. (Staff did reach out to ACHD to see if an access via Linder Rd. would be allowed and it would not, as it does not meet District policies – the site does not have sufficient frontage to meet spacing requirements from Gander Dr. to the south & Pintail Dr. to the north; with the proposed development factored in, traffic volumes on Gander Dr. are anticipated to be well below what is allowed on a local street.)  Kenneth “Scott” Grapatin – Concern pertaining to the continued provision of irrigation water to his property, which currently runs through the north side of the proposed project & accessibility of the ditch for repairs and cleaning. Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0005, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 4, 2020, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0005, as presented during the hearing on June 4, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0005 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #7: Spurwing Sewer Easement (H-2020-0087) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.60 of an acre of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located north of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: SFR properties in Spurwing Sub., zoned RUT in Ada County and SFR properties in the development process in Olivetree at Spurwing Sub., zoned R-4 & R-8 in the City; and the Spurwing golf course, zoned RUT in Ada County. History: A lot line adjustment was previously approved by Ada County in 2007 which included the subject property. Ada County denied a CUP modification application to build an emergency access road. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR (3 or fewer units/acre) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests annexation of 0.60 of an acre of land into the City with an R-4 zoning district consistent with the FLUM designation of LDR. The annexation area is a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Spurwing Subdivision, which was developed in Ada County. Typically, the City does not annex a portion of a parcel or lot; however, it’s been deemed appropriate in this case due to the County’s denial of the site modification and the City’s requirement for an access to maintain the public utility. The property proposed to be annexed is developed as part of the Spurwing golf course & contains a 20’ wide Meridian sanitary sewer easement with a 12” sewer main line & an 8” Suez water main line. An emergency vehicle access easement is proposed in this area to satisfy the Fire Department’s requirement for secondary emergency vehicle access to Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision. Emergency vehicle access for this subdivision was previously planned via W. Chinden Blvd. at the Chinden/Ten Mile Rd. intersection; however, since the time the preliminary plat was approved, improvements have been made to the intersection which require an alternate location for emergency access. For this reason, emergency access is proposed where the sewer easement lies. Public access will be restricted through the use of gates at each entrance with a knox box as required by the Fire Department. This road will also provide access to any manholes within the sewer easement area in accord with City requirements & access to the Suez water lines. The Olivetree at Spurwing subdivision cannot develop without an approved secondary emergency access which the Applicant’s proposal provides. If Council denies the Applicant’s request, an alternate emergency vehicle access will be required for any development over 30 building lots in Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision; or, the applicant has the option to fire sprinkler additional homes beyond the 30. The subject property is non-buildable as it isn’t a legal parcel/lot eligible for a building permit and doesn’t meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-4 district. Written Testimony:  Robert Trerise, Gretchen Tseng, Carrie Franklin, Eric & Mary Kay Klein, Qing-Min & Erin Chen, Tom & Andrea Nist, Greg Stock, Steven Leavitt & Rick Mauritzson (see public record)  Concern pertaining to construction of a street & public access between Balata Ct. & N. Crantini Way in Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the requirement of a DA that states the annexation area is non-buildable & shall only be used as an easement for City sewer & Suez water, emergency vehicle access & an access road for maintenance of the City & Suez water facilities in the easement area. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-2020-0087, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 15, 2020, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2020-0087, as presented during the hearing on October 15, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0087 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item 3. 100 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Tara's Landing (H-2020-0048) by Mike Homan, Located at 5025 W. Larry Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 6.34 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 29 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 6.14 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Item 3. 1 o1 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: October 15, 2020 Topic: public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Tara's Landing (H- 2020-0048) by Mike Homan, Located at 5025 W. Larry Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 6.34 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and, B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 29 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 6.14 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 4. Ll 02 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Teakwood Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) by Hesscomm Corp., Located at 1835 E.Victory Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 22 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots. Item 4. 103 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: October 15, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Teakwood Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) by Hesscomm Corp., Located at 1835 E. Victory Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 22 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing i 3 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 15, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Teakwood Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 Item 4. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 5/7/2020 W464GO 10/15/2020 Legend - �o DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner � ' � � � 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton,Development Services Manager ®� 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2020-0006 ; r Teakwood Place Subdivision ® �® LOCATION: The site is located at 1835 E. Victory Road,approximately'/4 mile east of S. _ Locust Grove Road,in the NW 1/4 of the ® ®� NW 1/4 of Section 29,Township 3N., Range 1 E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation&zoning of 7.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat consisting of 29 22 building lots and 4 common lots,by Hesscomm Corp. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT NOTE: This protect was continued by Planning and Zoning Commission on May 7, 2020 to the date of June 4, 2020. Prior to that meeting, the Applicant requested a continuance to a future date to have more time to address issues presented at the Commission meeting and by Staff. &qff ha"reeei d revised Plans whiek has resulted in zqPcAkethretwh and underlined ehan2es throuehout the staff i— This project was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on 711612020 and the Commission recommended denial of the project to the Meridian City Council. Following this recommendation, the Applicant made a request to the City Council to be remanded back to P&Z with a revised plat and open space pursuant to comments made within this stafteport and by Commissioners. The Q Council agreed with this request and remanded the project back to P&Z. The main changes made bX the Applicant following the recommendation of denial are related to the open space con i uration and the removal of the Victory Road access for the existing home. Both topics are discussed and analyzed below in subsequent sections. A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 7.35 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Page 1 Item 4. 105 Description Details Page Existing Land Use(s) Residential and Agricultural. Proposed Land Use(s) Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 3-2 26 total lots—28 22 single-family residential;4 common lots. Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as twe"�one(1)phase. Number of Residential Units(type 2-822 single-family units(including existingh ome). of units) Density(gross&net) Gross—3-.95 2.99 du/ac.;Net—5.64 4.22 du/ac. Open Space(acres,total 52,737 39,988-45,560 square feet,or 4-.24 9.92 1.05 acres Further [%]/buffer/qualified) (42,n� o34cz95 37,842 square feet qualified open space; analysis pg. approximately 1 3..�0-9 11.82%) 7&8. Amenities ! amenitypropos€d ,0'.,ulti , pathway N . it ,;s shown on the submitted ylans Water feature with seating area. Physical Features(waterways, Eightmile Creek runs along the northeast corner of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) property. Neighborhood meeting date;#of Oct. 30,2019—6 attendees. attendees: History(previous approvals) N/A B. Community Metrics Description 1 Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action(yes/no) Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via extension of a local street from the Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) west(E.Fathom St.). The existing home is requesting to maintain its access onto E.Victory Road,an arterial.An emergency access is proposed on the western boundary from E.Fathom St.to E.Victory Rd. Traffic Level of Service "F" Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross This subdivision's main access is from an existing stub Access street(E.Fathom St.)and is proposing a new stub street to the east for future development and future connectivity. Existing Road Network No Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None Buffers Proposed Road Improvements None Distance to nearest City Park(+ 1.6 miles to Renaissance Park(6.5 acres) size) Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.3 miles from Fire Station#4 • Fire Response Time 3:00 minutes under ideal conditions(this meets Meridian's Fire response goal time of 5 minutes). • Resource Reliability Fire Station#4 reliability is 78%. • Risk Identification F Risk Factor 2—residential with hazards(open waterway) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road width,and turnaround requirements. Police Service See Agency Comments(Section VIII.D). Page 2 Item 4. 106 Description Details Page West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) 0.6 miles to Siena Elementary;3.2 miles to Victory Middle School;2.3 miles to Mountain View High School. • Capacity of Schools Siena Elementary—800;Victory Middle— 1000;Mountain View—2268. • #of Students Enrolled Siena Elementary—970;Victory Middle— 1085;Mountain View—2237. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 13.88 • Project Consistent with WW YES Master Plan/Facility Plan Water • Distance to Water Services Directly Adjacent • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water YES Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None COMPASS(Communities in No comments submitted. Motion 2040 2.0) C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 0 Legend ,70'Project Location Project Location Medium]Density LResk ntial Low enSity 'Re sid n aI ® MU-N &%, ,WNM .Zoning Map Planned Development Map Page 3 Item 4. 107 Legend �� �� Legend0 Project LocationProject Location 4p;�4-4 � city Lim is L Planned Parcels RUT R=8RdF OUR HER] RUT ® __ � D a1 - ®- aUILLMLILLiLi RUT CN R_ a III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Bruce Hessing,Hesscomm Corp.—6700 Linder Rd., Meridian, ID 83646 B. Owner: Charles&Vickie Richardson— 1835 E.Victory Rd.,Meridian,ID 83646 C. Representative: Leavitt&Associates Engineers,Inc.— 1324 1"St. South,Nampa ID, 83651 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/17,1�0 9/25/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet ^�'^"^�20 9/23/2020 Site Posting ^/1�20 10/1/2020 Nextdoor posting 4/14,90��^4 '7n70 9/23/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(htt�s://www.meridianci�.org/com�lan://www.meridianci�.org/com�lan) Medium Density Residential—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. The annexation area is near existing public services and not on the periphery of corporate city limits; existing City of Meridian zoning and development lay to its west, north, and south. The proposed land use of single family residential is consistent with the recommended uses in the FL UM designation. The proposed project has a gross density of 3-.9-5 2.99 du/ac and a net density Page 4 Item 4. ■ of 3.-64-4.22 du/ac, meeting the required density range listed above once the allowed rounding occurs. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed preliminary plat and requested R-8 zoning district to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Medium Density Residential. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.Al. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan): (Staff analysis is in italics after the cited policy) "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities"(2.02.01A). This new subdivision and plat offers additional pedestrian connection via attached sidewalks on the proposed local street extensions, and open space, and a new segment of multi use 19athway that will help eanneet this 19rejeet to adjaeen sub ions but does not offer any new pathway connections at this time. Instead, the Applicant is now proposing an easement for a future multi-use pathway section. The Applicant is proposing open space that is better connected and usable as now proposed. This open space is also proposed with a water feature and seating which is seen as a quality amenity for this development. With all of the sidewalk connections proposed with this small development, Staff' finds that there will be adequate access to schools and parks for those who choose not to drive. is the en4lqua4fyings-iteamenity ''nn //,, ,,,1 with this ,-. •,- TF"cr�vG� �-�st£E�Z �, cl`l--eFd-er fer a-n-epen&paee-let to be eensidered a 'be at least 20,000:9quarefeet above the required minimum - T seedon and the o pen spaee is not large enough to quahfy as an amenity&no loiwr behm proposed and no other antenkv is show an the re+4s-dolans,Staff is r-eeammendMg an pen spaee lots to meet UDC Ndpomo h"Ier-ease the quaUty and availabffity of amenities in the are &4is open ispaeepr-eposed en�hejqi;eliminaryjqlat and in Me new Gemprehensive Plan. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01G).All public utilities are readily available to this project site due to the existing subdivision to the west. ACHD notes the excessive traffic that already exists on E. Victory Rd and nearby intersections but has also noted in their staff report(see Section HII.H) the low number of estimated vehicle trips from this subdivision will not require additional mitigation or road improvements. West Ada School District has offered comments on this project regarding school enrollment are Het yet ever eqpae4y aeeer&ng to their eFi�ginal letter and West Ada estimates 22 school age children will reside in this development. However, Staff has received letters from West Ada on more recent projects and Sienna Elementary and Victory Middle are now shown as overcapacity. Staff is aware of the overall overcrowding issues facing nearby public schools, however, the low number of school age children expected in this development should be easily absorbed in the district. School enrollment numbers of the closest schools to this development are listed above in Page 5 Item 4. Flog] the Community Metrics section of this staff report-and a table outlining recent historic and macro level data re ae rding school enrollment is part of the Agency Comments of the public record(see Section VIII.J). "Encourage infill development"(3.03.01E). Teakwood Place Subdivision is on the cusp of being an infill development by definition. Staff finds that the already annexed and developed properties residing to the north, west, and south make development of this property a logical and orderly progression of City limits. In addition, all public utilities and services are readily available for this subdivision including planned road improvements at the nearby intersection of E. Victory and S. Locust Grove. "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices"(3.07.01A). The site design of this project proposes density that mems is lower than the subdivision to the west and is iust above the at the minimum density allowed in the underlying FL UM designation 0 Medium Density Residential. The subdivision to the south is of lower density zoning(R-4) but the Applicant has proposed lots with a majority of lot sizes that are more in line with the R-4 zoning district. And Therefore, the revised plat offers a transition from existing developments of higher density to this subdivision and other county zoned parcels. The Applicant has also changed the location of the proposed open space and is now in the southeast corner of the site and abuts the backyards of some of the existing homes in Tuscany Lakes. "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross- access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity"(6.01.02B).Access into this subdivision is through an existing and developed subdivision (Tradewinds Sub)via an extension of a local street(E. Fathom Street). This will mean one less additional access point efr to E. Victory Road, and a r ..htst G,. v_e Reads, an arterial streets. are requesting to keep their aeees-s te Pe"Read, As seen in MeAGHP staff repert, AGWD has anieiided their 19okeies to allew this7 the Gity does iiet agree and theApplieaw must get a Couned Waiver in order to maintain this aeeess. SM#dees not suppei4 maktaining the aeeess to 9. V4e y-Therefore, the proposed plat is using existing street networks for interconnectivity and meeting this policy by reducing access points to arterial streets. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home on this parcel that is proposed to remain„Mil uMil Phase 2 deve ap and reside on its own building lot. In addition to the home,a number of accessory structures and two large barns currently exist. The largest barn that resides towards the southern part of the parcel will be removed upon development of Phase and the pole barn closest to the existing home will remain tifitil Phase 2 deve ,...me . All structures can be seen on the submitted plat and landscape plans.As iieted belew stWdoes not support the 19hasiffg of the 19reposed develepment. Any structures that remain on the property must comply with the dimensional standards of the R-8 zone or be removed. The existing access to Victory Road is analyzed below in Section V.F. D. Proposed Use Analysis: Detached single-family residential homes with local streets within the development and a new stub street to the east are being proposed. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Page 6 Item 4. 1 10 This subdivision is proposed to be developed in two (2)phases one phase. The firs*prep phase will provide a4l peblie st-feets and 24 ef the 28 pfepesed bt*ildiag lets. The e*isfifig hem pr-epesed te r-emain un4i!Phase 2 development a-ad then an additional 4 biiildifigs lets will b-e developed with aeeesses onto the leeal stfeet within the develepmefA and fiet&40 E. Vietefy According to the revised plat,Tthe minimum property size in this development is approximately 4-,9094-,784 4,940 square feet with an average buildable lot size of approximately 7-,342- 10,318 square feet. In addition, each buildable lot appears to meet the minimum street frontage requirements,including by providing no less than 30 feet of frontage for those lots that front on a curve or cul-de-sac. Therefore, according to the preliminary plat,all lots appear to meet the required UDC dimensional standards for the requested R-8 zoning district. Staff is not suMorfiw of the phashWp n asprqposed-.Staff reeontmends the development eanshweted in one phase and the aMlieant antend Me plat to inelude the ex-&dng PeWdenee on identified in phase 2 and deve1V theour additional lots as pmposedL. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): All proposed lots and public streets appear to meet a14-UDC dimensional standards per the submitted preliminary plat for the requested R-8 zoning district. This includes property sizes, required street frontages, and road widths. In addition,all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3)—the proposes revised preliminary plat adheres to the standards therein. F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via extension of a local street from the west(E. Fathom St.). The existing home is requesting te maintain its aeeess efAe E.VicteryRead, n a4en-a4 now proposin tg o take access from this local street. In addition, an emergency access is proposed on the northwestern boundary connecting from E.Victory Rd. south to E.Fathom St. flfaint,ainifff,x this Heeess and site the lew number ef vehiele 04ps.frem ene heme. Staff does not aeees-s; Staff beUeves that if the existing aer-e-ess does not elose at the tinte of this develoonwn., x ..a. .a With the original submittal, the current home owners (that are to remain on the property ollowin dg evelopment) requested to maintain their access to E. Victory Road. This request was not supported by Staff or the Planning&Zoning Commission and was a factor in the Commission's recommendation of denial to the City Council. Following this recommendation, the homeowners agreed to close their access to Victory and instead take access from E. Fathom Street as recommended by Staff. The plat has been revised to show this internal access via a 12- foot wide driveway connection. Staff has had conversations with the Meridian Fire Department and there is a desire for this paved access to be slily wider to accommodate emergency response vehicles if a need were ever to arise. Therefore, Staff is recommending a condition of approval to amend the plat to show at least a IS-foot wide driveway connection. The Applicant has also proposed an emergency-only access en4,dr4vew6ty that connects E. Fathom St. to E. Victory Road. E. Fathom St. is the only access into this development and therefore, Staff is recommending a DA provision that the emergency access Page 7 Item 4. F-1111 be constructed prior to any issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, 9- ,";f' �' this is commensurate with the condition of approval from the Meridian Fire Department(see Section VIII.A1). Access for this subdivision must go through the existing local street stub to its west, E. Fathom Street, because it is a lesser classified street than Victory, an arterial street. This is consistent with both Meridian comprehensive plan policies (as outlined above), UDC 11-3A-3, and with ACHD district policy.An additional factor of note is that Victory Road is already failing as a S- lane arterial street and any additional direct traffic would exacerbate the problem. The proposed development is protected to generate minimal peak hour vehicle trips which shows that there will be minimal impact to Locust Grove, the arterial that Tradewinds Subdivision connects to and subsequently where Teakwood Place would get to an arterial street. Public input has depicted Locust Grove as a busy street during peak hours do to the roadways failing north and east of the Locust Grove and Victory intersection. This intersection is in the ACHD Integrated Five Year Work Plan to be converted to a roundabout and Locust Grove will be widened to five() lanes. These two changes will have a cascading effect and increase traffic flows south of this intersection including the point of in r� for these two subdivisions.All of these factors matter in Staffsupportin,g the access for Teakwood via E. Fathom Street and out to Locust Grove. Pedestrian access in the development will be via extensions of 5-foot attached sidewalks on all local streets. The emergency access road will also function as a pathway and connects the sidewalks on the proposed extension of E. Fathom St. to E. Victory Road. Sta*49es,Not plaee m eh valueTHtT prepose Staff reeemm eHds If the applicant constructs the required frontage improvements along Victory Rd. and prohibits vehicular access to said roadway in accord with UDC 11-3A-3, this pedestrian connection is a valuable addition to the development. In addition, because the Applicant is adding five feet of landscaping on each side of the 20 foot wide emergency access, the area of this common lot counts towards qualified open space. G. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Future development should comply with these standards.No parking plan was submitted with the application. One of the revisions made by the applicant is changing the type of cul-de-sac proposed in the south end of the development. The new plan shows a larger cul-de-sac that has a 57 foot radius. The larger radius turnaround allows an additional 9-feet ofpavement in the cul-de-sac which then allows on street parkingThe perimeter of the cul-de-sac that can be parked on (perimeter minus driveway curb cuts) is now approximately 200 feet which can accommodate approximately 8 on street parking spaces. The true amount of cars that could be parked within the cul-de-sac is wholly dependent on the size of the vehicles being parked. Therefore, Staffs estimates are based on general calculations and include the UDC noted parallel parking space dimension of 23 feet long. Some vehicles may take up more or less than this value. H. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway easement is being proposed along Eightmile Creek at the northeast boundary of the subdivision instead of building the actual pathway at this time.its Page 8 Item 4. F112 aeeer-d with the Mei4diaa Pa4hways Master-Plan; its developmefft is pr-eposed w4h Phase 2 a the existing home will be r-efneved in the same phase. The Applicant is proposing this as an easement that is partially located within the irrigation district easement for future development bX the City. The logic behind this is two-fold: 1)to minimize the impact to the homeowner who is remainingon n the property since the pathway would encroach into their back porch if it were entirely on this subject prppeM and,perhaps more imperative to city code; 2)to not construct a pathway that would lead to nowhere for the foreseeable future since adjacent county_property owners have shown little intention on redeveloping in the near future. The .,ppli a fft is pr-e esi R the 10 feet mttlfi use pa4hway be leeated with a 14 feet wide pubhe pedestfian easemen4 wit 20 feet wide eemmen lot in Phase 2. The melti tise padiwa-y has other-pedestfian eenfleetie 5 feet PAtaehed sidewalks• .ithi n the deve ,,..me fft Staff is supportive of providing an easement that is shared between this property and the irrigation district to be constructed at a later date. Staff has spoken with the irrigation district and they are supportive of the easement so lon,�as they have the space for their 18-foot wide access road. The pathway easement shall extend north into landscape buffer along E. Victory Road to provide for connection from the future Ei hg t Mile Pathway to the sidewalk at Victory Road. Due to context and space limitations, the easement maybe a minimum of 10'wide, as offset from the northeast property line()(This will provide enough additional width adjacent to the irrigation easement to allow for future construction o� pathway, fence, and irrigation access road). The Applicant is showing compliance with this on their revised plat. To ensure this small pathway section is built in the future, Staff is recommending a DA provision that the multi-use pathway shall be constructed when the lot with the existing home is redeveloped or subdivided in the future. issue. The niulfi use jqathifwy niqy not-yet have eanneetion with additional nides.e)�pathwqj,,but it E- V4etery and the epen zspaee let within the develepniefft-, I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Five(5)foot attached sidewalks are proposed along all internal local streets, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17.Normally, as five-foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed with the required frontage improvements along Victory Road. However, due to there being no sidewalks abutting the site to the east or west alongV ictory Road and the frontage is less than 300 linear feet, Staff can allow the sidewalk to be attached along the frontal Applicant is proposing to construct 7-foot attached sidewalk along the entire Victory Road street frontage with this revised plat and within ACHD right-of-way. This meets the intent and prescriptive standards of UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD requirements outlined in their staff report. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E.Victory Rd., an arterial street,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide landscape buffer easement. let is depicted on the plat Lett Bleek(the lot with the he that is g),; this- eemmen lot also houses the proposed multi use pa4hwa�,thM will Fun alefig Eightmile Cr-eek. The eeffeet nttmber-ef trees appear-te be shew-a on the stibmitted!andseape plans (see Seetien VII.F) and is proposed with a removal of eight(8) existing trees and to keep five 5)of the existing UDC requires that landscape buffers for residential developments be placed in a common lot, owned and maintained by a homeowner's association and also offers Applicants the opportunitX to provide the buffer within an easement if the existing home will not be subject to the CC&rs of the subdivision through the Alternative Compliance process. Therefore, Staff is recommending Page 9 Item 4. F113 a condition of approval to place the buffer in a common lot or apply for Alternative Compliance with the Final Plat submittal to place the buffer within an easement.In addition, UDC requires that trees be spaced at a density of one tree per thijjy five Q5)linear feet(UDC 11- 3B-7C.2). Because the existing trees that are to remain are bunched together on the site,they do not meet this requirement. Compliance with this code section is required and in order to comply, Staff recommends adding two (2) additional trees to the east half of the landscape buffer. These additional trees, spaced correctly,would add to the buffer and help the Applicant meet the landscaping requirements. Furthermore, landscape buffers are also required to be vegetated with shrubs, lawn, or other vegetativeground cover for at least 70%of the area at the time of plant maturity,with mulch used under and around the plants UDC 11-3B-5N). The landscape plans do not show compliance with this requirement and should be corrected prior to the City Council hegi Vi 69ry-D , have to be iciorcc ii-via ci t„virstra,ct�the i+a riivrciciAs rrtn-adetaehed sidewalk. Stagfiads th4the existinet-Fees do offer-g --------buffer-bet-we Vietery a-ad the i3r-ei)esed s-Hbdivisiea. In addition,if this area alone Nlietef-,�were to be improved with detaehed sidewalk,the sidewalk wetild lead to new-her-e as there are ne sidewalk&-en4he �1,. '.a f Nl t„ D,,.,,1 �6}kCit�nzc-vr-vzccvr�icvc�crviruir`r-iccijuvcirc�3urccr8—nicrcz Landseaping is r-e"ir-ed along all pathways (ifieluding mier-e pathways) in aeeer-d with the standar-ds listed in LDG 11 3B 12CI. The total lineal feet of path-ways with the required and— proposed number-of trees should be ineluded in the Landseape Calculations table.Staff is Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space shouldbe^"""eeted in the and the required number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards is shown in the Landscape Calculations table. The land-seape plan should to be rvWsed to reflees Me mvisedphashV plan andpreliminary K. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required. Based on the proposed plat of 7.35 acres,a minimum of 0.74 acres of common open space should be provided. According to the Applicant's provided open space exhibit(Exhibit VII.D),the Applicant is proposing approximately 5'� 8-45,560 square feet(or 1.21 n 9 .,e fes`of open space (or 16.471' ^C, `with 37,842 square feet(or 11.82%overall)of this area shown as qualified open space. The qualified open space consistsing of ,common lots with open space, and half of the arterial street buffer to E. Victory Rd. The Appheant's b 1 labels 42 034 2 7nc s e feet l.,ppr-.,..;,v,.,tl ,n ^74 . eo of .00. t � e o spaee as qttalifying(I - . The open space is primarily proposed as two common open lots with one residing in the very southeast corner of the site and one more centralized but smaller lot that contains the required amenity. The open space is to be available at the time of development as the project is no longer being phased. s bot>,..hales with most pr-evided i Phase ' u,,. eve Staff notes that the open spaee eale-Walien appeafs to dtipheate area it appeafs to ineltide the Page 10 Item 4. Fl 14 does fi"t eoufA towards a+iy open spaee, qualifying" not. The qualified open space is comprised of three 3) common lots (Lot 1 Block 2,Lot 7 Block 2, and Lot 11 Block 1)that are 4,410, 7-,70-514,012 (including the temporary turnaround), and 20,555 square feet in size,respectively. All lots appear to meet UDC requirements to count towards qualified open space. Tea openiaee meets the Z PC . cicits by lessthan 20 Ger Following the Commission meeting and the issues that were presented, the Applicant revised the open space to address Staff comments regarding the temporwyy turnaround lot and the lack o� continuity of the open space. The Applicant has now reconfigured the building lots to allow for common open space to connect from the cul-de-sac in the south of the property to the new east- west stub street while also incorporating a micro pathway connection on this lot. Staff finds that this open space configuration better connects the two main open space lots within the development. The revised iqlat also zqhoi�w some of the non oHalifvint oven z9vaee on Lot 19, BleC4 1 iMieh is' er 1 it 1 a hitur buildable let?Staff i.wHts tom,eHs-ure 11 4Me epeH tuave , l r-s ,,, 1 tl number of buik4iH:F-w lots are eenfir-med pr4or to this avolieation bebw developed. In addition, theApplieaw revise the plat to have the or-opes-ed opeH s-paee more eoH6�euous- I- eaeh other, This ean be aeeemplished by moving the open siggee on Let 7-, Bleek 2 to Let, 18, Bleek 1 and then ,t;, the at4aeeflt Let 45, l 1 1 into a eammon open ttwe. let. That, uN. to ff f,, the s-outl of the propero.to the-east ,vest stub Stu.,,t i,, the + ftl development and eanneet to the hiture even sigaee let that holds the temiger-atmv tufflar-ound, A& option wouk4 also off-er more eommen open soaee thaw the mininitim. #Mis is net-me intended use for Let 19, Bleek 1 tl.,, 1;.,,mt should uld revise tl.,,±vfftfpyfe v.l ibit tom,remove thearea SgEfinds that the proposed open space meets the minimum requirements. but is not of-enfier, After rwntoWng redundant open spaee and thepoved areas on the eommon 0 en aee lo , jvhieh is below the min 0 proposed on one oc the eeminion open spaee lots and Me 3 0 feet wide eniergeney aeees-s eas-emen therefore Mtff does notfind it apprepriate to inelude this area as.qHalified open Vaee. #4he land-seape thefivefeet on eithei-side ef itIger UDG;9tandai4s, this area eouk4 be added baek available to the residents in this s-tibdivision. Staff i;eeommend-s Mis ehaHge beeause thei;e is qualified open Vaee wouN be added to this l9rejeet with this reeommendatien. "Uaiving 9-,200 more squarefeet of quakfied epen spoee wouk4 be added, making a total Page 11 Item 4. 115 0 feet. Therefore,Staff' Ung-, 'approval to eonwt the open sp- ae ealeulations to refleet the usable open sp- aee and then provide Staff with a m4sed open sp- a exhibit and revisedpmUntinary plat showing the new loeation of the temporary eul de sae L. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(7.35 acres),a minimum of one(1)qualified site amenity is required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC I1-3G-3C. The .,ppli afft has re* pr-epesed one (1) "alified ameait)-, a 10 feet multi use path-way. This amenity fneets does not meet the minimum UPC standards. The Applicant has proposed one(1) qualifying site amenity within the central open space lot, a water feature with benches around it. The Applicant is also proposing a micro-path through this space lot to increase pedestrian connectivity between the open space lots despite it not countingas s a qualified amenity. Staff appreciates this added connection so that everyone in the development has easy sidewalk access to the water feature and seating area. additional as k-ass one amenityfiwm one of the eategorMs in UDC 11 3G 3G on one of Commission hearing� M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-y7: The Eightmile Creek is a protected waterway and runs along the northeast corner boundary of this development but is not on the subject parcel. The applicant is proposing to add a 10-foot multi- use pathway easement both outside of its easement and partially within it as an amenity to this- pr-ej a future extension of the multi-use pathwasystem. Because Eightmile Creek is not on this site,there can be no requirement to tile the waterway. In addition,Eightmile Creek is a protected waterway,tt and must remain open regardless.withdevelepffleR4-e additional requirements e*ist dtie to the er-eek being off site. N. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and appears to meet UDC requirements. shall be eeffeeted per-the eenditions listed in this stag r-epei4(see Seetion 3,1111.3) for-the lots abtWiag the mier-O use pathway. la addition, open vision feneing along the proposed pathway f4eing Eightmile Creek O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single-family homes for this project(see Section VILE). The single-family homes are depicted as mostly single-story structures with a variety of finish materials with stone, stucco, and lap-siding combinations. Some homes depict extra-large spaces for at-home RV storage.All single-family homes appear to meet design and architectural standards. Page 12 Item 4. ■ VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIILA per the findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 13 Item 4. F117 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION FOR TEAKWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION A parcel of land located in the NW 114 of the NW 114 of Section 29,73N., R.1 E., B.M.,Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of said Section 29 from which the N114 corner of said Section 29 bears North 89°59`41" East, 2,680.68 feet; thence along the North boundary line of said Section 29 North 89°59'41"East, 620.22 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said North boundary line North 89°59'41"East, 328.84 feet to a point on the approximate centerline of Eight Mile Lateral; thence along the approximate centerline of Eight Mile Lateral the following 2 courses and distances: thence leaving said North boundary line South 04°36'20"East, 80.22 feet; thence South 39°10'20"East,71.96 feet; thence leaving said centerline South 00*11'29" East,781.92 feet to a point on the northeasterly boundary line of Tuscany takes Subdivision No. 2 as filed in Book 94 of Plats at Pages 11,351 through 11,354, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence along said northeasterly boundary line North 73'13'33"West,420.37 feet to the northerly most corner of said Tuscany Lakes Subdivision No.2; thence along the East boundary line of Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1 as filed in Book 106 of Plats at Pages 14,594 through 14,596, records of Ada County, Idaho and the southerly extension thereof North 00°11'26"West,263.65 feet to the NE corner of Lot 6, Block 2 of said Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1, said point also being on the South boundary line of Lot 5, Block 2 of said Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1; thence along said South boundary line North 89°59'41"East, 21.79 feet; thence along the East boundary line of said Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1 and the northerly extension thereof North 00"11'29"West, 532.67 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 327,836 square feet or 7.53 acres, more or less. W S 4sG 77290 �2�25Izu1`'o OF 1p� Page 14 Item 4. Fl 18 E. VICTORY RD. BASIS OF BEARING S.19 S. S89'59'41"W 2680.68* � 1-/_4 S_20 5.30 5.29 620.22' N$9'S9'4t"E 32$.84'— 1731.62. V "5.28 �RPOB 1 S4'36'20"E BLOCK 1 I 80.22' � S39'10'20"E s —� 71.96' 1 z 0 I { EN BLOCK 2 m o i 11335 E. VICTORY RD. I � O I 227636 s.f. 7.53 o.c. a a 14 m G r11 1 I� R O �� a m n d�`�p ® I 1489-59'41"E tCENS 4`SGG a I� a 7729 c 7��., r rP2� II II OF �Gl4YG.G�`� (D I l w � 0 (D , N at Ir O'k �'5CAN),tA® N73j3 W 4z0�� I .IDO NO. IDAHO EXHIBIT _ DRAWING FOR 19-324 SURVEY o9y5•A �P 1,,'; TEAKWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION s'1 NO. B019E.IBAHO¢}'�Jn �aaeYdateea GROUP LLC WCAIM IN THE NW K OF rKE HIV 9 OF SECTION 29, T3N.,RAL.9-M., pw�OAIF 1 ADA COUNTY.IOAHO 1/2b/?020 Page 15 Item 4. 119 1 B. Preliminary Plat(date: 3/25A20206/2440- 0 8/12/2020) 699t68L I80Z)3NOHd SNOISIA3tl awo„va�vawvueea�e.roe .�,,.eia3e.e. Z-1 Ole OVOU tl3ONMON89L93w NOISIAIO8f1S 30Y1d OOOMMV31-DNI33N1`JN3 NOISIAIa9oHvalf153Qtllda UOOMNtl31 93IVIOOSSWR JAIAV3-1 r' NO I' ✓III I _ _ I __ ((���!- �I • s�� n F. CIg N' 6 %il®lal ® ® ;�t �- ®�r�N OIB�•! '`�tJ �I�I c _II IY • vi- � yF�ih jo `• J'JS 1. hR YrZ CIO CIO I�+�1 _ o � „ 5 g € � + III � ���i - � @S •p�i�s {•6' // ll z sx — - C E2 p. I Uo- - � - c j wm 12 N�9 4 e § J 1 aaas smesa�al asvd le�rooe Page 16 Item 4. 120 g �45K�i FhC[ 14.A54 * S14r� n0 eW6oK 1x �c a.o« n 2--------------- Jilln°e� � } � � 11l —' •1 ��y5 or — nie I l i]S MH K 0.Y - Wi iF b ' n„ ' r Q14 0.L] 4 V# � I �l h 0.I Qp ' L3jL Y27S if J R -S eYt L. nir Page 17 Item 4. 121 C. Landscape Plans(date: 1,123,12020 6/25,QO20 8/13/2020) Die I G�� I I m Lad M r L=J r H y -IR°N n "Id - -- - I� az I � C I �? ov ITT � 5 'err 9P m d 0 E bFr W m5 I x m m == z C < y 1 i b A � c � m a , P m b m _ B � P Page 18 Item 4. ■ .............. t4 z t 4 co bo�ro > u I" o moi m 0-4 w -v w r J. O tj 0 PIP bd W pd O `I Z m AA -HESSI A T❑ � IT, J.1 L=— T z F �.j 02H > -tL[11 1 -9� 'IF Ali z I z HE;,mo LEAVITT&ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS,INC- 1- IV... �CESIJBDIVISION TEAKWOOD 'CIVJL DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT STRUCTURAL M— SURVEYING N.LINDER ROAD MERIDIAN.10 83�5 D PLACE ........... TT— REVISIONS _ — � ,, �Z Page 19 Item 4. Fl 23] PLANT SCHEDULE ,JLI z6 LANDSCAPE MOTES 4.rZ�ULE, x 0. 1-11015 IIEI PLIIIIIG­11L n ­FERO­7REEFLAN TING DETAIL w9jol E2 SOUTH BOUT dwill AEOIR"D Page 20 Item 4. F124] D. Open Space Exhibit(date: 2Q4 2020 6 Q ION August 2020) b1morILY" .•r•s� Z •ti7— =.r.1 'uL CEO 31 IC. 1 Fm n Flrc c acu�r r ti Ii Lf -- ---- ia�w .}. e � f� 4 Y 4 NUF Y X F IL! l ' E 1 � E. ryi 1 �y t •rl f E :1 •+R —'f T a FE I i y.. FI 9� F ll u 1 !M i 1Y �1.R ti4 4 9 + F �.�11 r TRW 9 11i.r,f a Page 21 Item 4. ■ E. Conceptual Building Elevations E _ S a 90 WEME 61 No I No a Page 22 Item 4. ■ -- „W Ail ■ VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,landscape plan, open space exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. This subdivision shall be eeastFueted in one ('phase and applieai#shall sttbdivision with a new aeeess to the proposed ex4easiea of E. Fa4hem St OR remove all of the exisling stpdetidr-es identified in phase 2 and develep t fouf additional lots as proposed. c. If the existing home is to remain,the home shall connect to city services upon development. . ,4 the f;-s!phase f deve ,,..m&4.-ad , o shall be provide 4em a leeal stfeet E. Fathom Sb-7eet d. The existing home shall close its driveway access to E.Victory Rd. and take access from E. Fathom Street with development of the subdivision. e. The fixture 10-foot multi-use pathway shall be constructed at such time that Lot 2,Block 2 is either redeveloped or subdivided in the future, of develepmen4 in accord with UDC 11-3A-8 and UDC 11-313-12. The Applicant shall submit a public access easement for the fixture multi-use Page 23 Item 4. ■ pathway_partially located on Lot 2,Block 2. Submit easements to the Planning Division for Council approval and subsequent recordation. The easement mu be a minimum of ten G 0) feet wide,as offset from the northeast propertX line(s).Use standard City template for public access easement. Easement checklist must accompany all easement submittals. Coordinate with Kim Warren from the City of Meridian Parks Department. f. All street frontage improvements and landscaping along E.Victory Rd. shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the development. g. An additional qua4ifyiag amenity(per-UDG 11 3G 3G) shall be added to the h. This development shall provide no less than 37,842 square feet, or 11.82%, of qualified open space. these bets abuttifig E.Victery e a�ential a4eri-al roadway, baeks, .-ad pop u4s),bays,b ading,per-ehes,baleenies material t"es, other-integrated af-ehiteetefal elemen4s te break tip menetenetts wa4l plane j. The emergency access on Lot 1,Block 2 shall be constructed prior to any issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VILB, and dated OIQ5/20206 4 i 8/12/2020, prepared by Leavitt Associates Engineers,Inc., shall be revised as follows prior to submittal of the final plat application. a. Revise the plat to show the tempefafy eii! de sae on the setiffi side ef the proposed E. Rieh r-ds St Lot 2i 22 B k 1 d add-a f to stating that said log rcxcxxaxcrooix��oix�orzx vi zz,vx6c c —aix xx6cc$�Tcrcx�3 arax�cr vris-ixvn- bttildable uttil sueh-tie as E. Rihardsea St. is exteaded. b. Add a note prohibiting direct lot access via E.Victory Road. Lot 2,Block 2 shall take access from E. Fathom St in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. e. The emergerrey aeeesrron Lot c,Bxvezcz shall be cvir#a etec prior- any d. The driveway access for the existing home located on Lot 2,Block 2 shall construct said driveway access with a width of at least 15-feet in width. e. Add an additional common lot alongV ictory Road to contain the required 25- foot wide landscape street buffer or apply for Alternative Compliance with final plat submittal to request the buffer to be within an easement. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, and dated 1 i2n90 9 6/2-5 020 8/13/2020, shall be revised as follows at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing: a. The Landseape Galeula4ioas/Requir-emen�s table shall inelude the following-. 1)the total linear-feet of pathways a-ad the required number-of tfees per-UPC; 11 3B 12); a-ad 2)the Page 24 Item 4. 128 b. The-bandseape Plan shall be eefFeeted to r-ef4eet open vision feneing along all pathways and pen space areas, as listed in the standards in UDG 11 3A 7. c. The Landscape pla-m shall be fevised to fefleet a single phase per-the eonditions i d. Revise the Landseape Plan to show!aadseapiag along the emer-geney aeeess f:oad eommen lot 5,Bloek 2. Said lot shall be developed with a 20 feet wide pa-ved siff�ee and five feet Erica dseap-ing on eaeh side in aeeowith UPC 11 3B-12. e. Revise the 6-ndseape plan to m4eh the newly revised pr-eliminai=y plat and show the proposed eul de sae with a r-adies of 57 feet a-ad with no par-king in the een4en f. Revise the landscape plan to show the required frontage improvements along E.Victory Road and within its own common lot Tot 2,Bleek 2. This should include at least two (2) more trees on the eastern half of the buffer and the required vegetativeground cover as required in UDC 11-313-5N and 11-313-7. Submit a revised plan (electronic copy)to the Planning Division at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. 4. The Open Space Exhibit included in Section VII.D sh ll be revised as f hews: is approved as submitted. a. C`L.ow the+o,,pe- eul de s n Lots 21or-22 >?leek 1 rather-than on the e b. regarding qttalified open spaee.remove the area ef Lot 19,Bleek 1 from any ei)ea si)ae ,1, ,1 ti Win- the City Cotmed heaiin�-, S. lets- _ _ _ _ 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for all the proposed R-8 zoning districtfi. 7. 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. 8. Any structures that remain on the property must comply with the dimensional standards of the R-8 zone or they must be removed. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The street naming and addressing of any structures proposed to remain, will change to the new naming and addressing with this subdivision. 1.2 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting, LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes. Page 25 Item 4. F129] 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 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. Page 26 Item 4. F130] 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 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 Page 27 Item 4. 131 irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=183649&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=184717&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191519&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=184507&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=184494&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=185262&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=183904&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT REVIEW https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=203757&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-8 and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 28 Item 4. F132] 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will allow for the development of single- family detached homes, which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose statement of the residential districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation meets the minimum requirements but is in the best interest of the City per the Analysis in Section V and with the conditions of approval contained in Section VIII. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat, with Staff's recommendations, is in compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; Page 29 Item 4. F133] and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and approves of the overall project. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 30 Item 5. Ll 34 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Ada County Coroner (H-2020-0085) by Lombard Conrad Architects, Located at 173 N. Touchmark Way A. Request: Rezone of 1.77 acres of land from the I-L to the C-G zoning district. Item 5. 135 (:�N-VE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: October 15, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Ada County Coroner (H-2020-0085) by Lombard Conrad Architects, Located at 173 N. Touchmark Way A. Request: Rezone of 1.77 acres of land from the I-L to the C-G zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing I PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 15, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Ada County Coroner (H-2020-0085) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 5. 136 STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/15/2020 Legend DATE: Continued from: 911 712 02 0 PRagec#Lflca ions 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-489-0578 SUBJECT: H-2020-0085 r Ada County Coroner LOCATION: 173 N. Touchmark Way(Lots 2 &3, ® ' Block 2, Seyam Subdivision), in the SW f ~ '/4 of Section 9,Township 3 N.,Range 1 E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 1.77 acres of land from the Light Industrial(I-L)to the General Retail and Service Commercial(C-G)zoning district for the development of a coroner's office for Ada County. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.77 Future Land Use Designation Industrial Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Public/quasi-public(coroner's office) Current Zoning I-L Proposed Zoning C-G Neighborhood meeting date;#of June 25,2020—Six(6)people in attendance. attendees: History(previous approvals) RZ-09-005 (Development Agreement Instrument#2014- 068084) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) I No • Requires ACHD Commission No Action(yes/no) Page 1 Item 5. F137] Description Details Page Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via existing curb cuts Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) as follows: (1)entry/exit and(1)exit only driveway from N.Touchmark Way and (1)entry only driveway via E.Lanark Street,both industrial collectors;no access is proposed via E.Franklin Rd. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access NA Existing Road Network Arterial(Franklin Rd.)and collector streets(Touchmark&Lanark); local street access is not available to this property. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/Buffers Attached sidewalk exists on this lot along E.Lanark St.&N.Touchmark Way; there are no existing street buffers. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service No comments submitted Police Service No comments submitted Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services NA • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See Application • WRRF Declining Balance 13.97 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • No proposed changes to Public Sewer Infrastructure has been shown within record.Any changes or modifications to the public sewer infrastructure shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. Water • Distance to Water Services NA • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project Water ERU's See application • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Water Yes I Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns No changes to public water infrastructure proposed. Any unused water main stubs must be abandoned at the main in the road. Page 2 Item 5. 138 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend RN*Ec#Lacafrs l SIB rt 0 . Rp ;It E ■ I iden�fiak t Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend Legend � PM:}"ey- LOCO-a- R` �li.ul I�FfV.=- -}- ' -i y -• I ' — Purred Pa-Lela C-G L-.C, auT j j I C- bus C-G C-G R7 - Ra I { L41 rL-0 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Brenda Brosa,Lombard Conrad Architects— 1221 Shoreline Lane,Boise, ID 83702 B. Owner: Ada County—200 W. Front Street,Boise, ID 83702 Page 3 Item 5. F139] IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 8/28/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 8/26/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 9/2/2020,updated on on site 9/25/2020 Nextdoor posting 8/28/2020 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial. This designation allows a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, flex,and incidental retail and offices uses. In some cases uses may include processing,manufacturing,warehouses, storage units,and industrial support activities. The abutting property to the south is designated Commercial. Commercial designations 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 Applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from I-L to C-G and develop a coroner's office (classified as a public/quasi-public use) for Ada County on this lot and the larger abutting lot to the south,which is already zoned C-G and is designated on the FLUM as Commercial. Because designations on the FLUM aren't parcel specific, an adjacent abutting designation,when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application,may be used. Accordingly,the Applicant requests approval for the abutting Commercial designation to be used for the property proposed to be rezoned as both properties will be consolidated into one property and developed as one. The proposed public/quasi-public use is a desired use in the Commercial designation. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • Encourage infill development. (3.03.01E) The Comprehensive Plan defines infill as "development on vacant parcels, or redevelopment of existing parcels to a higher and better use that is surrounded by developed property within the City of Meridian." The subject property is surrounded by some existing development, is directly adjacent to the Franklin Road transportation corridor, and is readily available to connect to city water and sewer. • Focus development and redevelopment intensity on key transportation corridors. (3.07.02C) The proposed public/quasi public use is proposed adjacent to E. Franklin Rd., a key transportation corridor. • Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. (3.07.00) Page 4 Item 5. ■ The County is proposing to develop the 4 acre site with a public/quasi-public use. The proposed use has aspects that pertain to both commercial and industrial uses which makes this a good location. The site has been designed to separate the medical functions of the site from the public entrance. Staff believes the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses of retail and warehousing directly to the west and north. • "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 are available to serve the proposed development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS REZONE: A rezone of 1.77 acres of land from the I-L to the C-G zoning district is proposed consistent with the Commercial FLUM designation applied to this property from the abutting property to the south as discussed above. A legal description for the rezone area is included in Section VIII.A. Rezoning this property to C-G consistent with that of the adjacent property to the south will create uniform zoning for the overall property. Although the UDC does not prohibit multiple zones on a single parcel, split zoning does make it problematic to decipher which of the two standards(industrial vs. commercial)to enforce. The rezone to C-G will ensure that the development meets the dimensional standards of one district versus two. Proposed Use: The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property and the abutting property to the south as one property with a coroner's office for Ada County, classified as a public/quasi-public use. Public/quasi-public uses are listed in UDC Table 11-2B-2 as a principal permitted use in the C-G zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-30: Public or Quasi- Public Use as follows: A. Public recreation and community centers: The use shall meet the standards in accord with section 11-4-3-2, "Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Facility, Indoors and Outdoors", of this chapter. B. Public or quasi public office: The use shall meet the standards for office use in accord with the district in which the use is located. Dimensional Standards (UDC Table 11-213-3): Development of the property is subject to the dimensional standards set forth in UDC Table 11- 213-3 for the C-G district. Development Plan: A conceptual development plan was submitted, included in Section VIII.B that depicts a 35,000 square foot 2-story building oriented north/south on the site with the entry fronting on S. Touchmark Way. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): One(1)entry/exit and one (1)exit only is proposed via N. Touchmark Way and one(1)entry only is proposed via E. Lanark St.,both classified as industrial collector streets; no access is proposed or approved via E.Franklin Rd., an entryway corridor. Per the recorded Development Agreement(DA), direct lot access to Franklin Rd. is prohibited. Staff is supportive of the access points depicted on the submitted concept plan. Page 5 Item 5. 141 Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for commercial districts based on one space per 500 feet of gross floor area. With a proposed building size of 35,000 square feet, 70 parking spaces are required. The conceptual site plan indicates 117 public parking spaces and 51 secured employee parking spaces for a total 168 spaces,which exceed UDC standards. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : Seven-foot attached sidewalks already exist along all of the street frontages. UDC 11-3A-17 requires 5-foot detached along arterial and collector streets. However,because these facilities are fairly new, Staff is not requiring the applicant to replace the existing attached sidewalks with detached sidewalks. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35' wide street buffer will be required along E. Franklin Rd., an entryway corridor, and 20' landscape buffers will be required along N. Touchmark Way and E. Lanark St., designated as collector streets,with development and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Parking lot landscaping, including 5' wide buffers adjacent to parking, loading and other vehicular use areas, including the planter islands, are required with development per UDC 11-3B- 8C. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6,11-3A-�• The concept plan depicts secure parking on the west side of the building.Any fencing proposed for this development is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Public services are available to accommodate the proposed development in accord with UDC 1I- 3A-21. Any unused water main stubs must be abandoned at the main in the road. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted conceptual elevations and perspectives of the proposed building, included in Section VIII.C). Future development of this site is required to comply with the design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 and the ASM. Development Agreement(DA): The City may require a DA in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67- 6511A. In this case,the subject property is already governed by an existing DA recorded as Instrument No. 2014-068084. The provisions contained in this agreement are consistent with the provisions staff would require in a new DA. Therefore, staff is not recommending a new DA with the subject rezone request and the property will remain subject to provisions of the existing DA. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezone with the comment noted in Section IX per the Findings in Section IX. Page 6 Item 5. F142] VIII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map Exhibit "A" REZONE DESCRIPTION-LOT 2, BLOC -SEYAM SUBMI ION A parcel or land being Lot 2,Black�and the adjacent Right of WaY,5warn Subdivision as recorded in Book 108of Plats,Pages 15674-15676 records efAda County. Located in the SW 1f4 of5ectio+t 9,r,3 N-r R-1 E.,B.M-,Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly des€rlbed as Failows; Cornmenciog at the Section Corner cpmmpn to Svdians$,5,16,and 17 of said T,3 K.RA E.from which the 1/4 Corner common to Sections 9 and 16 of said T.3 N.r R_1 E. bears N 59°11'45"'E a dlstahCe of 7706.25 fee -'Thence N 89`11'4�'E a distance of 1464.22 feet along the south Jine of said Section 9 to d point;Thence N 00'4Sr14"W a distance of 465-00 Net to the southwest Corner of Lot 2,4314ck 7 of Sewm 5ubdivisian also being the Point of Eeginnfng. Thence follawing the westerly boundary Mine of Said Lot�and the northerly extension there¢F N 00"W 14"W a distance of 224.74 feet to a pole t at the centerline of E,Lanark Street; Thancrs following said Centerline 5 83 5E'19"E a distance of 342.41 ferat to a point at interseet3an of _ Lanark Street and IV_Tauchmark Way; Following the centerline of N.Tau chmark►'day,the follnwing 3 callr.; 7hgnga S OT0342"W a distance of 157.97 feet to a polnt of curvature; Thence 47.83 along t h a arc of a curve to the right said curve having a radius of 300,40 feetr a€entra1 angle of 9'GW05"an d a lartg chord o f 5 04"37'"W,47.78 feet to a paint on a tangent; Thence 5 09'11'46"W a distance of 29.71 feet to a poirit; rhence leaving tih a centerline of N.To uch mark Way and Fal lowing a lean%the south bound ary li ne of said Lot 2 and the Pasterly extension thereof N 99'11'46"W a distance of a3t_48 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel cantains 1.77 Acres 177,113 SgFt}more or less_ This description is based on data of Record,no field Survey was conducted. o OF14 A M� Page 7 Item 5. ■ L E G S N a E X H I E3 IT ?! 13 7! * CA7GrifiTED PONT —__— eYI"T LEJE wwtr wW�R — ——— nE VIF: mOrT r.F w6r GFmPcauxE ilEZOW PAL-% �`�ayar'w I� 5}a p7 IrpYr7+ir I n�7�� ay egEEaqC��c gar, � �+W iUp7�N�1CM wr[. rsayr.w+ I + i iCury Tobla r Pr,r/ Wqy iad.. DOL. �chr C4,rilr Pat mn" ��r11# n i7.RS �� PM� W�h271• a7.ia 61� 4 I rn � O { W { _ � + -— ! FpISr�R fFd $5 >' },Wo r ' rGrFCE N E*11'45-E 2706-255 7GKLF I'-god arwKq� +rnev,2h BASIS OF 13EARING CmKrr urcnar Page 8 F144] B. Concept Site Plan �x a F V�O 4 Z C01 - ti� W W r F --- it •y. _ X _ - w w _ 0i a +; JJC N -ar N W - u � 4 Cr - IVIOk N }r� 011, Ld La In ruxi Page 9 P k h m Item 5. 145 C. Elevations(date: 7/09/2020) -_ " T T T T T T. r�;:T T .. 0- low_ _ - . - -- _ T - _-_ T T Iva OONA -L�ALLI"LILI 0 ��.. SAiITHGR�4P Page 10 CONCEPT VIEWS GROUND VIEW FROM THE EAST AERIAL VIEW FROM THE NORTHWEST w a � r ■'��f i t i• f a �'�1� 1`ry ��� • 4 �t - r'-- � 5 .1 F ly, _ � R El AERIAL VIEW FROMSOUTHEAST + ER I AL VIEW FR 0141 THE SOU y�ti Y Page 12 y 1kG.l Item 5. 148 AERIAL VIEW FROM THE NORTHEAST � � - - y._ Page 13 Item 5. F149] IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the provisions of the existing Development Agreement Instrument#2014-068084. 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; Staff finds the rezone of the subject site to the C-G zoning district is consistent with the Commercial FL UM designation in the Comprehensive Plan applied to this property from the abutting Commercial designated property to the south on which the majority of the subject property is proposed to develop, also zoned C-G. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed public/quasi public use will be consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial districts in that it will support the purpose ofproviding for the service needs of the community, in accordance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed rezone 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 Staff finds that the proposed rezone 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 NA Page 14 Item 6. Ll 50 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Landing South (H-2020-0005) by Jim Jewett, Located at 660 S. Linder Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots and 2 common lots on 2.27 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. Item 6. 151 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: October 15, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Landing South (H-2020-0005) by Jim Jewett, Located at 660 S. Linder Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots and 2 common lots on 2.27 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing i i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 15, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 i PROJECT NAME: Landing South (H-2020-0005) 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 Item 6. 152 STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING October 15,2020 Legend DATE: -- Iff Prdject Lc=tor TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 711 FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner [ 208-884-5533 f E SUBJECT: H-2020-0005 l Landing South—DPP .00 LOCATION: 660 S. Linder Rd. (Parcel ----- #51213233965;NW'/4 of Section 13, -. T.3N.,R.1W.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 43 aeres of land f am the n n t the n 8 , g disc t; a* Preliminary plat consisting of 40 8 building lots and-2 common lots on 2.27 acres of land in the proposed R 9 R=4 zoning district. Note: The Applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat(and associated plans) that complies with the R-4 dimensional standards and a request for withdrawal of the rezone application: the staff report has been updated accordingly. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 2.27(includes area to section line of Linder Rd.that is owned fee simple) Existing/Proposed Zoning R-4 existing/p 9 proposed Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR)(3-8 units/acre) Existing Land Use(s) Residential(single-family home&accessory structures) Proposed Land Use(s) SFR(single-family residential) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 4-0 8 buildable lots/-3 2 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units(type 44 8 units total[(^" F nily duplex dwellings-With^total of units) oFore its&6 standard SFR detached dwellings) Density(gross&net) 646 3.52 units/acre(gross);7�5 4.23 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 047 0.32 of an acre including street buffer along Linder [%]/buffer/qualified) Rd. and area where the Kennedy Lateral is located. (Note: Pagel Item 6. F153 Description Details Page Qualified open space is not required because the site is below 5 acres in size) Amenities . None proposed(Note: Qualified site amenities are not required because the site is below S acres in size) Physical Features(waterways, The Kennedy Lateral runs along the north boundary of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) site and has been piped Neighborhood meeting date;#of 10/17/19;3 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) Johnson Annexation(Ord. 631 in 1994),no DA;ROS #2605 (created subject parcel) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via an existing local stub street from the north(S. (Arterial/Collectors/State Spoonville Ave.);an emergency access via Linder Rd.exists to the north Hwy/Local)(Existing and on Lot 55,Block 5 in Landing Subdivision No. 12 Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Better than"B"(Linder Rd.) ' Stub No other stub streets exist to this property other than from the north(S. Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Spoonville Ave.),from which access is proposed;no stub streets are Access proposed to adjacent properties to the east or south as those properties have already developed. Existing Road Network None Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is an existing attached sidewalk along Linder Rd. constructed in Buffers 2015 with the adjacent road improvements but no street buffer Proposed Road None(proposed right-of-way dedication to total 48' from section line of Improvements Linder Rd.abutting the site) Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.3 miles • Fire Response Time Falls within 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#1 —can meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 75%-does not meet the target goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2 current resources would not be adequate to supply service • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • 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 Page 2 Item 6. ■ Police Service • Distance to Police 2.5 miles Station • Police Response In an emergency,just over 3 minutes,with an average time of just under 4 Time minutes(meets target goal) RileridLem p¢I PL ment.The landing�jZah L, akmo or newel_-,elm•enl E.603L,nderAord 71Tr FrYme- 112141,f24)19-0L(31J20W Lrapl oF'"4&;LoS1.DplyarPe WUppQIln.0 0IgrkT.111p-M7491 Calls for Serrloe ICF%�:llesponse time-tMspotilm 1aArdwd Io11 unitsM .%rrrnp PesP7'sr Ti—t- 4f p"arlgy: VtV Or OMMIAP' PrianYy 3 3:49 PrAxMle 2 7.03 Araxkp 1 16,34 Auerare Response Trues bs Flmarlty:Vmv Armn"T 9:45 Crll%fWSorrlor ICFSr Coils wtunfntlnRD'M)1!' CFS Caunr 7arrr 2,SA¢ k of Ullt lnr riaiwlrr ip lit;Prlearf In-WAS, 't GI R3 CF3 14n .•nf'Rr CFS 7L9% 1I:of PA M 24 8% %qPo efs a.ax DORM cArne coal romd 3i] Creshei '[rash 10 nr TW2 n West Ada School District 1nrDlimpM Capaaty Wei. • Distance(elem,ms, Pznwrine{lernrntary $56 650 ! hs) MI Alan Mddle St i&M 12110 Im 1.9 • Capacity of Schools ' e'Lell I Hip 5&00M 1975 MC0 10 • #of Students dr.ie Lu the abundant anvrunl d Rrvarth In Lhe afea,Vfe3l01da fi adludy buddng new sutioals,and hcurdarles m always Enrolled Ghaning 7h"Iutpr+41u14n14 cAuld pgyfnr411y atto+ld Pl rcrM y14W Flenxnlir%21nd C"hre Kch Srhwl, • #of Students Predicted from this 9 development Wastewater L • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project 14 units total—(4)2-family duplex dwellings for a total of 8 units&6 standard Sewer ERU's SFR detached dwellings • WRRF Declining 13.88 Balance • Project Consistent No sewer mainlines in common drives,only sewer services(reminder that a with WW Master maximum of three services are allowed into a manhole,with a minimum 30- Plan/Facility Plan degrees of angle separation). Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 3 • Estimated Project 14 units total-(4)two-family duplex dwellings for a total of 8 units&6 Water ERU's standard SFR detached dwellings • Water Quality None • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan Page 3 1U, 1 1 ' JP6.IN ■. ■ _ } `— — • !"-�;`l� .err,-f•',{•'� .. F7.1' Is ■mooed ;x' min Hill - an � 2 uuw v 111 II 111 I Ilamluuu .' 7aie - NI 1111111 1111111 ■—�_� III-1 I'I.r * • IIIIL i m 'LI'J 1 1 ue. ' '; -11111111 .. : :■ .�-;1■■1■1 _ •I a.1.111.1.1 ■� ;ININIII ■ 1■11■1■ �__ 111111"I • "- II IIZ�-" , milli =- '■11.11 1.== .111 -- -- � ' •1II.II � +111111 . . Ell III ml..I. IIIIII 1111=�°■111■■ ��� IIIIIINNII'. - � uuuIllllu -■1 w � j �� III I II IIIII IIfN - _mill„ ti+ 0--1■IN Item 6. ■ C. Representative: Nick Bennett, Sawtooth Land Surveying—2030 S. Washington Ave.,Emmett,ID 83617 III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 3/13/2020; 9/25/2020 7/24/2020 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 3/11/2020; 9/23/2020 7/21/2020 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 5/20/2020; 10/5/2020 8/12/2020 Nextdoor posting 3/12/2020; 9/23/2020 7/21/2020 IV. 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 proposed development consists of 4x-(6)eight 8 single-family detached homes and f••r(^" f Y ily deple es f r a total of 14 units over-all at a gross density of f 3.52 units per acre consistent with the Plan. 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 and 'f bii4, a tp'w dwellings will contribute to the variety of housing types 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) Two One housing types(i.e. single family detached and2 fi nti4, a°•„'w dwellings)are is proposed in this development which is the same as adjacent housing types aiwdable in this area. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed residential dwellings should be compatible with adjacent existing and future single-family detached homes. Staff is concerned the proposed site design with only two (2) available on-street parking spaces may not be adequate to serve the site; however, the Page 5 Item 6. F157 required off-street parking is being met. Feur(4) , d4fie n 's ea athe ends • "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 required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Encourage infill development."(3.03.01E) The subject property is an infill property that was previously annexed into the City but never developed. Development of this property will maximize public services by servicing land already in the City as opposed to parcels on the fringe. • "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 along the internal street is required to be provided with development as proposed. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density and transportation. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Rezone! Withdrawn The proposed rezone is for--2.43 aer-es of land,w-hieh inehides adjaeet#hinder-Read right of way te the seetion line, from the R 4 to the R 9 zoning distfiet. The proposed gross density of 6.16 dwelliag tmits/aer-e and plan to develop single family detaehed and 2 family duplex dwelh+igs the site is eensistea4 with the Medium Density Residential (MDR)Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for-this site. A legal deser-iption for-the rezone area is ineluded in Seetion VIII.A. The City may r-equiFe a development agmemeat(DA) in eef��etiofi with a rezone pufstia-a 1dahe Code seetion 67 651!A. in order-to easui-7e the site develops as proposed with this appheation, staff r-eeetwnends a DA as a provision of the rezone with the provisions inelude the City within 6 months of the Cou-neil gr-afAiag the rezone for-approval by City Cou-neil an B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed plat consists of 49 8 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 2.27 acres of land in the proposed P,&R-4 zoning district. The minimum lot size proposed is 4-,004 8,018 square feet(s.f.) with an average lot size of�8,199 s.£; the gross density is 646 3.52 units/acre with a net density of 7-.6-5 4.23 units/acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. Single family detaehed dwellings afe proposed on Lots 62 67 and 2 family duplex dwellings are proposed on Lots 57 60. 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. Page 6 Item 6. 158 Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached a"'" family dale.* dwellings are listed as a principal permitted uses in the R 8 R=4 zoning district in UDC Table 11-2A-2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): R-9 R=4 district: (UDC Table 11-2A-5) The property sizes and street frontages of the proposed lots and width of the street buffer along Linder Rd. comply with the minimum dimensional standards of the P,8 R=4 district; future development should comply with the minimum building setbacks and maximum building height standards of the district as required. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3) Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common driveways and block face. There are two (2) eeFmnea driveways proposed; stieh dr-iveways should be eensti%eted in aee Lots 63 65 should be plaeed in a eommon lot.An exhibit should be submitted with the fina >building envelope, and oFientation of t driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking aeeess via the pi street,the driveway should be depieted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the eommon driveway.A perpetual ingFessiegFess easement is Fequir-ed to be filed with the Ada County ReeoFder-,whieh should inelude a FeqUiFement for-maintenanee of a paved surface eapable of supporting firevehieles and equipment as set forth in UDC 11 6C 3D—,- a eopy of the r-eeor-ded easement should be submitted to the Planning Division with the V1 plat for-City Engineer-signatWe. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access is proposed via the extension of an existing stub street(S. Spoonbill Ave.)from the north boundary of the site; direct access via S. Linder Rd. is not proposed or approved. An emergency access via Linder Rd. exists to the north on Lot 55,Block 5,Landing Subdivision No. 12. Because the surrounding properties are developed and the Applicant is extending the only existing stub street,no other stub streets are necessary to be provided. The extension of the existing street results in a cul-de-sac in excess of the maximum length(i.e. 500')allowed by the UDC;because this is an existing condition and access via Linder Rd. is not allowed,no other alternatives exist. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family detached and 2 family duplex dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Based on 3-bedrooms per unit as proposed, a minimum of 4 spaces are required per unit with at least two (2)in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad; if 2-bedroom units are proposed, a minimum of 2 spaces are required per unit with at least one (1)space in an enclosed garage,the other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking�pad. Future development should comply with these standards. The proposed dwellings all inelude 2 ear-gar-ages and outside par-king pads; however-,the par-king pads are only 16' wide and need to be widened to 20'. A par-king pla-a was ineluded on the plat 4iat depiets a total of twe (2) on street parking spaees available after-dfiveways afe pr-evided for-eaeh lot(see Seetion VIII.B). Anothef fouf(4) spa Page 7 Item 6. Fl-591 Because on-street parking is not allowed in the cul-de-sac, only two(2) on-street spaces may be available in front of Lots 57 and 64 ifthe driveways are located in the cul-de-sacs. Staff is concerned there may not be adequate on-street parking for guests; however,there is no UDC standard for on-street parking. Staff is also eoneeFned theFe will not be adequate a Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): A 10' wide multi-use pathway is designated on the Pathways Master Plan along the frontage of this site adjacent to S. Linder Rd. Because the existing sidewalk is in good condition,the Park's Dept.is not requiring the pathway to be constructed at this time; however, a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for a future detached pathway is required. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. A 5' wide detached sidewalk is typically required along arterial streets (i.e. S. Linder Rd.); however, the Director may waive this requirement to detach the sidewalk where there is an existing attached sidewalk. In this case,there is an existing attached sidewalk along Linder Rd. that is in good condition;there is also existing attached sidewalks on the adjacent developments to the north and south. For these reasons,the Director approves a waiver to this requirement. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer(measured from back of sidewalk) is required adjacent to N. Linder Rd., an arterial street,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C,which require buffers to be planted with a mix of trees and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover.Just lawn and trees are proposed; Staff recommends shrubs are added at a minimum. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. At a minimum,one three per 8,000 square feet of common area is required to be provided along with lawn. Because the common area along the north boundary of the site where the Kennedy Lateral is located is within an Irrigation District easement,no trees are allowed. Therefore, all of the required trees are proposed to be placed in the street buffer along Linder Rd. There are several existing trees on this site that are proposed to be removed with development that require mitigation per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5.The City Arborist inspected the site and determined an additional 67 caliper inches of trees need to be provided on the site for mitigation.The 50-inch caliper silver maple along Linder Rd.is required to be retained on the site and protected during construction,unless required to be removed by ACHD.Mitigation calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table demonstrating compliance with the aforementioned UDC standard. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G1: A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-313 is required for developments over 5 acres in size;because this property is only 2.27 acres,this standard does not apply. However,the Applicant did submit an open space exhibit that depicts 047 0.32 of an acre of common open space including street buffer along Linder Rd. and area along the north boundary of the site where the Kennedy Lateral is located. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1: Because the development area is below 5 acres in size,the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 for site amenities do not apply.No amenities are proposed or required. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. Page 8 Item 6. F160] Waterways(UDC 11-3A-U: The Kennedy Lateral runs along the northern boundary of this site and has been piped. The Irrigation District(NMID)has a 55' wide total easement in this area for the lateral,20' from the centerline on this site. Any encroachments in this easement will require a signed License Agreement and approved plan prior to construction. If the easement encroaches on adjacent buildable lots more than 10',the easement area should be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20'wide and outside of a fenced area,unless modified by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners per UDC 11-3A-6E. The location of the easement should be clearly depicted on the plat. Fencing(UDC 11-3A- : All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing exists along the south and east boundaries of the site that is proposed to remain.No new fencing is proposed on the landscape plan. Fencing is required to be constructed by the Developer adjacent to common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-7A.7a. The Applicant states that wrought iron fencing will be constructed at the back edge of the street buffer along Linder Rd. and along the Kennedy Lateral easement at the north boundary of the site; fencing should be depicted on the landscape plan accordingly. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted sample elevations of the homes planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VIII.E. Single-family detached homes are a single- story in height(and may have bonus rooms) and constructed with a stucco finish with stone veneer accents. Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. af!e not approved with this appliention; final design is FeqUiFed to eomply with the desig* standards listed in the Arehiteetural Standards Alanual.An applieftdOft foF Design Review should be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior-to submitt applieations for-building permits for-the duplex dwellings. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezone with the r-equk:ement of a Development Agreement ent and appFeval of the fequeste preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IX per the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on June 4, and July 16,2020. At the public hearingon n July 16',the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject RZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Josh Beach, Sawtooth Land Surveying(Applicant's Representative); Jim Jewett,Applicant b. In opposition: None C. Commenting: Jeanette Ockerman,Anthony Baggio d. Written testimony: Chris&Candace Johnson; Jeff Bolen; Kenneth"Scott"Grapatin; Josh Beach,Applicant's Representative e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None Page 9 Item 6. ■ 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony- a. Request for Joshua St.to extend to the west to Linder Rd. as a permanent access instead of emergency, or at the very least,that construction traffic is allowed to use this access for development of the subdivision; and that a"No Outlet" sign be installed on S. Tylee Way where it intersects Waltman Dr. to notify drivers the street dead ends to prevent unnecessary traffic; b. Mr. Grapatin expressed concern pertaining to the continued provision of irrigation water to his property,which currently runs through the north side of the proposed project& accessibility of the ditch for repairs and cleaning, c. The Applicant requested conditions#3b and#3c pertaining to specific tree mitigation be amended based on coordination with the City Arborist to take place prior to the Council hearing; d. The Applicant testified there would be one large trash dumpster/enclosure for the development instead of individual receptacles for each unit to eliminate the issue of receptacles in the right-of-way or blocking sidewalks/driveways; e. Concerns pertaining to traffic and parking_ 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. The provision of a pathway from the sidewalk along Spoonbill Ave. to the sidewalk along Linder Rd. and to the north to the pathway along the Kennedy Lateral; b. The Commission directed the Applicant to consider revisions to the plat to make the eastern lots R-4 sized(8,000 s.f. lots,) and possibly reduce the density, improve parking and internal circulation,work with ACHD to facilitate a construction entrance off of Linder Rd.until initial occupancy, and include a pathway connection between Lots 58 & 59 from Spoonbill to Linder Rd.; C. Concern pertaining to parking and placement of trash carts on pick-up day- d. Reduce the number of units by replacing the units with single-family detached units; and, e. Possibly reconfiguring the plat so that lots are R-4 size and are a"pinwheel"design off the cul-de-sac. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. The Commission recommended denial of the project for the following reasons: doesn't fit the comp plan, challenges with turnarounds and access drives, and revised plat doesn't address the previous concerns of the Commission. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. The Meridian Citv Council heard these items on August 11 and 25, 2020.At the public hearing on August 25t1i,the Council moved to remand the subject PP request back to the Commission. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Jim Jewett.Applicant b. In opposition: None c. Commenting:None d. Written testimony,None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen £ Other Staff commentingon application:None 2. Kev issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. None 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: Page 10 Item 6. ■ a. The Council remanded the application back to the Commission for review of a revised plat meeting the R-4 dimensional standards—a re-notice of the project and submittal of an updated application with revised plans is required with withdrawal of the rezone request• VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Description& Exhibit Alap Page 11 Item 6. B. Preliminary Plat(date: 5�')"�r�0/2020 10/5/2020) FlGMV1fFR�FTOR THE d NaWYG SOUTH SMOAASM - — A hlMTF%N W8m,4K%-W A*—UFjM,—LW rA .� F.W.A ex.0M T xtMc w aDA=Wty LUFK+ 9 I I ,ter t _ I � �1R�C- 'I- IL ! i r� f+ i }46 eL - I x � I, _ IIIIy ■ I Page 12 Item 6. F164] C. Landscape Plan (date: 5P29/2020 10/5/2020) MAK;rUr I�•�L CTT� j L hGE aF vaLU Li�EGh� ItlIh5TS1l., �:.•;J'�*..�C�.' : ,: f��,T .'.:.rw"�i«LT.��.�.:.'"..'^,L"r»J;�'; El .. �.„•`nF• it .l. � -' .'k:}.. �'�` � _ - It: .. S«'y1.-: Z WNVLr,M jLhT VATS W2 ft R J ,iy- _..ii... .ter .�.r •rr i�u�i�.r r—w� � i ....�f. LIN e: Li Page 13 Item 6. F165] D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: Alay 28, 2020 October 5, 2020) THE LANDING SOUTH REV: OCTOBER 5, 2020 SF F 50 0 2s SU 106 (FEETk L INCH= 50 FT �r2,M FW -------------- - DENSPFYGtiXULd77CA6 70TnL Raw&OPEN SPACE 5,070 Sq,krl 37,697 5�F! G.P19A ACRE: RG ,Felt �' GROSS MINUS ROW&OPEN SPACE i�, IAWI ACRES ------------- AVERAGE AREA PER LOT CL2Xr ArE5 DENS17Y PER MET ACRE 1.231om RFR ACRE 8 Rrs�ras OPEN SPME CALCUL UGN5 e,sra sq.Fe .Pont 4;J32 34�y tm�F,E A433 Haas •>>w LIZ nmiaurxow 2��zAera r�aas Page 14 Item 6. F166] E. Conceptual Building Elevations T'_ %S EA i BETTIS -LL Ll 'i . L f r v as cs-N r Page 15 Item 6. F167] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A PevelepfnefA Agreemen m�ze"ired as provision of rezone of this pr-opeftty.. PHO to appr-eval of the rezone > PA ll , the property owner(s) at the time of rezone or-dinanee adoption, and the developer-. Ctiffently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applieant to the Planning Divisi Prior-to eemmxeneementof the D A The D A shall be Signed he pf:epel4y ONN,x� a-ad r-etumed to the Planning Division within si*(6)mel#hs of the City Co-Uneil gra*tingthe rezone. The T' shall, a �, „corporate the following a. R„tffe development of this site stall be generally e istent with the ela.M,;,,.,,-.,plat landscape pl.,,., and eoneeptual building elevations iffe „Ilea ; t Tt tw f '1 .,7 1 ,7 11' ,1 ♦ � ♦ ,1 o�xxc-cc�o xuxnxr�aapxcic ayo'cxxi}}gsa�'��'equ}�'caz6 c6�3p�'c�`}s z eacs}gn standards listed in the Ar-ehiteetufal Standards Manual. An appheation for- administfative Design Review shall be submit4ed and approved by the A g Division prior-to submittal of applieations for-building pefmits fe-r-thiese,4-4-aitsq. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. 1-nelude a note prohibiting dir-eet lot aeeess via S. Linder- .Included b. The eommen driveway that provides aeeess to Lots 63 65 shall be depieted in a eomm lei c. The easement for the Kennedy Lateral shall be clearly depicted on the plat; if the easement encroaches onto adjacent buildable lots more than 10 feet in width,the easement area shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20-feet wide and outside of a fenced area,unless modified by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6E. d. Note#2-" 14 is oeiagre-zoned as R-9 Medium Density Residential Distriet." 3. The landscape plan included in Section VIII.A.3, dated �1''°�20 10/5/2020, shall be revised as follows prior to submittal of the final plat application: a. Depict wrought iron fencing as proposed by the Applicant along common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas in accord with UDC 11-3A-7A.7a. b. Depict an additional 67 caliper inches of trees within common areas on the site as mitigation for removal of existing trees in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 313-1OC.5. The 50-inch caliper silver maple along Linder Rd. is required to be retained on the site and protected during construction,unless required to be removed by ACHD. c. Include mitigation calculations in the Landscape Calculations table based on the City Arborist's inspection, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5; a total of 67 caliper inches of trees is required for mitigation. d. Depict shrubs within the street buffer as set forth in UDC 11-313-7C.3a. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-9 R-4 zoning district. Page 16 Item 6. ■ 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached and twe family duple*dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Parking pads for each unit shall be widened to 20-feet as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for 3-bedroom units. 6. An exhibit shall be s4mitted with the final plat applieation that depiets the sethaeks, fefteing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots a-ad stfiietwes aceessedvia the eommon opposite side of the shared property line f+em the common driveway as set forth in UPC 11 6C_4D_. 6C 3D. 8. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Reeor-der-for all the r-eeer-ded easement shall be submitted to the Plamiiffg Division with the final pla4 fer-City Engineer- .,t,,,- e. 9. Address signage shall be provided at the publie stfeet for-homes aeeessed via eoH*"ofl__ 10. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for a future detached pathway along S. Linder Rd. is required to be submitted to the Planning Division with the final plat for City Engineer signature; coordinate the details of the easement with Kim Warren,Park's Department. 11. All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 , thfee seEviees are allowed into a fna+44ole,with a miniffmm 30 degrees of angle separation). 1.2 Terminate the water main at the south end of the cul-de-sac with a fire hydrant. Wa4e sefviees only in the eormnon drives,not wa4er- • 1.3 The geotechnical opinion submitted with this application was from March 2017,and was not derived from an on-site study. It was indicated in that opinion that an on-site geotechnical investigation would be conducted in April of 2017. The applicant shall submit the results of the April 2017 investigation, as well as current monitoring reports, as part of the final plat application. 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. Page 17 Item 6. F169] 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B.Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. Page 18 Item 6. 170 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. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orblWebLinkIDocView.asAx?id=184871&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity Page 19 Item 6. ■ D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciV.ory/WeUink/DocView.aspx?id=188196&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C ky E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.ory/WeUink/DocView.aspx?id=18 4 64 3&db id=0&rep o=Meridia n C hty City Arborist's Comments: https://weblink.m eri dia n c i ty.orb/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=189344&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n C hty F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) No comments were received. G. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WeUink/DocView.aspx?id=183794&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky H. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https://weblink.meridianciU.ory/WeUink/DocView.aspx?id=184912&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WeUink/DocView.aspx?id=184497&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky J. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=184485&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty K. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=183952&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty L. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=185551&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty M. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=185685&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty Page 20 Item 6. r172] IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UPC; 11 5B 3 E)Application Withdrawn Reqttir-ed Findings: Upon reconunendation from the conunission,the oeuncil shall make a full investigation and shall,at the publie he i ffie applieation. In order-to grant an annexation andler sha fl _�__al e,+h.o f 111-o inn findi gs plan;1. The map amendment eomplies with the applieable previsions of the comprehensive district,2. The map amendment eomplies with the regulations outlined for the proposed health,speeifleally the pt"ose statement; efihousing opportunities in this apea, Me Commi ty is not large enemgh to 3. The map amendment shall not be mater-ially detr-imental to the p4lie > `.' 4. The map amendment shall not result in an a&er-se impaet upon the delivery of setwiees by any politieal subdivision providing publie ser-viees within the eity ineluding,but not limited to,seh�ets; an B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed revised plat is in conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan as the density and use is consistent with the MDR FLUM designation for this area. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds thatpublic services could be provided to the subjectproperty with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) Page 21 Item 6. F173] 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 could be provided with development at the Developer's cost, Stafffinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section IXfor more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health,safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural,scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 22 Item 7. Ll 74 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Spurwing Sewer Easement Annexation (H-2020- 0087) by Shari Stiles, Engineering Solutions, LLP, Generally Located North of W. Chinden Blvd./Sh 20-26, Northeast of N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 0.60 of an acre of land with an R-4 zoning district. Item 7. 175 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: October 15, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Spurwing Sewer Easement Annexation (H-2020-0087) by Shari Stiles, Engineering Solutions, LLP, Generally Located North of W. Chinden Blvd./Sh 20-26, Northeast of N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 0.60 of an acre of land with an R-4 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 15, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 PROJECT NAME: Spurwing Sewer Easement Annexation (H-2020-0087) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 3 1 i � s 2 3 4 5 CIL r t 7 /) dd �nW 8 ( 9 10 C es 12 E 13 14 Item 7. 176 STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING October 15,2020 Legend-� DATE: �ff Praleot Lflcfl�ian TO: Planning&Zoning Commission L FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0087 Spurwing Sewer Easement—AZ LOCATION: North of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26, northeast of N. Ten Mile Rd.,in the SW '/4 of Section 23,Township 4N.,Range 1 W. (portion of Lot 2,Block 1, Spurwing to Subdivision) ' I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant requests annexation of 0.60 of an acre of land with an R-4 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.60 of an acre Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR) Existing Land Use Sewer easement/golf course Proposed Land Use(s) Emergency vehicle access for Fire Dept. and Public Work's access to sewer easement Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-4(Medium Low-Density Residential) Neighborhood meeting date;#of July 22,2020; 8 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) This property is a portion of Lot 2,Block 1, Spurwing Subdivision(Bk. 113,pg. 16653).A lot line adjustment was approved by Ada County in 2007(ROS#7826). Ada County denied a CUP modification permit to build an emergency access road. See Applicant's narrative for more information: narrative Page 1 Item 7. F177] B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No • Requires ACHD Commission No Action(yes/no) Access(Arterial/Collectors/State One(1)emergency access is proposed from the west via N. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Sunset Maple Way in Spurwing Greens Subdivision Fire Service See comments in Section IX.C. Police Service No comments were submitted. Wastewater Distance to Sewer Services Existing through parcel Sewer Shed North Black Cat trunkshed Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See application WRRF Declining Balance 13.97 Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan Impacts/Concerns Sewer mainline is existing through the subject parcel. Water Distance to Water Services This parcel is within Suez Water's service area. Pressure Zone Estimated Project Water ERU's Water Quality Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Impacts/Concerns Page 2 1 1W.Va If rd I EVA INO III 1n� ' � � �ii � ��=`F�.•*'k. xtl f ram'. uumn.ia� �q�,Luulauu�� " I4' � :i::: I::::=' _ �1 :�� .# � W:.•u11N_tir::,1 '� Jim _ N N _ LLJTu=w II a II NIII 1■II ±1 ,+ J. -_ 4s 4+,ql� ..}2 lu um •2_ F+•1 uNIINIIuII ■■ :1•� 1 NI � �� �1• 1 NI � �� 1 11 Ilfi� 1 11 Ir � 16 unlz,�„ uiuuNlll 45 —I Bonin I i 11. 11 `�2 II IINIIYIINII N - — 1.1. 111 11 `�2 IIIINIIY IINII N - _ NII IIIII 111 = III �_ - NIIII III 111 2� _ —_ ■III III 11 lip _ i _ __ ONE III 11 —■Z����� IINNNI IIIIII � ■�?■i��� IINNNI •_ ____!I IINI 11 w!I IINI 11 } 1 III IINI'r ■IIIIIII }•u IIIIINLI 2 ■IIIII II •IN III 11 III III�I —— I I■III l �Z �NIIII 11 III III�I =_ I INIII l IIN IINMINE - IIIIIIII -Z_ F+'!!IN IINIIIIII - IIIIIIII ■ mill Nl I 1 1 II�2 _ ■ IIII NI , I- Item 7. F179] B. Owner: Spurwing,LP— 1406 N. Main St.,Meridian,ID 83642 Pacific Links, Limited Company—200 N. 4t'Street, Ste. 205,Boise,ID 83702 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 9/25/2020 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 9/23/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 10/1/2020 on site Nextdoor posting 9/23/2020 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated Low Density Residential(LDR)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)in the Comprehensive Plan. The LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three(3)dwelling units or less per acre. There is an existing City of Meridian sewer easement within the subject annexation area;the Applicant proposes is not proposing any new development within this 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): • "Preserve existing public rights-of-way and other easements for future pathways and accessways, particularly along powerline and utility corridors, railway corridors, and waterway or irrigation corridors."(4.04.02B) Annexation of the land where an existing City of Meridian sewer easement is located and requirement of a Development Agreement with a provision that restricts uses other than that of the sewer easement and emergency access easement will ensure preservation of this easement and access. • "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 annexation area incorporates an existing City of Meridian sewer easement. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION&ZONING The Applicant proposes to annex 0.60 of an acre of land into the City with an R-4 (Medium Low- Density Residential)zoning district consistent with the FLUM designation of LDR. The annexation area is a portion of Lot 2,Block 1, Spurwing Subdivision,which was developed in Ada County. Typically, the City does not annex a portion of a parcel or lot;however,the City Attorney and the Planning Page 4 Item 7. F180] Manager has deemed it appropriate in this case due to the County's denial of the site modification and the City's requirement for an access to maintain the public utility;therefore, Staff is in support of the request. The property proposed to be annexed is developed as part of the Spurwing golf course and contains a 20- foot wide Meridian sanitary sewer easement(Inst. #112130813)with a 12-inch sewer main line and an 8-inch Suez water main line.An emergency vehicle access easement is proposed in this area to satisfy the Fire Department's requirement for secondary emergency vehicle access to Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision. Emergency vehicle access for this subdivision was previously planned via W. Chinden Blvd. at the Chinden/Ten Mile Rd. intersection; however, since the time the preliminary plat was approved,improvements have been made to the intersection which necessite an alternate location for emergency access. For this reason, emergency access is proposed where the sewer easement lies. Public access will be restricted through the use of gates at each entrance with a knox box as required by the Fire Department in Section X.C. This road will also provide access to any manholes within the sewer easement area in accord with City requirements and access to the Suez water lines as desired. The subject property is non-buildable as it isn't a legal parcel/lot eligible for a building permit and doesn't meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-4 district. A more detailed decription of the history of this request is included in the Applicant's narrative letter submitted with this application: https:llweblink.meridianciN.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=193513&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX 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. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed with this application,Staff recommends a DA is required that limits development to that proposed with this application(see provision in Section IX.A). The Olivetree at Spurwing subdivision cannot develop without an approved secondary emergency access which the Applicant's proposal provides. If Council denies the Applicant's request, an alternate emergency vehicle access will be required for any development over 30 building lots in Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision; or,the applicant has the option to fire sprinkler additional homes beyond the 30. NOTE: The City is currently monitoring the number of homes for this development and the number of building permits issued is approaching the maximum of 30 until the emergency access is approved and constructed per the City's requirments. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation&Zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 5 Item 7. 181 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation&Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map TEALEWS LAND 125N W. ExpdorPr Odve, Smile 150 • Boise. Idaho 83713 SURVEYING ( } 3es-0836 a] - Fax(2W)304886 Project No.:4667 EXHIBIT "All Dale:July 8,2020 DESCRIPTION FOR JOCK HEWITT ANNEXATIM PARCEL R parcel of land being a portion of Lot 2 of Block 1 of Spurwing Subdivisiom as on file in Book 89 of Flats at Pages 7104 Through 7108 I rt the Office of the Racarder for A-la Country, Idallo, said parcel being situated in the SW 114 of Section 23, T.4N., RAW, B.M.,Ads County, tdahQ and more paf6cularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Southwest corner cf said Section 23, marked by a brass rap;thence along the West Jine of said Section 23 North Od020'40" East 1170.64 feet to a point; thence leaving said Wast kne at right angles South 13VW20"East 331.81 feet to the SouMwesl corner of Lot 14, Bloc* 1 of said Spurwing Subdivision which point Is also the Northwest comer of 011vetree at Spurwing Subdiviision as on file in Book 113 of Plats at Pages 16653 through 16656 in said Office of the Reourderf-DrAda County.which point is the POINT OF BEGINNING, marked by an iron pin:thence along lhe West line lot said Olrretree at Spurwing Subdivision South 110'58'd1"West 211.00 feet to a point;thence leaving said VWst tine at right angles North 79T112"Wev 42 12 feet to a point; lnen-ce aicng a Brie parallel with sald West line of Cllivetfee at Spurwing Subdivision North 10"58AW East 213.58 feet to a point on a line that is park Itel with and 41,00 feet West of the West hrre of said Lol 14, Block 1 of Spurwing Subdivisiorn; thence along said parallel lime North 00r 48'28"East 370.10 feet to a point;thence North 47'28'Q0" East 5167 feet to a point; thence South 11 TT25"East 25.82 feet to a point of curvature; lherocz-along the arc of a curve to the left whose radius is 110.00 feel, whose cen"I angle Is 30"58'41" whose length is 519 47 feet and whose long chard bears South 20'36'45'East 5a.75 feet to a point:thence South 42W'50"V6%sl 43.32 feet to the NWhwost corner of said Lot 14,(narked by an iron pin, thence along the West line of said Lot 14 South 0084&28"Wesl 305.N feet to.the OF BEGINNING Said Parcel Contains 0.602 Acre,more or less, ii47 r A667-ATwexaGon-€asr.doo(dnm Page Y pt I Page 6 Item 7. Fl 82 EXHIBIT "B" CPI'Y OF VERTWAN ANNEXATION PON 01.11 EE UTIMUES PARCEL Va CORNO k LOT 2,OLWK I.SPURW&C.ILIMVI90N 22&21 IN THE SW Ili Ci SECTION U.T.6N.R.IW..DA.. AN CPWTY,K3" CLRff TABLE � `CURVE I RAPM I KW UrIGTN AARiG CHM I i5 f r 1401 59AP 19?8`3b'aS'd iA.T�J• 1 k SUB S II'07'25 E 5PLJRWIAr 25-82, r' '- ; 'kI E}p5T 6E�k EASE. M¢I ��- --- - ----------- I p I I "I I I x 74 a sa 10U FoyEll m �+ — y SCALE IN FEET o 1� 1' = I Q1f Ex1sT oPl[gIDIiH ' �" BLOCK 1 �4 SEWER EArF WET F. I I en f PARCEL A I E7 r 7 UWI 13 x Z6,204 S,f. p PATER EASE 9.60 AL. i ;1i1.M-I-- F $IFGIAWFNG 5r CQR+.ER for 14 S 84*3$'70'R 311.81, NV CUR'zn7.9j ' f L 12 t� I] IAAb 33 v 34 4 44 BLOC + TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYLNG � * F 169mi k EXPLORER MvC, SWE 15o, BWE, a 93713 /Jr� Page 7 Item 7. F183] IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. The annexation area is non-buildable and shall only be used as a City of Meridian sewer line easement, Suez water line easement, emergency vehicle access road and access road for the City of Meridian and Suez Idaho Operations for maintenance of their facilities within their easements. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Sanitary sewer mainlines currently traverse through the subject parcel. 14-foot wide compacted gravel access roadways shall be required above those mainlines per Meridian City Standards. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT Access: This project will be required to provide a 20' wide swing or rolling emergency access gate as set forth in International Fire Code Sections 503.5 and 503.6. The gate shall be equipped with a Knoxbox padlock which has to be ordered via the website www.knoxbox.com. All gates at the entrance to fire lanes shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the roadway and shall open away from the roadway, unless other provisions are made for safe personnel operations as set forth in National Fire Protection Associat ion 1141, Section 5.3.16 -2017 edition. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments were received. E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT No comments were received. F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=2138 75&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=193806&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E) 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 8 Item 7. F184] 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Applicant is proposing to annex the subject 0.60 acre property with R-4 zoning consistent with the proposed LDR 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; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to R-4 for the existing sewer easement and proposed emergency access road generally complies with the regulations outlines for the R-4 district and purpose statement of the residential districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and the emergency access road will enhance public safety in this 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 Stafffinds the proposed map amendment will not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services and will actually enhance emergency access in this area. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 9 Applicant Presentation SPURWING EASEMENTOctober 15, 2020Public HearingMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission EasementEmergency Access, Sanitary Sewer and Water 0.62 Acre ANNEXATION AND ZONING APPLICATION Meridian Sewer Easement 2012- June 2014 2016 2017 Prep for Emergency Vehicle and Sewer/Water Maintenance Access Approved Emergency Vehicle Access Plan Emergency Access Gate Detail Item 8. L185 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Skybreak (H-2020-0079) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, Located at 3487 E.Adler Hoff Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 353 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Item 8. 186 (:�WE IDIAN:--- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: October 15, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Skybreak(H-2020-0079) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, Located at 3487 E.Adler Hoff Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 353 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 11ot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 8. 187 STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/15/2020 Legend DATE: ��Project Lacfl�iar TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0079 OF Skybreak LOCATION: 7020 S. Eagle Rd. &3487 E.Adler Hof -� Ln., in the south'/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 4,T.2N.,R.IE. (Parcels# S1404244250& S1404233650) r I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted the following applications: • Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; • Preliminary plat consisting of 353 building lots,40 common lots and 14 other lots(i.e. 12 common driveway lots, one(1)private street lot and one(1)lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district; • Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 121 residential units with two(2) gates; and, • Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4A.6,which prohibits common driveways off private streets,to allow such in three(3)locations within the gated area of the subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 79.69 Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County(existing)/R-8(proposed) Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR)&Medium Density Residential(MDR) Existing Land Use(s) Single-family residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 353 SFR buildable lots/40 common lots/14 other lots(i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot& 1 lot for the existing home) Phasing Plan(#of phases) 8 phases Number of Residential Units(type 353 detached SFR homes of units) Density(gross&net) 4.44 units/acre(gross); 7.36 units/acre(net) Pagel Item 8. 188 Description Details Page Open Space(acres,total 14.54 acres(or 18.3%) [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities ■ (2)dog parks;children's play area with a play structure,climbing rocks,a shade structure and benches; and pathways Physical Features(waterways, The Farr Lateral crosses the southwest corner of this site; hazards,flood plain,hillside) hillside/topography within southern rim area;Phase 8 is in an"A"flood zone. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 5/27/20; 14 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) Property boundary adjustment(Record of Survey#12358,Eisenman 2020) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway _ District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Traffic Impact Stud es/no) Yes Access One(1)public street access(Street A)is proposed via S.Eagle Rd.,an arterial (Arterial/Collectors/State street.Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb,gutter or Hwy/Local)(Existing and sidewalk. Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Eagle Rd.—Better than"E"(acceptable level of service) Stub Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and Street/Interconnectivity/Cross interconnectivity as depicted on the plat. Access Existing Road Network There is an existing private street(E.Adler Hof Ln.)that provides access from S. Eagle Rd.to the existing homes on this site. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None Buffers Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)l Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Improvements • Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to he widened to 5-lanes from Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road in 2024. • Eagle Road is scheduled In the iFY1NP to be widened to 5-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road in 2023. • The Intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to he widened to 6-lanes on the north leg. 5-lanes on the south.7-lanes east,and 6-lanes on the west leg,and reconstructed/signalized in 2023. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the 2016 CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2026 and 2030. ■ The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the 2016 CIP to be widened to 3-lanes on the north leg. 2-lanes on the south,2-lanes east,and 3-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2026 and 2030, Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.9 miles(Fire Station#4) • Fire Response Time Most(3/4+/-)of this development falls outside of the 5 minute response time goal from Fire Station#4. • Resource Reliability Current reliability is 77%from Station#4—does not meet targeted goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service. A wildfire safety plan is required. Page 2 Item 8. F189] Description Details Page • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required(fire station is 5.9 miles away). • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources In the event of a hazmat event,there will need to be mutual aid required for the development. In the event of a structure fire,an additional truck company will be required—this will require additional time delays as a second truck company is not available in the City. Police Service • Distance to Police 5.5 miles Station • Police Response Time There is no call data in this area because the proposed development is at the edge of City limits. • Calls for Service 7(within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • %of calls for service See Section IX.D split by priority • Accessibility No concerns • Specialty/resource needs None at this time • Crimes 1 (within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • Crashes 9(within a mile of site between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • Other Although located near the edge of City limits, service can be provided if this development is approved. West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms, Enrollment COW Kt hs) •F371ver&W Elementary" 330 425 5.1 enllfi • Capacity of Schools take Mani hmwdre schmi 921 loan 1.4 mlk-i • #of Students Enrolled Viim H'4h Scholl n7$ 4.1 mlks "E"rollrnenn dl Hillsdale Hemenlary N iurrently capped. Students in this deweloWent will he attending Silver Sage Elementary eretil a new school Is built tGelimnmale ortrttowdldq 9 Hllredalr Elementary.** • Predicted#of 247 students generated from proposed development Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Sewer will be available with the development of Keep Subdivision on the West Services side of Eagle Road. • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.97 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns The City is applying the following requirements for Common Driveways. o Three or less lots—services from main in adjacent road o Four or more lots—Sewer in common drive. Sewer will be private and will be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain. Manhole needed in the common drive at the property boundary with"Private"on the lid. I Page 3 Item 8. F-19ol Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone IN • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Common drives that have both water and sewer mains will require a 30' easement •As currently designed,most phases do not meet minimum fire flow pressure. There are multiple options to meet fire flow including upsizing some water mains to 12" and a secondary connections. •Coordinate with PW Engineering on main sizes,connection at the SW corner and connection at the NE corner. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend ® Legend Pra}eci LcoafK:m Pro; v=Lmc:* Ps -H fig.. nity A f Residential ti is MedlURl ensHV I sidentlal Law Den ffy Ridpmtidl F `'t A: + . - — a - r r Page 4 Item 8. 1 1 1 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend 0 Pre' i Lacaiyar Pro' t Laca-ion yec R-$ sec � �Ljrnft RU R-15 — F a ned Parcels amam i R-$ .x R-4 I I R I C R RR R M1 R1 r r III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise,ID 83706 B. Owner: Peter and Dana Eisenman—3487 E. Adler Hof Ln.,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise, ID 83706 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 9/25/2020 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 9/23/2020 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 10/1/2020 Nextdoor posting 9/23/2020 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates the 6.6+/-acres at the southwest corner of the site, south of the Farr Lateral, as Low Density Residential(LDR) and the remaining 73+/-acres as Medium Density Residential(MDR). A City Park is designated in the general area at the southwest corner of the site. Page 5 Item 8. F192 Per the Comprehensive Plan,the LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of 3 dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces,and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as apark, school, or land dedicated for public services. The Applicant proposes to develop this site with 353 single-family residential detached homes at an overall gross density of 4.4 dwelling units per acre.A total of 24 units are proposed within the 6.6+/-acre LDR designated area for a gross density of 3.6 units per acre in that area,which exceeds the density desired of 3 or fewer units per acre; small lots, instead of large or estate lots as desired in LDR designated areas, are proposed along with open space areas along the southern boundary and along the northern boundary adjacent to the Farr Lateral. A total of 329 units are proposed in the MDR designated area for a gross density of 4.5 units per acre in that area,which is consistent with that desired in MDR designated areas of 3 to 8 units per acre. A City park is not proposed;however,the Park's Department has determined a City park is not needed in this area. 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) Only one housing type, single-family detached homes, is proposed in this development, which although may contribute to the variety of housing types in the overall area, does not provide any variety for different needs,preferences and financial capabilities ofpresent and future residents in this development as desired. Additionally, 310 out of the 353 lots are proposed to be restricted to a single-story with a bonus room (see exhibit in Section VIII.G). The lack of variety is not consistent with the purpose of the residential districts in the UDC, which is to provide a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (UDC 11-2A-1). • "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 services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21.As currently designed, most phases do not meet minimum fire flow pressure; however, there are multiple options to meet fire flow including upsizing some water mains to 12"and secondary connections. This development cannot be adequately served by the Fire Department as most of the development is outside of response time goals, does not meet resource reliability goals, and has risk factors including a steep hill with a potential for wildfire if the hillside isn't maintained(see Section IX.C for more information). Additionally, with the main access and secondary access both from Eagle Rd., if access is blocked from the north via Eagle Rd. it would create a significant delay for emergency services by having to travel 3.5+/-miles around the square mile to access the site,potentially creating a life safety issue. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The site design of the proposed development is not compatible with abutting I-acre rural residential lots to the south as there is not an adequate transition in lot sizes and/or zoning. Although landscaped Page 6 Item 8. ■ common areas and a private street are proposed as a buffer, Staff and abutting neighbors that submitted written testimony, do not believe it's an adequate buffer between proposed 4,448-4,950 sf lots and 1-acre rural lots to the south. Larger lots are proposed on the east end of the development on and near the rim but not as a transition to abutting estate lots to the south. • "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, mostly single- level). The minimum lot size proposed is 4,000 square feet(sf.) with an average lot size of 6,280 sf. Although a mix of lot sizes are proposed and larger lots are proposed on the east end of the development, the predominant size is in the 4,000-5,000+/-square foot range which Staff does not believe provides enough diversity for a development of this size. Larger lot sizes should be provided as a transition to I-acre lots to the south and additional housing types (i.e. single-family attached, townhomes, etc)should be provided to offer more diversity in the proposed subdivision. Further, one of the purpose statements of the subdivision regulations stipulates developments provide for desirable and appropriately located living areas and a variety of dwelling types and densities with adequate provision for sunlight,fresh air and usable open space. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed single-family detached homes are generally compatible with existing rural residential homes to the north and south and future medium high-density residential uses to the north as they are all residential in nature. However; the proposed site design with smaller lots (i.e. 4,448-4,950 sf.) adjacent to 1-acre rural residential lots in Vantage Pointe to the south separated only by a private street and common area, and(3)21,000+/-sf. lots (Lot 78-80, Block 5)proposed adjacent to one rural lot, does not provide an adequate transition to minimize conflicts. Further, there is no transition in zoning to the rural residential lots to the south, which would result in larger lots and/or greater setbacks if an R-2 or an R-4 zone were provided. Several letters of testimony have been received from adjacent neighbors objecting to the lack of transition in lot sizes and zoning to their properties/subdivision. • "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 Pathways Plan depicts a segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the eastern boundary of the site; a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed in accord with the Plan on the northern portion of the development but transitions to a 5-foot wide pathway to the south and does not stub to the south for future extension as shown on the Plan; however, the Park's Dept. has indicated they are supportive of the proposed design. This pathway will eventually provide a connection to Discovery Park to the west and Hillside Elementary and the YMCA to the north. Open space and site amenities are proposed in accord with UDC standards; however, much of the open space area consists of unusable arterial/collector street buffers and end caps with parkways, the easementfor the Farr Lateral, slope/hillside areas and areas that aren't centrally located for easy access—Staff calculates the actual usable area at approximately 4.6 acres (or 6%of the development area). Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter, pathways, two dog parks and additional open space of at least 20,000 square feet above the minimum UDC requirements, which are located along the northern and southern boundaries of the site and are not centrally located. The UDC also requires common open space and site amenities to be located in Page 7 Item 8. F194 areas of high visibility to avoid hidden areas and corners, dark areas, unusable space and reduce the opportunity for crime. • "Evaluate open space and amenity requirement and criteria for consistency with community needs and values."(2.02.01B) Because the average lot size proposed in the development is only 6,280 square feet, Staff is of the opinion more usable open space&site amenities than proposed are needed to serve this development. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems; services are required to be provided to and though this development. • "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, which will not maximize existing public services as infill development would. Later phases may not develop until the properties to the north develop and extend utilities. • "Encourage the incorporation of creek corridors as amenities in development design."(4.05.02C) The Ten Mile Creek crosses the northeast corner of the site; a common area is proposed for the creek area and a multi-use pathway is proposed along the creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) City sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are required to be provided with development. • "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, development in this area is not encouraged as are vacant/underutilized parcels currently within City limits. • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)."(3.01.01A) Eagle Rd. is currently a 2-lane roadway with no curb,gutter or sidewalks; no improvements are planned in the CIPIIFYWP to the segment of Eagle Rd. abutting this site. The Lake Hazel/Eagle Road intersection north of the site is planned to be reconstructed and signalized in 2023. The ACHD report states that the TIS estimates this development to generate an additional 3,343 trips per day resulting in an acceptable level ofservice (i.e. better than "E'). WASD estimates this development will house approximately 247 school aged children—enrollment at Hillsdale Elementary is currently capped so students in this development would attend Silver Sage, which is currently under capacity; enrollment at Lake Hazel Middle School and Mountain View High School would be over capacity at build-out of this development according to the Community Development's school impact review included in Section IX.K. Discovery Park, a 77+/-acre City Park, is located approximately a mile away from this site to the west on Lake Hazel Rd., which should be adequate to serve this development. • "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to Page 8 Item 8. Fl-951 the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided." (3.03.03) The density proposed in the LDR designated area at the southwest corner of the site is slightly above the 3 units or fewer per acre desired in that area; the density in the MDR designated area falls within the desired range. Only one housing type is proposed rather than a mix of housing types; an inadequate transition in lot sizes and zoning is proposed to 1-acre rural properties to the south; inadequate unusable open space and site amenities;public services are proposed to be extended to the fringe of the City rather than to vacant/underdeveloped infill parcels as desired; and enrollment at middle and high schools will be over capacity if approved. For these reasons, Staff is of the opinion the proposed annexation isn't consistent with the City's vision in the Comprehensive Plan and isn't in the best interest of the City. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Annexation&Zoning: The proposed annexation area consists of two (2)tax parcels containing a total of 80.46 acres of land designated as LDR and MDR on the FLUM and contains land to the section line of S. Eagle Rd. The Applicant proposes to annex the two(2)parcels with an R-8 zoning district and develop a total of 353 single-family detached homes on the site. The annexation area is contiguous to and on the fringe of the current City limits boundary and within the City's Area of City Impact at the east boundary. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. As discussed above in Section V, Staff is of the opinion the proposed development is not consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan or the purpose statements of the residential districts in UDC 11-2A-1 and the subdivision regulations in UDC 11-6A-1,thus recommends denial of the annexation request. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 353 building lots,40 common lots and 14 other lots(i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home)on 79.69 acres of land in the R- 8 zoning district. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,000 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 6,280 s.f.;the gross density is 4.4 units/acre with a net density of 7.4 units/acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in eight(8)phases as depicted on the plat(see Section VIII.B). Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are two(2)existing homes and outbuildings on this site—the 5,892 square foot home constructed in 2002 at the east end of the site is planned to remain on a lot(Lot 64,Block 5)in the proposed subdivision; the home and accessory structures on the west end of the site are planned to be removed with development. These homes are accessed via a private lane(E. Adler Hof Ln.)from S. Eagle Rd. If annexed,the home proposed to remain is required to hook-up to City water and sewer service and change their address. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district. The proposed use,with only one housing type, is not consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts and the subdivision regulations in that a range of housing opportunities and a variety of dwelling types are not provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC 11-2A-1 and 11-6A-1. Page 9 Item 8. F196 Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. Several of the lots don't meet the minimum street frontage requirement of 40 feet. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3) Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common driveways and block face. 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 City Council may approve a block face up to 1,200' in length where block design is constrained by certain site conditions as specified in UDC 11-6C- 3F.3b. The face of Block 9 on the north side of the Farr Lateral is 1,000'+/- and does not contain a pathway or intersecting street or alley—Council approval is needed due to the location of the Farr Lateral, a large waterway,along the south side of Block 9; alternatively,the plat would need to be revised to comply with this standard. At the northeast corner of the site, a street ending in a cul-de-sac is proposed which will likely exceed the maximum 500' length allowed in UDC 11-6C-3B.4 depending on how the property to the north develops. Staff had recommended an internal street access to this portion of the development rather than the sole access being provided via a stub street from the north.Due to the topography in this area,the Applicant has not provided the recommended internal access. Twelve(12)common driveways are 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.Where two(2) common driveways are proposed that adjoin, bollards(or other barrier approved by the Fire Dept.) should be placed at the common lot line to prevent a through connection between streets. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) One(1)public street, Street A,is proposed for access via S. Eagle Rd. as a collector street to the intersection of Street C; a secondary emergency access is proposed from the south via E. Vantage Pointe Ln. to be constructed with the first phase of development—an emergency only access easement was granted for this access(Inst. #2020-063349),public access is not allowed. Three(3) stub streets are proposed at the north and two (2)stub street are proposed at the south boundaries 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 (see phasing exhibit in Fire comments in Section 1X.C). Although the proposed access meets the minimum access required by the Fire Dept., Staff is highly concerned with the feasibility of only one(1)public access to the site(until adjacent properties redevelop and provide stub streets to this property)with 353 units proposed.Additionally,if access from the north via Eagle Rd.is blocked,in the event of an emergency,emergency vehicles would have to travel an additional 3.5+/-miles around the square mile to access the site creating a potential life safety issue due to a delayed response time. Page 10 Item 8. F197 A combination of public and private streets are proposed for access within the development—public streets are proposed on the west and private streets are proposed on the east end of the subdivision. Three(3) common driveways are proposed for access off private streets(see analysis below). Private Streets: Per UDC 11-3F-1,it is not the intent to approve private streets for single-family developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development—mews are not proposed; two(2)gates are proposed for access to 121 lots located on the east end of the site(see exhibit in Section VIII.IT). (Note: A third gate is proposed but it's through two(2)common driveways,Lots 24&36,Block 5,and doesn't qualify as a gated entrance accessible to all residents,only an emergency access.)At 121 lots,Staff does not consider this to be a limited residential development.Additionally, gated developments are not allowed to have more than 50 dwelling units—in the past with Planned Unit Development applications, Staff has allowed this number to apply to each gate—even so,the maximum number of units allowed still exceed UDC standards. Further,the provisions for private streets apply to any properties that do not have frontage on a public street or where frontage is not required per UDC 11-3F-2—a minimum street frontage of 40 feet is required in the R-8 district per UDC Table 11-2A-6. Therefore,private streets cannot be approved for this development as the applicability for private streets cannot be met.Additionally, there is no reason the public street network can't be extended in the areas where private streets are proposed.Therefore, Staff is not in support of the proposed private streets. Alternative Compliance is proposed to UDC 11-3F-4A.6,which prohibits common driveways off private streets,to allow such in three locations within the gated area of the subdivision. The Applicant's request for such explains the general reasons common driveways are utilized and states that through the use of common driveways they're able to allocate more land area to common landscaped open spaces instead of wasting it on unusable and unnecessary roadways.Because private streets aren't a viable option in the R-8 district as noted above and public streets can be extended to serve the overall development area, Staff is consequently not in support of the request for Alternative Compliance.Further,Alternative Compliance is only allowed when one or more of the conditions noted in UDC 11-5B-5B.2 exists— Staff does not find any of the listed conditions apply in this case. Transportation: The existing roadways in this area are rural in nature. Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Improvements and a signal are planned for the Lake Hazel/Eagle Rd. intersection in 2023. Lake Hazel is planned to be widened to 5-lanes between Eagle and Cloverdale Roads in 2024; and to 5-lanes from Locust Grove to Eagle Roads between 2026 and 2030; no improvements are planned to Eagle Rd. south of Lake Hazel abutting the site. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. A parking plan is included in Section VIII.J that depicts a total of 334 on-street parking spaces along public and private streets;parking along private streets must be approved by the Fire Marshall. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)depicts a north/south segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the east side of the subject property and along the south side of the Farr Lateral at the southwest corner of the site. The Applicant has worked with the Park's Dept.pathway coordinator on the design proposed along the east boundary; the pathway along the south side of the Farr Lateral is consistent with the PMP. The pathways are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement. Ten-foot(10')wide segments of the City's multi-use pathway are proposed within the street buffer along Eagle Rd., along the south side of the Farr Lateral, along the Ten Mile Creek and the northern portion of the east boundary of the site and a golf cart path. Other pathway connections are also proposed for Page 11 Item 8. Fl-981 pedestrian interconnectivity and access to common areas within the development. A pathway connection is proposed between the pathway on the eastern portion of the site to the sidewalks along internal public streets on the west end of the site. A total of 5,167 linear feet of pathways are proposed in this development(see exhibit in Section VIII.I). All pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C. Where pathways are proposed in common driveways (i.e.Lot 71,Block 9)they should be located in separate common lots with landscaping on either side in accord with UDC 11-3B-12C. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : A detached sidewalk is proposed along S. Eagle Rd. and attached sidewalks are proposed along internal public streets(with the exception of detached sidewalks where landscaped endcaps are proposed)in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17.No sidewalks are required or proposed along private streets except for along private Streets K& S where a detached sidewalk is proposed for a pedestrian connection between the pathway on the east end of the site to the sidewalk along public Street I on the west end of the site. If private streets were approved for this development(although they can't be accommodated in the R-8 district), Staff would have concerns in regard to public safety with the lack of pedestrian walkways in front of homes,requiring pedestrians to walk in vehicular use areas in the street. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Eight-foot wide parkways with detached sidewalks are proposed along the entry street(Street A)and in a few other areas; sidewalks are mostly attached with no parkways in this development.All parkways 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. Eagle Rd., an arterial street; a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Street A where it is designated as a collector street(i.e. from Eagle Rd. to the intersection of Street C), landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C. A 35-foot wide buffer is proposed along Eagle Rd. and a 30-foot wide buffer is proposed along the collector street(Street A) landscaped with grass and deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs in excess of the minimum standards. Parkways are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping is proposed within parkways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Landscaping is proposed along pathways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table that 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 excess of UDC standards. There are existing trees on the site within proposed building lots that are proposed to be removed that may require mitigation.The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins,the City Arborist, to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-311-1OC.5. 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(80+/-acres),a minimum of 8 acres of qualified open space should be provided. The Applicant proposes 14.7 acres(or 18.4%)of qualified open space consisting of street buffers, linear open space,parkways and common areas greater than 50' x 100' in area, including the slope area on the Page 12 Item 8. Fl-991 east end of the site (see qualified open space exhibit in Section VIII.D). Although the open space proposed complies with the minimum UDC standards, much of the open space area consists of unusable arterial/collector street buffers and end caps with parkways,the easement for the Farr Lateral, slope/hillside areas and areas that aren't centrally located for easy access—Staff calculates the actual usable area at approximately 4.6 acres (or 6% of the development area)and much of that area is not centrally located for easy access. Staff is of the opinion the quality and usable amount of open space proposed is inadequate for a development of this size. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G1 Based on the area of the proposed plat(80+/-acres), a minimum of four(4) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter/shade structure, pathways,two dog parks and additional open space of at least 20,000 square feet above the minimum UDC requirements. Dog owner facilities are required to be improved with a dog washing station with a drain to sanitary sewer system and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal; or fencing to enclose a minimum 0.75 acre of open space for an off leash dog park and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal per UDC 11-3G-3C.h. Although the proposed amenities meet the minimum standards,they are primarily located along the northern and southern boundaries of the site or in the gated portion of the development and are not centrally located(see details in Section VIII.D),which Staff is of the opinion is not ideal.Further,UDC 11-3G-3D.3 requires common open space and site amenities to be located in areas of high visibility to avoid hidden areas and corners,dark areas,unusable space and reduce the opportunity for crime. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. Irrigation: An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided with development to each lot within the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. Irrigation water is provided from the New York Irrigation District. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-du"]: The Farr Lateral runs across the southwest corner of this site within a common lot(Lot 53,Block 9). The Applicant proposes to leave the waterway open and improve the area as a linear open space with a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the south side 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. Six-foot tall open vision vinyl slat top fencing is proposed along connection pathways and the Farr Lateral, 4-foot tall open vision wrought iron fencing is proposed adjacent to the dog parks and 6-foot tall vinyl fencing is proposed along street buffers and the perimeter of the subdivision as shown on the landscape plan. UDC 11-3A-6C.3 requires open laterals to be fenced with an open vision fence at least 6-foot in height and having an I I-gauge,2-inch mesh or other construction equivalent in ability to deter access to the lateral. Staff recommends fencing is installed between the lateral and the pathway to preserve public safety. 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 predominantly single-story, some with a bonus room,with a few that are 2-stories in height proposed on the east end of the development on or near the rim. All but 43 of the homes are proposed to be restricted to single-story with the option of a Page 13 Item 8. M bonus room; the larger lots on the east end of the development are not restricted to single-story homes (see exhibit in Section VIII.G). Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials (i.e. horizontal and vertical siding and stucco)with stone/brick veneer accents. Staff is concerned about the feasibility of the homes in the proposed sample photos actually fitting on the proposed 40'-45'+/-wide lots,which are the predominate range of lot sizes in the development. Therefore, Staff requested the Applicant submit floor plans to demonstrate they can be accommodated and meet setback requirements. The Applicant was unable to do so.Therefore, Staff is not in support of the proposed sample elevation photos unless floor plans can be submitted that verify they fit on the proposed lots.If they don't,the Applicant should submit concept elevations that are feasible to fit on the lots. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends denial of the requested annexation and zoning of the property and consequently the preliminary plat,private street and alternative compliance requests because the proposed zoning and development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: 1)the property is located on the fringe of the City and existing public services would not be maximized by providing services to this development;2)most of the development is located outside of established response time goals of the Fire Dept., does not meet resource reliability goals, and has risk factors including a steep hill with a potential for wildfire if the hillside isn't maintained; 3)growth will negatively impact West Ada School District(the area high school is already over capacity and the middle school will be over capacity); 4) lack of significant variety in housing types and lot sizes; 5)lack of transition in lot sizes and zoning to the 1-acre estate lots and LDR designated property to the south; 6)much of qualified open space area is unusable and/or not centrally located; and, 7)the proposed private streets are not compatible with the R-8 district as street frontage is required(see Findings in Section X). Page 14 Item 8. F 01 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map 5avvbooth Land 5urveync3, LLC F P: �208J 398-5 1 L 1 CJtS) i is t U5 2030 S. WanhncjEon Ave-,f-mmctt, It 63C 17 Skybreak Annexation Description BASIS OF BEARINGS is S.0°i2'S2"W. between a found aluminum cap marking the W114 mmer and a Fauna aluminum cap marking the NW corner of Sedan 4,T.2 N., R. i E., 8,M„Ada County, Idaho. A parcel of lane located in the 5112 of the NW114 df Secwn I Township 2 North,mange 1 East,8oi5e Meriden, Ada County,Idaho,more pardw1arly described as follows. COMMENCING at an aluminum cap marking the NW corner of said Section 4; Thence S.0°12'52"W.,coincident with the west line of said NWI/4r a distance of 1352.04 feet to an aluminum cap marking the N1/16 carder of Said Sec ion 4 and the POMW OF BEGINNING; Thencc S.89052'36"E.,coincident wO the north line of said 5112 of the NW 1f4,a distemn of 1321-04 feet to the NW 1 f 16 wrrner of sold Section 4r marked by a 5 f 8"rebar with cap RL5 645; Theme N.84°55'26"E.,coincident with said north line, 132 1,10 feet to the CNN/16 corner of said Section 4, OArkM by it 519" reharvwth cap RLS VS; Thence S,01137M"W,r coincident with the east line of said MW1(4, a distance of 1333.72 feet to the C1{4 CDrr*r of said Section 4,marked by a 314"rebar; Thence N-89°4;i3'26"W., colriddent with the south line of raid N V1f4, a 6idance of 2632,72 feet to the W1f4 corner of said Section 4, marked try an alurninum cap; Thence N.0"i2'52"€.,cdincident with said west line of the NW 1/4,a distance of 1326.27 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, The above deserrbed parcel contains 8D.46 acres more or less. This description was prepared using record data fmrn Record of Survey No- t23513,.Ada County records,and not from an actual field Survey, 't fi IC 11 � LP 27//ZO 4'OF 1 F �+ SEEN P 201931944,6-SKYBREAIK SUB CM'SuNey�arawingstiOesCriVions�194.16 Anncwation DesCri�ion docx I� Page 15 Item 8. 202 r Mom 1W C 1 iR.Irrll�li.IllY w�l�llw "toFif of low frop4Ar bnwldary Adoffirtime1 r i F4` l re.�ut.ti�,�lr r 1 f ■r r,.l Eisenman F I 311Lumea In I.e 5 t17 611bp MIDI 1;A 4F$CfliPn 4, Taroingl 2 Nor .Range f Eask Wim FEirld'un, + Rom_ Aft Cawnik,W6W r 343U "M.0 rrn r.rir k Z- `ter" " ,# t ♦ I -. wY ar9 M r■1[Mft WIRW r �, -_ •+ + P� YMY�t.Vr1Y.Irr1�Y1 NlY rw,xr YrF ��••u.�+rr..mFrr�wrr 1+41I. CcrMk&.it wa Co"Ir�OAIr�r ' vr _ iJ +rlrrYalmuYr �i:� r M1� _ __._ �► iLa+xlilw — }� 6�nikkl.l le .�aR' I,Ih II�I� a„•QI rulal j 1 I ■ ��`}' 4nf 4'T� cftAwm d or .k a n..f L 4SYL1 .lrY�r+tm�i.PIPM�M4P.JJ�r*[R91 IYi�YJW 1rlYYY�f�YYno.�arY�w��a.�wiY�Yi Y[ — — dsiaiwalr..rW�w.wrlW at..ta.wrr.eati.ar.1•w R.4r+7Y49.A�/r�'.rr.aw 1..1 r YYLtihY�YrWiYu4Lwrna[ad +rrR�r.K4 1 I1KovelarIr.�'I�..�ltk" a�l�����Y�= �YXi YfrYe1141�K'4iY 11r f GJrr..iYY M. Ir..■Y561a IYk YF.r.01F��lf.OIAW LM� ~* M LAND SRO UP r rrrYOMJFw•ri�WRwlwii+cT.d�av�.n P wlp*"FI, 1✓rlPP.1r14 +Pl Trn l •7.in- ` YYYY YY•��YYiYl wlrrY4 Fr..a�<r sr.w.Yr y1.1•Iir DIY ■ YYnn�auluYwYrrx�saaYlaoro+Ytmin aR�4r ra.r�� wry ...ipr Page 16 Item 8. 203 B. Preliminary Plat(date: 6/15/2020) & Phasing Plan sxYeRea19 sueaiuLsiow Ywr.�r,a�a i-ea I iwnA ere.1 ue.,y 2m2p A, w1•a. d. IL I wxaM.Kd) ��• � ae" y Oft al IE - r Y 1� u a�F a�".:..LT'• � .� r � Page 17 Item 8. F 04 r„ _ # :'1 r 4. .... ' _•-'__ _ -. ' _ ® sty a • _ - � _- - -- -- �� -ram ~. 'f. '���. +* - I - I TCMLIf✓E'ifF 5nZIT t I� 1 I —a-- �I w_� `rrDw Y ff1.1 Z. 44 Ar � � 3 PPI.� Page 18 Item 8. F 05 � ems. PWR � I f'L rw L w I_ PPI.3 } Mr -E --- ,-.,....•. _ _- - - - - - - - - - -- ----- —— HE- s Y ICJ I , I mUm r r W.KD41'W Page 19 Item 8. 206 C. Landscape Plan (date: 6/16/2020) il-nlir�rY_ �••• Y ��G.`�1"i34rF �'rT.�F� i-�� �iTl �-"�`=-���_�+eR•x�Z"IdS= ,GREY ���.,� �:,�---- x ass � ��� _ ��� -��•=���"� i �,•��i�'..° � Ices a e=u r- L; n— MEhlbiAW. ib PAE41MIFkAHY pL,1t LJNDSCtFE PLi1; tsar- Page 20 Item 8. ■ IN _ ,!'. 1 IN IN OWIN i � ..__ - "� � ems` - ..� }�..,?���•-�'*+i� r � y - � - � £ f �� ra T® �T���i'.t'Yf+'i�'.'lJ�a --1•J- � 1 Y I a x + � , F"+-----t------------- Lu �=: uaruax ie �I�Q R.SI,r Psl.�TiE K--rE-- �I An L1 I ,----------__--- �r IN IN IN oz IN 4'I�. ,I5 dux lif I': .i I t'—I'TT� h;p7"Er• ��� KEY MAP Ala Yl` yell {�X, " — �r'• v �.loll�rw 1- Lz Page 21 Item 8. F 08 d. a . Lu } I IN w i IN L r. IL•YYy'_ a r r ,r------_____________--- � q LS W x ry�sl.i P.ay�riz F.cre=_ � r------ - -------- �r-wa wa,------ -------- . ----' � IM I• In I• Y F Y '. I IF 7�. IMNU e IN VA- IN IS I. FI w a -77 T la-KT F-wFM Y�7TC t a vv� •�"l' .,.'J1�r� -7.4 *L +Lill W.P. �a Page 22 Item 8. 209 T P1&I-rrM LL&O AR [lox 6=6 V. li 11 11.4irpt -I lit W T?r Z to —iim v rrw-r IL 1 4.1 AN. m LLI c I.. .L, I I-Nil : m IL DLALpF,,1U%T L;atA pn;W. ':MY Vo 9 .-qp 4.1. %JAPQWApg L5 Page 23 Item 8. F210] D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit& Site Amenities 7 rhp SKYE4RW UmolVl4 N "AL kk$A-aJ9.69 A-C QLIALWnhr-OP91 SMEM-el A 76 AC(it A* �y �dwuunwaad�cr.�wfr ..�tea.. Page 24 Item 8. F 11 Qualified Open Space Calculations Project: Skybreak Neighborhood Date_ 6-12-2-020 ekrrk Lot Sgft Open Space Dimensions Description Uwesect 1 1 29,415 Arteria IJCollector Frontage 12,225 30'x 20D' Dag Park t _ 11 3,45 7 28'x MY End Cap-Parkway 6 3 1 5,518 50,x 1 z.o Landscaped Open Space 1 3,010 24-97'x 200' End Cap-Parkway 6 6,293 31.9+4 x 2DO' End Cap-Parkway B 5 2 23,755 20'min.width Collector Frontage 5 sa 2,670 20'x 120' Pedestrian Pathway Connection 6 5 _j 5 193,636 Open Space-Pat hwa,:s 5 65 3,14- 24'x 100' End Cap 6 5 75 3,543 BYXISD' Pe-destrian Pathway connection B 5 39 4,245 3o`x 20D' End Cap B 5 97 42r305 - ParkrspDrt Field t 5 9; 5,733 29.5'x200' End Cap B 5 _ 4,245 20'x 20U' End Cap B 5 14,30U - Park,Pathway,Seating Areas t 5 16r07- - Dog Park 5 --- 2112' 30'x10D' End Cap B 5 _40 1,948 2A`x SOD' End Cap B 5 _=0 4,69E 22-68'x 200' End Cap-Parkway B,E 5 _=0 4,6E-8 22-68'x 24D' End Cap-Parkway B.E 5 - 5,541 29.5'x 20D' End Ca p B 5 '_}6 24,545 Col lector buffer 6 -5 3,65 6 29-DO'x 200' End Cap-Parkway B 8,02° Park,5eatingArea A 9 _ 35,815 Arterial{Collector Frontage B,C,D 9 - 35,112 Tot LoOport Courtl5eating AFBB<Open Vision Safet,Fa :1 = A 9 59 2,715 2.01 x 1 0 Pedestrian Pathway Connection B 9 83 Za,752 Landscaped Open space{Park t 9 192 87,,46E Open Space-Regional Pathway 10 1 10,350 Landscaped Open spacefFark t Total sgft 633,2 Qualified open space Ac. 14.54 Tota I Project Acres 79-69 Percent of 4ua1'rfied Open space 18-3C% Page i Page 25 Item 8. F 12 Code section Description A 11-3G-3 B-SA open grassy area of at least fifty feet by one hundred feet 150'x 100')in a rea; 11-3G-3L3-1E Linear open spa€e area that is i t least twenty feet 1,20')a nd up to fifty feet(50%has an ar€ess at g each end,and is im proved and landscaped as set forth in subsection E of this sedimn- Full Area of Buffer:The fu II a rea of the lands€ape buffer along col lector streets may count towa rd C 11-3G-36 3 the required common open space. it-3G-3 P�4 Percentage of 13uffer:Fifty percent(50%)of the la nds€a pe buffer along arterial streets may€o Lint toewp and the required common open space. Parkways Along-Collector and Lo€aI Residential Streets:Parkways along local residential streets E Si-3G-3 P�5 that meet al I of the f-Dllow ing sta ndards may count toward the common ope n space requirement: Page 2 Page 26 Item 8. F 13 i % .f Praposed Amen Ses: A. Large 3/4-Acre,Tat Park Block 9,Lot 52)-The Skyhreak Neighborhood park � will ron#ain the following recreation i facFllties: Play Structure + Seating Benches • Shade Structure Climbing Rucks • Attractive Landscaping .ki.f e — Page 27 Item 8. F 14 R. Pathways-The 5kWeakNeig#iborhood wall include the following pedestrian pathways. • 14'WideRegional Pathway Mon g Eagle Road-I.M LF r 1Q'Wide Regional Pathway Along the Farr Lateral-1,120 LF • HY Wide Regional Pathway Along Ten M&N Creek- 526 LF « io'Wide Gaff Cart Patfr - 260 tF ■ Natural Path-1,435 LF Pedestrian Pathways within the 5kybreak _ J Neighborhood will total nearly one mile in length.,. -. -- C. Chug Parks(Block 2, Lot 1 and Block 5,lot 121) -The Skybreak Neighdorhnod park wilt contain two 2)small ; dog,dog parks that will include the following: Open Vision Feneing + dual Gate 5ystern i Seating Areas ; + Attractive Landscaping D. Entry Park(Block 5,Lot 114)-The main Collector Roadway will terminate in an -- attractively landscaped open space that will provide far an aesthetically appealing entry lab state meat t hat will co n vey a sense of a rrival. j - - 41 S per imen Tree Plantings - - 41 Seating Areas + Attractive Landscaping F=� + Pathway E. open Sports Park (Block 5, Lot 97)-This park will include; Large 1-acre open sports area ` Pathway Connection I£, 0 Seating Areas = a Attractive Landscaping F. Landscaped Passive Open Spares-Located throughout the Neighborhood- 0 Attractive Landscaping # Buffering of side yards Page 28 Item 8. F 15 E. Common Driveway Exhibits II II rLOT 20 TA11 ES DIRECT STREET ——— b ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED ON NORTH SIDE OF LOT, II 20 _ I I IL 19 12.00'REAR 25.00' COMMON SETBACK TIP o DRIVE •� '� L— ——— 5.00' LSCP II r `--------- BUFFER BLACK 1 30.00'WATER/ SEWER EASEMENT II is 15 I 18 I I I 20.00' FRONT 5.00'SIDE I a SETBACK SEFBACK Trr � I � I I I I :•'dl. LOT 15 TAKE$DIRECT STREET II ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED I+ ON EAST SIDE OF LOT. N �Y g� �N N CIV WORK 15 0 15 30 cO BOX 6059 SKYBREAK SUBDIVISION BOISE,IDBa7D7 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT-LOTS 16-20 BLOCK 1 SCALE: 1•_ !p Ph:(208)sac-3874 cgma am@csweng—nng— Page 29 Gm& 28 _N _ 14 Z z / Z � Z 12 / Z Z � x x _J ! /Z 21 g � � � ,. a ,s m po wx rpoS, SKYBREAK SUBDIVISION � 52�. COMMON I EXHIBIT - �TS1»4BLOCK2 �: r - £ Page 30 Item 8. F 17 11 ——— — r ,i rBkEs [11eEtr 5T7�E-1 u ArcE.55. 11HrVEWW U7AIM Ow NORTH SICE OF LOT. I I L--- - -------- --J i w' �. .. F — — - ----- � I I � I I BLOCK 5 . `+. ` cowM20.0aoN I �aTVE 1 �� I I 17 I z N' LSCP I 6 I a.lFFER �.oa' slay I I SEIIWKrra I L---- --- — - - J 14 I 15 13 I - ---—— — — — — 12.00' REAR tiE-T.Wr.K T F �! I 210.00' FRONT LOT 14 T06KES DIRECT STREET I I SETR%cm 16 ALCESS. TYEWAY LOUTEC ON WEST 5117E OF LDT. I I I I I I I L-- - - - --- -- ---J L _ ___ __j W ai CSW GI 1 L 01TW waw Fta 15 6 15 w a0EK3X5 ss SKYBREAK SUBDIVISION EMOF-7D 1071" COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT - LOTS 14-19 BLOCK 5 SCALE 1' — N' �ralurn�awelp Y1evY1p�o�n Page 31 Item 8. F 18 FT__ BLOCK 5 I o I I I A LOT SS TRE�RE LOCATED ACCESS C E STREET 5.00'SIDE ON EAST SIDE OF LOT. sETWK TYP I I I I I I I I I I I I I 25 26 27 37 I 38 39 I 40 a c.: I I I I RESTRICTED'TO E]AMENCY ACCESS ONLY I I L_ J V� V C (V I 24 36 — —.i r--_ ---a 12.00'REAR d 7 - g SE WK TYP ff 23 gm 35 � TAKES-ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED n (ACCESS.TDRN AIRE ET LOCATED ,q ?._. ••_:�.+� ON SOYTH SIDE OF LOr. ————J LN SOUTH SIDE OF LOT. - -——— N N rr c w Ll! WORK 20 0 20 40 PO BOX 6059 SKYBREAK SUBDIVISION BOISE,IDsa7O7 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT-LOTS 23-27 AND 35-40 BLOCK 5 SCALE: 1'= 4' vh:(2 )Sac-aa7a cgrahamC'rsweng ineenng.— Page 32 Item 8. F 19 I 85 107 rLAT 94 TAKES 31RECT STREET S ACCESS. ORKG"f LOCATED I(Iw NOATH 5qE CIF LOT- I 84 I 83 2D,04I oor♦ DI'2VE $1 +5-W L50P BUFFER PED PAT-F"Y y r_12.00'_REAR — SETSW< TYP MIL G' F404T — SERWC i I I I I I I I LW K TAKB DIRECT SMEEf I ACCESS. DRNE"Y UKATED OW EaN'T '�IUE of LOT. I I I S_7'B�k I I BLOCK 5 I I I I � I I N c aIvlL #ITC 20 9 20 #0 F0BUXrDse SKYBREAK SUBDIVISION BOMF-093707 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT - LOTS 84-84 BLOCK 5 Pe:i2m)s4r m:p4 cp raharn�cswdip I n csl n q.rom Page 33 Item 8. F 20 I I kF— III I I I I I UCIC 5 I — - -T Lo- 1 IME5 DIREC-S-4--T I I I I J m To I I � I I I I � �m.� �l '14 I I I 1 1 I �!l�1l I I I I I I I I I Ar I I I I I I I I I i I I 56 rs4 194 151s 1ss I 164 1 I 7137I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J 1 I I I I I I I j 163 I I I I I I I I I i i I I I I I s1kCTO m[ram Ao=011* L LJ L —J L — L— J I I L_—_� L — — +i�.Nf t. { 143 tbl —. IB2 I 168 + L01 197 TME5 CIFM Srf.MT I IL01 741 T KIM Don! —dinEf A 1 AUXIM.UWWEW UXPFD A�f,Q [QG1EG s 1*104 111E OF LOT. ——— F � I T QI�IL�B ETC 70 G m •G roBIN 90- SKYBKEAK $U�VIVISIQN HotiE.ro eymr COMMON DRIV;EXHIUIT-LOTS 163-168AND 192-IS7 RLOCK S EXE. +'- 40' Phi I'MI 94F7374 Page 34 Item 8. 221 ---- -- - - r -- - � a I = I I a I I 15 I I I I I I ULScP I BU F M � — - ----- - - CHIVE I 14 —J 5 H 514E :£TF3ACK � I 1 I 15 I LOT 14 TAKESIDlr= STREET ACCESS JLOVEWAY LC{:ATE:} I L'i x 17 I I DH EAST 514E CF LOT v 24,44' FRONT I � • I 'w SEruxk L-- — ---- -- J '.. __ Y r1z.o4' REAR— — — — ———— -I - SETM:x TYF' I ————— ————— — LOT IF TAKE$ CIAECT STREET————— I NCCES5, ❑RNFWAf LOCATED ON SOUTH 5111E OF LLT. L- - - - ---- - -- =P%/IL wITC waw ian 115 15 15 30 RO ECK DELW SKYBREAK SUBDIVISION E°MF-3D937°7 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT- LOTS 14-19 BLOCK 9 Ph:12W)Wr,3874 carahamti cw+cnpincrrin{.00-r Page 35 Item 8. 222 LCT ZE TAMES DIRECT 5TREEf ,"ry ACCESS. DRh Y LO^TED �• � w Ova v301-I 510E OF LCT. #" 12.00 REM SErWk TYP I •� I y I� 4 26 27 I�s.00' six J } LOT 29 ESS.T1IRNEWAY L KATED r y p q E { 28 { { ON EAST SIDE OF LOT. 29 r { t a 0 15 0 15 30 coebxcM SKYBREAK SUBDIVISION eon g783Jg7 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT- LOTS 25-30 BLOCK 9 SCALE- 1' — N' Ph:I2M,5WIF3874 caraYam{FeswcnglneMn{.00-r Page 36 Item 8. 223 72 I r LLYT M TAKES DIRER WELT rr:• I I FRquT A-ESS. DRIVEWAY LL-STED Ck E&ST 516E OF LOT. I L_ SETBACK II ' -- -- - - - — I 70 73 I 7 I �� J•Y ———————— — 1 69 5,40' LSCP 6UFFER I - ———— ——— z3.x,- cOuwOw I � 13RRVPEU PA-MWAY I s m, 74 .� scTEWCIK Ty I e 75 I I 7t {.. LOT 76 TAKES DIRECT STREET S3. DsIWEWA'T LOG4TEL - ON NCOTH SIDE CF LOT- -— .4 I 77 I +•- 1M h n 20 6 20 41) P4 Box BID" S YBREAK SUBDIVISION e0M,ID 10717 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT- LOTS 70-76 BLOCK 9 SCALE: 1' - 40' Ph:I2013y WL-M!7a cgra Yam,�w+c7glnccrinp.Dom Page 37 Item 8. 224 F- - ----- ----- - < i I - - - -- ----- --- F 7G rdl{E 1 CIRmr STREET — — ACCESS, ORNE A' LOCATED .;.�. 3• ON NORTH 510E OF L9r. 76i �I ;:�..• I BLOCK � --- - - -� I 77Y :.'�: — - - - - -- ---J —— — — —— ————— � I e�F=oa 20.00' 06MYOM I 78 I ORNE 12AD' RE4'2 I _ SETBAf, , I so p�y i COMM LCT I I 20.00' FRONT -BACK 79 W a 5 O c GIVi� !IT! i5 6 IS 30 P4 BOX ro" KYBREAK SUBDIVISION as axor COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT- LOTS 76-80 BLOCK 9 9C1�LE i' — a4' Ph:I�1 sn�aaas cp ra ha m$nwenp I n ecl n q.oom Page 38 Item 8. F 25 F. Conceptual Building Elevations NOT APPROVED max. - d Existing Home to remain(above) Existing Horne to remain{above} . ` ■o ■ L.. I —�:-- 6w hog Page 39 Item 8. F 26 r eon lid f � ----------------------------- ke -low r, - Oslo%. 4 Page 40 i , . Not Restricted ' R �ONM lls in, � � Item 8. F228] I. Pedestrian Plan --------- - J L! �9�e6Ui�n C�nr+er�t�n An m ■ m Regime R21thwAy Fe[6 m6arq;doll Car! Pail, li J. On-Street Parking Plan on n Sliem Parkirlo Page 42 Item 8. F229] IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION No conditions of approval are included due to Staffs recommendation of denial. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Comments 1.1 Phase 8 of the proposed Skybreak subdivision is in an"A"Flood Zone. This area requires extending the existing hydraulic and hydrology study and establishing Base Flood Elevations. This area was not included in the recent flood study downstream. 1.2 The City is applying the following requirements for Common Driveways. Three or less lots—services from main in adjacent road Four or more lots—Sewer in common drive. Sewer will be private and will be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain. Manhole needed in the common drive at the property boundary with"Private" on the lid. 1.3 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. 1.4 Common drives that have both water and sewer mains will require a 30'easement. 1.5 As currently designed,most phases do not meet minimum fire flow pressure.There are however multiple options to meet fire flow including upsizing some water mains to 12" and a secondary loop connection. Coordinate with PW Engineering on main sizes,connection at the SW corner and connection at the NE corner. Each phase must be modeled to ensure fire flow. Second water connection may be required at first phase. 1.6 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. 1.7 The street addressing for any existing home(s)to remain on the site will change to an address based upon the internal roadways. 1.8 As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Atlas Materials Testing&Inspection, there are shallow cemented soils across the site. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. This may include the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences. Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system,nor the trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines. 2. General Comments 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. Page 43 Item 8. F230] 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC I I-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. Page 44 Item 8. F231] 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=214215&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=192 9 8 5&db id=0&rep o=Meridia n City E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=214368&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.oLy eUink/Doc View.aspx?id=193035&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City Page 45 Item 8. ■ G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES hags://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192703&dbid=0&repo=Meridian CiU H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) hops://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=213934&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity L NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) hops://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=193631&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU J. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=192699&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioy K. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) hops://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=203469&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City Community Development School Impact Review: hops://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=203755&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU L. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.asp x?id=19281 7&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City 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: I. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 and proposed development plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in regard to density proposed in the Low Density Residential designated area (over the maximum of 3 units/acre), lack of variety and concentration of one housing type (single- family detached and predominantly single-level homes), lack of significant diversity in lot sizes and lack of usable and quality open space (see Sections V and VI for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the lack of variety in housing types (i.e. all single-family detached homes) and lack of significant diversity in lot sizes is not compatible with the purpose statement of the residential districts, which states a range of housing opportunities should be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare although testimony has been submitted from adjacent neighbors to the south stating they are not in favor of the lack of transition in lot sizes and zoning proposed to their properties. Page 46 Item 8. F233] 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds the impact of the proposed development on area middle and high schools will create an adverse impact as these schools will be (the high school already is) over capacity. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City at this time as it is located on the fringe of the City and will not maximize existing public services. Further, Staff finds the design of the proposed development plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as discussed above in Section V. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6): In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is not in substantial conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to maximizing public services by prioritizing infill development over parcels on the fringe,provision of a variety of housing types, density in the LDR designated area, transitional densities, adequate provision of services (Fire Dept.), usable open space, etc. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available and can be extended to accommodate the proposed development although services would be maximized by development of infill or underdeveloped parcels already in the City instead of on the fringe as is the subject property (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Stafffinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.). (See Section Mfor more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property.Public testimony has been submitted from adjacent residents to the south on 1-acre lots stating there is not an adequate transition in lot sizes or zoning to their properties/subdivision. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff finds the proposed development preserves the natural topography/hillside along the eastern boundary of the site. Staff is unaware of any other significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 47 Item 8. ■ C. Private Street(UDC 11-3F-5) In order to approve the application,the director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The Director finds the design of the private streets doesn't comply with the maximum number of dwelling units allowed(i.e. 50) to be accessed by gated private streets—two (2)gates are proposed for access to 121 dwelling units.Additionally, common driveways aren't allowed offprivate streets; however, alternative compliance is requested to this standard. Although not a design issue, the minimum street frontage required in the R-8 district is 40 feet per UDC Table 11-2A-6—the provisions for private streets don't apply where frontage is required,per UDC 11-3F-1. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard,or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds granting approval of the proposed private streets should not cause damage, hazard or nuisance or other detriment to persons,property or uses in the vicinity. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. (Ord.05-1170, 8-30-2005,eff.9-15-2005) The Director finds the use and location of the private streets shouldn't conflict with the Comprehensive Plan as interconnectivity is proposed to adjacent developments via public streets and the Master Street Map doesn't depict any collector streets in this area. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10- 1463, 11-3-2010,eff. 11-8-2010) T finds the portion of the residential development where private streets are proposed is gated; however, the number of units (i.e. 121) behind the two (2)gates exceed the maximum number allowed in UDC 11-3F-A.4b. D. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-513-5E) Required Findings: In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: (Ord. 10-1439, 1-12-2010,eff. 1-18-2010) 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The Director finds strict adherence to the requirement in UDC 11-3F-4A.6 that prohibits common driveways off a private street is feasible. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and, The Director finds the request for Alternative Compliance does not meet any of the conditions listed in UDC 11-5B-5B.2 for which such requests are allowed. Further, if it did, the Director does not find the proposed alternative provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirement. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. Although the proposed alternative may not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties, the Director finds none of the conditions listed in UDC 11-5B-5B.2 for which such requests are allowed exist. Therefore,per the Findings listed above, the Director denies the request for Alternative Compliance. Page 48